ML20072P583
Text
= _. -
i-j sa nac
+
UNITED STATES E
e(
NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSION j
WASHINGTON. D. C. 20555
_g N.Y../
aq w tme mLa WAJ k%% & & h #
y
+ W ek A Az MEMORANDUM FOR: Bruce A. Boger, Acting Director Division of Reactor Safety, RI W-Albert F. Gibson, Director fg Division of Reactor Safety, RII Hubert J. Miller, Director i
N Division of Reactor Safety, RIII L. J. Callen, Director Division of Reactor Safety, RIY l
Roy P. Zimerman, Acting Director Division of Reactor Safety and Projects, RV FROM:
James G. Partlow, Associate Director for Projects Office of Nuclear Reactor Regulation
SUBJECT:
DETERMINATION OF BACKFIT APPEAL REGARDING CONTAINMENT INTEGRATED LEAKAGE RATE TESTING AT OCONEE, MCGUIRE, AND CATAWBA NUCLEAR STATIONS The enclosed determination of backfit appeal regarding containment integrated leakage rate testing at Oconee, McGuire, and Catawba nuclear stations was recently made and issued by T. E. Murley. The purpose of this memo is to advise you of the determination since it relates to your inspection activities of licensee's containment leak testing.
Essentially there were two appeals by the Duke Power Company (DPC). The first issue concerned the minimum period of time an Appendix J Type A test should be conducted when the mass point test methodology is used. As noted in the I
enclosed letter the issue was rendered moot by the publication of the 1988 j
revision to Appendix J to Part 50. Our interpretation of this request, however.
has been consistent even before the issuance of the revision to the rule.
j The second issue, appealed by DPC, concerned the requirements to detennine as-found Type A test leakage rates and to declare a test failure if the i
as-found results exceed the acceptance criterion given in Appendix J.
Our determination and agreement with DPC that "as-found" Type A testing is not explicitly required by the regulations is important since it is contrary to our previous DPC backfit determination and, most importantly, differs from prior inspection and licensing interpretations. The proposed revision to Appendix J of Part 50 will clarify this issue.
H07 2 7of2-b m
r
_2-The details of each issue are discussed in the enclosure.
If you have any further need for clarification please contact J. Pulsipher, SPLB/ DEST.
James G. Partlow, Associate Director for Projects Office of Nuclear Reactor Regulation l
Enclosure:
1 As stated cc w/ encl:
l S. A. Varga l
G. M. Holahan l
G. C. Lainas B. A. Boger M. J. Virgilio R. A. Capra W. R. Butler R. H. Wessman t
J. F. Stolz E. G. Adensam l
H. N. Berkow D. M. Matthews L. A. Yandell D. R. Muller J. N. Hannon G. W. Knighton F. J. Hebdon C. L. Miller C. E. McCracken J. S. Wermiel J. C. Pulsipher D. S. Hood W. F. Kane, RI L. A. Reyes, RII E. G. Greenman, RIII L. J. Callan, RIV E. L. Jordan g
l Distribution:
O Central files JGPartlow
/
FJMiraglia f
SAVarga Vdi GClainas p
(MEMOTOREGIONFROMPARTLOW) dh RP:NRR d
ADP:NR
))[A
[
GClainas: dim i
F Miraglia JGPart ow k/f/89 OJ/13/89 08/L{/89 39
4
-2 The details of each issue are discussed in the enclosure.
If you have any further need for clarification please contact J. Pulsipher, SPLB/ DEST.
James G. Partlow, Associate Director forlProjects Office of Nuclear Reactor Regulation 1
Enclosure:
As stated cc w/ encl:
S. A. Varga G. M. Holahan i
G. C. Lainas B. A. Boger M. J. Virgilio R. A. Capra W. R. Butler R. H. Wessman J. F. Stolz E. G. Adensam H. N. Berkow D. M. Matthews L. A. Yandell 1
D. R. Muller J. N. Hannon G. W. Knighton F. J. Hebdon C. L. Miller C. E. McCracken J. S. Wermiel J. C. Pulsipher D. S. Hood W. F. Kane, RI L. A. Reyes, RII E. G. Greenman, RIII L. J. Callan, RIV E. L. Jordan
p = r z
.,'s, f
UNITED STATES
[ -,,
j NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSION
@i 'U c
WASHINGTON, D. C. 20555 i
I....f f JUL i
- 1989 Docket Nos. 50-269, 270, 287 i
+
SC-369, 370 50-413, 414 Mr. H. E. Tucker, Vice Presider.t Nuclear Production Department Luke Power Company i
C2 South Church Street Charlotte, North Carolina 28242
Dear Mr. Tucker:
EUBJECT: DETERMINATICK OF BACKFIT APPEAL REGARDING CONTAINMENT INTEGRATED LEAKAGE RATE TESTING AT OCONEE, MCGUIRE, AND CATAWBA NUCLEAR STATIONS (TACS 68443-68449)
By
- tter dated Septeirber 1,1987, you asserted that staff positions on two 10 CFR Part 50, Appenoix J, items constituted backfits as defined by 10 CFR 50.109. The two items regard (1) acceptabilit using the rass point analysis method, and (2) y of short-duration testing -interpre A (containment integrated leakage rate) testing. By letter dated October 29, 1987, the Director of NRR's Division of Reactor Projects 1/11 denied your backfit claims.
