ML17219A301

Forwards Justification for 861010 Request for Exemption to 10CFR50,App J,Paragraph III.D.2(b)(ii) & Addl Documentation Re NSHC in Support of Application for Amend to License DPR-67 Re Requirements for Testing of Containment Air Locks

ML17219A301
Person / Time
Site:	Saint Lucie
Issue date:	01/09/1987
From:	WOODY C O FLORIDA POWER & LIGHT CO.
To:	NRC OFFICE OF ADMINISTRATION (ADM)
References
L-86-9, NUDOCS 8701130269
Download: ML17219A301 (11)

Text

REGULATORYFORNATIONDISTRIBUTIONSY-N(RIDS).ACCESSlONNBR:8701130269DOC.DATE:87/Oi/OVNOTARIZED:NOFACIL:50-335St.LuciePlantiUnit1>FloridaPowerZcLightCo.AUTH.NANEAUTHORAFFILIATIONMOODY'.Q.FloridaPower8cLightCo.RECIP.NAI'lERECIPIENTAFFILIATIONRecordServicesBranch(DocumentControlDesk)DOCKET05000335

SUBJECT:

Forwardsjustificationfor861010requestforexemptionto10CFR50>AppJ~ParagraphIII.D.2(b)(ii)8caddidocumentationreNSHCinsupportofapplicationforamendtoLicenseDPR-67rerequirementsfortestingofcontainmentairlocks.DISTRIBUTIONCODE:A017DCOPIESRECEIVED:LTR+ENCLSIZE:TITLE:QRSubmittal:AppendJContainmentLeakRateTestingNOTES:RECIPIENTIDCODE/NAI'lEPNR-8ADTSPNR-8PEICSBPNR-8PDBLATQURIQNY>EPNR-8RSBINTERNAL:ADN/LFNBNRRBARADTSNRRPNR-8ADTSNRR/DSRO/RSIBCOPIESLTTRENCL1221011101111RECIPIENTIDCODE/NAI'1EPNR-8EBPMR-8FOBPMR-8PDSPD01PWR-8PEICSBELD/HDS208NRRPAR-AADTSEIB04COPIESLTTRENCL1115511111EXTERNAL:LPDRNSIC0305111NRCPDR02TOTALNU})BEROFCOPIESREQUIRED:LTTR25ENCL23

~11Ih4h'.'C<<i'-i<<.AC/h'"'}'Ih.,4I"4$<<v P.O.B4000,JUNOBEACH,FL33408-0420"gNUwY09lSAL-87-9U.S.NuclearRegulatoryCommissionDocumentControlDeskWashington,D.C.20555Gentlemen:Re:St.LucieUnit1DocketNo.50-335ContainmentAirLocksByletterL-86-412,datedOctober10,1986,FloridaPower&LightCompany(FPL)appliedforanamendmenttoFacilityOperatingLicenseDPR-67regardingsurveillancerequirementsfortestingofcontainmentairlocks.TheintentofthisproposedamendmentistobringtheSt.LucieUnitITechnicalSpecificationstothesameformasthoseofUnit2forairlocktesting.ByletterdatedNovember25,1986(E.G.TourignytoC.O.Woody),theNRCstatedthatthespecificexemptionincludedintheamendmentshouldbemadeinaccordancewith10CFR50.12.Thestaffalsorequestedadditionalinformationtoaddresseachfactorunder10CFR50.92(c),theNoSignificantHazardsConsideration.AttachmentIisthejustificationfortherequestedexemptionto10CFR50,AppendixJ,Paragraph111.D.2(b)(ii).AttachmentllisadditionaldocumentationregardingtheNoSignificantHazardsConsideration.Pleasecontactusifyouhaveanyquestionsaboutthissubmittal.Verytrulyyours,.WoodyroupVicePresidentNuclearEnergyCOW/EJW/gpAttachments(2)cc:Dr.J.NelsonGrace,Regionll,USNRCMr.AlanSchubert,FloridaDept.ofHealthandRehabilitativeServicesHaroldF.Reis,Esquiret8701130269870109PDRADOCK05000335IPPDRI~jPEOPLE...SERVINGPEOPLE

