ML17279A682
| ML17279A682 | |
| Person / Time | |
|---|---|
| Site: | Columbia  |
| Issue date: | 05/02/1986 |
| From: | Office of Nuclear Reactor Regulation |
| To: | |
| Shared Package | |
| ML17279A677 | List: |
| References | |
| TAC-57546, NUDOCS 8712090370 | |
| Download: ML17279A682 (3) | |
Text
. yoA~Kcc
~
~O 0~i
+>>*~+
SAFETY UNITED STATES NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSION WASHINGTON, D. C. 20555 EVALUATION BY THE OFFICE OF NUCLEAR REACTOR REGULATION SUPPORTING AMENDMENT NO. 22 TO FACILITY OPERATING LICENSE NO.
NPF-21 WASHINGTON PUBLIC POWER SlIPPLY SYSTEM WPPSS NUCLEAR PROJECT NO.
2 DOCKET NO. 50-397
- 1. 0 INTRODUCTION By letter dat'ed April 25, 1985, the Washington Public Power Supply System proposed certain changes to the Surveillance Requirements of Section 4.6.1.1 of the Technical Specification for WNP-2.
- 2. 0 EVAIUATION Surveillance Requirement 4.6.1.1.b states, in part, that all containment penetrations that ai e required to be closed during accident conditions and-are not capable of being closed by automatic isolation valves shall be demonstrated closed once every 31 days.
Excluded from the 31 'day routine surveillance requirement are the containment penetrations that are located inside the inerted containment which are equipped with blind flanges, deactivated automatic valves or closed valves.
For these penetrations, the provisions of Surveillance Requirement 4.6.1.1.b states that the sur-veillance be performed during the Cold Shutdown Condition.
In its April 25, 1985, letter, the licensee requested to extend the exclu-sion from the,3l-day surveillance requirement to closed valves, blind
- flanges, and deactivated automatic valves located in areas that are admin-istratively controlled.
This request was made to avoid unnecessary personnel hazards from high radiation levels and/or. very high temperatures.
Based on our review of the licensee submittal, we find that the proposed change would not create an increased possibility of violating primary containment integrity and is therefore acceptable.
3.0 ENVIRONMENTAL CONSIDERATION
This amendment involves a change in the installation and use o< 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,'nd 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 PDRQD90370 8haSPP-----
P ADOCK OSOa0397 PDp
t 4 ~
4r"
~
~
r 2
consideration and there has been no public comment on such finding.
Accord-ingly, this amendment meets the eligibilitycriteria for categorical exclusioa 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.
4.0 CONCLUSION
The Commission made a proposed determination that the amendment involves no sianificant hazards consideration which was published in the Federal Reqister (50 FR 29021) on July 17, 1985, and consulted with the state of l<ashington.
No public comments were received, and the state of Mashington 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 o< 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 not be inimical to the common defense and security or to the health and safety of the public.
Principal Contributor:
F. Eltawila, NRR Dated:
May 02, 1986