ML20128L250

Motion to Reopen Record & Submit New Contention That Application of Section III.D.2 of App J to 10CFR50 Does Not Serve Purpose of Regulation.Certificate of Svc Encl

ML20128L250
Person / Time
Site:	Perry
Issue date:	07/05/1985
From:	Hiatt S OHIO CITIZENS FOR RESPONSIBLE ENERGY
To:	Atomic Safety and Licensing Board Panel
References
CON-#385-759 OL, NUDOCS 8507110288
Download: ML20128L250 (25)

Text

-' ' '

July 5, 1985 4.,4 UNITED STATES OF AMERICA NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMI55f0N ,

Before the Atomic Safety and Licensing Board In.the Matter of ) UfNfC

)

THE CLEVELAND ELECTRIC ) Docket Nos. 50-440 OL ILLUMINATING CO. ET AL.

) 50-441 35 JR 10 A10:58

) *

(Perry Nuclear Power Plant, )

GFFICE OF SECREiA r Units 1 and 2) ) 00CKETING & SERVER ~

BRANCH MOTION TO REOPEN THE RECORD AND TO SUBMIT A NEW CONTENTION I. INTRODUCTION On Aprsi 8, 1985, Applicants requested from the NRC Storf on exer.ption from Section III . D. 2 (b) (ii) of 10 CFR 50 Append 2x J.

01oiming thot compliance therewith is financially burdensome, see Exhibit 1, ottached hereto. On May 8, 1985, the OCRE Representoeive wrote o letter to the NRC Project Monager, Mr.

John.Stefano, explaining that the requested exemption must be cented as it is illegal and unwarronted. See Exhibit 2. On June 21, 1985, the Stoff prepared on Environmental Assessment c ond Finding of No Si9nificant Impact for the requested exemption (see Exhibit 3), opporently si9nifying its intention to grant the exemption, As is explained'below, the Stoff has committed on ultro vires act in granting this meritiess exemption. Furthermore, the nacith and sofety of the public is endangered by this exemption. For these reasons, InterVenor Ohio Citicens for Responsible Energy ('0CRE') respectfully requests that the 8507110288 850705 PDR ADOCK 05000440 0 PDR

)Nb

_g..

Licen' sing Board reopen the record for the' purpose of admitting s the'following contentio'n for litigation:

Applicones have not demonstrated, pursuont to 10 CFR 2.758, that the application of section III .D.2 (b) (ii) of Appendix J to 10 CFR 50 to the Perry facility does not serve the purposes for which that regulation Was adopted.

II. DISCUSSION A.-Standards for Exemptions under 10 CFR 50.10

.10 CFR 50.12 (a) states that the Commission may grant such exemptions from the regulations in 10 CFR Port 50 os at determines are authori ed by low ond Will not endanger life or property or the common defense and security and are otherwise.in the public interest.

Each of the three factors are addressed separately below.

1. Authorized by Low In ehear' exemption request Applicones claim that the exemption is authori:ed my 10 CFR 50.12 and thoe no laws or regulations would prevent the granting of'the exemption.

. Applicants are mistaken on several counts. First. 10 CFR'50.12 does not authorite blanket exemptions from the Commission's safety stondordSi rathere it permit 5 granting of exemptions only in circumstances Where Specific standards are met. As discussed later, this regulation is reserved for exceptional circumstances. Secondly, Applicones-confuse the term

'outhori:ed by law' with 'not prohibited by low." The standora dictionary Geoning of 'outhori e* is 'to GiVe official cPProval or legal power to; to 91Ve a

' right to acts to empower." Webster's New Twentieth Century

y -s-Dictionary, Unabridged, second Edition. '

Authori ed' clearly does not meon *not prohibited."

or course, the governing low for the NRC is the Atomic .

Energy Act.. This low does not authorize the Commission to grant exemptions; on tne contrary, the Commission may issue a license on1'y to those oppliconts who ore equipped to observe and Who agree to observe such screty standards to protect health and to minimite donger to life or property as the Commission may by rule establish. 42 USC 2133 (b) (2) .

Flor does 42 USC 2201(h), which governs consideration of

. license opplications, contain any variance from this requir'ement. In the obsence of a showing of Congressional authority in the legislative history of the Atomic Energy Act, the requested exemption connot.be said to be 'outhorized by l a w ."

See E.I. duPont de Nemours S.Co. v. Train, 430 US 112, 138, 97 S.Ct. 965 (1977), wneretn the Supreme Court established that the authority to provide for exemptions from agency regulatzens must be granted by Congress, either through the. specific language of the enabling statute or its legislative history.

