ML17279A222
| ML17279A222 | |
| Person / Time | |
|---|---|
| Site: | Columbia  |
| Issue date: | 04/21/1987 |
| From: | Office of Nuclear Reactor Regulation |
| To: | |
| Shared Package | |
| ML17279A221 | List: |
| References | |
| TAC-64217, NUDOCS 8704270107 | |
| Download: ML17279A222 (8) | |
Text
0 ggflAjgI UNITED STATES IVUCI EAR REGUI ATORY COIVIMISS WASHINGTON, D. C. 20555 O~
Cy
~
Vp+~
~O
""*+~
SAFFTY FVALUATION BY THE OFFICE OF NUCLEAR REACTOR REGULATION SUPPORTING AMENDMENT NO.
40 TO FACILITY OPERATING LICENSE NO. NPF-.I WASHINGTON PUBLIC POWER SUPPLY SYSTEM WPPSS NUCLEAR PRO lECT NO.
2 DOCKET NO. 50-397
1.0 INTRODUCTION
P.O In a letter dated December 12, 1986, the licensee requested changes to WNP-2 Technical Specification 3/4.7.4, "Snubbers".
The Technical Specifi-cation currently requires that, if a snubber is removed from its associated system while that system is required to he'operable, the system is to be declared inoperable, requiring entry into the applicable Action Statement.
The licensee noted that during Operational Conditions 4 and 5, snubbers are removed periodically for (I) functional testing, and (2) eliminating inter-ferences in the performance of maintenance activities on adjacent equipment.
The requested change would permit the removal of snubber(s) for maintenance or testing (while in Operational Condition 4 or 5) without having to declare the associated system inoperable, provided its (their) removal is substant-iated by engineering analysis.
Additionally, the current Technical Specification requires that visual in-spection periods of a snubber type occur every 18 months,
+ 25 percent, if no inoperable snubbers of each type on any system are discovered per in-spection period.
This specification requires that a visual inspection of a snubber type be performed between 13.5 months and 22.5 months following the previous inspection.
At WNP-2, this visual inspection is done during refueling outages, which occur on 12-month cycles.
The current visual inspection requirement does not recognize 12-month refueling cycles.
Accordingly, the licensee requested that the visual inspection criteria be revised to 18 months, - 50 percent,
+ 25 percent.
This would require a visual inspection of a snubber type between 9 months and 22.5 months following the previous inspection.
Without such a change, the licensee could be required to shutdown between refueling outages for the purpose of snubber surveillance, even when the last inspection revealed no failures.
The proposed change reduces the minimum interval between inspections; how-ever, the maximum interval between inspections remains
- 22. 5 months.
The Basis pf the Technical Specification would be revised to be consistent with the proposed Technical Specification change.
EVALUATION The WNP-2 Technical Specifications require functional testing for safety-related snubbers on an 18-month interval.
This testing is usually conducted during Modes 4 and 5 to avoid interference with operation and maintenance activities on adjacent equipment.
The same Technical Specifications also require all snubbers to be operable in all Modes.
After 72 hours8.333333e-4 days <br />0.02 hours <br />1.190476e-4 weeks <br />2.7396e-5 months <br />, if the snubber inoperability is not corrected, the attached 8704270107 870421 PDR ADDCK 05000397 P
~
I l
t IIl
system will be declared inoperable.
Removal of snubbers for testing purposes will cause the system to be inoperable if they are not re-installed within 72 hours8.333333e-4 days <br />0.02 hours <br />1.190476e-4 weeks <br />2.7396e-5 months <br />.
The Supply System performed an engineering analysis which demonstrated that structural integrity of the Reactor Coolant System (RCS) in Modes 4
and 5
and other safety related systems during a seismic or other dynamic event will be maintained by significantly fewer number of snubbers.
The system loads will be materially lower in these two Modes because of the absence of pressure and thermal loadings.
The proposed amendment would add a.footnote modifier stating that all snubbers must be operable in all Modes unless the removal of snubber(s) for maintenance and testing is justified by an engineering analysis..
This proposal is based on an adequate analytic basis and, therefore, is acceptable.
The Supply System also requested a change in the visual inspection period table whereas for zero inoperable snubbers discovered, the next reouired inspection period will be 18 months,
+ 25 percent,
-50 percent, instead of the original 18 months, s 25K.
This proposal would permit WNP-2 to per-form its inspection on an annual basis coinciding with the peak hydraulic capacity of Bonneville Power Administration.
Since the change would offer WNP-2 greater flexibilityin outage time, yet would not cause any safety concern (it may result in more inspections) the proposal is acceptable.
3.0 ENVIRONMENTAL CONSIDERATION
This amendment involves a change in the installation and use of facility components 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.
Ac-cordingly, 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.
4.0 CONCLUSION
The Commission made a proposed determination that the amendment involves no significant hazards consider ation which was published in the Federal Register (52 FR 5872) on February 26, 1987 and consulted with the state of Washington.
No public comments were received, and the state of Washington did not have any comments.
(
4 Oy
, C A
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 not be inimical to the common defense and security or to the health and safety of the public.
Principal Contributor:
Horace
- Shaw, NRR Dated:
Ap'ril 21, 1987
AMENDMENT NO.
TO FACILITY OPERATING LICENSE NO. NPF-21 WPPSS NUCLEAR PROJECT NO.
2 DISTRIBUTION:
C Docket No. 50=397 NRC PDR Local PDR PRC System NSIC PD5 r/f JBradfute (2)
JLee (0)
RSamworth
- Attorney, OGC Cl)i les RDiggs JPartlow EJordan BGrimes LHarmon TBarnhart (4)
EButcher
l 4
f "c II
)
~
f f,
"f p I' II I
II I
4
'I Il
)
>H H
W II
~1