ML20034A256
| ML20034A256 | |
| Person / Time | |
|---|---|
| Site: | Surry  |
| Issue date: | 04/13/1990 |
| From: | Office of Nuclear Reactor Regulation |
| To: | |
| Shared Package | |
| ML20034A255 | List: |
| References | |
| NUDOCS 9004200577 | |
| Download: ML20034A256 (2) | |
Text
.
s (p %,',
UNITE D $T ATES
. [, ',#
1 i
NUCLEAR REGULATO3Y COMMISSION s
WAsMINCToN, o C. 20sss
%~+... +, ~
SAFETY EVALUATION BY THE OFFICE OF NUCLEAR REACTOR REGULAT i
l
_RELATED TO AMENDMENT No. 139 TO FACILITY OPERATING LICENSE 4
VIRGINIA ELECTRIC AND POWER COMPANY SURRY POWER STATION, UNIT NO. 1 DOCKET NO. 50-280 i
- 1. 0 INTRODUCTION By letter dated January 8, 1990, Virginia Electric and Power Company (VEPCO) proposed to amend the Facility Operating License No OPR-32 for l
the Surry Power Station Unit 1.
One of the requested changes in the proposed amendment would modify Technical Specification (TS) 4,17 to allow deferral of visual and functional inspections of snubbers until the end of l
Cycle 10, currently projected for October 1990.
Visual inspections are performed on_a 1 year frequency, with the next inspection due on or before September 19, 1990 (1 year plus 25% grace).
Functional inspections are performed on an 18-month frequency, with the next inspection due on or before April 17, 1990 (18 months plus 25% grace). _ Absent the approval of the proposed amendment VEPC0 would have to shut down Surry, Unit 1 prior to April 17, 1990 to conduct the aforementioned inspections.
- 2. 0 EVALVATION Surry Unit I was shut down for refueling April 9 through July 18, 1988.
In September 1988, the unit was shut down again for an extended maintenance outage which lasted 299 days (approximately 10 months).
During the refueling outage, accessible and inaccessible snubbers were visually inspected with no inoperable snubbers identified.
A 10% sample of each snubber type was also functionally. tested with no failures icentified.
t The snubbers were visually inspected twice again during the subsequent extended maintenance outage.
One snubber was found with a low fluid level-due to minor leakage during the first inspection and no failures were identified during the second inspection conducted prior to the Unit 1 startup (July 1989).
L Based upon the previous inspection results, the next visual inspection is due September 19, 1990 (12 month +25%) and the next functional inspection is due April 17, 1990 (18 months +25%).
It is the licensee's assessment l
that the snubber's seal life would not be exceeded with the extended operation.
Based on information available to the staff relative to VEPCO's maintenance history program, the staff concurs with this assessment.
Based on a review of the visual inspection and functional test results, the proposed delay in performing these inspections is considered acceptable.
The Code Committee for the ASME standard on surveillance requirements for snubbers, O&M-4, is also proposing a similar generic relief based on i
previous inspection results at various facilities.
The NRC staff has reviewed the statistical basis for such relief and finds that as a result
_of this deferral of the snubber inspections there is no reduction in the margin of safety.
9004200577 900413 ~
^
PDR ADOCK 05000280 P
PNU
r; e
's 2*
3.0
SUMMARY
We have concluded, based on staff review and on the Considerations discussed above, that there is reasonable assurance that the health and safety of the public will not be endangered by granting relief on a one time basis to the licensee from the visual inspection and functional test requirements
'of snubbers until the Cycle 10 refueling outage for Surry Unit 1.
We therefore find the proposed amendment acceptable.
In the event that the Cycle 10 refueling outage is delayed by more than 2 months beyond the current projection of October 1990, this approval for deferral would become invalid and the licensee would have to seek new approval.
This provision has been discussed with and found acceptable by the licensee's staff and has been incorporated into the proposed amendment to the TS.
- 4. 0 ENVIRONMENTAL CONSIDERATION This amendment involves a change to a requirement with respect to instal-lation or use of a facility component located within the restricted area as defined in 10 CFR Part 20 and changes to surveillance requirements.
We have 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 cumulative occupational radiation exposure.
The Commission has previously issued a proposed finaing that this amenament involves no significant hazards consideration and there has been no public comment on such finding.
Accordingly,-this 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 this amendment.
- 5. 0 CONCLUSION We have concluded, based on the considerations discussed above, that (1) there is reasonable 455urance 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 regulations 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.
Dated:
April 13, 1990 Princioal Contributor:
J. Rajan l