~v~Tl>>~U'Uh*v~I~fvIIhh'I~ItIUvv'theIit,~~~'~UIvIh~liCaII'Ihv'*kv~a5>>aalvUd~ifIvsI'a~'fUv'~fk"It,aIv~Iifw-"IIvh.IIII'hai~n-ItU.-~~hflfaIha~Ih>>V~III~II,A,'II~v'>>II'lIItIffvIIT"f>>v-'VU,lhlaavaUtgha.~I~hIa>>fyJ.Ivl~IvtifvftvvIIU>>II>>(~I~v'~~\~~

JUSTIFICATIONFORTHEREUESTEDEXEMPTIONSTO10CFR50APPENDIXJ10CFR50.12(a)(1)Inaccordancewith10CFR50.12(a)(1),theCommissionmaygrantexemptionsunderthefollowingcircumstances:(I)theactivitiestobeconductedareauthorizedbylaw,(IZ)operationwiththeexemptionwillnotpresentunduerisktothehealthandsafetyofthepublic,and(ZIZ)thecommondefenseandsecurityarenotendangered.Theevaluationstothesestandards,containedherein,areinaccordancewith10CFR50.12asrevisedbyfinalruledatedJanuary13,1986.I.TheReuestedExemtionsandtheActivitiesWhichWouldBeAllowedThereunderAreAuthorizedbLawTherearenootherprohibitionsoflawtoprecludetheactivitieswhichwouldbeauthorizedbytherequestedexemption.Therefore,theCommissionisauthorizedbylawtograntthisexemptionrequest.IZ.TheReuestedExemtionsWillNotPresentUndueRisktotheHealthandSafetofthePublicTheevaluationof"nounduerisk"considerssuchfactorsasthetypeofplantoperationcontemplated,thelengthoftimetheexemptionwouldbeineffect,theexistenceofalternativemeansofcomplianceorcompensatorymeasures,andothersafetyfactors.Theresultsoftheevaluationsconsideringthesefactorsarediscussedbelow.ContainmentAirLockTestinExemtionReuest10CFR50,AppendixJ,ParagraphIII.D.2(b)detailsthreeexplicitairlocktestingrequirements.IntheproposedamendmenttoSt.LucieUnit1,TechnicalSpecification4.6.1.3,itemsa,b,andccomplywithAppendixJrequirementswithoneexception.AppendixJ,ParagraphIII.D.2(b)(ii)requiresthat"Airlocksopenedduringperiodswhencontainmentintegrityisnotrequiredbytheplant'sTechnicalSpecificationsshallbetestedattheendofsuchperiodsatnotlessthanPa.".WhenevertheplantisinMode5or6CONTAINMENT>VESSELINTEGRITYisnotrequired.Therefore,ifanairlockisopenedduringeitheroftheseconditions,paragraph1ZZ.D.2(b)(ii)requiresthatanoverallairlockleakagetestatnotlessthanPabeconductedpriortoentryintoMode4.Thisrequirementisexcessivelyrestrictivesince.itrequiresaterminationofcontainmententrieswhilepreparingtoleaveMode5untiltheairlockthatwasopenedandoperatedin