ML20154L153
| ML20154L153 | |
| Person / Time | |
|---|---|
| Site: | Seabrook, Limerick, 05000000 |
| Issue date: | 03/06/1986 |
| From: | Conner T CONNER & WETTERHAHN, PECO ENERGY CO., (FORMERLY PHILADELPHIA ELECTRIC |
| To: | Cole R, Linenberger G, Smith I Atomic Safety and Licensing Board Panel |
| References | |
| CON-#186-338 OL, OLA, NUDOCS 8603110402 | |
| Download: ML20154L153 (1) | |
Text
_
l L AW OFFICRM j
CONNEN & WETTEHH AltN, I'.c. OXPEILD 17 4 7 P E N N M Y LVA N I A AV,:N U r.. N, W.
NU voor a cownse Ja WAMHINo10N D C. anoon a*"".".T!o" td WR -7 M1 :77 J...Th u. w =n March 6, 1986 wate w, necesots I
wn.mo [see n non re n h[g ( j,hh a
S u m......,........,,,..w Ivan W. Smith, Chairman Dr. Richard F. Cole Atomic Safety and Licensing Atomic Safety and f
Board Licensing Board l
U.S. Nuclear Regulatory U.S. Nuclear Regulatory I
I Commission Commission Washington, D.C.
20555 Washington, D.C.
20555 l
I Mr. Gustave A. Linenberger, Jr.
Atomic Safety and Licensing Board U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission Washington, D.C.
20555 l
l In the Matter of Philadelphia Electric Company (Limerick Generating Station, Unit 1)
Docket No. 50-352-OLA (Check Valva)
Dear Mr. Smiths
(
In accordance with your letter dated March 5, 1986, we are enclosing copies of the slip opinions in Philadelphia Electric Company (Limerick Generating Station, inits 1 and L
- 2), Docket Nos. 50-352 and 50-353, ALAB " Order" (August 5, 1985) and Public Service Company of New ifarnpnhire (Seabrook Station, Units 1 and 2), Docket Nos. 50-443-OL and 50-444-OL
" Order" (November 15, 1983).
We referred to these decisions
[
in our Answer (dated February 19, 1986) to Mr. Anthony's late-filed petition for leave to intervene.
Also enclosed is a copy of the letter dated December 18, 1985 from Licensee to the NHC, attaching a copy of the i
Application for Amendment, which wo also cited in our Answer l
to Mr. Anthony's petition.
i I
Sincerely,
.\\
g31{g g g
g Tro6 Conner, Jr.
Counsel for !.icensee TBC/dif Enclosures cca Service List l
[y f 'l
M SY%
\\
h gg,M I
UNITED STATES OF N!EPICA Og gg.f ( g I
gMQ NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMf!ISSION l
3
@ M e,
' ATOMIC SATETY AND LICE! SING APPEAL BOARD I
0 b;3 Adm rative Judges:
',3 l
p 1
Christine N. Kohl, Chairman August 5, 1985 l
l Gary J. Edles
'83 03 -f pg qf f
Dr. Reginald L. Gotchy 0.'. r e..,..,:
In the !!atter of i
)
l PHILADELPHIA ELECTRIC CCl!PANY I
Occket Nos. 50-352 OL
)
50-353 OL i
(Limerick Generating Station,
)
l Units 1 and 2)
)
1
)
i
{
l ORDER l
1.
In a motion filed July 31, 1985, the Commonwealth I
of Pennsylvania requests a two-day extension of time in i
u L
which to file its brief in response to the pending appeals l
from the Licensing Board's third partial initial decision.
f
'ihe NRC staf f does not object to a grant of the rnotion, on condition that it receive an equivalent es einston.
The e
l motion fails to set forth the positions of the other partion l
t to the proceeding.
I I
For good cause shown, the motion is granted; the l
Commonwealth's brief is due Aucunt 8, 19R5 The NRC staff's l
brief, however, remains due on August 16, 1985.
No good
[
cause for extending the time for the filing of the staff's l
I l
brief is apparent.
See 10 C.F.R. 5 2.711(a).
The reasons l
given by the Commonwealth for its extension request clearly j
I l
-.pp,y ysp l
9 r
")I/)
l
1 2
do not apply to the staff.
