ML19317F713
| ML19317F713 | |
| Person / Time | |
|---|---|
| Site: | Davis Besse  |
| Issue date: | 08/18/1978 |
| From: | Office of Nuclear Reactor Regulation |
| To: | |
| Shared Package | |
| ML19317F707 | List: |
| References | |
| NUDOCS 8001230605 | |
| Download: ML19317F713 (4) | |
Text
3 U,Q, *
~
l SAFETY EVAL 0ATION SY THE OFFICE OF duCLENI REACTO:t REdOLATION SUPPORTIhG AMENU E IT No. 12 10 LICENSE NO. NPF-3 TOLED0 EDISON C0:4PANY D
M<
nC oui m
I CLEVELW9 ELECTRIC ILLUhlhATIr6 COWN1Y D
Q A
y
.Jk DAVIS-BESSE NUCLEAR POWER STATIGH, UnlT 1
-)
00CKET iid. 50-346 INTRODUCTI0d 3y letter dated June 12, 1978, the Toledo Edison Company requested enanges in the Tecnnical specifications for the Davis-Besse Nuclear Power Station, Unit I.
Also, we nave noted an administrative error unich requires a Change t0 the IOCnniCal Specifications. These changes are identified belos:
1.
.se nave noted an adniinistrative error in the Administrative Control Section of the Tecnnical Specifications.
2.
The Toledo Edison Corpany nas requested changes to the Tecnnical Specifications to reflect cnanges wnich have been proposed for the administrative organtaation of tne Toleco Edison Company.
DISCUSSION 1.
Changes to the Technical Specifications which were cade at the time of issuance of Amenocent ho. 9 incorrectly transcribea page nuruers no longer applicable to the revised pages. Tne corrected page numbers, b-13 througn 6-20, are provided in Amendinent No.12.
2.
On June 12, 1976, tne Toledo Edison Company informed us tnat changes were being made at tne corporate level entailing a new reporting changa for the Vice President, Energy Supply, and for the Company nuclear Review Board. At the station level they include the estaalishraent of tne new positions of Assistant Station Superintendent, anc Chercical and Radiations Protection Engineer. The Station Operations Engineer, Chemist and Health Physicist, Maintenance Engineer, and Technical Engineer report to the new position of Assistant Station Superintendent. The requested changes are delineated in Pages 6-6, 6-9, 6-11, and 6-12 and also Figures 6.2-1 and 6.2-2 of the Technical Specifications.
p 1130 h orrec s >
summaass >
-e Data h NRC 3DRM 318 (976) NROE 024e W us s. eovenmuse rainine orrics. L e7e -sam
hv c
4
_2 EVALUATION 1.
The cnanges to tne Technical Specifications for item (1) as discussed above, serve to correct an administrative error, and do not involve any signifiCant ndZards considerdtions, and therefore, We find these changes to be acceptable.
2.
ne find that the corporate level changes, as discussed above for Ite:a (2), do not weaken the reporting chain of the Station Superintencent or the Coinpany Nuclear Review Board. Also, we find that tnese cnanges for the station organization meet the regulatory position stated in Regulatory Guide 1.33 " Quality Assurance Prograa daquirer.:ents (Operation)" and are, therefore, acceptable.
ENVIRONMENTAL CJ3 SIDERATION We nave determined that the amendment does not autnorize a cnange in effluent type.; or total amounts nor an increase in power level and will not result in any significant environmental impact. riaving saade this datar-aination, we have further concluded tnat the amendment involves an action which is insignificant from the standpoint of enviratimental impact and, pursuant to 10 CFR }51.61(d)(4), that an environ;nental impact statement or negative declaration and environmental impact appraisal need not be prepared in connection with the issuance of tais a.nendment.
CUkCLUSION
.se nave concluded, Dased on the considerations discussed above, tnat:
(1) Decause the amencment does not involve a significant increase in tne procaoility or consequences of accidents previously considered or a sig-nificant decrease in any safety margin, it does not involve a significant hazards consideration, (2) tnere is reasonaole assuranca :nat tne health and safety of tne puolic will not ce endangered by operation in the proposed aanner, and (3) such activities will De conducted in coi:;pliance sita tne Coaatssion's regulations and tne issuance of this amencment will not ce ini;aical to the canon defense and security or to the acalth and safety of the puolic. Also, we reaffirm our conclusions as othenvise stated in our safety Evaluation Report.
