ML20138E841

Safety Evaluation Supporting Amend 98 to License DPR-66

ML20138E841
Person / Time
Site:	Beaver Valley
Issue date:	12/03/1985
From:	Office of Nuclear Reactor Regulation
To:
Shared Package
ML20138E830	List: ML20138E824 ML20138E831 ML20138E841
References
NUDOCS 8512130583
Download: ML20138E841 (2)

Text

_ _

l- .e

, l* N  %, UNITED STATES

[ g NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSION

, c .a wAsHmoToN o.c.20sss

!  %***.*/

t SAFETY EVALUATION BY THE OFFICE OF NUCLEAR REACTOR REGULATION RELATED TO AMENDMENT NO. 98 TO FACILITY OPERATING LICENSE NO. DPR-66

, DUQUESNE LIGHT COMPANY OHIO EDISON COMPANY j

l PENNSYLVANIA POWER COMPANY BEAVER VALLEY POWER STATION, UNIT NO. 1 f

Ih DOCKET NO. 50-334 INTRODUCTION By letter dated July 12, 1985, (thelicensee) submitted a proposed amendment to the Technical Duquesne Light Company (Appendix A of Operating Specifications License No. DPR-66) for Beaver Valley Power Station, Unit I to revise the l surveillance requirements for seismic monitoring instrumentation. We have reviewed the requested changes, and the results are as follows.

EVALUATION AND DISCUSSION I

l Currently, Section 4.3.3.3.2 specifies that each seismic monitoring instrument 4 actuated during a seismic event shall be restored to operable status and a

CHANNEL CALIBRATION perforined within 24 hours2.777778e-4 days <br />0.00667 hours <br />3.968254e-5 weeks <br />9.132e-6 months <br /> following the seismic event.

This section also specifies that a Special Report shall be prepared and sub-

, mitted to the Commission within 10 days pursuant to Specification 6.9.2. The licensee proposes to extend the time to perform the CHANNEL CALIBRATION to 30 i days due to the fact that the instrumentation manufacturer requires at least 5 r days to calibrate the instrumentation assuming that all instrumentation could be removed at once and no delay occurred. The licensee recommends calibration in two phases to ensure that at least a part of the seismic instrumentation

- would remain installed after the initial event to record potential after-shock

. data. The Triaxial Time-History Accelerograph system would be calibrated and returned to operation within 15 days and the Peak Accelerographs and Response Spectrum Recorders would be calibrated within an additional 15 days. This will result in at least a portion of the seismic instrumentation remaining in service innediately after the seismic event. On this basis, the licensee's proposal to extend the channel calibration to 30 days is acceptable.

The Standard Technical Specifications, draft Revision Five, specifies a 14-day interval for reporting the results of any seismic event. The licensee proposes to adopt this new reporting requirement interval. Since the proposal agrees with our position, it is acceptable.

l 8512130583 851203 PDR ADOCK 05000334 P PDR cn __ _ _ _ _ _ - _ _ _ __. _ _ .. _ _ _ _ _ . _

1

j. ,

I 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. Fur-T ther, these changes do not increase the likelihood of a malfunction of safety-

! related equipment, or increase the consequences of an accident previously ana-lyzed or create the possibility of a malfunction different from -those pre-viously 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.

t- The staff has detemined 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 individ-ual 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 coment on such finding. Accordingly, this amendment meets the eli gorical exclusion set forth in 10 CFR Sec 51.22(c)(gibility 9), Pursuant criteria to 10 for CFR.cate-51.22(b) no environmental itnpact statement or environmental assessment need be

prepared in connection with the issuance of this amendment. 4, 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 Comission's regulations and the issuance of this amendment will not be inimical to the comon defense and security or to i the health and safety of the public.

Date: December 3,1985 Principal Contributor:

David M. Johnson 1

1, y- - - - - . . - . . - - - , - . .

..--.-.e.... . ~ . _ . , . . ~ .