ML20092M456
| ML20092M456 | |
| Person / Time | |
|---|---|
| Site: | Beaver Valley |
| Issue date: | 09/26/1995 |
| From: | NRC (Affiliation Not Assigned) |
| To: | |
| Shared Package | |
| ML20092M453 | List: |
| References | |
| NUDOCS 9510020207 | |
| Download: ML20092M456 (2) | |
Text
.
t g*
4 UNITED STATES g
j NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSION f
WASHINoTON, D.C. 20066-0001 SAFETY EVALUATION BY THE OFFICE OF NUCLEAR RFACTOR REGULATION RELATED TO AMENDMENT N0. 193 TO FACILITY OPERATING LICENSE NO. OPR-66 DUOVESNE LIGHT COMPANY OHIO EDIS0N COMPANY PENNSYLVANIA POWER COMPANY BEAVER VALLEY POWER STATION. UNIT N0. 1 DOCKET NO. 50-334
1.0 INTRODUCTION
By letter dated July 11, 1995, the Duquesne Light Company (the licensee) submitted a request for changes to the Beaver Valley Power Station, Unit No. 1 Technical Specifications (TSs).
The requested changes would revise the required area of the reactor coolant system (RCS) overpressure protection system vent from 3.14 square inches to 2.07 square inches.
This vent is provided to relieve a potential RCS overpressure transient during shutdown conditions if the power-operated relief valves (PORVs) are not operable. The proposed vent area is equal to the relief area of a PORV. A single PORV is capable of providing sufficient relief capacity to mitigate potential low temperature overpressurization events.
2.0 EVALVATION Theoverpressureprotectionsystem(OPPS)providesRCSoverpressureprotection at low system temperatures (less than 329 F). The OPPS includes two redundant, 2-inch nominal diameter power-operated relief valves (PORVs).
Previous analyses that were done to support Unit No. 1 License Amendment No. 96, issued September 6, 1985, have determined that either one of these two PORVs or a vent of equivalent size to one PORV is capable of relieving potential RCS overpressure transients caused by either of two types of design bases low temperature overpressure transients in the RCS.
The OPPS design bases low temperature overpressure design bases transients are:
(1) the mass input transient caused by a normal charging / letdown flow mismatch after termination of letdown flow and (2) the heat input transient caused by the restart' of.a reactor coolant pump when a temperature asymmetry exists within the RCS due,to the injection of cold seal injection water.
The subject PORVs are nominal.2-inch diameter valves. The currently specified vent size (3.14 square inches) was calculated based on the nominal size of these valves. However, the licensee has determined that the actual port diameter of these; valves is 1.625 inches which provides an actual vent area of 2,07 square inches. Therefore, the licensee has proposed a correction to the specified vent area; the corrected RCS vent area would be 2.07 square inches.
9510020207 950926 ADOCK050003]4 DR
i Since the proposed RCS vent area of 2.07 square inches is consistent with the actual port area of a.PORV and since )revious analyses have confirmed that a single PORY-is capable of providing tie required relief capacity, we have determined that the proposed change is acceptable.
3.0 STATE CONSULTATION
l In accordance with the Commission's regulations, the Pennsylvania State official was notified of the proposed issuance of the amendment. The State i
official'had no comments.
4.0 ENVIRONMENTAL CONSIDERATION
^
The amendment changes a requirement with respect to installation or use of a facility component located within the restricted area as defined in 10 CFR
!Part 20.
The NRC staff has determined that the amendment involves no significant increase in the amounts, and no significant change in the types, of any effluents that may be released offsite, and that there is no significant increase in individual or cumulative occupational radiation exposure.
The Commission has previously issued a proposed finding that the amendment involves no significant hazards consideration, and there has been no public comment on such finding (60 FR 42603). Accordingly, the amendment meets the eligibility criteria for categorical exclusion set forth in 10 CFR 51.22(c)(9).
Pursuant to 10 CFR 51.22(b) no environmental impact statement or environmental assessment need be prepared in connection with the issuance of j
the amendment.
i
5.0 CONCLUSION
The Commission has concluded, based on the considerations discussed above, that:
(1) there is reasonable assurance that the health and safety of the public will not be endangered by operation in the proposed manner, (2) such activities will be conducted in compliance with the Commission's regulations, and (3) the issuance of the amendment will not be inimical to the common defense and security or to the health and safety of the public.
Principal Contributor: Donald S. Brinkman l
Date: September 26, 1995 t
l
_