And, while the Commission's Pules of Practico accord the ntaff extra tiro for filing its brief as an appo11oo, that tiro is computed from the dato of filing of the last appellant's brief, not the last appelloo's brief.
Soo 10 C.F.R. 5 2.762(c).
In other words, if the staff needs an extension, it is generally obligod, as are other parties, to request one and to justify it.
2.
Dy postcard dated and postrarked July 31, 1985, intervonors Robert L.
Anthony / Friends of the Earth (Anthony /F0E) appeal the Licensing Board's fourth partial initial decision in this proceeding.
Despite the aubstantial nonconf ormanco of !!r. Anthcny's postcard to the Commission's Pulos of Practico, we will treat the appeal an I Thun, this situation is distinguishable from the circumstancos that prompted our ordor of June 27, 1995.
Thoro, wo granted the staff'n motion for a briefing extonsion and sua sponto extended the timo for filing tho briots of all other appelloos because of a cerflict with an upcoming Licensing Doard hearing in this proconding that was to involvo all of those partion.
2 Although mailed from what appears to be a vacation area, it (unfortunatoly) La not a picturo pontcard.
10 C.T.P.
5 2.708(b) requitos nach document filed in an adjudication to "bo bound on the left nido and typewritton, printed or otherwino reproduced in pormannnt form on good unglazed paper of lotterhoad sito.
Each pago shall begin not loss than one and ono-quarter inchos from the top, with nido and bottom marytnn at not loso than one and one-quartor inchos.
Text chall be double-spacod, except (Footnoto Continued)
e 3
properly filed.4 Up to now, we have been quite indulgent of the nonconformances in the pleadings of various parties.
Any future filings from any party that are not in substantial conformance with the Rules, hcwever, will be subject to summary rejection.
It is so CRDERED.
FOR TIIE APIEAL BOAPD O.
A -.: k C. Jt.gn Enoemaker Secretary to the Appeal Board (Tootnote Continued) that quotationn ray bo singlo-spaced and indented."
The reasons for this ruin -- car 1 parable to that of rnost courts and other agencies -- are fully juntified:
to facilitato proper docketing in the Comtnission' n forrant record of the proceeding, ario to f a filitato review and diaposition by the presiding board.
4 Our acenptarveu for filing of thin notico of appeal doon not reflect try judgrent on the ntan<!!ng of Anthony /r0E to appeal the docts. ton in question.
e
i 00CMETED l
USNRC UNITED STATES OF AMERICA NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSION j g g gjg ATOMIC SAFETY AND LICENSING BOARD qrr..:i c ? m : a : =.
l Before Administrative Judges:
.. i i U C ?. S t.. '.
' ' '" ! N Helen F. Hoyt, Chairperson Emeth A. Luebke Jerry Harbour SEE NOV 1~ 83 In the Matter of Docket Nos. 50-443-OL 50-444-OL PUBLIC SERVICE COMPANY (ASLBP No. 82-471-02-OL) 0F NEW HAMPSHIRE, el a_,1..
(Seabrook Station, Units 1 and 2)
November 15, 1983 l
ORDER On Septtmber 6, 1983. John F. Doherty filed Petition for Leave to Intervene.
Applicants' Respense to John F. Cohorty's Petition for Leave to Intervene was filed September 19, 1983 and hRC Staff Response opposing John F. Doherty's Petition for Leave to Intervene was filed September 26, 1983.
On October 4, 1983, Jchn F. Doherty filed a Request for Leave to Amend His Petition for Leave to Intervene and an Atrended Petition for Leave to Intervene. Applicants answered on October 17, 1983 and NRC Staff filed Motion for Le ne to Reply to " John F. Doherty's Pequest for Leave to Arend his Pett*. ton for Leave to Intervene."
l
-,...i l f. } j,. - i. il.
i1'
r-l 2-On October 20, 1983, Petitioner Doherty inquired of the Board if it had issued an Order in response to his pleadings.I On October 27, 1983, the Petitioner filed Petitioner Doherty's Reply to Staff's Motion for Leave to Reply to " John F. Doherty's Request l
for Leave to Amend His Petition for Leave to Intervene" of October 24, l
1983.