Py letter dated June 20, 1988, you appealed the denial and provided acditional information.
I have reviewed hER's prior decision and the additional information provided in suppcrt of your appeal. My conclusions are sumarized below. The bases for these conclusions and specific points raised in your June 20, 1988, letter are discussec in oetail in Enclosure 1.
The first item concerning test duration has been rendered moot by the publicaticr. of a limited revision of Ap(pendix J to 10 CFR Part 50 in the53 FR 45890; s Federal Register en hovember 15, 1988 becarte etfective upon publication. The revised regulation requires all mass point tests to be conducted for a duration cf at least 24 hours2.777778e-4 days <br />0.00667 hours <br />3.968254e-5 weeks <br />9.132e-6 months <br />. Generic backfitting was considered in the rulemaking process; I find that there is no need for further plant-specific consideration here.
Your plants, like all other plants, must comply with the new rule, absent specific exemption in accordance with 10 CFR 50.12. Your request for exemption from the 24-hour i
ourution requirement submitted by letter dated February 3,1989, will be addressed by the staff as a separate issue.
With respect to as-found testing, I disagree with the original finding of the letter to you dated October 29, 1987, cited above, that the need to determine the as-found leakage rate for Type A tests is an explicit requirement of Appendix J.
I also disagree with the finding that this position was imposed on your plants before the effective date of 10 CFR 50.109 (October 21,1985);
rdther, it was not specifically in. posed on any of your plants until 1986.
Accordingly, your request that the staff denial of your backfit claim be reversed is granted.
4 4
b vts vi v ls A m
f Pr. H. B. Tucker TFc t.RC is currently considering a proposed general revision to Appendix J which was published for comment in a Federal Register notice dated October 29, 1966 (51 FF 35536).
The proposed rule would explicitly require as-found Type A testing.
Therefore, I will not impose the position on you at this time, but it rey be imposed generically in connection with the current rulemaking effort.
tou should note that repeated instances of excessive Type A, B, or C leakage rates require appropriate corrective action to preclude repetition, in accordance with 10 CFR Part 50,) Appendix B, paragraph XVI, " Corrective Action."
If excessive lccci (Type B or C leakage rates are repeatedly found (for example, if the sum of as-found local leakage rates exceeds the 0.6 La limit specified in Appendix J), required corrective action say include increased i
frequency cf local leakage rate tests and/or modification or replacement of deficient components.
1 Sin cerely, Oririral N c3;dDY/
gos,asI..Earley.
Thomas' E. Murley, Director 1
Office of Nuclear Reactor Regulation
Enclosures:
1.
Finding by Director, NRR I.
Federal Register Notice (53 FR 45890) 1 i
i
~
~
~~
.- __ - _ _:_ -.- - _ :L.. ' - ~ ' :
f
^
l F.r. H. B. Tuc ker l
Duke Power Company i
CC*
}
A.V. Carr, Esq.
North Carolina Electric Mentership i
Duke Power Company Corp.
j 422 South Church Street 3400 Summer Boulevard i
Char 1ctte, Nurth Carolina 28242 P.O. Box 27306 j
Raleigh. North Carolina 27611 j
J. Michael McGarry, III, Esq.
Eishop, Cook, Purcell and Reynolds Saluda River Electric Cooperative, i
1400 L Street, N.W.
Inc.
Kashington, C. C.
20005 P.O. Box 929 j
Laurens, South Carolina 29360 North Carolina MPA-1 Senior Resident Inspector 1
Suite 600 Route 2, Box 179N j
3100 Smoketree Ct.
York, South Carolina 29745 P.O. Ecx 29513 j
Paleigh, North Carolina 27626-0513 Regional Administrator, Region _ II J
U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Comissio.n Ms. S. S. Kilborn 101 Marietta Street, NW, Suite 2900 Area l'.anager, l'.id-South Area Atlanta,_ Georgia 30323 ESSC Projects 1
Westinghouse Electric Corp.
Mr. Heyward G. Shealy, Chief f
MNC West Tower - Bay 239 Bureau of Radiological Health i
P.O. Box 355 South Carolina Department of Health j
Pittsburgh, Pennsylvania 1523C and Environmental Control 2600 Bull Street j
Ccunty Manager c.f York County Columbia, South Carolina 29201 York County Courthuuse York, South Carolina 29745
!!s. Karen E. Long Assistant Attorney General Richard P. Wilson, Esq.
