14468 Federal Register / Vol. 60, No. 52 / Friday, March 17, 1995 / Notices

44115; and Martha R. McCorkle,

Assistant Director of Law, City of

Cleveland Department of Law, Room

106, City Hall, 601 Lakeside Avenue,

Cleveland, Ohio 44114. Pursuant to 10

CFR 2.1205(j)(2), any party may file an

answer to a petition to intervene within

10 days of service of such petition (15

days in the case of the NRC Staff).

Pursuant to 10 CFR 2.1211(a), any

member of the public who is not a party

to this proceeding may make a written

statement in order to express his or her

views of the issues involved in this

license renewal proceeding. These

statements are not evidence and do not

become part of the decisional record

under 10 CFR 2.1251(c). Written

statements should be submitted to the

Secretary of the Commission, ATTN:

Chief, Docketing and Services Branch,

U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission,

Washington, DC 20555.

Dated: March 13, 1995.

Marshall E. Miller,

Presiding Officer, Administrative Judge.

[FR Doc. 95–6617 Filed 3–16–95; 8:45 am]

BILLING CODE 7590–01–M

[Docket Nos. 50–373 50–374

Exemption

In the Matter of Commonwealth Edison

Co., LaSalle County Station, Units 1 and 2.

I

Commonwealth Edison Company

(ComEd, the licensee) is the holder of

Facility Operating License Nos. NPF–11

and NPF–18, which authorize operation

of the LaSalle County Station, Units 1

and 2 (the facility), at a steady state

power level not in excess of 3323

megawatts thermal. The facility consists

of two boiling water reactors at the

licensee’s site located in LaSalle

County, Illinois. The licenses provide,

among other things, that they are subject

to all rules, regulations, and orders of

the U.S. Nuclear Regulatory

Commission (the Commission) now or

hereafter in effect.

II

Section III.A.6(b) of Appendix J to 10

CFR Part 50 states the following in

regard to performing Overall Integrated

Containment Leakage Rate (Type A)

Tests (ILRT):

If two consecutive periodic Type A tests

fail to meet the applicable acceptance criteria

in III.A.5(b), notwithstanding the periodic

retest schedule of III.D., a Type A test shall

be performed at each plant shutdown for

refueling or approximately every 18 months,

whichever occurs first, until two consecutive

Type A tests meet the acceptance criteria in

III.A.5(b), after which time the retest

schedule specified in III.D. may be resumed.

The Type A tests performed during

the first, third and fourth refueling

outages for LaSalle County Station, Unit

2, were considered to be failures in the

‘‘as-found’’ condition due to penalties

incurred as a result of leakage measured

in Type B and C local leak rate tests

(LLRT). Pursuant to Section III.A.6(b) of

Appendix J, Type A testing was

performed during the fifth refueling

outage for LaSalle County Station, Unit

2, in December 1993. That Type A test

satisfied the ‘‘as-found’’ acceptance

criteria. Section III.A.6(b) of Appendix J

requires an additional Type A test

during the sixth refueling outage,

currently scheduled for February 1995,

in order to fulfill the condition of two

consecutive successful tests prior to

resuming the Type A test interval of

Section III.D.

As an alternative to performing the

required Type A test, the licensee has

submitted a Corrective Action Plan to

address excessive local leakage in

accordance with the guidance provided

in NRC Information Notice 85–71,

‘‘Containment Integrated Leak Rate

Tests,’’ dated August 22, 1985. The

Corrective Action Plan is in lieu of the

increased test frequency required by

Section III.A.6(b) and, therefore, an

exemption from this requirement is

needed.

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

requires ‘‘* * * 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 shutdown for the 10-year

plant inservice inspections.’’ The last

refueling outage for Unit 2 during the

first 10-year inservice inspection period

is the sixth refueling outage scheduled

for February 1995. Therefore, in

addition to the requirements for

additional testing specified in Section

III.A.6(b), a Type A test is required

during the upcoming Unit 2 refueling

outage as a result of the periodic retest

schedule contained in Section III.D.1(a).

