ML20059L646
| ML20059L646 | |
| Person / Time | |
|---|---|
| Site: | Beaver Valley |
| Issue date: | 09/20/1990 |
| From: | NRC |
| To: | |
| Shared Package | |
| ML20059L647 | List: |
| References | |
| NUDOCS 9009270213 | |
| Download: ML20059L646 (3) | |
Text
_ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ - _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _
=. -
I 774 oo m I
71 O >
I-2 d'$ ";i N
TABM 3.3-4 fContimmedl gg N menImmasso sAF m rEAwamm m. non s
-._non m. &.~i___
o~
I xQ
- w
,Q FUNCTIONAL UNIT TRIP SETFOINT ALIANEMS M oo y$
.E 1.1 SAFETY INJECTIOut-TRANSFER FROM C/W INJECTION TO THE RECIRCUIATION i
DWO i
a MODE
- ~
a.
Manual Initiation Not Appilcable Ilot Appilcable-b.
A4 stomatic Actuation Imgic Hot Applicable IIot Applicable Coincident with Safety l
Injection Signal w
7 Refueling Water Storage Tank 18'8-1/2" 218'2-1/2" and 519'2-1/2" l -
l o
c.
l Idevel-Iow I
=,
j d.
Refueling Water Storage Tank 8*6*
2,S'0* and 5,9'O' Level - Auto QS Flow Reduction g
i i
i 4
i Y
4 i
<.- a l
C 3 i
I $
to e+
M Z
./
l l
1 0
6 L
I
(,
\\
4 An analysis has been performsd to update the calculation of these imt1rument inaccuracies using a more current methodology for determining the ryt;uf red trip setting and allowable value limits. The methodology used is described in detail in Westinghouse WCAP-11419.
The proposed changes to Table 2.2-1 and Table 3.3-4 revise the allowable values based on the calculation of the instrustnt inaccuracies using a more current methodology.
By using the methodology described in Westinghouse WCAP-11419, the plant gains added operational flexibility and yet remains within the analytical limit-values accounted for in the various accident analysis.
In addition, the i
methodology allows for a sensor drift factor and an increased rack drift
)
factor.
The proposed changes to revise the allowable values in Table 2.2-1 and Table 3.3-4 of the Beaver Valley Unit 1 Technical Specifications are based
-l on the calculation of the instrument accuracies by using approved current l
mett iology and are acceptable.
)
3.0 ENVIRONMENTAL CONSIDERATION
)
The amendment changes a requirement with respect to the installation or use J
of a facility component located within the restricted area as defined in l
We have determined that the amendment involves no signif-i l
icant increase in the amounts, and no sigr.ificant change in the types of any l
effluents that may be released offsite, and that there is no significant increase in indiv9lual or cumulative occupational radiation exposure.
The l
staff has previously issued a proposed finding that this amendment involves no significant hazards consideration and there has been no public comment on l:
such finding.
Accordingly, this amendment meets the eligibility criteria for L
categorical exclusion set forth in 10 CFR 51.22(c)(9).
Pursuant to 10 CFR i
L SI.22(b) no environmental impact statement or environmental assessment need be prepared in connection with the issuance of this amen $nent.
(
4.0 CONCLUSION
We have concluded, based on the considerations discussed above, that:-(1) there is reasonable assurance that the health and safety of the public L
will not be endangered by operation in the proposed manner, and (2) such activities will be conducted in compliance with the Commission's t
regulations, and (3) the issuance of this amendment will not be inimical to the common. defense and security or to the health and safety of the public.
l Dated: August 17, 1990
+
l Principal Contributor:
S. Rhow L
l L
L l'
=
=
. p,y
.e_
r W
t
((7' i
' ' DATED:-
i f
AMENDMENT NO.
TO FACILITY OPERATING LICENSE NO.
DISTRIBUTION ~
I W
[fg fk{
Plant File S..Varga (14E4)
- 8. Boger (14A2)
J. Stolz-S. Norris A. DeAgazio-e:
OGC D. Hagan (MNBB 3302) i E. Jordan (MNBB 3302)
G.-Hill (4) (P1-137)
W.' Jones (P-130A)
J. Calvo (11F23)
L-ACRS(10)
GPA/PA OC/LFMB cc:
Plant Service List P
E E
i 7
I t
a
.+
1
. _. L _ ;.1. _i _..
1
....