ML19319B408
| ML19319B408 | |
| Person / Time | |
|---|---|
| Site: | Davis Besse  |
| Issue date: | 05/26/1978 |
| From: | Office of Nuclear Reactor Regulation |
| To: | |
| Shared Package | |
| ML19319B403 | List: |
| References | |
| NUDOCS 8001150981 | |
| Download: ML19319B408 (4) | |
Text
.
1.
m g..-
SAFETY EVALUATI0il BY THE OFFICE GF NUCLEAR REACTOR REGULATI0tl SUPPORTING AMEffDMEtlT NO. 10 TO LICE!iSE NO. HPF-3 TOLEDO EDISON CCPPANY AhD CLEVELAND ELECTRIC ILLuh! HATING CC."PANY DAVIS-SESSE NUCLEAR POWER STATIO!!,, UNIT 1 00Cf.ET N9. 50-246 I'iTR000CT,IO,N Paragraph 2.C.(3)(n) cf Facility Operating License i:o. NPF-3 for the Davis Besse Nuclear Power Station, Unit No.1, issued on April 2^.1977, stipulates as a condition to the license that:
Prior to startup following the first (1st) regularly scheculed refueling outage, Toledo Edisco Company shall install flow ceasuring cevices to acasure at 1 cast 40 gpn for corcn cilution when the plant is cperating in either the hot leg drain rede or the pressurizer spray rede.
D!SCUSSIOM We stated in Section 6.3.3.4 of Supplement Nc. I to the Safety Evaluation Report that we had reviewed the licensee's prcposed procedures and t! e plant systens designeo for preventing excessive beric acid buildup in the reactor vessel during the long tern ecoling pericd after a postulated less-cf-ccolant accident.
Frro cur review and evaluation of the licensee's proposed proceoures and systen cesign for mitigating beric acid precipitatien. we ceterained that the 1fcensee would be recuired to demonstrate oy preeperational tests that a ninimun flow of 40 gallons per nicute of water would be available to provide dilution of the water in the upper plenum of the reactor vessel when the plant was either in the hot leg drain mode or the pressurizer spray acdc. Also, we stated that the licensee would be required to install flow rate measuring devices for assuring that a minimun of 40 gallons per minute of water was available for either acce following a loss-of-coolant accident. As stated in Condition 2.C.'3)(n), the ficw ecasuring devices were to be installed prior to startup following the first regularly scheduled refueling outage.
l orrir.s e guRN AMS W l
OATED NRC FORM 318 (9-76) NRCM 0240 W un s. oovannesadT Fiisirvine orricas seto-oes.es3 9001150 %
e
'l l
~,
We concluced in Secticn 6.3.3.4 of Supplenent Ho. I that acceptable results from the preoperational tests would provide reasonable assurance that the system would celiver the aininut " low if needed during the period prior to startup follow ng the fir : scheduled refueling outage.
, EVALUATION On August 26. 1977, the Office of Inspection and Enforcement inferned us that the licensee had acceptably ccepleted the Boren Dilution !!cde 1
Tests as stipulated in Item F.4 in Attachrent 2 to Facility License liPF-3.
f On December 29, 1977, the licensee inforced us that they had installed the ficw rate reasuring cevices in accercance with the stipulations of Condition 2.C.(3)(n). By letter dated May 19, 1978, the Of fice cf Inspecticn and Enforcement informed us that they had inspected and verified that ficw ceasuring devices had been installed to naasura f ron 0 to 60 gallont per minute in the control recn, and were seisnically cualifiec, calibrated and tested.
Based upon cur conclusions as stated in our Safety Evaluation.Recort fer Davis sesse, Unit 1 and upon installation of the ficu rate cea: urin",
devices by the licensee, which have ceen verified by the Office of Inspection and Enforcerent to be in accordance witn the stipulaticrs of Condition 2.C.(3)(n), we find that Condition 2.C.(3)(n) is no langer necessary. Therefore, we cocclude that Facility Operating License No. NPF-3 can be amended by rencving license Condition 2.C.(3)(n).
