ML19309H425
| ML19309H425 | |
| Person / Time | |
|---|---|
| Site: | Davis Besse  |
| Issue date: | 04/22/1980 |
| From: | Office of Nuclear Reactor Regulation |
| To: | |
| Shared Package | |
| ML19309H424 | List: |
| References | |
| NUDOCS 8005130215 | |
| Download: ML19309H425 (2) | |
Text
_
80 0513 0 $l$
,co mm f
k UNITED STATES (d,,.
NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSION o
L E
WASHINGTON, D. C. 20555
'S9.....,o SAFETY EVALUATI0ll BY THE OFFICE OF NUCLEAR REACTOR REGULATION SUPPORTING AMENDMENT NO. 24 TO FACILITY OPERATING LICENSE NO. NPF-3 THE TOLEDO EDIS0N COMPANY AND THE CLEVELAND ELECTRTC ILLUMINATING COMPANY DAVIS-BESSE NUCLEAR POWER STATION, UNIT N0. 1 DOCKET NO. 50-346 Introduction By letter dated December 22, 1979, as supplemented April 10, 1980, the Toledo Edison Company (TECO or the licensee) requested an amendment to Facility Operating (h License No. NPF-3. The requested amendment would modify License Condition 2.C.(3) for Davis-Besse Nuclear Power Station, Unit No.1 (DB-1), to allow for a delay in the completion schedule of fire protection modifications until September 30, 1980.
Discussion and Evaluation The DB-i operating license, issued on April 22, 1977, contains License Condition 2.C.(3)(h) which reads as follows:
"Within three (3) years of the date of issuance of the license except as noted below, Toledo Edison Company shall increase the level of fire protection in the facility to the levels recommended in Appendix A to the Standard Review Plan 9.5.1, Revision 2, ' Fire Protection System,'
or with alternatives acceptable to the Commission.
" Prior to startup following the first (1st) racularly scheduled refueling outage, Toledo Edison Company shall implement Section B cf Appendix A,
' Administrative Procedures, Controls and Fire Brigade,' and Section C of Appendix A, ' Quality Assurance Progran. '"
l On July 26, 1979, we issued license Amendment No.18 which forwarded our Fire Protection Safety Evaluation Report (SER) and added License Condition 2.C.(4) as follows:
" Fire Protection The licensee may proceed with and is required to complete the modifications identified in Section 1 of the NRC's Fire Protection Safety Evaluation (SE) on the facility dated July 26, 1979 and supplements thereto. These modi-fications shall be completed as specified in Table 1 of the SE or supplements thereto."
9
DB-1
- Table 1 of the SER, consistent with License Condition 2.C.(3)(h) above, required all fire protection modifications to be completed by April 22, 1980, except that a Service. Water System backup which is independent of offsite power will be provided by mid-1984.
In TEC0's letters of December 22, 1979, and April 10, 1980, it was requested that License Condition 2.C.(3)(h) be amended such that the' schedule for completion of fire protection modifications be extended to September 30, 1980.
This would provide: relief for craft manpower support required for the current refueling outage which consnenced on April 7,1980.
The licensee states that the delay in implementation of approximately five months provides no unreviewed safety issue since critical areas of fire protection upgrade identified in the SER were assigned earlier completion dates for safety concerns.
At this time we have not fully assessed the safety implications of delaying fire protection. modifications to September 30, 1980, as requested by the license.
However, we have determined that delaying implementation has insignificant safety implications as long as.the plant is maintained in a cold shutdown or refueling mode of operation.
Therefore, we consider a delay through the end of the current refueling outage to be acceptable pending a final decision on the licensee's request.
Environmental Consideration We have detennined that the amendment does not authorize a change in effluent types *or total amounts nor an increase in power level and will not result in any significant environmental impact.
Having made this determination,swe have further concluded that the amendment involves an action which is insignificant from 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 not be prepared in connection with the issuance of this amendment.
Conclusion We have concluded, based on the considerations discussed above, that:
(1) because the amendment does not involve a significant increase in the probability or conse and does not involve a "quences of accidents previously considered gnificant decrease in a safety margin, the
. amendment does not involve a significant hazards consideration, (2) there is reasonable assurance that the health and safety of the public will not be endangered by operation in the proposed manner, and (3) such activities will be conducted in compliance with the Commission's regulations and the issuance of this amendment will not be inimical to the common defense end security or to the health and safety of the public.
- Dated
- April 22, 1980 Y
g.
.