ML20072K073
| ML20072K073 | |
| Person / Time | |
|---|---|
| Site: | Summer  |
| Issue date: | 03/23/1983 |
| From: | Office of Nuclear Reactor Regulation |
| To: | |
| Shared Package | |
| ML20072K069 | List: |
| References | |
| NUDOCS 8303300357 | |
| Download: ML20072K073 (2) | |
Text
. _ _ -
m YA; k
~
G4
+
r SAFETY EVALUATION BY THE OFFICE OF NUCLEAR REACTOR REGULATION RELATED TO AMENDMENT NO.13 TO FACILITY OPERATING LICENSE NPF-12 I
SOUTH CAROLINA ELECTRIC & GAS COMPANY t
SOUTH CAROLINA PUBLIC SERVICE AUTHORITY INTRODUCTION i
By letter dated January 31, 1983, South Carolina Electric and Gas Company (the
. Licensee) requested an amendment to the Appendix A, Technical Specifications i
appended to License No. NPF-12 for the Virgil C. Summer Nuclear Station.. The amendment' would permit a one time exte..sion of the time interval in which response time tests of the reactor trip system and engineered safety features are to be conducted.
. BACKGROUND AND DISCUSSION i
Technical Specifications 4.3.1.2 and 4.3.2.2 require that the response time of each reactor trip and ESFAS function as identified in Tables 3.3-1 and'3.3-3
.respectively, be demonstrated'to be within its limit at least once per 18 months.
~
7 Each test shall include at least one train and one protection system channel such that each train is tested at least once per 36 months. : All channels are tested at least once every N times 18 months where N is the nunber of redundant channels.
i Further an allowance is provided that permits the test interval to be exceeded by
- 25% of the specified time between tests.
The protection system channels and trains are routinely tested every 31 or 62 days 4
in order to demonstrate their functional operability. While these tests would generally. identify any large changes in instrwnent response, the response time tests provide a more accurate measurement of instrument response to assure that over a large period of time the instrument response is consistent with the plant sa fety. analysis.
The test' frequency for response time tests corresponds to the nonnal time interval between refueling outages.
This allows access to sensors and the conduct of response time tests at a time when systems are not required to be operable.. The basis of the 18 month test interval is that changes in response times are not considered to occur over short intervals of time and have a lower probability of occurrence compared to other potential malfunction.
This further supports the fact that alternate trains and channels of the protection system are tested during each test.
l
. Since the length of the first fuel cycle for the Virgil C. Summer plant and the j
time for the previous tests would require a plant shutdown to satisfy the test
-frequency requirements for response time testing, the licensee has requested relief from these requirements such that they will be conducted during a sub-sequent plant shutdown.
The relief requested would extend the test interval i
for' tests due on March 24, 1983, by about 3 months until June 30, 1983.
This increases the test interval by less than '15% of the maximum time interval (22.5 manthd normiteed hv the Technical Rnaci ficatinn.
f c3 33oo3,a.3o323 cam goaanocx
- w. q......................
Nac ronu sta tio-soi nncu o24o.
OFFICIAL RECORD COPY usam m-a-=
N T
k.
l
- EVALUATION A stern generator modification outage is currently scheduled for mid-March 1983.
This shutdown corresponds to the limits permitted by the plant technical specif1-cations for conducting response time tests. We conclude that an extension of the time interval for response time tests of up to three months is acceptable con-sidering that the plant will be shutdown and with consideration of the basis for the frequency of.these tests.
Therefore, we find this one time extension of the test interval for these tests to be acceptable.
ENVIRONMENTAL CONSIDERATION We have determined that the amendment does not authorize a change in effluent types or total amounts r.or an increase in power level and will not result in any signif-icant environmental impact.
Having made.this determination, we have further con-cluded that the anendment 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 impact appraisal need not be prepared in connection with the issuance of this amendment.
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-sequences of accidents previously' considered, does not create the possibility of an accident of a type different fran any evaluated previously, and does not involve a significant 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 manner, and (3) 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.
Date:
March 23, 1983 Principal Contributors:
J. Hopkins, Licensing Branch Nc. 4. DL T. Dunning, Instrunentation and Control Systems Branch, DSI l
4 emcc>
sunnaus >
DATE )
OFFICIAL RECORD COPY usceo: mmuo
- NRC FORM 318 (10-80) NRCM 0240
,.