ML20147C341

Safety Evaluation Re Amend 106 to License NPF-3

ML20147C341
Person / Time
Site:	Davis Besse
Issue date:	02/25/1988
From:	Office of Nuclear Reactor Regulation
To:
Shared Package
ML20147C333	List: ML20147C329 ML20147C341
References
NUDOCS 8803030056
Download: ML20147C341 (2)

Text

_ _ _ _ _ _ _ _.

aaseg n

jo, UNITED STATES j'

,e NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSION 3

'f wAsHiNoTON, D. C. 20555

\\ e..../

SAFETY EVALUATION BY THE OFFICE OF NUCLEAR REACTOR REGULATION RELATING TO AMENDMENT N0.106 TO FACILITY OPERATING LICENSE NO. NPF-3 TOLEDO EDISON COMPANY AND THE CLEVELAND ELECTRIC ILLUMINATING COMPANY DAVIS-BESSE NUCLEAR POWER STATION, UNIT NO. 1 DOCKET NO. 50-346

1.0 INTRODUCTION

i On May 20, 1987, Toledo Edison Company submitted an application for amendment of the Davis-Besse Nuclear Power Station Appendix A Technical Specifications (TS's)relatingtotheDavis-Bessefireprotectionprogram. The staff reviewed that proposed amendment but expressed certain concerns and raised e

several questions regarding Toledo Edison Company's approach to a number of issues.

A significant issue concerned Toledo Edison Corrpany's proposal to remove from the TS-required surveillance those fire protection features that are necessary to conform with Toledo Edison Company's commitments to comply with the guidelines contained in Appendix A to Cranch Technical Position APCSB 9.5-1.

Toledo Edison Company submitted a revised (and reduced scope) application dated December 7,1987. This revised application concerns fire barriers, fire brigade training and related issues.

When Toledo Edison Company submitted the revised application, the connitment j

was made to implement the reconnendations contained in Generic Letter 86-10 concerning removal of fire protection matters from the technical specifications.

~

This amendment is, therefore, one step toward eventuai anformance with G.L.

86-10. The staff's evaluatiun of this amendment is a's tollo%

i 2.0 DISCUSSION Toledo Edison Company has characterized the changes to the technical specifica-tions as being either administrative in nature, including more stringent require-ments, or reflecting actual plant design.

f' l

8803030056 080225 i

DR ADOCK 05000346 i

PDR

~

2 Examples of the administrative changes include refonnatting the Action Statements and Surveillance Requirements and clarification of specific equipment addressed by the proposed TS's.

Examples of the more stringent requirements include the addition of Action Statements and Surveillance Requirements. Examples of changes that reflect the actual plant design and fire protection program include defining inaccessible equipment and revising the scope of the TS s to address safe shutdown equipment required in the event of a fire.

3.0 EVALUATION The staff has reviewed specifically all proposed changes. Those changes that are administrative in nature will resolve certain ambiguities that are present in the existing technical specification and are, therefore, acceptable.

'The remaining changes, which are of a technical nature, are consistent with provisions of the standard technical specifications or past precedent. These changes conform with the guidance issued in Appendix A to BTP APCSB and are, therefore, acceptable.

4.0 ENVIRONMEATAL CONSIDERATION An Environmental Assessrent and Finding of No Significant Impact has been issued for this Amendment (53 FR 5061, February 19,1988).

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, and (2) 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.

Principal Contributor:

D. Kubicki Dated: February 25, 1988

.