ML20196C826
| ML20196C826 | |
| Person / Time | |
|---|---|
| Site: | FitzPatrick  |
| Issue date: | 11/29/1988 |
| From: | Labarge D Office of Nuclear Reactor Regulation |
| To: | |
| Shared Package | |
| ML20196C833 | List: |
| References | |
| IEIN-85-071, IEIN-87-071, NUDOCS 8812080099 | |
| Download: ML20196C826 (10) | |
Text
'
7590-01 UNITED STATES NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSION JAMES A. FIT 7 PATRICK NtlCLEAR POWER PLANT DOCKET NO. 50-333 NOTICE OF, CONSIDERATION OF ISSUANCE OF AMENDMENT TO FACILITY OPERATING LICENSE AND PROPOSED NO SIGNIFICANT HAZARDS CONSIDERATION DETERMINATION AND OPPORTUNITY FOR HEARING The U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission (the Commissioni is considering issuance of an amendment to Facility Operating License No. DPR-59, issued to the Power Authority of the State of New York (the licensee), for operation of James A. FitzPatrick Nuclear Power Plant, located in Oswego Ununty, New York.
By application dated November 9, 1938, the licensee reauested that the primary containment leak rate test requirements described in Technical Specification ITS) Section 4.7. A.2.a(10) and Section 4.7 A.2.f be amended for the 1988 refueling outace on an emergency basis under the prcvisions of 10 CFR 50.91(6 )( 5). The application stated that these TS changes were necessary to allow plant startup from the 1988 refueling outage without performing a Type A primary containment integrated leak rate test (ILRT) or a Type A, B, or C leak rate test (LRT) following replacement of the high pressure coolant in.iection (HPCI) system turbine exhaust line manual block valve, as explained below.
Section 4.7.A.2.a(10) of the TS and Section !!!.A.6(b) of Appendix J to 10 CFR Part 50 require that if two consecutive periodic Type A tests (ILRTs) fail to meet the acceptance criteria, a Type A test must be performed at each plant shutdown for refueling or aporoximately every 18 months, whichever occurs first, until two consecutive Type A tests meet the acceptance criteria.
When it was determined that the cause of the failure of tests, conducteo in
~
SG12090099 831129 PDR ADOCK 05000333 P
?
-?-
1982, 1985 and 1987, to meet the acceptance criteria for the "As Found" condition was due to excessive combined leakage from several containment isolation valves, the licensee concluded that the most effective approach to eliminate the excessive leakage was to implement a Corrective Action Plan (CAP) using guidance given in Information Notice 85-71 dated August 22, 1985.
In this CAP the licensee determined that 33 containment isolation valves, which previously were identified as having excessive leakage, should be replaced (21 during the 1988 refueling outage and 12 during the 1990 refueling outage). The 12 valves scheduled to be replaced during the 1990 refueling outage have acceptable leakage rates based on the tests perfomed during the 1988 refueling outage.
As part of the CAP, the licensee replaced the HPCI turbine exhaust line manual block valve to the suppression chamber (23-HPI-11). TS 4.7.A.2.f and Fection IV.A of 10 CFR Part 50 Appendix J require that following replacement of I
a component which is part of the primary containment boundary, either a Type A, Type B, or Type C LRT, as applicable for the area affected, must be conducted and the appropriate acceptance criteria met. Since an isolatable volume for the resulting welds on the primary containment side of the valve could not be attained, the licensee conducted 100% radiography and dye penetrant tests on the welds to verify the structural integrity of the welds, in lieu of a Type A, B, or C test.
Based on an evaluation of the licensee's CAP, the alternate tests perfomed to ensure system integrity, and the implementation of an improved valve maintenance program, an exemption to the requirements of Section
!!I.A.6(b) and Section IV.A of Appendix J to 10 CFR Part 50 was issued to the licensee by letter dated November 16, 1988.
The exemption was noticed on November 25, 1988 (53 FR 47784).
)
i When it was recognized that the licensee had inadvertently failed to identify that a TS amendment would be required in additien to the exemption, the licensee submitted the necessary amendment recuest dated November 9, 1988.
