ML17278B148
| ML17278B148 | |
| Person / Time | |
|---|---|
| Site: | Columbia  |
| Issue date: | 12/17/1986 |
| From: | Adensam E Office of Nuclear Reactor Regulation |
| To: | |
| Shared Package | |
| ML17278B147 | List: |
| References | |
| TAC-60765, NUDOCS 8612230059 | |
| Download: ML17278B148 (3) | |
Text
O 0 pic~~ fegg UNITEDSTATES NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSION WASHINGTON, D. C. 20555 SAFETY EVALUATION BY THE OFFICE OF NUCLEAR REACTOR REGIjLATION SUPPORTING AMENDMENT NO. 35 TO FACILITY OPERATING LICENSF ND. NPF-21 WASHINGTON PUBLIC POWER SUPPLY SYSTEM WPPSS NUCLEAR PROJECT NO.
2 DOCKET NO. 50-397
1.0 INTRODUCTION
2.0 In a letter to the Commission dated January 31, 1986, the Washington Public Power Supply System requested an amendment to Section 3.4.6.1 of the WNP-2 Technical Specifications.
The request was made to revise Figures 3.4.6. 1-1 and 3.4.6.1-2 in order to comply with the requirements of paragraph IV.A.2 of Appendix 6 of 10 CFR. Part 50.
EVALUATION 3.0 Paragraph IV.A.2 of Appendix G requires, in part, that when the pressure in the reactor vessel exceeds 20'5 of the preservice system hydrostatic
- pressure, the temperature of the closure flange regions that are highly stressed by the bolt preloads must exceed the reference temperature of the material in those regions by at least 120'F for normal operation and by 90'F for hydrostatic pressure tests and leak tests.
Eouivalent margins of safety are required when the flanqe region is controlling as are required for the beltline when it is controlling.
The revised pressure/temperature curves have been shifted 30'F higher at 20% of the preservice hydrostatic test pressure for compliance with the requirements of paragraph IV.A.2 of Appendix G.
Because the revised curves are more conservative, they will provide an additional margin of safety for reactor vessel testing and operation; and because the changes are required by the regulations, they are acceptable.
FNVIRONNENTAL CONSIDERATION This amendment involves a change in the installation and use of a facility component located within the restricted area as defined in 10 CFR Part 20 and changes in surveillance requirements.
The staff has determined that this amendment involves no significant increase in the amounts, and no significant change in the types, of any effluents that may be released offsite, and that there is no significant increase in individual or cumula-tive 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 eligibilitycriteria for categorical exclusion set forth in 10 CFR 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.
8b12230059 8b1217 PDR ADQCK 05000397 PDR
- 4. 0 CONCI US ION The Commission made a proposed determination that the amendment involves no significant hazards consideration which was published in the Federal Register (51 FR 30583) on August 27; 1986, and consulted with the state of Washington.
No public comments were received, and the state of Vashington did not have any comments.
Me 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 regula-tions and the issuance of this amendment will riot be inimical to the common defense and security or to the health and safetv of the public.
Principal Contributor:
F..Litton, NRR Dated:
December 17, 1986