ML20034E510
| ML20034E510 | |
| Person / Time | |
|---|---|
| Site: | Callaway  |
| Issue date: | 02/22/1993 |
| From: | Office of Nuclear Reactor Regulation |
| To: | |
| Shared Package | |
| ML20034E509 | List: |
| References | |
| NUDOCS 9302260246 | |
| Download: ML20034E510 (2) | |
Text
UNITED STATES NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSION y
J.lf I, }
m ssincron.e.c.20sss
.' Q v
j g
f
....+
SAFETY EVALUATION BY THE OFFICE OF NUCLEAR REACTOR REGULATION B_E_ LATED TO AMENDMENT NO. 77 TO FACILITY OPERATING LICENSE NO. NPF-30 UNION ELECTRIC COMPANY CALLAWAY PLANT. UNIT 1 ROCKET NO. 50-483
1.0 INTRODUCTION
By application for license amendment dated June 16, 1992, Union Electric Company (the licensee) requested changes to the Technical Specifications (TS) 3/4.6.1.2, " Containment Leakage," for the Callaway Plant, Unit 1.
The amendment would change TS 4.6.1.2.a and its associated Bases by extending the surveillance requirements to allow the third Type A Containment Integrated Leakage Rate Test (CILRT), within the first 10-year service period, to be conducted during the Cycle 7 refueling outage scheduled for March 1995. This Technical Specification change is a one-time extension of the current maximum interval from 50 months to 53 months and is consistent with a one-time exemption from Appendix J to 10 CFR Part 50. being issued concurrently under separate cover, which extends the first 10-year service period by approximately 3 months.
2.0 EVALUATION The existing TS 4.6.1.2.a. " Containment Leakage Surveillance Requirements,"
states that three Type A terts (0verall Integrated Containment Leakage Rate) shall be conducted at 40 i 10-month intervals during shutdown at Pa (48.1 psig) during each 10-year service period.
The 50-month maximum interval for the third Type A test within the first 10-year service period would be extended to approximately 53 months. This extension will prevent performing four CILRTs, one more than required, within the second 10-year service period.
The benefit of not performing the additional CILRT is a reduction in personnel radiation exposure. A dose savings will be realized from eliminating-contamination, reducing exposure for venting and draining, and from setup and restoration of instrumentation required to perform the test.
Data from the first (April 1987) and second (October 1990) CILRT indicates that most of the measured leakage is from the containment penetrations and not from the containment barrier. The "as-left" leakage rate was well below the 10 CFR Part 50 Appendix J limit.
Both Appendix J and TS requires that the leakage rate be less that 75% of L, to allow for deterioration in leakage paths between tests.
The allowable leakage rate, L Therefore, the established acceptable limit is 0.15, is 0.2 wt.%/ day.
wt.%/ day, The "as-left" leakage rates for the first two CILRTs were 0.083 and.0505 wt.%/ day, which is well below the acceptance limit. The Type B and C test (Local Leakage Rate 9302260246 930222 DR A'10CK 0500 3
Test or LLRT) program also provides assurance that containment integrity has been maintained.
LLRTs demonstrate operability of components and penetrations.
by measuring penetration and valve leakage. Additionally, there have'been no modifications made to the plant that could adversely affect the test _results.
Since the licensee has justified the leaktight integrity of the containment based on previous leakage test results, the staff concludes that a one-time extension of. approximately 3 months beyond the maximum permitted test interval will not have a significant safety impact. The staff, therefore, concludes that the licensee's requested one-time schedular test interval extension ~ for conducting the third CILRT of the first 10-year service. period is acceptable.
3.0 STATE CONSULTATION
In accordance with the Commission's regulations, the Missouri State official' was notified of the proposed issuance of the amendment. The State official had no comments.
4.0 ENVIRONMENTAL CONSIDERATION
This amendment involves a change to a surveillance requirement. The staff has determined that the amendment involves 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 this amendment involves no significant hazards consideration and there has been no public comment on such finding (57 FR 42780).
Accordingly, this amendment meets 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 this amendment.
5.0 CONCLUSION
The staff 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 this amendnent will not be-inimical to the common defense and security or to the health and safety of the public.
Principal Contributor:
L. R. Wharton Date:
February 22, 1993 e
..