[Federal Register Volume 59, Number 193 (Thursday, October 6, 1994)]
[Unknown Section]
[Page 0]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 94-24760]
[[Page Unknown]]
[Federal Register: October 6, 1994]
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSION
[Docket No. 50-277]
Philadelphia Electric Company, Public Service Electric and Gas
Company, Delmarva Power and Light Company, Atlantic City Electric
Company, (Peach Bottom Atomic Power Station, Unit 2); Exemption
I
Philadephia Electric Company, et al. (PECo, the licensees), is the
holder of Facility Operating License No. DPR-44, which authorizes
operation of the Peach Bottom Atomic Power Station (PBAPS), Unit 2. The
license provides, among other things, that the licensee is subject to
all rules, regulations, and orders of the Nuclear Regulatory Commission
(the Commission) now and hereafter in effect.
The PBAPS, Unit 2, facility consists of a boiling water reactor
located in York County, Pennsylvania.
II
In its letter dated May 13, 1994, the licensee requested an
exemption from the Commission's regulations. The subject exemption is
from a requirement in Appendix J to 10 CFR part 50 that a set of three
Type A tests (Containment Integrated Leak Rate Tests (CILRTs)) be
performed, at approximately equal intervals, during each 10-year
service period. The exemption applies to the second 10-year service
period; subsequent service periods are not changed.
The type A test is defined in 10 CFR Part 50, Appendix J, Section
II.F, as ``tests intended to measure the primary reactor containment
overall integrated leakage rate (1) After the containment has been
completed and is ready for operation, and (2) at periodic intervals
thereafter.'' The 10-year service period begins with the inservice
date. The request for a one-time exemption would allow an extension of
the second 10-year Type A service period and would allow the
performance of the three Type A tests in the second 10-year service
period at intervals that are not approximately equal. It does not
affect the third 10-year service period.
Current TS and 10 CFR Part 50, Appendix J, would require performing
a Type A test during Unit 2's refueling outage 10 scheduled for
September 1994 in order to comply with the requirement to perform three
Type A tests within the current 10-year service period. Furthermore, 10
CFR Part 50, Appendix J, would also require a Type A test to be
performed during the next refueling outage (Unit 2 refueling outage 11
scheduled for September 1996) in order to coincide with the end of the
current 10-year plant inservice inspection (ISI) interval. The current
10-year ISI period ends in November 1997 and current ISI inspections
are scheduled for September 1996. Therefore, to fully comply with
Appendix J, the licensee would have to perform CILRTs during the tenth
and eleventh refueling outages for Unit 2.
The licensee stated that the first and second CILRTs of the set of
three tests for the second 10-year service period for PBAPS were
conducted in February 1989 and April 1991. Thus, the first CILRT
testing interval of the second 10-year service period was approximately
44 months, and the second CILRT testing interval was approximately 27
months. The time interval between CILRTs should be about 40 months
based on performing three such tests at approximately equal intervals
during each 10-year service period. The third of the second set of
three CILRTs will be scheduled for Refueling Outage 11, projected to
start in September 1996, pending approval of the exemption request.
Issuance of this exemption would allow the extension of the second 10-
year service period such that the next CILRT would be performed during
Refueling Outage 11, approximately 66 months after the April 1991
CILRT.
The licensee performed a review of the history of the PBAPS Unit 2
CILRT results to evaluate the risk of activity-based and time-based
degradation. This review identified only one activity-based component
failure detected during past CILRTs. The measured mass point and total
time leakage rates measured for the June 1985 CILRT stabilized at
approximately 0.70% wt/day, which failed to meet the TS and 10 CFR Part
50, Appendix J criterion of less than 0.375% wt/day (0.75 La).
Following the completion of repairs, the CILRT was repeated with an as-
left leakage of 0.0156% wt/day. After this failure, the licensee
modified the plant so that a similar failure, in the future, would be
detected by a local leak rate test (LLRT).
The Type B and C test (i.e., LLRT) program provides assurance that
containment integrity has been maintained. LLRTs demonstrate
operability of components and penetrations by measuring penetration and
valve leakage. Additionally, there have been no modifications made to
the plant, since the last Type A test, that could adversely affect the
test results.