Even ir the exemption were authori:ed by low, Applicants' b c.s i s for requesting relief clearly is not. The sole basis for non-compliance with Section III . O 2 (b) (ii) of Appendix J is the purported financial burden created by compliance. The supreme Court.hos mode it clear that the Commission is not authorized to consider.Such claims. Power Reactor Development Corp. v.

International Union of Electrical etc. Workers, 367 US 396, 413-416.(1941); Pacific Cos one Electric Co. v. Store Energy s -_.y -._-.,,,._.m.,

F -

c

_4 Resources Conservation and Development Commission. 51 LW 4449, 4453 (1983). .

2. Endangering Life or Property As Applicants and Storf admit, on exemption from Section III . D. 2 (b) (ii) of Appendix J would increase the probability of containment leakoge during on occident. Since the purpose of the containment is to limit the escope of fisston products anto the environment, Gny increased leakage will endanger life or property due to increased exposure to fission products.

The Commission's standard for this factor in 10 CFR 50.12 (a) is that the facility in non-compliance with a regulation be os Sofe os if it were in compliance. Long Island Lighting Co.

(Shoreham Nuclear Power storion). CLI-84-6, 19 NRC 1154 (1984).

Applicones do not meet this standard.

Section III . D. 2 (b) (ii) of Appendix J requires that Girlocks I

opened during periods when containment integrity is not required be tested by internal pressuri:otion to P sub o C11.31 psig for y PilPP3 at the end of such periods. This pressuri otion test is the some os must be-performed every 6 months under Section III.O.1 (o) (i) . l The Staff proposes that the seal leak test of Section III.D.2(b)

(iii) be substituted for the full internal pressuri:otion test  ;

1 before establishing containment integrity. See Exhibit 3.

However, Sec tion III .D. 2. (b) (iii) of Appendix J clectly states

.thot the the seal leak test connot be substituted for the 6 month internal pressurination test. Thus, the seo2 leak test

~~

4 s ,z .

.. r

'y st e l

must not be the safety equivalent of the internal pressurization

' / ,

.es e

test, r.

. Examination of FSAR design dato verifies this. The airlock oesign incorporates on automatic seal leak test. Upon activation of'the door interlock switch, the test cycle begins by pressurizing the space between the seals to 11.31 psig. At this Pressure, leakage is tested and the result dispicyed in the control room. ,After the test cycle, the system resets to the

/ 1 ready state for the next closure. FSAR Section 3.8.2.1.4, P. 3.$ -

55. This rese apparently rulrils the requirements or Seceion

-III . D. 2 (b) (iii) and is appropriate for Periods when the interlocks '

are activoted.

r." '

However, the test or Section III . D. 0 (b) (ii) is required ofter'Pericds when containment integrity is not required.

i During these periods the interlock system is bypassed to permit both doors to be left open. FSAR p. 3.8-56. OPeroting experience at nuclear facilities indicates that airlocks have o poor recordy and frequently one or both doors have railed to J

close or latch. NUREG/CP-0056, Proceedings or the second Ucrkshopion Containment Integrity at 36-37. Ir o door is left open'ond' interlocks bypassed, no interlock signal will be ,

l present to stort the automatic test cycle, and no seal leak test i

/ ,

l

^ (wi11 be performed. Complying with Section III . D. 2 (b) (ii) will l

% l h&lp assure that air 1CCk v

s n t ejj r i t y is maintoined.

i

3. The.-P,ublic Interest l l

l s lAN= .

g . ...i4 ._ . . . . . .

, . .;r, .

5snee the exemption would clearly endanger life and property by increasing the probability of containment leakage during on Occident, the exemption is obviously not in the public interest.

Applicants in their request take o novel view of apublic .

interest,* As explained in Exhibit 2, their reasoning is entirely erroneous.

Having found ehot Applicants' exemption request fails the

-tests of 10 CFR 50.12. OCRE maintains that the Staff should have denied.the request.- Since the Stoff has granted this baseless request and in so doing hos' committed on ultro vires act, it is now appropriate for the Licensing Board to apply the proper ,

standards for waiving regulations, i.e., 10 CFR 2.758.

B. Standards under 10 CFR 2.758 It has.long been established that the Commission's regulations represent the ' Commission's definition of what is required to protect the public health and safety.* Vermont Yankee fluclear Power Corp, (Vermont Yankee Nuclear Power Plant).

-ALAB-138, 6 AEC 520, 528 (1973). Compliance with the regulations is the basis for a finding that a nuclear power plant con operate with o

• reasonable assurance of safety

• and in fact is the ' sine cuo non of adequate protection to public health and safety." Moine Y a n'k e e Atomic Power Co. (Maine Yankee Atomic Power Station), ALAB-161, 6 AEC 1003, 1009-10 (1973).