N.C. Department of Justice Assistant Attorney General P.O. Box 629 S.C. Attorney General's Office Raleigh, North Carolina 27602 P.O. Bux 11549 Colurbia, South Carolina 29211 Mr. Peter G. LeRoy Nuclear Production Department Piedmont Municipal Power Agency Duke Power Company 100 Memorial Drive P.O. Box 33189 Greer, South Carolina 29651 Charlotte, North Carolina 28241 Mr. Alan R. Herdt, Chief Project Branch v3 U.S. t uclear Regulatory Comission 101 Marietto Stree.t, NW, Suite 2900 Atlanta, Georgia 30323
l
!.-!~
i l 1
Dr. John fi. Barry Senior Resident Inspector l
l Departnent of Environmental Health U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Comission l
Meckler. burg County Route 2, Eox 610 1200 Blythe Boulevard Seneca, South Carolina 29678 Charlotte, !; orth Carolina 28203 County Manager of Mecklerburg County Office of Intergovernmental Relations 720 East Fourth Street 116 West Jones Street Charlotte, North Carolina 28202 Raleigh, tbrth Carolir.a 27603 Pr. J. S. Warren Hcnorable James M. Phinney Duke Power Company County Supervisor of Oconee County Nuclear Proouction Department Walhalla, South Carolina 29621 P. O. Box 33189 Char 1ctte, North Carolina 26242 Mr. Paul Guill Duke Power Company Senior Resident thspector P.O. Box 33169 c/o U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Comission 422 South Church Street Route 4, Box 529 Charlotte, North Carolina 28242 Hunterville, North Carolina 28078 Mr. Cayne H. Brown, Chief Radiation Protectior. Eranch l
l Dhision of Facility Services
-l Departraent of Human Resources 701 Barbour Drive Raleigh, North Carolina 27603-2008 hr. Robert E. ?orsum Babcock f. Wilcox Nuclear Power Division Suite 525 1700 Rockville Pike Rockville, Maryland 20852 Kanager, LIS l
NUS Corporation
)
EE36 Countryside Boulevard l
Clearwater, Florida 34623-1693 i
i m
Finding by Director of NRR Regarding Backfit Appeal by Duke Power company on containment Integrated Leakage Rate Testing E3 letter ceted June 20, 1988, Duke Power Company (DPC) appealed a denial of a backfitting claim regarding containment integrated leakage rate testing.
The appeal is based upon the following two issues:
i 1.
SHORT-DURATION TESTING USING THE ftASS POINT METHOD The first issue raised by DPC concerns the minimum period of time an Appendix 0 Type A test should be conducted when the mass point test methcdology is used.
]
The contentions concerning this issue have been rendered moot by the publication of a limited revision to Appendix J to 10 CFR Part 50 in the Federal Register on November 15, 1988 (53 FR 45890; see Enclosure 2),
which became effective upon publication. The revised regulation requires i
all mass point tests to be conducted for e duration of at least 24 hours2.777778e-4 days <br />0.00667 hours <br />3.968254e-5 weeks <br />9.132e-6 months <br />. Generic backfitting was considered in the rulemaking process; I find that there is no need for further plant-specific consideration i
here. DPC plants, like all other plants, must comply with the new rule.
II. ' AS-FOUND" TYPE A TESTING The second issue concerns the rer,uirements to determine as-found Type A test leakage rates and to declare a test failure if the as-found results exceed the acceptes.ce criterior given in Appendix J.
CPC is of the opinion that as-found testing is not explicitly required by the regulations; I agree.
j Paragraph III.A.1.(a) of Appendix J to 10 CFR Part 50 provides as follows:
Containment inspection in accordance with V.A. shall be performed as a prerequisite to the performance of Type A tests. During the period between the initiation of the containment inspection and the performance of the Type A test, no repairs or adjustments shall be made so that the containment can be tested in as close to the "as is" condition as practical. During the period between the completion of one Type A test and the initiation of the containment inspection for the subsequent Type A test, repairs or adjustments shall be made to components whose leakage exceeds that specified in the technical specification as soon es practical after identification.
If during a Type A test, including the supplemental test specified in III. A.3.(b), potentially excessive leakage paths are identified which will interfere with satisfactory completion of the test, or which result in the Type A test not meeting the acceptance criteria III.A.4.(b) or III. A.5.(b), the Type A test shall be terminated and the leakage through such paths shall be measured using local leakage testing methocs. Repairs and/or adjustments to equipment shall be made and a Type A test performed. The corrective action taken and the change in leakage rate determined from the tests and overall integrated leakace oetermineo from the local leak and Type A tests shall be included in the report submitted to the Commission as specified in V.B.
l*
l Appendix 0 prohibits repairs or adjustments from being made "[d]uring the period between the initiation of the containment inspection and the perforraonce of the Type A test." Appendix J does not prohibit repairs j
or adjustments from being made between the completion of one Type A test j
and the initiation of the containment inspection for the next Type A test; in f act, it requires repairs or adjustments to components that leak excessively. The containment inspection is well defined in paragraph Y.A.
