[Federal Register Volume 60, Number 226 (Friday, November 24, 1995)]
[Notices]
[Pages 58108-58109]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 95-28603]



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

NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSION
[Docket No. 50-155]


Consumers Power Company (Big Rock Point Plant); Exemption

I

    Consumers Power Company (CPCo, the licensee) is the holder of 
Facility Operating License No. DPR-6 which authorizes operation of the 
Big Rock Point Plant. The facility consists of a boiling water reactor 
located at the licensee's site in Charlevoix County, Michigan. 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.

II

    Pursuant to 10 CFR 50.12(a), the NRC may grant exemptions from the 
requirements of the regulations (1) which are authorized by law, will 
not present an undue risk to the public health and safety, and are 
consistent with the common defense and security; and (2) where special 
circumstances are present.
    Section 50.54(o) of 10 CFR requires that all licensees meet the 
requirements of Appendix J to Part 50--Primary Reactor Containment 
Leakage Testing for Water-Cooled Power Reactors. Paragraph 
III.D.2(b)(i) of Appendix J to 10 CFR Part 50 requires that containment 
air locks be tested at an internal pressure not less than peak pressure 
(Pa), which is 23 psig for Big Rock Point.

III

    By letter dated October 4, 1994, as supplemented September 27, 
1995, Consumers Power Company (the licensee) requested an exemption 
from the Appendix J requirement to test the air lock (escape lock) at 
Pa. Currently, the containment emergency (or escape) air lock at 
Big Rock Point is tested at a pressure of 2 psig. Therefore, the 
explicit requirement of paragraph III.D.2(b)(i) of Appendix J is not 
met. The requested exemption is required because of the emergency air 
lock manufacturer's restrictions on internal pressurization and the Big 
Rock Point design which necessitates frequent personnel entries. The 
licensee stated 

[[Page 58109]]
that the escape air lock internal pressurization is limited by the 
manufacturer to 2 psig without a strongback and 5 psig with a 
strongback in place, thereby making pressurization to peak pressure 
impossible for local leak rate tests. In addition, the licensee stated 
that the required use of a strongback for the 5-psig test and its 
positioning on the inside of the lock which tends to assist the door in 
sealing is less conservative than the 2-psig test for the inner door. 
The 5-psig test has no significant increase in value. Therefore, the 
licensee believes that the escape air lock's performance is 
demonstrated with the local leak rate test at 2 psig.
    As stated above, due to the manufacturer's restriction on internal 
pressurization, Big Rock Point has been conducting the local leak rate 
test of the escape air lock at 2 psig. In addition, since the reduced-
pressure test is employed, the results of the 2-psig leakage test are 
extrapolated to the equivalent Pa test results to determine 
acceptability, as required by the Big Rock Point Technical 
Specifications. Moreover, the as-found leakage observed during the past 
4 years' tests has been acceptably low. Based on the above, the staff 
concludes that testing the escape air lock at 2 psig, in accordance 
with the manufacturer's recommendations, would provide an acceptable 
alternative to strict compliance with the applicable Appendix J 
requirements. The conclusion is further supported by the past good 
leakage rate performance. The alternative actions proposed by the 
licensee in the exemption request provide reasonable assurance that 
airlock leakage will not exceed acceptable levels. Therefore, granting 
this exemption does not significantly affect the risk of facility 
accidents.
    Thus, the staff concludes that an exemption from the requirements 
of paragraph III.D.2(b)(i) of Appendix J to 10 CFR Part 50 should be 
granted. The Commission further determines that special circumstances 
as provided in 10 CFR 50.12(a)(2)(ii) are present justifying the 
exemption; namely, that application of the regulation in the particular 
circumstances is not necessary to achieve the underlying purpose of the 
rule.
    The underlying purpose of the requirement to perform leakage rate 
testing of escape air lock at Pa is to measure leakage at 
conditions representative of the design basis accident. The escape air 
lock internal pressurization at Big Rock Point is limited to the 
manufacturer recommendation of 2 psig. In addition, the 2-psig leakage 
tests are extrapolated to the equivalent Pa test results to 
determine acceptability, as required by the Big Rock Point Technical 
Specifications. The testing history and the structural capability of 
the containment establish that there is significant assurance that 
testing the emergency air lock at 2 psig will not adversely impact the 
leak tight integrity of the containment and that test is representative 
of the design basis accident. Therefore, the emergency air lock at 
Pa is not necessary to achieve the underlying purpose of Appendix 
J.

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 as provided in 10 CFR 50.12(a)(2)(ii) are present 
justifying the exemption. Therefore, the Commission hereby grants an 
exemption from the requirement of paragraph III.D.2(b)(i) of Appendix J 
to 10 CFR Part 50 to the extent that the containment emergency air lock 
test will be conducted at 2 psig.
    Pursuant to 10 CFR 51.32, the Commission has determined that 
granting this exemption will not have a significant effect on the 
quality of the human environment (60 FR 57025).
    This exemption is effective upon issuance.

    Dated at Rockville, Maryland, this 14th day of November 1995.

    For the Nuclear Regulatory Commission
Jack W. Roe,
Director, Division of Reactor Projects--III/IV, Office of Nuclear 
Reactor Regulation.
[FR Doc. 95-28603 Filed 11-22-95; 8:45am]
BILLING CODE 7590-01-P