ML20238D387
| ML20238D387 | |
| Person / Time | |
|---|---|
| Site: | Diablo Canyon  |
| Issue date: | 09/03/1987 |
| From: | Office of Nuclear Reactor Regulation |
| To: | |
| Shared Package | |
| ML20238D365 | List: |
| References | |
| TAC-62159, TAC-62160, NUDOCS 8709110147 | |
| Download: ML20238D387 (3) | |
Text
- - _ _ _ _ _
i l('p %q[o UNITED STATES g
g NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSION g
/"j WASHINGTON, D. C. 20555 i
%,...../
SAFETY EVALUATION BY THE OFFICE OF NUCLEAR REACTOR REGULATION RELATED TO AMENDMENT NO. 19 TO FACILITY OPERATING LICENSE NO. DPR-80 AND AMENDMENT N0.18 TO FACILITY OPERATING LICENSE NO. DPR-82 j
PACIFIC GAS AND ELECTRIC COMPANY DIABLO CANYON NUCLEAR POWER PLANT, UNIT N05. 1 AND 2 DOCKET NOS. 50-275 AND 50-323 i
1.0 INTRODUCTION
By letter dated November 5,1986, Pacific Gas and Electric Company (PG&E or the licensee) requested amendments to t5e Technical Specifications appended to Facility Operating License Nos. DPR-80 and DPR-82 for the Diablo Canyon Nuclear Power Plant, Unit Nos. I and 2.
The proposed i
amendments would delete Table 3.8-2 for containment penetration conductor overcurrent protective devices from Section 3/4 8.4, " Electrical Equipment Protective Devices" and its reference throughout the Technical Specifications. Table 3.8-2 lists primary and backup protective devices by device number u d the associated system or component. PG&E would add the detailed list of overcurrent devices to the updated FSAR at the next regular update. The amendment would not alter the requirement that these devices be operable and that they be periodically tested.
2.0 DISCUSSION AND EVALUATION Eliminating detailed tables such as the one which is the subject of this proposed amendment has been adopted by the NRC staff as an acceptable approach for snubbers and overcurrent devices.
It avoids having to make changes to the Technical Specifications involving administrative matters such as changes to device numbers, snubber designations, etc. and thereby allows the licensee some flexibility and at the same time preserves the basic requirement for operability and testing. Changes to delete the detailed list of overcurrent devices have been previously evaluated and approved for the Seabrook, Callaway, and Sumer plants, and the Standard Technical Specifications are being revised to delete the table.
The technical specification requirement to have operable containment penetration conductor overcurrent protective devices would remain in the Technical Specifications. Without operable protective devices, containment penetrations can be damaged from an electrical fault, and containment isolation can be lost.
Therefore, under 10 CFR 50.36(c)(2) operable protective devices are and will continue to be essential to attain the containment penetration performance level required for safe operation of the facility.
kf$Y f
P
J The requested changes clearly indicate the devices to which'the limiting conditions for operation and surveillance requirements apply. Any changes to the relocated table resulting from changes to the facility or procedures, as described in the safety analysis report, are subject to the provisions of 10 CFR 50.59. Application of those provisions may result in a requirement for a license amendment as is required by 10 CFR 50.59 for changes to the Technical Specifications.
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 determination that the change, test or experi-ment does not involve an unreviewed safety question. Thus, there is no reduction in the requirements for the licensee to establish that there is n unreviewed safety question prior to making changes to the table.
Those safety evaluations are available for staff review at the plant site. In particular, although this proposed change would delete the table of protective devices from the technical specifications and thereby allow the licensee some flexibility for changes as discussed earlier, the basis for the protective devices is discussed in the " Bases" section of the technical specifications. There, it is clearly stated the safety reason for these devices: Their purpose is to limit circuit fault current to a value below the electrical penetration rating.
Eliminating any protective device from the FSAR table would require a 10 CFR 50.59 review.
In particular, since deleting a required protective device would constitute a reduction in a margin of safety as defined in the basis for a technical specification, the licensee could not make such a change without prior approval NRC (10 CFR 50.59).
Therefore, the staff is satisfied that the essential overcurrent devices would remain.(or an application for amendment would be tendered) and it is acceptable to delete the table. Minor wording changes have been made to make to the proposed change conform to the recently approved standard. The licensee has agreed to these changes, which do not affect the intent of the proposal.
3.0 ENVIRONMENT CONSIDERATION These amendments involve changes in the installation or use of a facility component located within the restricted area as defined in 10 CFR Part 20.
We have determined that the amendments involve 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 Consnission has previously issued a proposed finding that the amendments involve n significant hazards consideration and there has been no public comment on such finding. Accordingly, these amendments meets the eligibilit criteria for categorical exclusion set forth in 10CFR 51.22(c)(9)y i
Pursuant to 10 CFR 51.22(b), no environmental impact statement or environ-mental assessment need be prepared in connection with the issuance of these assessments.
l
~...
s
_3-
4.0 CONCLUSION
l We have concluded, based on the considerations discussed.above, that: (1)~
there is reasonable assurance that the health and safety of the public will f
'not be endangered by operation in the proposed manner, and (2) such activities will'be conducted in' compliance with the Commission's regulations and (3) the issuance of these amendments-will not be inimical to the common defense and security or to the health and safety of the public.-
Principal Contributors:
A. Toalston,' C.- Trammell Dated: September 3, 1987 i
l I
4 i
-. _. - - _ - _ _ - _ - - _ _ _ - _. _ - - - - - - - _ _ - _ _ _ - - -.