[Federal Register Volume 60, Number 85 (Wednesday, May 3, 1995)]
[Notices]
[Pages 21833-21835]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 95-10887]



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

NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSION
[Docket No. 50-416]


Entergy Operations Inc., (Grand Gulf Nuclear Station, Unit No. 
1); Exemption

I

    Entergy Operations, Inc., (the licensee) is the holder of Facility 
Operating License No. NPF-29, which authorizes operation of the Grand 
Gulf Nuclear Station, Unit 1. The operating license provides, among 
other things, that the licensee is subject to all rules, regulations, 
and orders of the Commission now and hereafter in effect.
    The facility consists of a boiling water reactor at the licensee's 
site in Claiborne County, Mississippi.

II

    By letter dated August 13, 1993, as supplemented by letters dated 
April 15, May 11, June 24, and July 20, 1994, and April 18, 1995, 
pursuant to 10 CFR 50.12(a), Entergy Operations Inc. requested an 
exemption to Sections III.D.1(a), III.D.2, III.D.2(b)(i), 
III.D.2.(b)(iii) and III.D.3 of 10 CFR Part 50, Appendix J, to permit 
the selection of containment leakage rate testing intervals for 
components on the basis of performance.
    Although the staff had issued an Advanced Notice of Proposed Rule 
Making to revise Appendix J on November 24, 1992 (57 FR 55156), the 
licensee stated in the August 13, 1993, submittal that the ``plant 
specific needs [[Page 21834]] of Grand Gulf'' would best be met by a 
plant specific submittal. The staff agreed to review the licensee's 
proposal in the context of the ongoing rulemaking activities. In SECY 
94-036, dated February 17, 1994, the staff informed the Commission that 
it would review the Grand Gulf proposal because of its potential 
usefulness in the rulemaking process due to its scope and the technical 
information it provides. Testing methods were not included in the scope 
of the licensee's proposal. The licensee proposed changes to the 
frequency of testing only. The staff has reviewed the licensee's 
proposed exemption. The staff's safety evaluation is enclosed.

III

    The licensee proposed changes to the frequency of performing Type 
A, B, and C tests including changes to the frequency of leakage rate 
testing of air locks. The test frequencies will be determined 
individually for each component based on previous performance. The 
licensee presented plant specific data and plant specific risk analyses 
to support the proposed changes. In addition to information supplied by 
the licensee, the staff, in reviewing this exemption request, utilized 
technical information available from the on-going Appendix J 
rulemaking, including NUREG-1493 ``Performance-Based Containment Leak-
Test Program'', dated December 1994. This rulemaking will also revise 
the frequency of leakage rate testing so that the intervals between 
tests is a function of individual component performance.
    Because an Appendix J rulemaking is in progress, this exemption 
shall be valid until startup following Refueling Outage 9.

IV

    A Type A test assures that the overall or integrated leakage rate 
from the whole containment is below the acceptance criterion specified 
in Appendix J. This exemption does not change this value. Appendix J 
presently specifies the test frequency for a Type A test as a set of 
three tests, at approximately equal intervals during each 10-year 
service period. The licensee proposes to change the test frequency to 
one Type A test in 10 years. Both an analysis of the test results from 
operating reactors over an extended period (NUREG-1493) and a risk 
analysis (EPRI TR-104285, ``Risk Impact Assessment of Revised 
Containment Leak Rate Testing Intervals'') support extending the Type A 
test interval to once in 10 years.
    The staff proposed that the exemption include a precondition before 
extending the Type A test. Two consecutive Type A tests must be 
successful before the interval is extended. This is included in the 
exemption. By letter dated April 18, 1995, the licensee agreed to this 
change. The following exemption is granted until startup from Refueling 
Outage (RFO) 9, currently scheduled for Spring 1998.

Exemption From Section III.D.1(a)

    Type A tests shall be performed on a 10-year interval provided that 
the two previous consecutive Type A tests, performed on the test 
interval specified in Appendix J (three tests, at approximately equal 
intervals in a 10-year period), have been successful.
    If a Type A test is failed, and the failure is not due to a Type B 
or C component, acceptable performance must be reestablished by 
performing a Type A test within 48 months of the unsuccessful Type A 
test. Following a successful Type A test, the surveillance frequency 
may be returned to once per 10 years.
    In addition, the licensee must perform general inspections of the 
accessible interior and exterior surfaces of the containment 
structures, as specified in Section V.A of Appendix J, at the test 
interval specified in Appendix J for Type A tests, even when no Type A 
test is required during that outage. By letter dated April 18, 1995, 
the licensee agreed to this change.
    There is no relationship between Type A testing and the inservice 
inspection (ISI) service period. This exemption will continue in effect 
until startup from RFO 9.

V

    The licensee proposed an exemption from Sections III.D.2(a) and 
III.D.3 of Appendix J to permit Type B and C testing to be done based 
on previous performance of a component. The licensee presented data and 
analyses to show that the risk from using a performance-based approach 
to Type B and C testing is negligible. This is in agreement with the 
conclusions of NUREG-1493.
    The licensee proposed that the test interval be determined as 
follows: (1) One successful test or a failure would require maintaining 
the present test interval of 2 years. (2) Two successful consecutive 
tests would permit extending the test interval to five years. (3) Three 
successful consecutive tests would result in increasing the test 
interval to 10 years. The staff does not agree with a 10-year interval. 
It is the staff's judgment that the licensee has not justified the 10-
year interval to the same degree of confidence as the 5-year interval. 
By letter dated April 18, 1995, the licensee agreed to this change.
    In addition, there are certain valves which the staff considers to 
be so safety significant that the test interval for these valves should 
not be extended without prior staff review and approval. The staff has 
specified these valves in the exemption. By letter dated April 18, 
1995, the licensee agreed to this change.

