ML20059E905
| ML20059E905 | |
| Person / Time | |
|---|---|
| Site: | Davis Besse  |
| Issue date: | 12/30/1993 |
| From: | Office of Nuclear Reactor Regulation |
| To: | |
| Shared Package | |
| ML20059E904 | List: |
| References | |
| NUDOCS 9401130038 | |
| Download: ML20059E905 (3) | |
Text
o
![
jo,,
UNITED STATES NUCLE AR REGULATORY COMMISSION n
h WASHINGTON, D, C. 20555
,o SAFETY EVALUATION BY THE OFFICE OF NUCLEAR REACTOR REGULATION RELATED TO AM_ENDMENT NO. 184 TO FACILITY OPERATING LICENSE NO. NPF-3 TOLEDO EDIS0N COMPANY CENTERIOR SERVICE COMPANY AND THE CLEVELAND ELECTRIC ILLUMINATING COMPANY DAVIS-BESSE NUCLEAR POWER STATION. UNIT NO. 1 DOCKET NO. 50-346
1.0 INTRODUCTION
On August 31, 1992 (57 FR 39353), the Commission issued a revision to Title 10 of the Code of Federal Regulations, Section 50.36a (10 CFR 50.36a), " Technical Specifications on effluents from nuclear power reactors." The revised Rule changed the reporting requirements in Paragraph 50.36a(a)(2) to require that a radioactive effluent release report be submitted annually to report the types and quantities of radioactive effluents released during the previous 12 months.
The revised Rule became effective on October 1,1992. The Rule had previously required that reports be made semiannually (within 60 days of January 1 and July 1) and contain information concerning the previous 6 months of operation.
By letter dated May 6, 1993, Toledo Edison Company (the licensee) submitted a request to amend the Davis-Besse Nuclear Power Station Technical Specifications (TS) to change the reporting frequency of the Radioactive Effluent Release Report (RERR) from semiannual to annual.
In addition, the i
licensee proposed changes to clarify the reporting requirements and associated TS Bases concerning steam generator (SG) tube inspection results.
Finally, an editorial correction is also proposed regarding the definition of an SG tube inspection.
2.0 EVALUATION j
The licensee has proposed changes to the TS in order to implement the new requirements of 10 CFR 50.36a.
Specifically, the licensee proposes deleting the word " semiannual" from the TS for the RERR submittal frequency, and proposes the phrase "shall be submitted in accordance with 10 CFR 50.36a" to be included in TS 6.9.1.11 to govern the RERR submittal requirements. The NRC staff has reviewed the proposed changes and finds that they are in accordance with the ncw 10 CFR 50.36a, and are acceptable.
j i
9401130038 931230 PDR ADOCK 05000346 p
.o (g$ With regard to the SG reporting requirements, the licensee proposes to delete a reference to TS 6.9.1, delete Note 2 from TS Table 4.4-2, and revise the Category C-3 SG tube inspection reporting requirements to be in accordance with the new Babcock and Wilcox (B&W) Standard Technical Specifications (TS),
NUREG-1430, Revision 0.
TS 6.9.1 was previously amended (License Amendment No. 93) to remove the SG tube inspection reporting requirements. Therefore, deleting the reference to it is acceptable. Deletion of Note 2 from TS Table 4.4-2 does not result in any change to the SG tube inspection requirements, because Note 2 is redundant to other SG tube inspection requirements.
Therefore, the NRC staff finds deletion of Note 2 to be acceptable. Also, the licensee proposes changing the Category C-3 reporting requirements from
" Prompt notification to NRC pursuant to specification 6.9.1" to " Report to the NRC prior to resumption of plant operation." As previously discussed TS 6.9.1 no longer contains SG tube inspection requirements, so this TS needs to be changed. The proposed wording is consistent with the new B&W STS, and is acceptable.
Finally, a change is proposed for TS 4.4.5.2a.3 regarding SG tube inspections to change a TS reference from 4.4.5.4.a.8 to 4.4.5.4.a.9.
The change is editorial in nature, and is to correct the reference. Therefore, the charge is acceptable to the NRC staff.
The NRC staff has reviewed the proposed changes to the TS regarding RERP, reporting requirements, and SG tube inspection requirements.
Based on the above, the NRC staff finds the proposed changes to be acceptable.
3.0 STATE CONSULTATION
In accordance with the Commission's regulations, the Ohio State official was notified of the proposed issuance of the amendment. The State official had no comments.
4.0 ENVIRONMENTAL CONSIDERATION
This amendment changes a requirement with respect to installation or use of a facility component located within the restricted area as defined in 10 CFR Part 20 or changes a surveillance requirement. The staff has determined that the amendment involves no significant increase in the amounts, and no significant change in the types, of any effluents that may be released offsite, and that there is no significant increase in individual or cumulative occupational radi ion exposure. The Commission has previously issued a proposed finding that the amendment involves no significant hazards consid-eration and there has been no public comment on such finding (58 FR 34096).
Accordingly, the amendment meets the eligibility criteria for categorical exclusion set forth in 10 CFR 51.22(c)(9).
Pursuant to 10 CFR 51.22(b), no environmental impact statement or environmental assessment need be prepared in connection with the issuance of the amendment.
o I
Y
5.0 CONCLUSION
The staff has concluded, based on the considerations discussed above, that:
(1) there is reasonable assurance that the health and safety of the public will not be endangered by operation in the proposed manner, (2) such activities will be conducted in compliance with the Commission's regulations, and (3) the issuance of this amendment will not be inimical to the common defense and security or to the health and safety of the public.
Principal Contributor:
J. Hopkins Date:
December 30, 1993 l
1 l
,