[Federal Register Volume 64, Number 220 (Tuesday, November 16, 1999)]
[Notices]
[Pages 62233-62234]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 99-29840]


-----------------------------------------------------------------------

NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSION

[Docket No. 50-412]


Duquesne Light Co., Ohio Edison Co., Cleveland Electric 
Illuminating Co., Toledo Edison Co., Beaver Valley Power Station, Unit 
2; Environmental Assessment and Finding of no Significant Impact

    The U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission (the Commission) is 
considering issuance of an amendment to Facility Operating License No. 
NPF-73, issued to Duquesne Light Company (the licensee), for operation 
of the Beaver Valley Power Station, Unit 2 (BVPS-2), located in Beaver 
County, Pennsylvania.

[[Page 62234]]

Environmental Assessment

Identification of the Proposed Action

    The proposed action would authorize changes to the Updated Final 
Safety Analysis Report (UFSAR) for the facility. Specifically, the 
proposed action would authorize changes to the UFSAR to reflect 
revisions to the radiological dose calculations for the locked rotor 
accident (LRA) analysis. The BVPS-2 UFSAR would be revised as follows: 
in Table 15.0-11, atmospheric dispersion values for the LRA analysis 
would be added; in Table 15.0-12, the Exclusion Area Boundary (EAB) 
thyroid dose would be revised from 32.5 REM to 37 REM, the EAB Gamma 
(whole body) dose would be revised from 3.41 REM to 3.6 REM, and the 
EAB Beta dose would be revised from 2.09 REM to 2.2 REM; in Table 15.0-
12, the Low Population Zone (LPZ) thyroid dose would be revised from 
14.4 REM to 16 REM, the LPZ Gamma dose would be revised from .348 REM 
to .36 REM, and the LPZ Beta dose would be revised from .217 REM to .23 
REM; the control room dose for the LRA in Table 15.0-12 would be 
changed so that thyroid dose would be revised from 1.1 REM to 1.7 REM, 
Gamma dose would be revised from .011 REM to .016 REM, and the Beta 
dose would be revised from .15 REM to .23 REM; additionally, Table 
15.3-3 would be revised to include control room ventilation flow rates 
assumed in the LRA analysis.
    The proposed action is in accordance with the licensee's 
application for amendment dated January 29, 1998, as supplemented by 
letters dated November 9, 1998, and June 14, 1999.

The Need for the Proposed Action

    As a result of issues involving control room habitability, the 
licensee re-evaluated Beaver Valley Power Station, Units 1 and 2 (BVPS-
1 and BVPS-2) control room dose calculations for Design Basis Accidents 
(DBA) which credited isolation of the control room during DBA. When 
analyses associated with the BVPS-2 LRA were reviewed, the licensee 
identified the need to incorporate more conservative assumptions into 
the control room dose calculations as well as the calculations for the 
EAB and LPZ. Therefore, it is necessary to revise the analysis and the 
BVPS-2 UFSAR. Pursuant to 10 CFR part 50, Section 59, the licensee 
determined the proposed revisions to be an unreviewed safety question 
and requested NRC approval of the proposed changes.
    The change is not the result of hardware changes to the plant or a 
change in operating practices. It reflects corrected analysis results 
only and allows correction of the licensing basis to reflect 
conservative assumptions used in the revised dose analysis for the LRA.

Environmental Impacts of the Proposed Action

    The Commission has completed its evaluation of the proposed action 
and concludes that the assumptions and methodology used by the licensee 
in the reanalysis are acceptable and that there is reasonable 
assurance, in the event of a postulated LRA, that the postulated LPZ 
and EAB doses would continue to be well within the 10 CFR part 100 
guidelines, and the control room operator doses would continue to be 
less than the 10 CFR part 50, appendix A, General Design Criterion 19 
guidelines.
    The proposed action will not significantly increase the probability 
or consequences of accidents (although the revisions result in slightly 
higher calculated doses for the EAB, LPZ, and control room as discussed 
above), no changes are being made in the types of any effluents that 
may be released off site, and there is no significant increase in 
occupational or public radiation exposure. Therefore, there are no 
significant radiological environmental impacts associated with the 
proposed action.
    With regard to potential non-radiological impacts, the proposed 
action does not involve any historic sites. It does not affect non-
radiological plant effluents and has no other environmental impact. 
Therefore, there are no significant non-radiological environmental 
impacts associated with the proposed action.
    Accordingly, the Commission concludes that there are no significant 
environmental impacts associated with the proposed action.

Alternatives to the Proposed Action

    As an alternative to the proposed action, the staff considered 
denial of the proposed action (i.e., the ``no-action'' alternative). 
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 
BVPS-2.

Agencies and Persons Consulted

    In accordance with its stated policy, on September 27,1999, the 
staff consulted with the Pennsylvania State official, Mr. M. Murphy of 
the Pennsylvania Department of Environmental Protection Bureau, 
Division of Nuclear Safety, regarding the environmental impact of the 
proposed action. The State official had no comments.

Finding of no Significant Impact

    On the basis of 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 January 29, 1998, as supplemented by letters 
dated November 9, 1998, and June 14, 1999, which are 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.

    Dated at Rockville, Maryland, this 9th day of November 1999.

    For the Nuclear Regulatory Commission.
Daniel S. Collins,
Project Manager, Section 1, Project Directorate I, Division of 
Licensing Project Management, Office of Nuclear Reactor Regulation.
[FR Doc. 99-29840 Filed 11-15-99; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 7590-01-P