By Federal Register dated October 19, 1981, notice was given that l
Applicant, Public Service Company of New Hampshire had applied to this Commissicn for facility operating licenses to operate Seabrook Station.
I Units 1 and 2.
46 Fed. Reg. 51,330-51,332(1981).
The notice 1
e, l
provided that any persons whose interest may be affected by this proceeding could file a petition for leave to intervene by November 18, 1981. 46 Fed. Reg. 51, 331.
Petitioner has acknowledged that his petition of September 6, 1983 is late filed and admits that he had resided in Texas from August 20, i
Because the letter does not appear to have been served on the parties to this proceeding the text is set out below; i
This letter is to inquire if the Board has issued an order with I
regard to this Petitioner's " Petition for Leave to Intervene" of l
September 6, 1983, ard " Request for Leave to Amend His Petition for Leave to Intervene", together with an " Amended Petition for Leave i
to Intervene" of October 4,1983.
l l
Petitioner respect'ully requests the Board take steps to send him the Order (s) if indeed they have been circulated, and the Board can see the Order (s) eculd have arrived at Petitioner's address by i
this time.
i I
f 2
1977 to June 1, 1983 with a permanent address in Boston, MA acquired on June 22, 1983.
This petition further urges standing based upon; (1) by currently residing 40 miles. from site he is within the zone of effects of pathways of radiation exposure, and so will suffer injury.in fact by operation of Seabrook; (2) his uses of Seabrook and Harrpton Beach for recreational purposes; (3) his frequent use of Route 95 for family visits; (4) his frequent consumption of seafood which he believes may be fished from waters within 50 miles of the Seabrook site; (5) the effects by radioactive emissions in gaseous effluents such as those in Table 0.1 (P.0-4) of NUREG-0895; and (6) he is a ratepayer of Boston Edison, thus, has an economic interest.
The Petitioner's one contention deals with the issue of whether the l
j application of an operating Itcense for Unit 2 is premature because the unf* :
"but 22% complete" and is thus in violation of l
j The Board need only to consider whether the late-filed petition can be' admitted after balancing all five of the intervention factors set forth in 10 CFR 2.714(a)(1).
Public Service Company of New Hampshire, et al., _ NRC _, CLI-83-23, September 19, 1983.
As the Commission went on to say in that case, "Those factors involve careful consideration of the contents of the contention and the circumstances under which the contention is offered."
l 2
40 miles from Seabrook Station, Units 1 and 2.
i l
t l '
The five factors in Section 2.714(a)(1) and the Board's f
consideration of each are set forth below:
l i
(
(1) Good cause, if any for failure to file on time.
The Board finds no good cause in Petitioner's argument that he lacked standing prior to June 1983 when he established residence in l
Boston.
It has been well-settled in this agency that newly acquired j
standing is not sufficient, of itself, to justify permitting belated intervention. Carolina Power and Light Co. (Shearon Harris, Units 1-4),
9 NRC 122, 124 (1979).
As the ASLAB in that case said, "If newly acquired standing... were sufficient of itself to justify permitting f
belated intervention, the necessary consequence would be that the i
i l
parties to the proceeding would never be determined with certainty until t
the final curtain fell.
Assuredly, no adjudicatory process could be conducted in an orderly and expeditious manner if subjected to such a 1
i j
handicap." See also Houston Lighting and Power Company (Allens Creek, i
l Unit 1)11NRC239(1980).
The Board has also considered the Petitioner's other arguments that j
it is not " reasonable... to expect a member of the public to l
l assimilate the notices of all nuclear plants throughout the nation in l
the Federal Register on the chance that some day, Petitioner might
(
l relocate in the zone of affected interest." Petitioner has betrayed his l
l l
i i
(
i t
'. l understanding of such legal requirement as notice by the character of his pleadings and his admitted prior participation in Allens Creek.3 i
At the August 26, 1983 hearing, petitioner stated that, "The Federal Register is full of requests for delays from utilities on implementing modifications ordered by the Commission." This appears to be the statement of one well versed in nuclear matters appearing in the Federal Register. Thus, Petitioner apparently was well qualified to locate notice of hearings in the Federal Register and had he been able to qualify as a late-filed petitioner would have had ample notice that the proceeding was considering the application for an operating license of Unit I and 2.
