ML16138A818
| ML16138A818 | |
| Person / Time | |
|---|---|
| Site: | Oconee  |
| Issue date: | 10/30/1996 |
| From: | NRC (Affiliation Not Assigned) |
| To: | |
| Shared Package | |
| ML16138A819 | List: |
| References | |
| NUDOCS 9611010280 | |
| Download: ML16138A818 (3) | |
Text
REG&0 UNITED STATES NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSION WASHINGTON, D.C. 20555-0001 SAFETY EVALUATION BY THE OFFICE OF NUCLEAR REACTOR REGULATION RELATED TO AMENDMENT NO. 218 TO FACILITY OPERATING LICENSE NO. DPR-38 AMENDMENT NO. 218 TO FACILITY OPERATING LICENSE NO. DPR-47 AND AMENDMENT NO. 215 TO FACILITY OPERATING LICENSE NO. DPR-55 DUKE POWER COMPANY OCONEE NUCLEAR STATION, UNITS 1, 2, AND 3 DOCKET NOS. 50-269, 50-270, AND 50-287
1.0 INTRODUCTION
On September 12, 1995, the U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission (NRC) approved issuance of a revision to 10 CFR Part 50, Appendix J, "Primary Reactor Containment Leakage Testing for Water-Cooled Power Reactors," which was subsequently published in the Federal Register on September 26, 1995, and became effective on October 26, 1995.
The NRC added Option B "Performance Based Requirements" to allow licensees to voluntarily replace the prescriptive testing requirements of 10 CFR Part 50, Appendix J, with testing requirements based on both overall leakage rate performance and the performance of individual components.
By application dated August 12, 1996, Duke Power Company (the licensee) requested changes to the Technical Specifications (TS) for Oconee Units 1, 2, and 3. The proposed changes would permit implementation of 10 CFR Part 50, Appendix 3, Option B, in accordance with Regulatory Guide (RG) 1.163, "Performance-Based Containment Leak Test Program," dated September 1995. This reference specifies a method acceptable to the NRC staff for complying with Option B. This option would be applied to the Type A (containment) tests only, not to the Type B and Type C leak-rate tests.
The licensee provided supplemental information by letter dated September 10, 1996, which did not affect the initial proposed no significant hazards consideration.
2.0 BACKGROUND
Compliance with 10 CFR Part 50, Appendix 3, provides assurance that the primary containment, including those systems and components, which penetrate the primary containment, do not exceed the allowable leakage rate specified in the TS and Bases. The allowable leakage rate is determined so that the leakage assumed in the safety analyses is not exceeded.
On February 4, 1992, the NRC published a notice in the Federal Reqister (57 FR 4166) that discussed a planned initiative to begin eliminating requirements marginal to safety that impose a significant regulatory burden. Appendix J of 9611010290 961030 PDR ADOCK 05000269 P
-2 10 CFR Part 50 was considered for this initiative and the staff undertook a study of possible changes to this regulation. The study examined the previous performance history of domestic containments and examined the effect on risk of a revision to the requirements of Appendix J. The results of this study are reported in NUREG-1493, "Performance-Based Leak-Test Program."
Based on the results of this study, the staff developed a performance-based approach to containment leakage rate testing. On September 12, 1995, the NRC approved issuance of this revision to 10 CFR Part 50, Appendix J, which was subsequently published in the Federal Register on September 26, 1995, and became effective on October 26, 1995. The revision added Option B "Performance-Based Requirements" to Appendix J to allow licensees to voluntarily replace the prescriptive testing requirements of Appendix J with testing requirements based on both overall and individual component leakage rate performance.
Regulatory Guide (RG) 1.163, was developed as a method acceptable to the NRC staff for implementing Option B. This RG states that the Nuclear Energy Institute (NEI) guidance document NEI 94-01, "Industry Guideline for Implementing Performance-Based Option of 10 CFR Part 50, Appendix J," provides methods acceptable to the NRC staff for complying with Option B with four exceptions, which are described therein.
Option B requires that the RG or other implementation document used by a licensee to develop a performance-based leakage rate testing program must be included, by general reference, in the plant TS. The licensee has referenced RG 1.163 in the Oconee Nuclear Station TS.
RG 1.163 specifies an extension in Type A test frequency to at least one test in 10 years based upon two consecutive successful tests. Type B tests may be extended up to a maximum interval of 10 years based upon completion of two consecutive successful tests and Type C tests may be extended up to 5 years based on two consecutive successful tests.
(However, by this amendment application, the licensee has requested changes related to the Type A test program only.)
By letter dated October 20, 1995, NEI proposed TS to implement Option B.
After some discussion, the staff and NEI agreed on final TS that were attached to a letter from C. Grimes (NRC) to D. Modeen (NEI) dated November 2, 1995.
These TS serve as a model for licensees to develop plant-specific TS in preparing amendment requests to implement Option B.
For a licensee to determine the performance of each component, factors that are indicative of or affect performance, such as an administrative leakage limit, must be established. The administrative limit is selected to be indicative of the potential onset of component degradation. Although these limits are subject to NRC inspection to assure that they are selected in a reasonable manner, they are not TS requirements. Failure to meet an administrative limit requires the licensee to return to the minimum value of the test interval.
Option B requires that the licensee maintain records to show that the criteria for Type A, B, and C tests have been met. In addition, the licensee must
-g g
-3 maintain comparisons of the performance of the overall containment system and the individual components to show that the test intervals are adequate. These records are subject to NRC inspection.
3.0 EVALUATION Option B permits a licensee to choose Type A; or Types B and C; or Types A, B, and C testing to be done on a performance basis. The licensee has elected to perform Type A testing on a performance basis; that is, according to the requirements of Option B. Local leakage rate testing (Types B and C testing) would still be performed under the requirements of Option A. This requires a change to existing TS Sections 4.4.1.1, 4.4.1.2, and 4.4.1.3. The corresponding Bases were also modified.
The TS changes proposed by the licensee are in compliance with the require ments of Option B and consistent with the guidance of RG 1.163, and the generic TS of the November 2, 1995, letter and are, therefore, acceptable to the staff.
3.0 STATE CONSULTATION
In accordance with the Commission's regulations, the South Carolina official was notified of the proposed issuance of the amendments. The State official had no comments.
4.0 ENVIRONMENTAL CONSIDERATION
The amendments change a requirement with respect to installation or use of a facility component located within the restricted area as defined in 10 CFR Part 20.
The NRC staff has determined that the amendments involve no significant increase in the amounts, and no significant change 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 such finding (61 FR 44356 dated August 28, 1996).
Accordingly, the amendments meet the eligibility criteria for categorical exclusion set forth 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.
5.0 CONCLUSION
The Commission has 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, (2) such activities will be conducted in compliance with the Commission's regulations, and (3) the issuance of the amendments will not be inimical to the common defense and security or to the health and safety of the public.
Principal Contributor: Richard M. Lobel Dated:
October 30, 1996