ML20135F776

Safety Evaluation Supporting Amend 75 to License DPR-54

ML20135F776
Person / Time
Site:	Rancho Seco
Issue date:	09/09/1985
From:	Office of Nuclear Reactor Regulation
To:
Shared Package
ML20135F745	List: ML20135F741 ML20135F762 ML20135F776
References
NUDOCS 8509170389
Download: ML20135F776 (3)

Text

_ . . _ . . _ _ _ _

2

/ o UNITED STATES NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSION r, e WASHINGTON. D. C. 20555

/

SAFETY EVALUATION BY THE OFFICE OF NUCLEAR REACTOR REGULATION SUPPORTING AMENDMENT NO. 75 TO FACILITY OPERATING LICENSE NO. DPR-54 SACRAMENTO MUNICIPAL UTILITY DISTRICT RANCHO SECO NUCLEAR GENERATING STATION DOCKET NO. 50-312

1. INTRODUCTION A. DESCRIPTION OF PROPOSED ACTION The proposed action would amend Sections 4.18.5.1.d and 6.9.5 of Appendix A of the facility Technical Specifications. These sections prescribe regulatory requirements applicable to fire hoses and the submission of certain reports.

~

B. BACKGROUND INFORMATION i

, By letter dated October 29, 1984, the licensee requested amendment of the facility Technical Specifications to correct certain apparent errors relating to fire hose qualification requirements and report-ing requirements. This evaluation addresses the acceptability of the items comprising this request.

j II. EVALUATION 1 Specification 4.18.5.1.d. This specification presently requires that I

' each three years, all fire hose be removed and replaced with "...new equivalent NFPA tested and approved hose." The licensee proposes that

this be changed to require that the hose be removed and replaced each i

three years with "... hose that meets or exceeds NFPA guidelines or recommendations." The licensee bases this request on the statement that the National Fire Protection Association (NFPA) does not test and approve i hoses - but rather merely establishes guidelines and recommendations. We have reviewed the NFPA guidelines applicable to fire hoses (NFPA Standards 1961-1979, " Standard for FIRE HOSE" and 1962-1979, " Standard for the Care Use, and Maintenance of Fire Hose including Connections and Nozzles"). As a result of this review, we note that Appendix A to each of these standards states in part:

"The National Fire Protection Association does not apprqve, inspect or certify any installations, pro:edures, equipment or idaterials nor does it. approve testing laboratories." }.

Based on this statement, we conclude the NFPA is a standards organization, as stated by the licensee - not a testing or approving organization as inferred by the present specification. Accordingly, we 8509170389 850909 PDR ADOCK 05000312 p PDR

j . .

l find the proposed revision to this specification appropriate and, because '

l it does not reduce the present level of safety, we find the proposed change acceptable.

Specification 6.9.5 - Addressee. The licensee proposes to change the i

addressee for the reports required by this specification from " Director ,

of the Regulatory Operations Regional Office" to " Regional Administrator i Region V Office". Since this proposed change would revise the title of i

the addressee to reflect the current NRC organization and organizational titles, we conclude this is an editorial change that is appropriate and l

acceptable.

S >ecification 6.9.5 - Items M and O. The licensee proposes to delete taese items from this specification on the basis that they are not appropriate for inclusion in the category of "Special Reports", and

{

because the 30-day submittal schedules included as editorial notes in

• this specification do not agree with the semi-annual requirement stated in the basic specifications establishing the reporting requirements. The items in question are reports of changes to the Land Use Census and reports of events where the limits of the radioactive Liquid Holdup Tanks

• j are exceeded.

+

2 Regarding this request, we note that the characteristic comon to j "Special Reports" in the licensee's specifications is that such reports are to be made within a specified fixed time following an event. The items proposed for deletion from this Section by the licensee, however, do not fit this description. In both cases, the basic specifications (3.23 for Item M and 3.17.3 for Item 0) state the required information is to be included in the "...next Semiannual Radioactive Effluent Release ,

Report." In addition, it is clear the 30-day report requirement included as an editoriil note in Specification 6.9.5 does not agree with the l semiannual requirements given in the basic specifications.

Therefore, because the items proposed for deletion from Specification 6.9.5, "Special Reports", do not fit the definition of items requiring a special

! report, and because the 30-day report statement in Section 6.9.5 does riot agree with the requirement stated in the basic specifications, we conclude the original inclusion of these items in Specification 6.9.5 was the result of an

] error. Accordingly, we conclude the deletion of these two items is an j editorial correction and is acceptable.

j Specification 6.9.5. - Item N. The licensee proposes to change the report 1

period for this item (which relates to Fuel Cycle Oose), from 60 days to 30 i days and change the referenced section of the Technical Specifications from l

Section 4.25 to 3.25. Based on our review of Sections 3.25 and 4.E5 of the

! facility Technical Specifications, we conclude the present entriesi are in error and the changes proposed by the licensee would correct theser errors.

Accordingly, we find these proposed changes acceptable.

,7.._ . . _ . - - _ _ _ - - . . _ . . . . . - . _ - , _ _ _ _ . . , _ , - . , _ _ - . . _ ~ _ . , __

_m-. - . , . , - __. __.m__., .-m,_,m_-~ ,- . _ . , . _ . _ . -

- - - -. - _ - - . . - _ = . _ _ .-_ .. -. ._. - - - .. ._ ._.

j . .

4

~ 3-t i

j III. ENVIR0 MENTAL CONSIDERATION ,

l i This amendment involves a change in surveillance requirements and also e relates to changes in recordkeeping, reporting, or administrative <

procedures or requirements. We have determined that the amendment 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 radiation exposure. The Comission has previously issued a l 3

proposed finding that this amendment involves no significant hazards  :

1 consideration and there has been no public connent on such finding.

i i' Accordingly, categorical exclusion this amendment set forth inmeets the 10 CFR eligibility) 51.22(c (9) and criteria (10). for .

Pursuant to 10 CFR 51.22(b) no environmental impact statement or

• environmental assessment need be prepared in connection with the i

)

, i issuance of this amendment. ' '

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

there is reasonable assurance that the health and safety of the public e will not be endangered by operation in the proposed manner, and (2) such j activities will be conducted in compliance with the Commission's regulations, and the issuance of the amendment will not be inimical to comon defense and security or to the health and safety of the public.  !

l Date: September 9, 1985 1

Principal Contributor:

G. Zwetzig ,  !

1  !

l  !

.i I

i  :

1  !

t -

l -

i y  !

I t  !

t

\- l i

4 i

! [

1 l l

_. - . . . . , . _ . .