ML20244D715
| ML20244D715 | |
| Person / Time | |
|---|---|
| Site: | Summer  |
| Issue date: | 06/06/1989 |
| From: | Office of Nuclear Reactor Regulation |
| To: | |
| Shared Package | |
| ML20244D707 | List: |
| References | |
| NUDOCS 8906190226 | |
| Download: ML20244D715 (2) | |
Text
___
s
/
UNITED STATES 8'
't NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSION r,,
WASHINGTON, D. C. 20555
%..../
SAFETY EVALUATION BY THE OFFICE OF NUCLEAR REACTOR REGULATION SUPPORTING AMENDMENT NO. 78 TO FACILITY OPEPATING LICENSE NO. NPF-12 SOUTH CAROLINA ELECTRIC & GAS COPPAg SOUTH CAROLINA PUBLIC SERVICE AUTHORITY VIRGIL C. SUMMER NUCLEAR STATION, UNIT NO._1 DOCKET NO. 50-395
1.0 INTRODUCTION
In a letter dated December 8, 1983, South Carolina Electric & Gas Company, (the licensee) proposed changes to the Virgil C. Summer Nuclear Station, Unit 1, (Summer Station) Technical Specifications (TS) which would address changes in the surveillance requirements made necessary by the installation of automatic actuation of the shunt trip attachments of the reactor trip breakers (RTB), as required by Generic Letter (GL) 83-28, Item 4.3,
" Required Actions Based on Generic Ing11 cations of Salem ATWS Event." The original required changes were clarified and modified by GL 85-09, " Technical Specifications for Generic Letter 83-28, Item 4.3."
Because the licensee's proposed changes did not conform to guidance contained in GL 85-09, the licensee withdrew the original TS proposal by a letter dated January 20, 1989 and submitted new proposed changes. These changes were consistent with the recommendations of GL 85-09. On March 20, 1989 the licensee supplemented their application with a letter addressing the standards of 10 CFR 50.92(c) regardir.g whether or not a no significant hazards consideration exists.
The January 20, 1989 proposed amendment would implenent the recommendations of GL 85-09 regarding RTB testing. Specifically, the licensee proposed to modify TS Table 3.3-1, " Reactor Trip System Instrumentation," to add Action 11 to the RTBs for the case when one of the diverse trip features is inoperable. TS Table 4.3-1, " Reactor Trip System Instrumentation Surveillance Requirements," would be revised to modify notation 11 and to add notations 12-14 This table would also be modified to have notations 11 and 12 apply to the Trip Actuating Device Operational Test for the Manual Reactor Trip functional unit and the RTB functional unit, respectively.
In addition, the Reactor Trip Bypass Breaker would be added as a functional unit to Table 4.3-1 with notations 13 and 14 applying to this unit.
2.0 EVALUATION i
GL 83-28, recommended ty t there be automatic actuation of the shunt trip attachment for Westinghouse plants.
In GL 85-09, it was reconnended that TS specifically require independent testing of the undervoltage and shunt trip attachments during power operation and independent testing of the control room manual switch contacts during each refueling outage.
e90619o226 890606
[;DR ADOCK 05000395 PDC
(
l I
g J
1 1,
The licensee has incorporated the changes recommended by GL 85-09 to
[
address the new surveillance test requirements for the shunt trip attach-I ment of the RTBs, the bypass breakers and the reactor manual trip switch l
and wiring, at the Summer Station.
We have reviewed these proposed changes to the Virgil C. Sumer Nuclear Station, Unit 1 TS. We conclude that these changes meet the requirements of both GL 83-28, Item 4.3 and GL 85-09 and are acceptable.
3.0 ENVIRONMENTAL CONSIDERATION
This amendment involves a change of a requirement with respect to installa-tion or use of a facility component located within the restricted area defined in 10 CFR Part 20 and changes to the surveillance requirements.
The staff has determined that the amendment involves no significant increase in the amounts, and no *1gnificant change in the types, of any effluents that may be released c7' site, and that there is no significant increase in individual or cumulative occupational radiation ex sosure.
The Comission has previously issued a proposed finding that tiis amendment involves no significant hazards consideration, and there has been no public comment on such finding. Accordingly, this amendment meets the eligibility criteria for categorical exclusion set forth in 10 CFR 51.22(c)(9). Pursu-ant to 10 CFR 51.22(b) no environmental impact statement or environmental assessment need be prepared in connection with the issuance of this amend-ment.
4.0 CONCLUSION
The Comission made a proposed determination that this amendment involves no significant hazards consideration, which was published in the Federal Register on May 3, 1989 (54 FR 18960) and consulted with the State of South Carolina. No public coments were received, and the State of South Carolina did not have any comments.
We have concluded, based on the considerations discussed above, that:
(1) there is reasenable 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 Comission's regulations and the issuance of this amendment will not be inimical to the comon defense and security or to the health and safety of the public.
Principal Contributor:
D. Lasher Dated:
June 6,1989
)
_ _ _ _ _ _ - _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _