ML20059G962

From kanterella
Jump to navigation Jump to search
Safety Evaluation Supporting Amend 115 to License DPR-54
ML20059G962
Person / Time
Site: Rancho Seco
Issue date: 09/10/1990
From:
Office of Nuclear Reactor Regulation
To:
Shared Package
ML20059G946 List:
References
GL-86-10, GL-88-12, NUDOCS 9009140076
Download: ML20059G962 (4)


Text

c

~

~

~

^

~ ~~~"~

~

y.

2 a

4 3

bm.

2

,.a ne.g#

gg oy -

' UNITED STATES;.

4 NUCLEAR REQULATORY COMMISSION -

N * [;

[

wAsHwoTow, p. c.aossa

,i

_k y

,...a 1

l SAFETY EVALUATION'BY THE-0FFICE OF NUCLEAR REACTOR REGULATION 3

SUPPORTING AMENDMENT:NO.115 TO FACILITY OPERATING LICENSE DPR-54

+

pNCHOSECONUCLEARGENERATINGSTATION 4

l DOCKET NO. 50-312

,1.0fINTRODUCTION j

.By letter dated December 28,1989,-andsupp(thelicensee)proposedthatthe lement dated March 16, 1990, tthe Sacramento Municipal Utility District 1

f existing license condition on fire protection be replaced with the i

standard condition ~noted in Generic-Letter (GL) 86-10 and also )roposed 4

changes-to the Appendix'A Technical Specification (TS) for Rancio Seco' Nuclear Generating Station. The proposed changes would remove require-ments for fire ~-detection systems, fire suppression systems,. fire barriers,.

and fire brigade staffing requirements as recommended by GL_86-10.- The proposed changes would.also modify the administrative control requirements.

of the TS to. add requirements for the Fire Protection Program that are

.similar to requirements for other programs implemented by license condi-

,tions. Guidance.on these proposed. changes to the TS was provided to all

,I power reactor licensees and applicants by GL 88-12 dated August 2, 1988.

A

2.0 BACKGROUND

l

~ Followings the, fire at the Browns Ferry Nuclear Power, Plant' on March 22, 1

1975, the Connission. undertook a number of actions to ensure that 9

' improvements were implemented in the Fire Protection Programs for all

- power reactor facilities.. Because of the extensive-modification of Fire Protection Programs and the number of open issues resulting from staff 1

evaluations, a number of revisions and alterations occurred in these-

- programs.-over.-the years. Consequently, licensees;were requested by

- GL;86-10:to incorporate the final NRC approved Fire Protection Program in y

.their Final Safety Analysis Reports (FSARs).

In this manner, the Fire

+

Protection Program -- including the systems, the administrative and technical controls, the organization, and other plant-features associated I

with fire protection -- would have a status consistent with that of other.

plantifeatures described in.the FSAR.

In addition, the Connission concluded that a standard license condition, requiring compliance with the provisions E

of the Fire Protection Program as described in the FSAR, should be used to M

ensure uniform enforcement of fire protection requirements. Finally, the J

Commission ~ stated that,with the requested actions, licensees may request

- an amendment to delete the fire protection TS' that would now be unnecessary.

[

g914007690091o p

ADOCK 05000312 PDC y

y d

imQf f Yg,,

9%0

% 4: O

,[lh, '

Q[ >

hh The licensees lfor th'e Callaway and Wolf Creek plants: submitted lead-plant ~

N proposals to remove fire protection requirements from their TS. This p."'>

action was-an industry effort to obtain NRC guidance on-an acceptable format

' for_ license amendment requests'to remove fire protection requirements 4%*.

p

~ from the,TS..

t

' Additionally, in the licensing review.of new plants,-the staff-has approved'-

y the applicant's requests to remove fire protection requirements from

+

the TS issued with the operatingilicense. Thus, on the basis of the.

lead-plant' proposals and-the staff's experience ~with TS for new licenses,

%al GL 88-12 was issued to provide guidance on. removing fire protection requirementsLfrom TS.

3.0 EVALUATION C

GL 86-10 recommended the removal of fire protection requirements from the

- TS. Although a comprehensive Fire Protection Program is essential to plant safety, the basis' for this recommendation is that many details of this program that are currently addressed in'the'TS can be modified without affecting nuclear safety.. Such modifications can be made provided:

that there are suitable administrative controls over these changes. These-

_ details, that are presently _ included in the TS and which are removed by this' amendment, do not constitute ~ performance requirements necessary to ensure safe operation of the facility and, therefore, do not warrant being, included in' this TS. At the same time, suitable administrative controis-E ensure that there will' be careful review and analysis by competent individuals of_ any. changes in the Fire Protection Program includingLthose

-technical and= administrative requirements removed from the TS to ensure that nuclear safety _is not adversely affected. -These controls include:

-(1) the TS administrative controls that are applicable to the Fire Protec-

'e' tionProgram;-(2)thelicenseconditionor~implementationof,andsubsequent-changes to the Fire Protection Program; and (3) the 10 CFR 50.59 criteria.

for evaluating changes to the Fire Protection Program as-described in the -

USAR..