The Board has elected to address this argument to make it clear to others in this proceeding who do not understand that ignorance of Federal Register notice is no justification for permitting late intervention or justification for ignoring the matters set forth in I
Federal Register notices pertaining to this proceeding.
Indeed any 3
Transcript August 26, 1983, page 1783:
I hold a Doctor of Jurisprudence degree from the University of Houston, gained in 1980 and was an intervenor in the construction permit proceedings for the now-cancelled Allens Creek Nuclear Generating Station.
! cemented on the DE!S for the Seabrook Stttions also.
On September 30, 1983, Petitioner filed to intiervene in Pilgrin Nuclear Power Station, Unit 1 and quoted in the title M his pleading from the Federal Register thus reflecting his searches of the Federal Register notices.
See Houston lighting and Power Comp g (Allens Creek Nuclear (FootnoteContinued)
1 l
)
litigant in such a formal proceeding as an operating license proceeding I
is charged to' remain at the ready throughout the litigation to protect his interest.
(ii) The availability of other means whereby the petitioner's interest w'll be protected.
Petitioner has already availed himself of one means of asserting his concern with the Board's hearing, in this proceeding, the j
app 11 cation for a Unit 2 operating license when this unit is something less than half completed.
This Petitioner ackncwledges making a limited appearance before this Ecard at Dover, NH, on August 26, 1983.
In a six page statement (Tr. 1782-88), Petitioner elected to mention in 15 lines what now purports to be his main concern.
The Board does not intend to indicate that Petitioner's interest could be completely protected by a limited appearince statement.
However, Petitioner in his September 6,1983 pleading (page 5) sought to show that he had presented a limited appearance statement on August 26 presenting the Seab ook Unit 2 issue and that the Board had not taken action because, as Petitioner stated it, the Board evidently was "not empowered to do 50."5 (FootnoteContinued)
Generating Statier, tnit 1), ALA9-574, 11 NRC 7 (1980).
5 Petitioner labors wer the irpressicn that he is entitled to instant relief.
See, ilio Petitioner's letter of Octcber 20, 1983 set out in prece(Wfootnote.
_ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ - Petitioner's concern with the partial completion of Seabrook Unit 2 as a safety issue would not be articulated by other means in this proceeding. On this point, Applicant agrees and NRC Staff ackncwledges it has some merit. But Staff's arguments here clearly carry the day--this factor weighs less than other factors to be cnnsidered.
The delay it would cause and the possibility that it could broaden these proceedings are not overcome by the mere novelty of the issue.
This proceeding is two years old and if, with the active intervenors in the proceedings, the issue has not been brought forward, it can only be considered as a novelty at this point in time.
It would take more of a showing than this Petitioner has made that the issue should be hearo in this the afternoon of the hearings.
(iii) The extent to which the petitioner's participation may reasonably be expected to assist in developing a sound record.
There is nothing in Petitioner's pleadings before this Board which demonstrates in any manner that his participation could assist in compiling a sound record.
To run an issue up the flagpole to see who will salute is a far cry from contributing sound evidence.
Housten Lighting and Power Ccepany, M.
(iv) The extent to which the Petitioner's interest will be represented by existing parties.
No other party has put forward the matter of Unit 2's degree of completion.
But, as 4plicant noted, there are other intervenors whose interest in health and safety issues are represented.
While some weight may be given to Petitioner here, it does not tip the balance when viewed against the time in the proceeding at which the Petitioner seeks to introduce it.
1 (v) The extent to which the Petitioner's participation will broaden the issues or delay the proceeding.
Introduction of a contention nearly two years after the proceeding began would truly broaden and delay the proceeding.
There is no indication here of the character of evidence Petitioner wants the Board to consider, what witnesses, if any, would be presented and how much time would need to be scheduled for the proffered contention. While other intervenors have mostly presented their cases through cross-examination, the Petitioner's vague presentation of his intention here leaves a total void. The Board is without a standard against which 1
to test the Petitioner's concerns to determine if his contention could be litigated at this time.
1
(
The Board has considered all pleadings filed by Petitioner in i
support and by Applicant, and NRC Staff in opposition to this petition j
and amendment.
