Duquesne Light Company; et al.; Beaver Valley Power Station, Unit Nos. 1 and 2; Environmental Assessment and Finding of No Significant Impact

NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSION

[Docket Nos. 50-334 and 50-412

Duquesne Light Company; et al.; Beaver Valley Power Station, Unit

Nos. 1 and 2; Environmental Assessment and Finding of No Significant

Impact

The U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission (the Commission) is

considering issuance of an exemption from certain requirements of its

regulations to Facility Operating License Nos. DPR-66 and NPF-73,

issued to Duquesne Light Company et al. (the licensee), for operation

of the Beaver Valley Power Station, Unit Nos. 1 and 2, located in

Beaver County, Pennsylvania.

Identification of the Proposed Action

The proposed action is in accordance with the licensee's

application dated February 4, 1994, for exemption from certain

requirements of paragraph III.D.2(b)(ii) of 10 CFR Part 50, Appendix J.

The proposed exemption would allow substitution of local leak rate

testing (where the design permits)in lieu of an overall airlock leakage

test which would otherwise be required after performing maintenance on

the air lock. The air lock components for which this exemption would be

applicable would be those where the design of the affected component(s)

would permit local leak testing at a pressure of not less than Pa (the

calculated peak containment internal pressure related to the design

basis accident and specified either in the technical specification or

associated bases). The use of the words ``where the design permits'' is

intended to require that two criteria be satisfied if the proposed

exemption is applied. The first criterion, is that any component which

has had maintenance performed on it have local leak rate test

provisions included into its design. The second criterion is that the

method for measuring the component's local leak rate must be equivalent

to or more conservative than the method which would be used on that

component during performance of an overall air lock leakage test.

The Need for the Proposed Action

Paragraph III.D.2.(b)(ii) of 10 CFR Part 50, Appendix J, requires

licensees to perform an overall air lock leak test at Pa at the end of

periods during which the air lock has been opened when containment

integrity was not required. Performance of an overall air lock leak

test requires 4 to 6 hours and results in additional occupational

radiation exposures. The time required to perform overall tests at the

conclusion of a plant shutdown can result in delaying plant restart.

Application of the proposed exemption would be applicable only to those

air lock components provided with local leak rate testing capabilities

and for which the leak rate does not exceed the leak rate that has been

measured on that component during performance of previous acceptable

overall air lock leakage tests. Therefore, local leak rate tests

provide adequate assurance that the offsite doses following a design

basis accident will be within acceptable limits.

Environmental Impacts of the Proposed Action

The Commission has completed its evaluation of the licensee's

application. The proposed exemption will not increase the probability

or consequences of accidents. The probability of accidents is not

increased because the air locks do not affect the initiation of any

design basis accident. The consequences of an accident are not

increased because the component local leak rates will not be permitted

to exceed the leak rate which would be measured on that component

during performance of the overall air lock leakage test. No changes are

being made in the types of any radioactive effluents that may be

released offsite as a result of the proposed exemption, and there is no

significant increase in the allowable individual or cumulative

occupational radiation exposure. Accordingly, the Commission concludes

that there are no significant radiological environmental impacts

associated with the proposed action.

With regard to potential nonradiological impacts, the proposed

action does involve features located entirely within the restricted

area as defined in 10 CFR Part 20. It does not effect nonradiological

plant effluents and has no other environmental impact. Accordingly, the

Commission concludes that there are no significant nonradiological

environmental impacts associated with the proposed action.

Alternatives to the Proposed Action

Since the Commission has concluded there is no measurable

environmental impact associated with the proposed action, any

alternatives with equal or greater environmental impact need not be

evaluated, As an alternative to the proposed action, the staff

considered denial of the proposed action. Denial of the application

would result in no change in current environmental impacts. The

environmental impacts of the proposed action and the alternative action

are similar.

Alternative Use of Resources

This action does not involve the use of any resources not

previously considered in the Final Environmental Statement for the

Beaver Valley Power Station Units Nos. 1 and 2.

Agencies and Persons Consulted

In accordance with its stated policy, on May 9, 1995, the staff

consulted with the Pennsylvania State official, Robert C. Maiers of the

Bureau of Radiation Protection, Department of Environmental Resources,

regarding the environmental impact of the proposed action. The State

official had no comments. [[Page 30612]]

Finding of No Significant Impact

Based upon the environmental assessment, the Commission concludes

that the proposed action will not have a significant effect on the

quality of the human environment. Accordingly, the Commission has

determined not to prepare an environmental impact statement for the

proposed action.

For further details with respect to the proposed action, see the

licensee's letter dated February 4, 1994, which is available for public

inspection at the Commission's Public Document Room, The Gelman

Building, 2120 L Street, NW., Washington, DC, and at the local public

document room located at the B. F. Jones Memorial Library, 663 Franklin

Avenue, Aliquippa, Pennsylvania 15001.

Dated at Rockville, Maryland, this 2nd day of June 1995.

For the Nuclear Regulatory Commission.

John F. Stolz,

Director, Project Directorate I-2 Division of Reactor Projects--I/II,

Office of Nuclear Reactor Regulation.

[FR Doc. 95-14156 Filed 6-8-95; 8:45 am]

BILLING CODE 7590-01-M