ML20053E524

Safety Evaluation Supporting Requested Mods to 10CFR50 & 10CFR50.48 App R

ML20053E524
Person / Time
Site:	Davis Besse
Issue date:	06/02/1982
From:	Office of Nuclear Reactor Regulation
To:
Shared Package
ML20053E523	List: ML20053E522 ML20053E524
References
TAC-43690, TAC-52156, NUDOCS 8206080486
Download: ML20053E524 (2)

Text

___________

ga ato E[ : #, ewo, UNITED STATES h.'

p, NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSION

'j WASHING TON, D, C. 20555 o, a e

SAFETY EVALUATION BY THE OFFICE OF NUCLEAR REACTOR REGULATION RELATING TO APPENDIX R T010 CFR 50 AND 10 CFR 50.48 TOLED0 EDIS0N COMPANY AND CLEVELAND ELECTRIC ILLUMINATING COMPANY DAVIS-BESSE NUCLEAR POWER STATION, UNIT 1 DOCKET NO. 50-346 I.

Introduction On February 17,1981,10 CFR 50.48 a new rule on fire protection became effective.

This rule requires nuclear plants licensed to operate prior to January 1,1979 to meet the requirements of Sections III.G, III.J and III.0 of Appendix R to 10 CFR 50 regardless of any previous approvals by the Nuclear Regulatory Commis-sion for alternative design features for those items.

In compliance with this rule, Toledo Edison Company, the licensee submitted design information for certain required modifications for NRC approval.

II.

Discussion and Evaluation By letter dated March 19, 1981, the licensee indicated that Davis-Besse Unit No.1 meets the requirements of Section III.G, III.J and III.0 of Appendix R to 10 CFR 50 except for the service water system which would be modified to meet the requirements of III.G.

An existing dilution pump and piping is to be modi-fied to serve as the alternate system for the service water system. This alternate system is separated from the service water system by a three hour fire barrier, including pump, valves, piping, associated circuits, and the pump power and control cables.

During a meeting on March 23, 1982, the licensee stated that:

1) in the event of a

fire no repairs would be needed to bring the plant from power operation to a cold shutdown, 2) cold shutdown could be achieved within 72 hours8.333333e-4 days <br />0.02 hours <br />1.190476e-4 weeks <br />2.7396e-5 months <br /> with either offsite or onsite power and 3) sufficient manpower is availhble, beyond the fire brigade, to control the plant.

Based on our review, we conclude that the proposed modification to provide j

alternate service water capability meets the requirements of 10 CFR 50.48, l

Appendix R, Sections III.G.3 and III.L with respect to safe shutdown in the event of a fire.

III.

References The following Toledo Edison Company letters, with enclosures and attachments, were reviewed as part of this Safety Evaluation.

8206000486 820602 PDRADOCK05000g F

DB-1 1)

February 11,1977 (No. 212) 6)

February 28,1979 (No. 486) 2)

January 11,1978 (No. 411)

7) May 15,1980 (No. 617)

3) September 9,1978 (No. 457)

8) March 19,1981 (No. 697)

4) September 25,1978 (No. 460)

9) April 29,1982 (No. 815)

5) November 25,1978 (No. 468)

The following NRR personnel have contributed to this Safety Evaluation Report:

John Ridg61y, Albert De Agazio.

Dated: June 2,1982 L