The Board finds in balancing all the factors set forth in 10 CFR 2.714(a)(1), the Petitioner's non-timely petition cannot be entertained by this Board.
r I
3 9
Accordingly, intervention by Petitioner, John F. Doherty in this proceeding is DENIED.
FOR THE ATOMIC SAFETY AND LICE ING B RD O
O vf Helen F. Hoyt, Chairperson l
Administrative Judge Dated at Bethesda, Maryland this 15th day of November, 1983 l
I l
I
7
-f j
4 y
PHILADELPHIA ELECTRIC COMPANY
/Y#
4)k 2301 M ARKET STREET P.O. BOX 8699 eb..
1 PHILADELPHI A. PA.19101
~
(2151841 4000
./1
\\
n.
EueENE J. GR AObEY DON ALO SLANNEN RunOLPH A. CHILLEMt E. C. MIR M M A bb
" " ^ " ' " * * " " " '
cecee er 18, 1985
.E,.
EDW ARD J. CULLEN J R.
THOM AS H. MILLER, J R.
tREME A. M.MENN A Mr. Harold R. Denton, Director Office of Nuclear Reactor Regulation U. S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission Washington, D.C.
20555
'Re: Limerick Generating Station, Unit 1 Docket No. 50-352
Dear Mr. Denton:
Trans=itted herewith for filing with the Commission are 3 originals and 19 copies of Philadelphia Electric Company's Application for Amendment of Facility Operating License NPF-39 and Exemption to Part 50, Appendix J.
This Application seeks a 14 week extension in the allowable interval for conducting certain Type C leak rate tests.
There are also transmitted herewith for filing 3 originals and 19 copies of an Application for Amendment of Facility Operating License NPF-39 which requests an extension of the allowable interval for testing certain reactor instrumentation line excess flow check valves.
In accordance with Section 170.12 of the Commission's regulations, there are enclosed Philadelphia Electric Company's checks totalling $300 to cover the filing fees for these Applications.
Very truly yours, w
1
.I L. * ->
Euge e J. /Bradley EJB:pke Enclosures cc: See Attached Service List 0137q r
i cc: Troy B. Conner, Jr., Esq.
(w/cnclcsura)
Ann P. Hodgdon, Esq.
(w/ enclosure)
Mr. Frank R. Romano (w/ enclosure)
Mr. Robert L. Anthony (w/ enclosure)
~
Ms. Phyllis Zitzer (w/ enclosure)
Charles W. Elliott, Esq.
(w/ enclosure)
Zori G. Ferkin, Esq.
(w/ enclosure)
Mr. Thomas Gerusky (w/ enclosure)
Director, Penna. limergency (w/ enclosure)
Management Agency Angus Love, Esq.
(w/ enclosure)
David Wersan, Esq.
(w/ enclosure)
Robert J. Sugarman, Esq.
(w/ enclosure)
Kathryn S. Lewis, Esq.
(w/ enclosure)
Spence W. Perry, Esq.
(w/ enclosure)
Jay M. Gutierrez, Esq.
(w/ enclosure)
Atomic Safety 6 Licensing Appeal Board (w/ enclosure)
Atomic Safety 6 Licensing Board Panel (w/ enclosure)
Docket 6 Service Section (w/ enclosure - 3 copies))
E. M. Kelly (w/ enclosure)
Timothy R. S. Campbell
-(w/ enclosure)
m.
\\
DEFORE THE pp
&fg UNITED STATES NUCLEAR PICULATORY COMMISSION
,([
In the Matter of a
Docket No. 50-35 2 PHILADELPHIA ELECTRIC COttPANY APPLICATION FOR AMENDMENT OF FACILITY OPERATINO LICENSE NPF-39 Edward G.
Bauer, Jr.
Eugene J.
Bradley 2301 Market Street Philadelphia, Pennsylvania 19101 At to rneys fo r Philadelphia Electric Company I
\\.
BEFOPE THE UNITED STATES NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSION In the Matter of Docket No. 50-352 PHILADELPHIA ELECTRIC COMPANY APPLICATION FOR AMENDMENT OF FACILITY OPERATING LICENSE NPF-39 Philadelphia Elect ric Company, Licensee under Facility Operating License NPF-39 for Limerick Generating Station Unit 1, hereby requests that the Technical Speci fications contained 'in Appendix A to the Operating License (NUREC-ll49) be tempo rarily amended to provide an extension of fourteen weeks to the surveillance tes ting interval for the reactor ins trumentation line excess flow check valves contained in Technical Speci fication 4.6. 3.4 (page 3/46-18).
