[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