The Toledo Edison Co., Centerior Service Company, and the Cleveland Electric Illuminating Co.; Exemption

NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSION

[Docket No. 50-346]

The Toledo Edison Co., Centerior Service Company, and the

Cleveland Electric Illuminating Co.; Exemption

I

The Toledo Edison Company, Centerior Service Company, and the

Cleveland Electric Illuminating Company (the licensees) hold Facility

Operating License No. NPF-3, which authorizes operation of the Davis-

Besse Nuclear Power Station, Unit No. 1. The license provides, among

other things, that the facility is subject to all rules, regulations,

and Orders of the Nuclear Regulatory Commission (the Commission) now or

hereafter in effect.

The facility is a pressurized water reactor located at the

licensee's site in Ottawa County Ohio.

II

Section III.D.2(b)(ii) of 10 CFR Part 50, Appendix J requires that

a full pressure air lock leakage test be performed whenever air locks

are opened during periods when containment integrity is not required.

III

By letter dated October 21, 1994, the licensee requested an

Exemption from the requirement of 10 CFR 50, Appendix J, Section

III.D.2(b)(ii) identified in Section II above. If an air lock is opened

during Modes 5 and 6, Section III.D.2(b)(ii) of Appendix J requires

that an overall air lock leakage test at not-less-than the calculated

peak containment pressure from a design-basis loss of coolant accident

(Pa) be conducted before plant heatup and startup (i.e., before

entering Mode 4). Instead, if no maintenance has been performed on the

air locks that affects air lock sealing capabilities, the licensee

would conduct an air lock seal leakage test (Section III.D.2(b)(iii) of

10 CFR 50, Appendix J), for the full pressure air lock test required by

Section III.D.2(b)(ii).

If the periodic six-month test of Section III.D.2(b)(i) of Appendix

J and the test required by Section III.D.2(b)(iii) of Appendix J are

current, and no maintenance has been performed on the air lock that

affects air lock sealing capabilities, there should be no reason to

expect the air lock to leak excessively, just because it has been

opened in Mode 5 or 6. If maintenance has been performed, which could

affect air lock sealing capability, then a full-pressure air lock test

will be performed following such maintenance.

The licensee's letter dated October 21, 1994, submitted information

to identify the special circumstances for granting this exemption to

Davis-Besse, pursuant to 10 CFR 50.12. The purpose of Appendix J to 10

CFR 50, is to assure that containment leak-tight integrity can be

verified periodically, throughout service lifetime to maintain

containment leakage, within the limits specified in the facility

Technical Specifications. The purposed alternative test method, along

with the six-month test requirement of Section III.D.2(b)(i) of

Appendix J, and the testing requirements when maintenance is performed

on the air lock that affects sealing capability, is sufficient to

achieve this underlying purpose, in that it provides adequate assurance

of continued leak-tight integrity of the air lock.

Based on the above discussion, the licensee's proposed substitution

of an air lock seal leakage test described in III.D.2(b)(iii) for a

full-pressure test, as discussed above, is acceptable.

IV

Accordingly, the Commission has determined that, pursuant to 10 CFR

50.12, 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. The Commission further determines that

special circumstances described by 10 CFR 50.12(a)(2)(ii) exist, in

that application of the regulation in the particular circumstances is

not necessary to achieve the underlying purpose of the rule, since the

licensees have proposed an acceptable alternative method that

accomplishes the intent of the regulation.

Accordingly, the Commission hereby grants the Exemption as

described in Section III above from the requirements of 10 CFR 50,

Appendix J, Section III.D.2(b)(ii).

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 (59 FR 54222).

This Exemption is effective upon issuance.

Dated at Rockville, Maryland this 1st day of November, 1994.

For the Nuclear Regulatory Commission.

Elinor G. Adensam,

Acting Director, Division of Reactor Projects III/IV, Office of Nuclear

Reactor Regulation.

[FR Doc. 94-27482 Filed 11-4-94; 8:45 am]

BILLING CODE 7590-01-M