[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