ML20237F755

Application for Amend to License NPF-3,modifying License Condition 2.F.(1) & Deleting Remaining Content of App B of Environ Tech Specs

ML20237F755
Person / Time
Site:	Davis Besse
Issue date:	08/06/1987
From:	Shelton D TOLEDO EDISON CO.
To:
Shared Package
ML20237F750	List: ML20237F748 ML20237F755 ML20237F766
References
1371, NUDOCS 8708130150
Download: ML20237F755 (15)

Text

__

Docket No. 50-346 License No. NPF Serial No. 1371 Enclosure Page 1 APPLICATION FOR AMENDMENT TO FACILITY. OPERATING LICENSE NO. NPF-3 FOR DAVIS-BESSE NUCLEAR POWER STATION UNIT NO. 1 Attached are the requested changes to the Davis-Besse Nuclear Power Station, Unit No. 1 Facility Operating License No. NPF-3. Also included are the Safety Evalvation and Significant Hazards Consideration.

The proposed changes (submitted under cover letter Serial No. 1371)  ;

concern: I License Condition 2.F.(1);

Appendix B, Table of Contents; Appendix B, Section 1.0, Definitions; Appendix B, Section 3.0, Environmental Surveillance, Specification 3.1, Non-Radiological Surveillance; Appendix B. Section 4.0, Special Surveillance and Ssudy Activities, Speci-fication 4.1, Operational Noise Surveillance; Appendix B, Section 5.0, Administrative Controls, Specification 5.1, Review and Audit; Appendix B, Section 5.0, Administrative Controls, Specification 5.2, Action to be Ter.3n in the Event of Violation of an Environ-mental Technical Specification; Appendix B, Section 5.0, Administrative Controls, Specification 5.3, Operating Procedures; Appendix B. Section 5.0, Administrative Controls, Specification 5.4, Unit Reporting Requirements; and Appendix B, Section 5.0, Administrative Contro Specification 5.5, Records Retention.

By D. C. Shelton, Vice President, Nuclear Sworn to and subscribed before me this 6th day of August, 1987.

-(2/ b NotaYy Public, State of Ohio My commission expires /f[9/

h ifDOCK0150 P 870006 05000346 PDR

I p

-Docket No. 50-346

. License No. NPF-3 Serial No.11371:

Enclosure Page 2 The follouing information is provided to support issuance of the requested changes to the Davis-Besse Nuclear Power Station Unit No. 1, Operating License No. NP/-3, Condition 2.F. (1), and Appendix B, Environmental .

Technical Specifications, Table of Contents.and Sections - 1.0, 3.1. 4.1, 5.2, 5.3, 5.4 and 5.5:

~

'A. Time requ1 red to impicment: This change is to be effective 14 days r.fter NRC issuance of the License Amendment.

B .- ' Reason for change'(Facility Change Request No. 87-0113): . The proposed changes reflect completion of the remaining actions required by Appendix B.

C. Safety Evaluation: See attached Safety Evaluation (Attachment 1)..

D. Significant Hazards Consideration: See attached Significant Hazards Consideration-(Attachment 2).

E. . Evaluation of _ Environmental Impact: See attached Environmental Impact (Attachment 3).

F. Cost-3enefit Analysis: See attached Cost-Benefit Analysis (Attachment 4).

Docket No. 50-346 License No. NPF-3 Serial No. 1371 Page 1 SAFETY EVALUATION INTRODUCTION' The purpose of this safety evaluation is to review proposed changes to the Davis-Besse Nuclear Power Station (DBNPS), 11 nit No. 1 Operating License, Appendix B (Environmental Technical Specifications), as described in FCR 87-0113, Revision 0: Deletion of Remaining Environmental Technical Specifi-cations. This safety evaluation is being performed to meet the requirements of 10CFR50.59 'o ensure no unreviewed safety questions exist with the proposed changes.

The Davis-Besse Nuclear Power Station, Unit No. 1 Operating License, Appendix B, Environmental Technical Specifications, contains requirements for non-radiological environmental studies and monitoring. Radiological environmental monitoring requirements were previously deleted from Appendix B and incorporated into Appendix A by License Amendment No. 86. Aquatic monitoring requirements were previously deleted from Appendix B by License Amendment No.-55.

The proposed license amendment request modifies License Condition 2.F.(1) to delete reference to the Environmental Technical Specifications which are deleted by this proposed amendment. It also deletes all remaining sections of Appendix B.

SYSTEMS AFFECTED These changes a e limited to program requirements. No systems are affected.

