ML20129D282

Application to Amend CPPR-105,reflecting Modified Exemption from GDC 4 to 10CFR50,App a Re Postulated Effects Associated W/Rcs Main Loop Pipe Breaks for First Two Cycles of Operation.Fee Paid

ML20129D282
Person / Time
Site:	Beaver Valley
Issue date:	07/09/1985
From:	Carey J DUQUESNE LIGHT CO.
To:	Harold Denton Office of Nuclear Reactor Regulation
References
2NRC-5-100, NUDOCS 8507160477
Download: ML20129D282 (2)

Text

..

-3 J *

'Af (412 87-5141 Nuclear Construction Division (412)923 1960 Robinson Plaza Building 2, Suite 210 Telecopy (412) 787 2629 Pittsburgh, PA 15205 July 9, 1985 United States Nuclear Regulatory Commission Washington, DC 20555 ATTENTION: Mr. Harold R. Denton Of fice of Nuclear Reactor Regulation

SUBJECT:

Beaver Valley Power Station - Unit No. 2 Docket No. 50-412 Partial Exemption from GDC 4

REFERENCES:

1) DLC Letter 2NRC-4-017, dated 2/24/84

2) DLC Letter 2NRC-4-071, dated 5/31/84

3) DLC Letter 2NRC-4-104, dated 7/16/84

4) DLC letter 2NRC-4-183, dated LL/5/84 Gentlemen:

By References 1 through 4, Duquesne Light Company (DLC) reque s ted a partial exemption for General Design Criteria (GDC) 4 of 10CFR50, Appendix A, as it relates to the dynamic effects associated with postulated Reactor Coolant System main loop pipe breaks. The analyses previously provided apply for the life of the plant and the granting of this exemption, as req ue s t ed ,

would have accordingly been fo r the life of the facility. With the NRC now pursuing a ch ange to GDC-4 through the rulemaking process, the lifetime exemption may not be necessary. Therefore, DLC hereby modifies its previous position and requests that this exemption be gr ant ed for Beaver Valley Power Station Unit 2 (BVPS-2) for the first two cycles of operation.

DLC, acting on its own behalf and as agent for The Cleveland Electric llluminating Company, Ohio Edison Company, and The Toledo Edison Company, being co-holder of Construction Permit CPPR-105 for BVPS-2, hereby also requests an amendment to the BVPS-2 Construction Permit (CPPR-105) to reflect the exempt ion from GDC-4 requested by our letters referenced above and by this letter. As demonstrated by these references, such an amendment to the Construction Permit involves no significant hazards considerations.

Paragraph 3 of the Construction Permit states, in part, as follows:

"This permit shall be deemed to contain and be subject to the said condit ions specified in Sections 50.54 and 50.55, of said regulations; is subject to all applicable provisions of the Act, and rules, regulat ions , and orders of the Commis s ion now or hereafter in effect; ..."

We reque s t that Paragraph 3 be amended by insert ing "except to the extent Applicants' obligations thereunder may be modified by duly authorized j 8507160477 850709 PDR A ADOCK 05000412 A PDR Qee'd tr))tneClL4 A*

.# "G9

F e

United Stctes Nuclect Regulctory Commission Mr. Ha,rold R. Denton Page 2 exemptions" after the words "in ef fect" and before the semicolon. We also request that Paragraph 3.C of the Construction Permit be revised to read as foliows:

"This construction permit authorizes the Applicants to construct the facility de sc r ibed in the application and the hearing record, in accordance with the principle architectural and engineering criteria (except to the extent modifications of such criteria may be duly authorized by exemption) and environmental protection commitments set forth therein."

in accordance with 10CFR170.12, enclosed is a check in the anount of

$150 as payment of the application fee.

The DLC letter dated November 5, l984 (Reference 4), was rubmitted to explain further our request for partial exempt ion from GDC-4. This letter cited six areas of pot ent ial impact that will result f r an s timinating the pos tulat ed breaks. These six areas are hereby specified te cons t itut e the technical scope of the exemption request and, where dif ferent from the scope previously stated in Reference 1, those aspects in Reference 1 are considered to be superceded per the November 5,1984, letter. Specifically, items 3, 4, and 5 of the November 5,1984, letter either supplement or clarify the scope of the request contained in Reference 1; It em 6 of the November 5, 1984, letter indicates that the request is not to be applied to the reactor cavity and subcompartment pressurization analyses, including asymmetric loading.

Your expeditious approval of this exemption request would be greatly appreciated.

DUQUESNE LIG C0KPANY

-6(CA By _ _ , , ,

J. , Carey Vice President JJS/wjs cc: Mr. B. K. Singh, Project Manager (w/a)

Mr. G. Walton, NRC Resident inspector (w/a)