ML20009B898
| ML20009B898 | |
| Person / Time | |
|---|---|
| Site: | Surry  |
| Issue date: | 07/09/1981 |
| From: | Office of Nuclear Reactor Regulation |
| To: | |
| Shared Package | |
| ML20009B897 | List: |
| References | |
| NUDOCS 8107170334 | |
| Download: ML20009B898 (2) | |
Text
.
- [* " %,'o UN!i cD STAT Es
[ ].. f #,j NUCLEAR REGULATORY COT.'.TalESION c
r.asm acroN. o. c. 20sss
( C.(f SAFETY EVALUATION Bf THE OFFICE OF NUCLEAR REACTOR REGULATIO.*1 RELATED TO AMENDMENT NO. 72 TO FACILITY OPEPATING LICENSE N0. DPR-37 VIRGINIA ELECTRIC AND POWER CC."PANY SURRY PCXER STATI0'1, UNIT NO. 2 DOCKET N0. 50-281 Introduction By letter dated July 7,1981, Virginia Electric and Power Company (the licensee) requested an amendment to the Surry Power Station, Unit No. 2
..hich would change the Technica' Specifications to allow a 60 day extension of the interval for inspecting 158 inaccessible hydra iic snubbers. The extension would be a one-time ~ tension and would expire on September 10, 1981.
This extension will allow continued operation of Surry, Unit No. 2, until Surry, Unit No.1, returns to pov.er operations following an extended Steam Generator Replacement Outage and until North Anna, Unit No. 2, returns to power operations following the recent failure of a main transformer.. This extension will maximize the use of the licensee's remaining nuclear units and minimize the cost of replacement power, and the u'tirate cost to the consumer, during an anticipated peak load period.
l Discussion and Evaluation The Technical Specifications require periodic inspections of snubbers on a sdeMe ranging from 31 days + 25*; if r, ore than eight snubbers are found to be ir.egerable to 18 cc.nths t 25'; if ne snubbers are found to be inoperable.
he p,esent cycle of operations follows an extended Steam Generator Replace-rent and Refueling Outage. During this extended outage all hydraulic snub-l bars t.ere removed, rebuilt or replaced as necessary and functionally tested satisfactorily prior to reinstallation. The first visual inspection conducted in April 1981 following the extended outage revealed seven inoperable snubbers.
All of the snubbers were inoperable due to the leakage of fittings either at the valve block or the reservoir.
In addition, two of the seven had loose baseplates which were replaced with redesigned baseplates. All inoperable snubbers were replaced and all ir.aking fittings were replaced or racaired.
As a result of these inspection findings the pre:ent visual inspection inter-val is 62 days + 25%.
D107170334 810709 PDR ADOCK 05000281 P
ppg
. Of the total of tuo hundred and fifty-two hydraulic snubbers, all seventy-seven accessible snubbers and seventeen nonrally inaccessible snubbers located inside the containment will be visually inspected within the required interval. The seventeen hydraulic snubbers to be inspected inside the containmnt include six of the seven hydraulic snubbers found inoperable due to fitting leakage during the last visual inspection. The seventh snubber will not be inspected due to hazardous inspection conditions.
<!a have revie,.ed the licensee's request and find it to be reasonable in sie.. of the stated need for power during this peak load period and the following reasons:
(1) all snubbers were inspected and maintained during the steam generator repair outage and only seven snubbers out of 252 wem
'c.nd to be inoperable during the visual inspection in April 1981 and were ico;erable because of leaking fittings. These leaking fittings could have be2n the result of improper reinstallation of snubbers during the steam ceaerator outage, and would probably not have affected the ability of the abber to perfonn, (2} all accessible snubbers will be inspected during the required interval, and (3) during a 60 day period the probability of a seismic event or LOCA is very low.
> sed on the above reasons, we conclude that it is reasonable to extend the current inspection interval by 60 days which in this case would be atil Septe Ser 10, 1981.
Evircerental Ccasideration i.e have determined that the amendment does not authorize a change in effluent types or total amounts nce an increase in pcwer level and will not result in any significant envi.unmental impact. Having made this determination, we have further concluded that the amendment f avolves an acticn which is insignificant frcm the standpoint of environ ental impact and, pursuant to 10 CFR 331.5(d)(4), that an environrantal impact statement or negative declaration and environ-mental impact appraisal need not te prepared in connection with the issuance of this acendment.
Ccnclusion L'e have concluded, based on the considerations discussed bove, that:
(1) because the amendment does not involve a significant increase in the probability cr consequences of accidents previcusly considered ar.d dc?s not involve a significaat decrease in a safety margin, the arencrent does not involve a significant hazarcs consideration, (2) there is reasonable assurance that the health and safety of the public
~
will nct te endangersd by operation in the propc:ed canner, and (3) such activities will be conducted in compliance with the Certaission's reg lations and the issuance of this arenoment will not be inimical to the cor. mon defense and security or to the health and safety of ne public.
Cate: July 9,1981 n
-