ML20215P014

Requests Remittance of Fee for Review of Modified Sys & for Resolution of Final Action on Containment Vent & Purge Testing & Operations,In Response to 860919 Request for Further Clarification of Listed Concerns from

ML20215P014
Person / Time
Site:	Farley
Issue date:	11/05/1986
From:	Holloway C NRC OFFICE OF ADMINISTRATION (ADM)
To:	Mcdonald R ALABAMA POWER CO.
References
NUDOCS 8611100225
Download: ML20215P014 (4)

Text

.

NOV 5 1986 Docket Nos. 50-348 and 50-364 Alabama Power Company

, . ATTN: Mr. R. P. Mcdonald Senior Vice President 600 North 18th Street P.O. Box 2641 Binningham, AL 35291-0400 Gentlemen:

Your September 19, 1986 letter requested further clarification of issues raised in your June 11,1986-letter and elaborated on why your Company '

. feels that the $4,402 billed for an April 19, 1985 submittal for Farley 1 and 2. containment venting and purging and leakage testing is not.:

appropriate. Your June 11 letter stated that the April 19, 1985 submittal merely responded to a January 31, 1985 request by NRC for information and, therefore, the submittal was not an amendment,.

exemption, relief or other related approval request. -In your September 19 letter. you stated that:

1. The April 19 submittal was merely a notification to NRC that the January 31, 1985 NRC request to propose Technical Specifications (TS) for leak testing is considered a backfit requirement and as such should be pursued in that manner and that neither 10 CFR 170.12(c) nor 170.21 applies to backfit activities.

The NRC's May 17, 1984 Safety Evaluation was for Alabama Power

~

2.

Company's(APC) November 24, 1982 request for which APC paid a Class 11 fee. Since this request preceded the rule change that became effective on June 20, 1984, it is not subject to the revised fee rule of June 20,1984.

3. The April -19 backfit letter cannot be tied to the November 24, 1982 submittal that merely submitted administrative changes--one of which was to reflect the "as built" plant utilizing 8 inch valves and not the 18 inch valves specified in the TS which was made at NRC's request.

4. The May 17, 1984 Safety Evaluation should not have included contain-ment vent and purging as an open issue because such was inappropriate and unrelated.

5. The May 17, 1984 Safety Evaluation was " docketed for Unit No. 1 only." Therefore, if NRC insists on fees for the April 19, 1985 submittal, only that portion attributable to Unit No.1 is charge-able.

8611100225 861105 8 DR ADOCK 0500

r. '  ; . . 1; t . t

.ye.

4

-/

V . ~

MV 5 1986 54 2

s:

+%

Our responses that follow will be in the order of'your concerns listed i

-above beginning with the statement that you do not view the April 19 submittal as an application or other approval under 170.12(c) or 170.21 ,

but rather a response to an NRC request for' data, and a statement of '

. your position that the January 31, 1985 request for leakage testing TS is an NRC backfit requirement.

, 1. It is-the NRC staff's position that it was erroneous to treat the.

I April 19, 1985 submittal as the one subject to fees in that the O submittals at issue are really those dated September 30 and , -

October 30, 1981, in which you proposed a modified system using 8 '

inch valves (to replace the 18 inch valves) with continuous purging and with no TS for leakage testing of these valves.or for actions when the valves are inoperable. Consequently, the NRR review staff '

have assessed fees based on the fee requirements of 10 CFR 170.22 of the March 23, 1978 regulation for your. September 30 and - ,

October 30, 1981 submittals, as supplemented by later submittals dated December 20, 1983, April 19, 1985 and January 17, 1986.' H Based on this reassessment, it has been determined that a Class IV fee of $12,300 and a duplicate Class I fee of $400 are appropriate-for the review of the modified system and related issues because it ,

involved more than a single safety issue. The resolution of the issue.and agreement on TS were completed on June 19, 1986. Conse-quently, the sum of $12,700 is the final and appropriate fee. Any  ;

review of the TS for leakage and operability actions relating to the purge valves will be based on actual costs and will be in accordance with the revised Part 170 that became effective on June 20, 1984. '

2. We agree with your position in item 2. Reference to the May 17, 1984 Safety Evaluation report was only to relate that the NRR review staff considered the modified 8 inch velvt: system as acceptable to replace the 18 inch valve systep, but the use of the -

8 inch valve system for continuous containment venting and purging remained an open issue to be resolved to NRC's satisfaction. It .

