ML20099M177
| ML20099M177 | |
| Person / Time | |
|---|---|
| Site: | Summer  |
| Issue date: | 11/13/1984 |
| From: | Office of Nuclear Reactor Regulation |
| To: | |
| Shared Package | |
| ML20099M162 | List: |
| References | |
| NUDOCS 8412030281 | |
| Download: ML20099M177 (2) | |
Text
..
-[
' ? g
- ' NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSION E-UNITED STATES
=
y a'
.j
. WASHINGTON, D. C. 20555 i
\\...../'SAFETYEVALUATIONBYTHEOFFICEOF-NUCL
+
RELATED TO AMENDMENT NO. 33 TO FACILITY OPERATING LICENSE NPF-12
'SOUTHCAROLINAELECTRhC&GASCOMPANY SOUTH CAROLINA PUBLIC SERVICE AUTHORITY I.
-1NTRODUCTION By letter dated January 18, 1984, South Carolina Electric and Gas Company (SCE&G) requested a change to Technical Specification Table 3.8-1,
" Containment Penetration Conductor Overcurrent Protection Device Test Setpoint Criteria." The amendment would add the containment penetration conductor overcurrent protection devices for-the reactor building sump i
isolation valves to Technical Specification Table 3.8-1.
i II.
EVALUATION j-The staff has performed a review and has determined that containment
~
penetration protection devices-for the reactor building sump isolation valves should be included in Technical Specification Table 3.8-1.
The. test setpoints and response times for the installed protective devices i
submitted for Technical Specification inclusion are in accordance with the manufacturer's specifications for their breakers.
The response time specified as "N/A" for two of the breakers signifies an essentially i
instantaneous trip. These test setpoints and response times should pro-vide the desired containment penetration protection.
From the above, l
the staff concludes that the requested amendment is acceptable.
I III.
ENVIRONMENTAL CONSIDERATION
]
This amendment involves a change in the use of a facility " component located within the restricted area as defined in 10 CFR Part 20 The staff has determi.ned that the amendment involves no significant increase i
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 Comission has previously issued a proposed finding that this amendment involves no significant hazards consideration and there has been no'public comment on i
such finding..- Accordingly, this amendment meets the eligibility criteria for categorical exclusion set forth in 10 CFR Sec 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 issua.nce of this amend-ment.
IV.
- CONCLUSION
~
i The Commission made a proposed determination that the amendment involves 8412030281 841113 7
'N w =cegrrg yt a.gge, e,
,+c.,m-see.--p4.+,e*b.-,=4 e
,.-,.,-.o4 e v,.-,,
+.ye,.--w.--.--%~,
,c,.,
,-mn--mwm,-.-y-,.*we g-
~w w w1s ese**-*~
'tt-+-ew-**-r-e-**w1-'-""
W
^
no significant hazards consideration which was published in the Federal Register (49 FR 17873) on April 25, 1984, 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 Contributor: Jon B. Hopkins, Licensing Branch No. 4, DL Om P. - Chopra, Power Systems Branch, DSI Dated: November 13, 1984 e
,, p* b%
e n
?
6 4
l l
l l
,_,.,.