ML23151A555
| ML23151A555 | |
| Person / Time | |
|---|---|
| Issue date: | 10/20/1988 |
| From: | Stello V NRC/EDO |
| To: | |
| References | |
| PRM-050-049, 53FR41178 | |
| Download: ML23151A555 (1) | |
Text
DOCUMENT DATE: 10/20/1988
TITLE: PRM-050-049 - 53FR41178 - OHIO CITIZENS FOR RESPONSIBLE ENERGY: DENIAL OF PETITION FOR RULEMAKING. DALE A. BAICH, OCRE. NO FRN. PETITION DENIED AT 53 FR 4 1178.
CASE
REFERENCE:
PRM-050-049
53FR41178
KEYWORD: RULEMAKING COMMENTS
Document Sensitivity: Non-sensitive - SUNSI Review Complete STATUS 0~ RULEMJUtING
PROPOSED RULE: PRM-050-049
RULB HAMB: OHIO CITIZENS FOR RESPONSIBLE ENERGY: DENIAL OF PE TITION FOR RULEMAKIBG. DALE A. BAICH, OCRE. NO FRN
- PETITION DENIED AT 53 FR 41178.
PROPOSED RULB FED REG CITE: 53PR41178
PROPOSED RULB PUBLICATION DATE: 10/20/88 NUMBER OF COMMENTS: 0 ORIGINAL DATB FOR COMMENTS: I I EXTENSION DATE: I I
FINAL RULB FED. REG. CITE: 53FR41178 FINAL RULE PUBLICATION DATE: 10/20/88
NOTES OB EDO SIGNED THE PETITION DENIAL ON 9/27/88. PETITION WAS CONCERNED TATUS WITH STANDARDS FOR CONSIDERATION FOR EXEMPTIONS TO REQUIREMENTS IN P RULB 10 CFR SO. ONLY ONE FED. REG. PUB. ON PET. FILE LOCATED ON Pl.
TO FIND THB STAFF CONTACT OR VIEW TBB RULEMAKING HISTORY PRESS PAGE DOWN KEY
HISTORY OP THE RULE
PART AFFECTED: PRM-050*049
RULE TITLIU OHIO CITIZENS FOR RESPONSIBLE ENERGY: DENIAL OF PE TITION FOR RULEMAKING. DALBA. BAICH, OCRE. NO FRN
- PETITION DENIED AT 53 FR 41178.
ROPOSED RULE PROPOSED RULB DATE PROPOSED RULE SECY PAPER: SRM DATE: I I SIGNED BY SECRETARY: 09/27/88
FINAL RULB FINAL RULE DATE FINAL RULE SECY PAPER: SRM DATE: I I SIGNED BY SECRETARY: 09/27/88
STAFF CONTACTS ON THB RULE
CONTACT1: S. CROCKETT MAIL STOP: 15818 PHONE: 492-1600
CONTACT2: MAIL STOP: PHONE:
DOCKET NO. PRM-050-049 (53FR41178)
In the Matter of OHIO CITIZENS FOR RESPONSIBLE ENERGY: DENIAL OF PE TITION FOR RULEMAKING. DALE A. BAICH, OCRE. NO FRN
- PETITION DENIED AT 53 FR 41178.
DATE DATE OF TITLE OR DOCKETED DOCUMENT DESCRIPTION OF DOCUMENT
12/04/87 12/01/87 PETITION FOR RULEMAKING SUBMITTED BY DALE BAICH ON BEHALF OF THE OHIO CITIZENS FOR RESPONSIBLE ENERGY
10/20/88 09/27/88 COPY OF ITEM FOR FEDERAL REGISTER PUBLICATION ON THE DENIAL OF PETITION FOR RULEMAKING DOCKIT. NUMBER copy to Secy PETITJON RULE PRM 5()-<./9 Original Office of the Federal Regtster [7s9o-ou stint to tlle
~F~'-/-lt? g for publication OOCK EilL' NUCLEAR REG ULATORY COMMISSION U-:,NPC
10 CF R Part 50
[Docket no. PRM-50-49] *aa OCT 20 P12 :19 Ohio Citizens for RDenial of Pet i t ion for Rulemaking e s ponsible Energy, Inc i, ~'
AGENCY: Nuclear Regulatory Commiss i on.
ACTION: Denial of petition for r~lemaking.
SUMMARY
- On December 1, 1987, the Ohio Citizens for Responsibl e Energy (OCRE), Inc., filed pursuant to 10 CFR 2.802 a petition for rulemaking.
OCRE requested that the NRC amend 10 CFR 50.12(a)(2) to remove the provision which would permit the NR C to grant a licensee an exemption from a rule in 10 CFR Part 50 on the grounds that the rule imposes on the licensee "undue.** costs.*. sign i ficantly in excess of those contemplated when the regulation was adopted, or *** of those incurred by others similarly situated.*** " OCRE argues that the amendment it proposes is necessary to bring 10 CFR 50.12(a) into conformance with UCS v. NRC, 824 F.2d 108 (D.C. Cir. 1987), which held, among other things, that the NRC may not take economic costs into consideration in establishing or enforcing the safety standards required for "adequate protection" of the public health and safety. The issues raised by the petition have already been fully considered and resolved in the 1985 rulemaking on§ 50.12 and the 1987-88 renewed rulemaking on the backfit rule, 10 CFR 50.109. The resolutions of the issues were in accordance with principles which either appear in, or are consistent with, UCS
- v. NRC. The NRC is denying the petition f or the same reasons that the
U. U~t ~t... r.. _t,11t A
- p ~i, *,.1 ~~ COMM I SSIOJi
. ECTION
'pedal Distribution 2 [7590-01]
NRG rejected earlier arguments against the cos~rovision in§ 50.12(a).
In particular, because§ 50.12(a)(l) explicitly bars any exemption which would threaten "adequate protection," § 50.12(a) is in confonnity with UCS v. NRG.
ADDRESSES: Copies of the petition for rulemaking and the NRC's letter to the petitioner are available for public inspection or copying in the NRC's Public Document Room, 2120 L Street, NW., Washington, DC, Monday through Friday, between the hours of 7:45 am and 4:15 pm.
FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Steven F. Crockett, Office of the General Counsel, U.S. Nuclear Regulatory ColTfTlission, Washington, DC 20555, telephone (301) 492-1600.
SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:
The Petition
Section 50.12 of 10 CFR states, in pertinent part, requirements of the regulations of this part, which are --(a) The Commission may *** grant exemptions from the the public health and safety, and are consistent with the (1) Authorized by law, will not present an undue risk to colTfTIOn defense and security. (2) The ColTfTlission will not consider granting an exemption unless special circumstances are present. Special circumstances are present whenever --
- * * * * * (iii) Compliance would result in undue hardship or other costs that are significantly in excess of those contemplated when the regulation was adopted, or that are significantly in excess of those incurred by others similarly situated; *** * * * * *
- 3 [7590-01]
OCRE proposes that paragraph (a}(2)(iii) be deleted and the remaining subparagraphs of paragraph (a)(2) accordingly redesignated, and that a new paragraph (a}(3) be added to read as follows:
The Corrmission will not consider granting an exemption which has as a motivation or consequence cost savings or other financial benefits to licensees, and the Commission shall not consider any ecoRomic costs to licensees in its evaluation of any exemption request.
OCRE argues that, without the amendments it proposes,§ 50.12(a)(2) will not be in confonnity with the Federal Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia Circuit's decision, UCS v. NRC, 824 F.2d 108 (1987},
which concerned the "backfit rule", 10 CFR 50.109. There the Court held, in pertinent part, that "the [Atomic Energy] Act precludes the NRC from taking costs into account in establishing or enforcing the level of adequate protection, but allows the NRC to consider costs in devising or administering requirements that offer protection beyond that level. 11 824 F.2d at 114.
OCRE asserts that "[t]here can be no doubt that the regulations in 10 CFR Part 50 fonn the basis of the adequate protection standard. 11 Petition at 4. OCRE cites two judicial rulings to support its assertion:
It claims that the Corrmission's Appeal Board "declared" that "the sine qua non of adequate protection to public health and safety is compliance with all applicable safety rules and regulations promulgated by the Co111nission." Petition at 4~5, quoting Maine Yankee Atomic Power Company (Maine Yankee Atomic Power Station), ALAB-161, 6 AEC 1003, 1009 (1973).
OCRE moreover says that it is "significant" that the Court in UCS v. NRC "pl aced major reliance on Maine Yankee in buttressing its interpretation 4 [7590-01]
of the Atomic Energy Act. 11 Petition at 5, citing UCS v. NRC, 824 F.2d at
117.
On the basis of its assertion that compliance with the regulations is necessary for adequate protection, OCRE concludes that 10 CFR 50.12(a)(2)(iii) "stands in defiance 11 of the Court's ruling in UCS v. NRC because the rule "explicitly allows economic costs of compliance... to form a special circumstance justifying non-compliance with, by means of exemption from, the NRC's adequate protection standards. 11 Petition at 5.
Reasons for Denial
The issues raised by OCRE in this petition were thoroughly discussed in the rulemaking leading up to the 1985 revision of§ 50.12, and those issues were resolved in that rulemaking in accordance with principles which either appear in, or are consistent with, UCS v. NRC. In particular, OCRE's assumption that compliance with the regulations is necessary for adequate protection was considered and rejected by the ColTITlission in the rulemaking in 1985 on§ 50.12, and again in the renewed rulemaking in 1987-88 on the backfit rule, 10 CFR 50.109. 1 In the Federal Register notice setting forth the proposed revisions to§ 50.12, then-Commissioner Asselstine, who soon thereafter dissented from promulgation of the backfit rule (50 FR 38097, 38106-110; September 20, 1985), proposed that the revisions include the cost provision OCRE
1No purpose would have been served by soliciting public comment on issues already resolved in recent rulemakings. Thus the NRC has not sought public corrrnent on OCRE's petition.
5 [7590-01]
now petitions to have deleted (50 FR 16506, 16510, col. 1; April 26, 1985). The purpose of the provision was not, as OCRE believes, to make way for "pleas of poverty" by utilities (see petition at 5). The provision focused not on the utility's financial condition but rather on the possible failure of the pertinent regulation to foresee extraordinary costs. This part of the rule, and indeed the whole rule, simply acknowledges what is acknowledged in any reasonable jurisprudence, namely, that foresight is limited and, therefore, that any rule must make room for unforeseen exceptional situations.
In response, the Union of Concerned Scientists (UCS) argued that the Conmission did not have statutory authority to consider economic factors in granting an exemption. On this ground, UCS opposed several provisions of the proposed revisions to§ 50.12, not just Mr. Asselstine's cost proposal. See 50 FR 50764, 50767, cols. 2-3. Indeed, UCS went the larger step -- fully consistent with the proposition that compliance with the regulations is necessary for adequate protection -- and argued that the Conmission had no authority to issue exemptions at all. Id. at 50766, cols. 2-3. UCS explicitly stated the assumption OCRE now relies on, namely, that "the regulations establish the minimal requirements for safe operation of a nuclear power plant **** " Id. at 50768, col. 1.
The Conmission rejected UCS' assertions and in so doing enunciated propositions which have been either explicitly upheld by the Court in UCS
- v. NRC or are fully consistent with the Court's holdings.
First, the Conmission emphasized that the rule arequires a safety finding that the*exemption will not present an undue risk to the public health and safety **** It is only after these statutorily based 6 [7590-01]
findings have been made that the Co1T111ission may then consider whether the additional requirements for the grant of an exemption have been met, some of which include economic considerations. 11 Id. at 50767, col. 3 (emphasis in original). In UCS v. NRC, the Court clearly held that the Atomic Energy Act permitted cost considerations once adequate protection was established. Noting that 11 no undue risk 11 and 11 adequate protection 11 were equivalent phrases, 824 F.2d at 109, the Court ruled that, 11 [i]f the Co1T111ission wishes to do so, it may order power plants already satisfying the standard of adequate protection to take additional safety precautions. When the Corrrnission determines whether and to what extent to exercise this power, it may consider economic costs or any other factor. 11 Id. at 118 (emphasis in original).
Second, the Corrmission explained the relation between adequate protection and compliance with the regulations:
[W]hile it is true that compliance with all NRC regulations provides reasonable assurance of adequate protection of the public health and safety, the converse is not correct, that failure to comply with one regulation or another is an indication of the absence of adequate protection, at least in a situation where the CoJTrnission has reviewed the noncompliance and found that it does not pose an 11 undue risk 11 to the public health and safety.
50 FR at 50768, cols. 1-2; see also id. at 50771, col. 3.
In the recent rulemaking to conform the backfit rule to the Court's holdings in UCS v. NRC, the Co1T111ission affirmed this account of the relation between adequate protection and compliance with the regulations.
