[Federal Register Volume 61, Number 4 (Friday, January 5, 1996)]
[Notices]
[Pages 416-419]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 96-146]



=======================================================================
-----------------------------------------------------------------------

NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSION

[Docket Nos. 50-295 and 50-304]


Commonwealth Edison Co., (Zion Nuclear Power Station, Unit Nos. 1 
and 2); Exemption

I
    Commonwealth Edison Company (ComEd or the licensee) is the holder 
of Facility Operating License Nos. DPR-39 and DPR-48, which authorize 
operation of the Zion Nuclear Power Station, Unit Nos. 1 and 2, at a 
steady-state reactor power level not in excess of 3250 megawatts 
thermal. The facilities are pressurized water reactors located at the 
licensee's site in Lake County, Illinois. The licenses provide, among 
other things, that the Zion Nuclear Power Station is subject to all 
rules, regulations, and Orders of the U.S. Nuclear Regulatory 
Commission (the Commission or NRC) now or hereafter in effect.
II
    Sections III.C and III.D.3 of 10 CFR part 50, appendix J, option A, 
require that Type C local leakage rate periodic tests shall be 
performed during reactor shutdown for refueling, or other convenient 
intervals, but in no case at intervals greater than 2 years. These 
requirements are reflected in the Zion Technical Specifications (TS) as 
requirements to perform Type C containment leakage rate testing in 
accordance with 10 CFR part 50, appendix J, and approved exemptions.
III
    The licensee has determined that certain containment isolation 
pathways have not been locally leakage rate tested (Type C tests) as 
required by option A of appendix J to 10 CFR part 50. In a letter dated 
August 16, 1995, the licensee requested relief from the requirement to 
perform the Type C containment leakage rate tests of certain 
penetrations and valves in these pathways in accordance with the 
requirements of sections III.C and III.D of 10 CFR part 50, appendix J, 
option A. On August 16, 1995, the staff authorized in writing, 
continued operation of the Zion units in a notice of enforcement 
discretion (NOED) until such time as the 

[[Page 417]]
staff acted on the exemption requests. In a letter dated November 20, 
1995, the staff granted the schedular exemptions requested in the 
licensee's letter of August 16, 1995, and granted schedular exemptions 
for the permanent exemption requests to allow time for additional staff 
review and until final staff action could be taken. In its letter of 
November 28, 1995, and supplemented on December 6, 1995, the licensee 
requested, in part, that certain schedular exemption requests be 
granted as permanent exemptions. As requested, the staff granted 
permanent exemptions for the containment isolation valves in 
containment penetrations P-70 and P-99 by letter dated December 11, 
1995.
    The licensee's letter of November 28, 1995, also requested that the 
following permanent exemption requests be changed to schedular 
exemption requests.
    Units 1 and 2: P-77, 1(2)PP0101, 1(2)PP0102, 1(2)PP0103, 
1(2)PP0104, Penetration Pressurization to Containment Valve Stations; 
and P-102, 1(2)AOV-RC8029, Primary Water to the Pressurizer Relief 
Tank.
    For Unit 1, the penetrations would be tested during the refueling 
outage in the fall of 1995, and for unit 2, they would be tested during 
the next cold shutdown of sufficient duration, and subsequently 
thereafter as required. For P-77 and P-102, the staff's letter of 
November 20, 1995, granted schedular exemptions until December 31, 
1995. The final action for these penetrations is addressed below.
    The licensee's letter of November 28, 1995, also requested that the 
staff grant a schedular exemption for penetration P-44. In a letter 
dated December 6, 1995, the licensee withdrew the request because it 
had recently tested the penetration for both units 1 and 2 and intends 
to continue to test the penetration in accordance with the requirements 
of 10 CFR part 50, appendix J, option A.
    The final resolution of the remaining issues is provided below.

