ML18092A712

Application to Amend Licenses DPR-70 & DPR-75,changing Tech Spec Section 4.6.1.3 Re Containment Air Lock Surveillance to Standardize Requirements for Both Units.Exemption from 10CFR50.12,App J Requirements Requested.Fee Paid

ML18092A712
Person / Time
Site:	Salem
Issue date:	08/06/1985
From:	Corbin McNeil Public Service Enterprise Group
To:	Varga S Office of Nuclear Reactor Regulation
Shared Package
ML18092A713	List: ML18092A712 ML18092A715
References
LCR-85-10, NUDOCS 8508160370
Download: ML18092A712 (5)

Text

Public Service Electric and Gas Company Corbin A. McNeill, Jr. Vice President

-Public Service Electric and Gas Company P.O. Box236, Hancocks Bridge, NJ 08038 609 339-4800 Nuclear U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission Off ice of Nuclear Reactor Regulation Division of Licensing Washington, D. C. 20555 Attention:

Mr. Steven A. Varga, Chief Operating Reactors Branch 1 Division of Licensing Gentlemen:

August 6, 1985 Ref: LCR 85-10 REQUEST FOR AMENDMENT AND 10CFR50, APPENDIX J EXEMPTION FACILITY OPERATING LICENSES DPR-70 AND DPR-75 UNIT NOS. 1 AND 2 SALEM GENERATING STATION DOCKET NOS. 50-272 AND 50-311 In accordance with the Atomic Energy Act of 1954, as amended and the regulations thereunder, we hereby transmit copies of our request for amendment and our analyses of the changes to Facility Operating Licenses DPR-70 and DPR-75 for Salem Generating Station, Unit Nos. 1 and 2. This amendment request consists of changes to containment air lock testing. Additionally, in accordance with the provisions of lOCFRS0.12, we are requesting exemption from the requirements of lOCFRSO, Appendix J, III D.2(b}(ii}.

In accordance with the fee requirements of 10CFR170.21, a check in the amount of $150.00 is enclosed.

8508160370 850806 2 DDR ADOCK 0500027 ' ** PDR p \ I I I Steven A. Varga 8-6-85 Pursuant to the requirements of 10CRF50.91, a copy of this request for amendment has been sent to the State of New Jersey as indicated below. This submittal includes three (3) signed originals and forty (40) copies. Enclosure C Mr. Donald C. Fischer Licensing Project Manager Mr. Thomas J. Kenny Senior Resident Inspector Mr. Samuel J. Collins, Chief Projects Branch No. 2, DPRP Region 1 Sincerely, Mr. Frank Cosolito, Acting Chief Bureau of Radiation Protection Department of Environmental Protection 380 Scotch Road Trenton, N.J. 08628 Honorable Charles M. Oberly, III Attorney General of the State of Delaware Department of Justice 820 North French Street Wilmington, Delaware 19801 r Ref: LCR 85-10 EXEMPTION REQUIRED 10CFR50, App. J. STATE OF NEW JERSEY ) ) SS. COUNTY OF SALEM ) Corbin A. McNeill, Jr., being duly sworn according to law deposes and says: I am a Vice President of Public Service Electric and Gas Company, and as such, I find the matters set forth in our letter dated August 6, 1985, concerning our Request for Amendment to Facility Operating Licenses DPR-70 and DPR-75, and exemption from the requirements of 10CFR50, Appenidx J, III D.2(b)(ii) are true to the best of my knowledge, information and belief. My Commission expires on I *. *. I PROPOSED CHANGE TO TECHNICAL SPECIFICATIONS SALEM UNITS 1 AND 2 Description of Change Ref: LCR 85-10 Change Section 4.6.1.3, Containment Air Lock Surveillance Requirements, to read: a. *By pressurizing the volume between the airlock door gaskets to > 10.0 psig and checking for an extrapolated**

seal leakage rate equal to or less than 0.01 La. 1. After each opening, except when for multiple entries, then at least once per 72 hours8.333333e-4 days <br />0.02 hours <br />1.190476e-4 weeks <br />2.7396e-5 months <br />. 2. After performing maintenance which could affect the airlock door gaskets sealing capability.

3. Prior to establishing containment integrity, b. By conducting an overall air lock leakage test at design pressure (47.0 psig) and verifying the overall air leakage rate is within its limit: 1. At. least once per six months#. 2. Prior to establishing containment integrity when maintenance that could affect the airlock sealing capability was performed and the maintenance affects components other than the door gaskets,*

and c. At least once per 6 months by verifying that only one door in each air lock can be opened at a time. Reason for Change During the last refueling outage, In-service Inspection personnel became aware of the difference in surveillance requirements for Unit 1 and Unit 2 air locks. Since both units have the same air locks, the surveillance requirements to ensure operability should be the same. This change incorporates ideas from NUREG 0452, clarifies the former paragraph in Unit 2, and imposes more stringent requirements in Unit 1 technical specifications.

Standardizing

• . surveillance requirements for both units will decrease confusion when testing the .air locks. Significant Hazards Consideration This change conforms to NUREG 0452, Standard Technical Specifications for Westinghouse Pressurizer Water Reactors.

Conducting the overall airlock test at least once per six months and after performance of maintenance that could affect the sealing capability does not involve a significant hazard. Opening of the airlock has the potential of altering the sealing of the airlock because of possible damage to the seals. The door operator (hand wheel) shaft seals experience very little alteration as the shafts rotate within packing. History indicates the shaft seals are very effective in maintaining the sealing capability, even with door operation, and a complete test every six months and after maintenance is sufficient to assure operability.

Contrary to the shaft seals, the door seals could experience significant alteration when the doors cycle. The alterations occur the knife edges impact the seals. Pressurization of the volume between the seals after each opening, after maintenance which could affect airlock door gasketst and prior to establishing containment integrity, provides the necessary surveillance to ensure the sealing capability.

of the seals. This change corresponds to examples (i) and (ii) of the guidance provided in Federal Register 14870 by the Commission for Amendments That Are Considered Not Likely To Involve Significant Hazards Considerations.

The change to Unit No. 1 constitutes addition of a more stringent surveillance requirement

[example (ii)] and the change conforms to example (i} for both Salem units in that it is an administrative change that achieves consistency between the Salem Technical Specifications and NUREG 0452, Standard Technical Specifications for Westinghouse Pressurized Water Reactors.

Based on the above, we have determined that this change involves no Significant Hazards Consideration.

Our request for amendment, above, relies upon an exemption to 10CFR50, Appendix J, III.D.2(b)(ii) to accommodate the requested changes to Technical Specifications.

The evaluation of No Significant Hazards Consideration for this amendment also provides justification for our request for ab30 1-2