It hos liKewise been established that allowing non- l compliance With the regulations on the grounds that the plant is sore anyway, based on some overo11 finding of reasonable t

.a -

..: x,~

asssurance of safe operation, is tontamount to on impermissible challenge to the Commission's regulations. Vermont Yankee, supra, 6 AEC at 529. Cho11enges to the Commission's regulations are, of course, expressly forbidden by 10 CFR 0. 758 (o) , unless the party seeking the waiver meets the standards of 10 CFR 0.758 (b), (c), and (d).

These sections require that a party to o proceeding seeking waiver of a regulation must make o primo focie showing that the opplication of the regulation to the porticular case in question woul'd not serve the purpose's for which the rule was adopted and that opplication of the rule should be waived or exception granted due to the special circumstances of the case. If the presiding officer determines that a primo facie showing has been mode,.the matter is certified to th9 Commission, which may direct.further proceedings to aid its determination. It must be recolled that this Licensing Board has ruled that the standard.

for granting petitions under 10 CFR 2.758 has two prongs (that the purposes of a rule are not served by its opPlication and that I

special circumstances exist with respect to o porticular cose

( that make this so). LBP-81-57, 14 NRC 1037 (1981). If Applicants seek o waiver of Section III . D. 2 (b) (ii) of Appendix J, then they must follow the p"ocedure in 10 CFR 2.758.

Although Applicants have not yet submitted such a petition, OCRE con conclude, on the basis of their exemption request, that it will foil, os no orguments were made in the request even

.~ . _g_

remotely resembling the special circumsto'nces of Section 2.758.

Indeed, their claims of "horm" could be made at any facility and ,

for almost any regulation.

The Commission hos recognized that exemptions from the i

regulations are made only in extraordinary cases upon a showing of exceptional circumstances. Shoreham, supra, 19 NRC at 1156, note 3. The Commission also required that, in o contested I Proceeding, the opplication for exemption be submitted to the 1

Licensing Board. Id. at 1155. In the obsence of particular instructions for handling this case from the Commission (os were mode for the Shoreham proceeding), Applicants are 80 party to on i

udjudicatory proceeding involving initial licensing subject to' 10 CFR 2.758, and they therefore must petition to waive Section III . D. 2 (b) (ii) of Appendix J. Pursuant to the requirements of Section 2.758, if they would seek on exemption from that 1

regulatory requirement.

III. STANDARDS FOR REOPENING THE RECORD AND FOR LATE-FILED s

CONTENTIONS ,

A. Reopening the Record The standards for reopening the record, as outlined in Pocific Gas & Electric Co. (Diablo Canyon Nuclear Fower Plant, Units 1 and 2), ALAB-598, 11 NRC S76, 879 (1980), are (1) that the motion be timely; (2) that it address sibnificant issues; ond (3) that a different result might be reach?d had the newly

~

' proffered material baen considered initially. However, this Licensing Board has questioned the OPPlicobility of these

. , . . - - - . . . . .- _ . _ - . - -, _~. .

.t- ' f 'h . MM standards (particularly the lost one) to motions to reopen filed

. prior to the issuance of an initial decision (LBP-83-50, 18 NRC 256 (1983)), os one connot show that a different result might be reached-if no result has yet been reached.

-This motion is timely, being filed within 10 days ofter the s

receipt of_the Stoff's notice of Environmental Assessment and ,

Finding or No Significant Impoet (Exhibit 3) by OCRE. Filing before the receipt of that document was neither logical nor possible, os it was not then known whether the Stoff would grant the exemption.

This motion addresses a significant issue; containment integrity is vital to the protection of the Public heoith and safety during on occident, and non-compliance with the Commission's regulations is always a serious matter.

Regardless of the Board's disposition of the, issues

' Presently before it, new information concerning non-compliance with the Commission's safety regulations will always worront reopening of the record, since, Os discussed above, compliance with the regulottons is the basis for o finding that a nuclear ,

focility is safe, and is also in itself one of the individual findings required to be mode by the Presiding officer. See 10 y l CFR O .104 (c ) (2) ; compare 10 CFR 50. 57 (o) (2) .

1

~

Each of the standords for reopening the record has thus been l l

met, f

B. Standores for Late-Filed Contentions  !

The five factors of 10 CFR 0.714(o) have likewise been met:

i

i

. ~ ~ -

4 i

Factor (i) concerns good cause for Idee riling. As discussed above, Filing at on earlier time was impossible.

