ML20117G412
| ML20117G412 | |
| Person / Time | |
|---|---|
| Site: | Catawba  |
| Issue date: | 05/13/1996 |
| From: | NRC (Affiliation Not Assigned) |
| To: | |
| Shared Package | |
| ML20117G399 | List: |
| References | |
| NUDOCS 9605210241 | |
| Download: ML20117G412 (4) | |
Text
"%
-g UNITED STATES NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSION f
WASHINGTON, D.C. 20655 4001
\\ ***/
SAFETY EVALUATION BY THE OFFICE OF NUCLEAR REACTOR REGULATION
^
RELATED TO AMENDMENT NQ, saa TO FACILITY OPERATING LICENSE NPF-35 AND AMENDMENT NO. 4 w TO FACILITY OPERATING LICENSE NPF-52 DUKE POWER COMPANY. ET AL.
CATAWBA NUCLEAR STATION. UNITS 1 AND 2 DOCKET NOS. 50-413 AND 50-414
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 fleaister 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 January 12, 1996, as supplemented March 4, April 3 and April 10, 1996, Duke Power Company (DPC or the licensee) requested changes to the Technical Specifications (TS) for the Catawba Nuclear Station, Units 1 and 2.
The April 3 and April 10, 1996 letters provided clarifying information that did not change the scope of the January 12 and March 4, 1996 application and the initial proposed no significant hazards consideration determination.
The proposed changes would permit implementation of 10 CFR Part 50, Appendix J, Option B, for the Type A containment integrated leak rate tests. The TS contain a reference to Regulatory Guide (RG) 1.163, " Performance-Based Containment Leak-Test Program," dated September 1995 which specifies a method acceptable to the NRC for complying with Appendix J, Option B.
2.0 McKGRQUND 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 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 Reaister (57 FR 4166) discussing a planned initiative to begin eliminating requirements marginal to safety which impose a significant regulatory burden. Appendix J of 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 9605210241 960513 PDR ADOCK 05000413 P
H i
) 4 4
. of a revision to the requirements of Appendix J.
The results of this study are reported in NUREG-1493, " Performance-Based Leak-Test Program."
i 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 i
subsequently published in the Federal Reaister on September 26, 1995, and i
became effective on October 26, 1995. The revision added Option B 1
" 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 j
j rate performance.
Regulatory Guide (RG) 1.163, was developed as a method acceptable to the NRC staff for implementing Option B.
This regulatory guide states that the Nuclear Energy Institute (NEI) guidance document NEI 94-01, " Industry l
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 i
l included, by general reference, in the plant TS. The licensee has referenced j
RG 1.163 in the Catawba Nuclear Station, Units 1 and 2, TS.
L Regulatory Guide 1.163 specifies an extension in Type A test frequency to at i
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.
By letter dated October 20, 1995, NEI proposed TS to implement Option B.
After some discussion, the staff and NEI agreed on final TS, which were attached to a letter from C. Grimes (NRC) to D. Modeen (NEI) dated November 2, 1995. These TS are to 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 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.
~
C
we;
. 3.0 EVALUATl3 The licensee's letters dated January 12, March 4, April 3, and April 10, 1996, propose to incorporate a reference to RG 1.163 directly into the TS.
RG 1.163 specifies a method acceptable to the NRC for complying with Option B.
This requires changes to existing TS as discussed in detail below. Corresponding i
Bases were also modified.
1 l
T5 3.6.1.2.a of the corresponding ACTION statement and the Surveillance Requirements in TS 4.6.1.2.a. b, and c have been modified by deletion of provisions to conduct Type A integrated leak rate testing (CILRT) at a reduced pressure since reduced pressure testing is not included in the revised Appendix J, Option B rule.
t TS 4.6.1.2.c has also been modified such that the accuracy of each Type A test i
shall be verified by a supplemental test in accordance with RG 1.163.
i A footnote to TS 3/4.6.1.2, referring to a previously granted exemption from Appendix J that allowed a one-time extension of the interval between the i
l second and third CILRTs for Unit 1 and for Unit 2, is deleted. Compliance with the revised Appendix J, Option B provisions will supercede this footnote and the associated exemption from Appendix J will no longer be necessary.
TS 4.6.1.2 is modified to require that the containment leakage rates shall be demonstrated in accordance with a test schedule determined in ccnformance with Appendix J, Option B, using the methods and provisions of RG-1.lG3.
.TS 3/4.6.1.6 and 3/4.6.1.7 have been modified such that the current frequency of conducting the visual inspections of the containment vessel and the reactor building of three times per 10-year interval will be maintained. This is consistent with the guidance of RG 1.163, Position 3, and is acceptable.
Appendix J, 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 the Type A testing on a performance basis.
The licensee has not proposed to perform the Type B and Type C tests in accordance with Option B at this time.
The TS changes proposed by the licensee are in compliance with the requirements 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.
4.0 STATE CONSULTATION
In accordance with the Commission's regulations, the South Carolina State Official was notifid of the proposed issuance of the amendment. The State official had no comments.
j
~
.. w 4 5.0 ENVIR000 G TAL CONSIDERATION The amendments 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 i
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 3498 dated January 31, 1996; and 61 FR 15988 dated April 10,1996).
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.
6.0 CONCLUSION
i 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, i
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:
R. E. Martin Date:
May 13, 1996 4
r j
i i
l l
-