[Federal Register Volume 59, Number 245 (Thursday, December 22, 1994)]
[Unknown Section]
[Page 0]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 94-31446]


[[Page Unknown]]

[Federal Register: December 22, 1994]


-----------------------------------------------------------------------

NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSION
[Docket Nos. 50-387 & 50-388]

 

Susquehanna Steam Electric Station Units 1 & 2; Notice of 
Consideration of Issuance of Amendment to Facility Operating License, 
Proposed No Significant Hazards Consideration Determination, and 
Opportunity for a Hearing

    The U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission (the Commission) is 
considering issuance of an amendment to Facility Operating License Nos. 
NPF-14 & NPF-22 issued to Pennsylvania Power & Light Company for 
operation of the Susquehanna Steam Electric Station, Units 1 and 2, 
located in Luzerne County, Pennsylvania.
    The proposed amendment would add the Special Test Exception 3/
4.10.6, ``Inservice Leak and Hydrostatic Testing,'' that allows the 
performance of pressure testing at reactor coolant temperature up to 
212 deg.F while remaining in OPERATIONAL CONDITION 4. This special test 
exception would also require that certain OPERATIONAL CONDITION 3 
Specifications for Secondary Containment Isolation, Secondary 
Containment Integrity and Standby Gas Treatment System operability be 
met. This change would also revise the Index, Table 1.2, ``OPERATIONAL 
CONDITIONS,'' and the Bases to incorporate the reference to the 
proposed special test exception.
    Before issuance of the proposed license amendment, the Commission 
will have made findings required by the Atomic Energy Act of 1954, as 
amended (the Act) and the Commission's regulations.
    The Commission has made a proposed determination that the amendment 
request involves no significant hazards consideration. Under the 
Commission's regulations in 10 CFR 50.92, this means that operation of 
the facility in accordance with the proposed amendment would not (1) 
involve a significant increase in the probability or consequences of an 
accident previously evaluated; or (2) create the possibility of a new 
or different kind of accident from any accident previously evaluated; 
or (3) involve a significant reduction in a margin of safety. As 
required by 10 CFR 50.91(a), the licensee has provided its analysis of 
the issue of no significant hazards consideration, which is presented 
below:
    1. Involve a significant increase in the probability or 
consequences of an accident previously evaluated.
    The proposed changes are requested to allow inservice leak and 
hydrostatic testing, with the reactor in OPERATIONAL CONDITION 4 and 
the average reactor coolant temperature up to 212 deg.F. The change to 
allow inservice leak and hydrostatic testing in OPERATIONAL CONDITION 4 
will not increase the probability or the consequences of an accident. 
The probability of a leak in the reactor coolant pressure boundary 
during inservice leak and hydrostatic testing is not increased by 
considering the reactor in OPERATIONAL CONDITION 4. The hydrostatic or 
inservice leak test is performed water solid or near water solid, and 
temperatures less than or equal to 212 deg.F. The stored energy in the 
reactor core will be very low and the potential for failed fuel and a 
subsequent increase in coolant activity above Technical Specification 
limits are minimal. In addition, secondary containment will be operable 
and capable of handling airborne radioactivity from leaks that could 
occur during the performance of hydrostatic or inservice leak testing. 
Requiring the secondary containment to be operable will ensure that 
potential airborne radiation from leaks will be filtered through the 
Standby Gas Treatment System, thus limiting radiation releases to the 
environment. Therefore, the change will not significantly increase the 
consequences of an accident.
    In the event of a large primary system leak, the reactor vessel 
would rapidly depressurize allowing the low pressure ECCS systems to 
operate. The capability of the systems that are required for 
OPERATIONAL CONDITION 4 would be adequate to keep the core flooded 
under this condition. Small system leaks would be detected by leakage 
inspections before significant inventory loss occurred. This is an 
integral part of the hydrostatic testing program. Therefore, this 
change will not involve a significant increase in the probability or 
consequences of an accident previously evaluated.
    2. Create the possibility of a new or different kind of accident 
from any accident previously evaluated.
    Allowing the reactor to be considered in OPERATIONAL CONDITION 4 
during hydrostatic or leak testing, with a reactor coolant temperature 
of up to 212 deg.F, is an exception to certain OPERATIONAL CONDITION 3 
requirements, including primary containment integrity and total 
Emergency Core Cooling System operability. The hydrostatic or inservice 
leakage test is performed water solid, or near water solid, and coolant 
temperature less than or equal to 212 deg.F. The stored energy in the 
reactor core will be very low and the potential for failed fuel and a 
subsequent increase in coolant activity above Technical Specification 
limits are minimal. In addition, the secondary containment will be 
operable and capable of handling airborne radioactivity from leaks that 