Exemption From Sections III.D.2(a) and III.D.3 of Appendix J

    After two successful consecutive tests, performed at the present 
Appendix J test interval of no more than 2 years, a Type B or C 
component may be tested once every 5 years. If this test or a 
subsequent test is a failure, the test interval for this component 
shall revert to a 2-year interval until the component passes two 
consecutive tests. The 5-year interval may then be resumed. By letter 
dated April 18, 1995, the licensee agreed to this change.
    Main steam isolation valves, feedwater valves and containment 
system supply and exhaust isolation valves shall remain on a 2-year 
test interval. Any change will require prior review and approval by the 
NRC. This exemption will continue in effect until startup from RFO 9.

VI

    The licensee proposed to increase the test intervals for air locks 
based on the good performance of the air locks at Grand Gulf. The 
licensee's August 13, 1993, submittal provides a summary of test data 
which shows excellent performance in both air lock and air lock door 
seal testing.
    The staff proposed an addition to the requested exemption to 
account for the contingency that the performance may not be maintained 
at this high level. If an air lock fails a test, the extended interval 
would revert to the Appendix J test intervals until two consecutive 
successful's tests demonstrate that the problem has been resolved. By 
letter dated April 18, 1995, the licensee agreed to this change.

Exemption From Section III.D.2(b)(i) and (b)(iii)

    Air locks may be leakage rate tested at intervals of no more than 2 
years. If an air lock fails a leakage rate test, the air lock shall 
then be required to pass two consecutive leakage rate tests at a test 
interval of 6 months prior to returning to the 2-year test interval. 
During a period of frequent opening of air lock doors, the air locks 
shall be tested at least every 30 days. If an air [[Page 21835]] lock 
fails a leakage rate test during a period of frequent opening, the air 
lock shall be required to pass two consecutive leakage rate tests at a 
test interval of 72 hours prior to returning to the 30-day interval. 
Since the Grand Gulf air lock doors have testable seals, testing the 
seals fulfills the 30-day test requirement. This exemption will 
continue in effect until startup from RFO 9.

VII

    The staff's safety evaluation, which is enclosed and summarized 
above, concludes that the licensee's proposed extension of Appendix J 
test intervals is acceptable. This exemption will remain valid until 
startup following Refueling Outage 9. This approval is based on the 
assumption that all other aspects of Appendix J testing not explicitly 
addressed will be conducted in accordance with Appendix J.
    Section 50.12 of Title 10 of the Code of Federal Regulations, 
``Specific Exemptions'', delineates the conditions which must be 
satisfied in order for the Commission to grant an exemption from the 
regulations of 10 CFR Part 50. The proposed exemption must not violate 
applicable law, it must not ``present an undue risk to the public 
health and safety'', and must be ``consistent with the common defense 
and security''. The licensee states that it believes these conditions 
are satisfied. The staff concurs.
    In addition, 10 CFR 50.12 states that the Commission will not 
consider granting an exemption unless special circumstances are 
present. The licensee, in the August 13, 1993, submittal presented its 
argument as to why this exemption request meets several of the special 
circumstances specified in 10 CFR 50.12. It is the staff's opinion that 
the licensee's proposal satisfies special circumstance 50.12(a)(2)(iv). 
Special circumstance (iv) states that: The exemption would result in 
benefit to the public health and safety that compensates for any 
decrease in safety that may result from the grant of the exemption.
    It is the staff's judgment that there is a significant public 
benefit to be derived from granting the licensee's exemption request to 
10 CFR Part 50, Appendix J. The licensee's proposal was detailed and 
well thought-out and thoroughly considered the effect on safety of the 
proposed changes. Reviewing this exemption request was beneficial to 
the staff's Appendix J rulemaking effort. Granting the exemption will 
assist the staff in assessing the process of implementing a 
performance-based containment leakage rate testing rule which, inturn, 
is of a clear benefit to the public. The staff considers any decrease 
in safety that may result from granting the exemption to be very small. 
This was confirmed by the risk studies discussed in Section 3 of the 
safety evaluation on this exemption request.
    Accordingly, the Commission has determined, pursuant to 10 CFR 
50.12(a), that 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. In addition, the Commission has found 
special circumstances in that granting of this exemption will result in 
a benefit to public health and safety that compensates for any decrease 
in safety that may result from the grant of the exemption. Therefore, 
the Commission hereby grants the exemption from 10 CFR Part 50, 
Appendix J, Sections III.D.1(a), III.D.2(a) and III.D.3 and Section 
III.D.(b)(i) and III.D.2(b)(iii). The specific exemptions are stated as 
in Sections IV, V, and VI above.
    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 (60 FR 19791). The exemption is 
effective upon issuance.

    Dated at Rockville, Maryland, this 26th day of April 1995.

    For the Nuclear Regulatory Commission.
Elinor G. Adensam
Acting Director, Division of Reactor Projects-III/IV, Office of Nuclear 
Reactor Regulation.
[FR Doc. 95-10887 Filed 5-2-95; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 7590-01-M