ML20084A855
| ML20084A855 | |
| Person / Time | |
|---|---|
| Site: | Summer  |
| Issue date: | 04/16/1984 |
| From: | Office of Nuclear Reactor Regulation |
| To: | |
| Shared Package | |
| ML20084A853 | List: |
| References | |
| NUDOCS 8404250301 | |
| Download: ML20084A855 (2) | |
Text
.._ -
- [ pansy %,
UNITED STATES i
{
g NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSION 1
r.
E WASHINGTON, D. C. 20555
%...../
SAFETY EVALUATION BY THE OFFICE OF NUCLEAR REACTOR REGULATION j
RELATED TO AMENDMENT NO. 22 TO FACILITY OPERATING LICENSE NPF-12 j
SOUTH CAROLINA ELECTRIC & GAS COMPANY SOUTH CAROLINA POBLIC SERVICE AUTHORITY I.
INTRODUCTION
.I By letter dated July 22, 1983, South Carolina Electric and Gas Company (SCE&G) proposed changes to Virgil C. Summer Technical Specification Tables 4.6-la, 4.6-1b, and 4.6-2 regarding containment structural
.{
integrity. The changes would correct the values listed for the hoop tendons and substitute some tendons for those already listed for surveil-lance. Additional information related to this request was provided by SCE&G by letter dated December 19, 1983, however, the request itself remained unchanged.
II.
EVALUATION There was an error made in calculations for the predicted hoop tendon base values. The error involved incorrect recording of the ultimate specific creep constant. This caused the base value for each hoop tendon to be from 0 to 7 kips (<1%) too high. Of the tendon surveillance sub-stitutions requested, tendons D-219 (listed twice) and 36AC would be changed in order to make the surveillance more random, because they were checked during the first surveillance conducted prior to startup. Tendon 0-312 would be changed because of a physical interference problem which makes inspection impossible.
The staff has reviewed the requested changes and finds that the changes will not affect the existing design requirements for containment struc-tural integrity committed to by SCE&G in their Final Safety Analysis Report. Therefore, the staff concludes that the requested changes to l.
Technical Specification Tables 4.6-la, 4.6-lb, and 4.6-2 are acceptable, b;
III.
ENVIRONMENTAL CONSIDERATION We have determined that the amendment does not authorize a change in
- .4 effluent types or total amounts nor an increase in power level and will
, ?;
not result in any significant environmental impact. Having made this determination, we have further concluded that the amendment involves an j
action which is insignificant from the standpoint of environmental impact j
and, pursuant to 10 CFR 651.5(d)(4), that an environmental impact state-ment or negative declaration and environmental impact appraisal need not l
be prepared in connection with the issuance of this amendment, i
in 8404250301 840416 i
i PDR ADOCK 05000395 i
i P
PDR ly
- I i i IV.
CONCLUSION The Commission made a proposed determination that the amendment involves no significant hazards consideration which was published in the Federal Register (49 FR 50638) on November 2, 1983, and consulted with the state of South Carolina. No public comments were received, and the state of South Carolina did not have any comments.
We have 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, and (2) 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.
Principal Contributors: Jon B. Hopkins, Licensing Branch No. 4, DL Norman D. Romney, Structural and Geotechnical Engineering Branch, DE Dated: April 16, 1984 4
4 A
J i-1.
~~
~,,
, _..... _.