Based on an evaluation o'f the amendment application (which is virtually identical to the exemption), a temporary waiver of compliance from the provisions of TS Section 4.7.A.2.a(10) and Section 4.7.A.2.f was issued by the NRC staff to the licensee by [[letter::JPN-88-063, Comment on Proposed Rule 10CFR26 Re Fitness for Duty Program.Util Has Constitutional Concerns Re Proposed Random Testing Which Should Be Fully Addressed Prior to Rule Being Promulgated.Endorses NUMARC & EEI Comments|letter dated November 18, 1988]]. This allowed plant startup from the refueling outage without comp 1:ance with these TS requirements pending the NRC staff's review of the licensee's amendment request.
In order to complete its review in an expeditious manner, yet allow for pubW comment, the NRC is processing the licensee's amendment proposal on an exigent basis under the provisions of 10 CFR 50.91(a)(6).
Before issuance of the proposed license amendment, the Comission will have made findings required by the Atomic Energy Act of 1954, as amended (the Act) and the Comission's regulatiors.
The Comission has made a proposed determination that the amendment request involves no significant hazards consideration. Under the Comission's regulations in 10 CFR 50.92, this means that operation of the facility in accordance with the proposed amendment would not (1) involve a significant increase in the probability or consequences of an accident previously evaluated; or (2) create the possibility of a new or different kind of accident from any accident previously evaluated; or (3) involve a significant reduction in a margin of safety.
These proposed changes do not increase the probability or consequences of an accident previously evaluated. The containment leakage rates assumed in
1
.4.
l the Tinal Safety Analysis Report (FSAR) require that the valves which perfom containment isolation functions, as well as the primary containment itself, exhibit superior leak rate characteristics. When the licensee found that the limit was frequen'tly being exceeded, a CAP was initiated. The CAP involved a detailed analysis of the causes for exceeding the allowable limit, determination that the primary cause was valve seat leakage, identification of the valves which were causino the problems, detemination of the best method to correct the problem valves, and implementation of the resulting plan to ensure that the leak limits are not exceeded in the future.
It was detemined that over time some of these valves exhibited gradual degradation to the point where their cutbined seat leakage rate, when added to the leakage rate resulting from the previous Tyoo A test, caused the limit to be exceeded.
This resulted ir. the determination that many valves needed to be replaced, some during the 1988 refueling outage and other during the 1990 refueling outage. All of these valves were tested prior to the end of the outage with satisfactory results. Using this program, the integMty of the primary containment has been restored so that it is reasonable to assume that the design leakage rate limits of the FSAR are satisfied without the need to perfom a Type A test at the increased frequency. Therefore, the probability or consequence of an accident previously considered is not increased.
With respect to the replacement of the HPCI exhaust inboard manual block valve (23-HPI-11), the valve body and piping are part of the containment pressure boundary.
The TS change allows installation of the valve without performina a leakage test on the welds connecting the valve to the containment
~-
Instead, 100% radicaraphy of the welds ensures the structural integrity of the wel.ds and a dye penetrant examination of the surface of the weld ensures that any surface flaws which could lead to leakage paths are detected. Since the valve is normally open, remains open under accident conditions, and the structural integrity of the containment pressure boundary associated with the valve is assured, no change is made to the probability of occurrence or consequences of any accident previously evaluated.
These proposed changes will not create the possibility of a new or different kind of accident from any accident previously evaluated.
No plant operability, maintenance, or system design or functional requirements will be altered oy these proposals.
The function of the primary containment is not affected by deletion of the additional 18-month Type A test. The containment shall still isolate, if required to mitigate the consequences of design basis accidents, to maintain site boundary doses below the required limits. Consequently, this chance, as proposed, would not cr!! ate the possibility of any new or different type of accident.
Valve 23-HPI-11 has no active safety function, since it remains open during normal and accident conditions, since alternate testing has been performed which ensures the integrity of the walds, and since it was replaced in kind with another valve, there is no change in the FSAR considerations for the replacement and no new or different kind of accident is created.
The proposed amendment will not involve a significant reduction in a margin of safety. A properly designed and implemented CAP in accordance with Information Notice 87-71, dated August 22, 1985, is superior to performing
6 Type A tests at an increasso frequency. The licensee has implemented the CAP to improve the long-term leakage characteristic of the FitzPatrick containment.
This CAP was implemented ln lieu of perfoming a Type A test during the 1988 outage and results in no reduction of any margin of safety.
Valve 23-HPI-11 has no operational or accident mitigstion functions.