Pathways Listed in Licensee's Letter Dated August 16, 1995

    Attachment 2 of the licensee's letter of August 16, 1995, requested 
permanent exemptions for components in the following containment 
penetrations:
    Units 1 and 2: P-14, Valve 1(2) FCV-SA01A, Service Air Supply to 
Containment; P-19, Valve 1(2) MOV-CC9413A, Component Cooling Water 
Supply to the Reactor Coolant Pumps; P-34, Valve 1(2) DW0030, 
Demineralized Flushing Water to Containment; P-43, Valve 1(2) LCV-
DT1003, Reactor Coolant Drain Tank Pump Discharge; P-75, Valves 1(2) 
VC8402A, 1920HCV-VC182, 1(2) VC8402B, 1(2) VC8403, Chemical and Volume 
Control to Regenerative Heat Exchanger; P-76, Valve 1(2) VC8480A, 
Reactor Coolant Loop Fill Header; P-77, Valves 1(2) PP0101, 1(2) 
PP0102, 1(2) PP0103, 1(2) PP0104, Penetration Pressurization to 
Containment Valve Stations; P-88, Valve 1(2) FCV-RV112, Containment Hot 
Water Supply; and P-102, Valve 1(2) AOV-RC8029, Primary Water to the 
Pressurizer Relief Tank.
    Unit 1 only: P-16, Compression Fittings on Five Reactor Vessel Leak 
Detection System Lines.
    As stated above, the requests for P-77 and P-102 were changed from 
permanent to schedular exemptions.
    Also, in attachment 3 of the licensee's letter of August 16, 1995, 
the licensee requested staff concurrence concerning certain 
clarifications for the testing of P-23, P-44, and P-66.

Schedular Exemptions

    As requested, penetrations P-77 and P-102 will receive extensions 
of the schedular exemptions granted on November 20, 1995, rather than 
permanent exemptions. For Unit 1, the penetrations were tested during 
the refueling outage which concluded on December 17, 1995, and will be 
tested hereafter as required by Appendix J, Option A, so no further 
exemption is needed. For Unit 2, they will be tested during the next 
cold shutdown of sufficient duration (no later than the next refueling 
outage), and subsequently thereafter as required. The staff's review 
and justification for the schedular exemptions granted for these 
penetrations on November 20, 1995, remains valid and will not be 
repeated here. The staff finds that, on the basis stated in the 
November 20, 1995, exemption, it is acceptable to delay the testing of 
P-77 and P-102 until the next cold shutdown of sufficient duration, but 
no later than the next refueling outage, for Unit 2. The next Unit 2 
refueling outage is currently scheduled for September 1996. Further, 
the staff finds that the special circumstances required by 10 CFR 
50.12(a)(2)(v) are present as described in the November 20, 1995 
exemption, namely, that the requested exemptions provide only temporary 
relief and the licensee made good faith efforts to comply.

Permanent Exemptions

    The licensee has requested permanent exemptions for several 
penetrations because it is not possible to perform the required testing 
with the current hardware configurations, such as the absence of test 
taps or block valves that would be needed to perform the tests. In each 
case, the relief is not from testing through-valve leakage paths, but 
rather leakage paths out of containment isolation valves through valve 
packing, diaphragms, or compression fittings. The permanent exemption 
requests may be divided into three groups, as follows:
    1. P-14: The licensee proposes to test the valve packing by 
pressurizing it with air to a pressure greater than or equal to Pa 
and performing a soap bubble test on the packing, with an acceptance 
criterion of zero observed bubbles. This will be done at the normal 
Type B and C testing frequency; further, the test was performed and 
passed during the recent Unit 1 refueling outage and during January 
1995 for Unit 2. Generally, a soap bubble test cannot be used to 
quantify a leakage rate, which is required by the regulation, but when 
the observed leakage is zero (no bubbles being produced), then the 
leakage rate is also zero. Therefore, the proposed testing method in 
fact complies with the requirements of Appendix J, Option A, and no 
exemption is required.
    2. P-19, P-34, P-43, P-75, P-76, P-88: In each case, the licensee 
proposes to test the valve packing (or, in the case of P-43, the valve 
diaphragm) by pressurizing it with water to a pressure greater than or 
equal to 1.1 Pa and then visually examining the packing or 
diaphragm for water leakage, with an acceptance criterion of zero 
observed leakage. This will be done at the normal Type B and C testing 
frequency. The significant difference between these penetrations and P-
14 is the use of water instead of air as the test medium. The proposed 
test, with water as the test medium and with a zero leakage acceptance 
criterion, is conservative enough to provide reasonable assurance of no 
significant increase in risk to health and safety of the public when 
compared to testing with air, especially when considering the nature of 
the potential leakage paths. The leakage pathways do not consist of 
through-valve leakage paths, but rather leakage paths out of 
containment isolation valves through valve packing or diaphragms. The 
potential leakage paths are small or restrictive, through packing 
openings or through cracks or tears in valve diaphragms. The leakage 
path for a significant leak to occur also requires a sequence of events 
for which the probability of occurrence is low, as detailed in the 
licensee's letter of August 16, 1995. In addition, for some of the 
systems, seismic support and the isolation valve seal water system 
provide additional assurance that the risk of a significant leak is 
minimal. 