of Appendix J, and the ti:e of its initiation (usually shortly before beginning pressurization of the containment for the Type A test) is well known and usually comes af ter all local leakage rate tests, repairs, and adjustments are completed. Appendix J does not explicitly require that leakage rates eliminated by such repairs or adjustments be measured or added to the Type A test results to obtain an as-found Type A leakage rate. Paragraph 4.2 of ANSI N45.4-1972, which is incorporated into Appendix J by reference and is, therefore, a regulatory requirement, states that Type A tests shall be conducted "before any preparatory repairs are made. This will disclose the normal state of repair of the contairant structure." However, a point in time must be established, before which repairs are just normal maintenance repairs and after which they are " preparatory repairs." ANSI N45.4-1972 does not explicitly ettablish such a point. One interpretation could be that the point should be the time of.iriitiation of the containment inspection.
Based on the above discussion, I conclude that as-found Type A testing is not an explicit requirement of the regulations.
I also disagree with the-original finding that this position was imposed on DPC plants before the effective date of 10 CFR 50.109 (October 21,1985); rather..it was not specifically ir. posed on any of the DPC plants until 1986, as. stated in the appeal. Accordingly, the DPC request that the staff denial of the backfit claim be reversed is granted.
The NRC is currently considering a proposed general revision to Appendix J which was published for connent in a Federal Register notice dated October 29, 1986 (51 FR 39538). The proposed rule.would explicitly require as-found Type A testing. Therefore, I will not impose the position on DPC at this time, but it may be imposed generically in connection with the current rulemaking effort.
Nevertheless, if DPC plants should exhibit excessive Type A, B, or C leakage rates, appropriate corrective action will be required in accordance with 10 CFR Part 50, Appendix B, paragraph XVI, " Corrective Action." The subject paragraph states that, in case of significant conditions adverse to cuality (which include failures, malfunctions, and deficiencies), the measures taken shall assure that the cause of the condition is determined and corrective action taken to preclude repetition. Each plant must demonstrate that its design-basis leakage rate is met throughout the plant lifetime. Experience has shown that Type C testing (of containment isolation valves) is the type most'likely to find excessive leakage.
Instances of excessive Type C leakage (for example, the sum of as-found local leakage rates [ Types B and C) exceeding the 0.6 Le limit specified in Appendix J) which become repetitive may therefore reovire increased Type C test frequency and/or modification or replacement of the deficient components if needed to prevent recurrence of excessive leakage.
l' 9 290 Federal Register / Vol. 53. No. 220 / Tuesday. November i
- 15. 1983 / Rules and Reg.i!ations i
l Authenty: 34 Stat.12so. rs Stat. 93;i. as nJed. s15 tat. us. as Stat. ft. 4 A 21 Potnt statistical dets analysis method can be feenflin the Amences Nauenal a
for calculeting containment leakage standareL ANSI /ANS se a-tes*.
4 t.'
C. ri et seg., sot et srp 33 U.S C.1* 4(bt g,.es The Mass Point method involves Ceniemment $>siem Lausa Teenne 2.
ection 3t0.15 as added to re as calc:41.atinn of the air mass at a series of pequwesents'. lenuary at tut fo;ios pomts m time and the plottmg of mass a gainst time. A linear regression line is Also. as in the proposed rule. in order I 310.1 Osseesmca et myeoas eaesone
{
F"'
plutted through the mass. time points to allow a change m the methods now permitted, the fmal rule deletes the tock th ro:d 1 deand usin; a least squares fit. The slope of following sentence from Section !!!.A.3 is) Liv 3
3 j
la eel usci tissue all not be this hae is divided by the intercept of ofAppenda p j
b) Livesto thyro' this ime. and the result is multiplied by glands arid he authed shown for the initial tus shall laryngealmus e ti e may be calculated e kage distnbuted to p aceutical This Mass Point method was The NRC believes the wording of the manufacturers lo pharmaceutical use in secorporated le a newer ANSI standard, revision as published for comment. and j
accordance wit 14 9 or i 323.19(c) of ANSI /ANS-Se 6-1901. -Containment as finally amended, clearly and this subchapte. if i ey are labeled in System laakage Testmg Requirements" accurately represents the NRC's 3
i secordance th I 3 13(f)of this (revised 1987) and in fact has been position. Allcomments have been subchapter. therwis they shall be oce,pted by the NRC staff as an disposed o et the offic 1 establishment improved alternative method of reviewed. In spite of the objections calculatm reised in the comments to the wording in accord nes with I 31 or i 314.3 of l{owever.g containment leakage rates, or content of the proposed rule, the it was recently rec @ sed by this su pter.
the NRC staff that a strict interpretation wording in the t.'. sal rule is identical to Done i Wuhangton. DC. on 'ovember s.
of the specific woedmg of Appendia J.