could occur during the performance of hydrostatic or inservice leakage 
testing.
    The inservice leak or hydrostatic test conditions remain unchanged. 
The potential for a system leak remains unchanged since the reactor 
coolant system is designed for temperatures exceeding 500 deg.F with 
similar pressures. There are no alternations of any plant systems that 
cope with the spectrum of accidents. The only difference is that a 
different subset of systems would be utilized for accident mitigation 
from those of OPERATIONAL CONDITION 3. Therefore, this change will not 
create the possibility of a new or different kind of accident from any 
previously evaluated.
    3. Involve a significant reduction in a margin of safety.
    The proposed change allows inservice leak and hydrostatic testing 
to be performed with a reactor coolant temperature up to 212 deg.F and 
the reactor in OPERATIONAL CONDITION 4. Since the reactor vessel head 
will be in place, secondary containment integrity will be maintained 
and all systems required in OPERATIONAL CONDITION 4 will be operable in 
accordance with the Technical Specifications, the proposed change will 
not have any significant impact on any design bases accident or safety 
limit. The hydrostatic or inservice leak testing is performed water 
solid, or near water solid, and temperature less than or equal to 
212 deg.F. The stored energy in the core is very low and the potential 
for failed fuel and a subsequent increase in coolant activity would be 
minimal. The reactor pressure vessel would rapidly depressurize in the 
event of a large primary system leak and the low pressure injection 
systems required to be operable in OPERATION CONDITION 4 would be 
adequate to keep the core flooded. This would ensure that the fuel 
would not exceed the 2200 deg.F peak clad temperature limit.
    Also requiring secondary containment integrity will assure that 
potential airborne radiation can be filtered through the SGTS. This 
will assure that offsite does remain well within the limits of 10 CFR 
100 guidelines. Small system leaks would be detected by inspections 
before significant inventory loss could occur. Therefore, this special 
test exception will not involve a significant reduction in safety 
margin.
    The NRC staff has reviewed the licensee's analysis and, based on 
this review, it appears that the three standards of 10 CFR 50.92(c) are 
satisfied. Therefore, the NRC staff proposes to determine that the 
amendment request involves no significant hazards consideration.
    The Commission is seeking public comments on this proposed 
determination. Any comments received within 30 days after the date of 
publication of this notice will be considered in making any final 
determination.
    Normally, the Commission will not issue the amendment until the 
expiration of the 30-day notice period. However, should circumstances 
change during the notice period such that failure to act in a timely 
way would result, for example, in derating or shutdown of the facility, 
the Commission may issue the license amendment before the expiration of 
the 30-day notice period, provided that its final determination is that 
the amendment involves no significant hazards consideration. The final 
determination will consider all public and State comments received. 
Should the Commission take this action, it will publish in the Federal 
Register a notice of issuance and provide for opportunity for a hearing 
after issuance. The Commission expects that the need to take this 
action will occur very infrequently.
    Written comments may be submitted by mail to the Rules Review and 
Directives Branch, Division of Freedom of Information and Publications 
Services, Office of Administration, U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission, 
Washington, DC 20555, and should cite the publication data and page 
number of this Federal Register notice. Written comments may also be 
delivered to Room 6D22, Two White Flint North, 11545 Rockville Pike, 
Rockville, Maryland, from 7:30 a.m. to 4:15 p.m. Federal workdays. 
Copies of written comments received may be examined at the NRC Public 
Document Room, the Gelman Building, 2120 L Street, NW., Washington, DC.
    The filing of requests for hearing and petitions for leave to 
intervene is discussed below.
    By January 23, 1995, the licensee may file a request for a hearing 
with respect to issuance of the amendment to the subject facility 
operating license and any person whose interest may be affected by this 
proceeding and who wishes to participate as a party in the proceeding 
must file a written request for a hearing and a petition for leave to 
intervene. Requests for a hearing and a petition for leave to intervene 
shall be filed in accordance with the Commission's ``Rules of Practice 
for Domestic Licensing Proceedings'' in 10 CFR Part 2. Interested 
persons should consult a current copy of 10 CFR 2.714 which is 
available 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. 
If a request for a hearing or petition for leave to intervene is filed 
by the above date, the Commission or an Atomic Safety and Licensing 
Board, designated by the Commission or by the Chairman of the Atomic 
Safety and Licensing Board Panel, will rule on the request and/or 
petition; and the Secretary or the designated Atomic Safety and 
Licensing Board will issue a notice of hearing or an appropriate order.
    As required by 10 CFR 2.714, a petition for leave to intervene 
