[Federal Register Volume 64, Number 74 (Monday, April 19, 1999)] [Notices] [Pages 19204-19205] From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov] [FR Doc No: 99-9749] ----------------------------------------------------------------------- NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSION [Docket No. 50-334] Duquesne Light Company; Ohio Edison Company; Pennsylvania Power Company; Beaver Valley Power Station, Unit No. 1; 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. DPR-66, issued to Duquesne Light Company, (the licensee), for operation of the Beaver Valley Power Station, Unit 1 (BVPS-1), located in Beaver County, Pennsylvania. 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 Control Room radiological dose calculations for the waste gas system line break accident analysis. The BVPS-1 UFSAR would be revised as follows: in Table 11.3-7, the reported Gamma (whole body) dose value would be revised from 0.0031 REM to less than 0.01 REM; the reported Beta dose value would be revised from 0.013 REM to less than 1.0 REM; and Table 14.2-8 would be revised to reflect the assumptions that (1) the fraction of fuel with defects is one percent, and (2) the control room radiation monitors will not initiate control room isolation, which were used in the reanalysis. The proposed action is in accordance with the licensee's application for amendment dated January 17, 1998, as supplemented by letters dated February 10, 1998, November 9, 1998, February 8, 1999, and February 26, 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 the DBA. When analyses associated with the waste gas system rupture were reviewed, an arithmetic error was discovered in the control room dose calculation for BVPS-1 which resulted in the associated values listed in the BVPS-1 UFSAR being incorrect. Therefore, it is necessary to correct the analysis and revise the BVPS-1 UFSAR. 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 Waste Gas System Line Break, that the postulated control room operator doses would continue to be less than the criteria of 10 CFR part 50, Appendix A, General Design Criterion 19; and well within the occupational dose limits of 10 CFR part 20. The proposed action will not increase the probability or consequences of accidents (although the corrections result in a higher calculated control room operator dose), 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 nonradiological impacts, the proposed action does not involve any historic sites. It does not affect nonradiological plant effluents and has no other environmental impact. Therefore, there are no significant nonradiological environmental impacts associated with the proposed action. Accordingly, the Commission concludes that there are no significant [[Page 19205]] 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 BVPS-1. Agencies and Persons Consulted In accordance with its stated policy, on March 25, 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. Findings 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 17, 1998, as supplemented by letters dated February 10, 1998, November 9, 1998, February 8, 1999, and February 26, 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, PA 15001. Dated at Rockville, Maryland, this 12th day of April 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. 99-9749 Filed 4-16-99; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 7590-01-P