ML19225C380
| ML19225C380 | |
| Person / Time | |
|---|---|
| Site: | Davis Besse  |
| Issue date: | 06/18/1979 |
| From: | Office of Nuclear Reactor Regulation |
| To: | |
| Shared Package | |
| ML19225C378 | List: |
| References | |
| SER-790618, NUDOCS 7907300152 | |
| Download: ML19225C380 (2) | |
Text
.
['" "
UNITED STATES NUCI. EAR REGULATORY COMMisslON
~
[
5
E WASHINGTON, D, C.
^55 3
E S
p SAFETY EVALUATION BY THE OFFICE OF NUCLEAR REACT SUPPORTIhG AMENDMENT NO.17 TO FACILITY OPERATIN TOLEDO EDISON COMPANY _
AND Y
CLEVELAND ELECTRIC ILLUMINATING COMPAN_
DAVIS-BESSE NUCLEAR POWER UATION, UNIT NO. 1 DOCKET N0. 50-346 Introduction Toledo Edison Company (TECo or the licensee) requested 23, 1979, l
By letter dated Marchamendment to Facility Operating License No. NPF-Power Station, Unit No.1 (Davis-Besse-1).
i System would change License Condition 2.C.(3)(k) to require the Reactor Protect on be completed and the results obtained within 60 da first (1st) regularly scheduled refueling outage.
Backcround The current License Condition 2.C.(3)(k) requires the RPS and SFAS no lation testing be completed and results obtained prior to startup following th first refueling outage or no later than 26 months from the issuance of the lice The 26 months was based on the projected (OJne 22, 1979), whichever comes first.
The licensee scledule for the first refueling at the time the license was issued.
The RPS noise ne,w projects the first refueling outage to occur in March 1980.
and isolation test and test results have been completed an Comission.
The proposed amendment would delay shutdown period such as a refueling outage.
this test and test results until af ter the first refueling outage.
Evaluation The licensee has stated that the effective full power days of operation would the same as originally planned prior to the perfonnance of the SFAS noise an isolation tests.
We have reviewed the licensee's request and find th was allowed power operation would remain valid.
power days of operation would be the same as originally planned formance of the tests.
License Condition 2.C.(3)(k) acceptable.
427 295 7907 o')0 o b 2
2 Environmental Consideration _
We have determined that the amendment does not authorize a change in effluent types or tctal amounts nor an increase in cower level and will not result in any significant environmental impact. Having made this determination, we have further concluded that the amer.cment involves an action which is insicnificant frcm the standpoint of environmental impact and, pursuant to 10 CFR 551.5(d)(4), that an environmental impact statement, or negative declaration and environ-mental impact appraisal need n'ot be prepared in connection with the issuance of this amendment.
Ccnclusion We have concluded, based on the considerations discussed above, trat:
(1) because the amendment does not involve a e'
.ificant increase in the probability or consecuences cf accidents ?reviously considerec and does not involve a significart decrease in a safety margin, tre amendment does not involve a significant hazards consideration, (2) there is reascnable assurance tnat the health and safety of the pu:lic will not be endangered by operation in the procosed manner, and (3) such activities will be conducted in comp'iance with the Commission's regulations and the issuance of this amendment will not be inimical to the connon defense and security or to the health and safety of the public.
Dated: June 18, 1979
~
\\
42',
2'96