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
13188 Federal Register / Vol. 60, No. 47 / Friday, March 10, 1995 / Notices

regulation is not necessary to achieve

the underlying purpose of the rule. The

licensee completed a successful ILRT

test during the fifth refueling outage for

Unit 2 and has developed a corrective

action plan for leakage through specific

containment penetrations. Strict

application of Appendix J would require

performance of another ILRT during the

sixth refueling outage in order to

address the additional testing

requirements of Appendix J, Section

III.A.6(b) and the Section III.D.1(a)

requirement to perform an ILRT during

the 10-year plant inservice inspections.

In order to avoid performance of an

ILRT during the sixth refueling outage,

the licensee has proposed a one-time

exemption from Section III.A.6(b)

(additional testing requirements) and a

permanent exemption from Section

III.D.1(a), in order to de-couple the

Appendix J ILRT test schedule and the

10-year inservice inspection periods.

Granting the exemption would result in

the performance of the next Unit 2 ILRT

during the seventh refueling outage,

which in consistent with the regular

testing interval of approximately once

per forty months.

The Need for the Proposed Action

The proposed exemption would allow

the licensee to resume a normal ILRT

testing interval and thereby preclude the

need to perform an ILRT during the

sixth refueling outage of LaSalle, Unit 2.

Performance of an ILRT during the

upcoming Unit 2 refueling outage would

result in the collection of significant

radiation dose, approximately 3 personrems, by licensee personnel. The need

for the exemption results from the

requirement to perform the ILRT during

refueling outages associated with the 10-

year plant inservice inspections and the

requirements to perform additional

ILRT testing in the event that

consecutive ILRT’s fail, even if those

failures are a result of leakage through

identified penetrations.

Environmental Impacts of the Proposed

Action

The Commission has completed its

evaluation of the proposed exemption

and concludes that granting the onetime relief from Section III.A.6(b) and

granting relief from Section III.D.1(a) of

Appendix J to 10 CFR part 50 does not

affect the configuration of plant systems

or plant operating practices. The

proposed exemption is limited to the

scheduling of a required Type A test

during the sixth refueling outage of Unit

2 and a subsequent decoupling of the

Type A tests from the inservice

inspection period. Previous testing has

demonstrated the integrity of the

containment structure. Leakage through

containment penetrations and values

would continue to be identified by

performance of LLRT. Therefore, no

increase in the release of radioactive

materials following an accident would

result from the revision of the Type A

test schedule. Changes to the Type A

test schedule do not affect the

radioactive effluent release during

normal operation. Accordingly, the

Commission concludes that this

proposed action would result in no

significant radiological environmental

impact.

With regard to potential

nonradiological impacts, the proposed

exemption only involves the scheduling

of ILRT testing. It does not affect

nonradiological plant effluents and

there are no other nonradiological

environmental impacts associated with

the proposed exemption.

Alternatives to the Proposed Action

Since the Commission concludes that

there are no significant environmental

impacts that would result from the

proposed action, any alternatives with

equal or greater environmental impacts

need not be evaluated. The principal

alternative would be to deny the

requested exemption and require the

licensee to conduct the ILRT during the

sixth refueling outage of LaSalle, Unit 2.

Denial would not significant reduce the

environmental impact of plant operation

and would result in lost electrical

generation and expense of significant

licensee resources.

Alternate Use of Resources

This action does not involve the use

of any resources not previously

considered in the Final Environmental

Statement for the LaSalle County

Station dated November 1978.

Agencies and Persons Contacted

The NRC staff reviewed the licensee’s

request and consulted with the Illinois

State official. The State Official had no

comments regarding the NRC’s

proposed action.

Finding of no Significant Impact

Based on the foregoing environmental

assessment, the Commission concludes

that the proposed action will not have

a significant effect on the quality of the

human environment. Accordingly, the

Commission has determined not to

prepare an environmental impact

statement for the proposed exemption.

For further details with respect to this

action, see the request for exemption

dated October 24, 1994, which is

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, the Public

Library of Illinois Valley Community

College, Rural Route No. 1, Oglesby,

Illinois.

Dated at Rockville, MD., this 1st day of

March 1995.

For the Nuclear Regulatory Commission.

George F. Dick, Jr.,

Acting Director, Project Directorate III–2,

Division of Reactor Projects III/IV, Office of

Nuclear Reactor Regulation.

[FR Doc. 95–5934 Filed 3–9–95; 8:45 am]

BILLING CODE 7590–01–M

Advisory Committee on Reactor

Safeguards Subcommittee Meeting on

Thermal Hydraulic Pheonomena;

Meeting

The ACRS Subcommittee on Thermal

Hydraulic Phenomena will hold a

meeting on March 27 and 28, 1995,

Room T–2B1, 11545 Rockville Pike,

Rockville, Maryland.

The entire meeting will be open to

public attendance, with the exception of

a portion that may be closed to discuss

Westinghouse Electric Corporation

proprietary information pursuant to (5

U.S.C. 552b(c)(4)).

The agenda for the subject meeting

shall be as follows: Monday, March 27,

1995–8:30 a.m. until the conclusion of

business and Tuesday, March 28, 1995–

8:30 a.m. until the conclusion of

business.

The Subcommittee will continue its

review of the NRC research program to

modify the RELAP5/MOD3 code for use

in the AP600 design certification

review. The focus of this meeting will

be on the development of the

Phenomena Identification and Tanking

Table (PRT) in this regard. The purpose

of this meeting is to gather information,

analyze relevant issues and facts, and to

formulate proposed positions and

actions, as appropriate, for deliberation

by the full Committee.

Oral statements may be presented by

members of the public with the

concurrence of the Subcommittee

Chairman; written statements will be

accepted and made available to the

Committee. Electronic recordings will

be permitted only during those portions

of the meeting that are open to the

public, and questions may ask only by

members of the Subcommittee, its

consultants, and staff. Persons desiring

to make oral statements should notify

the cognizant ACRS staff engineer

named below five days prior to the

meeting, if possible, so that appropriate

arrangements can be made.