In that rulemaking, OCRE argued, as it does here, that the regulations
11 define 11 adequate protection. From this assertion, OGRE concluded that
the Commission cannot apply cost-benefit considerations to a proposed rule without applying cost-benefit considerations in setting the 7 [7590-01]
standards of adequate protection, contrary to the Court's principal holding in UCS v. NRC. See 50 FR 20603, 20609, cols. 1-2. In response, the Commission said that the rules do not, strictly speaking, 11 define 11 adequate protection, and they only presumptively assure it. Not only may there..* be individual cases that require actions that go beyond what is necessary under the regulations to assure adequate protection, there will also be times when the NRC issues a rule which requires something beyond adequate protection. This follows directly from the Commission's power under section 161 of the Atomic Energy Act, affinned by the Court, to issue rules or orders to 11 m1 nimize danger to life or property. 11 See 42 U.S.C. 2201; see also UCS v. NRC, 824 F.2d at 118. If a proposed rule requires something more than adequate will not be introducing cost considerations into the protection, applying a cost standard to the proposed rule setting of the adequate protection standard and is therefore permitted.
Id. at 20609, col. 2. Similarly, if a rule requires something more than adequate protection, or if adequate protection can be secured by means other than those set forth in the rule in question, then consideration of unforeseen extraordinary costs in response to a request for an exemption which would not present an undue risk to public health and safety does not introduce cost considerations into enforcing the adequate protection standard and is therefore permitted.
Neither of the two judicial decisions OCRE cites are to the contrary. In Maine Yankee, the principal issue was whether a licensing board had to look beyond compliance with the regulations to detennine whether there was reasonable assurance of adequate protection. The Appeal Board did not, as OCRE claims, 11 declare 11 that compliance with the regulations is a "sine qua non" of adequate protection. The Board was a good deal more restrained. It said that, "on the face of it," certain statements in the Atomic Energy Act "would appear to suggestn that
8 [7590-01]
compliance was the sine qua non of adequate protection. See 6 AEC 1009.
From this hypothetically stated proposition, the Board concluded that, at least in the case before the Board, where*no showing was made that compliance with the regulations fell short of adequate protection, "the demonstration of compliance with the regulations entitled the Board below to find adequate protection to the health and safety of the public". Id.
at 1010. The Board hypothetically assumed here that compliance with the regulations was necessary for adequate protection, but the Board could just as easily have reached the same conclusion by hypothetically assuming that compliance with the regulations would provide an even greater level of safety than adequate protection.
Neither does UCS v. NRC support 0CRE's claims. 0CRE sees "significance" in the extent to which the Court "relied" on Maine Yankee.
However, the Court uses Maine Yankee only to show that the Co11111ission itself had long ago held that the Atomic Energy Act prohibited the consideration of economic costs in making adequate protection detenninations. See 824 F.2d at 117. To make its point, the Court draws on a different part of Maine Yankee than 0CRE does. See Id. The Court nowhere says that compliance with the regulations is necessary for adequate protection, nor does the Court even quote the language 0CRE quotes from Maine Yankee. Indeed, it would have been surprising if the Court had said such a thing, for the Court affinns the Cormnission's power to require, by rule or in specific cases, more than adequate protection.
See, e.g., id. at 118. From this it follows that some rules may require more than adequate protection and thus that exemptions from these rules
9 [7590-01]
may be granted on the specified costs grounds if the exemptions do not present undue risks to public health and safety.
Because the issues OCRE raises in its petition were fully considered in the 1985 rulemaking on 10 CFR 50.12 and were resolved in that rulemaking in accord with principles which either were affirmed by UCS v. NRC or are fully consistent with it, OCRE's petition to have
§ 50.12 amended is denied. Because the petition raises no new policy issue, and because the denial of the petition relies wholly on existing Coiranission precedent, the denial is being issued over the signature of the Executive Director for Operations.
Dated at Rockville, MD thi.J:11'-day of:;};:e~.
For the Nuclear Regulatory Commission,
for Operations.
c '"'1. :<r
- 1*,!.r '9:-R ~
t:'E 11 l*. T *., ~., - o,r:>\\,1 lj * ;UL. _ ~__2::_
D AL E A. BAICH ATTORNEY AT LAW 734 STANDARD BUILDING 1370 ONTAR IO STREET CLEVELAND, OHIO 44113 - 1701 -S7 CEC -4 Pl2 :23 (216) 241-6461
December 1, 1987
Mr. Samuel J. Chilk Secretary of the Commission U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission Washington, D.C. 20555
Attention: Docketing and Service Section
Dear Mr. Chilk:
Enclosed please find a petition for rulemaking which I am filing on behalf of the Ohio Citizens for Responsible Energy, Inc. I wish to receive copies of all comments received on the petition, and I would like the right to reply to these comments before the Commission makes its determination on the petition.
Thank you for your assistance in this matter.
Sincerely, A~A~
Dale A. Baich
DAB/tr Encs.
r :r UNITED STATES OF AMERICA NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSION OOC.:KETEO USNRC
Petition for Rulemaking ) PRM "87 OEC -4 Pl2 :23 to Amend the Exemption)
Rule, 10 CFR 50.12 )
Pursuant to 10 CFR 2.802, Ohio Citizens for Responsible
Energy, Inc. ("OCRE") hereby files this petition for rulemaking
to amend the Commission's exemption rule, 10 CFR 50.12, to
bring it into conformance with the recent ruling of the Court
of Appeals for the District of Columbia Circuit vacating the
- backfit rule for its illegal consideration of costs to
licensees.
I. Description of Petitioner
OCRE is a private, non-profit organization specializing in
research and advocacy on nuclear safety issues. OCRE's mission
is to ensure that nuclear power facilities meet the highest
standards of safety and environmental protection. Additionally,
members of OCRE reside within 15 miles of the Perry Nuclear
Power Plant in Lake County, Ohio. The Cleveland Electric
Illuminating Company, operator of the Perry plant, is seeking
exemptions from the NRC's regulations which have as their sole
or dominant motivation the avoidance of costs. See, e.g.,
Attachment 1, a recent exemption request having as its
principal justification the avoidance of "hardships and costs"
imposed by an outage necessary to comply with the present
schedule (in accordance with 10 CFR 50 Appendix J) for leak
rate testing of valves. Thus, in addition to the societal
interest in conforming the exemption rule to the ruling of the
Court of Appeals, OCRE members have a direct and personal
interest in ensuring that financial interests do not compromise
nuclear reactor safety and regulatory compliance.
II. Text of Amendment Sought
OCRE proposes that 10 CFR 50.12 be amended such that
paragraph 50.12(a) (2) (iii) is deleted, with paragraphs
50.12 (a) (2) (iv), (v), and (vi) renumbered as (iii), (iv), and
(v); and that a new paragraph 50.12(a) (3) is added, to read as
follows:
The Commission will not consider granting an exemption which
has as a motivation or consequence cost savings or other
financial benefits to licensees, and the Commission shall not
consider any economic costs to licensees in its evaluation of
any exemption request.
