ML20151P106

Responds to 880316 Order & Request That Proceeding Be Terminated.Licensees Have Withdrawn Part of Amend Request Which Ocre Opposed & on Which Ocre Requested Hearing & No Issues Remain.Proceeding Should Be Terminated

ML20151P106
Person / Time
Site:	Perry
Issue date:	04/18/1988
From:	Silberg J CLEVELAND ELECTRIC ILLUMINATING CO., SHAW, PITTMAN, POTTS & TROWBRIDGE
To:	Carpenter J, Linenberger G, Margulies M Atomic Safety and Licensing Board Panel
References
CON-#288-6113 88-562-02-LA, 88-562-2-LA, OLA, NUDOCS 8804260088
Download: ML20151P106 (3)

Text

_ _ _ . . - . . _ _ _ __ _ _ _ _ _ - _ _ _ _ _ - _ _ . ____-___ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ - _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _

,48WIP .

GII3 00CKETED SHAW, PITTMAN, PoTTs & TROWBRIDGE A panthaRSMep *NCLuowo PeorssscNAL componATcNS 2300 N STREET, N. W. '

Yttex/ caste WASHINGTON, D. C. 2003788 APR 20 All 49 ,,mo,,,, A o,,,c s

- CO-2 93 (SMAWLAW WSM) S FanM CREDM D E

" d '* #

• c2o'$'e'el e'o'es OFFICt C M ir.iu f 00CKEiffIgEdviCf. grcop;<a ,,,,

a c.sn.stno.p.c.

April 18, 1988 Morton B. Margulies, Esquire Chairman Atomic Safety and Licensing Board U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission Washington, D.C. 20555 James H. Carpenter Atomic Safety and Licensing Board U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission Washington, D.C. 20555 Gustave H. Linenberger, Jr.

Atomic Safety and Licensing Board U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission Washington, D.C. 20555 Re: Cleveland Electric Illuminating Company (Perry Nuclear Power Plant, Unit 1)

Docket No. 50-440-OLA (ASLBP No. 88-562-02-LA)

Gentlemen:

By Order dated March 16, 1988, the Atomic Safety and Licensing Board requested that the participants in the above-captioned proceeding notify the Board of the consequences of Board Notification BN 88-02 on their intentions to go forward in the proceeding. The Cleveland Electric Illuminating Company, Duquesne Light Company, Ohio Edison Company, Pennsylvania Power Company, and The Toledo Edison Company ("Licensees") hereby submit their response to the March 16, 1988 Order and request that the proceeding be terminated.

The Technical Specification Change Request which is the subject of this proceeding involved two distinct aspects. The first involved the deletion from Technical Specifications of those provisions relating to the Main Steam Isolation Valve 0

h$ BOO K o 3 f

's SH AW, PITTM AN, PoTTs & TROWBRIDG E A PARTNERSMiP INCLUDeNG PROMSStCNAL CORaoRAfqCNS Morton B. Margulies, Esquire James H. Carpenter Gustave H. Linenberger, Jr.

April 18, 1988 Page 2

("MSIV") Leakage Control System ("LCS"). The second aspect involved changing the leakage criteria for primary containment allowable leakage through the main steam lines from less than or equal to 25 scf per hour for any one main steam line to less than or equal to 100 scf per hour for all main steam lines. See 52 Fed. Reg. 47064 (December 11, 1987).

The Ohio Citizens for Responsible Energy, Inc. ("OCRE")

petitioned to intervene and requested a hearing on the Technical Specification Change Request, but limited its request for a hearing to the MSIV LCS aspect of the Change Request. Petition for Leave to Intervene and Request for a Formal Adjudicatory Hearing, dated January 7, 1988 at 4. OCRE's limitation as to the scope of its hearing request was noted by the Board. See Memorandum and Order (Scheduling of a Prehearing Conference),

dated March 1, 1988, at 3.

By letter dated March 11, 1988 (summarized in Board Notification BN 88-02), the NRC Staff informed Licensees that the Technical Specification Change Request "is not acceptable to the staff." The Staff's explanation focused solely on the MSIV LCS l aspect of the Change Request; none of the reasons expressed by l the Staff for its rejection of the Change Request involved the

! second aspect of the Change Request -- the change in leakage l criteria for main steam lines.

Licensees, by letter from The Cleveland Electric Illuminating Company to the NRC Staff dated April 18, 1988, have withdrawn the MSIV LCS portion of the Change Request. (A copy of that letter is attached hereto). Licensees' letter also states that they are not withdrawing the second aspect of the Change Request.

This proceeding is limited by the scope of OCRE's Petition i for Leave to Intervene. OCRE has sought to oppose "only the part of the amendment request which would delete the Technical Specifications pertaining to the MSIV LCS." Petition at 4 (emphasis added). Since Licensees have now withdrawn the only part of the amendment request which OCRE opposed and on which OCRE requested a hearing, there remain no issues for this proceeding to pursue. The Board must therefore terminate this proceeding.

l

SH AW, PlTTM AN, PoTTs & TROWBRIDGE A PAmthtmSMir INCLUOdNQ PROFESSCNAL COR*CnAreoNS Morton B. Margulies, Esquire James H. Carpenter Gustave H. Linenberger, Jr.

April 18, 1988 Page 3 OCRE's representative and counsel for the NRC Staff have authorized me to represent to the Board that they agree that this proceeding should be terminated.

