The Cleveland Electric Illuminating Company, et al.; 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 No. 50-440]

The Cleveland Electric Illuminating Company, et al.; 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 No.

NPF-58 issued to The Cleveland Electric Illuminating Company, et al.

(the licensee), for operation of the Perry Nuclear Power Plant, Unit

No. 1 located in Lake County, Ohio.

The proposed amendment would change the Technical Specification

surveillance frequency for the drywell bypass leakage rate test from 18

months to 120 months (10 years) with a more frequent testing

requirement if performance degrades. Additionally, specific leakage

limits would be deleted for the air lock seal and barrel tests. Also,

surveillance frequencies for the air lock interlock test and seal

pneumatic system leak test would be changed from 18 months to 24

months. Finally, the surveillance frequencies for the air lock barrel

test would be changed from ``each COLD SHUTDOWN if not performed within

the previous 6 months'' to ``at least once per 24 months'' and from 18

months to 24 months. The licensee requested that this amendment be

approved for use during the current refueling outage which began on

January 27, 1996.

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:

I. The proposed change does not involve a significant increase

in the probability or consequences of an accident previously

evaluated.

The proposed changes in frequency for the drywell bypass leakage

and drywell air lock surveillances will continue to ensure that no

paths exist through drywell boundary components that would permit

gross leakage from the drywell to bypass the containment pressure-

suppression feature (the suppression pool) and result in exceeding

the primary design basis limit. The Mark III primary containment

system satisfies General Design Criterion 16 of Appendix A to 10 CFR

Part 50. Maximum drywell bypass leakage was determined previously by

reviewing the full range of postulated primary system break sizes.

The limiting case was a primary system small break LOCA that yielded

a design allowable drywell bypass leakage rate limit of

approximately 58,000 scfm. The Technical Specification acceptable

limit for the bypass leakage following a surveillance is less than

10% of the design basis value. The most recent bypass leakage value

was approximately 0.2% of the design allowable leakage rate limit

for the limiting event. Programmatic and oversight controls are

maintained that ensure drywell bypass leakage remains a fraction of

the design allowable leakage limit.

The drywell is exposed to essentially 0 psig during normal plant

operation and 2.5 psig during drywell bypass leak rate testing.

These pressures are considerably lower than the structural integrity

test pressure and are not likely to initiate a crack or cause an

existing crack to grow. Visual inspections of the accessible drywell

surfaces that have been performed since the structural integrity

tests have not revealed the presence of abnormal cracking or other

abnormalities. Therefore, drywell degradation is not expected due to

testing or operation and it is not considered credible for the

passive drywell structure to begin to leak sufficiently to impact

the design drywell bypass leakage limit.

The primary containment's ability to perform its safety function

is fairly insensitive to the amount of drywell bypass leakage,

thereby providing a margin to loss of the drywell safety function

that is not normally available for safety systems. This

insensitivity is demonstrated by the extremely high limiting event

design basis allowable leakage for the drywell (approximately 58,000

scfm as discussed above). An even higher allowable leakage can be

accommodated by the primary containment due to containment design

margin. It would take valves in multiple penetration flow paths

leaking excessively to cause the primary containment to fail as a

result of overpressurization. Therefore, the probability that

drywell isolation valve leakage will result in primary containment

failure due to excessive drywell bypass leakage is not significant

and this drywell/primary containment failure mode is not credible.

The proposed Technical Specification changes have no significant

impact on the IPE conducted in accordance with NRC Generic Letter

88-20. The IPE considered

[[Page 3952]]

primary containment overpressurization failure as part of the primary

containment performance assessment. Due to the magnitude of

acceptable drywell bypass leakage and the extremely low

probabilities of experiencing excessive leakage, preexisting

excessive drywell bypass leakage was considered a non-significant

contributor to primary containment failure. In a beyond-design-basis

``severe accident,'' the surveillance frequencies for the air lock

failure can occur with or without preexisting excessive drywell

bypass leakage. This is due to physical phenomena associated with

potentially extreme environmental conditions inside primary

containment following a severe accident. However, the calculated

frequency of such extreme conditions is very small. The proposed

changes do not impact the IPE evaluated phenomena causing primary

containment overpressurization failure and do not significantly

increase the probability that the drywell has preexisting excessive

leakage. The proposed changes therefore, would not contribute to

these accident scenarios.

The movement of the air lock leakage rate tests to the Drywell

Specification and the elimination of the Notes in the Improved

Technical Specifications are proposed because drywell leakage rate

requirements are the essence of drywell operability. Leakage rates

discovered outside limits will always clearly result in entering the

actions for drywell inoperability. Additionally, the requirements

for the drywell air lock seal and barrel tests to meet specific

leakage limits are deleted since the ability of the drywell to

perform its safety function is not dependent on the air lock meeting

a specific leakage limit. The limiting case for drywell bypass

leakage is based on total leakage through all drywell paths other

than the suppression pool vents. Total drywell bypass leakage from

such paths (including the air lock) should not exceed the acceptable

design limit of drywell bypass leakage. The proposed Technical

Specifications will still require performance of seal and barrel

leak tests. Additionally, the proposed changes include minor

administrative changes which clarify the requirement format or

change the requirement to match the plant design bases.

For the reasons discussed above, the proposed changes do not

have any significant risk impact to accidents previously evaluated

and do not significantly increase the consequences of an accident

previously evaluated. Additionally, drywell bypass leakage is not

the initiator of any accident evaluated; therefore, changes in the

frequency of the surveillance for drywell bypass leakage does not

increase the probability of any accident evaluated.

II. The proposed change does not create the possibility of a new

or different kind of accident from any accident previously

evaluated.

The proposed changes will impact the test frequencies and will

not result in any change in equipment response in the unlikely event

of an accident. The changes do not alter equipment design or

capabilities. The changes do not present any new or additional

failure mechanisms. The drywell is passive in nature and the

surveillance will continue to verify that its integrity has not

degraded. Therefore, the proposed change does not create the

possibility of a new or different kind of accident from any accident

previously evaluated.

III. The proposed change does not involve a significant

reduction in a margin of safety.

Drywell integrity and reliability have been demonstrated during

past drywell bypass leakage surveillances. Appropriate design basis

assumptions will be maintained. Drywell integrity will continue to

be tested by the proposed periodic drywell bypass leakage test, the

drywell air lock door latching and interlock mechanism surveillance,

and additional surveillances including exercising the drywell

isolation valves. In combination, these surveillances will provide

adequate assurance that drywell bypass leakage will not exceed the

design basis limit. Margins of safety will not be reduced.

Therefore, the proposed change does not cause a reduction in the

margin of safety.

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 preventing startup 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 date 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 March 4, 1996, 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 Perry Public Library, 3753 Main Street,

Perry, Ohio. 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

[[Page 3953]]

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 bases 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 Gail H. Marcus: 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 E. Silberg,

Shaw, Pittman, Potts & 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)(1)(i)-(v) and 2.714(d).

For further details with respect to this action, see the

application for amendment dated January 16, 1996, 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.

Dated at Rockville, Maryland, this 29th day of January 1996.

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. 96-2206 Filed 2-1-96; 8:45 am]

BILLING CODE 7590-01-P