ML20198K743
| ML20198K743 | |
| Person / Time | |
|---|---|
| Site: | Beaver Valley |
| Issue date: | 12/21/1998 |
| From: | NRC (Affiliation Not Assigned) |
| To: | |
| Shared Package | |
| ML20198K739 | List: |
| References | |
| NUDOCS 9812310145 | |
| Download: ML20198K743 (2) | |
Text
s.:.-.-.-. a...
[f.un t
UNITED STATES
,s y
NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSION g
WASHINGTON, D.C. 20555-0001
\\...../
i SAFETY EVALUATION BY THE OFFICE OF NUCLEAR REACTOR REGULATION RELATED TO AMENDMENT NO. 91oTO FACILITY OPERATING LICENSE NO. DPR-66 j
DUQUESNE LIGHT COMPANY OHIO EDISON COMPANY PENNSYLVANIA POWER COMPANY BEAVER VALLEY POWER STATION. UNIT NO.1 DOCKET NO. 50-334
1.0 INTRODUCTION
By letter dated June 16,1996, as supplemented September 8 and 30,1998, the Duquesne Light Company (the licensee) submitted a request for changes to the Beaver Valley Power Station, Unit No.1 (BVPS-1) Technical Specifications (TSs). The requested changes would (1) make editorial changes to TS 4.4.5 and associated Bases; (2) revise the Bases for TS 3.4.6.2 to provide consistency with the BVPS-1 Updated Final Safety Analysis Report (UFSAR); and (3) revise Index Page XVil to reflect the revision of page numbers due to shifting of text by License Amendment No.198. The September 8 and 30,1998, letters did i
not change the initial proposed no significant hazards consideration determination or expand the amendment request beyond the scope of the November 18,1998, Federal Reaister notice; these letters only provided updated TS pages to be consistent with the UFSAR.
2.0 EVALUATION The prc; osed changes to TS 4.4.5 would (1) define the acronym "AVT"in TS 4.4.5.3.a as "All Volative Treatment," (2) clarify in TS 4.4.5.3.b. that the change in inspection frequency when tube inspection results fallinto Category C-3 shall be increased to at least once-per months rather than stating that the inspection frequency shall be reduced to at least once-per-20-months; (3) correct typographical errors such as in TS 4.4.5.4.a., which were introduced by the licensee in License Amendment No.198, dated April 1,1998; and (4) TS Tables 4.41 and 4.4-2 would be simplified to note that BVPS-1 has three steam generators rather then using the generic tables that were proposed for use with plants having two, three, or four steam generators. These proposed changes do not change any TS requirements, are only editorial or clarifying in nature and are therefore, acceptable.
The proposed revisions to the Bases for TS 3.4.6.2 would make these Bases consistent with the UFSAR. The NRC staff has no objection to these proposed changes.
The proposed revision to index Page XVil would correct page numbers that were changed by License Amendment No.198. These changes are purely administrative in nature and are acospteble.
9812310145 981221 DR ADOCK 05000334 PDR
=.=.=..=;
l'o.
- i i
3.0 STATE CONSULTATION
i In accordance with the Commission's regulations, the Pennsylvania State official was notified of l
the proposed issuance of the amendment. The State official had no comments.
4
4.0 ENVIRONMENTAL CONSIDERATION
The amendment changes a requirement with respect to installation or use of a facil!*y component located within the restricted area as ' defined in 10 CFR Part 20 and changes surveillance 0
requirements. The NRC 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 thero is no significant increase in individual or cumulative occupational radiation exposure. The Commission has previously issued a proposed finding that the j
. mendment involves no significent hazards consideration, and there has been no public a
comment on such findi1g (63 FR 64109). Accordingly, the amendment meets the eligibility criteria for categorical oxclusion set forth !n 10 CFR 51.22(c)(9). Pursuant to 10 CFR 51.22(b) no l
environmentalimpact statement or environmental assessment need be prepared in connection j
with the issuance of the amendment.
l 5.0 CONCLUSIOP.f The Commission has concluded, based on the considerations discussed above, that: (1) there is L
reasonable assurance that the health and safety of the public will not be endangered by operation in the proposed manner, (2) such activities will be conducted in compliance with the Commission's regulations, and (3) the issuance of the amendment will not be inimical to the common defense and security or to the health'and safety of the public.
Principal Contributor: D. Brinkman Date: December 21, 1998 I
_