ML20071C558
| ML20071C558 | |
| Person / Time | |
|---|---|
| Site: | Davis Besse  |
| Issue date: | 02/17/1983 |
| From: | Office of Nuclear Reactor Regulation |
| To: | |
| Shared Package | |
| ML20071C556 | List: |
| References | |
| NUDOCS 8303020397 | |
| Download: ML20071C558 (2) | |
Text
-
- pse recy,e'o UNITED STATES g g" ',,j
! 'j 3 c. (, g NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSION WASHINGTON, D. C. 20555 g;..v /
SAFETY EVALUATION BY THE OFFICE OF NUCLEAR REACTOR REGULATION SUPPORTING AMENDMENT NO. 53 TO FACILITY OPERATING LICENSE NO. NPF-3_
TOLEDO EDISON COMPANY AND gQ;t.AND ELECTRIC ILLUMINATING COMPANY DAVIS-BESSE NUCLEAR POWER STATION, UNIT 1 DOCKET NO. 50-346 Introduction By letter dated January 10, 1982, Toledo Edison Company (the licensec) proposed an amendment to Facility Operating License No. NPF-3. The subject change involves Table 3.7-3 of the Technical Specifications for Luis-Besse. The licensee has proposed to delete safety-related snubber 333-GCB-4-H5 from the table.
Discussion There are basically two types of piping seismic restraints. Rigid restraints are normally used; however, for piping systems that have excessive thermal displacements, snutbers are' applied to permit essentially free piping movement ar.d to assure lock up during a seismic or other dynamic transient event.
Evaluation The licensee's proposed replacement of snubber 33A-GCB-4-HS, listed in Table 3.7-3 of the Technical Recifications, was as a result of the IE Bulletin 79-14 reevaluation of the seirmic analysis for safety-related piping. The NRC Region III evaluation of the licensee's IE Bulletin 79-14 program found no significant deficiencies. The repla:cment of a snubber with a rigid restraint is considered to be technically sound since the rigid restraint has structural stiffness equal to or better than the snubber and requires little or no operational maintenance. The licensee has confirmed, by letter dated October 28,1982 (No. 871), that the evaluations supporting replacement of the snubber with a sway strut and computer codes used in the analysis conform to the original design criteria.
er '
0303020397 830217 PDR ADOCK 05000346 p
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 maos this determination, we have further concluded that the amendment involves an action which is insignificant from the standpoint of e'nvironmente.1 impact and, pursuant to 10 CFR 51.5(d)(4),
that an environn3ntal impact statement, or negative declaration and environ-mental impact appraisal need not be prepared in connection with the issuance of this ancndment.
' Conclusion We have concluded, based on the considerations discussed above, that: (1) because the amendment does not involve a significant increase in the probability or consequences of an accident previou21y evaluated, does not create the possibility of an accident of a type different from any evaluated previously, and does not involve a significant reduction in a margin of safety, the amend-ment 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 Commission's regulations and the issuance of this amendment will not be inimical to the common defense and security or to the ~ health and safety of the public.
Dated February 17, 1983 The following NRC personnel have contributed to this Safety Evaluation:
K. R. Ridgway T. N. Tambling I. T. Yin i
I
(
i
., - - -,. -