III. Basis for the Amendment
On December 12, 1985, the Commission modified its
long-standing exemption rule, 10 CFR 50.12, to include a
description of "special circumstances" necessary to justify an
exemption from the Commission's safety regulations in 10 CFR
Part 50. Among those special circumstances is that
"(c)omplaince would result in undue hardship or other costs
that are significantly in excess of those contemplated when the
regulation was adopted, or that are significantly in excess of
those incurred by others similarly situated." 10 CFR
50.12(a) (2) (iii).
Although the Union of Concerned Scientists in its comments
- on the proposed rule had asserted that the consideration of
economic factors in granting an exemption was illegal, the
Commission rejected this position with this discussion:
The Commission believes that judicial precedent and long-standing Commission practice confirm that, within the confines of carrying out its paramount responsibility to protect public health and safety, it may consider economic factors in its decision making *.* As long as a Commission decision adheres to the primary "adequate protection" standard, the decision can legitimately take into account cost considerations. 50 Fed. Reg. 50767.
On August 4, 1987, the Court of Appeals for the District
of Columbia Circuit issued the first decision clearly
delineating where the Commission may and may not consider costs
to licensees. Union of Concerned Scientists v. NRC, Case No.
85-1757, 824 F.2d 108 (D.C. Cir. 1987) ("UCS"). In vacating
the NRC's backfit rule, the Court held that the Commission may
not consider costs to licensees within the confines of assuring
adequate protection to public health and safety. Some excerpts
from the Court's opinion are illustrative:
In our view, the (Atomic Energy) Act establishes a two-tier structure for protecting the public health and safety. Section 182 of the Act commands the NRC to ensure that any use or product~on of nuclear materials "provide(s) adequate protection to the health or safety of the public." 42 u.s.c. 2232(a). In setting or enforcing the standard of "adequate protection" that this section requires, the Commission may not consider the economic costs of safety measures. The Commission must determine, regardless of costs, the precautionary measures necessary to provide adequate protection to the public; the Commission must then impose those measures, again regardless of costs, on all holders of or applicants for operating licenses **. In sum, the Act precludes the NRC from taxing costs into account in establishing or enforcing the level of adequate protection, but allows the NRC to consider costs in devising or administering requirements that offer protection beyond that level.
Slip op. at 12-13.
We emphasize that our holding applies both when the Commission determines the content of the adequate protection standard and when the Commission enforces the standard in individual cases *.. The Commission, must determine the content of the adequate-protection standard without reference to economic costs; the Commission must then apply that standard to individual applicants and
'licensees notwithstanding any pleas of poverty. Allowing consideration of costs at either stage would flout the mandate we have found in the statute - i.e., that the Commission ensure a level of public health and safety without regard to economic costs.,Slip op. at 20-21.
The NRC's exemption rule comes into play at the second
stage of the regulatory process. It determines not the content
of the adequate-protection standard, but whether the
established standards will be applied to individual licensees.
There can be no doubt that the regulations in 10 CFR Part
50 form the basis of the adequate protection standard. The
Appeal Board in Maine Yankee Atomic Power Company (Maine Yankee
Atomic Power Station), ALAB-161, 6 AEC 1003, 1009 (1973)
("Maine Yankee") declared that "the sine qua non of adequate
protection to public health and safety is compliance with all
applicable safety rules and regulations promulgated by the
Commission." Significantly, the Court placed major reliance on
Maine Yankee in buttressing its interpretation of the Atomic
Energy Act. UCS, slip op. at 19-20.
10 CFR 50.12(a) (2) (iii) thus stands in defiance of the
Atomic Energy Act and the Court's ruling in UCS. This section
explicitly allows economic costs of compliance ("pleas of
poverty") to form a special circumstance justifying
noncompliance with, by means of exemption from, the NRC's
adequate protection standards. The amendment herein proposed
by OCRE is therefore necessary to bring the NRC's e~emption
process into conformance with the law. The new section
50.12(a) (3) proposed by OCRE is added to emphasize that
economic costs are not to be considered in the determination of
whether to apply the NRC's standards of adequate protection,
its safety regulations, to individual licensees.
Respectfully submitted,
~~-,4~
Dale A. Baich 734 Standard Building Cleveland, OH 44113 (216) 241-6461 Counsel for Petitioner DATED, ~ 1 lo/'lJl-
,ATTACHMENT 1 \\ ---
T Ll :- r: I i:' 111:... l..:>-~~-- ** 1f --; I ~ ~I 0 i, E L E C T R l C l L L U H J ~ ~ / T 1 :~ C: C O :-:1 ? ? :.l,~,
- PO BOX 97
- PERRY, OHIO 44081
- TELEPHONE (216) 259-3737 *,;A.DORESS-10 CENTER ROAD i
Hurray R. Edelman Serving The Best Locac,on m the Nation Pfy'RRY NUCLEAR POWER PLANT
" Slt VICE PRE.SIDE:--.,
Sl.)Q.EAR September 11, 1987 PY-CEI/NRR-0715 L
Document Control Desk U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission Washington, D.C. 20555
Perry Nuclear Power Plant Docket No. 50-440 Request for Schedular Exemption to 10 CFR 50, Appendix J
Gentlemen:
In accordance with the provisions of 10 CFR 50.12(a), the Cleveland Electric Illuminating Company (CEI) hereby requests exemption from the requirements of 10 CFR 50, Appendix J, Section 111,D.3,
The exemption will provide a one~time relief from the requirement to perform a local leak rate test within the two year interval for fourteen containment isolation valves. The end of the initial 24-month testing intervals for most of the Perry Nuclear Power Plant containment isolation valves is approaching in early 1988. With the exception of these fourteen valves CEI either has, or plans to perform the required Type C tests. Many of the tests were conducted during the recent maintenance outage in July/August 1987. However, due to plant constraints it was not possible to pecform the testing of these 14 valves without extending the outage solely for the purpose of these tests.
This would have required an extension of approximately one to two weeks to the outage.
An outage which would be required to perform this testing prior to the refueling outage, would be undesirable and impose hardships and costs not contemplated by 10CFR 50 Appendix J at this point in the Perry Startup Test Program. The Perry Plant is presently in Startup Test Condition 6, and anticipates completing the Startup Test Program by October 1987. A one to two week-long outage extension would delay completion of the Startup Test Program, and ultimately commercial operation.
CEI presently anticipates a short duration outage (1-2 weeks) in late November 1987 or early December 1987, and two 10-day outages in 1988. Again, these outages would have to be greatly extended in order to test the 14 valves. It is not desirable for CEI to schedule an additional outage, nor to extend any of the other scheduled outages, for the sole purpose of performing these LLRTs, as this would result in a net increase in overall outage time or would subject the plant equipment and systems to the detrimental effects inherenc ~~ 0 an additional shutdown and startup operation. ~
91 igg~~ ~~gi~~~o _,/4J- /,/--/n ~,01Jp w/~gwt,D fb~
Document Contro~ Desk September 11 1 1987 PY-CEI/NRR-0715 L
Testing of the valves listed on Attachment 1 require one or more of the following plant conditions:
- 1) Dryvell head removal.
