[Federal Register Volume 60, Number 136 (Monday, July 17, 1995)]
[Notices]
[Pages 36447-36448]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 95-17446]



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

NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSION
[Docket No. 50-278]


Exemption; Notice

    In the matter of PECO Energy Company, Public Service Electric 
and Gas Company, Delmarva Power and Light Company, Atlantic City 
Electric Company (Peach Bottom Atomic Power Station, Unit 3)

I

    PECO Energy Company, et al. (PECo, the licensee), is the holder of 
Facility Operating License No. DPR-56, which authorizes operation of 
the Peach Bottom Atomic Power Station (PBAPS), Unit 3. 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 3, facility consists of a boiling water reactor 
located in York County, Pennsylvania.

II

    Section 50.54(o) of 10 CFR Part 50 requires that primary reactor 
containments for water cooled power reactors by subject to the 
requirements of Appendix J to 10 CFR Part 50. Appendix J contains the 
leakage test requirements, schedules, and acceptance criteria for tests 
of the leak tight integrity of the primary reactor containment and 
systems and components which penetrate the containment. Section III.D.1 
of Appendix J to 10 CFR Part 50 requires that a set of three Type A 
tests shall be performed, at approximately equal intervals during each 
10-year service period. The third test of each set shall be conducted 
when the plant is shut down for the 10-year plant inservice inspections 
(ISI). 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.

III

    In its letter dated November 21, 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 request for a one-time exemption would allow an extension of 
the second 10-year Type A test 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.
    In its submittal, the licensee provided a table of historical leak 
test results for PBAPS Unit 3. Within the second 10-year service 
period, satisfactory Type A tests were performed in January 1986 and 
November 1989. In addition, an additional satisfactory Type A test was 
performed in December 1991 following certain plant modifications.
    Current Technical Specifications (TS) and 10 CFR Part 50, Appendix 
J, would require the licensee to perform a Type A test during Unit 3 
refueling outage 10 (3R010) scheduled for September 1995 in order to 
comply with the requirements to perform three Type A tests within the 
current service period at approximately equal intervals.
    Furthermore, 10 CFR Part 50, Appendix J, also requires the licensee 
to perform a type A test during the next refueling outage (Unit 3 
refueling outage 11 (3R011) scheduled for September 1997) in order to 
comply with the requirement of 10 CFR Part 50, Appendix J, Section 
III.D.1, that the third test be performed when the plant is shut down 
for the 10-year inservice inspections. The current 10-year ISI period 
ends in November 1997 and ISI inspections are scheduled for September 
1997. Therefore, to fully comply with Appendix J, the licensee would 
have to perform CILRTs during the tenth and eleventh refueling outages 
for Unit 3.
    The licensee proposed to perform the next Unit 3 Type A test during 
Unit 3 refueling outage 11 scheduled to start in September 1997. The 
effect of this proposal would be to extend the current Appendix J 10-
year service period that would result in the interval between 
successive Type A tests being extended to approximately 70 months. 
Strict compliance with Section III.D.1 would require the interval 
between successive Type A tests to be approximately 40 months.
    The licensee performed a review of the history of the PBAPS Unit 3 
Type A test results to evaluate the risk of activity-based and time-
based degradation. This review identified three activity-based 
component failures detected during past Type A tests. The measured mass 
point and total time leakage rates measured for the April 1977 CILRT 
stabilized at approximately 1.1% wt/day, which failed to meet the 

