ML20153B457
| ML20153B457 | |
| Person / Time | |
|---|---|
| Site: | Beaver Valley |
| Issue date: | 03/14/1988 |
| From: | Office of Nuclear Reactor Regulation |
| To: | |
| Shared Package | |
| ML20153B450 | List: |
| References | |
| NUDOCS 8803220164 | |
| Download: ML20153B457 (4) | |
Text
. _ _ _ _ _ _ _
t
, h p+* M%q'o,,
UNITED STATES
[
fg NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSION j
WASHINGTON, D. C. 20555 p'
SAFETY EVALUATION BY THE OFFICE OF NUCLEAR REACTOR PEGULATION PELATED TO AMEhCMENT N0.121 TO FACILITY OPERATING LICENSE NO CPP-66 DUQUESNF LIGHT _ COMPANY OHIO EDISCN COMPANY 4
PENNSYLVANIA POWER __ COMPANY BEAVER VALLEY POWER STATION, UNIT NO.1 DOCKET N0.,,5,0, _3.34 0
INTRODUCTION By letter dated i'ovember 20, 1987, ruquesne Licht Company (the licensee, acting on behalf of all three of the above-listed utilities), submitted a report to amend the radioactive effluent technical specifications. The purpose was to bring the subject specifications into conformance with the staff's technical position expressed in draft Standard Technical Specifi-cations for Vestinghouse Pressurized Water Reactors (NUREG-04?5, Rev. 5), and in a letter to Cuquesne Light Company dated f/ay 7,1987.
D_ISCUSSION AND EVALUATION The changes re' lect draft Revision 5 of WUREG-Od?5 by addressina effluent requirements apolicable to each reactor unit instead of the entire site.
The changes provide clarification, consistency and improved accuracy and do not affect any licensing basis.
Details are as follows:
1.
Section 3.11.1.2 has been revised by "from the site" to "from the reactor unit", replacina "Figure 5.1-?" with "5.1-1" and revising the
- note bv adding "within 3 miles of the plant discharge (3 miles downstream eniv".
The rewording of the effluent technical specifications conforms it to 10 CFR 50 Appendix I, and cur technical position as expressed in draft Revision 5 of NUREG-0a25, and is thus acceptable. The rewording reflects the fact that there are now two, instead of one, cperating units at the site.
Figure 5.1-1 and 5.1-? have been combined into one (See Item 14 below). The change is editorial and acceptable.
The revised footnote reflects our position in NUREG-04PS, Rev. 5, regarding a Special Report on drinking water supplies.
The change is acceptable.
2.
Page 3/4 11-8, Section 3.11.1.3 has been revised by rewording "from the site" to "from the reactor unit", replacing "Figure 5.1-?" with "5.1-1",
relocating surveillance requirement 4.11.1.3.1 from page 3/a 11-9 and adding a note "(next page is 3/4 11-10)".
For the same reasons as in Item 1 above, these changes are also acceptable, 8803220164 080314 PDR ADOCK 05000334 p
e h
?
3.
Page 3/4 11-9 has been deleted since all material has been relocated, intact, to Page 3/4 11-8.
This change is editorial and is acceptable.
4.
Section 4.11.1.4 has been renumbered to 4.11.1.4.1 on Page 3/4 11-10.
This change is editorial and is acceptable.
5.
Section 3.11.2.1 has been revised by adding an
- note applicable to the dose rate "During containment purges the dose rate may be averaged over 960 minutes". The note is added for clarification purpose to specify the time applicable when determining the dose rate for comparison to the limits. There is no change to safety limits. The same note already exists in the Unit 2 Technical Specifications, and conforms with NUREG-0425, and is thus acceptable.
6.
Table 4.11-2 has been revised by removing the words "Release from padio-iodine and Particulates (Airborne) may be limit d to the Inhalation Pathway only".
V Thesewordsarenotapplicabletothesampunfandanalysisprogramfor radioactive gaseous waste.
Their removal is an editorial corraction of an error, and is acceptable.
7.