Respectfully submitted, 0

. r%. #

f.

Jaf/E./Silberg \

Counsel for Licensee W l JES/dj t

cc: Colleen Woodhead, Esquire Susan Hiatt Docketing and Service Section Atomic Safety and Licensing Board Panel I

l l

l

I ! [ C 7 f. i 0 i L L U ; :!. l.' i L (

e '. ( ! t V [ L l. I:i C '.

P.O. BOX 97 e PERRY. CHIO 44o31 a TELEPHONE (21s) 269 3737 s ADDRESS.1o CENTsR ROAD Serving The Best location in the Nation PERRY NUCLEAR POWER PLANT M KapMn wu meuxo April 18,1938 wucLEAR onov, PY-CE1/NRR-0829 L U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission Document Control Desk Washington, D. C. 20555 _

Perry Nuclear Power Plant Docket No. 50-440 Technical Specification Change Request Conce rning MSIV _ Leakage Ge ntle men:

The NRC, by letter dated March 11, 1988, rejected the subject request for Main Steam Isolation Valve Leakage Control System (LCS) elimination from the Perry Technical Specifications. The letter suggested that any resubmittal of the request should be doferred until the Staf f has completed its resolution of Gencric issue C-8. The Cleveland Electric 111uminating Company hereby withdraws the portion of the September 18, 1987 Technical Specification change ,

request that deals with deletion of the MSIV Leakage Control System from the Techncial Specifications.

There remains an additional portion of the change request originally forwarded by our letter dated 9/18/87, to allow total MSIV leakage of 100 scfh through any combination of main steam lines, as opposed to the present limit of 25 scfh per line. This technical specification change to allow 100 scfh total leakage doe s not change the Perry licensing basis, which includes a LOCA analysis for 100 scf h irrespective of which main steam line(s) are leaking. As justified in the original letter, the criteria of 10 CFR 50.92 for no significant hazards are still satisfied; accident probability or consequences previously evaluated are not adversely af fected, a dif ferent kind of accident is not created, and safety margins are r.ot reduced. This change has the f avorable precedent of other BWR licensees, and was not contested during the public notice period allowed for this change. The request f or this change therefore stands, and NRC action on this technical specification amendment is again requested.

Notwithstanding withdrakel of a portion of the request, we would like to comment on the review process of this Technical Specification change request.

Tho Cleveland Electric 111uminating Company has expended considerable ef tort to provido the NRC staf f with the information necessary f or their review of this request, through several lettera and a meeting on the subject.

U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Co 31osion April 18, 1988 PY-CEI/NRR-0829 L The NRC forwarded NURIG 1169 by Generic Letter 86-17 (October,1986), to p re se nt technical findings related to MSIV leakage treatment methods. These findings clearly demonstrated the post-accident dose reduction potential of processing MSIV leakage through an isolated condenser, versus filtering in an engineered saf eguard system. This information was provided because it "may be useful guidance for some licensees contemplating plant specific change requests related to this issue pending final generic resolution." Perry was contemplating such a change request, and requested a meeting with the NRC staf f by letter dated July 31,19 87 (PY-CEI/NKR-0678L). Included with that letter was a Perry-specific dose assessment which showed orders of magnitude reduction in dosos f rom the MSIV leakage path, with attendant simplifications in plant emergency instructions and improvement in net availability, using NUREC 1169 as a basis for the calculations.

The Perry-specific calculat!.ons adjusted NUREG 1169 results f or stated plant and site differences. It was clearly stated in the July 31 letter, and during a September 2,1987 meeting at the NRC Bethesda of fices with the staff, that the NUREC 1169 analysis was otherwise used as-is. The dose calculation as sumptions , with respec t to source term characterization and attendant iodine transport / removal mechanisms, had previously been used by a dif ferent licensee and had been approved by the staf f. CEI answered staf f questions raised at the September 2 meeting; there was no indication at th at time of problems with any of the underlying assumptions, nor was the detailed calculation requested.

Based on the results of this meeting, CEI decided to request only the deletion of the HSIV LCS from the Technical Specifications, while maintaining the system available f or use as a backup to the isolated condenser operation. This Technical Specification Change Request was forwarded to the NRC by letter dated September 18,1987 (PY-CEI/NRR-0712L).

The March 11 NRC letter rejecting the change request stated that the Technical Specification Change Request failed to include detailed analyses to support the j findings set f orth in the submittal. The letter also identified that NUREC

1169 used a dif ferent source term than that used as the licensing basis for j PNPP and that used in Regulatory Guide 1.3. There was no prior discussion of the concerns with source term assumptions used in the NUREG, and no specific request f or additional information. Nor does the letter identif y any technical reason f or not proceeding with review of this request in accordance with the l normal regulatory process, other than the desirability of first resolving Generic Issue C-8. CEI remains convinced that the concept pre sented in NUREG 1169 is technically justified. We again of fer out assistance in the technical re solution of these mat ters specifically for Perry, and generically via the BWR Owners Groups' planned submittal on LCS elimination. We continue to be available f or discussions on the subject with the NRC staf f.

If there are any questions, please f eel f ree to call.

Very truly yours, Al Kap an Vice President 2 l Noelear Group AK cab cc: J. Silberg T. Colburn K. Connaughton USSRC Region III

-- - , _- - - --