[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