ML17164A815
| ML17164A815 | |
| Person / Time | |
|---|---|
| Site: | Susquehanna  |
| Issue date: | 10/05/1998 |
| From: | Nerses V NRC (Affiliation Not Assigned) |
| To: | |
| Shared Package | |
| ML17164A814 | List: |
| References | |
| NUDOCS 9810090215 | |
| Download: ML17164A815 (8) | |
Text
7590-01-P S
W US Nl OC 0-50-8 The U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission (the Commission) is considering issuance of an amendment to Facility Operating License Nos. NPF-14 and NPF-22, issued to Pennsylvania Power 8 Light Company (the licensee), for operation of the Susquehanna Steam Electric Station (SSES), Units 1 and 2, located in Luzeme County, Pennsylvania.
N IRONM T
den ification h
Pr The proposed action would authorize changes to the Final Safety Analysis Report (FSAR) for the facility. Specifically, the proposed action would authorize changes to the FSAR to reflect the change in the design basis of the offgas system to a detonation resistant design.
The proposed action is in accordance with the licensee's application for amendment dated March 16, 1998, as supplemented May 22, August 10, and September 17, 1998.
Technical details were provided by the licensee in an earlier letter dated February 9, 1998.
e edfrh o
With the planned implementation of hydrogen water chemistry at SSES Units 1 and 2 to enhance protection of the reactor vessel internals from intergranular stress corrosion cracking, transients resulting in high hydrogen concentration and potential explosions in the offgas system could occur. Therefore, it is necessary to evaluate the offgas system piping design to verify that it is designed to withstand such hydrogen explosions, and incorporate detonation resistance in the design basis.
vsxoo~aaxg qgiG<>~ p PDR ADQCK QGQOQ387 P
'\\I nvironmental l acts of the Pro osed Action:
The Commission has completed its evaluation of the proposed action.
No impact on the status of the Operating Licenses (OLs) or the continued operation of the SSES is foreseen.
The NRC staff has reviewed the licensee's calculations and responses to request for additional information submitted by letters dated February 9, May 22, August 10, and September 17, 1998, that support the licensee's conclusion that the offgas system is designed to withstand the effects of hydrogen explosions.
The assumptions, methodology, peak pressure model, and the piping model used for piping stress analyses are acceptable.
The staff concurred with the results of the submitted analyses and concluded that the licensee's evaluation of the SSES offgas components provides reasonable assurance that the components can withstand a hydrogen detonation without piping pressure boundary failure. The licensee has stated that failure of the offgas system, instrumentation poses no personnel hazard, and backup radiation monitoring and alarm instrumentation is available and prompt operator action under existing procedures to prevent exceeding occupational and offsite dose requirements would be taken in the event of a hydrogen detonation.
The radiological consequences due to a gaseous waste system leak or failure described in the existing accident analysis sections of the FSAR include the release of offgas system radioactivity without processing by the offgas treatment system, thus, bounding the failure of.the offgas.system'piping event.
The proposed change willnot increase the probability or consequences of accidents, no changes are being made in the types of any effiuents that may be released offsite, and there is no significant increase in the allowable occupational or public radiation exposure, Accordingly, the Commission concludes that there are no significant radiological environmental impacts associated with the proposed action.
cf1 I
With regard to potential nonradiological impacts, the proposed action involves physical features of the plant. However, it does not significantly affect nonradiofogical 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 Pro osed Action:
Since the Commission has concluded there is no sign Tiicant 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 propose'd action (no-action alternative).
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 SSES, Units 1 and 2.
A encies and Persons Consulted:
ln accordance with its stated policy, on September 23, 1998, the staff consulted with the Pennsylvania State official, Mr. M. Maingi of the Pennsylvania Department of Environmental Protection Bureau, Division of Nuclear Safety, regarding the environmental impact of the proposed action. The State official had no comments.
FINDING OF NO SIGNIFICANTIMPACT Based upon the environmental assessment, the Commission concludes that the proposed action willnot 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.
r
'1 For further details with respect to the proposed action, see the licehsee's letter dated March 16, 1998, as supplemented by letters dated May 22, August 10, and September 17, 1998, and also by letter dated February 9, 1998, which are available for public inspection at the Commission's Public Document Room, The Gefman 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, PA 18701.
Dated at Rockville, Maryland, this 5th day of October 1998.
FOR THE NUCLEAR REGULATORYCOMMISSION
/
'. C.:~~d~t
+~(.. ~.~j Victor Nerses, Senior Project Manager Project Directorate I-2 Division of Reactor Projects - I/II Office of Nuclear Reactor Regulation