Factor (ii) concerns the availability or other means for l

protecting OCRE>s interests. OCRE is unaware or any other means left to it, and in roct tried'other means, addre'ssing its concerns to the Project Manager in the hope or avoiding l i t i g a t i o n', without success. Since the starr has caused this action by granting Appliconts' meritless exemption request, o petition to the starr under Section 2.206 will serve little 4.

purpose.

Factor (iii) concerns the excent to which OCRE's participation on this matter will assist in developing a sound record. OCRE has conducted considerable research on the subject-I or containment performance and integrity in preparing for the hearing on Issue M8. The Licensing Board has noted that, on that issue. OCRE could contribute subseantially to the record, March 14,'1985 Memorandum and Order (Motions on Hydrogen Control Contention) at 7.

Factor (iv) concerns the extent to which OCRE's interest Will be represented by other parties. OCRE is not aware that any other party con represent its interests on this matter, certainly the Starr, having committed on ultro vires oct in granting the exemption, cannot represent OCRE's interests.

Foetor (v) concerns the degree or delay or broadening or ene issues occassioned. While some delay might result, it is attributable to Applicants, who, had they anticipated the need t

, a, uw- . g g. ,

+,

t

.to comply with a regulation which has beeh in effect for years, would not now be trying to evade compliance. Furthermore, the effect of any delay is minimal in light of Applicants' ever-slipping fuel l o o'd date, See June 19, 1985 letter from

'. Applicants' counsel to the Board, It thus con be concluded,that all five factors hove been met, and the Board should grant the instant motion. OCRE Proys that-the Board is 50 moved, Respectfully submitted, Wf '

Susan L. Hiore OCRE Representative 8275 Munson Rd.

Mentor. OH 44060 .

(216) 255-3158 1

'50  % ) %  %

i 4

. . ww -

I Eku rsir /

( e.o. Box 5000 - cLEVELANo. oHlo 4410 -

TELEPHONE (216) 627-9800 - lLLUMINATING BLDG. - 55 PUBLICSoVARE Serving The Best Location in the Nation MURRAY R. EDELMAN VICE PRESlotNT ,

NUCLEAR April 8, 1985 PY-CEI/NRR-0218 L Mr. B. J. Youngbloed, Chief -

Licensing Branch No. 1 Division of Licensing U. S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission Washington, D.C. 20555 ,

Perry Nuclear Power Plant Docket Nos. 50-440; 50-441 )

Request for. Exemption to 10CFR50 Appendix J -

Dear Mr. Youngblood:

y*

. i During the development of Technical Specifications for the Perry Nuclear Power

.. Plant, CEI has identified an implicit exemption to the provisions of 10CFR50,  ;

(^ Appendix J,Section III.D.2(b)(ii) that is contained in a footnote to Section 4.6.1.3 of the Technical Specifications.

1 Based on your staff's guidance and pursuant to 10CFR50.12(a), CEI is submitting its evaluation of the need for this exemption in the attachment. The attachment provides the information required by 10CFR50.12(a), including a description of the issue addressed in the exemption and the basis upon which CEI concludes that the exemption may be acceptable to the NRC.

If you have any questions, please call.

Very truly yours; Murray R.,Edelma ,

Vice President Nuclear Group -

MRE:nje Attachment ec: Jay Silberg, Esq. ' '

John Stefano (2)

(- J. Groba ,

8504150309 850408 PDR ' ADOCK 05000440 A PDR

, , ,c /wj,, l[j

, m e,-~ f-

[n f Attachunt PY-CEI/NRR-0218 L

.I .

REQUEST FOR EXEMPTION TO 10CFR50 APPENDIX J Applicant requests a permanent exemption from the provisions of 10CFR Part 50 Appendix J Paragraph III.D.2(b)(ii).

The requested exemption is authorized by 100FR50.12, and there are no laws or regulations which would prevent the granting of the exemption. The exemption i will not present an undue risk to the public health and safety, is consistent  :

with the cosmon defense and security, and is in the public' interest.

PUBLIC HEALTH AND SAFETY JUSTIFICATION Paragraph III.D.2(b) of Appendix J to 10CFR 50 details three explicit air lock testing requirements which are further required to be included in the Technical i i Specifications. With one exception, Technical Specification 4.6.1.3 items a, b.1, and b.2 correspond to and comply with those Appendix J requirements.  !

Technical Specification 4.6.1.3.b.1 requires that containment air locks be

-demonstrated operable by conducting a leak test every 6 months, when ,

i containment integrity is required, by pressurizing the interior of the air lock ['

to P.a (the calculated peak containment internal pressure under design basis accident conditions, 11.31 psig for PNPP Unit 1) and verifying that the leakage i rate is within its limit. This is in compliance with Appendix J requirement j III.D.2(b)(1).

