ML20066B182
| ML20066B182 | |
| Person / Time | |
|---|---|
| Site: | Summer  |
| Issue date: | 10/22/1982 |
| From: | Office of Nuclear Reactor Regulation |
| To: | |
| Shared Package | |
| ML20066B179 | List: |
| References | |
| NUDOCS 8211060454 | |
| Download: ML20066B182 (2) | |
Text
.
~
I l
+
SAFETY' EVALUATION BY THE OFFICE OF NUCLEAR REACTOR REGULATION 4
i RELATED TO AMENDMENT NO. 4 TO LICENSE NPF-12 i
i SOUTH CAROLINA ELECTRIC & GAS COMPANY SOUTH CAROLINA PUBLIC SERVICE AUTHORITY INTRODUCTION I
In a letter dated October 20,1982 from 0. W. Dixon, Jr. to H. R. Denton, the licensee requested that temporary relief be granted from Technical Specification 3/4.6.5 " Combustible Gas Control Hydrogen Monitors" to permit entry into Mode -
2 for initial criticality with one of the two containment hydrogen monitors inoperable.
EVALUATION The current specification requires that each of the two containment hydrogen monitors be operable prior to entry into Modes 1 and 2. - The licensee stated that one of the monitors is inoperable due to defective equipment and that replacement parts cannot be procured in a timely manner. The licensee stated that the monitor i
would be repaired by October 27, 1982 and that unless the requested relief was granted initial criticality would be delayed. The plant is expected to achieve initial criticality on October 21, 1982.
We have reviewed the requested change and conclude that it is acceptable and that the licensee has provided adequate justification. The action statement of the current specification would permit operation in Mode 2 for up to 30 days with one
~
i of the two monitors inoperable. Therefore, we find the requested change accept-able on the basis that (1) the plant would not be degraded beyond that permitted 4'
by the current specification when operating in Mode 2 and (2) the licensee has committed to make the second manitor operable in several days.
ENVIR0tiMENTAL CONSIDERATION i
We have determined that the amendment does not authorize a change in effluent types or total amounts nor an increase in power level and will not result in any i
significant environmental impact. Having made this determination,.we have further i-concluded that the amendnent involves an action which is insignificant from the standpoint of environmental impact and, pursuant to 10 CFR Section 51.5(d)(4),
l that an environmental impact statement or negative declaration and environmental i
impact appraisal need not be prepared in connection with the issuance of this amendment.
g1060454821022 i
ADOCK 05000395 p
PDR j
orrict) e sunnaut>
oare >
f NRC FORM 318 (10-80) NRCM 024o OFFiClAL RECORD COPY usom ---=*o
,_.. _ -.. _ _ _. _~ _ _ _- _ _.
m CONCLUSI014 We have concluded, based on the considerations discussed above, that:
(1) because the amendment does not involve a significant increcse in the probability or consequences of accidents previously considered and does not involve a signifi-cant decrease in a safety margin, the amendment does not involve a significant hazards consideration, (2) there is reasonable assurance that the health and safety of the public will not be endangered by operation in the proposed nanner, and (3) such activities will be in compliance with the Commission's regulations and the issuance of this amendment will not be inimical to the couraon defer.se and security or to the health and safety of the public.
OCT 2 2 B82 OATE:
e i
l i
l 1
L dl/
DL-1.........D lid
.G omce)
BJYoJn od suanaus >
........ ( !
.........I.l../. 8. 2.......
.....1..............
onre >
NRC FORM 318 00-80) NRCM 024o OFFIClAL RECORD COPY usam,,.,_m.
.