ML17312A574
| ML17312A574 | |
| Person / Time | |
|---|---|
| Site: | Palo Verde  |
| Issue date: | 02/23/1996 |
| From: | NRC (Affiliation Not Assigned) |
| To: | |
| Shared Package | |
| ML17312A573 | List: |
| References | |
| NUDOCS 9603120017 | |
| Download: ML17312A574 (8) | |
Text
'
gP,R AE00
~o
~c UNITED STATES NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSION WASHINGTON, D.C. 20555-0001 AF V
U 0
THE OFFICE OF UCL R
REAC OR REGULA ION ELAT TO ENDM NT 0.
103 TO FACILITY OPERATING LICENSE NO. NPF-41 NT 92 AC PERAT G
C 0
NPF-5 D
ENDM NT NO.
75 TO FACI TY OPERAT NG ICENSE NO. NPF-7 RIZONA PUBLIC SERVICE COMPANY ET AL.
AL E
UCLEAR GENERATING STATION UNIT OS. I 2
AND 3 DOCKET NOS.
STN 50-528 STN 50-529 AND STN 50-530 I.0 INTRODUCTION By application dated December 19, 1995, the Arizona Public Service Company (APS or the licensee) requested changes to the Technical Specifications (Appendix A to Facility Operating License Nos.
NPF-41, NPF-51, and NPF-74, respectively) for the Palo Verde Nuclear Generating Station, Units I, 2, and 3.
The Arizona Public Service Company submitted this request on behalf of itself, the Salt River Project Agricultural Improvement and Power District, Southern California Edison
- Company, El Paso Electric Company, Public Service Company of New Mexico, Los Angeles Department of Water and Power, and Southern California Public Power Authority.
The proposed changes would revise the technical specifications (TSs) to reflect the approval for the licensee to use 10 CFR Part 50, Appendix J, Option B for the Palo Verde Nuclear Generating Station containment leakage rate test program.
As reflected in a letter dated February 9,
1996, modifications were made to the technical specifications to be consistent with Appendix J, Option B.
The February 9, 1996, letter did not change the staff's proposed determination that no significant hazards consider ation were present.
Compliance with 10 CFR Part 50, Appendix J provides assurance that the primary containment, including those systems and components which penetrate the primary containment, do not exceed the allowable leakage rate values specified in the Technical Specifications 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 Re ister (57 FR 4166) discussing a planned initiative to begin eliminating requirements marginal to safety which impose a significant regulatory burden.
Appendix J, "Primary Containment Leakage Testing for Water-Cooled Power Reactors,"
to Part 50 of Title 10 of the Code of Federal Regulations was considered for this initiative, and the staff undertook a study of possible changes to this 960$ i200i7 960223 PDR ADGCK 05000528 i
I DR)
J I
I
/
rs 1
k
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 Re ister 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 1. 163, "Performance-Based Containment Leak Test Program,"
was developed as a method acceptable to the staff for implementing Option B.
This regulatory guide states that the Nuclear Energy Institute (NEI) document NEI 94-01, "Industry Guidel'ine for Implementing Performance-Based Option of 10 CFR Part 50, Appendix J," provides methods acceptable to the staff for complying with Option B with four exceptions which are described therein.
Option B requires that Regulatory Guide 1. 163 or another implementation document used by a licensee to develop a performance based leakage rate testing program must be included, by general reference, in the plant technical specifications.
Regulatory Guide 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 8 tests may be extended up to a maximum 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.
By letter dated October 20,
- 1995, NEI proposed technica7 specifications for implementing Option B.
After some discussion, the staff and NEI agreed on a
set of model technical specifications, which were transmitted to NEI in a letter dated November 2, 1995.
These technical specifications are to serve as a model for licensees to develop plant-specific technical specifications in preparing an amendment request to implement Option B.
In order for a licensee to determine the performance of each component, factors that are indicative of or affect performance, such as an administrative 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 ensure that they are selected in a reasonable
- manner, they are not technical specification requirements.
Failure to meet an administrative limit requires the licensee to return to the minimum value of the test interval.
0
~I I
~
g ~
h
Option B requires that the licensee maintain records to show that the criteria for Type A, 8, and C tests have been met.
In addition, the licensee must 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 EVALUATIOh[
By letter dated December 19, 1995, Arizona Public Service Company proposed to establish a "Primary Containment Leakage Rate Program" and proposed to add this program to the technical specifi'cations.
The program references Regulatory Guide 1. 163, "Performance-Based Containment Leak Test Program,"
dated September
- 1995, which specifies a method acceptable to the staff for complying with Option B.
This requires a change to existing Technical Specifications 3/4.6. 1.1, 3/4.6. 1.2, and 3/4.6. 1.3, and the addition of the program to Section 6.16 of the technical specifications.
Option 8 permits a licensee to do Type A testing, or Type B and C testing, or Type. A, B, and C testing on a performance basis.
The licensee has elected to perform Type A, B, and C testing on a performance basis.
The technical specifications changes proposed by the licensee are in compliance with the requirements of Option B and consistent with the guidance of Regulatory Guide 1. 163, dated September
- 1995, and the generic technical specifications of the November 2, 1995 letter and are therefore acceptable to the staff.
4.0 STATE CONSULTATION
In accordance with the Commission's regulations, the Arizona State official was notified of the proposed issuance of the amendments.
The State official had no comments.
- 5. 0 ENVIRONMENTAL CONSIDERATION The amendments change a requirement with respect to the installation or use of a facility component located within the restricted area as defined in 10 CFR Part 20 and change surveillance requirements.
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 1627).
Accordingly, the amendments meet the eligibilitycriteria 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 amendment.
C
~ j 4
~
A
6.0 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 wi.ll 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'afety of the public.
Principal Contributor:
C. Thomas Date:
February 23, 1996
Cg
<,)
... A v
"'ig aha 1
t,