ML20245E116

Safety Evaluation Supporting Amend 111 to License DPR-54

ML20245E116
Person / Time
Site:	Rancho Seco
Issue date:	06/20/1989
From:	Office of Nuclear Reactor Regulation
To:
Shared Package
ML20245E074	List: ML20245E071 ML20245E096 ML20245E110 ML20245E116
References
NUDOCS 8906270330
Download: ML20245E116 (3)

Text

_ __ - _ _ _ _ _ - _ _ _ - _ _ _ _ _ - _ - _ _

l 4

praeg l

, ', , je,, UNITED STATES o NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSION g ;p WASHINGTON, D. C. 20555

• • .,+f b l

SAFETY EVALUATION BY THE OFFICE OF NUCLEAR REACTOR REGULATION SUPPORTING AMENDMENT N0.111TO FACILITY OPERATING LICENSE DPR-54.

, RANCHO SEC0 NUCLEAR GENERATING STATION, UNIT 1 DOCKET NO. 50-312

1.0 INTRODUCTION

i By letter dated January 16, 1986 the Sacramento Municipal Utility District 1 (SMUD or the licensee) requested a change to Section 2.C.(4) of the i License for the Rancho Seco Nuclear Generating Station. This request  ;

was made because a re-evaluation of fire areas described in the Updated i Fire Hazards Analysis (UFHA) made several of the fire doors and dampers required by Section 2.C.(4) of the License no longer necessary. This revision request applies to four_ specific paragraphs identified in the Safety Evaluation (SE) dated February 28, 1978. The SE is reference in l l

section 2.C.(4) of the license.

I 2.0 EVALUATION Ourconsultant,ScienceApplicationsInternationalCorporation(SAIC),

has evaluated the changes proposed by the Licensee in a Technical Evalua-tion Report (TER) dated October 27, 1988. The NRC staff has reviewed SAIC's TER and adopts the evaluations and conclusions contained therein. We  ;

therefore find the proposed amendment acceptable. This finding is based i on SAIC's evaluation of the application submitted by the licensee dated January 16, 1986. The license conditions referred to in SAIC's TER are '

actually paragraphs contained in the Safety Evaluation referenced in license l condition 2.C.(4). The individual paragraph changes to the Safety Evaluation referenced in Section 2.C.(4) are discussed below, as contained in SAIC's TER.

Paragraph 3.1.5(1)

The original SE Paragraph required the insta11ction of fire dampers in all duct penetrations in the Turbine Deck Corridor except the emergency control room ventilation duct. The Licensee had issued Licensee Event Report (LER)85-004 related to missing dampers in these ducts. The re-definition of fire areas documented in the 1985 UFHA no longer requires dampers in many of the referenced ducts since the barriers they penetrate do not provide separation of safe shutdown components per NRC requirements as documented in the Licensee's UFHA. Specifically, .the revision states that dampers should be installed in all duct penetrations to Fire Areas 1, 2, 6, 62, RG1 and RG3 from Fire Area RT3.

627033o g90620 p ADOCK 05000322 h" PNu y

. i Since the Licensee's UFHA documents compliance with separation criteria in the with newly defined fire areas, the revision to Paragraph 3.1.5(1) 1 modifying required dampers is consistent with the UFHA and is therefore acceptable.

Paragraph 3.1.30(1)

The original SE Paragraph required the installation of fire dampers

'in ducts to Fire Areas 46, 58, 59. The' Licensee has requested that the 1 SE Paragraph be modified to exclude the installation of a damper in corridor 045. The Licensee discussed this issue in exemption request 7 submitted to the NRC on November 7, 1985. By letter dated November 4, 1986 the NRC documented an evaluation of exemption requests and approved i the lack of a fire damper in the duct in Corridor 045. Therefore, the '

revision to Paragraph 3.1.30(1) as submitted by the Licensee is acceptable.

Paragraph 3.1.25(1) I l

The original SE Paragraph required a rated door between Fire Areas. )

34 and 39. The UFHA has combined these areas into new Fire Area RG1 and has concluded that the door referenced in the SE paragraph is no longer necessary. The license revision request is to delete this paragraph entirely.

Since the door originally required is no longer necessary to provide appropriate separation between safe shutdown components, the deletion of' 1 Paragraph 3.1.25(1) is therefore acceptable. ]

l Paragraph 3.1.40(5)

]

The Licensee has requested the requirement to provide a rated door between ]

. Fire Areas 58 and 50 be deleted. This is based on the re-evaluation of fire areas making this door no longer required. These two fire areas have been incorporated into new Fire Area RB1 which has been evaluated in the UFHA. Since the door originally required by Item (5) to Paragraph 3.1.40 is no longer necessary to comply with NRC separation criteria, the revision as requested by the Licensee is acceptable.

In summary, the NRC staff adopts the evaluations and conclusions of SAIC's TER dated October 27, 1988. We find that the proposed 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 the installation or yse of a facility component located within the restricted area as defined in 10 CFR Part 20.

, y The staff has determined that the amendment involves no significant )

increase in the amounts, and no significant change in the types, of any - 1 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 proposed finding that this amendment involves no significant hazards consideration and there has been no public coment on such finding. Accordingly, this amendnent meets the eligibility criteria for categorical exclusion set forth in 10 CFR 51.22(c)(9).

Pursuantto10CFR51.22(b),noenvironmentalimpactstatementor-  ;

environinental assessment need be prepared in connection with the issuance . '

of this amendment.

l

5.0 CONCLUSION

1 Wehaveconcluded,basedontheconsiderationsd'iscussedabove,that(1) l there is reasonable assurance that the health and safety of the public q will not be endangered by operation in the proposed inanner, (2) such j activities will be conoucted in compliance with the Comission's regulations, and (3) the issuance of the amendnent will not be inimical to common defense and security or to the health and safety of the public.

Principal Contributor: S. Juergens Dated: June 20, 1989 .

l l

i l

4