ML19312E826
| ML19312E826 | |
| Person / Time | |
|---|---|
| Site: | Davis Besse  |
| Issue date: | 06/13/1980 |
| From: | Crouse R TOLEDO EDISON CO. |
| To: | |
| Shared Package | |
| ML19312E825 | List: |
| References | |
| TAC-42152, NUDOCS 8006170463 | |
| Download: ML19312E826 (3) | |
Text
_
p.
v 6
APPLICATION FOR AMENDMENT TO FACILITY OPERATING LICENSE NO. NPF-3 FOR DAVIS-BESSE NUCLEAR POWER STATION UNIT NO. 1 Enclosed are forty-three (43) copies of the requested changes to the i
Davis-Besse Nuclear Power Station Unit No. 1 Facility Operating License No. - NPF-3, together with the Safety Evaluation for the requested change.
~
The proposed change includes elimination of Sections 2.1, 2.2, 2.3, 3.1, 4.0,'5.4.1 part A and changes to Table of Contents, List of Figures,
. List of Tables and Section 1.0 of Appendix B to the Davis-Besse Unit No.
1 Technical Specifications.
By
[
Vice President, Nuclear Sworn to and subscribed before me this thirteenth day of June, 1980 f
l
^
sn
/
Notary Public LINDA L. COSTELL Notary Public - State of ONo My Commission Expires Feb. 9.1982
$8 00_617 0 f
Docket No. 50-346 License No. NPF-3 Serial No. 619 June 13, 1980 1.
Change to Davis-Besse Nuclear Power Station Unit No. 1 Technical Specifications - Appendix B, Sections 2.1, 2.2, 2.',
3.1, 4.0, 5.4.1 part A and changes to Table of Contents, List of Figures, List of Tables and Section 1.0.
A.
Time Required to Implement This change is to be effective upon NRC approval.
B.
Reason for Change (Facility Change Request 80-124)
As a result of the 27 December 1978 (" Yellow Creek") decision of the Atomic Safety and Licensing Appeal Board, the Nuclear Regula-tory Commission may no longer
- require any non-radiologic environ-mental monitoring beyond that which is required by the NPDES permit issued by the Environmental Protection Agency (EPA).
The Board determined that the 1972 Amendments to the Federal Water Pollution Control Act vest primary responsibility for controlling water pol-lution in the EPA Administrator and prohibit other federal agencies from invoking the National Environmental Policy Act, under the guise of License Conditions, as authority for imposing different limits on j
monitoring requirements than those in the NPDES permit.
C.
Safety Evaluation The monitoring required by Sections 2.1, 2.2, 2.3, 3.1, and 4.0 of l
Appendix B consists of environmental impact assessments of the effect of plant operation on water chemistry, zooplankton, phytoplankton, benthos, fish, migratory birds, vegetation, noise levels and thermal discharge.
More specifically, these studies are designed to assess the effect of the cooling tower, the non-radioactive portions of our waste water and the cooling water intake system on the wildlife a-round the plant.
These environmental surveillance programs were
,i developed "to monitor the non-radiological impacts fro'm Davis-Besse..."
(Ap.B Sec. 3:0 and as such are non-nuclear related.
In addition, these programs require monitoring beyond that which is required in the NPDES Pe rmit for Davis-Besse issued by the Ohio Environmental Protection Agency.
Since the time that the original Technical Specifications for Davis-Besse were issued, a legal decision was made by the Atomic Safety Li-censing Appeal Board that has a direct impact upon the non-radiologic environmental monitoring programs of all nuclear power plants. As a result of this 27 December 1978 (" Yellow Creek") decision, the NRC may no longer require any non-radiologic environmental monitoring be-
' yond that which is required by the NPDES Permit.
The Board determined that the 1972 amendments to the Federal Water Pollution Control Act vest primary responsibility for controlling water pollution in the EPA 1
Docket No. 50-346 6
License No. NPF-3 Serial No. 619 Page 2 r
June 13, 1980 t
Administrator and prohibit other federal agencies from invoking the National Environmental Policy Act, under the guise of License condi-tions, as authority for imposing dif ferent monitoring requirements than those in the NPDES Permit.
The proposed change to Appendix B does not involve any operating sys-
[
tems or monitoring equipment except the travelling intake screens.
{
However, although fish impingement monitoring, in compliance with I
Sections 3.1.2a.6 and 4.2, results in~ screen operation for 1/2 hour I
every other day, the screens are routinely run every day to keep i
them clean and in good working order.
The discontinuance of im-pingement monitoring will, therefore, not result in a change in the frequency of screen operation, Discontinuance of the non-radiologic environmental monitoring does not affect the design or function of any operating systems or meni-l toring equipment connected with nuclear safety.
" Margins of safety" are not discussed in the bases for the non-radiologic environmental monitoring because they ora not applicable.
Pursuant to the above discussion, if Sections 2.1, 2.2, 2.3, 3.1, 4.0, 5.4.1 Part A, Table of Contents, List of Figures, List of Tables and Section 1.0 are deleted or changed in Appendix B to the Technical Specifications:
1)
The probability of occurrence or the consequences of an accident or malfunction of equipment important to safety previously evaluated in the FSAR is not increased.
- 2) A possibility for an accident or malfunction of a differ-ent type than any evaluated previously in the FSAR is not created.
- 3) The margin of safety as defined in the basis of any Tech-nical Specifications is not reduced.
Consequently, this is not an unreviewed safety question.
.