ML20205N699
| ML20205N699 | |
| Person / Time | |
|---|---|
| Site: | Salem  |
| Issue date: | 10/21/1988 |
| From: | Office of Nuclear Reactor Regulation |
| To: | |
| Shared Package | |
| ML20205N696 | List: |
| References | |
| NUDOCS 8811040288 | |
| Download: ML20205N699 (3) | |
Text
..__ _ ______ _-__._ ______-__ - _ - - -
'g UNITED STATES NUCLE AR REGULATORY COMMIS$10N a
{
W ASMING TON. D. C. 20k",
t
%,**ee*
SAFETY EVALUATION BY THE OFFICE OF NUCLEAR REACTOR REGULATION SUPPORTING AMENOMENT NOS. 89 AND 62 TO FACILITY OPERATING LICENSE N05. OPR-70 AND OPR-75 PUBLIC SERVICE CLECTRIC & GAS COMPANY PHILADELPHIA ELECTRIC COMPANY DELMARVA POWER AND LIGHT _ COMPANY ATLANTIC CITY ELECTRIC COMPANY SALEM GENERATING STATION, UNIT NOS. 1 AN jD DOCKET NOS. 50-272 AND 50-311
- 1. 0 INTRODUCTION By letters dated August 6, 1985 and supplemented on August 29, 1986 and August 16, 1988, Public Service Electric & Gas Company (PSE&G) requested an amendment to Facility Operating License Nos. OPR-70 and DPR 75 for the Salem Generating Station, Unit Nos. I and 2.
The supplemental letters did not make technical changes to the original application.
The proposed amendments would change Technical Specifications (TS) 4.6.1.3 to relieve the Salem units from conducting full pressure containment air lock leakage tests whenever air locks are opened during periods when containment integrity is not required or following maintenance on the door seals only.
Under the existing containment air lock surveillance requirements, the licensee is required to perform an overall air lock leakage rate test at not less than Pa (47psig) prior to plant heatup and startup (i.e. prior to entering Mode 4) if an aie lock is opened during Modes 5 or 6.
l This test is in accordance with the requirements of Paragraph id.D.i'(c)(ii) of Appendix J to 10 CFR Part 50.
A partial exemption to Paragraph III.D.2(b)(ii) of Appendix J to 10 CFR Part 50 allowing the l
substitution under specified conditions, of the air lock door seal leakage test, described in Paragraph !!!.0.2(b)(lii), was granted the licensee on June 16, 1986 and September 4, 1987.
The air lock door seal leakage test involves pressurizing the volume between the airlock door seals to > 10.0 psig and checking for an extrapolated seal leakage rate equal to or less than 0.01 La (La is defined as leakage equal to 0.1 percent by weight of the containment air per 24 hours2.777778e-4 days <br />0.00667 hours <br />3.968254e-5 weeks <br />9.132e-6 months <br /> at design pressure).
This amendment would bring the facility TS into conformance with the exemption previously granted.
M h
P L
4
.g.
2.0 EVALUATION The basis for this amendment is that the air lock is so designed tf.at a full pressure test of the entire air lock requires the installation of holding devices (strongbacks) on thi inner door to prevent it from being unseated.
The air lock test is an imposition during startup activities since it is relatively time consuming and comes at a time when frequent containment entries are required for equipment checks.
If the periodic 6-month test of paragraph 4.6.1.3.b. of the TS and the test required by paragraph 4.6.1.3.a. of the proposed amendment are current, no maintenance (other t.han to door gatkets) has been Derformed on the air lock that could affect its sealing capability, and the air lock is properly sealed, there should be no reason to expect the air lock to leak excessively just because it has been opened in Mode 5 or Mode 6.
l-Acccedingly, the staff co.icludes that PSE&G's proposed approach of substituting the containment air lock seal leakage test for the full pressure test is acceptable following door gasket maintenance and/or prior to entering Mode 4.
Furthermore, the TS requires a full pressure test of the air lock whenever other maintenance that could affect saaling capability has been performed on *.he air lock.
The TS change is consistunt with the previously approved exemptions to Paragraph
!!I.D.2.(b)(ii) of Appendix J to 10 CFR Part 50.
3.0 ENVIRONMENTAL CONSIDERATION
These amendments involve a change to a requirement with respect to the installation or use of a facility component located evithin the restricted area as defined in 10 CFR Part 20 and changes to the surveillance requirements.
The staf f has determined that the amendments involve no significant increase in the amounts, and no significant changt in the types, of any effluents that may be released offsite and that there is no significant increase in individual or cumulative occupational radiation exposure.
The Commission has previously issued a proposed finding that the amendments involve no significant hazards consideration and there has been no public comment on su;h finding.
Accordingly, the arandments meet the eligibility criteria for categorical exclusion set for6h in 10 CFR 51.22(c)(9).
Pursuant to 10 CFR 51.22(b), no environmental impact statement or environmental assessment need be prepared in connection with the issuance of the amendments, i
4.0 ' CONCLUSION The Commission made a proposed determination that the amendments involve no significant hazards consideration which was published in the Federal Register (50 FR 38921) on September 25, 1985 and consulted with the State of New Jersey.
No public comments were received and the State of New Jersey did not have any comments.
O 3
The staff nas concluded, based on the considerations discussed above, that:
(1) there is reasonable assurance that the health and safety of the public will not be endangered by operation in the proposed manner, and (2) such activities will be conducted i,$ compliance with the Commission's regulations and the issuance of the amendmentt vill not be inimical to the common defense and security nor to the health and psfety of the public.
Principi. Contributors:
J. Pulsipher and J. Stone Dated: October 21, 1988 l
l l
l
\\
l
- _ - _.. - - - - - - _ - - _ - - - - - -. - - - - - - -