Public Comment Resolution Memo has that published for public comment. A t
sess-i bl. Crawfwd.
lit.A.3. by referencing ordy the older been prepared and sent to all who ANSI standard, would preclude use of j
Ad,nisessor.roodsaferpattes rien the newer. improved method.To and copying at the NRC's Public commented. It is a vailable for inspection
,ce.
alleviate this restriction on the use of as Document Room at 2120 L Str i
Doc on-as2es Filed 11 14 at a as e improved alternative methodology, it is i
necessary to clanfy the language in Washington DC. The memo addresses enuma esse s, o 1
Section llLA.3 to explicitly perinit the la more detail the NRC's decision to
{
NUCtgAR REGULATORY use of the newer Maas Point method in keep the wording the same as in the COMMISSION addition to the earlier methods covered proposed revision. A bnef summary of by ANSIN454197L8 the comments received is set out in the following paragraphs.
10 CFR part 30 ed i n fthe a
me was Summary emments j
j Altemative Method for Laakage Rate published for comment on February 28 Twenty-one commentletters were Testin9 1988 (53 FR sets). The complete history and background for the proposed action received. In general three principal Aos=cy:Nuc! car Regulatory were discussed in detailin the comunents were presented.
4 Commission.
suostsassurant moomsarion section First. all commentors supported the addition of the Mass Point analysis to actioet Find rule' which accompanied the proposed rule.
the list of acceptable analysis methods.
The effect of this amendment will be to suasesaav:The Nuclear Regulatory permit k _ to use the Mass Point Second au but two commentors Comminion (NRC)is amendmg its analysis se sa alternetsve to the Total objected to requiring a 24-hour test regulations to modify the requirementa Time and Point.lo-polat analyses duration la combastion with the Mase opplicable to the leakage testing of incorporated by reference nato Point method.
I l
containments oflight water cooled Apg l by ANSI N45.4-1g72.
As noted la the proposed rule of nuclear power plants. De rule esplicitly me flaal rule is identical to the February 3B.1ses, the position stated in permits the use of a new statistical data proposed rule published for cosument, the test is consialent with the position analysis technique that the NRC and adds the followtag words to Section that has been taken by the NRC staff considers to be an acceptable method of III.A.3:
when granting emernption requests on i
calculetmg containment leakage rates in in addities to the Total Time and puest.no.
this matter. in particular, the desenption 4
addition to previonly acceptable point mothede desenbod in that standesd. the of the Mesa point method and its methods.
h4pe point method. when used with a test coupling with a test duration of.Ileast 24 hours2.777778e-4 days <br />0.00667 hours <br />3.968254e-5 weeks <br />9.132e-6 months <br /> reflect prior esemption trynettys omft: November 15,1ssa.
d*L*",dj,'*d* y,'*hgeN A
- approvals and maintain accessary
}
Pos PuerTessa seeponesaYl088 cOstfacT:
Mr. E. Cunter Amdt. Office of Nuclear typical desenption d the biase Pe6st simbed consistency.
Regulstory Research. U.S. Nucleer
'!he intent of this listiled amendment Regulatory Commission. Washington, c
, s s.,6,,, n,,, y,,,,,,
bwhhMMw2
,,,,,u,g.,,,,,,.g.,
DC 20535. telephone 301 492 3814.
n ca,a co -
propose any of the changes and te.ies tamet it wrth tesorporouse er ANel updating represented by the October 29.
1 awmansarrant unponesarioss
"*8 *-'"8 br ' 8 **
Da cme er me e'."e rwn,** **r*e'n or=by the 1998 propeeed general revision to eved Sackgreemd w
en at wrr.
Appenda J (St FR 3853s). Instead. this l
The Nuclear Regulatory Commission p*f ** **a8"f, *,*,,"jM
" action does ne snore than eliminate the s ww.=enw senies 6.
,r na iserimer he need for esemptions to the existing rule i
is amendmg 10 CFR Part 50. Appendix 1
- =ad 8'** ** ^""'isas Nasisar assety. ses by permitting the BSe of a statistical j
-Prirnary Containment Laskese Testing Q,@
^,",,,""',",,,C,'", P,Pg*7 method that has been generally i
for Water-Cooled power Reactors /* to explicitly pernut the use of the Mass m.,
me.c erunnenumamens accepted for several years. This revision same c asa L serem Nw. washmenes Dc.
makes available to a!! mactor licensees e
-~_
_ ~ _ _
d
]
Federal Register / Vol 53. No. 220 f Tuesday. November 15.1ges / Rules and Residations 45B91 the use of the Mass Point method for 24 altemative because tt wouldbeincre forth in the Regulatory flexibility Act or j
hout tents.
flexible than the surmnt wordmg and the Small Suainoas $sse Standards set j
inclusion of the 24 hour2.777778e-4 days <br />0.00667 hours <br />3.968254e-5 weeks <br />9.132e-6 months <br /> duratinn is would depend besv0y on the se yet out la the regulausas issued by the 1
considered necessary because a unissued regulatory guida.
