ML17278A263
| ML17278A263 | |
| Person / Time | |
|---|---|
| Site: | Columbia  |
| Issue date: | 06/25/1985 |
| From: | Office of Nuclear Reactor Regulation |
| To: | |
| Shared Package | |
| ML17278A262 | List: |
| References | |
| TAC-57993, NUDOCS 8507050452 | |
| Download: ML17278A263 (3) | |
Text
pe AEOy P0 O
+a*++
UNITED STATES NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSION WASHINGTON, D. C. 20555 SAFETY EVALUATION AIIENDtlEN N
1 T
NPF-21 WPPSS NUCLEAR PROJECT NO.
2 DOCKET NO. 50-397 INTRODUCTION The Washington Public Power Supply System proposed a change to the WNP-2 Technical Specifications, Table 3.8.4.2-1, Primary Containment Penetration Conductor Overcurrent Protective Devices, by its letter dated June 18, 1985.
Our findings, relative to the proposed change are given below.
EVALUATION The licensee has been performing the 18-month surveillance testing as required by the WNP-2 Technical Specifications (TS).
The surveillance requirements of the TS has prompted a review of the fuses listed in Table 3.8.4.2-1.
As a result of this review, the licensee found typographical errors which need to be corrected and certain fuse sizes that need to be changed to conform with the actual plant configuration.
The fuse sizes listed in the proposed Table 3.8.4.2-1 have been changed to ensure adequate protection function for the associated equipment and still remain within the design margins of the containment penetration assemblies.
The proposed change to the Table 3.8.4.2-1, "Primary Containment Penetration Con-ductor Overcurrent Protective Devices," complies with the staff's position that the electrical penetration assemblies are designed to withstand, without the loss of mechanical integrity, the maximum available fault current condition that could occur given a single random failure of interrupting devices as reccrrmended in position Cl of R.G. 1.63, Rev.
1, "Electrical Penetration Assemblies in Contain-ment Structures for Water Cooled Nuclear Power Plant."
We, therefore, find the proposed change to be acceptable.
FItIAL tl0 SIGN IF ICANT HAZARDS CONS IDERATIOtt DETERt~iINATIOt<
A proposed amendment to an operating license for a facility involves no significant hazards consideration if operation of the facility in accordance with the proposed amendment would not (1) involve a significant increase in the probability or consequences of an accident previously evaluated; (2) create the possibility of a new or different kind of accident from an accident previously evaluated; or (3) involve a significant reduction in a margin of safety.
The licensee has determined and the NRC staff agrees that the requested amendment per 10 CFR 50.92 does not:
l.
Involve a significant increase in the probability or consequences of an accident previously evaluated because the changes are within the 8507050452 850625 PDR ADOCK 05000397 P
PDR.;
~
~
0 0 'esign margin.
Previously evaluated events will remain bounding.
Therefore no increases in probability or consequence is conceivable.
2)
Create the possibility of a new or different kind of accident than previously evaluated because no new accident scenarios are credible.
All changes remain within design margins and installed equipment required to respond to accidents remains functionally the same.
3)
Involve a significant reduction in a margin of safety because the sizing of fuses within the design margin does not encroach on the overall margin of safety.
'Accordingly, the Commission has determined that this amendment involves no significant hazards consideration.
BASIS FOR EHERGENCY SITUATION This amendment is being issued on an emergency basis.
Restart of the WNP-2 power plant is now scheduled f'r June 25, 1985.
The staff has reviewed and evaluated the Supply System's request for an emergency circumstance (letter G02-85-302 from Sorensen, Supply System, to Butler, NRC, dated June 11, 1985) and agrees that the Supply System has set out an adequate explanation why this emergency situation occurred and why it could not avoid this situation.
ENVIRONt<ENTAL CONS IDERATION 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 aetermined that 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 determined that this amendment involves no significant haz'ards consideration.
Accordingly, this amendment meets the eligibility criteria for categorical exclusion set f'orth 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 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.
,. Jt$ 85 586 Principal Contributor:
Sang Rhow
0 0
~
A l