Mode5or6istestedpursuanttoparagraphIIZ.D.2(b)(ii).PrimaryContainmententriesduringMode5areimportanttoensurethatsurveillancerequirementsandminormaintenanceactivitiesarecompleted.TherequirementsofparagraphIIZ.DE2(b)(ii.)wouldapplyevenifthesixmonthtestingrequirementofparagraphZII.D.2(b)(i)hadbeensatisfied.SubsequentcontainmententrieswhileinMode5wouldrequireretestingoftheairlockuti.lized.AccesstocontainmentduringPeriodswhenCONTAINMENT.VESSELINTEGRITYisrequiredbyplantTechnicalSpecificationsisgovernedbyparagraphZIZ.D.2(b)(iii).TheexistingairlockdoorsaresodesignedthatafullpressuretestatPaofanentireairlockcanonlybeperformedafterstrongbacks(structuralbracing)havebeeninstalledontheinnerdoor.Thisisbecausethepressureexertedontheinnerdoorduringthetestisinadirectionoppositetothatofforceexperiencedduringapostulatedaccidentandthelockingmechanismsarenotdesignedtowi.thstandsuchreverseforces..Installingstrongbacks,performingthetest,andremovingthestrongbacks,isacumbersomeprocessrequiringatleast14hoursduringwhichaccessthroughtheairlockisprohibited.TheAppendixJperiodic6-monthtestrequirementofparagraphZII.D.2(b)(i)andthe3-daytestrequirementofparagraphZZI.D.2(b)(iii)provideassurancethattheairlockwillnotleakexcessivelyifnomaintenancewhichcouldaffecttheabilityoftheairlocktosealhasbeenperformedontheairlockandiftheairlockisproperlyengagedandsealed.Anexempti.onfromparagraphZZI.D.2(b)(ii)ofAppendixJisrequestedsincetheproposedamendmenttoTechni,calSpecification(FPLletterL-86-412,datedOctober10,1986)issubstantiallyassafeastherequirementitself.ThisexemptionisincludedasapartoftheNRC'sCEStandardTechnicalSpecificationsapprovedDecember31,1981,andisconsistentwithcurrentregulatorypracticeandpoli.cy.BecauseoftheproposedTechni.calSpecificationsurveillancerequirements,therequestedexemptioninvolvesadefactorequirementforanairlocksealtestinlieuoftheZIZ.D.2(b)(ii)test.AppendixJ,ParagraphIII.D.2(b)(ii.i)alreadyallowsanairlocksealtestinlieuofasimi.larrequiredairlocktestatapressureofnotlessthan,Pa.Thusthefunctionalequivalenceofthesetestsundersimilar.circumstanceshasbeenrecognized.PPLproposesanalternative'esttobeconductedduringthoseperiodswhenCONTAIN-MENTVESSELINTEGRITYisnotrequiredbythePlantTechnicalSpecificationsandpri.ortoenteringMode4.Thealternativetestconsistsoftestingthesealsoftheinnerandouterdoorsbypressurizingtheareabetweenthesealsandverifyinganacceptableleakagerate.Zf,however,maintenancehasbeenperformedontheairlocksincethelastsuccessfultestperformedpursuanttoparagraphIZZ.D.2(b)(i),anoverallairlocktestwillbeperformed.