ENVIR0fqEaTALC0h51DERATI0t:
j We have determined that the anencnent does not authorize a change in effluent types or total arounts nor an increase in power level and will not result in any significant environnental icpact. Having nace this determination, we have further concluded that the arencnent involves an action which is insignificant fran the standpoint of enviroerental impact, and pursuant to 10 CFR Sl.5(d)(4),thatanenvironmental impact statencent or negative declaration and envirer. mental impact appraisal need not be prepared in ccnnection with the issuance of this amendment.
i l
1 G
orries >
SWRaaME D DaTE D NRC FORM 31s (9 76) NRCM 0240 I Un s. *ovEmame=T paismus orescar sove-seemed
as 2-We ccccluded in Section 6.3.3.4 of Supplement Mc. I that acceptable results frcn the preo;erational tests would previce reasonable assurance that the systen would deliver the mininum flow if needed during the period prior. to startup following the first scheduled refueling cutage.
EVALUATICM On Aucust 25, 1977, the Office of Inspection and Enforcement infomed us that the licensee hac acceptably completed the' Soron Dilution Pace Tests as stipulated in Iten F.4 in isttachnent 2.'to Facility License HPF-3.
i Cn Cecenber 29, 1977, the licensee inforne& us that they han installed the flow rate meesuring cevices in accordance with the stipulations of Ccndition 2.C.(3)(n). By letter dated May 19, 1978, the Office of Inspection and Enforcement infomed us,that they had inspected and verified that ficw measuring cavices had been installea to reasure feca 0 to 60 gallens per ninute in the control reon,and were seisnically qualified, calibratec and tested.in.acccrcance with-tbe Beron Diiution Moat _Tcsts-datined.by Iten f.4, Attachment 2 to Facility License '.PF-2.
Based upon our conclusions as stated in'our Safety Evaluation Report fcr Davis Besse, Unit I and upon installation of the flow rate reasuring devices oy the licensee. which have been verified by the Office of Inspecticn and Enforcecent to be in accercance with the stipulations of Condition 2.C.(3)(n), we find that Concition 0.C.(3)(n) is no lor.c;cr r.ecessary. Therefore, we ccnclude that Facility Operating License Mo. MPF-3 can be anenced by renoving license Condition 2.C.(3)(n).
ENVIROM. ENTAL CONSIDERATI0H
\\
We have deternined th'at the anendeent does not autari5a change in effluent types er total acounts nor an increase in pcwer' level and will not result in any significant environnental icpact. Haviny.cade this determination, we have further concluded that the acendment involves an action which-is insignificant f rca the standpoint of envirctnental inpact, and pursuant to 10 CFR $51.5(d)(4), that an envirorr. ental impact stater ent or negative declaration and environnental inpacts appraisal need not be prepared in connection with the issuance of this atendnent.
3 L
opric s
- l.
O.TE D NRC FORM Sta (9 76) NRCM 0240
- u. s. eavammusmr p=mvine op rics t us - see.es4
~
+.
v 3-C0riCLUSIGN be have ccr.cluded, based on the considerations ciscussed above, that (1) because the mencrent cces not involve a significant increase in the prooability or consequences of accidents previously censidered j
cr a significant decrease in any safety carsin, it aces not involve i
a significant hazards consideration, (2) there is reascnable assurance tSat the health and safety of the,cublic will not be endangered by 3
cperation in the proposed r.anner, anc (3) such activities will be conducted in cccc11ance with the Ccmission's regulations anc the issuance of this acenc. ment will not ce inimical to the comon defense and security or to the healtn anc safety of the public. Also, we reaffim cur conclusions as otherwise stated in our Safety Evaluation Repcrt.
Date: W.AY 2 61978 1
l
.Q hh
(,'YY#
'\\
~,
_(WR
\\
_L & l
(
'J orrie s
- g
-vbm, w ov a = = >
IFnnip/ red _
.19th17 9
^
)
._5Ah/78
._.5/$478 MNb l
nat
- NRC PORM 318 (9 76) NRCM 024
- us o. novsmmment wasnvine orrica sete.ese ese
-