ML20062F229
| ML20062F229 | |
| Person / Time | |
|---|---|
| Site: | Beaver Valley |
| Issue date: | 07/27/1982 |
| From: | Office of Nuclear Reactor Regulation |
| To: | |
| Shared Package | |
| ML20062F227 | List: |
| References | |
| NUDOCS 8208110292 | |
| Download: ML20062F229 (2) | |
Text
nnacq
/'4s og UNITED STATES NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSION 3
g l
WASHING TON, D. C. 20555
\\...../
SAFETY EVALUATION BY THE OFFICE OF NUCLEAR REACTOR REGULATION RELATED TO AMENDMENT NO. 54 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 In a letter dated June 3,1982 Duquesne Light requested a change in Beaver Valley Technical Specifications Sections 3.8.2.3, 4.8.3.2 and Bases 3/4.8.1 and 3/4.8.2 for station batteries. These changes are intended as an update to meet the requirements of IEEE Standard 450-1980 and Standard Technical Specifications.
Evaluation The June 3,1982 submittal did not explicitly follow the above requirements.
As the result of a telephone conversation between NRC staff and Duquesne Light Company on July 2,1982, an agreement was reached to add item 4.8.2.3.2(b)(2) (the surveillance for battery terminal corrosion or resistance check) and change item 4.8.2.3.2(f) (surveillance requirement for performance discharge test of battery capacity on any battery that shows sign of degradation).
The proposed Technical Specification for station batteries will meet the requirements of the Standard Technical Specifications (STS) and IEEE Standard 450-1980 except for item 4.8.2.3.2(f) which requires that a pe, formance discharge test of battery capacity be performed annually on any battery that shows signs of degradation. The licensee has proposed to perform this test on an 18 months interval during plant shutdown rather than as stated in the STS. Performance of this test requires that the battery and battery charger be isolated from the DC system. To accomplish this test at any time other than during a normal plant shutdown would place the plant in a limiting condition of operation and result in an unscheduled plant shutdown.
NRR Office Letter No. 38 (Procedures for Revision to Technical Specifications enclosure 3, item 2) states that standard technical specifications may be used as guidance for technical specification changes requested on operating reactors but will not be used to impose new requirements. The proposed battery test periodicity is the same frequency that exists in the present 8208110292 820727 PDR ADOCK 05000334 P
PDR t
. Beaver Valley Technical Specifications.
Imposing the new requirement to conduct an annual performance discharge test on a battery that shows signs of degradation would require an unscheduled plant shutdown and unnecessarily restrict plant availability without a significant increase in plant safety.
We concur with the technical specification changes proposed by Duquesne Light Company. The proposed changes meet the requirements of STS and IEEE Standard 450-1980 as stated above and, therefore, are acceptable.
Environmental Consideration We have determined that the amendment does not authorize a change in effluent types or total amounts 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 insigni-ficant from the standpoint of environmental impact and, pursuant to 10 CFR 551.5(d)(4), that an environmental impact statement or negative declaration and environmental impact appraisal need not be prepared in connection with the issuance of this amendment.
Conclusion We have concluded, based on the cor.siderations discussed above, that:
(1) because the amendment does not involve a significant increase in the probability or consequences of an accident previously evaluated, does not create the possibility of an accident of a type different from any evaluated previously, and does not involve a significant reduction in a margin of safety, the amendment does 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 proposed manner, and (3) such activities will be conducted in compliance'with the Commission's regulations and the issuance of this amendment will not be inimical-to the common defense and security or to the health and safety of the public.
Date: July 27,1982 Principal Contributor:
R. Prevatte