- 2) Both RHR shutdown cooling loops rendered inoperable.
- 3) Reducing the number of ECCS and or shutdown cooling loops below the Technical Specification required *systems (when taken in *conjunction with other planned necessary outage work).
CEI does not plan to remove the drywell head until the first refueling outage. '
To render both loops of RBR shutdown cooling inoperable, CEI would either be required to remove the drywell and reactor heads and flood the vessel, or wait until decay heat is reduced such that ambient losses are sufficient to maintain cold shutdown. As stated above CEI does not plan an outage of this duration until the first refueling outage.
The extension of the surveillance intervals for the containment isolation valves in question is requested to allow the plant to be shutdown for testing at a time consistent with system need for power, rather than undergoing an extended shutdown at a time when the distribution system's need for power is high (Summer - Fall of 1987).
An extension of the required testing interval to the first refueling outage will not be contrary to the basic intent of the 10 CFR 50 1 Appendix J ~
requirement, i.e. to leak test the valves after a nominal two years of operation. Since Perry did not enter significant power operations until January 1987, none of the valves in question will have been exposed* to an operating environment for more than 24 months with an approved exemption. Ye conclude therefore, that the increased probability of containment leakage is not significant and that no measurable impact would result from the proposed extension of time.
Since the basic intent of the regulation is not violated, there is no undue sk to public health and safety involved vith plant operation with the requested exemption in place. Nothing is contained in the exemption request that is inconsistent with the common defense and security. Finally, the temporary exemption, as requested, has been revieved.and has been found to be authorized by law.
Specific Justifying Circumstances
The special circumstances present ~hich justify the Commission's consideration of this exemption request conform to the following paragraphs of 10 CFR 50.12(a).
~1 Document Contr~ /esk September 11, 1987 PY-CEI/NRR-0715 L
50.12(a)(2)(ii) - Application of the Appendix J requirement in this situation for testing within two years would not serve the underlying purpose of the regulation, which is to ensure testing after two years in an operating environment. Since the Perry Nuclear Power Plant, in the most conservative interpretation, can only be considered to have provided an operating environment for the containment isolation valves in question since January 1987, the requested extension of time does not conflict vith the intent of the rule and defers the testing requirement intended by 10 CFR 50, Appendix J to the first refueling outage.
50.12(a)(2)(iii) - A requirement for shutdown to comply with the two year testing requirement in Appendix J would impose a hardship and costs not
- contemplated by the rule when vritten since Appendix J clearly indicates an intent that required testing be performed during normal refueling outages except in unusual situations when the two year limit would apply. To require a plant shutdown to comply with the two year limit for testing even though the plant has not accumulated two full years of power operation would result in an unnecessary loss of power to the grid at a time when the distribution system's need for power is high as well as the extra costs attendant to having two successive outages.
50.12(a)(2)(v) - The requested exemption is temporary and became necessary as a result of the delays in attaining full power operation common to initial startup activities. If an unplanned outage of sufficient duration is encountered prior to the first refueling outage at Perry, CEI agrees to perform the testing which is the subject of this exemption request with the exception of valves 1E12-F023, 1E51-F013, 1E51-F066 which require removal of the drywell head for testing. Testing of these valves can only be performed during a refueling outage.
Technical Consideration The following considerations have been taken into account in our evaluation of the safety and environment impact attendant to the exemption request:
To assure the leak tightness of the containment isolation valves listed in Attachment 1, testing with the proposed temporary extension will have been performed prior to the accumulation of two years of exposure to pover operation, using a conservative interpretation of a power operation environment, i.e. exceeding 57.
of rated thermal power.
The requested exemption is for containment isolation valves which to date have exhibited favorable operating experience. Since the initial testing of these valves, a limited number have required maintenance, repairs or adjustments that would mandate performance of additional leak rate tests. Additionally, these valves are normally maintained in either the open or closed position and are not used in a modulating mode to control flow rates.
~
~
Document Con tro.1. 1:lesk September 11, 1987 PY-CEI/NRR-0715 L
The containment isolation valves listed on Attachment 1 vere all tested successfully in early 1986. The total of the integrated Type C leakage rates for these valves is not a significant portion (4.13%) of the allowable leakage 1imit (0.6 La). It is unrealistic to assume that valve leakage will increase significantly from March 1988, until the first Perry refueling outage in early 1989, when the duration of the actual exposure to a power operation environment is considered.
Conclusion
The granting of the requested exemption would provide a one-time extension, for specified containment isolation valves of the 10 CFR 50 1 Appendix J requirement to perform local leak rate testing within a two year interval.
Vith respect to this exemption from Appendix J, the increment of increased risk to public health and satety is related solely to the potential increased probability for the magnitude of containment leakage during an accident which could lead to potentially greater offsite radiological consequence. The -
potential increase due to this exemption is not significant and will impose no measurable impact on the health and safety of the public since the valves will have been tested with less than two year of accumulated exposure to a power operation environment. The successful testing of the valves listed in in early 1986 provided assurance that the leakage from the valves will not significantly increase from the February 1988 time frame until the first Perry refueling outage when the period of exposure to a power operation,
environment is considered. Containment integrity will not be measurably affected and the risk of any facility accident will not be increased.
Therefore, post accident radiological releases will not exceed previously determined values. The exemption has no impact on plant radiological or non-radiological effluents and involves no significant occupational exposure.
In accordance vith the application fee requirements of 10 CFR 170.21, a check in the amount of $150.00 is submitted with this request for exemption.
If you have any questions, please feel free to call me.
~~q:~
Murray R. Edelman r Senior Vice President Nuclear Group
MRE:njc
Attachment
cc: T. Colburn K. Connaughton J. Harris (State of Ohio)
Attachment 1.
PY-CEI/NRR-0715 L
Technical Specification 4.6.1.2.d Valve Number Overdue Date
- -*=,
1E12-FOOS 03/11/88 -
- I ' )
1E12-F008 02/18/88 1E12-F009 02/18/88
~-,.
