ML20247M923

Safety Evaluation Supporting Amend 106 to License DPR-54

ML20247M923
Person / Time
Site:	Rancho Seco
Issue date:	05/23/1989
From:	Office of Nuclear Reactor Regulation
To:
Shared Package
ML20247M904	List: ML20247M900 ML20247M907 ML20247M923
References
NUDOCS 8906050195
Download: ML20247M923 (3)

Text

. _-_-

• a3 0

%go g UNITED STATES

'8 o NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSION i y ;p WASHINGTON, D. C. 20556

,o SAFETY-EVALUATION BY THE OFFICE OF NUCLEAR REACTOR REGULATION SUPPORTING AMENDMENT NO.106TO FACILITY OPERATING LICENSE DPR-54 RANCHO SECO NUCLEAR GENERATING STATION, UNIT 1 DOCKET NO. 50-312

-1. 0 INTRODUCTION By letters dated March 19, 1985, as supplemented June 17 and Novembhr 25, 1985, the Sacramento Municipal Utility District (SMUD) requested changes to the Technical Specifications of the Rancho Seco Nuclear Generating Station to provide for a more extensive inspection of steam generator tubes in areas where degradation is expected. Normal random sampling inspection of tubes is to be provided in other areas of the steam generator.

The Technical Specification change also includes editorial changes and

• updates the reporting requirements for the inspection results found to be in Category C-3 of Tables 4.17-2A and 4.17-28. .The Technical Specification change requires notification within 4 hours4.62963e-5 days <br />0.00111 hours <br />6.613757e-6 weeks <br />1.522e-6 months <br /> per the requirements of 10 CFR 50.72(b)(2).

In addition, the March 19, 1985 letter requested an extension from 15 to 30 days for the submission of reports on the number of tubes plugged in the steam generator. The change was inadvertently omitted from the discussion in June 18, 1986 Federal Register notice, however, no renoticing

. of the action is required in that the March 19, 1985 submittal was referenced in the notice and the change is consistent with 10 CFR 50.73.

1 2.0 EVALUATION The NRC staff has examined in detail the Technical Specification changes.

Most of the changes were editorial in nature, i.e., making miscellaneous changes to page and paragraph numbers, section titles and phrases for consistency. These changes are administrative and are, therefore, acceptable.

Another change was to add to Specification 4.17.4 a definition of "special area tubes" in the steam generator. This change identifies the "special area tubes," in Tables 4-17-4 and 4-17-5, and includes those tubes which have shown a significant amount of degradation throughout their cperating history. The exception to the requirements for declaring the steam generator operable was redefined to include the requirements that (1) the special area (s) be identified and bounded, (2) a 100% tube inspection of the special area (s) be conducted, and (3) a standard random steam generator 8906050195 890523 PDR ADDCK 05000312 P PNU

i ,

l-tube inspection (sample per Table 4.11-2A) be conducted on the rest of the tubes in the steam generator. This change to the surveillance testing (a) divides the steam generator tube bundle into a normal tube area and

' a special tube area based on operating experience, and (b) augments the current random sampling tube inspection by requiring 100% inspection in the special tube area. The proposed changes do not alter the existing surveillance requirements in the normal tube area.

The clanges related to the designation of special area tubes enhance surveillance in an area where operation has shown it to be a problem area and are acceptable.

Also, the 100% tube inspection in newly defined "special areas," in addition to the standard random steam generator tube inspection currently required in the rest of the steam generator, will adequately monitor and detect tube degradation in the steam generators. These changes constitute more stringent surveillance requirements for tubes in areas where degrad-ation is expected. The reporting requirement for inspection results where defective or degraded tubes exceed a specific percentage has been reduced to'4 hours4.62963e-5 days <br />0.00111 hours <br />6.613757e-6 weeks <br />1.522e-6 months <br />. The 4 hour4.62963e-5 days <br />0.00111 hours <br />6.613757e-6 weeks <br />1.522e-6 months <br /> reporting requirement for tube inspection results where defective or degraded tubes exceed a specific percentage of the total tubes inspected is indicated in Category C-3 of Tables 4.17-2A and 4.17-2B. This change is acceptable because it is consistent with the 10 CFR 50.72(b)(2) which requires a 4 hour4.62963e-5 days <br />0.00111 hours <br />6.613757e-6 weeks <br />1.522e-6 months <br /> report whenever a principal safety barrier has been found to be seriously degraded. The licensee also proposed to revise the reporting requirement in Technical Specifi-cation 4.17.5 by extending the deadline for reporting plugged tubes from 15 days to 30 days after each inservice inspection of steam generator tubes to maintain consistency with other TS reporting requirements. This

, change is acceptable since it improves administrative efficiency with no re adverse requirementseffect foron safety and reportable is consistent events with defined in 10 CFRthe 30 day (a) 50.73 .

porting Therefore, the proposed Technical Specification changes meet the applicable regulatory requirements and are acceptable.

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 surveillance requirements and in the installation or use of a facility component located within the restricted area as defined in 10 CFR Part 20. The staff has determined that the amendment involves no significant in:rease in the amounts, and no signi-ficant change in the types, of any effluents that may be released offsite, and that there is no significant increase in individual or cumulative

(p. : -

4 m.

occupational radiation 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 exclusionsetforthin10CFR51.22(c)(9). Pursuantto10CFR51.22(b),

no environmental impact statement or environmental assessment need be prepared in connection with the issuance of this amendment.

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 public will not be endangered by operation in the proposed manner, (2) such.

activities will be conducted in. compliance with the Commission's regula-tions, 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.

' Principal Contributor: S. Juergens

- Dated: May 23, 1989 x ---__--------------_-____--,---a__---___ ,ua__ _--_-a- _. - - - - - - -