Perfomance of 100% radiography in lieu of a pneumatic leak rate test on the welds it conservative. The construction code (ANSI B-31.1-1967) allows for 100% radiography as an alternative to leakage testing when such testino is not practicable.
The staff has reviewed the licensee's no significant hazards consideration determination. Based on the review and the above discussion, the <taff proposes to determine that the changes do not involve a significant hazards consideraticn.
The Comission is seeking public coments on this proposed detemination.
Any coments received within 15 days after the date of publication of this notice will be considered in making any final determination.
Written coments may be submitted by mai! to the Rules and Procedures Branch, Division of Rules and Records, Office of Administration and Resources Management U. S. Nuclear Regulatory Comission, Washington, D.C.
20555, and should cite the publication date and page number of the FEDERAL REGISTER n0tice.
Written coments may also be delivered to Room 4000, Maryland National Bank Rufiding, 7735 Old Georgetown Road, Bethesda, Maryland from 7:30 a.m. to 4: 15 p.m.
Copies of written coments received may be examined at the NRC Public Document Room, Gleman Bulding. ?120 L Street, N.W., Washington 0.C.
7.
The filing of requests for hearing and petitions for leave to intervene is discussed below.
RyJanuary 9,1989,the licensee may file a reouest for a hearing with respect to issuance of the amendment to the subject facility operating license and any person whose interest may be affected by this proceeding and who wishes to participate as a party in the proceeding must file a written request for hearing and a petition for leave to intervene. Recuests for a hearing and petitions for leave to intervene shall be filed in accordance with the Commission's "Rule of Practice for Domestic Licensing Proceedings" in 10 CFR Part 2.
If a request for a hearing or petition for leave to intervene is filed by the above date, the Commission or an Atomic Safety and Licensing Roard, desigrated by the Commission or by the Chairman oV the Ator.ic Safety and Licensing Board Panel, will rule on the request and/or petition; and the Secretary or the designated Atomic Safety and Licensing Board will issue a notice of hearing or an appropriate order.
As recuired by 10 CFR 2.714, a petition for leave to intervene shall set forth with particularity the interest of the petitioner in the proceeding, and how that interest may be affected by the results of the proceeding. The petition should specifically explain the reasons why intervention should be permitted with particular reference to the following factors:
(1) the nature of the petitioner's right under the Act to be made a party to the proceeding; (2) the nature and extent of the petitioner's property, financial, or other interest in the proceeding; and (3) the possible effect of any order which may l
l be entered in the proceeding on the petitioner's interest. The petition should also identify the specific aspect (s) of the subject matter of the
~
J i
o 8
proceeding as to which petitioner wishes to intervene. Any person who has filed a petition for leave to intervene or who has been admitted as a party may amend the petitian withcot requesting leave of the Board up to fifteen (15) days prior to the first prehearing conference scheduled in the preceeding, but such an amended petition must satisfy the specificity regairements described above.
Not later than fifteen (15) days prior to the first prehearing conference scheduled in the proceeding, a petitioner shall file a supplement to the petition to intervene, which must include a list of the contentions that are sought to be litigated in the matter, and the bases for each contention set forth with reasonable specificity. Contentions shall be limited to matters within the scope of the amendment under consideration. A petitioner who fails to file such a supplement which satisfies these requirements with respect to at least one contention will not be permitted to participate as a party.
Those cernitted to intervene become parties to the proceeding, subject to any limitations in the order granting leave to intervene, and have the opportunity to participate fully in the conduct of the hearing, including the opportunity to present evidence and cross-examine witnesses.
If the amendment is issued before the expiration of 30 days, the Comission will make a final determination on the issue of no significant hazards considerations.
If a hearing is requested, the final detemination will serve to decide when the hearing is held.
If the final detemination is that the amendment request involves no significant hazards considerations, the Comission may issue the amendment and
?
make it effective, notwithstanding the request for a hearing. Any hearing held would take place after issuance of the amendment.
If the final determination is that the amendment request involves significant hazards considerations, any hearing held would take place before the issuance of any amendment.
Normally, the Comission will not issue the amendment until the expiration of the 15-day notice period. However, should circumstances change during the notice period, such tha': failure to act in a timely way would result, for example, in deratino o' shutdown of the facility, the Comission may issue the license amenchnent before the expiration of the 15-day notice period, provided that its final determination is that the amendment involves no significant hazards censiderations.