A further Appendix J requirement in paragraph III.D.2.(b)(iii) to test air -

locks within 3 days af ter being opened (or at least once every 3 days for .

i closings more frequent than every 3 days) specifies that air lock seal tests satisfy the 3 day test requirements. Technical Specification 4.6.1.3.a corresponds to.and complies with this portion of Appendix J. - -

. l w ?$*> ~

1. m - e . .. , * ' ~

.1 \' A r s ,i ,

n . , . . .

- ; ;;. . :.a .

..y.-..-_....._.._._. . . . . . , . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

]_ . -

'~

i The portion of Appendix J to which the exception applies is paragraph ,

III.D.2(b)(11) which requires that " Air locks opened during periods when containment integrity is not required by the plant's Technical Specification shall be tested at the end of such periods at not less than P,." In lieu of this requirement, Technical Specification 4.6.1.3.b.2 requires that an overall air lock leakage test be conducted at P, when maintenance ,has been performed on the air lock that could affect the air lock sealing capability. This Technical Specification contains a footnote stating that this requirement is an exemption to Appendix J of 10CFR50.

The existing air lock doors are so designed that a full pressure test at P, of an entire air lock can only be performed af ter strong backs (structural bracing) have been installed on the' inner door. This is due to the fact that the pressure exerted on the inner door during the test is in a direction opposite to that of force experienced during a postulated accident and the locking mechanisms are not designed to withstand such reverse forces associated ,

with pressures on the order of P,. Installing acrong backs, performing the

~

test, and removing the strong backs is a cumbersome process requiring approximately 24 hours2.777778e-4 days <br />0.00667 hours <br />3.968254e-5 weeks <br />9.132e-6 months <br /> per air Jock (there are 2 air locks), during which access through the air lock is prohibited. The basic design of the PNPP Unit 1 ,

containment permits f requent access in order to perform required surveillance and maintenance activities, i

The p,eriodic 6-month test of paragraph III.D.2(b)(1) of Appendix J and the 3-day test requirement of paragraph III.D.2.(b)(iii) of Appendix J provide assurance that the air lock will not leak excessively just because it has.been opened when containment integrity is not required if no maintenance which could affect the ability of the air lock to seal has been performed on the air lock Furthermore, this exemption is included as a part,of the Standard Technical Specifications and is consistent with current regulatory practice and policy..

. -- . .,, ,w n. . . n . : :n . . .

An exemption from paragraph III.D.2(b)(ii) of Appendix J,10CFR50 is requested since this present Technical Specification provides' equivalent protection to the requirement itself and does not endanger life or property.

. ~_ . _. _ _ . . .- , - __

/b

$y PUBLIC INTEREST . .

N. h If literal compliance with the applicable provisions of Appendix J discussed above were mandated, either a cumbersome and unwarranted test method must be 4-used .or a' major design change would be required in order to permit the inner j door to withstand full containment pressure in the test direction without

_ strong backs. The remaining Appendix J test requirements for containment airlock testing in conjunction with the current Technical Specification-post-maintenance test requirement achieve substantial compliance with the

purpose of the Appendix J requirements, which is to provide reasonable assurance,that leakage will be detected.

t If design changes were undertaken, a corresponding delay in commercial operation of PNPP Unit i wculd be occasioned at this stage. Any delay in the commercial operation of FNPP Unit I would cause the cost of the unit to increase at the rate of more than $14.7 million pe'r month. Under standard ratemaking practices, these costs would eventually have to be borne by ratepayers of the CAPC0 companies. .

If full complicance with the Appendix J testing requirement is undertaken using the current design then periodically over the remaining life of the plant, a cumbersome and lengthy test must be undertaken on one or both containment air locks. _Tlie duration of these tests taken over the life of the plant during ,

i which the plant must be shut down (since Appendix J requires the test at the 4

end of each period during which containment. integrity is not required and

'during which the air lock has been opened) is substantial. These tests would extend the duration of the outages by half a day or more several times a year.

This would have a significant financial impact on the CAPCO companies and 1 .

ultimately on the ratepayers as described above.

Either implementation of a full compliance test requirement with lost time over the life of the plant or a delay in commercial operation to . implement a major

design change has a substantial financial impact on the CAPCO companies and its

, customers and is not warranted inasmuch as, as shown above, the public health

• O and. safety are adequately protected.

l ,

._____m_ . _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ . _ _ _ _ _ . _ . . _ _ . _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ . . - . _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ -

A ^

f -

~

[ POTENTIAL ENVIRONMENTAL' IMPACT The only potential incremental environmental impact associated with this-exemption request.is related to increased probability of containment leakage during an accident. Other areas of environmental impact, namely radiological and non-radiological effluents and other non-radiological. consequences or ,

impacts are not affected by the requested exemption.