FUNCTIONS OF SYSTEMS AFFECTED These changes are limited to program requirements. No systems are affected.

REFERENCES

1. Davis-Besse Nuclear Power Station, Unit No. 1 Operating License, Appendix A: Technical Specificaticus.

2. Davis-Besse Nuclear Power Station, Unit No. 1 Operating License, Appendix B, Environmental Technical Specifications.

3. Serial No. 643, Toledo Edison letter, R. P. Crouse to R. N. Reid, dated August 22, 1980. ,

l

I ,

+

2 Docket No./50-346 License No. NPF-3 Serial No. 1371

' Attachment 1 Page-2

4. Lag No. 696, Nuclear Regulatory Commission letter, W. S. Little to R. P.'Crouse, dated April 4, 1981.

5.. Serial No. 973, Toledo Edison letter, R. P. Crouse to J.-F. Stolz, dated July 22, 1993.

6. Serial No. 619, Toledo Edison letter, R. P. Crouse to R. N. Reid, dated June 13, 1980.

~

7. Log No. 1163, Nuclear Regulatory Commission lettor, J. F. Stolz to R. P. Crouse,. dated December 21, 1982.

8. Log No. 1241, Amendment No. 55 to Facility Operating License No.

NPF-3, dated March 11, 1983.

9. Log No. 1781, Amendment No. 86 to Facility Opercting License No.

NPF-3, dated July 2, 1985.

' EFFECTS ON SAFETY I

The program requirements addressed herein determine the possible environ-mental impacts of plant operation. The prograns have been completed and the environmental impacts determined to be negligible. There is no impact on the continued safety of Davis-Besse Nuclear Power Station by deleting these program requirements. The following is a discussion of each section that is being deleted from Appendix B (Environmental Technical Specifications):

Table of Contents-(pages i and 11), List of Tables (page iii) and List of Figures (page iv) should be revised to reflect elimination of Appendix B in its entirety.'

1.0 DEFINITIONS The sections utilizing the defined terms are deleted by this proposed change, therefore, the definitions may also be deleted.

2.0 LIMITING CONDITIONS FOR OPERATION Previously deleted.

3.0 ENVIRONMENTAL SURVEILLANCE 3.1 Non-radiological _ Surveillance (page 3.1-1)

I 1

Section 3.1 requires that a terrestrial environmental monitoring  ;

program be performed over approximately the first two years of unit j operation. All but two e.lements of the terrestrial environmental )

l

1 Docket No. 50-346 License No. NPF-3 Serial No. 1371 Attachment 1 Page 3 monitortug program have been previously deleted from Section 3.1.

The remaining elements of the program were to monitor bird collisions with the cooling tower, to perform aerial vegetation surveys, and to implement a less intensive program for the life of the unit.

Results of the bird collision monitoring identified in Section 3.1.2.b.1 were summarized in a report entitled " Cooling Towers as Obstacles in Bird Migrations", dated November 15, 1979. This report was forwarded to the NRC in Serial No. 643, dated August 22, 1980.

The report demonstrated that there had been no significant adverse effect on bird populations, either local or migratory, due to the presence of the cooling tower and other site structures.

NRC's letter dated April 14, 1981 (Log No. 696) concurred with Toledo Edison's assessment that there had "been no significant adverse effect on bird populations due to the cooling tower and other site structures". The NRC concluded 'be will require no further monitoring in this regard". Therefore, bird collision monitoring has been discontinued at Davis-Besse and this request proposes that the now satisfied requirements be deleted from Appendix B.

Another remaining element of the terrestrial environmental monitoring in Section 3.1 is performance of vegetation surveys to detect changes in the composition, aerial extent and general health of vegetation cover types. This element was addressed by studies conducted over a seven year period by Bowling Green State University.

A report summarizing these studies was submitted to the NRC in a letter dated July 22, 1983 (Serial No. 973). The report concluded that no direct effects upon vegetation or ccmmunity succession have been detected as a result of cooling tower operation. The report also recommended deletion of further vegetation monitoring.

Upon completion of the initial monitoring program, Section 3.1 requires that a less intensive program be implemented to " maintain a check on the unit's non-radiological impact for the life of the unit." The details of this continuing program were to be determined based upon analysis of the first two years data. The on-going program was anticipated to oe simi7ar to that described in subsec-tions of Section 3.1, but reduced in frequency and intensity.