The final detemination will consider all public and State coments received.
Should the Comission take this action, it will publish a notice c.f issuance, The Comistion expects that the need to take this action will occur very infrequently.
A request for a hearing or a petition for leave to intervene must be filed with the Secretary of the C:mnission, U. S. Nuclear Regulatory Comission, Washington, D.C.
20555, Attentio1:
Docketing and Service Branch, or may be delivered to the Comission's Publii: Document Room, Gelman Building, 2120 L Street, N.W., Washington. 0.C., by the above date. Where petitions are filed during the last ten (10) days of tie notice period, it is recuested that the petitioner promptly so infor n the C'mnission by a toll-free telephone call to Western Union at 1-(800)325-6000(inMissouri 1-(800)342-6700). The Western Union operaf 07 should be given Datagram Identification Number 3737 and the following message addressed to Robert A. Capra:
petitioner's name and
10 telephone number; date petition was mailed; plant name; and publication date and page number of this FEDERAL RE3ISTER notice. A copy of the petition should also be sent to the Office of the General Counsel, U. S. Nuclear Regulatory Consiission,' dashington, D.C.
20555, and to Charles M. Pratt.
10 Columbus Circle, New York, New York 10019.
l Nontimely filings of petitions for leave to intervene, amended petitions, supplemental petitions and/or recuests for hearing will not be entertained absent a detemination by the Comission, the presiding officer or the presiding Atomic Safety and Licensing Board that the petition and/or request should be granted based upon a balancing of the factors specified in 10 CFR 2.714(a)(1)(1).(v) and 2.714(d).
For further details with respect to this action, see the appifcation r
amendment dated November 9,1988, which is available for public inspectic at the Comission's Public Occument Room, Gelman Building, 2120 L Street, N.W.,
Washington 0.C.
20555, and at the Local Public Document Room, Reference and f
Doctanents Department. Penefield Library, State University of New York, Oswego, New York 131?0.
Dated at Rockville, Maryland, this 29th day of fovmber,1988.
t FOR THE NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMIS$10N j
David E. LaBarge, Proiect Manager Proiect Directorate I-1 Division of Reactor Projects, I/!!
Office of Nuclear Peactor Regulation
i Novmbsr 29, 1988 Docket No. 50-333 DISTRIBUTION Locket tTie*
NRC POR Local PDR POI-1 Rdg SVarga BBoger Mr. John C. Brons CVogan RCapra Executive Vice President, Nuclear Generation DLaBarge OAC Power Authority of the State of New York DHagan EJordan 123 Main Street BGrimes TBarnhart (4)
White Plains, New York 10601 WJones E8utcher ACRS (10)
GPA/PA
Dear Mr. Brons:
ARM /LFM8 JJohnson, RI
SUBJECT:
JAMES A. FITZPATRICK NUCLEAR POWER PLANT - PRIMARY CONTAINMENT LEAK RATE TESTS (TAC 71135)
)
The NRC staff has forwarded the enclosed "Notice of Consideration of Issuan")
of Amendment to Facility Operating License and Proposed No Significant Hazards
]
i Consideration Determination" to the OffD 1 of the Federal Register for l
publication.
This notice relates to your November 9, 1988 application to eliminate two tests required by plant Technical Specifications during the 1988 refueling outage.
l These tests include, the requirement to perfonn a Type A primary containment I
integrated leak rate test and the requirement to perform a Type A. Type B, or Type C Leak Rate Test following replacerent of the turbine exhaust line manual block valve in the high pressure coolant injection system.
In order to allow l
plant restart without completing these tests, the NRC issued a Temporary Waiver l
of Compliance from the requirements of these two Technical Specifications on i
i November 18, 1988. That waiver will renain in effect until the staff completes its review of your application.
Sincerely, Scott Alexander McNeil for David E. LaBarge, Pro.iect Manager Project Directorate I-I Division of 0* actor Prcjacts,1/II Office of Nuclear Reactor Regulation
Enclosure:
As stated cc w/ enclosure See next page (Contain Leakrate Tests 71135) de s
s i.
OFG :PDI.I
.....:.......,.d.::PDI.1
.:. p......:.......................:............:............
