ML20204H410

Application for Amend to License NPF-3,revising Tech Spec Section 3.11.2.5 by Correcting Hydrogen Concentration from 2% to 4% in Action Statement B.Safety Evaluation & Significant Hazard Consideration Encl

ML20204H410
Person / Time
Site:	Davis Besse
Issue date:	11/01/1984
From:	Crouse R, Murray T TOLEDO EDISON CO.
To:
Shared Package
ML20204H392	List: ML20204H388 ML20204H410 ML20204H434
References
NUDOCS 8411120284
Download: ML20204H410 (4)

Text

_.

APPLICATION FOR AMENDMENT 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 include Section 3.11.2.5.b of proposed RETS.

By

/s/ Terry D. Murray '

Terry D. Murray Assistant Vice President, Nuclear For R. P. Crouse Vice President, Nuclear Sworn and subscribed before me this 1st day of November, 1984.

l

'l

/s/ Laurie A. Hinkle, nee (Brudzinski) l Notary Public State of Ohio l 8411120284 841101 My Commission Expires May 16, 1986 l PDR ADOCK 05000346 PDR p u S-E A L

w ,,.

9

. Docket No. 50-346

- License No. NPF-3 Serial;No. 1097-

November 1, 1984L

- Attachment I.- Changes to Davis-Besse Nuclear Power Station Unit 1, Appendix A

' Technical Specifications Section 3.11.2.5.b of proposed RETS. ,

.;-' Time required to Implement . This change is to be effective upon NRC approval of the submitted RETS.

. B . -- Reason for Change (Facility Change Request 79-114 Rev. E).

To-comply with NRC request to reverse RETS Section 3.11.2.5 Action Statement b to remove the inconsistency between the Action Statement and the LCO.

C. Safety Evaluation

.(See Attached)

D. Significant Hazard Consideration (See Attached) s 9s . , - ,

e -- - , . z.

~

SAFETY EVALUATION This: amendment request is to correct the hydrogen concentration from 2%

to 4% in the Action Statement b. of Technical Specification Section 3.11.2.5.

The safety; function of Technical Specification Section 3.11.2.5 is to ensure safe operating conditions for the plant and protect public safety by establishing the conditions to prevent formation of an explooive mixture in the vaste gas system. The Action Statement Item b. in the present Radiological Effluent Technical Specification (RETS) for explosive gas mixture, Section 3.11.2.5 is incorrect, and inconsistent with the limiting condition for operation. :In other hydrogen related NRC rules (10CFR50.44), any gas mixture with hydrogen concentration less than 4% is

. ceneidered safe. Therefore, the Action Statement should be corrected.

This error-was detected by Toledo Edison in the standard Technical

_ Specification of the NRC after the RETS submitted to the NRC on May 7, 1984. The NRC requested that this error be corrected.

'The above change to the Technical Specification is made to correct an error in the Action Statement.- The change does not degrade or adversely

' affect.the margin of safety in the Technical Specification, and therefore ,

. does not constitute an unreviewed safety question.

l A w .

e v M

SIGNIFICANT HAZARD CONSIDERATION This amendment request to revise Section 3.11.2.5 of previous submitted Radiological Effluent Technical Specification (RETS) does not represent a.Significant Hazard. The revision to previous submitted RETS results from a review of the RETS and'an identification of inconsistency between the' Limiting, Condition for Operation (LCO) and the Action Statement.

Section 3'.11.2.~5 concerns explosive gas mixtures-(hydrogen rich systems not designed to withstand a hydrogen explosion) and the associated hydrogen oxygen mixtures-in the waste gas system. As proposed in the NRC standard

Technical Specifications for RETS, there exists an Action Statement.more limiting than the LCO. Toledo Edison was requested to revise its submittal to correct this error. This change is to achieve consistency between the IXX) and the Action Statement.' The hydrogen limit is changed from 2% to 4%

by volume. This brings the Action Statement in line with the LCO.

~

The Commission has provided. guidance concerning the application of the

< standards in 10CFR50.92 by providing certain examples (48FR14870). One

' of'the examples of actions involving no significant hazards considerations related to a purely administrative change to Technical Specifications:

- for example. a-change to achieve consistency throughout the Technical Specifications,l correction of an error, or a change in nomenclature.

~

- The amendment request only changes to achieve consistency between the LCO-

-and'the Action Statement for Section 3.11.2.5.b.- The change removes an Action Statement from being more restrictive than the LCO.

Based on the'above information, this amendment request would not (1)' involve a significant increase in the probability or consequences of an accident previously evaluated; or-(2) create the possibility.of a new'or different

~

ist ' { ' kind cf accident. from.any. accident previcusly evaluated; or -(3) involve a:significant reduction'in a margin of safety.

Therefore, based on the above and attached Safety Evaluation the requested license amendment does not present a' Significant Hazard.

f'