Small Business Administration at 13 considerable difference of opinion salets Fmally, as noted in the proposed nele CFR Part 121.
j as to what is a sufficient test duration.
of February 20.1984. k wordmg was L'ntd an acceptsble set of alternative intentionally made instruct #ve but BackSt Analysis techrucal entene is developed to replace flemible in the event that the proposed
%e NRC has determined that a a
j l
the 24. hour duration entenon, the NitC general revision to Appcodin j and its backAt analysis is not required for this staffintends to contmue the 24 haut proposed associated regulatory guide rule because. although h rule is critenon. Some alternatne techruc91 are not issued as hnal documents.
applicable to all current or future j
enter:s were presented far pubhc hbould that happen. then a clear need operating nuclear power plants. the i
renew and comment m proposed wou:d exist for some flexibility in the provisions of the rule codify and permit j
regulatory guide MS C21 5.
abihty of Appendix J to keep up with the contmuenon of a previously "Contsmment System Leak #e changes to ANS 66.s and potential accepted practice. This action will mot j
Testmg - aon October 28.19a6 These future modifications to the Mass Point encumber those using this accepted cnteria and others propo.ed arv n1.11 analysis.
practice with the added burden of bem; evaluated in order to deterniine 1
what is an appropriate set uf kst Effective Date seeking esempunus to the esistmpulc.
j termination cr.ter:a to mciude m inc S.n.e h amendment set furth beluw Li*t of Subjects in 10 CFR Part so ima! tron.lainry guide.
is irtanded to provide rehef from. rather Antitrust. Classified informat.nn. F.rc I
Third. one oI6ection mes ren,eJ to the slan to impose, restnctione currently in crat ention. Incorporation by reference.
]
degree of fleubJ:iy perr.:ned b3 the efics.t. the Commission ns. pursuant to 5 Intergovernmental relations. Nuclear proposed word:ng m definmg the hfess Li.S C. 553ldll1). making the final rule power plants and reactors. Penaltr.
Pomt method effective on Ncvember 15.1988 without Radiation protection. Reactor siting if this comtnent u ere to be L*lluwed.
- ir custo nry 30. day waiting period.
cr teri Reponing and recordkeepirs i
r e ne sn o t Ra Fe et Eavnenansintal lapact Catagencal meuimments.
i Mass Pomt and) sin as diim. rlin ANSI / Exclusion For the reasons set out in the ANS 564-19s*.along wnh the port.ons The Commission has determined ht preamble and under the aathorny nf the j
of that star.dard that are r. :sant ta this rule is the type of actun deacnhed Atomic Energy Act of 1954 as eine ided, t
set:ms the cend.tsens of vie of this in the categencal esclusion.ta 'to CFR the Eneryy Reorganissuon Act of W ana'>s.s.The emistence of proposed 51.2:te)121. Derefore. neither an as arnended. and 5 U.SC 512 and 5D.
i reeulatory guide MS tt1-5 de nom.tr sics enstronmentalimpact statement nor an the NRC is adoptmg the fol;onema j
that this des ee of co up "bihty environmental assessment have been amcedment to 10 CFR Par: 50 j
betm een ANS SE 8 and a p isi: sun prepared for this rule.
PART S0-DOldESTIC LICDeseNG OF st refore. in ordt to d f r e r Papend Reduction Act Statement PMCMAMNAN 4
det.il a Mass Pomt anah sin that would his far.altulo does not contain a new FACILITIES be acceptable to the NRC siaff. such an or amended inforr.ation col 6ection 1.no auth thtinn for Patt 50 1
incorporation by refstence
- ould also recuirement schless to the P.:perwork
,,,,,,,, g, yoritg, p,,,,, goggoy l
have to contam the portions of proposed Reductaan Act of 1980 (44 U.SC 3A01 er 8
Regulatory Cuide MS C:1-5 that modify seg.). Existmg requirements we o Aenheney: Sec. set.as stet. nsst a.
the ANS 56.8 defmnion and use of the approved under the Office of smanded 142 U.S.C.asoit sec act; asi Siet l
Mass Point anehsis.This.pproach Mariagement and Bodpet approval taat. as amende@ m suoi, 1
wou'd be undesirably curnbersnine.
riernber 3350 0011.
- 2. In Appendis I. Section !!!.A.3.lul is mflexible, and restnctive in the abihty Reguistory Analyal, eevised no read as follows:
to keep the legauy acceptehle Mass 4
Pomt analysis current with any future ne Comm.asion has prepared e Appendix W Reactor j
j improvements, simphfications, or refu! story ana!ysis on this reguletaos.
Caetainsnest Laakage Testing for Water.