- PDI-I j
- 0GL, -
NAME :CYogan ')
- DlaRa oe:vr :RCapra
.....:...7.......:............:............:.....,.......:............:............:...........
DATE :11/0/88 11/28/88
- 11/S8/88
- 11/ </A8 OFFICIAL RECORD COPY gg b y
- Mr. John C. Brons James A. FitzPatrick Nuclear Fower Authority of the State of New York Power Plant cc:
Mr. Gerald C. Goldstein' Ms. Donna Ross Assistant General Counsel New York State Energy Office Power Authority of the State 2 Empire State Plaza of New York 16th Floor 10 Columbus Circle Albany, New York 12223 New York, New York 10019 P.esident Inspector's Office U. S. Nuclear Regulatory Comission Legional Administrator, Region !
Post Office Box 136 U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Consnission t.ycoming, New York 13093 475 Allendale Road King of Prussia, Pennsylvania 19406 Mr. Radford J. Converse Mr. A. Klausman Resident Manager Senior Vice President - Appraisal Jarres A. FitzPatrick Nuclear and Compliance Services Power Plant Power Authority of the State Post Office Box 41 of New York l
t.ycoming New York 13093 10 Columbus Circle New York, New York 10019 Mr. J. A. Gray, Jr.
Mr. George Wilverding, Mu ager Director Nuclear Licensing - BWR Nuclear Safety Evaluation Power Authority of the State Power Authority of the State of New York of New York 123 Main Street 123 Main Street White Plains, New York 10601 White Plains, New York 10601 Mr. Robert P. Jones. Supervisor Mr. R. E. Beedle Town of Scriba Vice President Nuclear Support R. D. d4 Pcwer Authority of the State Oswego, New York 13126 of New York 123 Main Street Mr. J. P. Bayne, Pre?ident White Plains New York 10601 Power Authority of the State of New York Mr. S. S. Zulla 10 Colurbus Circle Vice President Nuclear Ene'neering New York, New York 10019 Power Authority of the State of New York Mr. Richard Patch 123 Main Street Quality Assurance Superintendent White Plains, New York 10601 James A. FitzPatrick Nuclear Power Plant Mr. R. Burns Post Office Box 41 Vice President Nuclear Operations t.ycoming, New York 13093 Po.ser Authority of the State of New York Charlie Donaldton, Esquire 123 Main Street Assistant Attorney General White Plains, New York 10501 New York Department of Law 120 Broadway New York, New York 10271
7590-01 UNITED STATES NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMIS$10N "JAMES A. FIT 7 PATRICK NUCLEAR POWER PLANT DOCKET NO 50-333 NOTICE'0(CONSIDERATIONOFISSUANCEOFAMENDMENTTO FACILITY OPERATING LICENSE AND PROPOSED NO $1GNIFICANT HAZARDS CONSIDERATION DETERMINATION AND OPPORTUNITY FOR HEARING The U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Comission (the Comission) is considering issuance of an amendment to Facility Operating License No. OPR-59, issued to 1
l the Power Authority of the Stue of New York (the licensee), for operation of James A. FitzPatrick Nuclear Power Plant, located in Oswego County, New York.
By application dated November 9, 1988, the licensee reouested that the primary containment leak rate test requirements described in Technical Specification ITS) Section 4.7.A.2.a(10) and Section 4.7 A.2.f be amended for the 1988 refueling outace on an emergency basis under the provisions of 10 CFR l
50.91(a)(5).
The application stated that these TS changes were necessary to l
allow plant startup from the 1988 refueling outage without perfoming a Type A l
1 1
primary containment integrated leak rate test (!LRT) or a Type A B, or C leak rate test (LRTi following replacement of the high pressure coolant in.iection I
(RDCI) system turbine exhaust line manual block valve, as explained below.
l Section a.7.A.2.a(10) of the TS and Section !!!. A.6(b) of Appendix J to
(
10 CFR Part 60 recuire that if tvo consecutive periodic Typo A tests (ILRTs) fail to meet the acceptance criteria, a Type A test must be perfomed at each i
plant shutdown for refueling er approximately every 18 months, whichever occurs first, until two consecutive Type A tests meet the acceptance criteria.
