ML20071N359
| ML20071N359 | |
| Person / Time | |
|---|---|
| Site: | Summer |
| Issue date: | 07/29/1994 |
| From: | Office of Nuclear Reactor Regulation |
| To: | |
| Shared Package | |
| ML20071N349 | List: |
| References | |
| NUDOCS 9408050250 | |
| Download: ML20071N359 (3) | |
Text
r
]
"cw Q)J [f
[
h UNITED STATES j
NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSION g
s.,
WASHINGTON, D.C. 20555-4001 l
SAFETY EVALVAT!GN BY THE OFFICE OF NUCLEAR REACTOR REGULATION RELATED TO AMENDMENT N0.115 TO FACILITY OPERATING LICENSE NO. NPF-12 SOUTH CAROLINA ELECTRIC & GAS COMPANY SOUTH CAROLINA PUBLIC SERVICE AUTHORITY VIRGIL C. SUMMER NUCLE /A STATION. UNIT N0d DOCKET N1. 50-395 1.0 JfNJJ10 DUCTION By letter dated March 11, 1994, South Carolina Electric & Gas Company (the licensee) submitted a request for changes to the Virgil C. Summer Nuclear Station, Unit No. 1, Technical Specifications (TS).
The requested change would remove TS Surveillance Requirement 4.8.4.1.a.3 for periodic retest of containment penetration overcurrent protection fuses and remove references to containment penetration fuse testing from the TS Bases.
2.0 EVALVATION The proposed amendment would remove Surveillance Requirement 4.8.4.1.a.3, which specifies that a functional test be performed on a representative sample of the containment penetration overcurrent protection fuses.
This functional test consists of a resistance measurement test to demonstrate tha the subject fuse meets its manufacturer's design criteria.
In 1985, the staff reevaluated the need for periodic testing of fuses and determined that these testing requirements should be removed from the Standard Technical Specifications.
The staff determined that:
(1) periodic field measurement of fuse resistance does not provide any meaningful assurance on the fault interrupting capability of the fuse; (2) periodic removal of a fuse from its holder for test purposes merely compromises its integrity; and (3) operational experience does not indicate tnat a current limiting fuse becomes less protective (i.e., becomes less resistive) over time.
Neither the current Standard Technical Specifications nor the NUREG-1431 Standard Technical Specifications have a requirement for retesting containment penetration protection fuses.
The staff finds the proposed changes to both the TS and the Bases are acceptable.
3.0 STATE CONSULTATION
In accordance with the Commission's regulations, the State of South Carolina official was notified of the proposed issuance of the amendment.
The State official had no comments.
9409050250 940729 PDR ADOCK 05000395 F
7 t j
4.0 ENVIRONMENTAL CONSIDERATION
The amendment changes a requirement with respect to installation or use of a facility component located within the restricted area as defined in 10 CFR Part 20 and changes the Surveillance Requirements. The NRC staff 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 the amendment involves no significant hazards consideration, and there has been no public comment on such finding (59 FR 24752). Accordingly, the amendment meets the eligibility criteria for categorical exclusion set forth in 10 CFR 51.22(c)(9).
Pursuant to 10 CFR 51.22(b), no environmental impact statement or environmental assessment need be prepared in connection with the issuance of the amendment.
5.0 CONCLUSION
The Commission 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, (2) such activities will be conducted in compliance with the Commission's regulations, and (3) the issuance of the amendment will not be inimical to the common defense and security or to the health and safety of the public.
j Principal Contributor:
R. Jenkins Date: July 29, 1994 1
i l
l l
j t