To address the short-term desire not to

perform a Type A test during the sixth

refueling outage for Unit 2 and avoid

potential future problems, the licensee

has requested an exemption from this

requirement such that future Type A

test would not need to coincide with the

end of 10-year inservice inspection

periods.

The NRC may grant exemptions from

the requirements of the regulations,

pursuant to 10 CFR 50.12, that (1) 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)

present special circumstances. Section

50.12(a)(2) of 10 CFR Part 50 describes

special circumstances as including cases

that would not serve the underlying

purpose of the rule or are not necessary

to achieve the underlying purpose of the

rule.

III

The underlying purpose of the

requirements in Appendix J is to ensure

that containment leakage remains below

criteria established to limit the release

of radioactive materials in the event of

a design basis accident. The Type A test

is defined in 10 CFR Part 50, Appendix

J, Section II.F, as a ‘‘test 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.’’

Containment leakage is measured

during the periodic testing required by

Section III.D.1(a) and the additional

testing requirements of Section III.A.6 if

the measured leakage exceeds the

established limits. The testing and other

requirements contained in Appendix J

ensure that leakage from the

containment structure and penetrations

remain below the acceptance criteria.

The licensee conducted four ILRTs

during the first 10-year service period

for Unit 1. For Unit 2, ILRTs were

performed during the first, third, fourth,

and fifth refueling outages. The Type A

test history for Unit 2 is that the

measured leakage rates for Type B and

C penetrations, when added to the

measured results from the Type A test,

resulted in an ‘‘as-found’’ integrated

leakage rate above the acceptance

criteria. These test failures were the

direct result of leakage penalties from

Type B and C LLRTs.

Leakage from specific containment

penetrations that have been major

contributors to the failure of the

integrated leakage rate acceptance

criteria for Unit 2 have been identified.

These leakage paths include isolation

valves associated with the drywell

equipment and floor drain sumps,

reactor water cleanup suction,

transversing incore probe air purge

supply, residual heat removal shutdown

cooling return, hydrogen recombiners,

and primary containment chilled water

supply. The leakage associated with the

reactor water cleanup suction

penetration provided the overwhelming

contribution of local leakage penalty

that resulted in the unsuccessful test

during the fourth refueling outage.

Leakage through the various isolation

valves has been attributed to causes
Federal Register / Vol. 60, No. 52 / Friday, March 17, 1995 / Notices 14469

such as the introduction of foreign

materials, misapplication of valve types,

insufficient seating, defective valve

internals, and failure of valve motor

operators. Specific corrective actions

have addressed the above contributors

by improving foreign material exclusion

controls, replacing and refurbishing

valves, revising test procedures, and

cleaning and lapping seating surfaces.

Overall performance of the identified

penetrations has improved significantly.

In addition to the specific corrective

actions taken for the above isolation

valves, the licensee’s Corrective Action

Plan includes programmatic changes to

limit the leakage occurring from Type C

penetrations. These changes include

development and implementation of an

improved trending program to track

penetration and valve leakage rate

performance. The improved trending

will be designed to help determine any

patterns or groups of valves that

demonstrate either good or poor leakage

behavior. Those penetrations

determined to be susceptible to

excessive leakage will also be subject to

additional testing requirements beyond

that routinely performed during

refueling outages. Identified

penetrations will be subject to Type B

or C testing during any non-refueling

outage for which a unit is in cold

shutdown for fourteen days or longer.

Poorly performing penetrations will also

be reviewed for possible improvements

in testing methods as well as possible

repair, modification, or replacement of

isolation devices.

