ML19317F670
| ML19317F670 | |
| Person / Time | |
|---|---|
| Site: | Davis Besse  |
| Issue date: | 07/21/1977 |
| From: | Office of Nuclear Reactor Regulation |
| To: | |
| Shared Package | |
| ML19317F668 | List: |
| References | |
| NUDOCS 8001230573 | |
| Download: ML19317F670 (2) | |
Text
'
m
.O -
aut 211977
~
SAFETY EVALUATION BY THE OFFICE OF NUCLEAR REACTOR REGULATION SUPPORTING AMENDMENT N0. 5 TO LICENSE NO. NPF-3 TOLEDO EDISON COMPANY AND CLEVELAND ELECTRIC ILLUMINATING COMPANY DAVIS-BESSE NUCLEAR POWER STATION, UNIT 1 DOCKET NO. 50-346 INTRODUCTION Paragraph 2.C.(3)(c) of facility operating license No. NPF-3 for the Davis-Besse Nuclear Power Station, Unit No.1, issued on April 22, 1977, stipulates as a condition to the license that:
"Within three (3) months of the date of issuance of this license, Toledo Edison Company shall have installed a second oxygen monitor. in the gaseous waste system to provide redundant oxygen monitors that will alarm locally and in the control room at the set points of two percent and four percent by volume of oxygen, respectively."
DISCUSSION In our review and evaluation of the Final Safety Analysis Report for Davis-Besse, Unit 1, we determined that the design of the gaseous radwaste treatment system was unacceptable regarding the monitoring of potentially explosive mixtures of hydrogen and oxygen.
By letters dated October 29, 1977 and November 5,1977, we informed the Toledo Edison Company that it was our position that the gaseous radwaste treat-ment system must be provided with a second oxygen monitor to provide redundant oxygen monitors for the system and that these monitors would be required to alarm locally and in the control room at the set ooints of two percent and four percent by volume of oxygen. Also, upon alarm of either or both monitors, immediate action was to be taken to reduce the oxygen concentration in the gaseous radwaste system to safe levels.
EVALUATION On Nove,nber 23, 1976, the Toledo Edison Company submitted Amendment No.
39 consisting of Revision No. 23 to the Final Safety Analvsis Reoort.
Revision No. 23 included proposed modificatioris in the gaseous radwaste treatment system. The proposed modifications represented a committment on behalf of the Toledo Edison Company to meet our position as stated in our letter of November 5, 1977 regarding these matters. Also, the Toledo Edison Company stated that the proposed modifications would be installed and operational by June 1977.
8001233 %
M
3 a
JUL 211977
- As stated in Section 11.3 of our Safety Evaluation Report, we reviewed the proposed modified gaseous radwaste system, and we found it to be acceptable. Also, we reaffirm our conclusions as stated in our Safety Evaluation Report, that we find the modified gaseous radwaste treatment system to be in conformance with 10 CFR Part 20 for effluent releases an,
r therefore, acceptable.
On June 24, 1977, the Toledo Edison Company informed us that the nodified system had been installed and completed and was in conformance with the conditions of Paragraoh 2.C.(3)(c). On the same day we requested that the Office of Inspection and Enforcement verify that the modified gaseous radwaste treatment system had been installed to the conditions soecified in Paragraph 2.C.(3)(c).
By letter dated July 7,1977, the Office of Inspection and Enforcement informed us that the second oxygen monitor had been installed and set in accordance to Paragraph 2.C.(3)(c).
Based upon our conclusions as stated in our Safety Evaluation Report and upon the installation of the modified gaseous radwaste treatment system by the Toledo Edison Company, which has been verified by the Office of Inspection and Enforcement to be in accordance with the stipulations of Paragraph 2.C.(3)(c), we find that the condition sticu-lated in Paragraph 2.C.(3)(c) is no longer necessary. Therefore, we conclude that facility operating license, No. NPF-3 can be amended by removing the license condition as stated in Paragraph 2.C.(3)(c).
ENVIROM1 ENTAL CONSIDERATION We have determined 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 environnental impact. Having made this deter-mination, we have further concluded that the amendment involves an action which is insignificant from the standpoint of environmental imoact and, pursuant to 10 CFR 151.5(d)(4), that an environmental impact statement or negative declaration and environnental 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 pro-bability or consequences of accidents oreviously considered or a significant decrease in any safety margin, it 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 oroposed manner, and (3) such activities will be conducted in compliance with the Comission's regulations and the issuance of this amendment will not be inimical to the common defense and security or to the health and safety of the public.
Also, we reaffirm our conclusions as otherwise stated in our Safety Evalu-ation Report.