1E12-F023 05/29/88 -
1E12-F025B 03/11/88 1E12-F025C 03/11/88 1E12-F027B 06/15/88
- 1E12-F028B 06/15/88
1E12-F037B 06/15/88 1E12-F042B 06/15/88 1El2-FOSSB 03/11/88 1E12-F550 02/18/88 '
1E51-F013 05/29/88 1E51-F066 05/29/88 DALE A. BAICH ATTORNEY AT LAW 73-4 STANDARO BUILDING 1370 ONTARIO STREET CLEVELAND, OHIO 44113-1101 (216) 241-6461
December 1, 1987 c::,
Mr. Samuel J. Chilk J, Secretary of the Coanission ::s, U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission N Washington, D.c. 20555
- UI a, ::u
Attention: Docketing and Service Section
Dear Mr. Chi lk:
Enclosed please find a petition for rulemaking which I am filing on behalf of the Ohio Citizens for Responsible Energy, Inc. I wish to receive copies of all comments received on the petition, and I would like the right to reply to these commeots before the Commission makes its determination on the petition.
Thank you for your assistance in this matter.
Sincerely, A~A~
Dale A. Baic:b
DAB/tr Enc 1.
~S. NI.ICLffl' i\\rr.11* '.Tm,Y COMMISSIQS DOC 1: 0 1,,1,~; C, :.\\VIC r ;'.:[CTION 0:, *<" -: r, 7 'fi--'S *,[(><rl / '?..Y o-f::- Cc::tt,1::;c.10N
Poslrnark : - ' _fYp_r __ _
',1,, J 1-~
i;pecial D1~Tf'~u:1,1 __ f )}_LJ_),-'-W=---
..,_ _____ _(oj,_k~tl ____ _
UNITED STATES OF AMERICA NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSION Petition for Rulemaking ) to Amend the Exemption} PRM 1J7 IE -4 Pl2 :23
Rule, 10 CFR 50.12 ) orr:11_ -
ui)C* ~ * **.. -
Pursuant to 10 CFR 2.802, Ohio Citizens for Responsicle Energy, Inc. ("OCRE") hereby files this petition for r~:e=aking to amend the Commission's exemption rule, 10 CFR 50.12, to bring it into conformance with the recent ruling of the Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia Circuit vacatin; the backfit rule for its illegal consideration of costs to licensees.
I. Description of Petitioner
OCRE is a private, non-profit organization special:z!ng in research and advocacy on nuclear safety issues. OCRE's m!ssion is to ensure that nuclear power facilities meet the hig~est standards of safety and environmental protection. Addit:o~ally, members of OCRE reside within 15 miles of the Perry Nuc:ear Power Plant in Lake County, Ohio. The Cleveland Electric Illuminating Compa~y, operator of the Perry plant, is seeking exemptions from the NRC's regulations which have as the:r sole or dominant motivation the avoidance of costs. See, e.;.,, a recent exemption request having as its principal justification the avoidance of *hardships anc costs"
imposed by an outage necessary to complr with the present
schedule (in accordance with 10 CFR 50 Appendix J) for leak
rate testing of valves. Thus, in addition to the societal
interest in conforming the exemption rule to the ruling of the
Court of Appeals, OCRE members have a direct and personal
interest in ensuring that fi~ancial interests do not compromise
nuclear reactor safety and regulatory compliance.
II. Text of Amendment Sought
OCRE proposes that 10 CFR 50.12 be amended such that
i,.*, 1 paragraph 50.12(a) (2) (iii) is deleted, with paragraphs
' ) ' *,1.*.so.12(a) (2) (iv), (v), and (vi) renumbered as (iii), (iv), and
( /.,., '
/,i -} (Y1; and that a new paragraph 50.12 (a) (3) is added, to read as. ' i
- 1: I It-
....
- t I\\,.
,,, ' ~,' I'
- f O 11 OWS :
.,/-'
.. l
,~ i- (k The Commission will not consider grantir.g an exemption which
has as a motivation or consequence cost savings or other
financial benefits to 11E._ensees, and the Commission shall not
consider any economic costs to licensees in its evaluation of
any exemption request.
III. Basis for the Amendment
8
On December 12, 1985, the Commission modified its
long-standing exemption rule, 10 CFR 50.12, to include a
description of "spec~al circumstances" necessary to :ustify an exemption from the Commission's safety regulations ~n 10 CFR Part SO. Among those special circumstances is that
- (c)omplaince would result in undue hardship or other costs that are significantly in excess Of those contemplated when the regulation was adop~e~, or that are significantly in excess of those incurred by others similarly situated." 10 CFR 50.12 (a) (2) (iii).
Although the Union of Concerned Scientists in its comments
on the proposed rule had asserted that the consideration of economic factors in granting an exemption was illegal, the Commission rejected this position with this discussion:
The Commission clieves that judicial precedent and long-standing Commission practice confirm that, within the confines of carrying out its paramount responsibility to protect public health and safety, it may consider economic factors in its decision making *** As long as a Commission decision adheres to the primary "adequate protection" sta~dard, the decision can legitimately take into account cost considerations. 50 Fed. Reg. 50767.
On August 4, 1987, the Court of Appeals for the District
of Columbia Circuit issued the first decision clearly delineating where the Commission may and may not consider costs to licensees. Union of Concerned Scientists v. NRC, Case No.
85-1757, 824 F.2d 108 (D.C. Cir. 1987) ("UCS"). In vacating the NRC's backfit r,,ile, the Court held that the Commission may
not consider costs to licensees within the confines of assuring adequate proteqtion to public health and safety. Some excerpts
fro~ the Court's opinion are ill~strative:
In our view, the {Atomic EnergyJ Act establishes a two-tier structure for protecting the public health and safety. Section 182 of the Act commands the NRC to ensure that any use or production of nuclear materials "provide(s) adequate protection to the health or safety of the public." 42 u.s.c. 2232(a). In setting or enforcing the standard of "adequate protection" that this section requires, the Commission may not consider the economic costs of safety measures. Tne Commission must determine, regardless of costs, the precautionary measures necessary to provide adequate protection to the public, the Commission must then impose those measures, again regardless of costs, on all holders of or applicants for operating licenses *.* In sum, the Act precludes the NRC from taxing costs into account in establishing or enforcing the level of adequate protection, but allows the NRC to consider costs in devising or administering Slip op. at 12-13. requirements that offer protection beyond that level.
We emphasize that our holding applies both when the Commission determines the content of the adequateprotection standard and when the Commission enforces the standard in individual cases~ ** The Commission must without reference to economic costs, the Commission must determine the content of the adequate-protection standard then apply that standard to individual applicants and consideration of costs at either stage would flout the licensees notwithstanding any pleas of poverty. Allowing mandate we have found in the statute - i.e., that the Commission ensure a level of public health and safety without regard to economic costs. Slip op. at 20-21.
The NRC's exemption rule comes into play at the second
stage of the regulatory process. It determines not the content of the adequate-protection standard, but whether the established standards will be applied to individual licensees.
