13186 Federal Register / Vol. 60, No. 47 / Friday, March 10, 1995 / Notices

Appling County, Georgia. The

amendment is effective as of the date of

issuance and shall be implemented

within 150 days from the date of

issuance.

The amendments replaced the current

TS and associated Bases with a set

based on the new Boiling Water Reactor

(BWR) Owners Group Standard

Technical Specifications, NUREG–1433,

‘‘Standard Technical Specifications

General Electric Plants, BWR/4,’’ with

one exception. The staff was unable to

conclude, without further evaluation,

that the proposed increase in the local

power range monitor calibration interval

is justified. Therefore, the change has

not been incorporated in these

amendments.

The application for the amendments

(dated February 25, 1994), as

supplemented July 8, August 8 and 31,

September 23, October 19, November 1,

1994, and January 19, 1995 (two letters),

complies with the standards and

requirements of the Atomic Energy Act

of 1954, as amended (the Act), and the

Commission’s rules and regulations.

The August 31, September 23, October

19, November 1, 1994, and January 19,

1995 (two letters) letters provided

additional and clarifying information

that did not change the initial proposed

scope of the licensing action. The

Commission has made appropriate

findings as required by the Act and the

Commission’s rules and regulations in

10 CFR Chapter I, which are set forth in

the license amendment.

Notice of Consideration of Issuance of

Amendment and Opportunity for

Hearing in connection with this action

was published in the Federal Register

on August 18, 1994 (59 FR 42607). No

request for a hearing or petition for

leave to intervene was filed following

this notice.

The Commission has prepared an

Environmental Assessment related to

the action and has determined not to

prepare an environmental impact

statement. Based upon the

environmental assessment, the

Commission has concluded that the

issuance of the amendments will not

have a significant effect on the quality

of the human environment (59 FR 61349

dated November 30, 1994).

For further details with respect to the

action see (1) the application for

amendments dated February 25, 1994,

as supplemented July 8, August 8 and

31, September 23, October 19,

November 1, 1994, and January 19, 1995

(two letters), (2) Amendment Nos. 195

and 135 to License Nos. DPR–57 and

NPF–5, respectively, (3) the

Commission’s related Safety Evaluation,

and (4) the Commission’s

Environmental Assessment. All of these

items are available for public inspection

at the Commission’s Public Document

Room, the Gelman Building, 2120 L

Street NW., Washington, DC, and at the

local public document room located at

the Appling County Public Library, 301

City Hall Drive, Baxley, Georgia.

Dated at Rockville, Md, this 3rd day of

March 1995.

For the Nuclear Regulatory Commission.

Herbert N. Berkow,

Director, Project Directorate II–3, Division of

Reactor Projects—I/II, Office of Nuclear

Reactor Regulation.

[FR Doc. 95–5937 Filed 3–9–95; 8:45 am]

BILLING CODE 7590–01–M

[Docket No. 50–281]

Virginia Electric and Power Company

(Surry Power Station Unit No. 2);

Exemption

I

Virginia Electric and Power Company

(the licensee) is the holder of Facility

Operating License No. DPR–37, which

authorizes operation of Surry Power

Station, Unit 2 (the facility), at a steadystate reactor power level not in excess

of 2441 megawatts thermal. The facility

is a pressurized water reactor located at

the licensee’s site in Surry County,

Virginia. The license provides among

other things, that it 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

Section III.D.1.(a) of Appendix J to 10

CFR Part 50 requires the performance of

three Type A containment integrated

leakage rate tests (ILRTs) of the primary

containment, 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 inservice

inspection program.

III

By letter dated February 14, 1995, the

licensee requested temporary relief from

the requirement to perform a set of three

Type A tests at approximately equal

intervals during each 10-year service

period of the primary containment. The

requested exemption would permit a

one-time interval extension of the third

Type A test by approximately 15

months (from the February 1995

refueling outage, to the May 1996

refueling outage) and would permit the

third Type A test of the second 10-year

inservice inspection period to not

correspond with the end of the current

American Society of Mechanical

Engineers Boiler and Pressure Vessel

Code (ASME Code) inservice inspection

interval.