Itisconcludedthatthereisreasonableassuranceagainstundueairlockleakageprovidedundertheexemptionandnomaterialincreaseintheprobabilityorextentofairlockleakageistobeexpected.Therefore,thereisnosigni'ficantincreaseintheprobabilityofhigherpost-accidentoffsiteoronsitedosesrelatedtotheexemptionandnosignificantincreaseinenvironmentalimpactbeyondthatexperiencedwithoutanexemption.Asaresult,thisexemptionwillnotpresentunduerisktothehealthandsafetyofthepublic.TheReuestedExemtionWillNotEndanertheCommonDefenseandSecuritTherequestedexemptionwillhavenoimpactonthecommondefenseandsecurity.Inconclusion,thestandardsof10CFR50.12(a)(1)aremetforthespecificexemption.10CFR50.12(a)(2)Inaccordancewith10CFR50.12(a)(2),theCommissionwillnotconsidergrantinganexemptionunlessspecialcircumstancesarepresent.SpecialcircumstancesinwhichtheCommissionbelievesitwouldbereasonabletograntanexemptionareidentifiedinSections50.12(a)(2)(i)through(vi)oftherevisedfinalrule.Thefollowingevaluationspertaintoeachofthesecriteria.50.12(a)(2)(i)-"ApplicationoftheregulationintheparticularcircumstanceswouldbeinconflictwithotherrulesorrequirementsoftheCommission."ThespecificexemptionrequestdiscussedhereinisnotapplicabletothespecialcircumstanceofSection50.12(a)(2)(i).50;12(a)(2)(ii)-"Applicationoftheregulationintheparticularcircumstanceswouldnotservetheunderlyingpurposeoftheruleorisnotnecessarytoachievetheunderlyingpurposeoftherule."4Applicationofthisspecialcircumstanceshowsthatapplicationoftheregulationisnotnecessarytoservethespecificpurpose.oftheregulation.~i~'TheContainmentAirLockleakageratetestingisperformedtoensureCONTAINMENTVESSELINTEGRITY.CONTAINMENTVESSELINTEGRITYensuresthatthereleaseofradioactivematerialsfromthecontainmentatmospherewillberestrictedtothoseleakagepathsandassociatedleakratesassumedintheaccidentanalyses.Therestriction,inconjunctionwiththeleakageratelimitation,willlimitthesiteboundaryradiationdosestowithinthelimitsof10CFRPart100duringaccidentconditions.3 Thelimitationsoncontainmentleakageratesensurethatthetotalcontainmentleakagevolumewillnotexceedthevalueassumedintheaccidentanalysesatthepeakaccidentpressure.Asnotedabove,andinthepreviousdiscussionof"nounduerisk",theapplicationoftherequirementsof10CFR50,AppendixJ,ParagraphsZII.D.2(b)(ii)isnotnecessarytoservetheunderlyingpurposeoftheseregulations.Thisistruesincethealternativespresentedlimitthepostulatedaccidentdosestowithinthe10CFR100guidelines.Therefore,thespecialcircumstancesofSection50.12(a)(2)(ii)applytothesespecificexemptionrequests.50.12(a)(2)(iii)-"Compliancewouldresultinunduehardshiporothercoststhataresignificantlyinexcessofthoseincurredbyotherssimilarlysituated."Thisspecialcircumstanceisintendedtoprovideequitabletreatmenttoallapplicantsandlicensees.AsnotedinthediscussionoftheContainmentAirLocktestexemptionrequest,unduehardshipsorunnecessarydifficulties,intheformofexcessiverestrictionstoContainmentaccessandthecumbersomeprocessofinstalling/removingstrongbacksontheinnerdoor,wouldresultfromliteralcomplianceto10CFR50,AppendixJ,ParagraphZZZ.D.2(b)(ii).SuchliteralcompliancetothisAppendixJrequirementwouldnotresultinanymeasurabledifferenceinprotectiontothepublichealthandsafetyrelativetotheprotectionaffordedifthisexemptionisgranted.Inaddition,similarexemptionstotheserequirementshavebeengrantedbytheNRCfortheGrandGulfNuclearStation,FermiUnit2,andSalemNuclearGeneratingStation.ExemptionrequestsfromthisrequirementhavebeenfiledbyPerryNuclearPowerPlant,NineMilePointUnit2,SeabrookandtheClintonPowerStation.Therefore,withrespecttotheContainmentAirLocktestexemption,thespecialcircumstanceofSection50.12(a)(2)(iii)applies.Furthermore,compliancetothisrequirementwouldresultinunduehardshipandcostthroughreducedoperationalflexibilityandunwarranted.delaysinpowerascensionoverthelifeoftheplantinexcessofthoseincurredbyothersimilarfacilitiesthathavereceivedexemptionfromthesubjectAppendixJparagraph.PerformanceoftheleakageratetestsrequiredbyparagraphZZI.D.2(b)(ii)takesapproximately14'oursperairlockandrequiresinstallationofastrong.backdeviceontheinsid'eairlockdoor(Testpressuieappliedinsidetheairlocktendstounseatthisdoorbecauseitisde'signedtosealwithaccidentpressurefrominsidecontainment).Thisevolutioncanpotentiallyoccurseveraltimesduringarefuelingoutageandultimatelycandelaymodechangeonstartup.

