ML20236B133
| ML20236B133 | |
| Person / Time | |
|---|---|
| Site: | Beaver Valley |
| Issue date: | 10/15/1987 |
| From: | Office of Nuclear Reactor Regulation |
| To: | |
| Shared Package | |
| ML20236B131 | List: |
| References | |
| NUDOCS 8710230359 | |
| Download: ML20236B133 (2) | |
Text
'
1 n ano l
[e l
UNITED STATES g
NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSION y,
- j WASHINGTON, D. C. 20555 l
SAFETY EVALUATION 9Y THE OFFICE OF NUCLEAR REACTOR REGULATION SUPPORTING AMENDMENT NO.116 TO FACILITY OPERATING LICENSE NO. DPR-66 DUOVESNE LIGHT COMPANY OHIO EDISON COMPANY l
PENNSYLVANIA POWER COMPANY l
BEAVER VALLEY POWER STATION, UNIT NO. 1 DOCKET NO. 50-334
1.0 INTRODUCTION
By letter dated July 1, 1987, Duquesne Light Company / he licensee) requested t
an amendment to Operating License No. DPR-66, revising a number of pages of the Technical Specifications (TS1 that are associated with control room habitability requirements. We have reviewed the requested changes and the results of our review are documented below.
2.0 DISCUSSION AND EVALUATION Section 3.7.7.1 A note has been added to clarify the operability requirements of the Control Room Emergency Bottled Air Pressurization System (CREBAPS) to reflect the Beaver Valley Unit ? Technical Speci#ications.
The note provides for isolation of the air bottles for up to 8 hours9.259259e-5 days <br />0.00222 hours <br />1.322751e-5 weeks <br />3.044e-6 months <br /> to perform instrumentation and control systems testing.
The Unit 2 Technical
)
Specifications contain such a footnote to preclude shutdown whenever operators are conducting master-and-slave relay testing. This testing will cause the CREBAPS, which is a shared system between Unit 1 and Unit 2 control rooms, to discharge and place both units into the requirements of TS 3.0.3 (shut down).
Since we did not intend for Unit ? to be shut down whenever this test is conducted, we approved conducting this test on Unit ?
with the CREBAPS isolated for up to 8 hours9.259259e-5 days <br />0.00222 hours <br />1.322751e-5 weeks <br />3.044e-6 months <br />.
However, the Unit 1 Technical Specifications did not have the same footnote to permit isolating the CREBAPS; every time the Unit ? testing is conducted, Unit I will enter the requirements of TS 3.0.3.
The purpose of this change, therefore, is to permit the NRC-required testing to be done on Unit 2 without requiring Unit 1 to enter the requirements of TS 3.0.3., or shutdown.
The omission of such a footnote in Amendment No. 109 was an error. The addition of the footnote corrects the error and is therefore acceptable.
{R10230359 g73o33 p
ADOCK 05000334 PDR
p q
i t
i 9:
j
-?-
L 4.7.7.1.1, 4.7.7.1.9 and 4.7.7.2 t
- Section The' footnote referring to' Unit 2 entering Mode 4 is no longer applicable f
since the-event already took place. The licensee proposed to delete the footnote and any reference to it.
i The' requested change is purely editorial and is acceptable.
Section 4.7.7.1.2
)
i The allowable pressure drop across the Beaver Valley Unit 2 HEPA filter i
and charcoal absorber banks will be revised to be consistent with the
]
manufacturer's design recommendations and system specifications. The j
revision is concerned with components that belong to Unit 2, but are j
shared by Unit 1.
The revision would state this requirement the same way i
it already exists in' the Unit 2 Technical Specifications. This change is purely editorial and is acceptable.
1 Section 4.7.7.2 i
i The footnote ** applied to a one-time test that has already been completed.
Elimination of the footnote is an editorial change and is acceptable.
)
i Section 3/4.9.15 1
The heading is changed to " Refueling Operations". This change is editorial I
and is acceptable.
3.0 ENVIRONMENTAL. CONSIDERATION This amendment changes a requirement with respect to installation or use of a facility component located within the restricted area as defined in j
g.
10 CFR Part 20. The staff has determined that the amendment involves no significant increase in the amounts, and no significant change in the l
types, of any effluents that may be released offsite, and.that there is no l
significant increase in individual or cumulative occupational radiation exposure. The Comission has previously published a proposed finding that the amendment involves no significant hazards consideration and there has l
been no public coment on such finding. Accordingly, the amendment' meets-the eligibility criteria for categorical exclusion set forth in 10 CFR &
51.22(c)(9).
Pursuant to 10 CFR 51.??(b), no environmental impact statement or environmental assessment need be prepared in connection with the issuance of the amendment.
t 4.0. 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 (?) such activities will be conducted in compliance with the Comission'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: october 15, 1987 Principal Contributor:
. Peter S. Tam, Project Manager
-