[Federal Register Volume 59, Number 244 (Wednesday, December 21, 1994)]
[Unknown Section]
[Page 0]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 94-31308]


[[Page Unknown]]

[Federal Register: December 21, 1994]


=======================================================================
-----------------------------------------------------------------------

NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSION

[Docket Nos. 50-352 and 50-353]

 

Philadelphia Electric Company; Limerick Generating Station, Units 
1 and 2 Environmental Assessment and Finding of No Significant Impact

    The U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission (the Commission) is 
considering issuance of an exemption to Facility Operating License Nos. 
NPF-39 and NPF-85, issued to Philadelphia Electric Company (the 
licensee), for operation of the Limerick Generating Station (LGS), 
Units 1 and 2, located in Montgomery County, Pennsylvania.

Environmental Assessment

Identification of the Proposed Action

    The proposed action would grant an exemption from 10 CFR Part 50, 
Appendix J, ``Primary Reactor Containment Leakage Testing for Water-
Cooled Power Reactors,'' Sections III.D.2(a) and III.D.3, which require 
that Type B and C containment penetration leak rate tests be performed 
during reactor shutdown for refueling, or other convenient intervals, 
but in no case greater than 2 years. The licensee requests that, this 
one-time exemption would allow the two-year interval to be exceeded by 
no more than 26 days and not to surpass February 19, 1995.
    The proposed action is in accordance with the licensee's 
application for exemption dated July 22, 1994.

The Need for the Proposed Action

    The affected containment penetrations must be leak rate tested 
(either Type B or C test) during shutdown reactor conditions because 
testing of the penetrations requires access to the drywell or requires 
isolation of safety systems. The required leak rate test intervals for 
the affected penetrations listed on the licensee's exemption request 
will exceed the 2-year maximum test interval, if not tested between 
January 24, 1995 and February 18, 1995.
    The licensee's upcoming refueling outage is scheduled to begin on 
January 28, 1995. The licensee has proposed the exemption to extend the 
leak test interval for the affected penetrations by no more than 26 
days. This will allow the licensee to avoid shutting down 4 days 
earlier for the sole purpose of conducting Appendix J Type B and C 
tests. The proposed action will permit the licensee to have flexibility 
to schedule the leak rate tests within the upcoming outage time period.

Environmental Impacts of the Proposed Action

    The licensee has presented information in support of their request 
for a 26-day extension of the Type B and C test intervals. The Unit 2, 
as-left minimum pathway leak rate (i.e., maximum allowable leakage rate 
for maintaining primary containment), following the second Unit 2 
refueling outage, was .13 La (maximum allowable pathway leakage) 
or 20,625 standard cubic centimeters per minute (sccm), including 
contributions from the Main Steam Isolation Valves (MSIV); with a 
maximum pathway leak rate of .27 La or 42,502 sccm, excluding MSIV 
leakage, in accordance with LGS's current Appendix J exemption. These 
as-left leak rates represent a significant margin to the maximum 
allowable pathway leakage of 158,273 sccm.
    The Commission has completed the evaluation to the proposed action 
and concludes that this action would not significantly increase the 
probability of exceeding the maximum allowable value of expected 
primary containment leakage during a hypothetical design basis 
accident. Performing the Type B and C tests for the specified 
penetrations no more than 26 days beyond the 2-year interval, not to 
exceed February 19, 1995, would meet the underlying purpose of the 
rule, that any primary containment leakage during a hypothetical design 
basis accident will remain less than the maximum allowable leakage rate 
value established by 10 CFR Part 50, Appendix J.
    Thus, radiological releases will not differ from those determined 
previously and the proposed action does not otherwise affect facility 
radiological effluent or occupational exposures. The change will not 
increase the probability or consequences of accidents, since 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 involves a one-time schedular change to surveillance and testing 
requirements that does not 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. The principal alternative to the action would be to deny the 
request. Such action would not enhance the protection of the 
environment and would result in no change in current environmental 
impacts. The environmental impact 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 related to 
the operation of Limerick Generating Station, Units 1 and 2,'' dated 
April 1984.

Agencies and Persons Consulted

    The NRC staff consulted with the Pennsylvania State official 
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 July 22, 1994, which is available for public 
inspection at the Commission's Public Document Room, The Gelman 
Building, 2120 L Street, NW., Washington, DC, and the local public 
document room located at the Pottstown Public Library, 500 High Street, 
Pottstown, Pennsylvania 19464.

    Dated at Rockville, Maryland, this 15th day of December 1994.
    For the Nuclear Regulatory Commission.
Chester Poslusny,
Acting Director, Project Directorate I-2, Division of Reactor 
Projects--I/II, Office of Nuclear Reactor Regulation.
[FR Doc. 94-31308 Filed 12-20-94; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 7590-01-M