When it was detemined tha'. the cause of the failure of tests, conducted in h~
1
-?-
1982, 1985 and 1987, to meet the acceptance criteria for the "As Found" condition was due to excessive combined leakage from several containment isolation valves, the licensee concluded that the most effective approach to eliminate the excessive leakage was to implement a Corrective Action Plan (CAP) using guidance given in Information Notice 85-71 dated August 22, 1985.
In this CAP the license detemined that 33 containment isolation valves, which previously were identified as having excessive leakage, should be replaced (21 during the 1988 refueling outage and 12 during the 1990 refueling outage). The 12 valves scheduled to be replaced during the 1990 refueling outage have acceptable leakage rates based on j
the tests performed during the 1988 refueling outage.
As part of the CAP, the licensee replaced the HPCI turbine exhaust line manual block valve to the suppression chamber (23-HPI-11). TS 4.7.A.2.f and Section IV.A of 10 CFR Part 50, Appendix J require that following replacement of a component which is part of the primary containment boundary, either a Type A.
Type B, or Type C LRT, as applicable for the area affected, must be conducted and the appropriate acceptance criteria met. Since an isolatable volume for the resulting welds on the primary containment side of the valve could not be attained.
Ae licensee conducted 100% radiography and dye penetrant tests on the welds to verify the structural integrity of the welds, in lieu of a Type A, B, or C test.
Based on an evaluation of the licensee's CAP, the alternate tests perfemed to ensure system integrity, and the implementation of an improved valve maintenance program, an exemption to th.: requirements of Section
!!!.A.6(b) and *>ection IV.A of Appendix J to 10 CFR Part 50 was issued to the l
licensee b.y letter dated November 16, 1988.
The exemption was noticed on l
November ?5, 1988 (53 FR 47784).
l
r s'
3 When it was re' cognized that the licensee had inadvertently failed to identify that a TS amendr'ent would be required in additien to the exemption, the licensee submitte'd the necessary amendment reauest dateo November 9,1988.
^
Based on an evaluation of the amendment application (ichich is virtually identical to the exemption), a temporary waiver of compliance from the provisions of TS Section 4.7.A.2.a(10) and Section 4.7.A.2.f was issued by the NPC steff to the licensee by la+ Mr dated November 18, 1988.
This allowed plant startup from the refueling outage without compliance with these TS requirements pending the NRC staff's review of the licensee's amendrent request.
In order to complete its review in an expeditious manner, yet allow for public comment, the NRC is processing the Ifeensee's amendment proposal on an exigent basis under the provisions of 10 CFR 50.91(a)(61 Before issuance of the proposed If eense amendment, the Comission will have made findings required by the Atomic Energy Act of 1954, as amended Ithe Acti and the Comission's regulations.
The Comission has made a proposed determination that the amendment request involves no significant hazards consideration. Under the Comission's regulations in 10 CFR 50.92, this means that operation of the facility in accordance with the proposed amendment would not (1) involve a significant l
increase in the probability or consequences of an accident previously evaluatedi or (2) create the possibility of a new or different kind of accident from any accident previously evaluatedt or (31 involve i significant reduction in a margin of safety.
These proposed changes do not increase the probability or consequences of an accident previously evaluated. The containment leakage rates assumed in l
i
\\
.4.
the Final Safety Analysis Report IFSAR) require that the valves which perfom containment isolatt'on functions, as well as the primary containment itself, exhibit superior leak rate characteristics. When the licena,ee found that the limit was frequently being exceeded, a CAP was initiated.
The CAP involved a detailed analysis of the causes for exceeding the allowable limit, determination that the primary cause was valve seat leakage, identification of the valves which were causino the problems, determination of the best method to correct the oroblem valves, and implementation of the resulting plan to ensure that the leak limits are not exceeded in the future.
It was detemirJd that over time some of these valves exhibited gradual degradation to the point where their combined seat leakage rate, when added to the leakage rate resulting from the previous Type A test, caused the limit to be exceeded. This*resulted in tae determination that many valves needed to de rer, laced, scee during the 1988 refueling outage and other during the 1990 refueling outage. All of these valves were tested prior to the end of the outage with satisfactory results. Using this program, the integrity of the primary containment has been restored so that it is reasonable to assume that the design leakage rate limits of the FSAR are satisfied without the need to perfom a Type A test at the increased frequency. Therefore, the probability or consequence of an accident previously considered is not increased.