Initially, Section 3.1 included both aquatic and terrestrial monitoring requirements. License Amendment No. 55 deleted the aquatic requirements and noted that the NRC would rely on the EPA and/or state agencies responsible for regulating these matters under the Clean Water Act for water quality related matters. Thus, only the terrestrial monitoring requirements discussed above remain in Section 3.1.

' Docket No. 50-346 License No. NPF-3' Serial No. 1371 Attachment 1 Page 4 Based on the bird collision monitoring report, the NRC concluded that no further bird collision monitoring is required (Log No. 696 dated April 14, 1981).- Similarly, the vegetation survey report justifies the deletion of further vegetation studies. With the deletion of aquatic monitoring requirements from Section 3.1, analysis of the data trom the initial program supports no continued monitoring '

program. Toledo Edison will continue to be obligated to comply with the comprehensive environmental menitoring incorporated in the Appendix A Te:hnical Specifications and the conditions for protection-

.of the environment in Section 2.F.(1) of the Operating Licensr.

Therefore,.this amendment proposes deletion of the remaining require-ments in Section 3.1.

3.2 (Previously deleted) 4.0 SPECIAL SURVEILLANCE AND STUDY ACTIVITIES (page 4.1-1) 4.1 Operational Noise Surveillance Monitoring results of the Davis-Besse Operational Noise Surveillance Prcgram were initially submitted to the NRC via Toledo Edison letter dated June 13, 1980 (Serial No. 619).

NRC comments on'the monitoring results were forwarded to Toledo Edison via NRC letter dated December 21, 1982 (Log No. 1163). Toledo Edison responded to these comments with a report entitled " Environmental Noise Impact of the Davis-Besse Nuclear Power Station" dated July 1983. This report was submitted to the NRC via Toledo Edison letter dated July 22, 1983 (Serial No. 973). This study demonstrated that operation of Davis-Besse has had little or no impact on noise levels surrounding the plant. As this study has been completed, this requirement may be deleted from Appendix B.

4.2^ (Previously deleted) 4.3 (Previously deleted)

~0 ADMINISTRATIVE CONTROLS (page 5.1-1) 5.1- These sections cover the responsibilities of on-site and off-site 5.5 review committees, quality assurance, procedures, reporting require-ments, records retention, etc., which support implementation of the technical requirements of Appendix B. As all of the technical requirements have been fulfilled or previously removed from. Appendix B, the administrative sections should be deleted. Changes to the plant or procedures that may increase the environmental impact as evaluated in the Final Environmental Statement must be reported in accordance with License Condition 2.F. (1) . Therefore, the adminis-trative sections of Appendix B are no longer required and may be

l Docket No. 50-346 '

License No. NPF-3  ;

Serial No. 1371 l Attachment 1 Page 5 j i

deleted. Administrative Controls applicable to Radiological Environ-mental Technical Specifications are now included in Section 6.0 of Appendix A and have been previously reviewed and approved by the NRC.

UNREVIEWED SAFETY QUESTION EVALUATION The originally issued Appendix B, Environmental Technical Specifications contained studies, surveillance, limiting conditions for operation and  ;

monitoring requirements. On March 11, 1983, the NRC issued Amendment No. 55 which deleted requirements to protect the aquatic environment in deference to the National PolJutant Discharge Elimination System (NPDES) i permit. Requirements applicable to radioactive effluents have been incorporated into the Appendix A Technical Specifications in accordance with 10CFR50 Appendix I by Amendment No. 86, effective October 30, 1985.

The few requirements remaining in Appendix B have been addressed by studies previously submitted to the NRC. As all one-time studies have been completed with acceptable results and the analysis of results indicated no need for continued terrestrial monitoring, the require- -;

ments in Appendix B have been satisfied and may therefore be deleted.

-The proposed changes reflect completion of required actions and are, therefore, administrative in nature. Implementation of these changes would not:

1. Increase the probability of occurrence or the consequences of an accident or malfunction of equipment important to safety previously evaluated in the safety analysis report (10CFR50.59 (2) (1)) .

The proposed changes are administrative in nature and have no impset on the probability of occurrence or the consequences of an accident or malfunction of equipment previcasly evaluated.

2. Create the possibility for an accident or malfunction of a different type than any evaluated previously in the safety cualysis report (10CFR50.59 (2) (ii)) .

Tne proposed changes involve no accident or malfunction scenario.

On matters related to nuclear safety, all accidents are bounded by previous analysis and no new accident possibilities are created.