In order to.teet the requirements of the Technical Speci fications, it will te necessary to shutdown the plant prior to February 19, 1986 to ne rform the necessary tes ting.
A shutdown is necessitated because the valves in question, which.
K
i are functicnelly tcstcd by opaning c lina downotroca of the valve with the reactor pressurized, serve one or more components which 4
must be removed from service during testing.
This action could result in Emerge ncy Core Cooling Sys tem, Reactor Protection System or Nuclear Steam Supply Shutof f System actuations, or in a condition prohibited by Technical Speci fications.
To do thi s testing at power also poses a risk of personnel injury, in the unlikely event that one of the valves fails to check, due to high temperature water or radiation hazard.
The es timated duration of this testing would be approximately fourteen days as necessitated by the operational requir eme nt to cool the reactor to a decay heat level consistent with the heat removal capabilities of the Reactor Water Cleanup (RWCU) system.
The long time associated with obtaining the full power license led to the need for this extension.
A normal schedule for low power tes ting s tartup tes ting and 100-hour full power warranty run would not have resulted in a requirement to extend the testing interval.
All low power (less than 5% thermal power) testing was completed prior to late April,1985.
Circumstances beyond licensee's control delayed the issuance of the full power license until Augus t, 1985.
During this period of time, the unit was maintained in a 48-hour standby condi tion to demons trate its availability for operation.
This action precluded tes ting the excess flow check valves.
The current schedule is for a maintenance and surveillance tes ting outage to begin on or before May 26, 1986.
During this outage, maintenance activi ties, surveillance testing, -
~...
s and Dinor plcnt modificationa will be perform d which will clicw the plant to operate through the first refueling outage.
The fourteen-day outage required to pe rform the testing of the excess flow check valves would result in a net increase in overall outage time i f an extension was not permitted.
This additional cutage would impose an economic penalty of greater than 6 million dollars to area customers as a result of the cost of replacement generation and would also subject plant equipment and sys tems to the detrime ntal ef fects inherent in an additional shutdown and startup ope ration.
The ref o re, lice ns ee reaues ts an extension of fourteen weeks to the surveillance tes ting interval for reactor ins trumentation line excess flow check valves for the first cycle so that this testing may be performed concurrent with a maintenance outage currently scheduled for late May,1986.
Sioni ficant Hazards Determination The Commission has provided guidance concerning the application of standards in 10 CFR 50.92 for determining whether license amendments involve a signi ficant hazards consideration by providing certain examples which were published in Federal Register.on April 6, 1983 (48 FR 14870).
One of the examples (vi) of an action involvina. no signi ficant hazards consideration is a change which may in some way reduce a safety margin, but where the results of the change are clearly within all acceptable cri teria.
The reques ted change fits this example.
Postponing.
s the cforemonticncd surveillance testing until an outage commencing in late May, 1986 would allow for continued cperation of the plant and would have little or no ef fect on containment integrity for the following reasons:
1.
The following design features would limit inventory loss in the event of a reactor ins trument line ruptur e coincident with the f ailure of the excess flow check valve to close a)
The lines in cues tion are one-inch in diameter or less.
b)
These lines are equipped with one-quarter inch restricting ori fices, inside containment, which serve to limit flow.
c)
The line ruptu r e, in order to pose a hazard, would have to occur outside of primary containment, where the majority of the line is only 3/8" diameter.
d)
The excess ficw check valves are designed so that should they fail to close the main flow path through the valve has a flow resistance equivalent to a sharp edged ori fice of 0.375 inch diameter.
2.
-Manual valves are available to shut of f the protected line, outside of primary containment, should any indication be precent concerning excess flow check valve in ope rability. -.
i 3.
The excess flow check valves are located outside of primary containment; the ref o re, they are available for periodic visual inspection, i f neces sa ry.
4.
The lines which are protected by the excess flow check valves are located within the reactor enclosure which is served by the standby gas treatment sys tem which would filter and monitor any release.
5.
