ML20100J183
| ML20100J183 | |
| Person / Time | |
|---|---|
| Site: | Beaver Valley |
| Issue date: | 11/27/1984 |
| From: | Office of Nuclear Reactor Regulation |
| To: | |
| Shared Package | |
| ML20100J169 | List: |
| References | |
| TAC-55010, NUDOCS 8412100245 | |
| Download: ML20100J183 (1) | |
Text
-
SAFETY EVALUATION BY THE OFFICE OF NUCLEAR REACTOR REGULATION-RELATED TO AMENDMENT N0.84 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
.n Introduction NRC Generic Letter 83-43, dated December 19, 1983, discussed revisions to notifi-cation and. reporting requirements in 10 CFR Part 50.72 and Part 50.73 and requested licensees to revise technical specifications to be consistent with the new re-quirements. By letter dated May 2,1984, Duquesne Light. Company submitted a re-quest for a proposed amendment to Appendix A of Operating License No. DPR-66 for Beaver V. alley Power Station, Unit No. I to accomplish these revisions. Subsequent to discussions with NRC staff, Duquesne Light Company submitted a letter dated August 30, 1984 to modify the above revisions.
Evaluation The proposed revisions include changing the definition of " reportable occurrence" to that of " reportable event," deleting unnecessary and conflicting references to reporting requirements in the limiting conditions for operations and surveillance
' requirements section, and revising the administrative controls section to reference 10 CFR Parts 50.72 and 50.73 and to delete the previous reporting requirements, now unnecessary or conflicting.
The proposed revisions are administrative in nature since they only revise the re-porting requirements for reportable events. The revisions do not involve physical changes in plant safety related systems, components, or structures. The revisions will not increase the likelihood of a malfunction of safety related equipment, will not increase the consequences of an accident previously analyzed, nor create the possibility of a malfunction different from those previously evaluated in the Final Safety Analysis Report.
Based on the above, we find the proposed reporting requirement revisions accept-able.
hQ 0
P m
g