Date: AUG 181978 D"O O
wo1
- %{l]
~l
~
Of
~
3
_ U
[L
_a o
SEE PREV US YELLOW FOR PREVIOUS CONCURRENCES
- LWR I MS STS/ DOR
- QAB*
LWR 1~
.mc.,
LEngld[rk JWetmore FAllenspach JSto g
~
8//W78 8/3/78 8/3/78 8//g/78 om, NRCPORM 318 (946) NRCM 0240
- u. s. novannuswr painttwo omese tore-eas4a4
SAFETY EVALUATIUtt BY THE OFFICE OF NUCLEAR REACTOR REGULATION SUPPORTING AMENUMENT NU. 12 TO LICENSE NO. NPF-3 m o:
TOLEDO EDISON COMPANY D
ocS ANU O
~ 3 i
CLEVELAhu ELECTRIC ILLLHINATIriG CO:PANY D
)]
" 1
") a v
DAVIS-BESSE NUCLEAR POWER STATION, UNIT 1 DOCKET NO. 50-346 INTRODUCTION Sy letter dated Juile 12, 1976, the Toledo Edison Company requested changes in the Technical Specifications for the Davis-Cesse Nuclear Po',4er Station, Unit 1.
Also, we have noted an administrative error unich requires a changetotheTechnical\\ppecifications. These changes are identified below:
\\
1.
We have notec an administrative error in tne Administrative Lontrol Section of the Technical' Specifications.
\\
2.
The Toledo Edison Company has requested changes to the Technical Specifications to reflect chduges wnich have been proposed for the aGulinistrdtive organization of tne Toleco Edison Company.
UlSCUSSION
\\
1.
Changes to the Technical Specificatins which were made at the time of issuance of Amendment No. 9 incorrectly transcribed page numers no longer applicable to the reviseo pa3es.'\\The correcteo page nt.c;bers, 6-13 through 6-20, are provided in M endernt No. 12.
N 2.
On June 12, 1973, the Toledo Ecisan Company h1formec us tnat cnanges were being nade at the corporate level entailing a new reporting change for the Vice President, Energy Supply, and for t(the esta' lishment of e Company.1uclear Review Board. At the station level they include c
the new positions of Assistant Station Superintend t, anc Chemical and Radiations Protection Engineer. The Station Operat ns Engineer, Chemist and Health Physicist, Maintenance Engineer, anc Techn cal Engineer report to the new postion of Assistant Station Superintendent.
The requested change are delineated in Pages 6-6, 6-9, 6-11, and 6-12 nd also Figures 6.2-1 and 6.2-2 of the Technical Specifications.
\\
Or91C E 9 SWRma ast >
0 ATE D NAC PORM 313 (9 76) NRCM 0240 W u: e. eevennesswr rainnwe orrices ie7e - saa.ea4
r-
'-i _
s y
.. \\
EVALUXIION
\\
1.
The changes to the Technical Specifications for item (1) as discussed above \\,s serve to correct an administrative error, and do not involve any si9gificant hazards considerations, and therefore, we find these changes to be acceptaole.
g 2.
We find t the corporate level changes, as discussed above for Iten (2), do not peaken the reportings ebange of the Station Superintendent or tne Company Nuclear Review Board. Also, we find that these changes for the statido organization meet the regulatory position stated in Regulatory Gui 1.33, " Quality Assurance Program Requirements (Operation)" an are, therefore, acceptaole.
\\
EhVIRONMENTAL CONSIDERATION We have determined that e amendment does not authorize a cnange in
. effluent types or total amounts nor an increase in power level anc will not result in any significahq environmental impact. Having mace tnis deter-mination, we have further con luded that the amendment involves an action wnich is insignificant from th standpoint of environmental impact and, pursuant to 10 CFR 951.51(d)(4), that an environmental 1:cpact statement or negative declaration and, envirgnniental iapact oppraisal need not be prepared in connection with the issuance of this amendment.
CO6CLUSION
'ie have concluded, based on the consiae.ations discussed a' cove, thet:
(1) because the amendment does not invol\\e a significent increase in the pro' anility or consequences of accidents aviously considerec or a sig-u nificant decrease in any safety margin, it does not involve a significant hazards consideration, (2) tnere is reasona$e assurance tnat tr.e healtn and safety of the public will not be endangergo b/ operation in the proposed a:anner, and (3) sucn activities will be conduc(ed in cocpliance with the Comission's regulations and the issuance of thM amendment will not be inimical to the common defense and security or t tne nealth ano safety of the public. Also, we reaffir:a our conclusions otherwise stated in our Safety Evaluation Report.
Date:
[D D
- k o
9 q-w
.b a
a LWRl}p
'Sy M V QAB g,
LWR 1
.,,,e.
LEngl'e/ red jQetm6I)e FAllenspach _JStolz oo,,,,,.,
8/l /78 8f)/78
_8 8 /78
_3/_f28 NRC PoaM 318 (M6) NROf 0240 W us s. oovsanneant res= vine orrecas teve -ese.eae