ML20204C387
| ML20204C387 | |
| Person / Time | |
|---|---|
| Site: | Summer  |
| Issue date: | 07/22/1986 |
| From: | Office of Nuclear Reactor Regulation |
| To: | |
| Shared Package | |
| ML20204C386 | List: |
| References | |
| GL-82-12, NUDOCS 8607310137 | |
| Download: ML20204C387 (2) | |
Text
'
p8 8FCg o
UNITED STATES j/
g NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSION p,
ri, j
WASHINGTON, D. C. 20555
%.w..../
SAFETY EVALUATION BY THE OFFICE OF NUCLEAR REACTOR REGULATION RELATED TO AMENDMENT NO. 51 TO FACILITY OPERATING LICENSE NO. NPF-12 SOUTH CAROLINA ELECTRIC & GAS COMPANY SOUTH CAROLINA PUBLIC SERVICE AUTHORITY VIRGIL C. SUMMER NUCLEAR STATION, UNIT N0. 1 DOCKET NO. 50-395 I.
INTRODUCTION By letter dated March 17, 1986, South Carolina Electric and Gas Company (the licensee) requested changes to the Virgi.1 C. Summer Nuclear Station Technical Specifications. The first change, Technical Specification (TS) 6.2.2,
" Administrative Controls - Unit Staff," clariffes that the Director, Nuclear Plant Operations does not need to review individual overtime during extended shutdown periods. The other change, TS 3.5.3, "ECCS Subsystems - Tavg Less than 350*F," clarifies that the residual heat removal system can be aligned to the reactor coolant system during Mode 4 operation and manual alignment to the refueling water storage tank would be utilized upon receipt of a safety injection j
signal.
II. EVALUATION Section 6.2.2.f.d. of the Technical Specifications states, "Except during extended shutdown periods, the use of overtime should be considered on an individual basis and not for the entire staff on a shift." However, the final paragraph of Section 6.2.2.f states, " Controls shall be included in the procedures such that individual overtime shall be reviewed monthly by the Director, Nuclear Plant Operations, or his designee to assure that excessive hours have not been assigned." These two statements appear contradictory because, in the latter statement, the
~
exception to dispense with the monthly review of individual overtime during periods of extended shutdown is not restated.
It is the NRC staff's view that the intent of the NRC overtime policy expressed in Generic Letter 82-12 can be achieved if the Director's monthly review of individual overtime is dispensed with during extended shutdown periods. The monthly reviews of individual overtime would be required at all other times.
The NRC staff has reviewed this change and finds that it is a clarification l
made for consistency in the Technical Specifications and therefore is acceptable.
TS 3.5.3.d states in part "An OPERABLE flow path capable of taking suction from the refueling water storage tank...." This statement could cause confusion because it could be viewed as meaning aligned to the refueling water l
8607310137 860722 DR ADOCK 0500 5
i
... storage tank instead of capable of being aligned to the refueling water storage tank. To address that concern the words "upon being manually realigned... "
are being added after the above statement. This change is in accordance with the Westinghouse Standard Technical Specifications. Another change to TS 3.5.3.d.
is made by substituting " transferring suction" for the words "being manually or automatically realigned to the suction." This change is made for consistency with and is in accordance with Westinghouse Standard Technical Specifications.
The NRC staff has reviewed these changes and finds that they are clarifying in nature and therefore, are acceptable.
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 a change in an administrative procedure or requirement. The staff has determined that this 3=endment 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 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 coment on such finding. Accordingly, this amendment meets the eligibility criteria for categorical exclusion set forth in 10 CFR Sections i
1 51.22(c)(9)and(c)(10).
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.
CONCLUSION We have concluded, based on the considerations discussed above, that:
(1) there is reasonable assurance that the health and safety of the i
public will not be endangered by operation in the proposed manner, and (2) such activities will be conducted in compliance with the Comission'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.
)
Dated: July 22,1986 Principal Contributor:
Jon B. Hopkins, Project Directorate #2, DPLA I
i 1
_.____.____ _ _____.______ __