ML20203L402
| ML20203L402 | |
| Person / Time | |
|---|---|
| Site: | Salem  |
| Issue date: | 02/27/1998 |
| From: | NRC (Affiliation Not Assigned) |
| To: | |
| Shared Package | |
| ML20203L396 | List: |
| References | |
| NUDOCS 9803060014 | |
| Download: ML20203L402 (3) | |
Text
. - _.
pxa%.
po 4
UNITED STATES u
P; NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSION j'
WAsHINoToN. D.C. acteHm01 4,.....
SAFETY EVALUATION BY THE OFFICE OF NUCLEAR REACTOR REGULATION RELATED TO AMENDMENT NOS3n%NDi ATO FACILITY OPERATING LICENSE NOS. DPR 70 AND DPR 75 PUBUC SERVICE ELECTRIC & GAS COMPANY PHILADELPHIA ELECTRIC COMPANY DELMARVA POVER AND LIGHT COMPANY ATLANTIC CITY ELECTRIC COMPANY i
SALEM NUCLEAR GENERATING STATION. UNIT NOS.1 AND 2 DOCKET NOS. 50-272 AND 50-311
1.0 INTRODUCTION
On September 12,1995, the U.S. Nuclear Reguletory Commission (NRC) approved issuance of a revision of Appendix J.
- Primary Reactor Containment Leakage Testing for Water cooled Power Reactors,' to Title 10 of Part 50 of the Code of Federal Reoulations (10 CFR 50, Appendix J) which was published in the Federal Realster on September 26,1995, and became effective on October 26,1995. With that revision, the NRC added Option B,' Performance-Based Requirements," to allow licensees to voluntari y replace the prescriptive testing requirements of 10 CFR 50, Appendix J, with testing requirements based on both overallleakage rate performance and the performance of individual components.
By letter dated December 15,1997, the Public Service Electric & Gas Company (the licensee) submitted a request for changes to the Salem Nuclear Generating Station, Unit Nos.1 and 2, Technical Specifications (TSs). The requested changes would revise the Technical Specifications (TSs) to adopt Option B, of 10 CFR Part 50, Appendix J, to implement a performance-based approach for Type B and C testing. The licensee has established a
" Containment Leakage Rate Testing Program
- and proposed adding this program to the TSs.
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. Additionally, the licensee proposed to modify the wording in the TSs related to the previously approved adoption of Option B on Type A testing.
~
9903060014 900227 PDR ADOCK 05000272 P
.. v e
2 2.0 RACKGROUND Compliance w6th 10 CFR 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 TSs and hs 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 Register (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 50 was consider)d for this initiative, and the NRC staff undottook 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.'
Based on the results of this study, the staff developed a perfomance based approach to containment leakage rate testing. On September 12,1995, the NRC approved issuance of this revision to 10 CFR 50, Appendix J, which was subsequently published in the Federal P.egister 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.
l RG 1.163 was developed as a method acceptable to the NRC staff for implementing Option B, Th!s RG states that the Nuclear Energy institute (NEI) guidance document NEl 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 licensee to develop a performance based leakage rate testing program, be included, by general reference, in the
. plant TSs. The licensee has referenced RG 1,163 in the Salem Unit Nos.1 and 2 TSs.
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 upon two consecutive successful tests,
' By letter dated October 20,1995, NEl proposed TSs to implement option B. After some -
discussion, the NRC staff and NE! agreed on final TSs which were attached to a letter from -
C. Grimes (NRC) to D. Modeon (NEI) dated November 2,1995. These TSs are to serve as a model for licensees to develop plant specific TSs in preparing amendment requests to implement
. Option B.
For a licenses to determine the performance of each component, factors that are indicative of or affect performance, such as an administrative leakage limit, must be established. Tne administrative limit is selected to be indicative of the potential onset of component degradation.
)
e 3
H i
j Although these 16mits are subject to NRC inspection to assure that they are selected in a reasonable manner, they are not TSs requirements. Failure to meet an administrative limit i
]
requires the licensee to retum to the minitun value of the test interval, l
Option B requires the licensee to maintain records to show that the criteria for Type A, B, and C i
tests have been met, in addition, the licensee must maintain comparisons of the pedormance of I
the overall containment system and the individual components to show that the test intervals are i
adquate. These records are subject to NRC inspection.
l t
3,0 EVALUATION l
l Option 8 permits a licensee to choose Type A; or Type B and C; or Type A, B, and C techng to be done on a performance basis, in amendments 184 and 166 dated July 11, igg 6, the NRC has previously approved Option B for Type A testing at Salem Unit Non,1 and 2, respectively.
The licensee is now electing to perform Type B and C testing on a performance basis, 1
l In its letter of December 15, igg 7, the licensee proposed to establish a
Leakage Rate Testing Program
- and add this program to the TSs, The program references RG 1.163, which specifies a method acceptable to the NRC staff for complying with Option B. This l
requires changes to the TSs through the addition of new TS 6,8.4,f, ' Primary Containment Leakage Rate Testing Program,' and the addition of the references to the ' Primary Containment Leakage Rate Testing Program"in T8s 4,6.1.1 (Unit 2 only) 3/4.6.1.2,3/4.6.1.3;4.6.1,6,1 and to i
the applicable Bases sections.
l l
The T8s changes proposed by the licensee are in comformance with the requirements of option B and consistent with the guidance of RG 1.163, and the generic TS of the November 2, igg 5, letter and are, therefore, acceptable to the staff,
4.0 STATE CONSULTATION
l In accordance with the Commission's regulations,'ths New Jersey State official was notified of the proposed issuance of the amendments. The State official had no comments.
6,0 ENVIRQhlMENTALCONSIDERATION
[
The amendments change 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 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 1
i released offsite, and that there is no significant increase in individual or cumuletive occupational l.
radiation exposure, The Commission has previously issued a proposed finding that the amendments involve no significant hazards consideration, and there has been no public i
comment on such finding (63 FR 2281). Accordingly, the amendments meet the eligibility criteria j
for categorical exclusion set forth in 10 CFR 51.22(c)(g), Pursuant to 10 CFR 61.22(b) no environmental impact statement or environmental assessment need be prepared in connection with the issuance of the amendments, w m,..,., e r n s w.m.,--.,--.,--,...-m..
e
--Nw---,.m,.
mw, r-,.-
ww-w-w r,-w vmmm.w--wy
.mv.--
-,e
.- w m--.w m emupw-e-rm- *. - e.rv-,-,m--
.e-
e
- o 4
6.0 QQ!)CLUSION The Commission has concluded, based on the considerations discussed above, that: (1) thers is reasonable assurance that the heshh 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't regulations, 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.
PrincipalConbibutor: J. Pulsipher Date: Februsry 27, 1998 I
s 5
-n--
-,, - -, - - ~ -