3. Reduce the margin of safety as defined in the basis for any Technical Specification (10CFR50.59(2)(111)) .

The proposed changes are administra'_ve and do not affect the margin of safety as defined in the basis for any Technical Specification.

l l

__ ______________O

~ Docket No.-50-346 License No. NPF-3 Serial No. 1371 Attachment 1 Page 6 l CONCLUSION It has been determined that deletion of the remaining requirements in the Davis-Besse Nuclear Power Station Operating License, Appendix B, Environ-mental Technical Specifications does not involve an unreviewed safety question.

I j

1

l l Docket No.' 50-346' b '. ' License No. NPF-3

Serial No. 1371 Attachment 2 LPage-1

'l L SIGNIFICANT HAZARDS CONSIDERATION h

INTRODUCTION. 'j L .The purpose of this significant hazards consideration is to review proposed l changes to the Davis-Besse Nuclear. Power Station-(DBNPS),-Unit No. 1 Operating h , License, Appendix B-(Environmental Technical Specifications), as described

.in:FCR 87-0113, Revision 0: Deletion of Remaining Environmental Technical Specifications. This evaluation is being performed.to. meet the requirements of 10CFR50.92 to' ensure no significant hazards exist due to the' proposed l changes.

'The Davis-Besse Nuclear Power' Station, Unit No, 1 Operating License, Appendix B, Environmental Technical Specifications, contain' requirements-for non-radiological environmental studies and monitoring. Radiological environmental monitoring requirements were previously deleted from Appendix B and incorporated into Appendix A by License Amendment No. 86. Aquatic monitoring requirements were previously deleted from Appendix B by License Amendment.No. 55.

The proposed license amendment request deletes all remaining sections of Appendix B and modifies License Condition 2.F. (1) to delete reference' to the Environmental Technical Specifications.

SYSTEMS AFFECTED These changes are limited to. program requirements. No systems are affected.

'. FUNCTIONS OF SYSTEMS AFFECTED These changes are limited to program requirements. No systems are i dffected.  !

REFERENCES

.1. . Davis-Besse Nuclear Power Station, Unit No. 1 Operating License, Appendix A,. Technical Specifications.

2. -Davis-Besse Nuclear Power Station, Unit No. 1 Operating License, j Appendix B, Environmental Technical Specifications. i

3. Serial No. 643, Toledo Edison letter, R. P. Crouse to R. N. Reid, dated August. 22, 1980.

l l

1

Docket No. 50-346 I License No. NPF-3 Serial No. 1371 i Attachment 2 Page 2 l

4. Log No. 696, Nuclear Regulatory Commission letter, W. S. Little to l R. P. Crouse, dated April 4, 1981.

5. Serial No. 973, Toledo Edison letter, R. P. Crouse to J. F. Stolz, i dated July 22, 1983.

6. Serfal No. 619, Toledo Edison letter, R. P. Crouse to R. N. Reid, dated June 13, 1980.

7. Log No. 1163, Nuclear Regulatory Commission letter, J. F. Stolz to R. P. Crouse, dated December 21, 1982.

8. Log No.1241, Amendment No. 55 to Facility Operating License No.

NPF-3, dated March 11, 1983.

9. Log No. 1781, Amendment No. 86 to Facility Operating License No.

NPF-3, dated July 2, 1985.

EFFECTS ON SAFETY The program requirements addressed herein determine the possible environ-mental impacts of plant operation. The programs have been completed and the environmental impacts determined to be negligible. There is no impact on the continued safety of Davis-Besse Nuclear Powe e Station by deleting these program requirements. The following is a discussion of each section that is being deleted from Appendix B (Environmental Technical Specifications):

Table of Contents (pages i and 11), List of Tables (page iii) and List of Figures (page iv) should be revised to reflect elimination of Appendix B in its entirety, 1.0 DEFINITIONS The sections utilizing the defined terms are deleted by this proposed change, therefore, the definitions may also be deleted.

2.0 LIMITING CONDITIONS FOR OPERATION Previously deleted.

3.0 EbVTRONMENTAL SURVEILLANCE 3.1 Non-radiological Surveillance (page 3.1-1)

Section 3.1 requires that a terrestrial environmental monitoring program be performed over approximately the first two yearc cf unit operation. All but two elements of the terrestrial environmental

-Docket No, 150-346 License No'NPF-3 Serial No. 1371

-Attachment 2

-Page 3 monitoring program have been previously deleted from Section 3.1.

The remaining eletants of the program were to monitor bird collisions with the cooling tower,.to perform aerial vegetation serveys, and to

. implement a less intensive program for the life of the unit.

