ML20070M942
| ML20070M942 | |
| Person / Time | |
|---|---|
| Site: | Beaver Valley |
| Issue date: | 03/19/1991 |
| From: | Stolz J Office of Nuclear Reactor Regulation |
| To: | |
| Shared Package | |
| ML20070M945 | List: |
| References | |
| NUDOCS 9103220102 | |
| Download: ML20070M942 (3) | |
Text
_
g I
l 7590-01 UNITED STATES t!UCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSION DUQUESNE LIGHT COMPANY ONIO EDISON COMPANY THE CLEVELAND ELECTRIC ILLUMINATING COMPANY THE TOLEDO EDISON COMPANY EEAVER VALLEY POWER STATION, UNIT NO. 2 DOCKET NO. 50-412 ENVIROWENTAL ASSESSMENT AND FINDING OF NO SIGNIFICANT IMPACT The U. S. Nuclear Regulatory Comission (the Comission) is considering issuanceofexemptionsfromtherequirems'tsof10CFR55.45(b)(2)(iii)and 10 CFR 55.45(b)(2)(iv) to Duquesne Light Company (the licensee), for the Beaver Valley Power _ Station, Unit 2, located in Beaver County, Pennsylvania.
ENVIR0hMENTAL ASSESSFEN_T Identification of Proposed Action:
The proposed action would exempt the licensee from the requirement of 10 CFR 55.45(b)(2)(iii) to submit Form NRC-474, " Simulation Facility Certification," not later than 46 months after the effective date of the rule.
The revision to 10 CFR Part 55 became effective on May 26, 1987. Therefore, the exemptions would allow for filing of Form NRC-474, " Simulation Facility Certification," af ter March 26, 1991, but not later than January 31, 1992.
Additionally, the exemptions allow the licensee to continue to use the existing Beaver Valley Power Station, Unit I simulator for the administration of the simulation portion of operating tests until the Unit 2 simulator is certified, but not later than January 31, 1992, l
$$32$0$$ N00$12 p
l 1
7 The proposed action is in accordance with 10 CFR 50.12, Specific Exemptions, and 10 CFR 55.11, Specific Exemptions, and is based upon the information provided to the NRC in the licensee's request dated September 21, 1990, as clarified by letter dated January 7,1991.
The fleed for the proposed Action:
The proposed exemptions are needed because of unavoidable delays in the completion and delivery of the simulator and to avoid interruption of the operator requalification training cycle for Unit 2 operators.
Environmental Impacts of the Proposed Action:
The proposed action will have no incremental impact relative to current practice because the exemption will permit the continued but temporary use of the Unit I simulator for conducting the Unit ? requalification training.
Alternatives to the proposed Action:
Since the Commission has concluded that the environmental effects of the prcposed action are not significant, any alternative with equal or greater environmental impacts need not be evaluated.
The principal alternative would be to deny the requested exemptions. This would not reduce the environmental impacts attributed to this facility and would result in disruption of operator requalification training.
Alternative Use of Resources:
This action does not involve the use of any resources not previously considered in the Final Environmental Statenent related to operation of the Beaver Valley power Station, Unit 2.
l
)
.~,
~...-.
!*J 3
Agencies and Persons Consulted:
The Connission's staff reviewed the licensee's request and did not
. consult-other agencies or persons.
FINDING OF NO SIGNIFICANT IMPACT The Commission has determined not to prepare an environmental impact statement for the proposed exemptions.
Based upon the foregoing environmental
- assessment, we conclude that the proposed action will not have a significant effect on the quality of the human environment.
for further details with respect to this action, see the request for L
i exemptions dated September 21, 1990, as clarified and supplemented-by-letter
? dated January 7,1991, which are available for public-inspection at the 1
Commission's Public Document Room, 2120 L Street, N.W., Washington,.0.C. and at the B. F. Jones Memorial Library, 663 Franklin Street, Aliquippa, Pennsylvania 15001.
Dated at Rockville, Maryland, _ this 19th day of-March
.1991.
FOR3THE NUCLEAR REGUL TORY COMMISSION Li
' John F.' Sto z, Director ProjectDirectorateI-4 nivisionlof Reactor Projectsi-1/II u
f, Offico of Nuclear Reactor' Regulation i
~
u l-t l.
l-
. ~
-