3 changes in the state of.the-ert of The analysis esamines the costa and Caeled Power Reacters j
6*atistscal redus.ti.m of test d la to a berichts o'se almtr.aueas cenaidored 3,.,L,g,,, rate by the Cynmtsuon. Interestrd! peasons I
An d!:ctnain e pe: haps corid be to me y namine a cott of the rey l4 tory a:IMase Ts.tW Requime.en**
i s.rrp;y state that the Mus Pomt rr.ethod anahsis at one El'ubbe Document l
t,e ceier.ed m a menner ac.: eptable to the Romn..*1201. Street NW Washapton.
A79.e A Tess- * *,
I i
NitC st4ff and leave that defmit:on to UC-I*I A
^" **
tse eunducted in accorder:ce meh the the fmehzation of proposed regu'4 tory Regulatory Flexibility CertiAraha=
p,msenene of the Asences N.tionat ga de MS 021 5 H:; wever. this would probsbly be a less acceptchle As recuired by the Reps.lato y fuendard Net.e-1Sr2 *1eakage Rate Tesur.s day As.t of 1980. 5 U.SC 005(b).
W Camusnament spectores MuiJn*
i the Commission cert:faes that thaa rule
"'**s, Hersh sewn mod 'a'n *
- a$.I'.S Yi[aNrNe N, N / Yaf5 dnee not have a sigmficant economic
'E*Y,,,
"MN.$i,...i,
-n.cs e me oismw.. s.r.
- r. Iw...,.i impact on a substant:al number et small Method. when used with a tes: dara tier. of.
c m.. n na p.m. er eas.
. sm..
er. tines This rule effects only the loses a hoves. is asi nenptable ershad to uw s.n.m us A c. e.i..a c.
...wa hcensing and operation of nuclear e,,,ie i. i.. hap,nin. A typ. cal m...nas. oc amu 4 cm......i.ta, t..
p>wer plants.The enmpanies At own messe,piien e inn woes point methud carila-r 1
7.YElr". ens *NIY.I.,,'
these plants do not fal) within the scope found m the Amencen Aet'en*lkand*'d s.-
of the defmition of "small estshes" set ANSI /ANE la a.1ss7."Camininment 5vstem 4
1
45892 Fedetal Register / Vol 53. No. 2 0 / Tuesday. November 15.19ud / Rules and Regulations
- 14. hse Testmg Requirements". lanuar) 20.
function of thght time with no calender Authunts 4W !.! 5 C.13s4(al.142L and 14 tes*.'
time restriction on BH71 Model 20GA.
- U.5 C ton!sl(Revised Pub. t.37-44s.
206A-1,206B. 2068-1, and 206L lannary 12. tun 1). and 1e Cm 1Jes.
Deted Rockulle. MD. this tel Jey of hehcopters was pubhshed in the Federal g u.53 ga
,3 Noumber tsaa Register (52 m 23464) on June 22.19sf.
- 2. By amending Amendmen 9-3221.
For the Nucleer Regatetor) Cnmnust.on.
The proposal was prompted by AD No. 70-1142 (43 FR by vicier sieuo. fr.
extensive testmg which was revising the opphcability regraph and Eieruterr arectorfor Operations.
accomphshed by the manufacturer on T.
paragraph (c) and addin paragraph (d)
IFR Doc. so 26322 Faled 1 48. a 45 em)
T straps which had been retired 2 years to read as follows:
a u se caos n w after matallation biat had not reached Seu Helisop6er Tes
. Inc.: Apphes to their thght hour life limit. The results Medd aosA.
-s.aost.aos8.l.3081' EPARTMENT OF TRANsPuni ATiote showed that the T T straps should have ans, t. and a hehcopiere comned a 2 year calendar life hmit to assure an any cetes. (Airworthaness Dodet F
ral Aylation Administration airworthiness of the part. Consequently.
No.re A5 -ell 14 C art 33 the p.oposed amendment called for a 2 Comphe a required within the next s year calendar hfe restriction on the T T calender the stier erfective dei, of is.
(Decast see s-gw-4t; Amat.39-40ssi straps, m addition to the existmg flight AD. unie already eccomphshed.
hour hfe hmit. !nterested persons have To en M/R btedes from departing the Airworthiness irectives; Sell been afforded an opportunity to kh**' " *****Ph*h "h* I*lI**'"8 Heucopter Tertr'bo. Inc. fBKTI). Model participate in the makirig of this 206A,206A-1,206b.J068-1,206L.
amendment. No comments were 1 T1's stimment ame of the wasion.
206-L1, and 206L-3 Ucopters received. Accordingly, the proposalla son streps. Port Numbers aos. cts.105 a.
aoswcw Federal Aviation adopted without change.
ao6 oto-sts-a. end ale-ott-127-1. 6e reduced from taco to 800 burs' has in swva Thw Admmistration (FAA). DOT.