The containment air locks are points of routine access with the containment and have no bearing on the plant rad,iological or non-radiological effluents. The exemption sought in this case, therefore, has no adverse impact on the normal operations effluents or, for that matter, any non-radiological areas. $

Because of existing Technical Specification surveillance requirements, the requested exemption invol.ves a de facto requirement for an air lock seal test ,

in lieu of the Appendix J Paragraph II.D.2(b)(ii) test. Paragraph II.D.2.(b)(iii) already allows an air lock seal test in lieu of a similar

' ~

required air lock test at a pressure of not less than P,, thus recognizing the implicit equivalence of these tests under similar circumstances.

As a result, it can be concluded that there is a reasonable assurance against undue air lock leakage provided under the exemption and that no material increase in the probability or extent of air lock leakage (i.e., in excess of {

the design value for post accident containment leakage) is to be expected.

Therefore, there is no significant increase in the probability of higher post accident offsite (or for that matter onsite) doses related to the exemption and

(

therefore no significant increase in environmental impact beyond that experienced with no exemption.

Exausir L Nov 6, 1985 i Mr. John J. Sterono Project Manager Diviston or Licensing U.S. Nuclear Re9ulatory Commission Washington, D.C. 20555 .

Re Perry Nucleor Power Plane, Request for Exemption to 10CFR50 Appendix J , . .

Dear Mr. Sterono:

On April 8, 1985 the Clevelond Elecerzc Illuminating Co.

requested on exemption from Section III . D. 2. (b) (ii) or Appendix J 50. The requested relier would eliminore leok to 10 CFR testing Port,inment perscnnel airlocks by internal of conto pressuricotton to 11.31 psig at the end or periods When containment integrity is not required if they had been opened in enor persed. Ohio Citizens for Responsible Energy ("OCRE')

opposes this exemption for the reasons outlined beloW.

Applicants' main complaint against this requirement is that it is burdensome, requiring extro time and thereby costing them money. T',i s complaint could be made against any or the NRC's regulations. In the portion or their request labelled "public interest

• Appliconts take o novel view or that term under the Atomic Energy Act. Public interest to Applicants means not che traditional public heoith and sorsty, but rather delay and cost increases, supposedly out or concern ror rotepoyers. First, se as not clear that such extra costs Would be borne by rotepayers.

The PUC0 has become intoleront of the increasing cost or Perry and has denied the rote increases sought by CAPCO for the plant.

'The PUC0 has cisc ordered a monogament audit or the costs or Perry. Thus, ze is proboble that that any costs due to compliance with the regulation (such as a design change) would be borne by stockholders and not ratepayers, since the orgument Could be mode that since Appendix J has'been an its present form for some time, CEI monogemene should have anticipated the need to comply with it and incorporated any needed design changes at on sorlier date. Secondly, considerotion of costs to utilitses are improper under the AEA. See Power Reactor Development Co. v. International Unzons, 367 US 396 (1961)s Pacific Gas & Electric Co. v. State Energy Resources Commission, 51 LU 4449, 4453 (1983).

Furthermore, Applicants' c11egotions or rinancial harm are mode in a most general sense and are not substantiated by reliable rocts.

Applicants clotm that the other airlock leak test Provisions or Appendix J (the 6 month internal pressuriration test and the 3

. Po99 2 g- day seal te s t)- provide equivalent protection'to the requirement

.( in question. This orsument could be mod.e at any facility, and represents o challenge to the requirement itself.

Appliconts' claims of the. burdensome nature of the questioned reguloeion are also inconsistent. They do not cbject to the 6-month inkernol pressurization test, which would require the some oracing of the inner.Girlock door as is-needed for the test in question. The test in question is performed only ce the end of pertods an which containment integrity is not required, which,

~ occordance with the draft Perry Tech Specs, is cold shutdown or refueling. Since these periods are expected to be o minimum compared to the time-the plant is OPeroting, in startup or in hot shutdown, we would expect the 6-montn test to be performed

-more frequently.

There is o valid tecnnical reason for the test in question.

Pacific Northwest Loboratory's Reliability Analysis of Containment Isolation systems Project hos found that 90% of penetration failures in their LER review were attributoble to 4 personnel airlock problems, and that foilure of one or both airlock doors to close and lotch hos been reported frequently.

