[Federal Register Volume 60, Number 157 (Tuesday, August 15, 1995)]
[Notices]
[Pages 42192-42193]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 95-20121]
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSION
[Docket Nos. 50-287 and 50-388]
Pennsylvania Power & Light Company; Susquehanna Steam Electric
Station, Units 1 and 2; Environmental Assessment and Finding of no
Significant Impact
The U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission (the Commission) is
considering an exemption from the requirements of 10 CFR Part 50,
Appendix J. Sections II.H.4, III.C.2, and III.C.3, for Facility
Operating Licenses No. NPF-14 and NPF-22 respectively, issued to
Pennsylvania Power & Light Company, (the licensee), for operation of
the Susquehanna Steam Electric Station (SSES), Units 1 and 2, located
in Luzerne County, Pennsylvania.
Environmental Assessment
Identification of the Proposed Action
The proposed action would grant an exemption from 10 CFR Part 50,
Appendix J, Sections II.H.4, III.C.2, and III.C.3 for SSES, Units 1 and
2, in conjunction with the removal of the main stream isolation value
(MSIV) leakage control system (LCS) and the proposed use of an
alternative pathway.
Appendix J, Sections II.H.4 and III.C.2 of 10 CFR Part 50, require
leak rate testing of MSIVs at the calculated peak containment pressure
related to the design basis accident, and Section III.C.3 of Appendix J
requires that the measured MSIV leak rates be included in the combined
local leak rate test results. The proposed deletion of the MSIV LCS and
proposed use of an alternate leakage pathway affects the description of
an existing exemption (NUREG-0776) which allows the leak rate testing
of the MSIVs at a reduced pressure and allows the exclusion of the
measured MSIV leakage from the combined local leak rate test results.
The proposed action is in accordance with the licensee's
application for exemption dated February 21, 1995.
The Need for the Proposed Action
The proposed exemption is similar to the current exemption from 10
CFR Part 50, Appendix J, Sections II.H.4, III.C.2. The exemption is
needed since the design of the MSIVs is such that testing in the
reverse direction tends to unseat the MSIV and would result in a
meaningless test. The total observed MSIV leak rate resulting from a
leakage test where two MSIVs on one steam line are tested utilizing a
reduced pressure (22.5 psig) will continue to be assigned to the
penetration. The proposed exemption is also similar to the current
exemption from 10 CFR Part 50, Appendix J, Section III.C.3. The
licensee proposes that the MSIV leakage rate will continue to be
accounted for separately in the radiological site analysis in
accordance with the existing exemption. However, the existing exemption
from 10 CFR Part 50, Appendix J, Section III.C.3 will not be applicable
when the MSIV LCS is replaced with an Alternate Treatment Path (ATP)
(Main steam lines and condenser).
The proposed action regarding the TS amendment will reduce the need
for repairs of the MSIVs, resolve concerns associated with the current
LCS performance capability at high MSIV leakage rates, and provide an
effective method for dealing with a potential MSIV leakage during a
postulated loss-of-coolant accident (LOCA). Many boiling water reactors
have difficulty meeting their MSIV leakage rate limits. Extensive
repair, rework, and retesting efforts have negative effects on the
outage costs and schedules, as well as significant impact on the
licensee's as low as it is reasonable achieveable (ALARA) radiological
exposure programs. The alternatives proposed by the licensee to deal
with the MSIV leakage make use of components (main steam lines and
condenser) that are expected to remain intact and serviceable following
a design basis LOCA.
Environmental Impacts of the Proposed Action
The Commission has completed its evaluation of the proposed action
and concludes that this action will not increase the probability or
consequences of accidents, no changes are being made in the types of
any effluents that may be released offsite, and there is no significant
increase in the allowable individual or cumulative occupational
radiation exposure. Regarding the exemption, the MSIV leakage, along
with the containment leakage is used to calculate the maximum
radiological consequences of a design basis accident. Section 15.6.5 of
the SSES Final Safety Analysis Report (FSAR) identifies that standard
and conservative assumptions have been used to calculate the offsite
and control room doses, including the doses due to MSIV leakage, which
could potentially result from a postulated LOCA. Further, the control
room and offsite doses resulting from a postulated LOCA have recently
been recalculated using currently accepted assumptions and methods.
These analyses have demonstrated that the total leakage rate of 300
scfh results in dose exposures for the control room and offsite that
remain within the requirements of 10 CFR Part 100 for offsite doses and
10 CFR Part 50, Appendix A, for the control room doses.
The change will not increase the probability or consequences of
accidents, no changes are being made in the types of any effluents that
may be released offsite, and there is no significant increase in the
allowable individual or cumulative occupational radiation exposure.
Accordingly, the Commission concludes that there are no significant
radiological environmental impacts associated with the proposed action.
With regard to potential nonradiological impacts, the proposed
action does involve features located entirely within the restricted
area as defined in 10 CFR Part 20. It does not
[[Page 42193]]
affect nonradiological plant effluents and has no other environmental
impact. Accordingly, the Commission concludes that there are no
significant nonradiological environmental impacts associated with the
proposed action.
Alternatives to the Proposed Action
Since the Commission has concluded there is no measurable
environmental impact associated with the proposed action, any
alternatives with equal or greater environmental impact need not be
evaluated. As an alternative to the proposed action, the staff
considered denial of the proposed action. Denial of the application
would result in no change in current environmental impacts. The
environmental impacts of the proposed action and the alternative action
are similar.
Alternative Use of Resources
This action does not involve the use of any resources not
previously considered in the Final Environmental Statement for the
Susquehanna Steam Electric Station, Units 1 and 2.
Agencies and Persons Consulted
In accordance with its stated policy, on July 7, 1995, the staff
consulted with the Pennsylvania State official, David Ney of the
Department of Radiation Protection, regarding the environmental impact
of the proposed action. The State official had no comments.
Finding of No Significant Impact
Based upon the environmental assessment, the Commission concludes
that the proposed action will not have a significant effect on the
quality of the human environment. Accordingly, the Commission has
determined not to prepare an environmental impact statement for the
proposed action.
For further details with respect to the proposed action, see the
licensee's letter dated February 21, 1995, which is available for
public inspection at the Commission's Public Document Room, The Gelman
Building, 2120 L Street NW., Washington, DC, and at the local public
document room located at the Osterhout Free Library, Reference
Department, 71 South Franklin Street, Wilkes Barre, Pennsylvania 18701.
Dated at Rockville, Maryland, this 8th day of August 1995.
For the Nuclear Regulatory Commission.
John F. Stolz,
Director, Project Directorate I-2, Division of Reactor Projects--I/II,
Office of Nuclear Reactor Regulation.
[FR Doc. 95-20121 Filed 8-14-95; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 7590-01-M