Results of the' bird collision monitoring identified in Section 3.1.2.b.1 were summarized in a report entitled " Cooling Towers as Obstacles in' Bird. Migrations", dated November 15, 1979. This report was forwarded to the NRC in. Serial No. 643, dated August 22, 1980.

The report demonstrated that there had been no significant adverse effect on bird populations, either local or migratory, due to the presence of.the cooling tower and other site structures.

NRC's letter dated April 14,1981 (Log No. 696) concurred with Toledo Edison's-assessment that there had "been no significant adverse effect on bird. populations due to the cooling tower and other site structures". The NRC concluded'"we will require no further monitoring in this regard". Therefore, bird collision monitoring has been discontinued at Davis-Besse and this request proposes that the now satisfied requirements be deleted.from Appendix B.

Another remaining element of the terrestrial environmental monitoring in Section 3.1 is performance of vegetation surveys to detect changes in the composition, aerial extent and general health of vegetation cover types. This element was addressed by studies conducted over a seven year period by Bowling Green State University.

A report. summarizing these studies was submitted to the NRC in a letter dated July 22, 1983 (Serial No. 973). The report concluded that no direct effects upon vegetation or community succession have been detected as a result of cooling taver operation. The report also recommended deletion of further vegetation monitoring.

Upon completion of the initial monitoring program, Section 3.1 requires that a less intensive program be implemented to " maintain a check on the unit's non-radiological impact for the life of the

< unit '. " ' The details of this ecstinuing program were to be determined based upon analysis of the first two years data. The on-going

, program was anticipated to be similar to that described in subsec-tions of Section 3.1, but reduced in frequency and intensity.

Initially, Section 3.1 included both aquatic and terrestrial monitoring requirements. License Amendment No. 55 deleted the aquatic requirements and noted that the NRC would rely on the EPA and/or state agencies responsible for regulating these matters under the Clean Water Act for water quality related matters. Thus, only the terrestrial monitoring requirements discussed above remain in Section 3.1.

l Docket No. 50-346 License No. NPF-3 Serial No. 1371 Attachment 2 Page 4 Based on the bird collision monitoring report, the NRC concluded that no further bird collision monitoring is required (Log No. 696 dated

' April 14, 1981). Similarly, the vegetation survey report justifies the deletion of further vegetation studies. With the deletion of aquatic monitoring requirements from Section 3.1, analysis of the data from the initial program supports no continued monitoring program. Toledo Edison will continue to be obligated to comply with the comprehensive environmental monitoring incorporated in the Appendix A Technical Specifications and the conditions for protection of the environment in Seccion 2.F.(1) of the Operating License.

Therefore, this amendment proposes deletion of the remaining require-ments in Section 3.1.

3.2 (Previously deleted) 4.0 SPECIAL SURVEILLANCE AND STUDY ACTIVITIES (page 4.1-1) 4.1 Operational Noise Surveillance Monitoring results of the Davis-Besse Operational Noise Surveillance Program were initially submitted to the NRC via Toledo Edison letter dated June 13, 1980 (Serial No. 619).

NRC comments on the monitoring results were forwarded to Toledo Edison via NRC letter dated December 21,'1982 (Log No. 1163). Toledo Edison responded to these comments with a report entitled " Environmental Noise Impact of the Davis-Besse Nuclear Power Station" dated July 1983. This report was submitted to the NRC via Toledo Edison letter dated July 22, 1983 (Serial No. 973). This study demonstrated that operation of Davis-Besse has had little or no impact on noise levels surrounding the plant. As this study has been completed, this requirement may be deleted from Appendix 3.

4.2 (Previously deleted) 4.3 (Previously deleted) 5.0 ADMINISTRATIVE CONTROLS (page 5.1-1) 5.1- These sections cover the responsibilities of on-site and off-site 5.5 review committees, quality assurance, procedures, raporting require-ments, records retention, etc., which support implementation of the technica1 requirements of Appendix B. As all of the technical requirements have been fulfilled or previously removed from Appendix B, the administrative sections should be deleted. Changes to the plant or procedures that may increase the environmental impact as evaluated in the Final Environmental Statement must be reported in accordance with License Condition 2.F. (1) . Therefore, the adminis-trative sections of Appendix B are no longer required and may be

4 Docket No. 50-346

. License No. NPF-3 Serial.No.11371 Attachment 2'-

Page 5!

deleted.- Administrative Controls applicable to Radiological Environ-

. mental Technical Specifications are now included in Section 6.0 of Appendix A and have been previously review (d and approved by the NRC.. {

SIGNIFICANT HAZARDS CONSIDERATION-l The proposed change does not involve a significant hazards consideration

.because. operation of Davis-Besse, Unit No. 1,~1n accordance with this change'would not:

1. Involve a significant increase in the probability or consequences of an accident' previously evaluated' (10CFR50.92(c)(1)) .

p-The proposed change is administrative and will not affect the

= probability or consequences of an accident previously evaluated.

