ML20082H392

Application for Amend to License DPR-66,consisting of Proposed Change Request 88,deleting Mechanical Vacuum Pump Spec from Tech Specs.Safety Evaluation Encl

ML20082H392
Person / Time
Site:	Beaver Valley
Issue date:	11/21/1983
From:	Carey J DUQUESNE LIGHT CO.
To:
Shared Package
ML20082H389	List: ML20082H385 ML20082H392
References
NUDOCS 8312010142
Download: ML20082H392 (4)

Text

-

4 UNITED STATES OF AMERICA NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSION In the l'atter of )

)

Duquesne Light Company ) Docket No. 50-334 (Beaver Valley Power Station, Unit No.1) )

APPLICATION FOR AMENDMENT TO OPERATING LICENSE Pursuant to Section 50.90 of the regulations of the U. S. Nuclear Pegulatory Commission (the " Commission"), Duquesne Light Company ("DLC"),

holder of Facility Operating License No. DPR-66, hereby requests that the Technical Specifications set forth in Appendix A to that license be amended to delete the Mechanical Vacuum pump specification.

The proposed technical specification change is set forth in Attachment A to this application. A safety evaluation is set forth in Attachment B.

The proposed change does not involve a significant change in the types or a significant increase in the amounts of effluents or any change in the authorized power level of the facility. The change involves a single safety issue, deletion of the Mechanical Vacuum pump specification, and is in accordance with 10 CFR 170.22.

kHEREFORE, Applicant respectfully requests that Appendix A to Facility Operating License No. DPR-66 be amended in the fom attached hereto as Attachment A.

Duquesne Light Company l By J.LJ(/Carey /

j Vice President, thclear Subscribed and sworn to before me on this A / day of N e g fx / //I8 i

b -

WitA M. FATIOR(, NOTARY PUBuc

$Nirt'inPuhl s04u. .it AWR COUNTY MY Cout:$*.t0N (APIWk$ SEPT.16,1945 Nedet. Pomeyfvenis Association of Notaries 8312010142 831117

! PDRADOCK05000g P

m

. ~ . .

ATTACHMEtiT A Remove pages: 3/4 6-26, B 3/4 6 4 Insert pages: flo pages L

1 i

w -

ATTACHMEtiT B SAFETY EVALUATI0f1 Prorosed Change Request flo. 88 amends the Beaver Valley Power Station, Unit fio.1 Technical Specifications, Appendix A by deleting specification 3.6.5.2, f{echanical Vacuum Pumps and associated BASES 3/4.6.5.2.

Description and Purcose of Chance The proposed change will remove the requirement for using the contain-ment vacuum pumps following an accident. The containment vacuum pumps are not Emergency Core Cooling System (ECCS) equipment and are isolated l following a Design Basis Accident (DBA). Specification 3.6.1.4, Internal Pressure, will still require that containment atmosphere be maintained subatmospheric during nomal plant operation.

Basis

1. Is the probability of an occurrence or the consequence of an accident or malfunction of equipment important to safety as previously evaluated in the Updated Final Safety Analyses Report (UFSAR) increased? fio .

Reason The containment vacuum pumps are not ECCS equipment and will not l prevent or mitigate a DBA. During DBA conditions, the containment vacuun pumps are isolated, and are not used to depressurize contain-ment. The containment vacuum pumps may be used in the long tem following an accident as stated in the Technical Specification bases, however, other means of maintaining the containment subatmospheric after an accident are available. This evolution would not be nec-essary until several months after a DBA based on design containment leak rates and the fact that the containment returns to a subatmospheric state within one hour post DBA with one Train of Safeguards Equipment in service. This time frame would also provide an adequate interval to install more efficient filtration systems or replace the Vacuum Pumps if necessary to maintain a slightly negative pressure several months post DBA. The Supplementary Leak Collection and Release System (SLCRS) or Gaseous Waste System (non-lE) could also be used to prevent an uncontrolled release of radioactivity, however, an analysis would have to be performed to detemine the consequences of using these options prior to their use. The decision to detemine the method used to maintain the containment subatmospheric would be the responsibility of the emergency recovery organization.

2. Is the possibility for an accident or malfunction of different type than any previously analyzed in the UFSAR created? flo.

Reason Deleting the containment vacuum pump specification will not affect the potential use of the containment vacuum pumps following an accident and will not physically change the plant or procedures, therefore, no different types of accidents will be created.

_ _ _ r -- - m ~-

Attachm:nt B Safety Evaluation Page 2

3. Is the margin of safety as defined in the basis for any Technical Specification reduced? No.

Reason The specification requiring the containment to be subatmospheric during normal operation (3.6.1.4) is more restrictive than the containment vacuum pump specification and will continue to be the limiting specification.

4. Based on the above, does an unreviewed safety question exist? No.

Conclusion The proposed change does not involve physical change to plant safety related systems, components or structures, will not increase the likelihood of a calfunction of safety related equipment, increase the consequences of an accident previously analyzed, nor create the possibility of a malfunction different than previously evaluated in the UFSAR. Therefore, it is concluded that since the change does not involve an unreviewed safety question in accordance with 10 CFR 50.59, the proposed change does not constitute a sig-nificant hazards consideration. We have determined that this change will not authorize a significant change in the types or a significant increase in the amounts of effluents or in the authorized power level and will not result in any significant environmental impact. Therefore, pursuant to 10 CFR 50.5(d)(4), no environmental impact statement, negative declaration or environ-mental impact appraisal is required.

The OSC and ORC have reviewed the proposed change, and based on the above safety evaluation, it is concluded there is reasonable assurance that the public health and safety will not be endangered by operation in the proposed manner.

4

-, ~.-om- -- - ' ~ ~ ' ' * " ~ ~ ' ~ ~ * * ' * * * * * "