[[Page 418]]
Therefore, the proposed testing provides an acceptable alternative to 
the requirements of Appendix J, Option A.
    3. P-16 (Unit 1 only): The licensee proposes to test the 
compression fittings on five small lines by pressurizing them with air 
to a pressure greater than or equal to Pa and performing a soap 
bubble test on the fittings, with an acceptance criterion of zero 
observed bubbles. However, these lines cannot be locally pressurized to 
the test pressure, so this will be done only during Type A tests, which 
are required at a frequency of 3 times in 10 years, instead of the Type 
B and C testing interval (every refueling outage, but not to exceed 2 
years). The staff will accept the proposed testing frequency because 
Type A test history at Zion Station has shown that this type of fitting 
has not been problematic. Further, these particular fittings have never 
caused a Type A test failure by leaking excessively. As such, the staff 
does not expect the lesser testing frequency to significantly impact 
the leak-tightness of the containment boundary. However, this exemption 
is applicable only to Option A of Appendix J. If the licensee adopts 
Option B of Appendix J for containment leakage rate testing at Zion 
Unit 1, the exemption for P-16 is hereby revoked and the matter will 
have to be reexamined under the requirements of Option B.

Clarifications for P-23, P-44, and P-66

    P-23: 1(2) MOV-CC9414, CC Return from the RPC Lube Oil Coolers.
    The licensee requested staff concurrence that this valve is a 
single barrier and that the Type C test performed on the outboard disk 
is adequate. As stated in the staff's Request for Additional 
Information letter of December 11, 1995, the staff concurs with the 
licensee.
    P-44: 1(2) PR0029, Containment Sping Return Line to the 
Containment.
    As stated above, the licensee withdrew its request and will test 
the penetration in accordance with Appendix J, Option A.
    P-66: Reactor Coolant Pump Seal Injection System.
    The licensee requested staff concurrence that the subject system 
may be considered a qualified water seal system for penetration P-66. 
In its letter of November 28, 1995, the licensee provided additional 
details as to the procedural requirements and the time frames involved 
in the switch over from the injection phase to cold leg recirculation 
using the containment sump as a water supply. The additional 
information indicates that, although there may be a brief interruption 
in sealing water pressure during switch over, the water-sealing action 
of the system would be essentially continuous throughout the 30-day 
post-accident period. Therefore, the staff concurs that the subject 
system may be considered a qualified water seal system for penetration 
P-66.
    To justify granting an exemption to the requirements of 10 CFR Part 
50, Appendix J, Option A, a licensee must show that the requirements of 
10 CFR 50.12(a)(1) are met. The licensee stated that all its exemption 
requests meet the requirements of 10 CFR 50.12(a)(1), for the following 
reasons:

Criteria for Granting Exemptions are Met Per 10 CFR 50.12(a)(1)

    1. The requested exemptions and the activities which would be 
allowed thereunder are authorized by law.
    If the criteria established in 10 CFR 50.12(a) are satisfied, as 
they are in this case, and if no other prohibition of law exists to 
preclude the activities which would be authorized by the requested 
exemption, and there is no such prohibition, the Commission is 
authorized by law to grant this exemption request.
    2. The requested exemption will not present undue risk to the 
public.
    As stated in 10 CFR 50, Appendix J, Option A, the purpose of 
primary containment leak rate testing is to assure that leakage 
through primary containment and systems and components penetrating 
primary containment shall not exceed the allowable leakage rate 
values as specified by the Technical Specifications or associated 
bases and to ensure that the proper maintenance and repairs are made 
during the service life of the containment and systems and 
components penetrating primary containment. The requested exemption 
is consistent with this intent for those penetrations in that 
alternate means of ensuring leakage remains acceptably low will be 
performed as proposed herein.
    3. The requested exemption will not endanger the common defense 
and security.
    The common defense and security are not in any way compromised 
by this exemption request.

