ML17278A669
| ML17278A669 | |
| Person / Time | |
|---|---|
| Site: | Columbia  |
| Issue date: | 03/18/1986 |
| From: | Office of Nuclear Reactor Regulation |
| To: | |
| Shared Package | |
| ML17278A665 | List: |
| References | |
| TAC-60546, NUDOCS 8603270262 | |
| Download: ML17278A669 (4) | |
Text
gal% IlEgy
~4 0
Cy nO I
- . c IA
'I Cy
<r+
O~
4***4 UNITEDSTATES NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSION WASHINGTON,D. C. 20555 SAFETY EVALUATION BY THF. OFFICE OF NUCLEAR REACTOR REGULATION SUPPORTING AMFNDMENT NO. 21 TO FACILITY OPERATING LICENSE NO.
NPF-21 WASHINGTON PUBLIC POWER SUPPLY SYSTEM WPPSS NUCLEAR PROJECT NO.
2 DOCKET NO. 50-397 1.0
2.0 INTRODUCTION
By letter dated January 17, 1986, the Supply System requested an exemption to the 10 CFR Part 50 Appendix J regulations on an amendment to the WNP-2 Technical Specifications.
The exemption would permit postponement of the type B leak test of the drvwell cover "0" ring seal until the reactor is shutdown for the first refueling outage.
A correspondina revision to the surveillance reauirements, Section 4.6.1.2, of the facility Technical Soecifications was requested.
EVALUATION The safety evaluation is contained in Section III of the Exemption document which is attached.
3.0 ENVIRONMENTAL CONSIDERATTON 4.0 This amendment involves a change in the installation of a facility component located within the restricted area as defined in 10CFR Part 20.
The staff has determined that the amendment involves no significant increase in the
- amounts, and no significant chanqe 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 Commission has previously issued a proposed finding that this amendment involves no significant hazards consideration and there has been no public comments on such findinq.
Accord-ingly, this amendment meets the eligibility criteria for categorical exclusion set forth in 10CFR Section 51.22(c)(9).
Pursuant to 10CFR 51.22(b),
no environmental impact statement or environmental assessment need be pre-pared in connection with the issuance of this amendment.
FINAL NO SIGNIFICANT HAZARDS CONSIDERATION DETERMINATION Per 10 CFR 50.92 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 signifi-cant increase in the probability or consequences of an accident previously evaluated; (2) create the possibility of a new or different kind ot accident from an accident previously evaluated; or (3) involve a significant reduc-tion in a margin of safety.
8E032702h2 8603i8 PDR ADOCK 05000397, P
The licensee has evaluated this request and determined that it does not:
(1) involve a significant increase in the probability or consequences of an accident previously evaluated
- because, due to outages and the power ascension test program completion during the two year period, there were six months in which the "0" rings were not exposed to an operating environment; or (2) create the possibility of a new or different kind of accident from an accident previously evaluated because no new designs or plant operating modes are affected by this amendment; or (3) involve a significant reduction in a margin of safety because, as discussed in (1) above, the total time of operation under the amended technical specifications will not exceed that of the Appendix J requirement, i.e.
24 months.
Based on considerations of the three criteria given above, the Commission has made a determination that the amendment request involves no significant hazards consideration.
5.0 CONCLUSION
The Commission made a proposed determination that the amendment involves no significant hazards consideration which was published in the Federal Reqister on March 10, 1986 (51 F.R. 8258).
No public comments were receivece.
Con-sultation with the State of'ashington was conducted by telephone on March 13, 1986.
The State of Washington had received the Supply System's request for amendments, had reviewed it and has no comment.
Due to exigent circumstances in that the plant would have been forced to shutdown solelv for the purpose of performing the surveillance tests which have been deferred by this amendment, the Commission. shortened the comment period from the 30-days usually granted for filing of conments.
The Commission finds that the exigent circumstances were not attributable to the licensee, in that its application was timely filed on January 17, 1986.
The NRC staff, however, was unable to process it in the normal time period.
We have concluded, based. on the considerations discussed above, that:
(I) 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 Coaeission'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.
Principal Contributors:
Gerald B. Zwetzig Dated: +~ 18 QK
)I