With respect to the replacement of the HPCI exhaust inboard manual block valve (23 HPI-11), the valve body and piping are part of the containment pressure boundary. The TS change allows installation of the valve without performing a leakage test on the welds connecting the valve to the containment
~_
6
,9 5-k oenetration.
Instead,1004 radicarachy of the welds ensures the structural 7
integrity of the welds and a dye penetrant examination of the surface of the
[
weld ensures that any suNace flaws which could lead to leakage paths are detected. Since the'va'1ve is norms.lly open, remains open under accident f
conditions, and the structural integrity of the containment pressure boundary associated with the valve is assured, no change is made to the probability of occurrence or consequences of any accident previously evaluated.
These proposed changes will not create the possibility of a new or l
different kind of accident froer any accident previously evaluated. No plant operability, maintenance, or system design or functional requirements will be altered by these proposals, f
(
The function of the primary containment is not affected by deletion of
[
the additional 18-month Type A test. The containment shall still isolate, if reoutred to mitigate the consequences of design basis accidents, to maintain af ts boundary doses below the required limits. Consequently, this chance, as proposed, would not create the possibility of any new or different type of
- accident, i
Valve 23.HPI-11 has no active safety function, since it recains open during nomal and accident conditions, since alterna*e testing has been performed which ensures the integrity of the welds, and since it was replaced in kind with another valve, there is no change in the FSAR consideratione for the replacement and no new or different kind of accident is created.
The proposed amendment will not involve a significant reduction in a j
margin of safety. A pro M ely designed and implemented CAP in accordance with Infomation Ntice 87-71, dated August 22, 1985, is superior to perfoming l
l Type A tests at an. increased freque.tcy. The licensee has implemented the cap to improve the long-tsrm leakage characteristic of the FitzPatrick containment.
This CAP was implemented :n lieu of performing a Type A test during the 1988 outage and result 3 in nu reduction of any margin of safety.
Valve ?3-HP!-11 has no operational or accident mitigation functions.
Performance of 100% radiography in lieu of a pneumatic leak rate test on the welds is conservative. The construction code (ANSI B-31.1-1967) allows for 100% radiography as an alternative to leakage testing when such testino is not practicable.
The staff has reviewed the licensee's ne significant hazards consideration determination. Based on the review and the above discussion, the staff proposes to determine that the ch6nges do not involve a significant hazards consideration.
The Commission is seeking public comments on this proposed determination.
Any comments received within 15 days after the date of publication of this notice will be considered in making any final determination.
Written comments may be submitted by mail to the Rules and Procedures Branch, Division of Rules and Records, Office of Administration and Resources Management, U. S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission, Washington, D.C.
20555, and should citt the publication date and page number of the FEDERAL REGISTER notice.
Written comments may also be delivered te Room 4000, Maryland National Rank Building, 7735 Old Georgetown Road, Bethesda, Maryland from 7:30 a.m. to 4: 15 p.m.
Copies of written cannents received may be examined at the NRC Public Document Room, Gleman Bulding, 2120 L Street, N.W., Washington, D.C.
j Q
l l
.7.
The filing of reque.sts for hearing and petitions for leave to intervene is discussed below.
RyJanuary 9,1989,the licensee may file a reouest for a hearing with respect to issuance of the amendment to the subject facility operating license and any person whose interest may be affected by this proceeding and who wishes to participate as a party in the proceeding must file a written request for hearing and a petition for leave to intervene. Reouests fc hearing and petitions for leave to intervene shall be fited in accordance i the Comission's "Rule of Prectice for Domestic Licensing Proceedt.gs" in 10 CFR Part 2.
If a request for a hearing or petition for leave to intervene is filed by the above date, the Consnission or an Atomic Safety and Licensing Roard, designated by the Comission or by the Chairman of the Atomic Safety and I.icensing Board Panel, will rule on the request and/or petition; and the Secretary or the designated Atomic Safety and Licensina Board will issue a notice of hearing or an appropriate order.