A rupture of a single instrument line, assuming the failure of the excess flow check valve to sea t, will not result in a release of radioactivity in excess of 10 CFR Part 100 lim its (FSAR Table 15.6-7).
6.
Excess flow check valves have exhibited a high degree of reliability in performing their " checking" function; thus, the inspection interval which is designed to provide a high probability of detection of a leaking valve is very conservative and the probability of detection will not be signi ficantly reduced by the requested interval extension of less than 204.
A review of the Nuclear Plant Reliability Data Sys tem and a poll of several utilities having similar make and model valves revealed no ins tances of the valves failing to pe rfo rm their safety-related f unction.
During the first surveillance tests, all valves tes ted successfully.
Philadelphia Elect ric's i
Peach Bottom Units 2 and 3 have valves which are similar in l
. {
~
s
!(,
dc31gn, althnugh by a dif foront manufocturor, and havo hcd a high degree of success with these valves checking properly, l
l For these reasons, the proposed tempo rary amendment to L
the Limerick operating License does not constitute a significant l
hazards consideration in tha t it would not:
1 l
1.
Involve a signi ficant increase in the probability or l
consequences of an accident previously evaluated because 1
l the change extends the surveillance interval less than 20% beyond the current conservative surveillance requirements and has no ef fect on the as sumptions of I
valve failure assumed in the present analyses t or I
2.
Create the possibility of a new type of accident or a dif ferent kind of accident from any accident previously analyzed because current analyses assume valve failure concurrent with line ruptur e.
No new accident scenarios are credible based upon scheduling of this testing aloner or 3.
Involve a signi ficant redu ction in the margin of safety because the design addresses failures of the excess flow valves to function by the use of small lines, restricting ori fices and valve body impediments to free flow.
I I
I 1
! l i
l
s Tho requc3tcd amondmont will not recult in O Oigni ficant change in the types or amounts of any ef fluents that may be released of f-site in that the change is schedular in nature and af fects no systems concerning ef fluents.
There will be no signi ficant increase in individual or cumulative occupational radiation exposure as a result of the requested amendment which merely requests to delay testing which will be performed regardless of the outcome of the amendment request.
The Plant Operations Review Committee and the Nuclear Review Board have reviewed these proposed temporary changes to the Technical Speci fications and have concluded that th ey do n ot involve an unreviewed safety ques tion or a significant hazards consideration and will not endanger the public health and safety.
Respectf ully Submitted, PHILADELPHIA ELECTRIC COMPANY N'
~
Vice / Pie s ide n t -
CONTAINMENT SYSTEMS SURVEILLANCE REQUIREMENTS 4.6.3.1 Each primary containment isolation valve shown in Table 3.6.3-1 shall be demonstrated OPERA 8LE prior to returning the valve to service after mainte-nance, repair or replacement work is performed on the valve or its associated actuator, control or power circuit by cycling the valve through at least one complete cycle of full travel and verifying the specified isolation time.
4.6.3.2 Each primary containment automatic isolation valve shown in Table 3.6.3-1 shall be demonstrated OPERABLE during COLD SHUTDOWN or REFUELING at least once per 18 months by verifying that on a containment isolation test signal each automatic isolation valve actuates to its isolation position.
4.6.3.3 The isolation time of each primary containment power operated or automatic valve shown in Table 3.6.3-1 shall be determined to be within its limit when tested pursuant to Specification 4.0.5.
4.6.3.4 Each reactor instrumentation line excess flow check valve shown in Table 3.6.3-1 shall be demonstrated OPERA 8LE at least once per 18 months *by l
verifying that the valve checks flow.
4.6.3.5 Each traversing in-core probe system explosive isolation valve shall be demonstrated OPERA 8LE:
a.
At least once per 31 days by verifying the continuity of the explosive charge.
1 b.
At least once per 18 months by removing the explosive squib from the explosive valve, such that each explosive squib in each explosive valve will be tested at least once per 90 months, and initiating the explosive squib.
The replacement charge for the exploded squib shall be from the same manufactured' batch as the one fired or from another batch which has been certified by having at least one of that batch successfully fired.
No squib shall remain in use beyond the expiration of its shelf-life and/or oper. sting life, as appItcable.
