ML20138N670

Safety Evaluation Supporting Amend 1 to License NPF-36

ML20138N670
Person / Time
Site:	Shoreham File:Long Island Lighting Company icon.png
Issue date:	12/06/1985
From:	NRC
To:
Shared Package
ML20138N633	List: ML20138N631 ML20138N650 ML20138N670 ML20138N690
References
NUDOCS 8512240104
Download: ML20138N670 (3)

Text

. .

1. UNITED STATES

! g NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSION 5 np WASHINGTON, D C,20555

%..../

SAFETY EVALUATION AMENDNENT kO. 1 TO LICENSE N0. NPF-36 SHOREHAM NUCLEAR POWER STATION

, DOCKET NO. 322 Introduction By letter dated October 21, 1985 (SNRC-1206), the Long Island Lighting Company (LILCo, the licensee) requested that paragraph 2.C.(8) of License No. NPF-36 for the Shoreham Nuclear Power Station (Shoreham, the facility) be revised to allow an extension of time for the completion of the environmental qualification of certain electrical equipment. The licensee had previously requested approval of this extension directly from the Conmission, as required by 10 CFR 50.49, in a letter dated September 26, 1985 (SNRC-1199).

Discussion Condition 2.C(8) of License NPF-36, dated July 3, 1985, states that " Prior to November 30, 1985 the licensee shall environmentally qualify all electrical equipment according to the provisions of 10 CFR 50,49." The licensee requested an extension beyond November 30, 1985 for two items (totaling 13 pieces). The licensee reported that it had successfully qualified 934 out of 1083 items and expected to complete the qualification of the remainder of the equipment (except for the two items in question) by November 30, 1985.

Each of the two Hydrogen Recombiners which comprise the first item consists of a power cabinet and a recombiner skid. They are manufactured by Rockwell International, Inc. The licensee has been working with the vendor to qualify this equipment since May 1980. The vendor was authorized to begin qualification testing in June 1981. However, because of the large number of unqualified components in the power cabinet, the unacceptable results of initial qualifica-tion tests and faults in the test program that were identified in 1982 and 1983, a new test program was established in February 1983. In May 1983, the vendor estimated that all testing would be concluded by mid-1985. The test program proceeded to successfully follow this schedule, until the licensee was informed in August 1985 of the failure of a power cabinet during a seismic test. The seismic test is a normal part of the environmental qualification test sequence.

The vendor has determined that the failure was caused by silicon dust contamina-tion of certain auxiliary electrical contacts. A new cleaning procedure was developed and the power cabinet was retested. The licensee has since informed the staff verbally that,the test was successfully completed in late October, 1985.

In anticipation of the successful completion of the test, the licensee ordered j and has received on site new power cabinets and other components for the recombiner i skid. The new power cabinet and components are being installed now, during a I

maintenance outage. The licensee will have them installed before the reactor

, is restarted. However, because the qualification documentation would not be j complete by November 30, 1985, the licensee requested an extension. The j

staff notes that the justifications for continued operation attached to the licensee's September 26 request are applicable only to the old equipment that

!  ! is being replaced.

f512240104 851206 U ~

PDR ADOCK 05000322 P PDR

~- -e. m m. m-~

The second item for which an extension was requested is an actuator used for

'certain ventilation dampers in the Reactor Building Standby Ventilation System.

, A total of nine dampers are involved. The licensee originally purchased model i MASR-49 actuators for these dampers from Raymond Control Systems, Inc. When the licensee requested vendor assistance in 1981 to demonstrate the qualification of the actuators, it was informed that the model MASR-49 units were obsolete.

The licensee decided to purchase replacement model SURE-49 units and demonstrate their qualification. The test program started in mid-1982 and continued through

1985. The staff has been infomed verbally that the final test was completed successfully on October 16, 1985, but, as is the case with the hydrogen

recombiners, the documentation had not been completed as of November 30, 1985.

., The licensee has-purchased new model SURE-49 actuators which are identical to

, the unit being tested, and will install them during the current outage. The equipment justifications in the licensee's September 26, 1985 letter are applicable only to the old model MSAR-49 actuators which are being replaced.

't

! The licensee has requested an extension until November 30, 1986 for the completion j of qualification of the hydrogen recombiners and an extension until August 31, 1 1986 for the completion of qualification of the damper actuators. Considering that 1) the delay in the qualification of these items was beyona the control of i the licensee, 2) the actual testing is about to be completed, 3) the licensee is in the process of installing the new equipnent which is currently under test, t and 4) the need for an extension beyond November 30, 1985 is based solely on delays in completion of the qualification documentation package, if the tests are successful, the staff finds that the licensee has provided a satisfactory

basis to demonstrate the exceptional nautre of the case.

• However, the staff does not believe that the length of the extensions requested by the licensee are warranted. An extension until December 31, 1985 should be i

sufficient to allow the licensee to complete the qualification documentation packages. This view was upheld by the Connission, which approved an extension until December 31, 1985 in a letter dated November 19, 1985 to fir. John Leonard

of LILCo from the Secretary of the Commission.

Evaluation

Shorehain is currently shutdown to replace the neutron startup sources in the i reactor core and to perform certain maintenance and surveillance items. The plant is scheduled to restart in mid-December,1985. An extension of the

+

qualification deadline would not affect the safe operation of the plant for

this limited time period for several reasons:

l j 1. 'The extension'does not modify the design bases or criteria of th'e equip-ment in question. It does not, therefore, increase the probability or consequences of an accident.

2. The extension does not vary or affect any plant operating condition or parameter. It does not create the possibility of a new or different kind of accident from any accident previously evaluated.

i l

n .

.-. .~. . - _ _

3. It does not change the qualification parameters or standards, the equipment operability requirements, or the design bases for the equipment in the plant. It would only allow the licensee an extension of time to complete the formal documentation which demonstrates that

' the equipment in question meets the standards and design bases, as already proven by the successful tests.

4. During the short time that the plant will operate with this extension (from about mid-December to the end of December,1985), the plant will be limited to operation below 5% of rated thermal power. At these low

power levels much greater margins of safety exist, with correspendingly i greater time limits before severe consequences may develop during an

't accident. Any reduction in such margins of safety because the qualification documentien for this equipment is not complete are insignificant.

-i Environmental Consideration l This amendment involves facility components located within the restricted area i

defined in 10 CFR Part 20. The staff has determined that the amendment involves l 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 the 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 findings. Accordingly, this amendment meets the eligibility criteria for categorical exclusion set forth in 10 CFR 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 issuance of this amendment. i Conclusion 1

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 these amendments will not be inimical to the common defense and security or i l to the health and safety of the public. I Dated: DEC 0 6 5ES P

f, ' 1

, l l

,t l

L!

..~~ .- -..__... . _ __..., , ._ . . .