[[Page 36448]]
TS and 10 CFR Part 50, Appendix J criterion of less than 0.375% wt/day 
(0.75 La). Following the completion of repairs of a leaking torus water 
level instrument, the CILRT was repeated with an as-left leakage of 
0.322% wt/day. After this failure, the licensee modified the plant 
procedures so that a similar failure, in the future, would be detected 
by a local leak rate test (LLRT). The measured mass point and total 
time leakage rates measured for the September 1981 CILRT stabilized at 
approximately .389% 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 to a missing instrument O-ring, the 
CILRT was repeated with an as-left leakage of 0.185% wt/day. After this 
failure, the licensee modified the plant procedures so that a similar 
failure, in the future, would be detected by a leak rate test following 
relevant instrument maintenance. The measured mass point and total time 
leakage rates measured for the August 1983 CILRT stabilized at 
approximately .784% 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 to a valve packing leak, the CILRT 
was repealed with an as-left leakage of 0.058% wt/day. After this 
failure, the licensee modified the plant procedures so that similar 
valve packing is local leak rate tested and measured.
    These failures were identified as activity based failures for which 
the licensee implemented corrective action. The licensee did not 
identify any time based failures.
    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.
    Current TS 4.7.A.2.h requires that the interior surfaces of the 
drywell and torus shall be visually inspected each operating cycle for 
evidence of deterioration. In addition, TS 4.7.A.2.h requires that the 
external surfaces of the torus below the water level be inspected on a 
routine basis for evidence of torus corrosion or leakage. TS 4.7.4 
requires that a visual inspection of the suppression chamber interior 
be conducted at each major refueling outage. These inspections provide 
similar information as would be obtained to meet the requirement of 
Section V.A of 10 CFR Part 50, Appendix J. The licensee is required to 
perform these TS surveillances in the upcoming refueling outage 3R010.
    The licensee further notes that the performance of consecutive Type 
A tests in refueling outages 3R010 and 3R011, 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 increase in personnel 
radiation exposure and an increase in cost by extending 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.

IV

    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 licensee provided information regarding the requirements of 10 
CFR 50.12(a)(2)(ii). The licensee stated that the underlying purpose of 
10 CFR Part 50, Appendix J, Section III.D.1(a), is to establish and 
maintain a level of confidence that any primary containment leakage, 
during a hypothetical design basis accident, will remain less than or 
equal to the maximum allowable value, La, established by Appendix J 
through the performance of periodic Type A testing. The licensee stated 
that, for the technical justification discussed above, performance of 
Type A tests during the next two Unit 3 refueling outages was not 
necessary to meet the underlying purpose of the rule.
    The NRC staff has reviewed the licensee's proposed exemption, 
including Type A test history, and concluded that the impact on safety 
of this deviation from the scheduler requirements of Appendix J is not 
significant. Accordingly, the staff finds that an additional test 
(during the scheduled 1995 refueling outage) would not provide 
substantially different information and that the intent of Appendix J 
would be met. Therefore, the subject exemption request meets the 
special circumstances of 10 CFR 50.12(a)(2)(ii), in that the additional 
Type A test is not necessary to achieve the underlying purpose of the 
rule.
    The staff also finds, for the technical reasons discussed above, 
that extending the service period and extending the interval between 
Type A tests are acceptable.

V

    Accordingly, the Commission has determined that, pursuant to 10 CFR 
50.12(a)(1), this exemption is authorized by law, will not present an 
undue risk to the public health and safety, and is consistent with the 
common defense and security. The Commission further determined, as 
discussed above, that there are special circumstances present, as 
specified in 10 CFR 50.12(a)(2)(ii), 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. Therefore, the 
Commission hereby grants a one-time scheduler exemption from the 
requirements of 10 CFR Part 50, Appendix J, Section III.D.1.(a), to 
extend the second 10-year Type A test service period for Peach Bottom 
Atomic Power Station, Unit 3, such that the third periodic Type A test 
may be performed during Unit 3 refueling outage 11, currently scheduled 
for September 1997, 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 (60 FR 35239).
    This exemption is effective upon issuance.

    Dated at Rockville, Maryland, this 10th day of July 1995.

    For the Nuclear Regulatory Commission.
Steven A. Varga,
Director, Division of Reactor Projects-I/II, Office of Nuclear Reactor 
Regulation.
[FR Doc. 95-17446 Filed 7-14-95; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 7590-01-M