ML20245A199

Safety Evaluation Supporting Amend 110 to License DPR-54

ML20245A199
Person / Time
Site:	Rancho Seco
Issue date:	06/09/1989
From:	Office of Nuclear Reactor Regulation
To:
Shared Package
ML20245A185	List: ML20245A183 ML20245A190 ML20245A199
References
GL-84-13, NUDOCS 8906210141
Download: ML20245A199 (3)

Text

_

.[p "lc%), UNITED STATES

+

!)' e },

r,,

NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSION WASHINGTON. D. C. 20$55

'l

• ..../

SAFETY EVALUATION BY THE OFFICE OF NUCLEAR REACTOR REGULATION j l

SUPPORTING AMENDMENT NO.110TO FACILITY OPERATING LICENSE DPR-54 j RANCHO SECO NUCLEAR GENERATING STATION, UNIT 1 l

DOCKET NO. 50-312 l

I

1.0 INTRODUCTION

8y letter dated October 1986, as revised September 8, 1987, the Sacramento  ;

Municipal Utility District (SMUD) submitted proposed changes to the  !

Technical Specifications (TS) for 'Se Rancho Seco Nuclear Generating 1 Station (Rancho Seco). The changes would delete the tabular listing (Table 3.12-1) of operational snubbers and add criteria specifying which snubbers are required to be operable and the corresponding operability-requirements. The licensee's proposal was made in response to the NRC -

staff's Generic Letter (GL) 84-13, " Technical Specifications for Snubbers," )

dated May 3, 1984. These changes are expected to eliminate the need for '

frequent TS amendments to incorporate changes in snubber listings. The  ;

licensee has also proposed _to delete the snubbers listed in Table 4.14-1 '

end TS Section 4.14e. Thesd deletions, comprising the Snubber Seal Replacement Program, are to be replaced by the TS on Snubber Service Life Monitoring (4.14f). A new Section 4.14 e was added to delineate mechanical snubber functional test acceptance criteria.

2.0 EVALUATION The NRC staff indicated in the aforementioned Generic Letter that it had reassessed the inclusion of snubber listing within the TS and concluded that such listings were not necessary if the snubber TS were modified to specify which snubbers were required to be operable, and included certain surveillance requirements. The licensee's requested changes to the TS deleted the tabular listings of snubbers, in Tables 3.12-1 and 14.14-1, specified which snubbers are required to be operable, and included the necessary surveillance requirements.

The amendment TS would continue to require all snubbers installed on safety-related systems to be operable, and would not reduce any existing operability or surveillance requirement. Therefore, the staff finds change to be acceptable.

The Generic Letter of November 20, 1980 required that at least 25% of the snubbers in any representative sample selected for functional testing shall include snubbers from the following three categories:

8906210141 890609 PDR .

P ADOCK 05000312 PNU-d

4

1. The first snubber away from each reactor vessel.

2. Snubbers within five feet of heavy equipment (pumps, steam generators, valves, etc.

3. Snubbers within ten feet of the discharge from a safety relief valve.

Generic Letter 84-13 further required that the sample also include snubbers especially difficult to remove or in high radiation zones, unless exempted from functional testing by the Commission. Amendment No. 77 (December 24, 1985) to the Facility Operating License No. DPR-54 incorporated the SMUD request to select the snubbers for the representative sample on a random basis. The basis for the acceptance of this request by the staff was that the sample would be reviewed to ensure as far as practicable that the selected snubbers are representative of the various configurations, operating environments, and the range of size and capacity of snubbers of each type.

The staff finds the random approach to the selection of the representative sample (10% of the total of each type of snubber in use in the plant) acceptable provided that SMUD verify that all snubbers that are required to be operable will be functionally tested at least once within a time frame of 180 months, .

3.0 CONTACT WITH STATE OFFICIAL ~-

The NRC staff has advised the Chief of the Radiological Health Branch, State Department of Health Services,, State of California, of the proposed determination of no significant hazards consideration. No comments were received.

4.0 ENVIRONMENTAL CONSIDERATION

This amendment involves changes in the installation or use of a facility component located within the restricted area as defined in 10 CFR Part 20 and in surveillance requirements. The staff has determined that the amend-ment 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 radiatfor exposure. The Commission has previously issued a proposed finding that this 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).

Pursuant to 10 CFR Part 51.22(b), no environmental impact statement or environ-mental assessment need be prepared in connection with the issuance of this amendment.

l l

5.0 CONCLUSION

We have concluded, based on the considerations discussed above, that (1).

there is reasonable assurance that the health and safety of the will not be endangered by operation in the proposed manner, (2) public such activities will be conducted in compliance with the Commission's  ;

regulations, and (3) the issuance of the amendment will not be inimical.

to common defense and security or to the health and safety.of the public.

i Principal Contributors: M. Hartzman S. Reynolds i Dated: June 9, 1989 I

O 9

e 1

_ ____