[Federal Register Volume 59, Number 214 (Monday, November 7, 1994)]
[Unknown Section]
[Page 0]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 94-27482]


[[Page Unknown]]

[Federal Register: November 7, 1994]


-----------------------------------------------------------------------

NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSION
[Docket No. 50-346]

 

The Toledo Edison Co., Centerior Service Company, and the 
Cleveland Electric Illuminating Co.; Exemption

I

    The Toledo Edison Company, Centerior Service Company, and the 
Cleveland Electric Illuminating Company (the licensees) hold Facility 
Operating License No. NPF-3, which authorizes operation of the Davis-
Besse Nuclear Power Station, Unit No. 1. The license provides, among 
other things, that the facility is subject to all rules, regulations, 
and Orders of the Nuclear Regulatory Commission (the Commission) now or 
hereafter in effect.
    The facility is a pressurized water reactor located at the 
licensee's site in Ottawa County Ohio.

II

    Section III.D.2(b)(ii) of 10 CFR Part 50, Appendix J requires that 
a full pressure air lock leakage test be performed whenever air locks 
are opened during periods when containment integrity is not required.

III

    By letter dated October 21, 1994, the licensee requested an 
Exemption from the requirement of 10 CFR 50, Appendix J, Section 
III.D.2(b)(ii) identified in Section II above. If an air lock is opened 
during Modes 5 and 6, Section III.D.2(b)(ii) of Appendix J requires 
that an overall air lock leakage test at not-less-than the calculated 
peak containment pressure from a design-basis loss of coolant accident 
(Pa) be conducted before plant heatup and startup (i.e., before 
entering Mode 4). Instead, if no maintenance has been performed on the 
air locks that affects air lock sealing capabilities, the licensee 
would conduct an air lock seal leakage test (Section III.D.2(b)(iii) of 
10 CFR 50, Appendix J), for the full pressure air lock test required by 
Section III.D.2(b)(ii).
    If the periodic six-month test of Section III.D.2(b)(i) of Appendix 
J and the test required by Section III.D.2(b)(iii) of Appendix J are 
current, and no maintenance has been performed on the air lock that 
affects air lock sealing capabilities, there should be no reason to 
expect the air lock to leak excessively, just because it has been 
opened in Mode 5 or 6. If maintenance has been performed, which could 
affect air lock sealing capability, then a full-pressure air lock test 
will be performed following such maintenance.
    The licensee's letter dated October 21, 1994, submitted information 
to identify the special circumstances for granting this exemption to 
Davis-Besse, pursuant to 10 CFR 50.12. The purpose of Appendix J to 10 
CFR 50, is to assure that containment leak-tight integrity can be 
verified periodically, throughout service lifetime to maintain 
containment leakage, within the limits specified in the facility 
Technical Specifications. The purposed alternative test method, along 
with the six-month test requirement of Section III.D.2(b)(i) of 
Appendix J, and the testing requirements when maintenance is performed 
on the air lock that affects sealing capability, is sufficient to 
achieve this underlying purpose, in that it provides adequate assurance 
of continued leak-tight integrity of the air lock.
    Based on the above discussion, the licensee's proposed substitution 
of an air lock seal leakage test described in III.D.2(b)(iii) for a 
full-pressure test, as discussed above, is acceptable.

IV

    Accordingly, the Commission has determined that, pursuant to 10 CFR 
50.12, this exemption is authorized by law, and will not present an 
undue risk to the public health and safety, and is consistent with the 
common defense and security. The Commission further determines that 
special circumstances described by 10 CFR 50.12(a)(2)(ii) exist, in 
that application of the regulation in the particular circumstances is 
not necessary to achieve the underlying purpose of the rule, since the 
licensees have proposed an acceptable alternative method that 
accomplishes the intent of the regulation.
    Accordingly, the Commission hereby grants the Exemption as 
described in Section III above from the requirements of 10 CFR 50, 
Appendix J, Section III.D.2(b)(ii).
    Pursuant to 10 CFR 51.32, the Commission has determined that the 
granting of this Exemption will have no significant impact on the 
quality of the human environment (59 FR 54222).
    This Exemption is effective upon issuance.

    Dated at Rockville, Maryland this 1st day of November, 1994.

    For the Nuclear Regulatory Commission.
Elinor G. Adensam,
Acting Director, Division of Reactor Projects III/IV, Office of Nuclear 
Reactor Regulation.
[FR Doc. 94-27482 Filed 11-4-94; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 7590-01-M