ML20023B769
| ML20023B769 | |
| Person / Time | |
|---|---|
| Site: | Summer  |
| Issue date: | 04/27/1983 |
| From: | Office of Nuclear Reactor Regulation |
| To: | |
| Shared Package | |
| ML20023B764 | List: |
| References | |
| NUDOCS 8305060288 | |
| Download: ML20023B769 (2) | |
Text
k b,
b SAFETY EVALUATION BY THE OFFICE OF NUCLEAR REACTOR REGULATION RELATED TO AMENDMENT NO.15 TO FACILITY OPERATING LICENSE NPF-12 SOUTH CAROLINA ELECTRIC & GAS CO'1PANY SOUTH CAROLINA PUBLIC SERVICE AUTHORITY INTRODUCTION By Attachment II to their letter dated October 8,1982, the licensees proposed amend-ments to the Virgii C. Summer Technical Specifications to incorporate:
1.
The addition of a yard fire hydrant and hose house; 2.
The installation of additional fire hose stations; 3.
Corrections to Table 3.3-11 to reflect the actual location and number of fire doctectors in the plant; and 4.
Clarification of the location of water spray and sprinkler systens.
The Itcensees proposed these changes to brino up to date the current Technical Spect-fications to reflect the additional fire protection equipment that has been installed.
In addition, the nodifications concerning the location of water spray and sprinkler systems are necessary to avoid the use of potentially nisleading plant elevations.
EVALUATION The proposed amendcent has no safety significance other than to pemit the Technical Specifications to accurately reflect conditions as they now exist in the plant and to avoid the use of elevations which may obscure the actual location of water spray and sprinkler systems. With regard to the revisions of Tabic 3.3-11, they do not affect the evaluation of the fire detection systems as detailed in the Safety Evalu-atton Report and supplements, and are acceptable.
ENVIRONMENTAL CONSIDERATION lle have detemined that the amenment does not authorize a change in effluent types or total amounts nor an increase in power level and will not result in any signif-icant environmental impact. Having made this detemination, we have further con-cluded that the amendment involves an action which is insignificant from the stand-.
point of environmental impact and, pursuant to 10 CFR $51.5(d)(4), that an environ-mental impact statement \\or negative declaration and environmental imract appraisal need not be prepared in gonnection with the issuance of this amend ent.
['
l S305060288 830427 PDR ADOCK 05000395 P
PDR l
o,,,em y
. -. ~. -.. - - - -
SUANAME)
..-.-~~~-a--
- - - ~ * - * -... - -
~ * *. - - - * *. - *. *
......... ~... -..
~ ~.. ~ ~. - -..
. ~. ~. - ~ ~. - - -
. - ~ ~.. ~. -.. -
oAre p uc ronu sia oo-a3 NACM OMO OFF1CiAL RECORD COPY usogo. mi-sas-me
e 4-
' CONCLUSION We have concluded, based on the considerations discussed above, that: (1) because the amendment does not involve a significant increase in the probability or con-sequexes of accidents previously considered, does not create the possibility of an accident of a type different from any evaluated previously, and does not involve a significant decrease in a safety margin, the amendment does not involve a significant l
hazards consideration, (2) there is reasonable assurance that the health and safety of the public will not be endangered by operation in the proposed manner, and (3) such 3
activities will be conducted in compliance with the Comission's regulations and the issuance of this amendment will not be inimical to the common defense and security or i
to the health and safety of the public.
l i
Principal Contributors: Jon B. Hopkins, Licensing Branch No. 4, GL l
Dennis J. Kubicki, Chemical Engineering Branch, DE Date:
April 27, 1983 i
i J
i i
r i
1 t
I OFFICE) suassac>
onre >
OFF1CIAL RECORLT CCPY usom i,.ies.
eenc ronu sie tio-so) Nacu c24o