ML20100R552
| ML20100R552 | |
| Person / Time | |
|---|---|
| Site: | Wolf Creek  |
| Issue date: | 03/01/1996 |
| From: | NRC (Affiliation Not Assigned) |
| To: | |
| Shared Package | |
| ML20100R549 | List: |
| References | |
| NUDOCS 9603120455 | |
| Download: ML20100R552 (4) | |
Text
__ _ _ - _ _ _
gS 400g
- f. -
_4 UNITED STATES
)W NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSION e
[f WASHINGTON, D.C. 20555-0001
%7.ciR. /
SAFETY EVALUATION BY THE OFFICE OF NUCLEAR REACTOR REGULATION RELATED TO AMENDMENT NO. 47 TO FACILITY OPERATING LICENSE NO. NPF-42 WOLF CREEK NUCLEAR OPERATING CORPORATION WOLF CREEK GENERATING STATION DOCKET NO. 50-482
1.0 INTRODUCTION
By letter dated December 20, 1995, as supplemented by letter dated February 8,1996, Wolf Creek Nuclear Operatint Corporation (the licensee) requested changes to the Technical Specificatis.1s (Appendix A to Facility Operating License No. NPF-42) for the Wolf Creek Generating Station. The proposed changes would revise the Technical Specifications to reflect the approval for the licensee to use 10 CFR Part 50, Appendix J, Option B for the Wolf Creek Generating Station containment leakage rate test program.
The February 8,1996, supplemental letter forwarded a clarification of the revised technical specifications and did not change the original no significant hazards consideration determination published in the Federal Reaister on January 31, 1996 (61 FR 3504).
2.0 BACKGROUND
Compliance with 10 CFR Part 50, Appendix J provides assurance that the primary containment, including those systems and components which penetrete the primary containment, do not exceed the allowable leakage rate values specified in the Technical Specifications and Be.ses. 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 Reaister (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 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".
9603120455 960301 PDR ADOCK 05000482 P
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 Reaister on September 26, 1995, and became effective on October 26, 1995. The revision added Option B, i
" 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, September 1995, " Performance-Based Containment Leak l
l 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 Guideline 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 the regulatory guide or other implementation document l'
used by a licensee to develop a performance based leakage rate testing program must be included, by general reference, in ~the plant technical specifications.
The licensee has referenced Regulatory Guide 1.163, September 1995, in the Wolf Creek technical specifications.
l 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.
l Type B 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 i
5 years based on two consecutive successful tests.
By letter dated October 20, 1995, NEI proposed technical 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 j
letter dated November 2, 1995. These technical specifications are to serve as l
a model for licensees to develop plant-specific technical specifications 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 j
indicative of the potential onset of component degradation. Although these
- limits are subject to NRC inspection to ensure that they are selected in a i
reasonable manner, they are not technical specifications requirements.
Failure to meet an administrative limit requires the licensee to return to the i
minimum value of the test interval.
Option B requires that the licensee maintain records to show that the criteria i
for Type A, B, 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 l
records are subject to NRC inspection.
l
4
} 3.0 EVALUATION The licensee's December 20, 1995, letter to the NRC, as supplemented by its February 8, 1996, letter, proposes to establish a " Primary Containment Leakage Rate Program" and proposes to add this program to the technical specifications. The program references Regulatory Guide 1.163, dated September 1995.
" Performance-Based Containment Leak Test Program," which specifies methods acceptable to the staff for complying with Option B.
This requires a change to existing Technical Specifications 3/4.6.1.1, " Containment Integrity," and 3/4.6.1.3, " Containment Air Locks," 3/4.6.1.7, " Containment Ventilation System," and the addition of the program to Section 6.8.4.1 of the technical specifications.
Option B 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 staff finds that the technical specifications changes proposed by the licensee meet the requirements of 10 CFR Part 50 Appendix J, Option B and are consistent with the model technical specifications included in the staff's November 2,1995, letter to NEI and are therefore acceptable.
4.0 STATE CONSULTATION
In accordance with the Commission's regulations, the Kansas State Official was notified of the proposed issuance of the amendment. The State official had no comments.
5.0 ENVIRONMENTAL CONSIDERATION
Th9 ' amendment changes a requirement with respect to installation or use of a facility component located within the restricted area as defined in 10 CFR Part 20 and changes surveillance requirements. The NRC 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 the amendment involves no significant hazards consideration, and there has been no public comment on such finding (61 FR 3504). Accordingly, the 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 the amendment.
6.0 CONCLUSION
The Commission has concluded, based on the considerations discussed above, that:
(1) there is reasonable assurance that the health and safety of the 4
- c-
-r,
6 0
-4_
1 public will not be endangered by operation in'the proposed manner, (2) such activities will be conducted in compliance with the Commission's regulations, 1
and (3) the issuance of the amendment will not be inimical to the common defense and security or to the health and safety of the public.
l l
Principal Contributor: James Stone j
Date:
March 1, 1996 1
1
{
i l
l