ML20245H953

Safety Evaluation Supporting Amend 135 to License NPF-3

ML20245H953
Person / Time
Site:	Davis Besse
Issue date:	08/04/1989
From:	Office of Nuclear Reactor Regulation
To:
Shared Package
ML20245H951	List: ML20245H946 ML20245H953
References
NUDOCS 8908170371
Download: ML20245H953 (3)

Text

i a.4

+ f a rea u

8 o,'n UNITED STATES NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSION h

WASHINGTON, D. C. 20555 k*..../

l SAFETY EVALUATION BY THE OFFICE OF NUCLEAR REACTOR REGULATION RELATED TO AMENDMENT NO. 135 TO FACILITY OPERATING LICENSE NO. NPF-3 TOLEDO EDISON COMPANY AND THE CLEVELAND' ELECTRIC ILLUMINATING COMPANY DAVIS-BESSE HUCLEAR POWER STATION, UNIT NO. 1 DOCKET NO. 50-346

1.0 INTRODUCTION

By letters dated November 2,1987 and January 5,1989, the Toledo Edison Company (the licensee) proposed changes to the Technical Specifications (TS) for the Davis-Besse Nuclear Power Station, Unit No.1, to correct typographical and administrative errors in the TS Bases. The purpose of the proposed admini-strative changes is to improve the TS and Bases and provide consistent usage throughout the TS. Minor errors that occurred as a result of retyping pages, omission of amendment numbers from pages, and clerical / administrative errors would also be corrected with this amendment.

The proposed typographical changes include. correction of misspelled words, addition of amendment numbers to TS pages, correction of figure and table-numbers, and correction of references and page numbers.

The proposed administrative changes. include changing references to tables-l within' tne TS ar.d changing table numbers to give each table a unique number; modifying section numbers to ensure consistency within the TS; changing " ELECTRO-MATIC" to " PILOT OPERATED" in several TS and the bases to ensure consistency i

between plant nomenclature and the TS; defining abbreviations; correcting i

references to action statements _for clarifying purposes; changing table. notations j

to reflect deletions and subsequent renumbering of notations; and capitalizing defined terms throughout the TS.

l An administrative change is also proposed to delete an action that is not required in a table or elsewhere in the TS.

In Table 3.3-1 on page 3/4 3-5, ACTION 8 would be deleted since it is not required in the table or anywhere else in the Technical Specifications. ACH ON 8 was compared to the B&W

?p$fB17sliagg

• E Pkh6 l

i l j Standard Technical Specifications and verified not to be applicable to any

'l functional units of Technical Specification Table 3.3-1.

ACTION 8 is not and has never been referenced in the Davis-Besse Technical Specifications.

Administrative chenges would also be made to delete footnote references.and footnotes that are no longer applicable as the time periods have expired or do i

not apply to Davis-Besse. These include:

(1) On page 3/4 3-22, Table 4.3-2, it is proposed to delete a sentence in notation (2) which reads: "The provisions of Section...

folic, ting the first refueling outage." - The first refueling outage was completed about 10 years ago.

'(2)

In TS 5.3.1 (page 5-4) the sentence, "The initial core loading...

of 3.0 weight percent U-235" would be deleted. The initial core loading was completed abeut 12 years ago.

(3) In TS 6.9.1.5 (page 6-15) footnote "1/" would be deleted. The footnote reads:

"1/ A single submitial may be made for a multiple unit station. The submittal should combine those sections that are common to all units at the station." The footnote is net applicable to Davis-Besse since Davis-Besse is a single unit site.

(4) On pages 3/4 3-8 and 3/4 3-21, Tables 4.3-1 and 4.3-2, footnote references "***" and footnote "*** - Eighteen ihonth surveillance i

test due in March 1982 delayed until March 31, 1982" would be deleted since the date has passed.

(5) On page 3/4 3-30, Table 4.3-11, footnote reference "+" and footnote

"+ The surveillance period for Steam Line Pressure-Low instrument is extended to 2400 hours0.0278 days <br />0.667 hours <br />0.00397 weeks <br />9.132e-4 months <br />, September 16, 1982" would be celeted since the date has passed.

(6) On pages 3/4 3-45 and 3/4 3-49, Tables 4.3-6 and 4.3-10, the footnote references "*" and footnote "* 18 month surveillance test due May 17, 1983, may be delayed until 2400 hours0.0278 days <br />0.667 hours <br />0.00397 weeks <br />9.132e-4 months <br /> September 17, 1983" would be deleted since the date has passed.

(7) In TS 4.6.5.1 (page 3/4 6-29) footnote reference "**" and footnote

"** Eighteen month surveillance test due in March 1982 delayed until l

March 31,1982" would be deleted since the date has passed.

Changes would also be made to reflect reculation replacement of Appendix A to 10 CFR Fert 55 by 10 CFR 55.59 and the rule change to 10 CFR 50 and 51 regarding l

reporting requirements and instructions for filing reports with the NRC.

l t

~.

e su o.

n t

1 j 2.0. EVALUATION The staff has examined the proposed changes and concurs in the licensee's representation that.they are purely ^ administrative in nature and are being made to correct. typographical errors, update references and_ achieve consistency within the TS and between plant. nomenclature and the TS.. No physical change.to the plant or operating procedures is involved in this change, and no administra-tive controls are being deleted or relaxed. -Therefore, the staff finds the requested-changes to be acceptable.

3.0 ENVIRONMENTAL CONSIDERATION

This amendment involves a change to a requirement with respect to the instal-lation or use of a.. facility component located within the restricted area as.

defined in 10 CFR Part 20 or a change to a surveillance requirement. The staft' has determined that the amendment involves no significant increase in the amounts, and no significant change in the types, of any effluents that may.be released offsite and that there is no significant increase'in individual or cumulative occupational radiation exposure. The Commission has previously issued a proposed finding that this amendment involves no significant hazards consideration and there has been no public comment on such finding. Accordingly, this amendment meets the eligibility criteria for categorical._ exclusion ~ set forthin10CFR51.22(c)(9). This smendment also involves changes in record-keeping, reporting or administrative procedures or requirements. Accordingly, with respect to these items, the amendment meets the eligibility criteria for categorical exclusion set forth in 10 CFR 651.22(c)(10). Pursuant to 10 CFR 51.22(b), no environmental impact statement or environmental assessment need be prepared in connection with the issuance of this amendment.

4.0 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 Contributors:

T. Wambach P. Kreutzer Dated: August 4, 1989 L_1

+. *'.

_________________t k

____,a__,_

-