Page 3/4 11-14, note c has been revised by adding "(from the appropriate ventilation release pathway)". The existing note implies that tritium grab samples are to be taken from all ventilation systems, hewever, this note is only applicable to that ventilation pathway lined up to the refueling cavity ventilation exhaust.
The char.ge clarifies the required action, is identical to the same para-graph in the Unit 2 Technical Specifications and is acceptable.
8.
Section 3.11.7.2 has been revised by adding "from the reactor unit".
Surveillence requirement 4.11.7.? has been renumbered to a.11.?.P.1.
The first change is acceptable for the same reason stated in Item 1 above.
The second change is purelv editorial and is thus acceptable.
9.
Section 3.11.2.3 has been revised rewording "from the site" to "from the reactor unit".
Section4.11.9.3basbeenrenumberedto a.11.2.3.1.
The first change is acceptable for the same reasons as stated in Item 1.
The second change is purely editorial and is thus acceptable.
- 10. Section 3.11.2.4 has been revised by rewording "from the site" to "from the reactor unit". Section 4.1.1.?.4 has been renumbered to 4.11.?.4.1.
The first change is acceptable for the same reasons as stated in Item 1.
l The secend change is purely editorial and is thus acceptable.
3 11.
Formerly, specification 3.11.9.6.a stated that if the oxygen concentratien in the waste gas holdup systen is greater than ?%, irrrediatelv suspend all additions of waste gases and reduce the concentration to less than 4%
by volume. The new specification states that the oxygen concentration should be reduced back to 2% or less.
This corrects the inconsistency and is thus acceptable.
Section 3.11.2.6.b is corrected by restating the hydrogen concentration to be 4% by volume, instead of 2% as formerly stated.
(The entire Section 3.11.P.6 only applies when the hydrogen concentration exceeds e' by volume, as stated at the beginning of the section). The correction is thus acceptable.
Section 3.11.2.6.b is also modified to specify that if hydregen concentra-tion is greater than 4% by volume, it should be imediately reduced to 4%,
and the provision of Section 3.11.F.6.a should then be followed.
The old specification required reduction of the hydrogen to 2% within 1? hours, an action independent of and detached from Section 3.11.7.6.a.
The change ties Sections 3.1).P.6.a and b together as logical steps, and eliminates an inconsistency. The change is acceptable.
- 12. Section 4.11.4 ? has been renumbered to be 4.11.4.1.1.
This is a purelv editorial change and is acceptable.
13.
Bases Section 3/4.11.2.1 has been revised to reflect Draft Revision 5 of the Standard Technical Specifications. The last sentence in the first paragraph has been revised by replacing "an infant via the cow-milk-infant pathway to s 1,500 mrem / year for the nearest cow to the olant" with "a child via the inhalatinr. pathway to s 1,500 mrem / year".
This is '.m rect'a of an error, and would conform the wording to that in the Stanes:d Technical Specifications. The change is accaptable.
14 Page 5-lb, Figure 5.1-1 has been're' vised by combining with Figure 5.1-?
and changing the title to address both gaseous and liquid effluents. An
- note provides clarification of the site boundary for liquid effluents since this is identical to the site boundary for gaseous effluents except for that area over the Ohio river.
There is no more need for Figure 5.1-?, which has, therefore, been deleted. The change is purely editorial and is acceptable.
ENVIRONMENTAL CONSIDERATION This amendment involves changes in the installation or use of facility component located within the restricted area as defined in 10 CFR Part P0.
The staff has detemined that the amendment involves ro 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 signi#ican* increase in individual or cumulative occupational radiation exposure.
The Comission has previously issued a proposed finding that this amendment involves no signi#i-cent hazards consideration and there has been no public coment on such finding.
l 1
1
/
4 Accordingly, this amendment meets the eligibility criteria for categorical exclusior set forth in in CFR 51.22(c)(9).
Pursuant to 10 CFR 51.?2(b) no -
environn, ental 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 manr.er, and (?) such activities will be conducted in compliarce with the Commission's regulations and the issuance of this amendrent will not be inimical to the common defense and security or to the health and safety of the public.
Dated:
March 14,1988 Principal Contributor:
Peter Tam
--e p
y
_