The licensee’s request cites the

special circumstances of 10 CFR 50.12,

paragraph (a)(2)(ii), as the basis for the

exemption. The licensee points out that

the existing Type B and C testing

programs are not being modified by this

request and will continue to effectively

detect containment leakage caused by

the degradation of active containment

isolation components as well as

containment penetrations. It has been

the experience at Surry Unit 2 during

the Type A tests conducted from 1985

to date, that the Type A tests have not

identified any significant sources of

leakage in addition to those found by

the Type B and C tests.

During operation, the Surry Unit 2

containment is maintained at a

subatmospheric pressure

(approximately 10.0 psia) which

provides a good indication of the

containment integrity. Technical

Specifications require the containment

to be subatmospheric whenever Reactor

Coolant System temperature and

pressure exceeds 350°F and 450 psig,

respectively. Containment air partial

pressure is monitored in the control

room to ensure Technical Specification

compliance. If the containment air

partial pressure increases above the

established Technical Specification

limit, the unit is required to shut down.

IV

In the licensee’s February 14, 1995,

exemption request, the licensee stated

that special circumstances 50.12(a)(2)(ii)

is applicable to this situation, i.e., that

application of the regulation is not

necessary to achieve the underlying

purpose of the rule.

Appendix J states that the leakage test

requirements provide for periodic

verification by tests of the leak tight

integrity of the primary reactor

containment. Appendix J further states

that the purpose of the tests ‘‘is to assure

that leakage through the primary reactor

containment shall not exceed the

allowable leakage rate values as

specified in the Technical

Specifications or associated bases’’.

Thus, the underlying purpose of the

requirement to perform Type A

containment leak rate tests at intervals

during the 10-year service period is to

ensure that any potential leakage

pathways through the containment

boundary are identified within a time

span that prevents significant

degradation from continuing or

becoming unknown.
Federal Register / Vol. 60, No. 47 / Friday, March 10, 1995 / Notices 13187

The NRC staff has reviewed the basis

and supporting information provided by

the licensee in the exemption request.

The NRC staff has noted that the

licensee’s record of ensuring a leak-tight

containment has improved markedly

since 1985. All ‘‘as-found’’ Type A tests

since 1985 have passed and the results

of the Type A testing have been

confirmatory of the Type B and C tests

which will continue to be performed.

The licensee will perform the general

containment inspection although it is

only required by Appendix J (Section

V.A.) to be performed in conjunction

with Type A tests. The NRC staff

considers that these inspections, though

limited in scope, provide an important

added level of confidence in the

continued integrity of the containment

boundary.

The Surry Unit 2 containment is of

the subatmospheric design. During

operation, the containment is

maintained at a subatmospheric

pressure (approximately 10 psia) which

provides for constant monitoring of the

containment integrity and further

obviates the need for Type A testing at

this time. If the containment air partial

pressure exceeds the established

Technical Specification limit, the unit

must be shut down.

The NRC staff has also made use of a

draft staff report, NUREG–1493, which

provides the technical justification for

the present Appendix J rulemaking

effort which also includes a 10-year test

interval for Type A tests. The integrated

leakage rate test, or Type A test,

measures overall containment leakage.

However, operating experience with all

types of containments used in this

country demonstrates that essentially all

containment leakage can be detected by

local leakage rate tests (Type B and C).

According to results given in NUREG–

1493, out of 180 ILRT reports covering

110 individual reactors and

approximately 770 years of operating

history, only 5 ILRT failures were found

which local leakage rate testing could

not detect. This is 3% of all failures.

This study agrees well with previous

NRC staff studies which show that Type

B and C testing can detect a very large

percentage of containment leaks.