was not intended to have any fee implication or other relationship- 5 -

to the April 19, 1985 submittal. '

q

3. The April 19,1985 and other letters are related to the November 24, 1982 submittal (which was for TS changes to reflect ,

the use of the 8 inch valves rather than the TS specified 18 inch valves). The issue of continuous purging of containment with 8 1 inch valves open and 48 inch valves closed and wit Mut the TS on '

valve leakage ~ testing and actions when the 8 inch or 48 inch valves were rendered inoperable had not been resolved with NRC. The fact that NRC requests TS or other data to resolve a safety or potential safety problem does not render an application or other submittal '

9 ,,w- - - , - + --.*+.-m.r r.-emq-gm w-e- - - * -#- o ,

3y- m- - -- ~9, -9 q- - + - , y -,--% -

g

M, f

'q 3 NOV. 5 1986 s

at N , exempt.from' fees. Under the provisions of-Part 170, if a TS~ change .

'y~~ is requested by NRC to simplify ~ or clarify the license or TS for sk NRC's convenience, and has little or no safety significance, Teis are not charged. This is not the case here; ;herefore, fees are applicable to the safety reviews 'needed to resolve this safety significant issue.

.E.

c 4. While your. November.24,1982 application included administrative TS.

..- changes to reflect the replacement of the'18 inch mini-purge valves b with the 8 inch system to satisfy License Condition 2.C(17) for Unit No. 2, you took the position that continuous venting of the

. containment to the outside atmosphere through the 8 inch valves was required to ensure ready entry Lto the containment buildir.g and that-this met'NRC's requirements on the issue. The NRR review staff do not agree.- 'It-is their position that this is not simply ari administrative matter as might be inferred from your response.

The NRC's Branch Technical Position (CSB 6-4) was that plant (3 derigns should-not rely on the use of containment purge and' vent systems on a routine, continuous basis to keep temperature or e ,

radiation at acceptable levels. All of this stems from NRC's.1978 d- '

concern that the Millstone 1 and Salem 1 events would not be 4*p repeated (i.e., the automatic high radiation closure of. purge

&3 ,

valves'at these plants was overridden by operators). In addition, 4 as' data was gathered and analyzed, it was-determined by the NRC a/ , .

staff that provisions should be made for. testing.the leakage rate of the isolation valves during reactor operations without shutdown.

JJ 'q Therefore, a total agreement on the goal for purging concerns as started in 1978 'with a final position on August 5,1981, had not been resolved by your proposed November 24, 1982 TS changes for 8 inch valves that was approved on May.17, 1984. These NRC concerns about continuous purge operation as well as about the TS on leakage testing and actions during periods of valve inoperability remained open. - Consequently, like in other situations, it is standard NRC practice to document any remaining issues on the basic subject in the Safety Evaluation that deals with any portion of that subject.

, 5. , The Class II fee charged for the November 24, 1982 application, as

$ supplemented by submittal dated March 23, 1984 and approved on May 17, 1984, was correctly charged for Unit No. 2 only. The issue of containment vent and purge operation and leakage testing relates p to both units and has been discussed for both units in your letters as well as NRC's letters to you on the subject.

In closing, it is requested that your Company remit the sum of $12,700

% for the review of the modified system and for resolution of a final '

( 1 action on containment vent and purge testing and operations for

}:3 , farley Unit Nos.1 and 2. Once the fee is paid, we will notify the Office of Resource Management to cancel the remaining portion of Invoice k

I j

t-4 NOV 5 1986 i )

)

4 No. E0588 for the April 19,1985 submittal. Your application fe" the incorporation of TS for leakage testing and actions during peritds when the valves are inoperable should include the remittance of the $150 application fee required by the current Part 170. .

We hope this letter is responsive to all of your concerns. We will consider the fee issue closed once your check for $12,700 is received by us. s, Sincerely, sgned c, James Honoway, Jr.

C. James Holloray, Jr., Director License Fee Management Staff Office of Administration DISTRIBUTION: ,

PDR LPDR ",

f RegrDocket' File w/cy of f 9/19/86 ltr PNorry, ADM EReeves, PAD-2 RSmith, OGC DDandois,RM/A i MRodriguez,RM/A CJHolloway RMDiggs LFMS Appl. Am. Act. M/P File LFMS R/F DW/RMD/ Alabama 4 0A /

OFFICE :LFMS:ADM  : PAD-  :  :  :

. ___... : :____  : LFMS:

. _____ ADM/____::

SURNAME : p :ERe :CJ4c1 ay :  :  :  :

