ML17289A874
| ML17289A874 | |
| Person / Time | |
|---|---|
| Site: | Columbia  |
| Issue date: | 09/18/1992 |
| From: | NRC |
| To: | |
| Shared Package | |
| ML17289A872 | List: |
| References | |
| NUDOCS 9209290324 | |
| Download: ML17289A874 (4) | |
Text
~pR REGS C4
~o ca a
eaOg ea V/+~
~0
++*++
UNITEDSTATES NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSION WASHINGTON, D. C. 20555 SAFETY EVALUATION BY THE OFFICE OF NUCLEAR REACTOR REGULATION RELATED TO AMENDMENT N0.110 TO FACILITY OPERATING LICENSE NO.
NPF 21 WASHINGTON PUBLIC POWER SUPPLY SYSTEM NUCLEAR PROJECT NO.
2 DOCKET NO. 50-397
1.0 INTRODUCTION
By letter dated April 4,
- 1991, Washington Public Power Supply System submitted a request for changes to the Technical Specifications (TS) for Nuclear Project No. 2.
The proposed changes would delete the battery profiles for Division 1, 2,
and 3 from Technical Specification 4.8.2. 1.d.2.
Instead Bases sections 3/4.8. 1, 3/4.8.2, and 3/4.8.3 refer to a new table in the plant's FSAR which will contain those profiles.
The proposed changes are intended to eliminate the need to revise the Technical Specifications each time a load profile is changed.
In response to a discussion with the staff, licensee's letters dated April 6,
- 1992, June 25,
- 1992, and July 16,
- 1992, provided further revision to the changes requested.
These revisions provide clarification for the April 4, 1991 request, and do not alter the no significance hazards consideration determination, The Electrical Systems Branch (SELB) has reviewed the requested changes and finds them acceptable as conditioned in the following evaluation.
- 2. 0 EVALUATION Currently, Technical Specification 4.8.2. l.d requires that every 18 months the capacities of Division 1, 2, and 3 batteries be verified to be adequate to supply and maintain operable all their actual. emergency loads for 2 hours2.314815e-5 days <br />5.555556e-4 hours <br />3.306878e-6 weeks <br />7.61e-7 months <br /> when the batteries are subjected to battery service tests or alternately when supplying dummy loads with specified profiles.
To eliminate the specified load profiles from the Technical Specifications, the licensee proposed the following specific changes:
~Chan e 1:
~Chan e 2:
The table of specific load profiles contained in Specification 4.8.2.1.d.2 is deleted in its entirety.
In Specification 4.8.2. I.d.2, delete "of the following profile" in the first sentence and following "(minimum amperage)"
insert:
qg()q<8 92092~
3 + 05000397-R ADOCK o p
p
)
I 1
p1 II I
1 I
"based on anticipated loads required during loss-of-offsite power (LOOP) and loss-of-coolant accident (LOCA) conditions."
~Chan e 3:
In Bases section 3/4.8. 1, 3/4.8.2, and 3/4.8.3, "A.C.
- SOURCES, D.C.
SOURCES and ONSITE POWER DISTRIBUTION SYSTEMS," insert the following paragraph:
"The simulated emergency load profile used for the battery service test of Surveillance Requirement 4.8.2. I.d is verified to be at least equivalent to the actual emergency load profile and is based on anticipated operations required during loss-of-offsite power (LOOP) and loss-of-coolant accident (LOCA) conditions as described in the WNP-2 Final Safety Analysis Report (FSAR).
The simulated emergency load profiles for the batteries are defined and located in the FSAR Section 8.3."
The above proposed changes reference the FSAR for the load profiles used in the technical specification battery tests.
Surveillance requirements for the batteries will still remain in the Technical Specifications.
Relocating the load profiles used during the test to the FSAR will not alter the surveillance requirements.
The battery load profiles are design parameters, they are not considered "safety limits" and therefore, are not required by 10 CFR 50.36 to be contained in Technical Specifications.
The licensee will control changes in the load profiles in accordance with the provisions of 10 CFR 50.59 without the need to process a licensee amendment request.
We find the changes acceptable conditioned upon the licensee revising the plant's FSAR to include the load profiles and the reference to the Technical Specifications as discussed in the licensee's April 4, 1991, letter.
3.0 STATE CONSULTATION
In accordance with the Commission's regulations, the Washington State official was notified of the proposed issuance of the amendment.
The State official had no comments.
- 4. 0 ENVIRONMENTA CONSIDERATION The amendment changes a requirement with respect to the installation or use of a facility component located within the restricted area as defined in 10 CFR Part 20 and changes surveillance requirements.
The NRC staff has determined that the 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 cumulative occupational radiation exposure.
The Commission has previously issued a
proposed finding that the amendment involves no significant hazards considera-
- tion, and there has been no p'ublic comment on such finding (56 FR 37593).
Accordingly, the amendment meets the eligibility criteria 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 the amendment.
5.0 CONCLUSION
The Commission has concluded, based on the considerations discussed
- above, that (I) there is reasonable assurance that the h'ealth and safety of the public will not be endangered by operation in the proposed
- manner, (2) such activities will be conducted in compliance with the Commission's regulations, and (3) the issuance of the amendment will not be inimical to the common defense and security or to the health and safety of the public.
Principal Contributors:
F. Burrows R. Assa Date:
September 18, 1992