ML20117G810
| ML20117G810 | |
| Person / Time | |
|---|---|
| Site: | Oyster Creek |
| Issue date: | 09/03/1996 |
| From: | NRC (Affiliation Not Assigned) |
| To: | |
| Shared Package | |
| ML20117G808 | List: |
| References | |
| NUDOCS 9609050343 | |
| Download: ML20117G810 (5) | |
Text
.
p t; UNITED STATES NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSION f
WASHINGTON, D.C. 2066tM001
.....,o SAFETY EVALUATION BY THE OFFICE OF NUCLEAR REACTOR REGULATION RELATED TO AMENDMENT N0.186 TO FACILITY OPERATING LICENSE NO. DPR-16 GPU NUCLEAR CORPORATION AND JERSEY CENTRAL POWER & LIGHT COMPANY OYSTER CREEK NUCLEAR GENERATING STATION DOCKET NO. 50-219
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 Reaister 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 February 23, 1996 (TSCR 242), GPU Nuclear Corporation (the licensee) requested changes to the Technical Specifications (TSs) for i
Oyster Creek Nuclear Generating Station to allow implementation of Appendix J, Option B. In a letter to the staff dated June 19, 1996, (TSCR 242, Rev. 1),
the licensee docketed a revised submittal which replaced the February 23, 1996, submittal in its entirety. After further discussion with the NRC staff on July 16, 1996, the licensee provided another submittal, dated July 17, 1996 (TSCR 242, Rev. 2), which completely replaced the June 19, 1996, submittal.
The licensee has established a " Containment Leakage Rate Testing Program" and proposed revising the TS to be compatible with Appendix J, Option B.
The program references 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 Option B.
On August 28, 1996, the licensee provided updated and corrected TS pages.
These revisions were within the scope of the original application and did not change the staff's initial proposed no significant hazards consideration determination; therefore renoticing was not warranted.
9609050343 960903 PDR ADOCK 05000219 P
j
2.0 BACKGROUND
{
Compliance with 10 CFR Part 50, Appendix J, provides assurance that the I
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 i
leakage assumed in the safety analyses is not exceeded.
On February 4,1992, the NRC published a notice in the Federal Reaister (57 FR j
4166) discussing a planned initiative to begin eliminating requirements j
j marginal to safety which impose a significant regulatory burden. Appendix J j
of 10 CFR Part 50 was considered for this initiative and the staff undertook a i
l study of possible changes to this regulation. The study examined the previous j
j performance history of domestic containments and examined the effect on risk i
of a revision to the requirements of Appendix J.
The results of this study i
~
are reported in NUREG-1493, " Performance-Based Containment 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 Reaister on September 26, 1995 (60 FR 49495), 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, 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 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 1
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 Oyster Creek Nuclear Generating 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.
e
- l 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 i
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 l
administrative limit requires the licensee to return to the minimum value of the test interval.
i 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.
3.0 EVALUATION The licensee's July 17, 1996, application to the NRC proposes to establish a
" Primary Containment Leakage Rate Testing Program" and revises the TS to be j
compatible with this program. The program references RG 1.163, which specifies a method acceptable to the NRC for complying with Option B.
This requires a change to the existing TS.
In particular, a footnote to Definition 1.24, " Surveillance Requirements," and Definition 1.25, " Appendix J Test Pressure," TS Sections 4.5, " Containment System," and 6.9.3, " Unique Reporting i
Requirements." The corresponding bases were also modified, and page and section numbers were revised as necessary.
Option B permits a licensee to choose Type A; or Type B, and C; or Type A, B,.
and C testing to be done on a performance basis.
The licensee has elected to perform Type A, B, and C testing on a performance basis.
The licensee has proposed an exception to RG 1.163 to permit a one-time schedular extension of the Type A test interval.
This exception states that The first Type A test required by this program will be performed i
during refueling outage 17R.
The next Option A Type A test is currently scheduled for upcoming outage 16R.
A Type A test also would be required during this outage under Option B of Appendix J because RG 1.163 specifies that the Type A test must be performed at P (35 psig for Oyster Creek).
RG 1.163 also specifies that in order to extend the Type A test interval to 10 years, at least one of the previous two consecutive successful Type A tests must be performed at P.
previously performed Type A tests at a pressure less than E, (The licensee has 20 psig).
s
1
/
. Paragraph V.B.3 of 10 CFR Part 50, Appendix J, Option 8 provides that the submittal for TS revisions must contain justification, including supporting analyses, if the licensee chooses to deviate from methods approved by the Commission and endorsed in a RG. The licensee requested the one-cycle extension to the Type A test interval to allow an orderly transition from the existing reduced pressure Type A leakage rate testing prior to performing a full pressure Type A test and provided supporting analyses. The staff finds the licensee's request acceptable for the following reasons.
Over the last 10 years, three Type A tests have been performed and all thr::e were within the specified limits of Appendix J.
In addition, Oyster Creek's performance is consistent with that of the industry as a whole in that the major contributor to total identified leakage is found by Type B and C tests.
Only a small fraction of the total leakage is detectable only through Type A testing. Type B and C testing will continue to be performed on the required schedules.
The Oyster Creek containment is inerted by replacing air with nitrogen.
Nitrogen makeup to the containment is monitored daily and would serve as an indication of gross containment leakage.
The TS changes proposed by the licensee are in compliance with the requirements of Option B and are, therefore, acceptable to the staff.
4.0 STATE CONSULTATION
~
In accordance with.the Commission's regulations, the New Jersey State official was notified of the proposed issuance of the amendment.
The State official had no comments.
5.0 ENVIRONMENTAL CONSIDERATION
The 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. This also 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 40019). 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.
4
.i
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 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 amendment will not be inimical to the common defense and security or to the health and safety of the public.
Principal Contributor:
R. Lobel Date: September 3, 1996
.