ML19347F677
| ML19347F677 | |
| Person / Time | |
|---|---|
| Site: | Beaver Valley |
| Issue date: | 05/15/1981 |
| From: | Office of Nuclear Reactor Regulation |
| To: | |
| Shared Package | |
| ML19347F675 | List: |
| References | |
| NUDOCS 8105260005 | |
| Download: ML19347F677 (2) | |
Text
,
O
~
UNITED STATE 2 NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSION Y
o
,E wAsMimarow. c.c. 2oses
@Ro$
SAFETY EVALUATION BY THE OFFICE OF NUCLEAR REACTOR REGULATION RELATED TO AMENDMENT NO. 43 TO FACILITY OPERATING LICENSE NO. DPR-66 DUQUESNE LIGHT COMPANY OHIO EDISON COMPANY PENNSYLVANIA POWER COMPANY BEAVER VALLEY POWER STATION, UNIT NO.1 DOCKET NO. 50-334
~
Introduction By telecopy and letter dated March 13, i981, supplemented Marc.h 24, 1981, Duquesne Light Company preposed changes to the Technical Specifications (TS) of Facility Operating License No. DPR-66 for the Beaver Valley Nuclear Power Station, Unit No. 1.
The changes provide redundancy in decay heat removal capability for the plant in response to NRC letters dated June 11, i
l 1980 and February 2,1981.
In conjunction with this, the licensee proposed the elimination of an existing surveillance requirement (3/4 7.10.1) that pump discharge pressure be demonstrated to be 135 psig at least once per 18 months.
This request was authorized on March 14, 1981.
Duquesne Light Company confirmed its request cf March 13, 1981 with an application of the same date, as supplemented by letter dated March 24, 1981. This Safety Evaluation documents our review.
The differential pressure across the pump has never been 135 psi, and the Technical Specification requirement has been met in the past by testing at an elevated suction pressure. The licensee has infomed us that this type of testing does not fulfill the intent of the testing; and has proposed a Technical Specification change which will assure acceptable RHR pump per-formance.
The licensee's proposal to eliminate the present technical specification which included the 135 psig discharge pressure requirement and adds a differ-ential pressure surveillance requirement to the standard NRC Technical Spec-ification on decay heat removal.
Also included is a change to maintain at least 23 feet of water over the top of the reactor pressure vessel flange during movement of fuel assemblies or control rods in response to NRC letter dated August 15, 1980.
8105260005
s Evalua' tion We have reviewed the decay heat removal TS proposed by the licensee and--
the accompanying Safety Eva,1uation. : Based on this review, we have deter-mined that the proposed TS are more conservative than-the existing TS with respect to the concerns of the Model TS forwarded by our 'lette iated June 11,1980. Additionally, the licensee has proposed to include a value of 112 psid for the RHR pump differential pressure in the Technical Specification. The licensee has indicated that recent data (3/11/81 Land-3/12/81) is consistent with earlier pump test data (1978). Actual pump differential pressure was found to be 125 psid.
The licensee has proposed-to use 90% for the present pump differential pressure as the technical speci '
fication limit. This is an appropriate limit since it corresponds to the ASME Section XI definition of degraded performance.
Based on the RHR pump test data taken since~ 1978, we conclude that the pump performance has not degraded since that time.
In addition we conclude that the proposed Technical Specification provides assurance of continued R,HR pump coerability. The proposed Technical Specification is therefore accept-a bl a.
The licensees proposed TS concerning water level over the top of irradiated fuel assemblies during movement of fuel assemblies or control rods when the plant is in Mode 6 conform to the requirements outlined in our letter dated August 15, 1980 and provide an acceptable resolution of this concern.-
Environmental Consideration We ha.ve determined that the amerdcent does not authori:e a change in effluent types or total accunts nor an increase in power level and will not result in any significant environmental impact. Having made this determination, we have further' concluded that the amendment involves an action which is insignificant from the standpoint of environmental impact and, pursuant to 10 CFR 551.5(d)(?), that an environiental impact statement or negative declaration and environ-mental impact appraisal need not be prepared in ccnnection with the issuance of this amendment.
Ccnciusion We have concluded, based on the considerations discussed above, that:
(1) because the amendment dees not involve a significant increase,
in the prcbability or ccnsequences of accidents creviously censidered and does not involve a significant decrease in a safety margin, the amendment dces not involve a significant hazards consideration, (2) there is reasonable assurance that the health and safety of the public will not be endangered by operation in the prepcsed manner, and (3)
~
such activities will be conducted in ca pliance with the Commission's regulations and the issuance of this amendment will nc: Se inimical to the cc= men defense and :tcurity er to the health and safety of the public.
Data: May 15,1981 m
1
.