The regulations adopted herein do n streps evet be retired from service by actioec Final rule' have substenhal direct eflects on th lenuary t. sees, recordless of t m. in service, states. on the relationship betwee e
The inboard strap fittinsa. P/N's 30s 410-suesmaar: This amendment amend n nat onal government and the sta, or 2n-st and -15. mut be removed from existmg strworthmess directive (AD) on the distnbution of power a 8"vice se powd m pwegmph le)(1) of this which estabhshes a 2. year calendar hie responsibilities among the v ous levels [MQgejsgenongsP/
y m addauon to the existmg fhsht time f government.Thus,in oc rdance with restriction on the tension-torsion (T-T) cutive Order 12612, it determined 3,,, g g,,,,,, n,,,t,,, g hine in envice hfe w 2 year edendu life straps on the BHTl Model 206 A. 2D6A-1, that is final rule does ethave after insunehen, whicheur occurs fint.
206B. 2068-1. 206L 206bl. and 206L-3 sufhci t federahsm ~ plications to idl Aa alternate mothed of comphence behcopters. The AD is needed Io warrant prepar on of a Federalism whir.h provada an equivalent level of safety prevent T T strap failure which would Assessmen wish this AD may be used mhen approved by result in main rotor (M/R) blades The FAA ha etermined that this the Man:ger. Hchcepew Certanceuen Branch.
departmg the hehcopter and subserpient tr;;ulation w volve 5.000 Federal Aviaton Adem stration. Fort %enh.
Temos msWE loss of the behcopter.
hehcopters ran imated cost of oatss: Effectne Date December 15.
13.854 pe ehcopter ery 2 years.
This amendment amends Amendment 1968 Theref
- e. I certify that is acteun:(1)le 36-3221: AD No. 75-11-02 (43 FR 22340).
Cerrphance: Compliance is required ni maior rule" under ecutive This amendment becomes effective withm the next 6 calendar montF sfsr Or ;r12291:12i ts not a "sig ficant December 15.1938.
the effective date of this AD. unless r
t" unc9r DOT Regulatory ir.ica lua.slin Fort Worth. Temas. es Nose nSer stresdy accomphshed.
nd P sscedures (44 FR 11034:Fe ary
- 2. tues.
poa rustwsm meommation coortact
- 6.1979). (3) does not warrant g,g,, e -
Mr. Cary Roach. Hebcopter Certificat, preparahtm of a regulatory esa uats,o m,,,y, y,,,rre't DL eerc crea,re m/t Branch. Department of Trensportat:o as the anticircled smpact is se minim
- Cerr,(,n.r.on tierv,w.
Federal Aviation Admmistration.F and (4) will not have a sienihcant P1t Dar as :n:2s Filed 11-16.a#L s as el Werth. Ten es TC193 0170. telephe c
'""***"I#I"E'"'""'"***'I"
anc w we g,,
soi a subw*antial nur.bar of ems;i ennh.es unJer the c.ritrria c't the Hegula'orv SUPPt tMD 7aRY UFoRMatto A Fler.ibthly A.;t.
propoul av amend Amend ant 39-:C21.
14 C Part 33 AD No. 7s-11-02 (43 FR
- 0; M y 23.
1ist of Subjects 13 CFR Part 33 19?6). w hich currently r unres Air transportation. Aircr.sft. Aviation retirement of the T T.rnpa as a
,arety, safety.
Airw e Dweetives; toeing Aduption of Amendment
- AN51 Mt e-Tr A.pe Pro Teet.e4 eif sosmen re eral na h.on
.cenu.n=eni s. c-
.1.o..c w., n r.c* *~
Acenedingly, pursuant to the authority a.. d uma n 2 sacom m netA w deleanted to me, the Federal Aviation Administration (F
- l. DOT.
ws e-is 2 ter. mace... evervied tir,ine
- o. ciar er i ems agew, en o6. +.. e ws Admimstration amende l 39.13 nf Part 39 ae,,,,e y;,,3,,g,-
coe. et in u.no.rs.....a.. ANsuamw:6 of the FAR as follows:
..nmeni 5ysiem L..hese Teenc suesanaan This amendm t supersedes twst. -Ce me same len er ao instim.,e me
.r.
t,.
eene.
Imm the American N.cieer sec=+r. sis PART 36. AIRWORTHINESS
- """8*
heri sensmeien 4.en.e Le conee p.r6. It ausas. DIRECTIVES applicable to cartain Boeing odel 727 senes airplanes. which current
,,/, A**i ie,'c'j,',. ','*j*,'" ",, O*'
1.The authority citation for Part as requires inspections of certain as 'n ei asse L simoi Nw, w.shengem DC, Contmues to read as follows:
bmding gear (MI.0) support linh
Am-w,-
-e o
e -
w,-.-w-
- ~4,e, e
- 9 v
l I
J l
l l
l l
l 4
l l
i l
l l
I l
,