ML20076N307

Application for Amend to License NPF-3,revising Tech Specs Re Operability Requirements of DHR Sys in Mode 3,revs to Radiological Effluent Tech Specs & Rev to Table 4.11-1

ML20076N307
Person / Time
Site:	Davis Besse
Issue date:	07/13/1983
From:	Crouse R TOLEDO EDISON CO.
To:
Shared Package
ML20076N293	List: ML20076N286 ML20076N307 ML20076N315
References
TAC-52416, NUDOCS 8307210309
Download: ML20076N307 (4)

Text

5: .

APPLICATION FOR AMEND!!ENT TO FACILITY OPERATING LICENSE NO. NPF-3 FOR DAVIS-BESSE NUCLEAR POWER STATION UNIT NO. 1 Enclosed are forty-three (43) copies of the requested changes to the Davis-Besse Nuclear Power Station Unit No. 1 Facility Operating License No. NPF-3, together with the Safety Evaluation for the requested change.

The proposed changes includes:

1. Section 3.4.1.2 and Bases

2. Revisions to the Radiological Effluent Technical Specifications By /s/ R. P. Crouse Vice President, Nuclear Sworn and subscribed before me this' 13th . day of July, 1983.

/s/ Nora Lynn Flood Notary Public , State 01 Ohio My Commission expires September 1, 1987.

S'E A L s

i 8307210309 830713 i PDR ADOCK 05000346 1.,uP , _ _ .PDR__ _

-+ .-

Docket No. 50-346 License No. NPF-3 Serial No. 967 <

' July 13, 1983' Attachment 1 I. Changes to Davis-Besse' Nuclear Power Station Unit 1, Appendix A Technical Specifications Section 3.4.1.2 and Bases A. Time required to Implement. 'dhis change is to be effective upon NRC approval.

B. Reason for Change (Facility Change Request 8J-051 Rev. B).

_ In response to a letter from Mr. J. Stolz dated February 1,

.1983, (Log No. 1203)

C. Safety Evaluation (See Attached)'

D. Significant Hazards Considerations (See Attached) f l

l 5

['-

l.

% 'h 1 y ' -

y w -

-- _ . _ _ . = . .- - _ _. - ___. . .-

• 4 i

l SAFETY EVALUATION i

This amendment request revises the Technical Specification Section 3.4.1.2.

" limiting conditions for operation" and bases Section 3/4.4.1 for. Reactor

i. Coolant System (RCS). These sections describes the requirements for the operability of.the four coolant loops [(1) Reactor coolant Loop 1 and associated steam generator, (2) Reactor coolant Loop 2 and associated

! steam generator (3) Decay heat removal Loop 1 and (4) Decay haat removal Loop 2] to remove the decay heat.

l The safety function for the reactor coolant system and the decay heat removal system (DHRS) is to collectively provide heat sinks for the reactor core in all operational modes (Modes 1 through 6).

Per existing technical specification, Section 3.4.1.2, the decay heat

. removal (DHR) redundancy in Modes 3, 4 and 5 is assured by the operability of any two of the four coolant loops. However, in Mode 3, RCS pressure i- and temperature can exceed the design conditions of the DHRS, as a result, the DHR redundancy may not be assured. DHRS can only operate without violating it's design pressure and temperature conditions i.e. RCS pressure and temperature less than 330 psig and 350*F respectively. The proposed change revises the Specification 3.4.1.2 so that the DHR redundancy is maintained and the safety functions of the RCS or DHR have not been degraded.

Therefore, it is concluded that there is no unreviewed safety question.

i J

l I

I-

SIGNIFICANT HAZARD CONSIDERATION The attached amendment request for a change to the " Limiting Condition for Operation" does not contain a Significant Hazard. The amendment request is placing a restriction on the operability of the Decay Heat Removal System (DHR) in Mode 3. This restriction is necessary to prevent potential daumge to the DHR system due to exceeding the design pressure and temperature. This restriction would ensure the operability of the DHR system within the design limits to remove decay heat in Mode 3 and Modes 4 and 5.

The granting of this request would not: ,

1) Involve a significant increase in the probability or consequences of an accident previous 1.y evaluated (10CFR50.92(C)(1)

This request would reduce the probability of an accident by placing DHR in operation below the system design limits assumed in the accident analysis.

2) Create the possibility of a new or different kind of an accident previously evaluated. (10CFR50.92(C)(2)

This request would maintain all accident analysis within all previously evaluated limits.

3) Involve a significant reduction in a margin of safety.

(10CFR50.92(C)(3)

This request will maintain the margins assumed.in the accident analysis.

Therefore, based on the attached safety evaluation and the above, the requested amendment does not contain a Significant Hazard.

i a