As discussed in Information Notice

85–71, the staff has determined that:

* * * if Type B and C leakage rates

constitute an identified contributor to this

failure of the ‘‘as-found’’ condition for the

Type A test, the general purpose of

maintaining a high degree of containment

integrity might be better served through an

improved maintenance and testing program

for containment penetration boundaries and

isolation valves. In this situation, the licensee

may submit a Corrective Action Plan with an

alternative leakage test program proposals as

an exemption request for NRC staff review.

If this submittal is approved by the NRC staff,

the licensee may implement the corrective

action and alternative leakage test program in

lieu of the required increase in Type A test

frequency incurred after the failure of two

successive Type A test.

The licensee’s Corrective Action Plan

describes the modification, testing and

preventive maintenance programs

implemented or planned to decrease the

leakage from poorly performing

isolation devices. The specific

corrective actions performed to date and

the programmatic changes associated

with ensuring future performance of

penetrations provide an equivalent

degree of assurance that containment

integrity will be maintained as that

provided by an additional Type A test

performed on the accelerated frequency

specified by Section III.A.6(b) of

Appendix J. The NRC staff concludes

that a return to the normal retest

interval of Section III.D of Appendix J

is justified and that the corrective

actions taken and the creation of the

Corrective Action Plan for local leak rate

testing adequately address the

underlying purpose of the requirements

of Appendix J.

In the absence of the additional

testing requirements of Section

III.A.6(b), a periodic retest schedule is

specified in section III.D.1(a). This retest

schedule requires a minimum of three

tests during a 10-year service period

with the third test coinciding with the

10-year plant inservice inspections.

LaSalle, Unit 1, completed four tests

during the first ten year interval with

the last test coinciding with the 10-year

plant inservice inspections. Due to

experiencing Type A test failures, Unit

2 has performed four tests during the

first 10-year service period and without

the requested exemptions would be

required to perform a fifth Type A test

during the sixth refueling outage. The

sixth refueling outage for Unit 2 is the

last refueling outage of the 10-year

inservice inspection period and,

therefore, the Type A test is required

based on the requirements of Section

III.D.1(a) as well as the previously

discussed requirements of Section

III.A.6(b).

Pursuant to Section II.F of Appendix

J, the intent of Type A testing is

‘‘* * * to measure the primary reactor

containment overall integrated leakage

rate * * * at periodic intervals. * * *’’

The licensee has conducted a total of

eight ILRTs for LaSalle, Units 1 and 2.

The tests conclude that the largest

variations in the measured overall leak

rates result from the adjustments

required to account for leakage from

Type B and C penetrations. Leakage

from sources other than those covered

by Type B and C testing, such as the

containment structure itself, have

repeatedly been well below the

acceptance criteria. The requested

exemption from Section III.D.1(a) does

not affect the performance of local leak

rate testing which would be expected to

detect the most probable sources of

containment leakage. As discussed

above, the licensee will not only

continue routine Type B and C testing

during each refueling outage, but will

also attempt to minimize local leakage

in accordance with their Corrective

Action Plan.

The proposed exemption from Section

III.D.1(a) does not revise the expected

Type A test interval of between thirty

and fifty months which is derived from

the requirement to perform three tests in

each ten year period at approximately

equal intervals. For example, Unit 2

performed a Type A test during the fifth

refueling outage in December 1993 and,

with the proposed exemption, will

perform another Type A test during the

seventh refueling outage scheduled to

begin in late 1996. The licensee has only

proposed to exempt the requirement to

perform a Type A test during the 10-

year plant inservice inspections. Given

the continued performance of Type A

testing at approximately equal intervals

of forty months and the performance of

Type B and C testing at the required

intervals to identify the most probable

sources of containment leakage, the

NRC staff finds that performance of

Type A tests coincident with 10-year

plant inservice inspections is not

necessary to achieve the underlying

purpose of the rule.