(NUREG/CP-0056. Proceedings of the Second Workshop on Containment Integrity, pp. 36-37.)' Such failures are more likely to occur wnen containment integrity is not required, since interlocks are bypassed and personnel are more lax about containment integrity. The test in question would assure that r

'~ .cirlock integrity is maintained.

j Contrary to Applicants' ossertions, the 3-day seal test would

< not detect airlock leakogefollowing a period in which containment integrity is not required. Section III.D.2.(b)(iii) of Appendix J requires this test ofter on opening of the Girlock

- during periods'when Containment integrity is required. It is not requ' ired ofter periods when containment integrity is not required. Thus, it is possible~that, if the requested exemption is granted, on improperly latched Girlock would 90 undetected until the 6-month test or until the airlock is opened, whichever comes first ofter the refueling outoge. Thts creates on

• unoccePtoble risk of containment leakage during on occident.

OCRE.thererore concludes that Applicants' request for on exemption from Appendix J is unwarranted, contrary to the AEA, onc o threat to the public health and safety. Their request must be denied.

Sincerely, 7

l

. y: 9.~ JQk5cb

~

1 susan L. Histt ens enun Rud Mentor, OH 44060

tXHIBt7~ 6 g UNITED STATES 4 g g NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSION li ij WASHING TON, D. C. 20555

% ,,,,. / JUN 211985 Docket No.: 50-440 -

Mr. Murray R. Edelman, Vice President Nuclear Operations Group The Cleveland Electric Illuminating Company P. O. Box 5000 Cleveland, Ohio 44101

Subject:

Request for Partial Exemption from the Testing Requirements of Appendix J to 10 CFR Part 50 Pertaining to the Operation of the Perry Nuclear Power Plant, Unit 1 Your letter dated April 8,1985 (PY-CEI/NRR-0218L), advised that during the development of plant Technical Specifications for the Perry Nuclear Power

.- . Plant, Unit 1, you identified the need for an implicit exemption from the -

test requirement of Paragraph III.D.2(b)(ii) of Appendix J to 10 CFR Part 50 related to containment airlock testing.

The NRC staff has prepared an Environmental Assessment and Finding of No Significant Impact of the requested exemption (copy enclosed), assuming that the seal leakage test program of Paragraph III.D.2(b)(iii) of A be specified in the Technical Specifications for Perry Unit 1)isppendix J (to substituted for the full pressure test requirement of Paragraph III.D.2(b)(ii) of Appendix.

J, prior to establishing containment integrity, when no maintenance has been performed on a containment airlock. The Environmental Assessment further assum-ed however, that whenever maintenance has been performed on a containment airlock, the full pressure testing required in Paragraph III.D.2(b)(ii) will be performed.

The analysis of the requested exemption pursuant to 10 CFR 50.12 will be document-ed with this clarification in a SER supplement prior to licensing and the exemption, will be documented in the operating license for Perry Unit 1.

The enclosed Environmental Assessment and Finding of No Significant Impact is being forwarded to the Office of the Federal Register for publication.

Sincerely, t

, s

.Y n o , Chief h ,

Li ens ng Bran No. 1 Divis on of L ensing

Enclosure:

As stated ,

l cc: See next page l l

JUN 211985

~

PERRY Mr. Murray R. Edelman, Vice President Nuclear Operations Group The Cleveland Electric Illuminating Company P. O. Box 5000 Cleveland, Ohio 44101 cc: Jay Silberg, Esq. Mr. Larry O. Beck Shaw, Pittman, & Trowbridge The Cleveland Electric 1800 M Street, N. W. Illuminating Company Washington, D. C. 20006 P. O. Box 97 E-210 Perry, Ohio 44081 Donald H. Hauser, Esq.

The Cleveland Electric Illuminating Company P. O. Box 5000 Cleveland,.0hio 44101 -

Resident Inspector's Office U. S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission

.: . Parmly at Center Road -

Perry, Ohio 44081 Regional Administrator U. S. NRC, Region III 799 Roosevelt Road Glen Ellyn, Illinois 60137 Donald T. Ezzone, Esq. .

Assistant Prosecuting Attorney 105 Main Street Lake County Administration Center Painesville, Ohio 44077 Ms. Sue Hiatt OCRE Interim Representative 8275 Munson Pentor, Ohio 44060 Terry J. Lodge, Esq.

618 N. Michigan Street Suite 105 Toledo, Ohio 43624 John G. Cardinal, Esq.

Prosecuting Attorney Ashtabula County Courthouse Jefferson, Ohio 44047 '

7590-0.t UNITED STATES NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMM;9SiON CLEVELAND ELECTRIC ILLUMINATING COMPANY -

DOCKET N0. 50-440 ENVIRONMENTAL ASSESSMENT AND ,

FINDING OF NO SIGNIFICANT IMPACT The U. S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission (the Commission) is considering '

issuance of a partial exemption from the requirements of Appendix J to 10 CFR Part 50 to the Cleveland Electric Illuminating Company (the applicant) for the Perry Nuclear Power Plant, Unit 1, located in Lake County, Ohio on the shore of Lake Erie, approximately 35 miles northeast of Cleveland, Ohio.