50.12(a)(2)(iv)-"Theexemptionwouldresultinbenefittothepublichealthandsafetythatcompensatesforanydecreaseinsafetythatmayresultfromthegrantoftheexemption."Theabovediscussions'ontheContainmentAirLockleakratetestexemptionsupportthebasisforthisspecialcircumstance.Intheexemptionrequest,thedesignand/oralternativetestingissubstantiallyassafeastherequirementsthemselves.Therefore,thespecialcircumstanceofSection50.12(a)(2)(iv)appliestothisspecificexemption.50.12(a)(2)(v)"Theexemptionwouldprovideonlytemporaryrelieffromtheapplicableregulationandthelicenseeorapplicanthasmadegoodfaitheffortstocomplywiththeregulation."ThisspecialcircumstancedoesnotapplytotheseexemptionrequestssinceitisfortheoperatinglifetimeofSt.LucieUnitl.50.12(a)(2)(vi)-"Thereispresentanyothermaterialcircumstancenotconsideredwhentheregulationwasadoptedforwhichitwouldbeinthepublicinteresttograntanexemption."Thereisnotpresentanyothermaterialcircumstancenotconsideredwhentheregulationwasadoptedforwhichitwouldbeinthepublicinteresttograntanexemption.

REATTACHMENTII)'ETERMINATIONOPNOSIGNIFICANTHAZARDSCONSIDERATIONThestandardsusedtoarriveatadeterminationthatarequestforamendmentinvolvesnosignificanthazardsconsiderationareincludedintheCommission'regulations,10CFR50.92.Theseregulationsstatethatnosignificanthazardsconsiderationareinvolvediftheoperationofthefacilityinaccordancewiththeproposedamendmentwouldnot:(1)involveasignificantincreaseintheprobabilityorconsequencesofanaccidentpreviouslyevaluated,or(2)createthepossibilityofanewordifferentkindofaccidentfromanyaccidentpreviouslyevaluated,or(3)involveasignificantreductioninamarginofsafety.Eachstandardisdiscussedasfollows:(1)Operationofthefacilityinaccordancewiththeproposedamendmentwouldnotinvolveasignificantincreaseinthe,probabilityorconsequencesofanaccidentpreviouslyevaluated.Theairlockconfiguration'orcurrentmethodoftestingisnotbeingchanged.Therefore,thePSARanalysisforaccidentprobability,malfunctiontype,accidenttype,andconsequenceoffailurehasnotbeenaffected.(2)Useofthemodifiedspecificationwouldnotcreatethepossibilityofanewordifferentkindofaccidentfromanyaccidentpreviouslyevaluated.Theproposedamendmentwillresultinnochangestotheplant'sprocedures,structures,systems,modeofoperationorcomponents.NoadditionaltestsorexperimentsnotdescribedintheFSARarenecessarytoimplementtheproposedchange.(3)Useofthemodifiedspecificationwouldnotinvolveasignificantreductioninamarginofsafety.ThemarginofsafetyforTechnicalSpecificationshasnotbeenreducedsinceacceptancecriteriawillremainunchanged.Basedontheabove,PPLhasdeterminedthattheamendmentrequestdoesnot(1)involveasignificantincreaseintheprobabilityorconsequencesofaaccidentpreviouslyevaluated,(2)createtheprobabilityofanewordifferentkindofaccidentfromanyaccidentpreviouslyevaluated,or(3)involveasignificantreductioninamarginofsafety;andthereforedoesnotinvolveasignificanthazardsconsideration.

a~1g~tlllIl1a'I