ML20206Q858
| ML20206Q858 | |
| Person / Time | |
|---|---|
| Site: | Beaver Valley |
| Issue date: | 06/24/1986 |
| From: | Office of Nuclear Reactor Regulation |
| To: | |
| Shared Package | |
| ML20206Q855 | List: |
| References | |
| GL-85-19, NUDOCS 8607030405 | |
| Download: ML20206Q858 (3) | |
Text
.
4
[
[i1 NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSION UNITED STATES j
s WASHINGTON, 0. C. 20555 e
%,, j +
SAFETY EVALUATION BY THE OFFICE OF NUCLEAR REACTOR REGULATION RELATED TO AMENDMENT NO.102 TO FACILITY OPERATING LICENSE NO. DPR-66 DUQUESNE LIGHT COMPANY OHI0 EDIS0N COMPANY PENNSYLVANIA POWER COMPANY BEAVER VALLEY POWER STATION, UNIT NO. 1 DOCKET NO. 50-334 Introduction Generic Letter 85-19 was issued on September 27, 1985, to infonn licensees and applicants for operating licenses that reporting requirements regarding iodine concentration in the primary coolant 'can be relaxed. Model technical
~
specifications were enclosed with that Generic Letter. By letter dated February 5, 1986, Duquesne Light Company (the licensee, DLC) submitted a request to amend the Beaver Valley Unit 1 Technical Specifications to conform with the model specifications issued in GL 85-19.
Discussion and Evaluation As part of our continuing program to delete unnecessary reporting requirements,.
the staff has reviewed the reporting requirements related to primary coolant specific activity levels, specifically, primary coolant iodine spikes. The staff has detennined that the reporting requirements for iodine spiking can be reduced from a short-term report (Special Report or Licensee Event Report) to an item which is to be included in the Annual Report. The information to be included in the Annual Report is similar to that previously required in the Licensee Event Report but has been changed to more clearly designate the results to be included from the specific activity analysis and to delete the information regarding fuel burnup by core region.
In our effort to eliminate unnecessary technical specification requirements, we have also detennined that the existing requirements to shut down a plant if coolant iodine. activity limits are exceeded for 800 hours0.00926 days <br />0.222 hours <br />0.00132 weeks <br />3.044e-4 months <br /> in a 12-month period can be eliminated. The quality of nuclear fuel has been greatly improved over the past decade with the result that normal coolant iodine activity (i.e., in the absence of iodine spiking) is well below the limit.
Appropriate actions would be initiated long before accumulating 800 hours0.00926 days <br />0.222 hours <br />0.00132 weeks <br />3.044e-4 months <br /> above the iodine activity limit.
In addition, 10 CFR 50.72(b)(1)(ii) requires the NRC to be immediately notified of fuel cladding failures that exceed expected values or thet are caused by unexpected factors.
Therefore, this technical specification limit is no longer considered necessary on the basis that proper fuel management by licensees and existing reporting requirements should preclude ever approaching the limit.
8607030405 860624 PDR ADOCK 05000334 P
PDR a
The licensee requested the following changes in the Beaver Valley" Unit I technical specifications:
(1) delete from Section 3.4.8 the action statement regarding limits on operation when radioiodine level is greater than 1 uCi/gm in the primary coolant; (2) delete from Section 3.4.8 the action statement regarding submittal of a Special Report; (3) add item (c) to Section 6.9.1.5 to include the results of specific activity analysis in the Annual Report when the primary coolant has exceeded the limits of Specification 3.4.8; (4) revise Bases 3/4.4.8 to reflect the new Action statements of Section 3.4.8; and (5) delete Administrative Control 6.9.2.1 to reflect the change in reporting requirements from Special Report to Annual Report.
All the requested changes comply with the model specifications provided in Generic Letter 85-19.
Furthermore, these changes do not involve any physical changes to plant safety-related systems, components or structures, will not increase the likelihood of a malfunction of safety-related equipment, increase the consequences of an accident previously analyzed, nor create the possibility of a malfunction different from that previously evaluated. Therefore,
the staff concludes that the requested amendment is 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 comment on such finding. Accordingly, this amendment meets the elioibility 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.
l l
3-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: June 24,1986 Principal Contributor:
Peter S. Tam e
S I
6
-