On the bases of the above discussions

related to Sections III.A.6(b) and

III.D.1(a) of Appendix J, the NRC staff

finds that the licensee has demonstrated

that special circumstances are present as

required by 10 CFR 50.12. Further, the

staff finds that providing a one-time

exemption of the additional testing

requirements of section III.A.6(b) and an

exemption from the requirement to

perform a Type A test coincident with

the first 10-year plant inservice

inspections pursuant to Section

III.D.1(a) will not present undue risk to

the public health and safety. Although

requested as a permanent exemption,

the exemption from the requirements of

section III.D.1(a) of Appendix J related

to the third test coinciding with the 10-

year plant inservice inspections has

been granted as a one-time exemption

for the first 10-year inservice inspection

interval. The exemption is, in effect,

limited to the Type A test planned for

the current Unit 2 outage since Unit 1

has completed the required Type A tests

during its first inservice inspection

interval. Future relationships between

Appendix J and inservice inspection

intervals can be addressed by

anticipated changes to Appendix J or

requests for exemptions from the

current requirements.

IV

Accordingly, the Commission has

determined pursuant to 10 CFR 50.12,

these exemptions are authorized by law

and will not endanger life or property or

the common defense and security and

are otherwise in the public interest.

Therefore, the Commission hereby
14470 Federal Register / Vol. 60, No. 52 / Friday, March 17, 1995 / Notices

grants an exemption from the additional

testing requirements of Section III.A.6(b)

of Appendix J to 10 CFR Part 50 to allow

the licensee to resume the Type A test

interval of Section III.D for LaSalle, Unit

2, and an exemption from the

requirements of Section III.D.1(a) of

Appendix J to allow the licensee to decouple the Type A testing and the first

10-year plant inservice inspections for

LaSalle, Unit 2.

Pursuant to 10 CFR 31.32, the

Commission determined that the

granting of this exemption will have no

significant impact on the quality of the

human environment (60 FR 13187).

Dated at Rockville, Maryland this 10th day

of March 1995.

For the Nuclear Regulatory Commission.

Elinor G. Adensam,

Acting Director, Division of Reactor Projects

III/IV, Office of Nuclear Reactor Regulation.

[FR Doc. 95–6616 Filed 3–16–95; 8:45 am]

BILLING CODE 7590–01–M

Licensing Support System Advisory

Review Panel

ACTION: Change in meeting location.

SUMMARY: This is to announce a change

in location of the next meeting of the

Licensing Support System Advisory

Review Panel (LSSARP). The meeting

will be held in Las Vegas, Nevada, on

March 22 and 23, 1995, as previously

announced in the Federal Register on

March 3, 1995 (60 FR 11998). The

location of the meeting has been moved

to a facility on the campus of the

University of Nevada at Las Vegas

(UNLV). The Panel will be using the

Student Lounge, Room A–207, in the

Thomas Beam Engineering Building.

The building may be reached from the

Claymont Road entrance to the campus.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:

John C. Hoyle, Office of the Secretary,

U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission,

Washington, DC 20555: telephone 301–

415–1969.

Dated at Washington, DC this 15th day of

March, 1995.

Andrew L. Bates,

Advisory Committee Management Officer.

[FR Doc. 95–6796 Filed 3–16–95; 8:45 am]

BILLING CODE 7590–01–M

POSTAL RATE COMMISSION

[Order No. 1047 and Docket No. A95–6]

Notice and Order Accepting Appeal

and Establishing Procedural Schedule

Under 39 U.S.C. § 404(b)(5)

Before Commissioners: Edward J. Gleiman,

Chairman; W.H. ‘‘Trey’’ LeBlanc III, ViceChairman; George W. Haley; H. Edward

Quick, Jr.; Wayne A. Schley.

Issued: March 13, 1995.

Docket Number: A95–6

Name of Affected Post Office: DeGraff,

Minnesota 56233

Name(s) of Petitioner(s): Helen Byrne, et

al.

Type of Determination: Consolidation

Date of Filing of Appeal Papers: March

7, 1995

Categories of Issues Apparently Raised:

1. Effect on postal services [39 U.S.C.

§ 404(b)(2)(C)].