shall set forth with particularity the interest of the petitioner in 
the proceeding, and how that interest may be affected by the results of 
the proceeding. The petition should specifically explain the reasons 
why intervention should be permitted with particular reference to the 
following factors; (1) the nature of the petitioner's right under the 
Act to be made party to the proceeding; (2) the nature and extent of 
the petitioner's property, financial, or other interest in the 
proceeding; and (3) the possible effect of any order which may be 
entered in the proceeding on the petitioner's interest. The Petition 
should also identify the specific aspect(s) of the subject matter of 
the proceeding as to which petitioner wishes to intervene. Any person 
who has filed a petition for leave to intervene or who has been 
admitted as a party may amend the petition without requesting leave of 
the Board up to 15 days prior to the first prehearing conference 
scheduled in the proceeding, but such an amended petition must satisfy 
the specificity requirements described above.
    Not later than 15 days prior to the first prehearing conference 
scheduled in the proceeding, a petitioner shall file a supplement to 
the petition to intervene which must include a list of the contentions 
which are sought to be litigated in the matter. Each contention must 
consist of a specific statement of the issue of law or fact to be 
raised or controverted. In addition, the petitioner shall provide a 
brief explanation of the basis of the contention and a concise 
statement of the alleged facts or expert opinion which support the 
contention and on which the petitioner intends to rely in proving the 
contention at the hearing. The petitioner must also provide references 
to those specific sources and documents of which the petitioner is 
aware and on which the petitioner intends to rely to establish those 
facts or expert opinion. Petitioner must provide sufficient information 
to show that a genuine dispute exists with the applicant on a material 
issue of law or fact. Contentions shall be limited to matters within 
the scope of the amendment under consideration. The contention must be 
one which, if proven, would entitle the petitioner to relief. A 
petitioner who fails to file such a supplement which satisfies these 
requirements with respect to at least one contention will not be 
permitted to participate as a party.
    Those permitted to intervene become parties to the proceeding, 
subject to any limitations in the order granting leave to intervene, 
and have the opportunity to participate fully in the conduct of the 
hearing, including the opportunity to present evidence and cross-
examine witnesses.
    If a hearing is requested, the commission will make a final 
determination on the issue of no significant hazards consideration. The 
final determination will serve to decide when the hearing is held.
    If the final determination is that the amendment request involves 
no significant hazards consideration, the Commission may issue the 
amendment and make it immediately effective, notwithstanding the 
request for a hearing. Any hearing held would take place after issuance 
of the amendment.
    If the final determination is that the amendment request involves a 
significant hazards consideration, any hearing held would take place 
before the issuance of any amendment.
    A request for a hearing or a petition for leave to intervene must 
be filed with the Secretary of the Commission, U.S. Nuclear Regulatory 
Commission, Washington, DC 20555, Attention: Docketing and Services 
Branch, or may be delivered to the Commission's Public Document Room, 
the Gelman Building, 2120 L Street, NW., Washington, DC, by the above 
date. Where petitions are filed during the last 10 days of the notice 
period, it is requested that the petitioner promptly so inform the 
Commission by a toll-free telephone call to Western Union at 1-(800) 
248-5100 (in Missouri 1-(800) 342-6700). The Western Union operator 
should be given Datagram Identification Number N1023 and the following 
message addressed to John F. Stolz: petitioner's name and telephone 
number, date petition was mailed, plant name, and publication date and 
page number of this Federal Register notice. A copy of the petition 
should also be sent to the Office of the General Counsel, U.S. Nuclear 
Regulatory Commission, Washington, DC 20555, and to Jay Silberg, 
Esquire, Shaw, Pittman, Potts, and Trowbridge, 2300 N Street NW., 
Washington, DC 20037, attorney for the licensee.
    Nontimely filings of petitions for leave to intervene, amended 
petitions, supplemental petitions and/or requests for hearing will not 
be entertained absent a determination by the Commission, the presiding 
officer or the presiding Atomic Safety and Licensing Board that the 
petition and/or request should be granted based upon a balancing of the 
factors specified in 10 CFR 2.714(a)(l)(i)-(v) and 2.714(d).
    For further details with respect to this action, see the 
application for amendment dated October 21, 1994, 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 19th day of December 1994.

    For the Nuclear Regulatory Commission.
Chester Poslusny, Sr.,
Project Manager, Project Directorate I-2, Division of Reactor Projects-
I/II, Office of Nuclear Reactor Regulation.
[FR Doc. 94-31446 Filed 12-21-94; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 7590-01-M