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

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