'The specific details relating to fire protection requirements removed from'.the TS by this amendment -include those~ specifications for fire

. detection systems, fire. suppression systems, fire barriers, and fire brigade staffing requirements. The administrative control requirements have.been modified to include Fire Protection Program. implementation as an element for.which written procedures.must be established, implemented, and

. maintained..In, addition, the audit responsibilities of the Plant Review

.Comittee (PRC) were expanded to include the review of the Fire Protection

' Program and implementing procedures and submittal of recomended changes 1

to~ the Management Safety Review Comittee (MSRC).

The TS, changes proposed by the' licensee are in accordance with the guidance provided by GL'88-12, as addressed in the items below.

J

h lA} i "

x R4,

,}

1. C f..

Y (1);-Specification 6.5.1.6(PlantReviewCommitteeResponsibilities),

~

^

was revised to add the review of the fire protectior, program M

implementation;and the submittal of recommended changes to the 4

. Management Safety Review Committee-(MSRC).,

(2) Specification 3.14.1-(FireDetectionInstrumentation),its associated Surveillance Standards 4.18.1, Land its Bases were removed, b-

?(3)= Specifications:3.14.2through3.14.5(FireSuppressionSystems),

their associated Surveillance Standards 4.18.2 through 4.18.5 and' Bases were removed.

(4) Specification 3.14.6(FireBarriers),itsassociatedSurve111ancei Standards 4.18.6,'and its Bases were removed.<

x l 'c (5) Specification 6.2.2.f on fire brigade staffing requirements was removed.

4' (6) Specification 6.4.2 on fire brigade training requirements was removed.'

(7) Specification 6.8 (Procedures), was' revised.to add Fire Protection Program; implementation to those programs for which written _

l procedures <shall.beestablished, implemented,andmaintained.

The;1icensee confirmed that the NRC approved Fire Protection Program, as shown in the March 16, 1990', submittal,'will be incorporated into the-next update to'the-USAR.L Also.the licensee has proposed that the existing licensing condition on-the Fire Protection-Program be replaced with the standard condition noted'in:GL 86-10.'

The licensee confirmed that the operational conditions, remedial-actions,_

,and test. requirements associated with:the removed fire protection TS have been included in the Fire Protection. Program.' This is in accordance with-the guidance of:GL 88-12.

On the. basis of its review of.the above items, the staff concludes that the licensee has met the guidance of GL 88-12. Therefore, the staff finds the proposed changes acceptable, 4.' 0 CONTACT WITH STATE OFFICIAL The.NRC staff has advised the Chief of.the Radiological Health Branch, State Department of-Health Services State of California, of the proposed

, determination of;no significant hazards consideration. No comments were

. received.

a h.y <;.. 'y

,3 1

g%, w 4,

y c[Q u %

i J,

-4.:

y<

/

L vi e

5.0i ENVIRONMENTAL CONSIDERATION' This amends.ent involvei change to requirements with respect to'the use.of k

the fa'cility components w ated within the restricted area as defined in 4

?

10 CFR Part 20. The staff he: determined that this amendment involves no~

i

!significant. increase in the amounis snd no significant change-inlthe types.

y

-of effluents that may be released offsite,. and that there is no;significant '

i f',.,& ' increase in individual or cumulative occupational exposure.

The staff has:.

i determined that the amendment involves no significant hazards consideration, W

and there has been no public consnent on such finding.. Accordingly,: the -

. amendment meets. the eligibility criteria' for categorical exclusion set-E lforth in.10 CFR 51.22(c)(9).. Pursuant to 10 CFR 51.22(b),-no environ.

. mentaliimpact statement or environmertal. assessment need be prepared in p4 4

S f

. connection with the issuance of this amendment.

k g

.6.0=

CONCLUSION i

,,*?

', :On the basis of the considerations discussed above. the staff coniludes.

that-(1) there-is reasonable assurance-that' the health and safety of the 1

7 y

public will not be endangered by operation in the proposed manner, (2)l such activities will' be conducted in compliance with the Commission's -

Um q

Dregulations,.anc(3)theissuanceoftheseamendments.willnotbe 1

inimical:to the common' defense and security or-to the. health and. safety of.~

l 5

the public.-

t a,

i,f JPrincipalContributors:'DennisJ.'Kubicki.SPLB/ DEST-I xThomas G. Dunning, OTSB/DOEA

. Steven A. Reynolds PDNP/DRSP J"

J..

{jy"E

}.

. Dated: Septart)er 10,1990 g

t e:

c

{k, p

i 4

,1 n

3 U iu l

ti i

s g,

3

,a

.