ML19340E862
| ML19340E862 | |
| Person / Time | |
|---|---|
| Site: | Davis Besse  |
| Issue date: | 01/05/1981 |
| From: | Office of Nuclear Reactor Regulation |
| To: | |
| Shared Package | |
| ML19340E859 | List: |
| References | |
| NUDOCS 8101160061 | |
| Download: ML19340E862 (2) | |
Text
_.-_ -
/
\\
UNITE 3 STATES NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSION g
-,I a
r.
wasHmoTom, o.c.zeems t
l,
% *... p#
O SAFETY EVALUATION BY THE OFFICE OF NUCLEAR REACTOR REGULATION, SUPPORTING AMENDMENT NO.35 TO FACILITY OPERATING LICENSE NO. NPF-3 THE TOLEDO EDISON COMPANY l
AND
- y THE CLEVELAND ELECTRIC ILLUMINATING COMPANY l
DAVIS-BESSE NUCLEAR POWER STATION, UNIT NO.1 DOCKET NO. 50-346
, Introduction In a tele 17, 1980, the Toledo Edison Company (TECo or the licensee) phone call on Novenberrequested an emergency Technical Specification (TS)
Operating License No. NPF-3 for the Davis-Besse Nuclear Power Station, Unit No.1.
This change would add the following sentence to footnote (1)'on page 3/4 3-22:
"The provisions of Section 3.0.3 are not applicable for the first test on each channel following the first refueling outage". The reason for the requested change was to allow the plant to continue operating in spite of the fact that the pmvisions of the footnote, to monthly exercise the pressure transmitters foi the containment high pressure channels, have not been conducted on a monthly basis. This request was authorized on November 17, 1980. TECo confimed its request by a letter dated Novem-ber 18,1980. This Safety Evaluation documents our review.
Background
TEco stated that the pressure transmitter exercising has only been completed during the 18-month surveillance intervals. Since the provisions of the footnote have not been carried out, all four pressure transmitters must be declared inoperable requir-ing the plant to be in hot standby in one hour and be in cold shutdown within 30 hours3.472222e-4 days <br />0.00833 hours <br />4.960317e-5 weeks <br />1.1415e-5 months <br />. The licensee stated that procedures were being carried out to perform the exercising of the transmitters, and that the four channels would be in compliance with the TSs within approximately 8 hours9.259259e-5 days <br />0.00222 hours <br />1.322751e-5 weeks <br />3.044e-6 months <br />. The licensee stated that the electrical output from the plant was necessary to prevent a power shortage in the Toledo area, and that the requested TS change would allow the plant to continue operating during the 8-hour period while the exercising of the transmitters was being carried out.
B101160 Y
-e s'
-%-3-,-
r.
-,y..,.---9 y.,
.rww e
+-
--e.m---r--,---p w
e-w9
-we--+e--
%-e.-e--wg--ee--mm w
w
- + - -
w
-v v----
1
,,2-Evaluation I
We have reviewed the proposed change and consider that maintaining the plant at power during the transmitter exercising does not impose a significant
,h adverse impact on the public health and safety. We also consider that main-1 taining the plant in steady state conditions during the testing is preferable to taking the plant through a transient, and that the probability of an event which would challenge the transmitters during the 8-hour period is insigni-i ficant. Therefore, we find the licensee's proposed TS change acceptable.
Environmental 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 environmental impact. Having made this determination, we 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 t
issuance of this amendment.
Conclusion l
We have concluded, based on the considerations discussed above, that:
i (1) because the amendment does not involve a significant increase in the probability or consequences of accidents previously considered and does not involve a significant 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 Comission's regulations and the issuance of this amendment will not be inimical to the connon defense and security or to the health and safety of the public.
Dated: January 5,1931 i
i e
. _ _ _. _ _ = _ _ _ _ _ _. _ _ _ _. _ _. _ _ _ _ _,.. _ _
-