There can be no doubt that the regulations in 10 CFR Part SO form the basis of the adequate protection standard. The Appeal Board in Maine Yankee Atomic Power Company (Maine Yankee
,- J..t ~. (
/
I *Maine Yankee** (~eclared that "the sin~ c~,t?l.1 n~=- :,~- a~e-~~-at~.,--,. ':
. /,-*.f_t1,,,,,r /r/1' "?.,(/ ;J. _/.~ *.J.'...,.,;
protection to p-;ml1c health and safety is compl:ance with all,_.:: '
applicable safe~y rules and regulations promulg~~ed by the
Commission.* Si;hificantly, the Court placed ma:or reliance on
Maine Yankee in buttressing its interpretation ~f the Atomic
Energy Act. ucs, slip op. at 19-20. J/7
10 CFR S0.:2(a) (2) (iii) thus stands in def:ance of the
Atomic Energy Act and the Court's ruling in ucs. This section
explicitly allows economic costs of compliance \\*pleas of
poverty") to fo=m a special circumstance justif7i~g ~, 1,
noncompliance ~:t~, by means of exemption from, t~e NRC's, I' a~equate protec~ion standards. The amendment h:rein proposed I.
by OCRE is therefore necessary to bring the NRC's exemption
process into co~formance with the law. The ne~ section
50.12(a) (3) proposed by OCRE is added to emphas:ze that :/
e=onomic costs are not to be considered in the :e~ermination of
whether to apply the NRC's standards of adequat~ ?rotection,
its safety regu:a~ions, to individual licensees.
I *, I Respectfully submitted,
~~-A~
Dale A. Baich 734 Standard Building Cleveland, OH 44113 (216) 241-6461 Counsel for Petitioner
-s-
- "")
. ATTACHMENT 1 \\ j'.._
.f' I 1 - \\.: J. I.. * - :-, j. - _ - ~* * \\ _,} *..: * **,:. ~ H * " ~. l l *. I. ' *, ~ J *'* ':',n I -... i.,* *-,. L,:1 :.1 D f: J.. -. - p
- r. J ':_ L *. *. -. '1 '.! i'"'.. r -. - -.,.,,
ft_...:..;;g_..,- PO eox Q7 PEARY. OHIO,,ce* TEL!;:>>-O"-c (.:1",*- i,, * :. :*.:,**..... V - * ** *.*
~..,~.i-J~J7' *,ACO=Ess-*:==-..-== RO... :.
~~rray R. Edelman Sar.,,,,ng The B-=sr !..;c:: =-,:, :.. e N2:1cr.
PERRY.NUCLEAR POV:E= ::_AN, Septeciber 11, 1987 PY-CE I/!iR..~-0 7 1.5 L
Document Control Desk Washington, D,C, 20555 U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Comi:!ission
Perry Nuclear Power Plant Docket No. 50-440 Request for Schedular Exernptio~
to 10 CFR 50 1 Aooendix J
Gentler:ien:
ln accordance with the provisior.s c: 10 CFR Su.12(~), the Cleveland Elec:ric Illuminating Company (CEI) hereby ~equests exemption from the requirece~:s of 10 CFR SO, Appendix J, Section r::.J.3.
The exemption will provide a cne-::~e relief from t~e requirement to p~~=~r~ a local leak rate test within the:~= year interval for fourteen contai~=e~:
isolation valves. The end of t~e ~~itial 24-conth testing intervals f:~ most of the Perry Nuclear Power Plan: c:~taincent !solation valves is ap?roac~~~g in early 1988. With the excep:i:n of these four:een valves CEI eit~er has, er plans to perform the required Ty?e C tests. ~any of the tests were cc~=~=:ed during the recent maintenance ou~a 6 e in July/August 1987, However, d~e c~
plant constraints it was not possi:le to pe~for~ the testing of these 1~
valves without extending the outage solely for the purpose of these ces:3.
This would have required an exte~s~on of approximately one to two weeks ~o the outage,
An outage which would be require~ t~ perform this testing prior to the refuelini outage, would be undes:r~~le and iopos~ hardships and cos:s no:
contecplated by 10CFR 50 Appendi~: at this point in the Perry Star:up T~st Progra~. The Perry Plant is pres~::ly in Startup Test Condition 6, ant anticipates completing the Startup Test Program by October 1987. A one~~ two week-long ou:age extension would delay completion of the Startup Test ?r: 5 rac, and ultimately commercial operat!o~.
CEI presently anticipates a shor: ~uration outage (1-2 weeks) in late ~o~~~ber 1987 or early December 1987, and t-.ro 10-day outages in 1988. Again, t~es~
outages would have to be greatly e~:ended in order to test the 14 valves. It is not desirable for CEI to schec~:e an additional outage, nor to exte=c any of the other scheduled outages, :o~ the sole purpose of performing t~ese LLRTs, as this would result in a n~t increase in overall outage tice or._.?uld subject the plant equi~ment and 1ys:ems to the detricental effects inhe~=~C ~~ 0 ar. additional shutdown and start~? operation. ~
PDR ADOCK o500044o h. /,,,,. ~,,,,G 7,,9cr, 870915038;? 870911 f.o,1 WI)( I t I rot. r...
p PDR,,r"~ ~"'I',./,,, \\. I I Ii J.. C..
Docu~ent C:~c.,. Desk September 11, 1987 PY-CEI/N?.P.-07!5 L
Testing c! the valves listed on Attachment 1 re:~::e :~e o: more of the follo~ini plane conditions:
- 1) c~ywell head removal.
- 2) Eoth RHR shutdoYn cooling loops rence:ed i~=?erable.
- 3) Reducing the number of ECCS and or st~:=o~~ cooling loops belo~ the Tech~ical Specification required sys:e7s <~~en taken in ~onjunction v!th other planned cecessary outage vork).
CEI does r.o: plan to remove the dryv~ll head'ur.til t~e first refueling outage.
To rende: b~th loops of RHR shutdovn cooling i~operab:e, CEI would either be required to re~ove the dry~ell and reactor heacs and !lood the vessel, or wait until decay heat is reduced such that ambient losses a:e sufficient to maintain co!d shutdown. As stated above CEI does no: plan an outage of this duration until the first refueling outage.
The exter.s!~n of the surveillar.ce intervals for the c~~tainment isolation valves ir. question is requested to allov the pl!r.: to be shutdo~n for testing at a time consistent vith system need for pove:, rat~e: than undergoing an extended shutdown at a time when the distribut:or. sys~em's need for power is high (Sue1er - Fall of 1987).
