ML20136G471
| ML20136G471 | |
| Person / Time | |
|---|---|
| Site: | Callaway  |
| Issue date: | 11/19/1985 |
| From: | Office of Nuclear Reactor Regulation |
| To: | |
| Shared Package | |
| ML20136G469 | List: |
| References | |
| NUDOCS 8511220361 | |
| Download: ML20136G471 (4) | |
Text
ig UNITED STATES NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSION y
WASHINGTON, D. C. 20555
%.....,/
NOV 191985 SAFETY EVALUATION BY THE OFFICE OF NUCLEAR REACTOR REGULATION SUPPORTING AMENDMENT N0. 9 TO FACILITY OPERATING LICENSE N0. NPF-30 UNION ELECTRIC COMPANY CALLAWAY PLANT, UNIT 1 DOCKET N0. STN 50-483
1.0 INTRODUCTION
By letter dated May 17, 1985, Union Electric Company (the licensee) request-
. ed an amendment to Facility Operating License No. NPF-30 for operation of the Callaway Plant in Callaway County, Missouri.
The amendment approves modifications to Pages 3/4 8-16, 3/4 8-17, B 3/4 8-3, and the amendment approves deletion of Table 3.8-1 (Pages 8-18/43) of the Callaway Technical Specifications (TS). The amendment deletes the periodic functional (resistance) testing of the fuses for containment penetration conductor overcurrent protection. The licensee contends that periodic resistance measurement is not a practical means of determining a fuse's condition to assure that its ability to clear a fault has not deteriorated.
Rather, the resistance verification is performed by the vendor during the manufacturing process to assure proper construction - i.e., correct amount of fuse elements, correct thickness of elements, and detection of poor or no solder joints. Therefore, the licensee asserts that the periodic non-destructive resistance testing of fuses only generates data and is not indicative of performance capability.
The amendment also deletes both Table 3.8-1 which provides information on the location, size and equipment protected by the containment penetration conductor overcurrent protective devices, and its references throughout the TS. As an alternative, the licensee proposes to administrative 1y con-trol the list of containment penetration conductor overcurrent protective devices at the plant site through appropriate plant procedures. Any future modifications to the list would be made in accordance with Section 50.59 of 10 CFR Part 50. The licensee maintains that deletion of this list from the TS shall in no way degrade compliance with the operability of the containment penetration conductor overcurrent protective devices.
8511220361 851119 PDR ADOCK 05000483 P
1
- 2.0 EVALUATION As a result of recent TS changes which contain similar requests from several licensees and applicants, the staff has reevaluated the requirement for measuring fuse resistance in the Standard Technical Specifications by con-sidering the following factors:
(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.
(3) Operational experience does not indicate that a current limiting fuse ever becomes less protective over its life.
The staff concluded that the test requirement is technically ineffective and unnecessary.
Finally, the staff recommended that the periodic surveillance requirement for resistance measurement of fuses be deleted from the Standard Technical Specifications and further, recommended that any required fuse in-spection and maintenance should be performed through the quality assurance program and appropriate plant procedures.
We have reviewed the following listed TS changes which were requested by the licensee:
TS Provision Changes 1.
LCO*
3.8.4.1 Delete reference to Table 3.8-1 and add definition of the protective devices.
2.
SR**
4.8.4.1 Delete reference to Table 3.8-1 and add definition of the protective devices.
3.
SR 4.8.4.1.a.1)b)
Delete reference to Table 3.8-1 4.
SR 4.8.4.1.a.3)
Delete a paragraph on fuse testing.
5.
Bases 3/4.8.4 Delete reference to fuse and outline the plant procedures and future modification.
6.
Table 3.8-1 Delete Table 3.8-1 (Page 3/4 8-18/43).
The staff finds the proposed TS changes are consistent with the staff positien and recommendation stated above. Therefore, the staff finds the subject request to be acceptable.
limiting condition for operation surveillance requirement
t t.
3.0 ENVIRONMENTAL CONSIDERATION
This amendment involves a change in the installation or use of a facility component located within the restricted area as defined in 10 CFR Part 20.
The staff has determined that the amendment involves no significant change in the types or.significant increase in the amounts 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 this amendment involves no significant hazards consideration and there has been no public comment on such finding. Accordingly, this amendment meets the eligibility criteria for categorical exclusion set forth in 10 CFR Section 51.22(c)(9).
Pursuant to 10 CFR 51.22(b), no environmental impact statement or environ-mental assessment need be prepared in connection with the issuance of this amendment.
4.0 CONCLUSION
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 activi-ties will be conducted in compliance with the Commission's regulations and the issuance of this amendment will not be inimical to the connon defense and security or to the health and safety of the public.
Principal Contributors:
P. Kang, PSB T. W. Alexion, LB#1 e
l l
1
-t NOV 191985 (AMENDMENT NO. 9 - CALLAWAY)
DATED:
.Q-'
-Local POR PRC-System NSIC LBf1 R/F MRushbrook TAlexion P0'Connor
-TNovak JSaltzman, SAB DELD, RPer)is.
CMiles HDenton JRutberg AToalston WMiller, LFMB JPartlow BGrimes EJordan LHarmon MVirgilio
.TBarnhart(4)
Inez Bailey
,