ML20049H804
| ML20049H804 | |
| Person / Time | |
|---|---|
| Site: | North Anna  |
| Issue date: | 02/18/1982 |
| From: | Engle L Office of Nuclear Reactor Regulation |
| To: | |
| Shared Package | |
| ML20049H803 | List: |
| References | |
| NUDOCS 8203040041 | |
| Download: ML20049H804 (3) | |
Text
a nco UNITED STATES g*
p, NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSION g
- j WASHINGTON, D. C. 20555
\\...../
SAFETY EVALUATION BY THE OFFICE OF NUCLEAR REACTOR REGULATION RELATED TO AMENDMENT NO. 18 TO FACILITY OPERATING LICENSE NO. NPF-7 VIRGINIA ELECTRIC AND POWER COMPANY NORTH ANNA POWER STATION, UNIT NO. 2
~
DOCKET NO.'50-339
==
Introduction:==
By letter dated February 5,1982 (Serial No. 055), the Virginia Electric and Power Company (the licensee) requested an amendment to the ' license for the' North Anna Power Station, Unit No. 2 (NA-2).
The licensee request would allow for a one-time ( 2 weeks) extension of the required surveillance interval for the NA-2 hydraulic snubber functional test. The extension would permit completion of the current operating cycle prior to the performance of Bid '
snubber testing which will be performed during the forthcoming refueli f '
outage now scheduled to commence March 5,1982.
-u--
m Discussion:
[
- ~
TS surveillance requirement 4.7.10.c requires that hydraulic snubbeis'be) '_
functionally tested each refueling outage (every eighteen months). The initial hydraulic snubber testing was performed on April 8,1980 and 'suri-veillance is due to be completed again on February 23, 1982 (this date -
includes the allowable 25 percent extension). An unscheduled shutdown during June and July of 1981 has-extended the date for which refueling operations are now scheduled to commence March 5,1982.
Due to the large number of snubbers which must be teste'dlin excess'of 70 for the Periodic Test plus a similar number for seal replacements in.
.accordance with the Snubber Service Seal Life Replacement Program, TS 4.7.10.e), this surveillance can best be performed during the forth-coming refueling outage.
y During the time period of January 1,1980 through January 1,1982, hydraulic snubber surveillance has been performed with less than one (1) percent of-the hydraulic snubbers declared inoperable.
Also, complete visual inspec-tions have been performed on each snubber three times. One hydraulic snubber was declared inoperable due to low oil level during a surveillance test dated May 17, 1981. One additional snubber was found to have a low oil level during operatio1s not related to the performance of a surveillance test (September 9, 1981).
8203040041 820218 PDR ADOCK 05000339 P
i'
. Evaluation:
Based on the above surveillance history, our confidence level of 95 percent that 90 to 100 percent of plant specific hydraulic snubbers will be Operable for the approximately 2 week extension is not adversely affected.
Therefore, we find a two week extension in time for. performing.the hydraulic snubber surveillance testing to be acceptable in o.rder to reach the scheduled March 5,1982 shutdown date for NA-2.
~
The hydraulic snubber surveillance as specified in TS 4.7.10.c shall be performed during the NA-2 first refueling outage and shall be completed prior to plant restart in Modes 1, 2, 3 and 4.
)
The two-Ws'ek' exemptio~n is stipulated in License Condition 2.C.(2)(b) which -
is being added to Facility Operating License NPF-7.
Condition.2.C.(2)(b) stipulates:
"The current surveillance period for Surveillance Requirement
((3h, '
4.7.10.c may be extended beyond the time limit specified by Tri '
Technical Specification 4.0.2.a.
The required surveillance
- ^
shall be completed prior to startup after the first rdfueling
'~
outage. The plant shall not be operated in Modes 1, 2, 3 or 4. ~ "_lT '
~
until Surveillance Requirement 4.7.10.c has been completed.
Upon accomplishment of the surveillance, the provisions of Technical Specification 4.0.2.a shall apply.
Env'ironmental Consideration We have determined that the amendment does not authorize a change in effluent types or total amounts nor an increase in power level.and will not result in any significant environmental impact. Bavin'g made.
this determination, we have further concluded that the amendment involves an action which is insignificant from the standpoint of environmental impact and, pursuant.to 10 CFR $51.5(d)(4), that an environmental impact statement or negative declaration and 'env' iron-ment'al impact appraisal need not be prepared in connection with the issuance of this amendment.
s
Conclusig We have concluded, based on the considerations discussed above, that:
' ~
(1) because the amendment does not involve a significant increase in the probability,or consequences of accidents previously considered and does not involve a significant decrease in a safety margin, the amendment does not i'nvolve' a significant hazards consideration, (2) there is reasonable-assurance that the health and safety of the public will not be endangered by operation in the proposed manner, and (3) 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.
Date:
February 18, 1982 Principal Contributor:
Leon B. Engle
-Ml..
~~
a
~
T::
e 9
O 6
as
.h 4
=
+
- =
1 e