ML20113A092
| ML20113A092 | |
| Person / Time | |
|---|---|
| Site: | Summer  |
| Issue date: | 04/01/1985 |
| From: | Office of Nuclear Reactor Regulation |
| To: | |
| Shared Package | |
| ML20113A088 | List: |
| References | |
| NUDOCS 8504090465 | |
| Download: ML20113A092 (2) | |
Text
- -.
+
UNITED STATES
[
NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSION E
O WASHINGTON, D. C. 20555
%*...*)
SAFETY EVALUATION BY THE OFFICE OF NUCLEAR REACTOR REGULATION RELATED TO AMENDMENT NO. 38 TO FACILITY OPERATING LICENSE NPF-12 SOUTH CAROLINA ELECTRIC & GAS COMPANY SOUTH CAROLINA PUBLIC SERVICE AUTHORITY I.
INTRODUCTION By letters dated November 29, 1984, and January 8, 1985, South Carolina Electric and Gas Company (SCE&G or licensee) requested an amendment to the V. C. Suniner Technical Specifications. The amendment would add a new Technical Specification 3/4.8.4.3, " Circuit Protection Devices," regarding requirements for circuit breakers for non-Class IE cable.
Additional information relating to this request was provided by letter dated February 6,1985.
II.
EVALUATION The NRC staff conditioned the operating license (NPF-12, license condition
-2.C.(16)) to require that certain modifications be made to separatien
. ' between Class 1E-and non Class IE cable' trays. These modifications con-sisted of providing covers or barriers between the.non Class 1E cable trays and at least one of the Class 1E cable trays, or to demonstrate that faults induced in non Class 1E cable trays will not cause failure of cables in the adjacent Class IE cable trays. The information required from the applicantwasrequiredtodemonstratethattheassociatedcableproteStiv' device will clear the imposed fault condition without exceeding the I t rating of the cable (before the ignition temperature of the cable insula-tion is reached).
By letter dated November 29, 1984, the licensee stated that the above task has been accomplished by providing cable tray covers on some cable trays and by periodic testing of certain cable and equipment protective devices-e via station Electrical Maintenance Procedures. As required, the licensee also submitted a proposed change to the Technical. Specifications which incorporates the additional testing requirements of the cable and equip-ment protective devices.
By letter dated February 6, 1985, the licensee provided additional information to substantiate that these protective devicgs are sized to clear the imposed fault condition without exceeding the I t rating of the cable. The staff has reviewed the information submitted by the licensee and finds it acceptable.
Therefore, the pro-posed Technical Specification 3/4.8.4.3 is approved.
t 4
8504090465 850401 i
PDR ADOCK 05000395 P
.3 t
_ 7.. ~,-
- 3 3 3 --~
7; 3- ;_ _
, 3_3_ ;3
O 2-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 and in surveillance requirements. The 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 occupa-tional radiation exposure. The Commission has previously issued a proposed finding that this amendment involves no significant hazards consideration and there has been no public canment on 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 S1.22(b) no environ-mental impact statement or environmental assessment need be prepared in connection with the issuance of this amendment.
IV. CONCLUSION The Commission made a proposed determination that the amendment involves no significant hazards consideration which was published in the Federal Register (50 FR 8007) on Februa'ry 27, 1985, 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 will not be endangered by operation in the proposed manner, and (2) public such activities will be conducted in compliance with the Commission's regula-tions 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 Con'tributors: Jon B. Hopkins, Licensing Branch No. 4. DL James J. Lazevnick, Power Systems Branch, DSI Dated: April 1, 1985 e
WKZ 4
e.w e " c o-w
"'m-e-e m ms -
e e=ey w
~
-'wW-
~-
~w
--o
-e-