ML17277B785
| ML17277B785 | |
| Person / Time | |
|---|---|
| Site: | Columbia  |
| Issue date: | 05/28/1985 |
| From: | Office of Nuclear Reactor Regulation |
| To: | |
| Shared Package | |
| ML17277B784 | List: |
| References | |
| TAC-56578, NUDOCS 8506060759 | |
| Download: ML17277B785 (5) | |
Text
gp,S
~C rr I
IO O~
w+n Rgoy
~o
~c 0
C Cy gO
- ++
0 ~
UNITED STATES NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSION WASHINGTON, D. C. 20555 SAFETY EVALUATION AMENDMENT NO.
9 TO NPF-21 MPPSS NUCLEAR. PROJECT NO.
2 DOCKET NO. 50-397 INTRODUCTION By letter dated December 20, 1984 as supplemented by letter dated January 31, 1985, the licensee requested an amendment to the Technical Specifications Sections 3.6.1.3 and 4.6. 1.3 of the HNP-2 license NPF-21.
EVALUATION Currently the llNP-2 Technical Specification requires at least one qontainment air lock door to be closed at all times during planT. operation and locked closed within 24 hours2.777778e-4 days <br />0.00667 hours <br />3.968254e-5 weeks <br />9.132e-6 months <br /> if the other door becomes inoperable.
The Specification is silent with respect to the interlock mechanism that assures that only one air lock door can be open at any one time.
The proposed amendment would revise the NNP-2 Technical Specifications to permit repair and/or maintenance of the interlock mechanism for the primary containment air locks during plant operations.
The amendment is intended to assure containment integrity in the event the containment air lock itself is operable but the airlock door interlock mechanism is inoperable by substituting administrative controls to ensure that at least one door is closed at all times while the mechanical interlock mechanism is undergoing repair or maintenance.
The purpose of this amendment is to amplify and clarify the Technical Specifications in this regard.
Based on staff review of the proposed
- changes, we find that there exists reasonable assurance that containment integrity will not be violated whenever the interlock mechanism or one air lock door becomes inoperable provided proposed administrative controls are instigated.
The proposed administrative controls include:
1.
assignment of a dedicated individual to assure that both air lock doors cannot be opened simultaneously whenever the air lock is used and the interlock mechanism is inoperable; and 2.
locking closed one of the air lock doors that remains operable if the interlock mechanism or air lock door cannot be returned to service within 24 hours2.777778e-4 days <br />0.00667 hours <br />3.968254e-5 weeks <br />9.132e-6 months <br />; and 3.
verifying that an operable air lock door is locked closed prior to each closing of.the shield door and at least once per shift while the shield door is open.
85060i0759 850528 P?(
~
I pig
~R
~>OC< 0500OS97" "'"
PgR r ",'
It should be noted that, outside the containment, the air lock is completely enclosed in a shield cubicle that has a door (shield door) with two locks on it.
Opening of the shield door is alarmed in both the control room and the central alarm station.
The licensee has determined that these changes have little safety significance and that the proposed amendment will not alter any of the accident analyses.
The staff has reviewed this determination and the proposed changes to the Technical Specifications and conclude that they meet the provisions of the Standard Review Plan, NUREG-0800 and are, therefore, acceptable.
ENVIRONt1ENTAL CONSIDERATION This amendment involves a change to the requirement with respect to installation or use of a facility component located within the restricted area as defined in 10 CFR Part 20.
The staff has determined thai the amendment involves no significant change in the types or significant increase in the amounts of any effluents that may be released offsite, and that there is no significant increase in individual or cumulative 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 exclusion set forth in 10 CFR Section 51.22(c)(9).
Pursuant to 10 CFR 51.22(b),
no environmental impact statement or environmental assessment need be prepared in connection with the issuance of this amendment.
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; and (2) such activi-ties will be conducted in compliance with the Commission's regulations and the issuance of this amendment will not be inimical to the corrmon defense and security or to the health and safety of the public.
Dated: NY 3 8 l965
~ ~
~
~
~
h
Issuance of Amendment No.
9 to Facil it 0 eratin License No. NPF-21, llPPSS Nuc ear Pro ect No.
DISTRIBUTION Q~k~Fi NRC PDR Local PDR PRC System NSIC LB82 Reading EHylton JBradfute TNovak JSaltzman, SAB
- Paton, ELD
.OMiles HDenton JRutberg AToalston
'i<Miller, LFMB JPartlow EJordan BGrimes LHarman DBrinkman TBarnhart (4)
/
r.
1