ML20212Q923
| ML20212Q923 | |
| Person / Time | |
|---|---|
| Site: | Summer  |
| Issue date: | 04/06/1987 |
| From: | Office of Nuclear Reactor Regulation |
| To: | |
| Shared Package | |
| ML20212Q921 | List: |
| References | |
| TAC-62159, TAC-62160, NUDOCS 8704240145 | |
| Download: ML20212Q923 (3) | |
Text
...
l g
UNITED STATES 8
NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSION o
E j
wAswmGTON, D. C. 20555
\\,...../
l SAFETY EVALUATION 9Y THE OFFICE OF NIfCLEAR REACTOR REGULATION j
RELATED TO AMENDMENT NO. 63 TO FACILITY OPERATING LICENSE N0. NPF-12 l
SOUTH CAROLINA ELECTRIC & GAS COMPANY SOUTH CAROLINA PURLIC SERVICE AUTHORITY VIRGIL C. SUMMER NUCLEAR STATION, UNIT NO. 1 DOCKET NO. 50-395 l
j INTRODUCTION By letter dated April 29, 1985, as supplemented June 10, 1985, South Carolina Electric and Gas Company (SCEAG) requested a Technical Specification (TS) l change for Sumer Station which deletes Table 3.8-I of the containment penetra-1 tion conductor overcurrent protective devices from TS section 3/4.8.3,
" Electrical Equipment Protective Devices" and its reference throuohout the TS, Table 3.8-1 provides information regarding the location of the protective devices l
and the systems powered along with trip setpoints and response time parameters.
l As an alternative, SCE&G proposed tha-t.the table be maintained in chapter 8.0 of the Final Safety. Analysis Report (FSAR) as part of the plant design, and testing will be performed to ensure that devices required for penetration protec-i tion function as designed.
)
EVALUATION The test setpoint and response time for each device are established by
)
engineering evaluation and vendor recomendations.
These setpoints and times are specific to each model of breaker and fuse used as a protective device.
Therefore, acceptable replacement devices which may be different models from the same or different manufacturer, may have different test setpoints and response times.
For example, the primar penetration for reactor compartment (RC)y device for the containment cooling fan 'A' has a long time test setpoint of 360 amps with a response time of less than or equal to 30 seconds, j
This test setpoint and response time are not exact requirements for the containment penetration used for the power cable to RC cooling for 'A', but to the model of breaker installed as the protective device, which is not listed 1
in Table 3.8-1.
Otl.er models of breakers, acceptable for containment penetration protection, can have different test setpoints and response times, Another example is the backup device for the containment penetration for RC j
cooling fan
'B', which is listed in Table 3.8-1 as a 200 amp fuse with a test setpoint of greater than or equal to 3.75 milliohms.
There can be many acceptable replacement fuses which can have a differernt amp rating and/or test setpoint.
i e
i
t As stated above, Table 3.8-1 lists test setpoints and response times which correspond to a specific protective device model's reouirements and not to the containment penetration protective requirements.
Therefore, the identification i
of those test setpoints and response times are not needed under 10 CFR 50.36(c)(2) to provide the lowest functional performance level of the contain-j ment penetration and Table 3.8-1 may be removed from Technical Specifications.
The Technical Specification reouirement to have operable containment j
penetration conductor overcurrent protective devices remains in the Technical r
i Specifications. Without operable protective devices, containment penetrations l
can be damaged from an electrical fault, and containment isolation can be lost.
l l
Therefore, under 10 CFR 50.36(c)(2) operable protective devices are and will 1
continue to be essential to attain the containment penetration perfomance level required for safe operation of the facility.
1 The requested TS changes clearly indicate the devices to which the limiting j
conditions for operation (LCO) and surveillance requirements (SR) apply.
The 1
staff concludes that these changes do not constitute a relaxation in the LC0 or
{
reduction of SR. Any changes to the relocated table resulting from changes to j
the facility or procedures, as described in the safety analysis report, or the conduct of tests or experiments not described in the safety analysis report are i
i sub,iect to the provisions of 10 CFR 50.59. Application of those provisions may I
result in a requirement for a license amendment as is required by 10 CFR 50.59 j
for changes to TS.
I s
Other changes under 10 CFR 50.59 can,be made without a~ license amendment only after the licensee completes a written safety evaluation which provides the bases for the detemination that the change, test or experiment does not involve i
an unreviewed safety question. Thus, there is no reduction in the requirements for the licensee to establish that there is no unreviewed safety question prior i
to making changes to the table that relate to changes to the facility or pro-
)
cedures, and to tests and experiments. That safety evaluation is available for
{
staff review at the plant site.
i From the above discussion, the NRC staff finds that eliminating Table 3.8-1
)
from the TS and maintaining it in the FSAR is acceptable.
l The amendment also incorporates the administrative page numbering changes to i
certain TS pages that are necessary as a result of the deletion of Table J
3.8-1.
The staff considers this an administrative change, and therefore, these j
changes are acceptable.
ENVIRONMENTAL CONSTDERATION This amendment involves a change in the installation of a facility component j
located within the restricted area as defined in 10 CFR Part 20. The staff
{
has detemined 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 1
cumulative occupational radiation exposure.
The Cmenission has previously issued a proposed findia! that this amendment invo..as no significant hazards I
' consideration and there has been no public comment on such finding. Accordingly, j
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 environ-mental impact statement or environmental assessement need be prepared in connec-tion 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 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 connon defense and security or to the health and safety of the public, i
Dated: April 6, 1987 Principal Contributors:
J. B. Hopkins, Project Directorate #2, DPLA
- 0. P. Chopra Electrical, Instrumentation and Control Systems Branch, DPLA C. W. Moon, Facilities Operations Branch, DPLA
=
u, i
3 i
O r
.