2.- Create the possibility of a new or different kind of accident from any previously evaluated-(10CFR50.92(c)(2)).

The proposed change does not affect any of the assumptions used in previous accident evaluations. All accidents continue to be bounded by' previous analysis and deletion of satisfied environmental technical specification requirements will not introduce the .j possibility of any new or different kind of accident.

3. . Involve a significant reduction. in a margin of safety (10CFR50.92(c)(3)) .

The.ptoposed deletion of satisfied requirements involves no reduction in a margin of safety.

CONCLUSION On the basis of the above, Toledo Edison has determined that the amendment request does not involve a significant hazards consideration.

I

Dockst No. 50-346 License No. NPF-3 l Serial No. 1371 Attachment 3 Page 1 q EVALUATION l 0F ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT Pursuant to Appendix B, Environmental Technical Specification 5.4.3.B. )

the following evaluation of environmental impact has been prepared: '

The original issued Appendix B, Environmental Technical Specifications contained studies, surveillance, limiting conditions for operation and monitoring requirements. On March 11, 1983, the NRC issued Amendment No. 55 which deleted requirements to protect the aquatic environmental in deference to the National Pollutant Discharge Elimination System (NPDES) permit. Requirements applicable to radioactive effluents were incorporated into the Appendix A, Technical Specifications in accordance with 10CFR50, Appendix I, by Amendment No. 86, effective October 30, 1985.

The few requirements remaining in Appendix B have been addressed by studies previously submitted to the NRC. As all one-time studies have been completed with acceptable results and analysis of results indicated no need for continued terrestrial monitoring, the requirements in Appendix B have been satisfied and may therefore be deleted.

The proposed changes reflect completion of required actions and are, therefore, administrative in nature. The changes involve no increase in the types or amounts of any effluents that may be released offsite and no increase in individual or cumulative radiation exposure. On the above basis, Toledo Edison has determined that the proposed changes will have no significant environmental impact.

Docket No.-50-346 l License No. NPF-3 Serial No. 1371 Attachment 4 i Page 1 COST-BENEFIT ANALYSIS Pursuant te Appendix B, Environmental Technical Specification 5.4.3.B.

the following cost-benefit analysis has been prepared:

The proposed License Amendment Request is to delete the remaining sections of the Davis-Besse Technical Specifications, Appendix B. The requirements that currently remain in Appendix B have been addressed by studies previously submitted to the NRC. As these one-time studies have 4 been completed with acceptable results and analysis of the results indicated that no further monitoring is required, the requirements in Appendix B have been satisfied and may be deleted. Because all required actions have been previously completed and indicate no further studies are required, the cost to maintain compliance with Appendix B is negligible. The cost savings associated with deleting requirements which have'been met and require no further actions are also negligible.

Deletion of Appendix B would reduce the amount of programmatic and  ;

administrative cognizance necessary to maintain it. This change would also delete completed requirements from the Davis-Besse Technical Speci-fications.

Based on the above, Toledo Edison has determined that while the resulting i costs are negligible, there are benefits associated with the proposed deletion of the Davis-Besse Technical Specifications, Appendix B.

i 1 l l

}

l

6pa *t cs

,4 d, i UNIT ED $T/.T LS

. , , . ,, Sc.

flVCLE AR REGULATORY COMt j< , %,

.( , . ,7,

.,e. j W ASH:NG T ON, 0, c. 20555 o a t ,unx. ,; /

i APR 2 31977

+...*

Dxket ib. 50-346 l,& y Toledo Edison Company ca Wapsp g sm kgplld%89dfihhqugggey.cy ,

A'ITd: Mr. Lowell E. P.oe Vice President, Facilities Developwnt F;lison Plaza .

