ML17277B452

Safety Evaluation Supporting Amend 2 to License NPF-21

ML17277B452
Person / Time
Site:	Columbia
Issue date:	07/13/1984
From:	Office of Nuclear Reactor Regulation
To:
Shared Package
ML17277B451	List: ML17277B450 ML17277B452
References
NUDOCS 8407230297
Download: ML17277B452 (4)

Text

1 gp,R REcy

~

(4 s

0 O

C O

"o +~~ LIgj"g

)t**

UNITED STATES t NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSION WASHINGTON, D. C. 20555 JUL >3 5p SAFETY EVALUATION Atltll lEEE2 F-Zl WPPSS NVCLE R PR JECT N.2 DOCKET N

. 50-397 Introduction In letters from G.

C. Sorensen to A. Schwencer (References 1,

2 and 3), the Washington Public Power Supply System submitted a request for change in Technical Specification 3.4.3.2.

The proposed change wl 1 1 delete paragl aphs b.

and d

of Sul veil lance Requirement 4.4.3.2.2 pertaining to leak testing of pressure isolation valves (PIVs) for WNP-2.

These paragraphs now require the PIVs to be leak tested (b) before going to hot shutdown during a cold shutdown of 72 hours8.333333e-4 days <br />0.02 hours <br />1.190476e-4 weeks <br />2.7396e-5 months <br /> or more if the PIVs have not been tested during the previous 9 months and (d) within 24 hours2.777778e-4 days <br />0.00667 hours <br />3.968254e-5 weeks <br />9.132e-6 months <br /> of valve actuation due to automatic or manual action or due to flow through the valve.

Evaluation Based on our review of information, in References 1,

2 and 3, we have determined that the licensee's proposed Technical Specification change is acceptable because the plant has the following features:

(1) low pressure injection valve open permissives have been modified to actuate on low reactor pressure rather than delta pressure across the valves, (2) high/low pressure interface valve leakage pressure monitor alarms are available in the t1ain Control room which are surveillance tested periodically, (3) position indication on each interface valve is available in the Control

room, and (4) narrow range suppression pool level indication is available which is sufficiently sensitive to detect gross system leakage.

These features provide equal or greater assurance that the PIVs are in the closed and leak-tight position as the requirements of paragraphs (b) and (d) provide for other plants which do not have these control and automatic leakage verification features.

Paragraphs (b) and (d), in effect, require the valves to be tested somewhat more frequently than every 18 months.

With the four plant features outlined above, the PIV's are controlled and verified continually rather than at the intervals specified in paragraphs (b) and (d).

Therefor'e, this Technical Specification change provides equal or more assurance of valve integrity and does not adversely affect the health and safety of the public.

Environmental Consideration We have determined that this amendment does not authorize a change in effluent types or total amount nor an increase in power level and will not result in any significant environmental impact.

Having made this determination, we have further concluded that this amendment involves action which is insignificant from the standpoint of environmental

impact, and pursuant to 10 CFR Section 51.5(d)(4), that an environmental impact statement or 'negative declaration and environmental impact appraisal need not be prepared in connection with the issuance of this amendment.

8407230297 8407i3 PDR ADOCK 05000397 P

PDR

v' P

t

Conclusion Me-have concluded, based on the considerations discussed above, that:

(1) this amendment does not involve a significant increase in the probability or consequences of an accident previously evaluated, creation of a new or different accident from any previously evaluated, or a significant reduction in a safety margin and, therefore, does not involve a significant hazards consideration; (2) there is reasonable assurance that the health and safety of the public will not be endangered by operation in the proposed

manner, and (3) such activities will be conducted in compliance with the Commission's regulations and the issuance of this amendment will not be inimical to the common defense and security or to the health and safety of the public.

References 1.

Letter, G.

C. Sorensen to A. Schwencer, "Operating License NPF-21, Request for License Amendment," dated January 20, 1984.

2.

Letter, G.

C. Sorensen to A. Schwencer, "License Amendment 10 CFR 50.92, Significant Hazards Analysis," dated February 8, 1984.

3.

Letter, G.

C. Sorensen to A. Schwencer, "Operating License NPF-21, Request for License Amendment," dated April 10, 1984 (G02-84-218).

r,l' r

A V

~

N I

,N

'