__...____:_..________:___.....____:._L ...___:___.._______: ___________: ___..______:

0 ATE :11/M/86 :11/d/86 :11// /86  :  :  :  :

. . s

.. ,. . mesmomessess 1

, , Alettems Power company . J

. a00 North 1ath Street l Post OfIce Son 2641 Sirmingham. Alsteema 35291 i Telephone 205 7834090

)

R. P. Mcdonald Senior Vse President Flintridge Building ggggg IW 5:stvn o . t' . '. .s

l l

September 19, 1986 Docket Nos. 50-348 50-364

'85 0CT -3 PI :03 Director, Office Mf Administration -,'"r-""Y h i ' '

U. S. Nuclear Regulatory Comission Washington, D.C. 20555 Attention: Ms. Patricia G. Norry Gentlemen:

Joseph M. Farley Nuclear Plant - Units 1 and 2 NRC Invoice for Review of Part 50 Applications By letter of June 11, 1986, Alabama Power Company appealed charges invoiced for NRC review of an April 19, 1985 submittal regarding containment vent and purging. On July 31, 1986 the NRC denied this appeal based on a subsequent review of the issues by the Office of Nuclear Reactor Regulation (ONRR)

Staff. Alabama Power Company takes exception to this second review.in that the rationale given by the NRC does not address the basis cited for#the appeal and is an extension of the fee provisions of 10CFR170 to unrelated NRC activities. Specific Alabama Power Company concerns are provided below.

1. -The April 19, 1985 Alabama Power Company submittal was not an amendment, exemption, relief or other related approval request. _

That submittal was merely a notification to the NRC that their activities regarding this issue were considered to be a backfit request and, as such, should be pursued by the NRC in that manner.

Neither 10CFR170.12(c) nor 10CFR170.21 apply to backfit activities.

2. The July 31, 1986 NRC appeal denial cited a May 17, 1984 evaluation for Unit 2 in which containment vent and purging was considered an open issue. This evaluation was performed in responsa to an Alabama Power Company November 24. 1982 administrative Technical Specification change request. The 10CFR170 provisions cited by the NRC, however, were issued Ay 21, 1984. Thus, they are not applicable for an issue in which NRC closure was granted May 17, 1984. All charges related to the original November 24, 1982 submittal were thus sub, ject to the previous 10CFR170 provisions; namely, the $1200 administrative fee paid at the time of submittal. n

" WP

1 .

3 p . , , . , . ..

i 3 . .,

'I -

. ' Ms. Patricia"G. Norry September 19, 1986 U. S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission Page 2

3. . ONRR arguments that tie the November 24, 1982 submittal to the April 19, 1985 backfit letter are tenuous. The November 24,1982 submittal did not address containment vent and purging. It merely submitted administrative changes, one of which was to reflect the as-built condition of the plant utilizing 8-inch valves net 18-inch valves as the Technical Specifications stated. Additionally, the change from 18-inch to 8-inch valves had been made at the request of the NRC. The NRC connent about containment vent and purging i remaining an open issue was considered by Alabama Power Company as  ;

i not only inappropriate for inclusion in the May 17, 1984 NRC SER '

but also unrelated to the original request.

4. It s)ould be noted that the May 17, 1984 NRC SER was docketed for Unjt1only. Thus, if the NRC is successful in its pursuit of the

@ feeerges based on item 3 above, then only that portion .

attributable to Unit 1 should be specified.

In simmary, Alabama Power Company considers the continuing NRC insistence on the applicability of 10CFR170.12(c) and 10CFR170.21 fees to be mjustified.

Additionally, it is felt that the NRC did not provide in its July 31, 1986 appeal denial any justification for its determination. It merely restated the issues without addressing their direct relationships to the provisions

of 10CFR170. Alabama Power Company therefore requests that a clarification be provided to address all issues raised in this and the June 11, 1986 letter.

In order to separate the administrative accounting for this issue from the technical arguments, enclosed is a check for $4,613.00 to cover the remaining balance on invoice No. E0588 through September 23, 1986. Although payment is being made, this matter is still considered to be under protest.

If you have any questions, please feel free to contact me. Your personal attention in this matter is requested.

Respectfully submitted, ALABAMA P0 DMPANY R. P. Mcdonald '

RPM / JAR: dst-D-T.S.5 Enclosure cc: Mr. L. B. Long Dr. J. N. Grace Mr. E. A. Reeves Mr. W. H. Bradford r

Mr. C. J. Holloway, Jr.

Ms. J. M. Rodriguez l

'