300 :'idisc7 Avenue Toledo, Onio 43652 Cont 3em?n:

SU~i)ECT: ISSUASCE OF FrILITi 0???ATI.':3 LICEc.on. nu. tar .4 FOR DAVIS-i! ESSE NUCLEAR P'/.'.ER SI'ATICA, Uci1T ::0.1 The Nuclear Pagulatory Comission (the COTaission) has issued the enclosed Facility Operating Licence I:o. NFF-3 incluf.ing Technical Specifications ( App?ndices A and 8) to the Toledo Edison Cosapany and the Cleveland Electric I]1cainating Ccapany, for the Davis-Besse 140 clear Powr stat ion, Unit ::c.1,1.ccted in Otta. . County, Onio.

License D. NPF-3 authorizes Toledo Edison Ccapany to opecte tne Davis-Besse liaclear Poster Stat icn, C. Tit .:3. I si: 772 megc. carts thermal in acccrdaice with tne Technicai Specif a.aticnc ( App?ndicts A and B, Attach.Tnnt 3 ) of the license.

However, the operation of the faci)ity is temporori)y restricted to the segaenet: of ocorational .cdes described in Attach.r.ent 2 to the license until the preoperatien33 tests, startup tests and other items noted in Attac.%:ent 2 are ecmpleted to the written satisfaction of the Coranission.

l In addition, the 'Ibledo Edison Company is temporarily li::ited by one l of the conditions in the license to operat.ing the facility in a hot I standby mcde until further Cocnission approval has been granted by an amendment to tne 1icense related to the precsure closure setting l of t_he decay heat re aoval system isolation valves, i The license also contains cther condiiicns that impose licitatiens on the plant o; erat ions and reqJire sCecial repCrts and/or modifi-cations to be completed cy stated time per icds tol]o, vin; the issuance 1 of the license. The rezcval of these conditions will t.e marie by an l amend. Tent to the license sup;crted by a favorable evaluat ion by i the Cor:wission of the reror ts succitted and/or miifications made i to the plant. l

l T

AP 2 gj L

'Ibledo Edison Company -2 l In accordance with the Commission's March 14, 1977 issuance of an effective interim rule re;:arding the environmental considerations of the uraniu:n fuel cycle (42 F.R.13803), the staff has determined in the enclosed Environmental Assessment that the use of the revised Table S-3 of 10 CFR Part 51 does not tilt the cost-benefit balance for this facility so as to change the staff's original conclusion to issue an operating 1icense presented in the Final Enviroruaental Statement related to operation of the Davis-Besse Nuclear Power Station, Unit 1 (October 1975).

Also enclosed are copies of the Ibtice of Issuance of License No.

NPF-3 and Supplement No. ] to the Safety Cvaluation Report prepared by the Office of Nuclear P.eactor Pegulation, concerning the Davis-Besse Nuclear Power Station, Unit No. 1. l

. Two signed originals of Amendment No. I to Indemnity Agreement No.

B-79 which covers the activities authorized under Facility Operating License No. NPF-3 are enclosed. P] ease have all Licensees sign eacn copy and return one copy to this office.

Sincerely, b ~ h Roger S. Boyd, Director

', Division of Project Ittnagement Office of Nuclear Beactor Fegulation

Enclosures:

1. Facility Operating License No. NPF-3, with Technical Specifications (Appendices A & B, Attachment 1) and Preoperational Tests, Startup Tests and Other Items hhich Must Be Completed Prior to Proceeding to Succeeding '.'

Operational Fbdes (Attacnment 2)

2. Federal-Register Notice -

3. Environmental Assessment Fuel Cycle Considerations ,

4. Safety Evaluation Report, Supplement No. 1

5. Amendment No. I to Indemnity Agreement Ib. B-79

.,.. cc: See page 3 ar W#' sO g_

1 pMc ,

u A il G oN, D C '

, /

9@9 FORN0!Miggg THE'IOLEDD EDISON C01PN N

_NJD

'JHE CLEVEIR;D ELECTRIC ILLtJ:41NATING COM?NN

)

. DDCKET No. 50-346 DWIS-BESSE h"JCLT3.R IGER STATION, U'{IT NO. 3 FACILITY CPETATING IICENSE License No. NPF-3 "3. The NJelear Pegulatory Cc: mission (the Commission) having found that:

