ML20086R051
| ML20086R051 | |
| Person / Time | |
|---|---|
| Site: | Beaver Valley |
| Issue date: | 12/13/1991 |
| From: | Office of Nuclear Reactor Regulation |
| To: | |
| Shared Package | |
| ML20086R047 | List: |
| References | |
| NUDOCS 9112310131 | |
| Download: ML20086R051 (3) | |
Text
.#p cs t, o
UNITED STATES 8
~{
NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSION 3w g
y Yv A$HING TON, D. C. 20bbb o
?
h,.... /'
SAFETY EVALUAT10tl BY THE OfflCE Or NUCLEAR REACTOR REGULATIO,N REtATED 10_AMENDMEtJT,tj0. 41 TO FACILITY OpERATlfl0 LICENSE NO. NPF-73 DUQUESNE llGHT COMPANY OHIO EDISON COMPANY
.TH,C,HHj,L,AFD, ELECTRIC ILLUM1tt,AT,1tjG COMPANY THE TOLEDO ED1509 COMPANY BEAVER VALLEY POWER atATION, UNIT 2 (10CKET fiO__._50 412
1.0 INTRODUCTION
By letter dated April 12, 1991, the Duquesne Light Con,pany (the licensee) proposed certain changes to the Beaver Valley Power Station, Unit ? Technical Specifications (TS).
The proposed changes would (1) remove an obsolete action applicable to the first fuel cycle only frora Action Statement TS 3.3.3.8, (2) recove an obsolete note relating to the first fuel cycle only from Table 3.3-11, and (3) reduce the total number of channels specified in Table 3.3-11 for the reactor vessel level indicating system (RVLIS).
2.0 0]ACKGROUND NUREG+0737, " Clarification of TM1 Action Plan Requirements," dated November 1, 1983, identifies those items for which Technical Specifications were required and included samples in Standard Technical Specification format with blanks or parentheps appering where the informticn m plem specific.
RVLIS wes included in this t;UEEG and was incorporated into the Leaver Valley Unit 2 Technical Specifications.
Before issuing NUREG-0737 the NRC staff solicited comments on the proposed TechnicalSpecificationsYromallpressurizedwaterreactorownersgroupsand the Aton,ic Industrial Forum, and appropriate comments were incorporated.
item 19 in the NUREG, Reactor Coolant Inventory Tracking System, required 2 channels, with I channel to te the minimum number operable.
Beaver Valley incorporated the format from the NUREG and required 2 channels of RVLIS, and that I be the minimum number operable.
Due to the unproven RVLIS reliability $10w the plant to evaluate and correct any operating Beaver Valley TS 3.3.3.8 Action Statement c was incorporated to a deficiencies related to RVLIS during cycle 1.
The note on Table 3.3-11 also was provided to ensure it would be clearly understood that Action Statement c was only applicable to cycle 1.
9112310131 911213 PDR ADOCK 05000412 P
-?-
3.0 EVALUATION The proposed change rnodifies TS 3.3.3.8 to eliminate an Action statenient and note that is no longer applicable, and renarne., the ren<aining Action s ta t er ent s.
Action Statertent c and the note on Table 3.311 have been deleted since their applicability expired following cycle 1.
Removing Actier, Statetent c forces the renaming of actions d and e to n.aintain the consistency of TS requiren'ents. The t;FC staff has concluded that these changes are adrinistrative in nature and are therefore acceptoble.
The proposed change to reduce the total nurbcr of channels specified in Table 3.3-11 for RVL15 from ? to 1 deviates from the 2 specified in Generic Letter 03-37. The NRC staff believes that RVLis is a very useful systern and that Technical Specifications and procedures are required for RVLIS. The PVLIS Core Cooling (ICC) y of plant operators to diagrose the approach of inadequate ethences the abilit and to access the adequacy of actions taken to restote core cooling. The ber efit is preventive in nature in that the instrun4entation assists tte crerator in avoidante of a degraded or r:elted core when voids in the reactor coolant systern and saturetion corditions result from overcooling, steen gerarator tute rupture, and sn<all break loss of coolant events. The addition of a reactor coolant inventory syster, ccupied with upgraded in-cort therrotouple instrunents and a subcooling nargin monitor, provides an 100 instrumentetion package which could reduce significantly the iilelihood of inc0riett operator diegt esis and errors for events such as steara generatur tube ruptures, loss of instrurent bus or control system upsets, punp stal f ailuf ts, or overcooling cvents originating from disturbances in the secondary coolert side of the plant.
For low prcbability events, involving coincidental ru1tiple f aults or n' ore rapidly c'Eveloping stall brean loss-of-coolant conditions, the ICC instrun'entation could also reduce the probability of incotrect operator diagrcsis and subsequent errors leading to a degraded core.
The reduction in PVLIS channels also is not consistent with the Westinghouse Stendard Technical Specifications and the current requirerent is riot unique to Feaver Valley Unit ?.
The rt action of chennels from F to 1 for the RVLIS in the Feav(r Velley l' nit 1 Te. nical Spec.ifications was en erorely end does not fustify tie t(cictim it Lrit T.
Th' f( r e, ta n ( c n
- be at m e c ttostier, t!c 1R staff has concluded that it e request to reduce the totui nur!er of RYL!5 th nnels from T to 1 cannot be approved as submitted.
4.0 ST ATE CONSU,LT,ATJON in accordance with the Conimission's regulations, the pennsylvania State official was notified of the proposed issuance of the an.endtnent.
The State official had no cornents.
5.0 EMjf,0MTP,Tp,L,,CppSIDERAT10N The ar,endoent changes a requirenent with respect to installation or use of a fecility corponent located within the restricted area as defined in 10 CrR Part 20.
The NPC staff has determired that the atendo.ent involves ne significent increase in the arnounts, and no significant change in the types,
3 i
of any effluents that may be r? leased offsite, and that there is no significant increase in individual or cumulative occupational radiation exposure. The Conmission has previously issued a proposed finding that the amendn'ent involves no significant hazards consideration, and there has been no public corrent on such finding (56 FR 41500). Accordingly, the amendment neets the eligibility criteria for categorical exclusion set forth in 10 CFR 5)
'(c)(9).
Pursuant to 10 CFR 51.22(b) no environniental irnpact statement or en.
onmental assessn>ent need be prepared in connection with the issuance of the omendment.
6.0 00NCL,tj,S),0]N S
The Connission hos concluded based on the considerations discussed above, that:
(1)thereisreasonatdeassurancethatthehealthandsafetyofthe public will not be endangered by operatiori in the proposed manner, (2) such activities will be conducted in compliance with the Contnission's regulations, and (3) the issuance of the amen &ent will not be inimical to the coneon defense and security or to the health and safety of the public.
i Trircipal Contributor-Janes W. Andersen 081e:
December 13, 1991 l
s l
l-
....... _ -,... -..,, _... _... -.,.. - -.,..,... _.. ~.... _,,,, -. _ -, - -,.. - - - _,. - ~,, -. _.. - - -,,.