The Nuclear Management and

Resources Council (NUMARC), now the

Nuclear Energy Institute (NEI), collected

and provided the NRC staff with

summaries of data to assist in the

Appendix J rulemaking effort. NUMARC

collected results of 144 ILRTs from 33

units; 23 ILRTs exceeded 1.0La. Of

these, only nine were not due to Type

B or C leakage penalties. The NEI data

also added another perspective. The NEI

data show that in about one-third of the

cases exceeding allowable leakage, the

as-found leakage was less than 2La; in

one case the leakage was found to be

approximately 2La; in one case the asfound leakage was less than 3La; one

case approached 10La; and in one case

the leakage was found to be

approximately 21La. For about half of

the failed ILRTs the as-found leakage

was not quantified. These data show

that, for those ILRTs for which the

leakage was quantified, the leakage

values are small in comparison to the

leakage value at which the risk to the

public starts to increase over the value

of risk corresponding to La

(approximately 200La, as discussed in

NUREG–1493). Therefore, based on

those considerations, it is unlikely that

an extension of one cycle for the

performance of the Appendix J, Type A

test at Surry, Unit 2, would result in

significant degradation of the overall

containment integrity. As a result, the

application of the regulation in these

particular circumstances is not needed

to achieve the underlying purpose of the

rule.

Based on generic and plant specific

data, the NRC staff finds the basis for

the licensee’s proposed exemption to

allow a one-time exemption to permit a

schedular extension of one cycle for the

performance of the Appendix Type A

test, provided that the general

containment inspection is performed, to

be acceptable.

Pursuant to 10 CFR 51.32, the

Commission has determined that

granting this Exemption will not have a

significant impact on the environment

(60 FR 11997).

This Exemption is effective upon

issuance and shall expire at the

completion of the 1996 refueling outage.

Dated at Rockville, Maryland this 3rd day

of March 1995.

For the Nuclear Regulatory Commission.

Steven A. Varga,

Director, Division of Reactor Projects—I/II,

Office of Nuclear Reactor Regulation.

[FR Doc. 95–5938 Filed 3–9–95; 8:45 am]

BILLING CODE 7590–01–M

[Docket Nos. 50–373 and 50–374]

Commonwealth Edison Co., LaSalle

County Station, Units 1 and 2;

Environmental Assessment and

Finding of no Significant Impact

The U.S. Nuclear Regulatory

Commission (the Commission) is

considering issuance of an exemption

from Facility Operating License Nos.

NPF–11 and NPF–18, issued to

Commonwealth Edison Company (the

licensee), for operation of the LaSalle

County Station, Units 1 and 2, located

in LaSalle County, Illinois.

Environmental Assessment

Identification of Proposed Action

Section III.D.1(a) of Appendix J to 10

CFR part 50 requires the performance of

three Type A tests (overall integrated

leakage rate tests) (ILRT), at

approximately equal intervals during

each 10-year service period, with the

third test of each set being conducted

when the plant is shut down for the 10-

year plant inservice inspections. Section

III.A6(b) of Appendix J to 10 CFR part

50 specifies additional requirements if

two consecutive periodic Type A tests

fail to meet the applicable acceptance

criteria. The additional requirements

entail performing Type A tests at each

plant shut down for refueling or

eighteen month interval, whichever

occurs first, until two consecutive Type

A tests meet the acceptance criteria,

after which, the testing schedule of

Section III.D can be resumed. LaSalle

County Station, Unit 2, experienced

Type A test failures for the ‘‘as-found’’

condition at the first, third and fourth

refueling outages as a result of penalties

from local leak rate test (LLRT) (Type B

and C) failures. Pursuant to the

requirements of Section III.A6(b), a

Type A test was performed during the

fifth refueling outage for Unit 2 and the

results satisfied the applicable

acceptance criteria. Without the

requested exemption, another Type A

test will need to be performed during

the sixth refueling outage for Unit 2

(scheduled for early 1995) due to the

requirements of both, Section III.A6(b)

which requires two consecutive

successful tests prior to resuming the

normal testing interval and Section

III.D.1(a) because the sixth refueling

outage is the last refueling outage of the

first 10-year plant inservice inspections

period. The licensee proposes to resume

the testing interval of Section III.D,

based upon the successful test during

the fifth refueling outage and the

creation of a corrective action plan for

Type C test failures, and decouple the

Type A test schedule from the inservice

inspection period. The result of this

proposal would be that the next

scheduled Type A test would be

performed during the seventh refueling

outage for Unit 2 (currently scheduled

for late 1996) in accordance with a test

interval of between thirty and fifty

months.

An example is provided in 10 CFR

50.12(a)(2)(ii) of a special circumstances

for which the NRC will consider

granting exemptions that involve cases

for which the application of the