As reouired by 10 CFR 2.714, a petition for leave to intervene shall set forth with particularity the interest of the petitioner in the proceeding, and how that interest may be affected by the results of the proceeding. The petition should specifically explain the reasons why intervention should be pe" with particular reference to the followinq factors:
(1) the nature of u petitioner's right under the Act to be made a party to the proceeding; (2) the nature and extent of the petitioner's property, financial, or other interest in the proceeding; ano (31 the possible effect of any order which may be entered in the proceeding on the petitioner's interest. The petition should also identify the specific aspect (s) of the subject matter of the a
.g.
proceeding as to which petitioner wishes to intervene. Any person who has filed a petition for leave to intervene or who has been a#ittted as a party may amend the petition without requesting leave of the Board up to fifteen (15) days prior to the first prehearing conference scheduled in the proceedir.g. but such an amended petttion must satisfy the specificity requirements described above.
Not later than fifteen (15) days prior to the first prehearing conference scheduled in the proceeding, a petitioner shall file a supplement to the petition to intervene, which must include e list of the contentions that are 4
q sought to be litigated in the matter, and the bases for each contention set forth with reasonable specificity. Contentions shall be limited to matters t
within the scope of the amendment under consideration. A petitioner who fails
{
to file such a supplement which satisfies these requirements with respect to I
at least one contention will not be pemitted to participate as a party.
Those permitted to intervene become parties to the proceeding, subject to any limitations in the order granting leave to intervene, and have the t
l opportunity to participate fully in the conduct of the hearing, including the opportunity to present evidence and cross. examine witnesses.
i If the amendment is issued before the expiration of 30 days, the Comission will make a final determination on the issue of no significant hazards cot'siderations.
?f a hearing is requested, the final determination will serve to decide when the hearing is held.
I i
If the final determination is that the ameneent request involves no significant hazards considerations, the Comission may issue the amendment and l
l
r-
.~
O
+^6 i
(
9 make it effective, notwithstanding the request for a hearitig. Any hearing held would take place after issuance of the amendment.
If the final detemination is that the amendment request involves significant hazards confiderations, any hearing held would take place before the issuance of any amendment.
Normally, the Connission will not issue the amendment until the expiration of the 15-day notice period. However, should circumstances change during the notice pe iod, such that failure to act in a timely way would result, for example, in deratino or shutdown of the facility, the Cownission may issue the license amendment before the expiration of the 15-day notice period, provided that its final detemination is that the amendment involves no significant hazards considerations. The final detemination will consider all public and State connents received. Should the Connission take this action, it will publish a notice of issuance. The Commission expects that the need to take this action will occur very infrequently.
A riNst for a hearing or a petition for leave to intervene must be filed with the Secretary of the Connisstor,, U. S. Nuclear Reculatory Consission. Washington. 0.C.
20555, Attention: Docketing and Service Branch, or may be delivered to the Connission's Public Document Room Gelman Building.
o 2120 L Street, N.W., Washington. 0.C., by the above date. Where petitions are filed during the last ten (10) days of the notice period, it is recuested that the petitioner promptly so infom the Connission by a toll-free telephone call to Western Union at 1-(600) 325-6000 (in Missouri 1-(800) 342-6700). The Western Union operator should be given Datagram Identification Number 3737 and the following message addressed to Robert A. 06pra: petitioner's name and
f.
telephone number; date petition was mailed; plant name; and publication date and page number o' this 'EDERAL REGISTER notice. A copy of the petition should also be sent to the Office of the General Counsel, U. S. Nuclear Regulatory Comission " W'ashington. 0.C.
20555, and to Charles M. Pratt, 10 Columbus Circle, New York, New York 10019.
Nontimely filings of petitions for leave to intervene, amended petitions, supplemental petitions and/or reouests for hearing will not be entertained absent a determination by the Comission. the presiding officer or the presiding Atomic Safety and Licensing Board that the petition and/or request should be granted based upon a balancing of the factors specified in 10 CFR 2.714(a)(1)(1)-(v) and 2.714(d).
For further details with respect to this action, see the application for amendment dated Novembr.r 9,1988, which is available for public inspection at the Comission's Public Document Room, Gelman Building, 2120 L Street, N.W.,
Washington. 0.C.
20555, and at the Loral Public Document Room, Reference and Documents Department, Penefield Lib.ary, State University of New York, Oswego, New York 131?6.
Dated at Rockville, Maryland, this 29th day of ovember,1988.
N FOR THE NUCLEAR REGin.ATORY COM ISSION
/
Y j
David E. LaBarge, Pro.iect Manager Project Directorate I-1 Division of Reactor Projects, I/!!
Office of Nuclear Peactor Regulation