ML20236C533
| ML20236C533 | |
| Person / Time | |
|---|---|
| Site: | Summer  |
| Issue date: | 07/22/1987 |
| From: | Office of Nuclear Reactor Regulation |
| To: | |
| Shared Package | |
| ML20236C528 | List: |
| References | |
| NUDOCS 8707300099 | |
| Download: ML20236C533 (3) | |
Text
- - _ _ _ _
/
'od UNITED STATES
["
p, NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSION
- j WASHINGTON, D C. 20555
+
SAFETY EVALUATION BY THE OFFICE OF NUCLEAR REACTOR REGULATION SUPPORTING AMENDMENT NO. 67 TO FACILITY OPERATING LICENSE NO. NPF-12 SOUTH CAROLINA ELECTRIC & GAS COMPANY SOUTH CAROLINA PUBLIC SERVICE AUTHORITY J
VIRGIL C. SUMMER NUCLEAR STATION, UNIT NO. 1 DOCKET NO. 50-395
1.0 INTRODUCTION
l By letter dated December 12, 1986, South Carolina Electric & Gas Company submitted a request for changes to the Virgil C. Summer Nuclear Station Technical Specifications (TS).
The amendment would revise Table 3.3-5 " Engineered Safety Fcatures Response Times," and its associated Basis. This change would clarify the Service Water System and Reactor Building Cooling Unit response times.
,I A Notice of Consideration of Issuance of Amendment to License and Proposed No Significant Hazards Consideration Determination and Opportunity for Hearing related to the requested action was published in the Federal Register on January 14, 1987 (52 FR 1557).
No comments or requests for hearing were received.
By letter dated April 9, 1987, the licensee submitted additional information which clarified certain aspects of the December 12, 1986 application.
Since the additional information did not change the requested TS revision or affeut the staff's initial determination, the amendment was not renoticed in the Federal Register.
2.0 EVALUATION The proposed changes will increase the required response time for the service water system (SWS) and the reactor building cooling units (RBCU) to "as-built" values. The proposed SWS response time is 81.5 seconds (including diesel generator delay) or 71.5 seconds (not including diesel generatordelay). The response time of 81.5 seconds includes 1.5 seconds for instrument response, 10 seconds to start the diesel generator, 10 seconds to start the service water pump and 60 seconds to open the SWS pumpdischargevalves(3116A,B,C-SW).
8707300099 870722 PDR ADOCK 05000395 p
.s
- 2'-
. The main function of the SWS is to deliver water to the following c
components:
(1) component cooling water /SW heat exchanger; (2) diesel generator coolers;
' (3) heating, ventilation, and air conditioning chiller; and 1
(4) the suction of:the SW booster pumps.
Each of the above listed components will be operational within the SWS response time.. The. licensee identified that~ only the service water
. booster pumps have a direct safety impact on.the containment analysis via the RBCU's heat removal capability. This impact was evalua hd in I
conjunction with the effect of the RBCU response'. time as discussed below.
- The proposed RBCU response time is 86.5 seconds (including generator o
delay) or 76.5 seconds (not including diesel generator delay).. The response time of 86.5 seconds includes 1.5 seconds for instrument response, 10 seconds to start the diesel generator and 75 seconds to open the slowest valves (3707A, B-SW) in the SW line. The licensee performed I
two' containment response analysis cases, i.e., the worst pressure case
. and the worst temperature case.
In the analysis, no flow to the RBCU was assumed until 71.5 seconds because valves 3110A, B-SW would remain 1
completely closed throughout this time period to isolate the SWS from the
)
non-safety related, non-seismic industrial cooling water (CI) system.
At'71.5 seconds, the RBCU discharge valves 3107A, B-SW would still be o)ening and would be passing 3800 gpm of service water.. At 86.5 seconds, 1
.f t1e valves 317A, B-SW would be fully open and passing 4000 gpm.- In the analysis, the licensee assumed a linear ramp increase of RBCU heat removal capability from 95% at 71.5 seconds to 100% at 86.5 seconds.
q As indicated in the licensee's letter of April 9,1987, the analyses used j
the mass and energy release data that were calculated by the Westinghouse i
LOFTRAN code, April 1986 revision. This revision of the LOFTRAN code was found acceptable by.the staff in its safety evaluation transmitted to Westinghouse by letter dated May 27, 1986. The computer code' CONTEMPT 1
LT/26.was used by the licensee to calculate containment pressure and I
- temperature responses. This is consistent with the staff's recommendation in SRP Section 6.2.1.1.A.
A peak pressure of 46 psig was calculated which is less than the design pressure of 57 psig with some margin.
The peak calculated temperature of 322*F is bounded by the equipment qualification temperature profiles specified in FSAR Figures 3.11-8, 3.11-9 and 3.11-10.
4 The staff has reviewed the licensee's analyses, including the assumptions, methodologies, and results.
Based on the above review, the staff finds that the proposed TS changes to increase the response time of the SWS and RBCU to the specified values have only a minor impact on the containment pressure and temperature responses. The resulting containment pressure and temperature were determined in accordance with SRP Section 6.2.1.1.A and are within the design values specified in the FSAR. The staff, therefore, concludes that the proposed TS changes are acceptable.
nr
V,'
-g u
L g
3.0 ENVIRONMENTAL CONSIDERATION
[
7 This amendment involves a. change.in the. surveillance requirement of a
- facility. component located within the restricted area, as defined in 10 CFR
- Part 20. The staff has determined that these amendments involve no 4
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 j
these' amendments involve:no significant hazard consideration, and there 1
~
'has been no public comment on such finding. Accordingly, this' amendments
]
meets the' eligibility criteria for categorical exclusion set forth in
-]
Pursuant to 10 CFR 51.22(b)'no' environmental impact 3
statement or. environmental assessment need be prepared in connection with
-]
the issuance.of this amendment.
j h
4.0 CONCLUSION
The Commission made'a proposed determination that this amendment involves
.no significant' hazards consideration which was published.in the Federal Register (52 FR 1557) on' January 14, 1987, and consulted with the state of Alabama.
No_public comments or-requests for hearing were received and The Commission has issued a " Notice of Consideration of Issuance of Amendments to Facility Operating Licenses and Opportunity for_ Prior 1
Hearing" which was published in the FEDERAL REGISTER on January 14, 1987 (52 FR 1557) and consulted with the state of South Carolina.
No public
~
comments.or requests for hearing were received, and the state of South Carolina did not have eny comments.
The staff has 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 common defense and security or to the health and safety of the public.
Principal Contributors:
J. Hopkins,-Project Directorate 11-1 C.'Li, Plant Systems Branch Dated: July 22, 1987_
]
l
[
t i
.