2. Effect on the community [39 U.S.C.

§ 404(b)(2)(A)].

After the Postal Service files the

administrative record and the

Commission reviews it, the Commission

may find that there are more legal issues

than those set forth above. Or, the

Commission may find that the Postal

Service’s determination disposes of one

or more of those issues.

The Postal Reorganization Act

requires that the Commission issue its

decision within 120 days from the date

this appeal was filed (39 U.S.C. § 404

(b)(5)). In the interest of expedition, in

light of the 120-day decision schedule,

the Commission may request the Postal

Service to submit memoranda of law on

any appropriate issue. If requested, such

memoranda will be due 20 days from

the issuance of the request and the

Postal Service shall serve a copy of its

memoranda on the petitioners. The

Postal Service may incorporate by

reference in its briefs or motions, any

arguments presented in memoranda it

previously filed in this docket. If

necessary, the Commission also may ask

petitioners or the Postal Service for

more information.

The Commission Orders

(a) The Postal Service shall file the

record in this appeal by March 22, 1995.

(b) The Secretary of the Postal Rate

Commission shall publish this Notice

and Order and Procedural Schedule in

the Federal Register.

By the Commission.

Margaret P. Crenshaw,

Secretary.

Appendix

March 7, 1995—Filing of Appeal letter

March 13, 1995—Commission Notice

and Order of Filing of Appeal

April 3, 1995—Last day of filing of

petitions to intervene [see 39 CFR

3001.111(b)]

April 11, 1995—Petitioners’ Participant

Statements or Initial Brief [see 39 CFR

3001.115(a) and (b)]

May 1, 1995—Postal Service’s

Answering Brief [see 39 CFR

3001.115(c)]

May 16, 1995—Petitioners’ Reply Brief

should Petitioners choose to file one

[see 39 CFR 3001.115(d)]

May 23, 1995—Deadline for motions by

any party requesting oral argument.

The Commission will schedule oral

argument only when it is a necessary

addition to the written filings [see 39

CFR 3001.116]

July 5, 1995—Expiration of the

Commission’s 120-day decisional

schedule [see 39 U.S.C. 404(b)(5)]

[FR Doc. 95–6579 Filed 3–16–95; 8:45 am]

BILLING CODE 7710–FW–P

[Order No. 1046, and Docket No. A95–5]

Notice and Order Accepting Appeal

and Establishing Procedural Schedule

Under 39 U.S.C. § 404(b)(5)

Before Commissioners: Edward J. Gleiman,

Chairman; W.H. ‘‘Trey’’ LeBlanc III, ViceChairman; George W. Haley; H. Edward

Quick, Jr.; Wayne A. Schley.

Issued: March 13, 1995.

Docket Number: A95–5

Name of Affected Post Office: Oak,

Nebraska 68964

Name(s) of Petitioner(s): Tom Jensen

Type of Determination: Consolidation

Date of Filing of Appeal Papers: March

3, 1995

Categories of Issues Apparently Raised:

1. Effect on postal services [39 U.S.C.

§ 404(b)(2)(C)].

2. Effect on the community [39 U.S.C.

§ 404(b)(2)(A)].

After the Postal Service files the

administrative record and the

Commission reviews it, the Commission

may find that there are more legal issues

than those set forth above. Or, the

Commission may find that the Postal

Service’s determination disposes of one

or more of those issues.

The Postal Reorganization Act

requires that the Commission issue its

decision within 120 days from the date

this appeal was filed (39 U.S.C. § 404

(b)(5)). In the interest of expedition, in

light of the 120-day decision schedule,

the Commission may request the Postal

Service to submit memoranda of law on

any appropriate issue. If requested, such

memoranda will be due 20 days from

the issuance of the request and the

Postal Service shall serve a copy of its

memoranda on the petitioners. The