ENVIRONMENTAL ASSESSMENT .

Identification of Proposed Action: The exemption would eliminate the full pressure test required by Paragraph III.D.2(b)(ii) of Appendix J normal air-lock opening and substitute a seal leakage test to be conducted at a pressure specified in the plant Technical Specifications. The proposed exemption is in accordance with the applicant's request submitted by letter PY-CEI/NRR-0218L dated April 8,1985.

s. -

7590-01

- 2-The Need for the Proposed Action: The proposed exemption is needed to provide the applicant with greater plant availability over the 40-year lifetime of the plant by reducing the duration of plant outages in the performance of the full pressure test required by Paragraph III.D.2.(b)(ii) of Appendix J.

Environmental Impact of the proposed Action: The proposed' exemption could permit the substitution of an air lock seal leakage test for an air lock full pressure test when an airlock test is required prior to establishing containment integrity.

With respect to this exemption from Appendix J, the increment of environmental impact is related solely to the potential increased possibility of contain-ment leakage during an accident. This could lead to higher offsite and control room doses. However, this potential increase is vary small due to the added seal tests and other tests required by Appendix J which are to be performed by the applicant.

Alternative to the Proposed Action: Because the NRC staff has concluded that there is no~ measurable environmental impact associated with the proposed exemption, any alternative to this exemption will have either no environmental impact or greater environmental impact. The principal alternative would be to deny the requested exemption which would not reduce environmental impacts  !

I of plant operation and would result in reduced operational flexibility and

unwarranted delays in power ascension.

we w ew.--- -- - -m,- - , - ,r- ---

cwe- y,--,,----,--,-,-.,--,n< e----------mg -en-v-- - -,--w---r - , -- - -

-w---- -

+ - - -

7590-01 Alternative Use of Resources: This action does not involve the use of resources not previously considered in connection with the " Final Enviro'nmental Statement related to the operation of the Perry Nuclear Power Plant, Units I and 2,"

NUREG-0884, dated August 1982.

Agencies and Persons Contacted: The NRC staff did not consult other agencies or persons in assessing the proposed exemption, e

a ,

FINDING OF NO SIGNIFICANT IMPACT

.s The Commission has determined not to prepare an environmental impact state-

~ ^

ment for the proposed exemption.

• j Based upon the foregoing environmental assessment, we conclude that the proposed action will not have a significant effect on the quality of the human environment.

O b

7590-01 4

For further details with respect to this action, see the applicant's request for exemption dated April 8,1985 (letter PY-CEI/NRR-0,218L), which ,

is available for public inspection at the Commission's Public Document Room, 1717 H Street, N. W., Washington, D. C., and at the Perry Public Library 3735 Main Street, Perry, Ohio.

T~

Dated at Bethesda, Maryland, this [ S day of e l985.

j FOR THE NUCLEAt GULATORY COMMISSION e

e omas M. Novak, Assistant Director for Licensing Division of Licensing ,

O I

i

• l

,' d 3

i I -

i CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE I.

This is to certi~fy .that copies of the foregoing were served by depos't in the U.S. Mail, first class, postage prepaid, this SI day of JIUcV ,1986 to those on the -

service list b,elow. ,

pot US hf"-

10 A10:5g

' Susan L. Hiatt UI g'0*CHElin "t" iA n u BR ERvia SERVICE LIST

't -

JAMES P. GLEASON, CHAIRMAN Terry Lodge, Esq.

!RTOMIC SAFETY & LICEN5ING 80AAD 618 N. Michigan St' 1513 GILMOURE DR. I Suite 105 i SILUER SPRING, MD 20901 ' Toledo, OH 43624 ,

I .

Dr. Jerry R. Kline  !

Atomic Safety..& Licensing Board.

U.S,._ Nuclear. Regulatory Commission  :

Washington,'D.C.. 20555 ,

Mr..Glenn O. Bright Atomic Safety &. Licensing Board U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission Washington, D.C. 20555 Colleen P. Woodhead, Esq.

Office of the Executive Legal Director U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission ,

Washington, D.C. 20555 Jay Silberg, Esq.

Shaw, Pittman, Potts, & Trowbridge 1800 M Street, NW

. Washington, D.C. 20036 .

i Docketing & Service Branch

. Office of'the Secretary l

U.S.. Nuclear Regulatory Commission l Washington, D.C. 20555 Atomic Safety.& Licensing Appeal Board Panel U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission '

Washington, D.C. 20555 i

f