    In addition, the licensee must show that at least one of the 
special circumstances, as defined in 10 CFR 50.12(a)(2) is present. One 
of the special circumstances that a licensee may show to exist is that 
the application of the regulation in the particular circumstance is not 
necessary to achieve the underlying purposes of the rule. The purposes 
of the rule, as stated in Section I of 10 CFR 50, Appendix J, Option A, 
are to ensure that: (1) Leakage through the primary reactor containment 
and systems and components penetrating containment shall not exceed 
allowable values, and (2) periodic surveillance of reactor containment 
penetrations and isolation valves is performed so that proper 
maintenance and repairs are made. The staff has reviewed the licensee's 
proposal and has concluded for the reasons discussed above that the 
proposed alternative tests will confirm the integrity of the subject 
pathways. Therefore, application of the regulation in this particular 
circumstance is not necessary to achieve the underlying purpose of the 
rule.
IV
    Sections III.C and III.D.3 of 10 CFR Part 50, Appendix J, Option A, 
require that Type C local leak rate periodic tests shall be performed 
during reactor shutdown for refueling, or other convenient intervals, 
but in no case at intervals greater than 2 years.
    The licensee proposes exemptions to these sections which would 
provide relief from the requirement to perform the Type C containment 
leak rate tests of certain valves in accordance with the requirements 
of Sections III.C and III.D of 10 CFR Part 50, Appendix J, Option A.
    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 that special 
circumstances, as provided in 10 CFR 50.12(a)(2) (ii), or (v) are 
present justifying the exemption; namely, that the application of the 
regulation is not necessary to achieve the underlying purpose of the 
rule; or the exemptions provide only temporary relief and the licensee 
made good faith efforts to comply.
    Therefore the Commission hereby grants the following exemptions:

    The requirement of 10 CFR Part 50, Appendix J, Option A, to 
perform Type C local leakage rate periodic tests of penetrations P-
77 and P-102 at intervals no greater than 2 years is not required. 
For P-77 and P-102, for Unit 1, the penetrations were tested during 
the Unit 1 refueling outage in the fall of 1995, and for Unit 2, 
they will be tested during the next cold shutdown of sufficient 
duration, but no later than the next refueling outage and 
subsequently thereafter as required.
    The requirement of 10 CFR Part 50, Appendix J, Option A, to test 
penetrations P-19, P-34, P-43, P-75, P-76, and P-88 for Units 1 and 
2 with air is not required. Instead, the test pressure medium may be 
water. These tests will be performed at the normal Type B and C 
testing frequency.
    The requirement of 10 CFR Part 50, Appendix J, Option A, to test 
penetration P-16 for Unit 1 at intervals no greater than 2 years is 
not required. Instead, this penetration may be tested during Type A 
tests, which are required 3 times at approximately equal intervals 
each 10 year 

[[Page 419]]
service period. However, if the licensee adopts 10 CFR Part 50, 
Appendix J, Option B, for containment leakage rate testing at Zion, 
Unit 1, with the potential for Type A test intervals of 10 years, 
the exemption for P-16 is hereby revoked.

    Pursuant to 10 CFR 51.32, the Commission has determined that 
granting these exemptions will not have a significant impact on the 
human environment (60 FR 45499).

    Dated at Rockville, Maryland, this 28th day of December 1995.

    For the Nuclear Regulatory Commission.
Gail Marcus,
Acting Director, Division of Reactor Projects--III/IV, Office of 
Nuclear Reactor Regulation.
[FR Doc. 96-146 Filed 1-4-96; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 7590-01-P