ML20133E533
| ML20133E533 | |
| Person / Time | |
|---|---|
| Site: | Beaver Valley |
| Issue date: | 07/05/1985 |
| From: | Office of Nuclear Reactor Regulation |
| To: | |
| Shared Package | |
| ML20133E530 | List: |
| References | |
| NUDOCS 8507220537 | |
| Download: ML20133E533 (2) | |
Text
.
8 o
UNITED STATES E'
~g NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSION o
WASHINGTON, D. C. 20555
\\...../
SAFETYEVALUATIONBYTHEOFFICEOFNUCLEARREACTORREGULATION SUPPORTING AMENDMENT NO. 94 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 INTRODUCTION O
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 clarify the surveillance requirements for the Component Cooling Water and Reactor Plant River Water Pumps.
EVALUATION AND DISCUSSION Currently, Surveillance Requirements 4.7.3.1.a.1, 2, and 3, and 4.7.4.1.a.1, 2, and 3 for the Component Cooling Water Pumps and Reactor Plant River Water Pumps, respectively, specify pump testing requirements. Surveillance Requirement 4.0.5 specifies the ASME Boiler and Pressure Vesstl Code,Section XI, for inservice testing of pumps. The licensee proposes to delete the existing specifications for pump testing in Sections 4.7.3 and 4.7.4 and to substitute a reference to the section 4.0.5 requirements. The licensee states that the existing section 4.7.3 and 4.7.4 pump surveillance requirements are inconsistent with the ASME Section XI pump testing requirements specified by section 4.0.5.
As the ASME Section XI requirements provide for a complete, acceptable method of pump testing, the licensee proposes to utilize solely these requirements and eliminate the inconsistency.
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, systems 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.
8507220537 850705 PDR ADOCK 05000334 PDR
ENVIRONMENTAL CONSIDERATION This amendment involves a change in the installation or use of a' facility corrponent located within the restricted area as defined in 10 CFR Part 20.
We have detennined 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 Comission has previously issued a proposed finding that this amendment involves no significant hazards consideration and there has been no public comment on such finding. Accordingly, this amendment meets the eligibility criteria for categorical exclusion set fcrth 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 Commission'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.
Dated: July 5, 1985 Principal Contributor:
Glenn W. Meyer
-