An extensio~ of the required testing intervar to the first refueling outage vill not be contrary to the basic intent of the lJ CF?. 50, Appendix J requireme~t, i.e. to leak test the valves afte: a no=inal tYo years of operatioc. Since Perry did not enter significa~t pc.e: operations until January 1987, none of the valves in question v:!! have been exposed to an operating e~vironment for more than 24 months.i:~ ac approved exemption. Ve conclude therefore, that the increased probabi~i.y o: containment leakage is not significant and that no measurable impact ~o~ld result from the proposed extensio~ o: time.
Since the basic intent of the regulation is not viola:ed, there is no undue risk to public health and safety involved with plant operation vith the requested exemption in place. Nothing is contained i~ the exemption request that is inconsistent vith the colT!Illon defense acd sec~:ity. Finally, the temporary exemption, as requested, has been revie~ed and has been found to be authorized by lav.
Specific Justifying Circumstances
The special circumstances present which justify the Co~cission's consideration of this exe~ption request conform to the follo~i~i pa:agraphs of 10 CFR 50.12(a).
--... I Septe":~: 11, 1987 Document Contr1. PY-C::: ~:::-=:-Oi 15 L
50.12(a)(2)(ii) - Applicatic~ 0£ the Appendix J requirement!~ :~:s s:~uation for testing vi thin t'Wo years voul'd not serve the underlying pur;*:se of the regulation, vhich is to ens~~e testing after t~o years in an o;i:a~in 6 environment. Since the Per::- Nuclear Po.,er Plant, in the most :.::-.serntive interpretation, can only be :onsidered to have proviced an operi::~g environment for the conta:n~:nt isolation valves in ~uestion s:~:~ Ja~uary 1987, the requested extensio~ of time does not conflict vich tt~ :ntent of the rule and defers the testing requirement intended by 10 CFR SO, A~;~ndix J to the first refueling outage.
50.l2(a)(2)(iii) - A requir~ment for shutdovn to comply vith tt~ :~o year contemplated by the rule ~he.., vritten since Appendix J clearly !r.:icates an testing requirement in Appe~oix J vould impose a hardship and c~sts not.
except in unusual situations vhen the tvo year limit would appl7. To require intent that required testin 6 be performed during nor~al refueli~g outages
a plant shutdovn to comply.ith the tvo year limit for testing even though the plant has not accumulated t.o full years of pover operation vo~ld result in an unnecessary loss of pover te the grid at a time 'When the distri~ution system's need for pover is high as vell as the extra costs attendant to ~a.*ing tvo successive outages.
50.12(a)(2)(v) - The re~uested exemption is temporary and becLTic necessary as a result of the delays in a:taining full pover operation commo~ t~ initial startup activities. If an unplanned outage of sufficient dura:ion is encountered prior to the fi~st refueling outage at Perry, CEI 1.Z~ees to perform the testing vhich is the subject of this exemption re~.est vith the exception of valves 1E12-F0:3, 1E51-F013, 1E51-F066 vhich requ:re re~oval of the dryvell head for testir. 6. Testing of these valves can on::=~ performed
during a refueling outage.
Technical Consideration The folloving consideratior-S have been taken into account inc~= evaluation of the safety and environment impact attendant to the exemption r:~~est:
To assure the leak tightness of the containment isolat:on valves listed in Attachm:~nt 1, testing vith the proposed tenporar/
extension vill have been performed prior to the acc1!11u2ation of t.o years of exposure to pover operation, using a conse:.a:ive interpretation o! a pover operation environment, i.E. exceeding 5%
of rated ther~al pover.
The requested exemption is for containment isolatio~ -~lves vhich to date have exhibi:ed favorable operating experience. Since the maintenance, repairs or adjustments that vould ma:1ca:e performance initial testing cf these valves, a limited number h£~~ re~~ired
of additional leak rate te$ts. Additionally, these valves are normally maintai~ed in either the open o: closed pc!::ion and are not used in a mo~ulating mode to control flov ra:es.
~
~
Doc:.:-:e:, t Con tro.1Sesk September 11, 1987 PY-CEI/NRR-0715 L
The containment isolation valves listed on Attachment l were all tested successfully in early ~;;s. The total of the integrated Type C leakage rates for these ~a:ves is not a significant portion (4.13%) of the allovable leaka;~ !imit (0.6 La). It is unrealistic to assume that valve leakage~!:: increase significantly from Harch 1988, until the first Perry re:~e:ing outage in early 1989, vhen the duration of the actual exposu=E :~ a pover operation environment is considered.
Conclusion
The g=anting of the requested exemption ~=-!d provide a One-time extension, for s;ecified containment isolation valvEs ~f the 10 CFR 50, Appendix J requi=ement to perform local leak rate tes:ing vithin a tvo year interval.
Vith respect to this exemption from Appe~::~ J, the increment of increased risk to public health and safety is relate~ solely to the potential increased probability for the magnitude of containn:e~t leakage during an accident vhich could lead to potentially greater offsite r2diological consequence. The
- potential increase due to this exemption !snot significant and will impose nc measu=able impact on the health and safe:y ~f the public since the valves will have been tested with less than two year o: accumulated exposure to a power ope~a:ion environment. The successful tes:ing of the valves listed in Attac~ment linearly 1986 provided assu:2-~ce that the leakage from the valves vill not significantly increase from the Fe~ruary 1988 time frame until the first Perry refueling outage vhen the pe:!c~ of exposure to a power operation en¥ironment is considered. Containment :~:egrity vill not be measurably affected and the risk of any facility ac:!~~nt vill not be increased.
There:ore, post accident radiological re:e,ses vill not exceed previously deter~ined values. The exemption has nc i~pact on plant radiological or non-radiological effluents and involves:~ significant occupational exposure.
In ac:ordance vith the application fee rt~~irements of 10 CFR 170.21, a check in the amount of $150.00 is submitted v::~ this request for exemption.
If you have any questions, please feel f:ee to call me.
Ver:.-~(Y yiurs, C r
, '\\IU_. LJ'~J..)~.
Mur:a7 R. Edelman Ser.:o~ Vice President Nuciur Group
MRE: r.j c
At :a:::imen t
cc: T. Colburn J{. Connaughton J. Barris (State of Ohio)
J:.::::.::.~me:;t l.
f:-::::.Ilt.'?.R-0715 L
Technical Speci fi cat i or.
4.6.1.2.d...
Valve Number Overdue Date
1£12-FOOS 03/11/88
- I. )
1£12-FOOB 02/18/88 1El2-F009 02/18/88 -:
p..,.
1E12-F023 05/29/88,*.
1El2-F025B 03/11/88 1E12-F025C 03/11/88 1El2-F027B 06/15/88 1E12-F02SB 06/15/88 1El2-F037B 06/15/88 1El2-FOL.2B 06/15/88 1E12-F055B 03/11/88 1E12-F550 02/18/88 '