A. The applicat ion for license filai by the Paledo Edison Company and the C]eveland Elect r ic I]h=inct ing Ccmpany (the licensees) complies with the stancards and requirements of the Atomic Energy Act of 1954, as amended (the Act), and the Conmission's rules and regulations set forth in 3 0 CFR Chapter I and all reqJired notifications to other cgencies or bodies have been duly made; B. Construction of the Davis-Besse Nuclear Powar Station, Unit No.1 (the faci]ity) has ten substantially cor p]eted in conformity with Const ruct ion Per nit No. CFP.&80 and tne application, as amended, the provisiens of tne Act and the rules and regulations of the Conraission; C. The f aci]ity wil) operate in conforraity with the application, as amended, the provisions of the Act, and the rules and regu-lations of the Comnission; D. There is reasonable assurance: (i) that the activities authorized by this operat ing license can be conducted without endanger ing the health and safety of the public, and (ii) that such activities will be conducted in compliance with the rules and regulations of the Conmission; E. The 'It>1edo Edison Comp.my is technically qualified and the 1icensees are financially qualified to engage in the activitles authorized by this oporating J icense in accordance with the rules and regulations of the Coamission; F. The licensees have sat isfied the applicable provisions of 10 CFR Par t 3 40, " Financial Protection Requirements and Indemnity Agreements," of the Com;nission's t egulations; (3 A tr, e h % CW

@ Q.\.. M 'd & $' -

. _n

2-G. 'me issuance of this operating license wi)) not be inimical to the common defense and security or to the health and safety of the public; H. After weighing the environmental, economic, technical, and other benefits of the facility against environmental and other costs and considering available alternatives, the issuance of Facility Operating License No. NPF-3 subject to the conditions for protection of the environment sot forth herein is in accordance with 3 0 CFR Part 51 (formerly Apmndix D to 10 CFR Part 50),

of the Commission's regulations and all applicable requirements have been satisfied; and I. The receipt, possession, and use of source, byproduct and special nuclear material as authorized by this license will be in accordance with the Co=iission's regulations in 10 CFfs Part 30, 40, and 70, including 10 CFR Sections 30.33, 40.32, 70.23, and 70.31.

2. Facility Operating License No. NPF-3 is hereby issued to the Toledo Edison Company and the C]eveland Electric Illuminating Company to .

read as follows:

A. This 3 icense applies to the Davis-Besse Nuclear Power Station,

'y Unit No. 1, a pressurized water nuclear reactor and associated equipment (the facility), owned by the Toledo Edison Company and the Clevelana Electric Illtrninating Company, and operated by the Toledo Edison Company. The faci]ity is located on the south-western shore of Lake Erie in Ottawa County, Onio, approximately

. 21 miles east of Toledo, Ohio, and is described in the " Final Safety Analysis Report" as supplemented and amended (kaendments 14 through 44) and the Environmental feport as supplemented and amended (Supplements 1 through 2).

B. Subject to the conditions and requirements incorporated herein, the Commission hereby licenses:

(1) Toledo Edison Company, pursuant to Section 103 of the Act and 10 CFR Part 50, " Licensing of Production and Utilization Facilities," to possess, use, and operate the f acility; L

. s= '

e w

MW 9

-- Maa .-A..- am

p.

n (10) These conditions are intended as minimum conditions and do not preclude Applicants from offering additional bulk power I services or coordination options to entities within or without the CCCT. However, Aoplicants shall not deny culk

. power services required by these conditions to non-Applicant entities in the CCCr based upon prior corrinitments arrived in the CAPCO Menorandum of Understanding or implementing agreements. Preemption of options to heretofore depr ived l entitles sha be regarded as inconsistent with the purpose and intent of these conditions. The above conditions are to be implemented in a manner con-sistent with the provisions of the Federal Power Act and all rates, charges or practices in connection therewith are to be subject to the ccproval of regulatory agencies having jurisdiction over them. P. This license is subject to the following additional conditions for the protection of the environment: (1) The Toledo rdison Company sha)) operate Davis-Besse Unit No. I within applicable Federal and State air and water quality standards.an( th^ Environ: ent:1 "'echMcCl Spec 44-i-- cat 4onc Sich inc2 cdc ncnr:5iclogice2 rd radi^'d;isal mom 4or4acy-prcgrrs, l imits or af flant re3 eeses,-.ard appopr ist ^ compre"nsive ecolo;icaL-sar-veillanes-stdy, anda p ting require mts. (2) Before engaging in an o,mrational activity not evaluated by the Commission, the licensees will prepare ana record an environment) evaluation of such activity, hten the evaluation indicates that .such activity may result in a significant adverse environinental imoact that was not evaluated, or that is significantly greater thri that evaluated in the Final Environmental Statement, the licensees shall provide a written evaluation of such activities and obtain prior approval of the Director, Office of Nuclear Feactor Eegulation for the activities. 1

                                                                                                                               -}}