ML20129D213
| ML20129D213 | |
| Person / Time | |
|---|---|
| Site: | Beaver Valley |
| Issue date: | 07/10/1985 |
| From: | Office of Nuclear Reactor Regulation |
| To: | |
| Shared Package | |
| ML20129D178 | List: |
| References | |
| NUDOCS 8507290705 | |
| Download: ML20129D213 (2) | |
Text
Q UQ
~
4 UNITED STATES i
[
g NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSION 5
- j WASHINGTON, D. C. 20555 k*.../
SAFETY EVALUATION BY THE OFFICE OF NUCLEAR REACTOR REGULATION RELATED TO AMENDMENT NO. 95 TO FACILITY OPERATING LICENSE NO. DPR-66 DUQUESNE LIGHT COMDANY OHIO EDIS0N COMPANY PENNSYLVANIA POWER COMPANY BEAVER VALLEY POWER STATION, UNIT NO. 1 DOCKET NO. 50-334 INTRODUCTION By letter dated March 21, 1985, Duquesne Light Company (the licensee) submitted a proposed amendment to the Technical Specifications (Appendix A of Operating License No. DPR-66) for Beaver Valley Power Station, Unit No.
1, to consolidate requirements for the Refueling Water Storage Tank (RWST),
to correct an editorial error in Table 4.12-1, and to delete the superseded requirements for equipment environmental qualification. We have reviewed the requested changes, and the results are as follows.
EVALUATION AND DISCUSSION Currently, Section 3.1.2.8.b specifies the Limiting Conditions for Operation (LCOs) for the Refueling Water Storage Tank (RWST) as part of Reactivity Control Systems, while Section 3.5.5 specifies the LCOs for the RWST as part of Emergency Core Cooling Systems. However, although the LCO's applicability, the LCO's action, and the associated surveillance requirements are the same, the LCOs themselves are not the same, as Section 3.5.5 specifies maximum l
contained water volume and boron concentration requirements, but Section
(
3.1.2.8.b does not. The licensee proposes to eliminate the duplication l
of requirements and the potential for confusion due to this duplication by consolidating the RWST LCOs into Section 3.1.2.8.b.
The licensee also proposes to consolidate the bases for the RWST. The licensee states that these changes are administrative, as only duplicated requirements are to be eliminated. The proposed consolidation of RWST requirements is acceptable.
l Currently, note a. to Table 4.12-1, Maximum Values for the Lower Limits of Detection (LLD), provides the equation for determining LLD. However, due to an editorial error, the term S was omitted from the numerator when the b
note was added in Amendment 66. The equation is accurately described in NUREG 0472. The licensee proposes to correct this editorial error by adding the term S to the numerator. The proposed correction is acceptable.
b l
l 8507290705 850710 PDR ADOCK 05000334 P
PDR I
Currently, Section 6.13, Environmental Qualification, specifies requirements for the environmental qualification of safety related electrical equipment.
However, these requirements have been superseded by the requirements of 10 CFR 50.49, which were issued in the Federal Register (48 FR 2729 dated January 21, 1983 and 49 FR 45571 dated November 19,1984). The licensee proposes to delete the superseded environmental qualification requirements.
The proposed change is acceptable.
In a May 30, 1985, telephone conversation, licensee representatives, J. Vasselo and R. Ireland, agreed to editorial changes, modifying the Table of Contents to reflect the above changes (Pages V, XII and XVIIa).
We have evaluated the proposed changes to the Technical Specifications and conclude that these changes are administrative and do not involve any physical change to the plant's safety-related structures, systens or components.
Further, these changes do not increase the likelihood of a malfunction of safety-related equipment, or increase the consequences of an accident previously analyzed or create the possibility of a malfunction different from those previously evaluated. Therefore, we find the licensee's requested changes to be acceptable.
ENVIRONMENTAL CONSIDERATION This amendment involves a change in the installation or use of a facility component located within the restricted area as defined in 10 CFR Part 20.
The 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 this amendment involves no significant hazards consideration and there has been no public connent on such finding. Accordingly, this amendment meets the eligibility criteria for categorical exclusion set forth in 10 CFR Sec 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 this amendment.
CONCLUSION We have 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, and (2) such activities will be conducted in compliance with the Connission's regulations and the issuance of this amendment will not be inimical to the common defense and security or to the health and safety of the public.
Date:
July 10, 1985 Principal Contributor:
Glenn W. Meyer
_