[Federal Register Volume 60, Number 191 (Tuesday, October 3, 1995)]
[Notices]
[Pages 51820-51821]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 95-24553]



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

NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSION

[Docket No. 50-440]


The Cleveland Electric Illuminating Company, et al.; Perry 
Nuclear Power Plant, Unit No. 1; Environmental Assessment and Finding 
of No Significant Impact

    The U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission (the Commission) is 
considering issuance of several exemptions from the requirements of 10 
CFR Part 50, Appendix J to the Cleveland Electric Illuminating Company, 
Centerior Service Company, Duquesne Light Company, Ohio Edison Company, 
Pennsylvania Power Company, and Toledo Edison Company (the licensees), 
for operation of the Perry Nuclear Power Plant, Unit 1, located in Lake 
County, Ohio.

Environmental Assessment

Identification of the Proposed Action

    The proposed action would grant exemptions from the requirements of 
Sections III.A.5(b)(2), III.B.3, III.C.3, III.A.1(d), III.D.1(a), and 
III.D.3 of Appendix J to 10 CFR Part 50. Section III.A.5(b)(2) requires 
that the measured leakage for the containment integrated leak rate test 
(Lam) be less than 75% of the maximum allowable leakage rate (0.75 
La). The proposed exemption would permit separate treatment of 
main steam isolation valve leakage from the containment integrated leak 
rate tests.
    Sections III.B.3 and III.C.3 require that the combined leakage of 
valves and penetrations subject to Type B and C local leak rate testing 
be less than 0.6 times the maximum allowable leakage rate (0.6 
La). The proposed exemption would permit separate treatment of 
main steam isolation valve leakage from local leak rate testing.
    Section III.A.1(d) requires that all fluid systems that would be 
open to containment following post-accident conditions, be vented and 
drained prior to conducting the containment integrated leak rate test. 
The proposed exemption would permit separate treatment of the main 
steam line penetrations and would not require them to be vented and 
drained prior to conducting containment integrated leak rate tests.
    Section III.D.1.(a) requires that a set of three Type A tests be 
performed at approximately equal intervals during each 10-year service 
period and that the third test of each set be conducted when the plant 
is shut down for the 10-year plant inservice inspection (ISI). The 
proposed exemption would permit performance of the third Type A test at 
times other than when the plant is shut down for the 10-year plant ISI.
    Section III.D.3 requires that Type C tests shall be performed 
during each reactor shutdown for refueling but in no case at intervals 
greater than 2 years. The proposed exemption would allow the licensee 
to perform the required Type C tests while the plant is at power.
    The proposed action is in accordance with the licensee's 
application for exemption dated October 21, 1994.

The Need for the Proposed Action

    Assumptions used in both the Perry FSAR and Standard Review Plan 
15.6.5, Appendix D, ``Radiological Consequences of a Design Basis Loss-
of-Coolant Accident,'' for computing the total radiological 
consequences from a hypothetical loss-of-coolant accident (LOCA), 
include separate contributions for the containment leak rate and the 
main steam line isolation valve leak rate. The value for the maximum 
allowable containment leak rate, La, of 0.2%/day, was established 
based on separate accounting for the main steam line isolation valve 
leak rate. The proposed exemption from Section III.A.5 (b)(2) is needed 
to allow separate treatment of main steam line isolation valve leakage 
from the containment integrated leak rate.
    Sections III.B.3 and III.C.3 of Appendix J state that the combined 
leakage from all valves and penetrations subject to Type B and C local 
leak rate testing shall be less than 0.6 La. However, separate 
leakage limits have been established for the main steam isolation 
valves at Perry. An exemption from Sections III.B.3 and III.C.3 is 
needed to allow separate treatment of main steam isolation valve 
leakage from local leak rate testing.
    Section III.A.1(d) requires that those systems that would be 
exposed to the containment atmosphere following a design basis LOCA, be 
vented and drained prior to conducting the containment integrated leak 
rate test. However, the main steam piping between the inboard and 
outboard isolation valves at Perry are filled with water during the 
containment integrated leak rate tests. This practice ensures that any 
leakage through the isolation valves will not contribute to the overall 
containment test results. An exemption from Section III.A.1(d) is 
needed to allow this alternative practice.
    The proposed exemption from 10 CFR Part, Appendix J, Section 
III.D.1(a), is needed to avoid unnecessary restraints in outage 
scheduling. The licensee proposed to perform the three Type A tests at 
approximately equal intervals within each 10-year period, with the 
third test of each set conducted as close as practical to the end of 
the 10-year period. However, there would be no required connection 
between the Appendix J 10-year interval and the ISI 10-year interval.
    Section III.D.3 of Appendix J to 10 CFR part 50 states that Type C 
tests shall be performed during each reactor shutdown for refueling but 
in no case at intervals greater than 2 years. The proposed exemption is 
needed to allow the option to perform Type C testing at power.

Environmental Impacts of the Proposed Action

    The Commission has completed its evaluation of the proposed action 
and concludes that the exemption would not significantly increase the 
probability or amount of expected primary containment leakage, and that 
containment integrity would thus be maintained.
    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 

[[Page 51821]]
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 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 related to 
the operation of the Perry Nuclear Power Plant, Units 1 and 2,'' dated 
August 1982.

Agencies and Persons Consulted

    In accordance with its stated policy, on September 13, 1995, the 
staff consulted with the Ohio state official, Lawrence Grove, of the 
Ohio Emergency Management Agency, 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 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 Perry Public Library, 3753 Main Street, 
Perry, Ohio 44081.

    Dated at Rockville, Maryland, this 26th day of September 1995.

    For The Nuclear Regulatory Commission.
Jon B. Hopkins, Sr.,
Project Manager, Project Directorate III-3, Division of Reactor 
Projects III/IV, Office of Nuclear Reactor Regulation.
[FR Doc. 95-24553 Filed 10-2-95; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 7590-01-P