1
- 92-week interval is permissible for the first cycle.
l l
l LIMERICK - UNIT 1 3/4 6-18
t COMMONWEALTH OF PENNSYLVANIA :
ss.
COUNTY OF PHILADELPHIA S.
L.
Daltrof f, being first duly sworn, deposes and says:
That he is Vice President of Philadelphia Electric Company, the Applicant hereint that he has read the foregoing Application for Amendment of Facility Operating License NPF-39 and knows the contents thereof: and that the statements and matters set forth therein are true and correct to the best of his knowledge, information and belief.
d[
Subscribed and sworn to before me this/hhay of
/97[
l=4ws Notary Public PATRICIA 0. S*HOLL Neary Puti c. P' ' ;# tan P,,* e s (
Wy Cunmat.:,4 b;, t65 i P81* I
UNITED STATES OF AMERICA NUCLEAR REGULATORY CO M ISSION Before the Atomic Safety and Licensing Board In the Matter of Docket No. 50-352 PHILADELPHIA ELECTRIC COMPANY (Limerick Generating Station, Unit No. 1)
CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE I hereby certify that copies of Philadelphia Electric Company's Application for Amendment of Facility Operating License NPF-39 and Application for Amendment of Facility Operating License NPF-39 and Exemption to Part 50, Appendix J in the above-captioned matter were served on the following by deposit in the United States mail, first-class postage prepaid on this 19th day of December, 1985.
4 i
Kathryn S. Lewis, Esquire Atomic Safety 4 Licensing Municipal Services Building Appeal Board Panel 15th 4 JFK Blvd.
U. S. Nuclear Regulatory Ceaunission Philadelphia, PA 19107 Washington, D.C.
20555 Ann P. Hodgdon, Esquire Robert J. Sugarman, Esquire Counsel for NRC Staff
- Sugarman, Denworth 4 Hellegers Office of the Executive Legal Director 16th Floor, Center Plaza U. S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission 101 North Broad Street Washington, D.C.
20555 Philadelphia, PA 19107 Angus R. Love, Esquire Troy B. Conner, Jr., Esquire Montgomery County Legal Aid Conner 4 Wetterhahn, P.C.
107 E. Main Street 1747 Pennsylvania Avenue, NW Norristown, PA 19401 Washington, D.C.
20006 i
s e
g
o I
Docket 4 Service Section Timothy R. S. Campbell, Director l
U. S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission Department of Emergency Services Washington, D.C.
20555 - (3 copies) 14 East Biddle Street West Chester, PA 19380 l
Mr. Robert L. Anthony l
103 Vernon Lane, Box 186 Director Moylan, PA 19065 Pennsylvania Emergency Management Agency Basement, Transportation 4 Safety Building i
David Wersan, Esquire Harrisburg, PA 17120 Assistant Consumer Advocate Office of Consumer Advocate Jay M. Gutierrez, Esquire 1425 Strawberry Square U. S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission Harrisburg, PA 17120 Region 1 631 Park Avenue Atomic Safety 4 Licensing Board Panel King of Prussia, PA 19406 U. S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission l
Washington, D.C.
20553 Phyllis Zitzer l
Limerick Ecology Action l
Mr. Frank R. Romano P.O. Box 761 61 Forest Avenue 762 Queen Street Ambler, PA 19002 Pottstown, PA 19464 I
Zori G. Ferkin, Esquire Charles W. Elliott, Esquire l
Governors' Energy Council Counsel for Limerick Ecology Action P.O. Box 8010 325 N.10th Street 1
1625 N. Front Street Easton, PA 18042 Harrisburg, PA 17105 E. H. Kelly Mr. Thomas Gerusky, Director Senior Resident Inspector Bureau of Radiation Protection U. S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission Department of Environmental Resources P.O. Box 47 Fulton Bank Building, 5th Floor Sanatoga, PA 19464 Third 4 Locust Streets Harrisburg, PA 17120 Spence W. Perry, Esquire Associate General Counsel FEMA, Room 840 500 C Street, SW Washington, D.C.
20472 Q
,l. />
. //
n j 3 / / 0 7:! Q.
l Eugene <J. Bradley j
l Attorney for
/
l Philadelphia Electric Company 2301 Market Street l
Philadelphia, PA 19101 i
l
.