The licensee further notes that the performance of consecutive Type
A tests in refueling outages 2R010 and 2R011 to meet the requirements
of the TS and Appendix J, would result in additional radiation exposure
to personnel. Performing the Type A test during two consecutive
refueling outages in order to comply with the TS and 10 CFR Part 50,
Appendix J, would result in an unnecessary increased in personnel
radiation exposure and increased cost by increasing the length of one
of the affected refueling outages. Omitting the test will result in
additional dose savings by eliminating contamination and by reducing
exposure from venting and draining and from setups and restorations of
instrumentation required to perform the test. These factors and the
costs associated with an additional test for a 24-month difference in
interval are not offset by the benefits of the additional test.
For the reasons set forth above, the NRC staff concludes that this
deviation from the 10-year service period ending August 1994 is not
significant in terms of complying with the safety or scheduling
requirements of Section III.D.1.(a) of Appendix J. Accordingly, the
staff finds that the additional test would not provide substantially
different information and that the intent of Appendix J is met.
Therefore, the subject exemption request meets the special
circumstances of 10 CFR 50.12(a)(2)(ii), in that the fourth Type A test
is not necessary to achieve the underlying purpose of the rule.
On this basis, the NRC staff finds that the licensee has
demonstrated that special circumstances are present as required by 10
CFR 50.12(a)(2). Further, the staff also finds that extending the
service period will not present an undue risk to the public health and
safety; since the licensee has justified the leaktight integrity of the
containment based on previous leakage test results, the staff concludes
that a one-time extension of the second 10-year service period and a
one-time implementation of an extended test interval will not have a
significant safety impact.
III
Pursuant to 10 CFR 50.12, the Commission may, upon application by
any interested person or upon its own initiative, grant exemptions from
the requirements of 10 CFR Part 50 when (1) The exemptions are
authorized by law, will not present an undue risk to public health and
safety, and are consistent with the common defense and security; and
(2) when special circumstances are present. Special circumstances are
present whenever, according to 10 CFR 50.12(a)(2)(ii), ``Application of
the regulation in the particular circumstances would not serve the
underlying purpose of the rule or is not necessary to achieve the
underlying purpose of the rule. . . .''
The underlying purpose of the requirement to perform Type A
containment leak rate tests is to provide for periodic verification of
the leak-tight integrity of the primary reactor containment. The
licensee has demonstrated that the leak tight integrity of the primary
containment can be assured the latest test results and by controlling
the maintenance activities which affect a primary containment
penetration. The Type B and C testing will provide additional assurance
of the overall integrity of the primary containment.
On this basis, the NRC staff finds that the licensee has
demonstrated that special circumstances are present as required by 10
CFR 50.12(a)(2)(ii). Since the licensee has justified the leaktight
integrity of the containment based on previous leakage test results,
the staff concludes that a one-time extension of the second 10-year
service period will not have a significant safety impact. The staff
also finds that extending the interval between tests will not present
an undue risk to the public health and safety.
IV
Accordingly, the Commission has determined that, pursuant to 10 CFR
50.12, an exemption is authorized by law and will not present an undue
risk to the public health and safety and that there are special
circumstances present, as specified in 10 CFR 50.12(a)(2), such that
application of 10 CFR Part 50, Appendix J, Section III.D.1.(a) is not
necessary in order to achieve the underlying purpose of this
regulation; and hereby grants the following exemption with respect to
the requirements of 10 CFR Part 50, Appendix J, Section III.D.1(a).
For the Peach Bottom Atomic Power Station, Unit 2, the second 10-
year Type A service period is extended such that the third periodic
Type A test may be performed during the Unit 2 Refueling Outage 11
currently scheduled for September 1996 and such that the three Type A
tests in the second 10-year service period are performed at intervals
that are not approximately equal.
Pursuant to 10 CFR 51.32, the Commission has determined that the
granting of this exemption will have no significant effect on the
quality of the human environment (59 FR 50018).
This exemption is effective upon issuance.
Dated at Rockville, Maryland this 30th day of September 1994.
For the Nuclear Regulatory Commission.
Steven A. Varga,
Director, Division of Reactor Projects--I/II, Office of Nuclear Reactor
Regulation.
[FR Doc. 94-24760 Filed 10-5-94; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 7590-01-M
