ML20071N613
| ML20071N613 | |
| Person / Time | |
|---|---|
| Site: | North Anna  |
| Issue date: | 07/28/1994 |
| From: | Office of Nuclear Reactor Regulation |
| To: | |
| Shared Package | |
| ML20071N603 | List: |
| References | |
| NUDOCS 9408080073 | |
| Download: ML20071N613 (3) | |
Text
1 po aao
[
?S, UNITED STATES j,
j NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSION W
o' s
WASHINGTON, D.C. 20555-0001
%J
- ...+
SAFETY EVALVATION BY THE OFFICE OF NUriEAR REACTOR REGULATION RELATED TO AMENDMENT NOS.18s AND 166 TO FACILITY OPERATING LICENSE NOS. NPF-4 AND NPF-7 VIRGINIA ELECTRIC AND POWER COMPANY OLD DOMINION ELECTRIC COOPERATIVE NORTH ANNA POWER STATION. UNITS NO. 1 AND NO. 2 DOCKET NOS. 50-338 AND 50-339 i
1.0 INTRODUCTION
By letter dated April 19, 1994 Virginia Electric and Power Company (the licensee) requested changes to the Teclinical Specifications (TS) for the North Anna Power Station Units 1 and 2 (NA-l&2). These changes will modify the surveillance frequrncy of the control rod motion testing from once per 31 days to once per 92 days in accordance with Generic Letter (GL) 93-05. "Line-Item Technical Specifications Improvements to Reduce Surveillance Requirements for Testing During Power Operation," dated September 27, 1993.
TS require periodic testing cf each control and shutdown control rod assembly bank in the core during power operation to ensure that the control rod assemblies are trippable. This testing requires partial movement of each control rod assembly not fully inserted into the core.
This is typically done at or near full power, one bank at a time.
2.0 EVALUATION i
Control rod motion testing was reviewed as part of the evaluation of power testing requirements.
NUREG-1366 determined that electrical problems with the control rod drive system were the major contributor to rod motion failure.
Mechanical problems were found to be less common than electrical problems.
Most stuck rods were discovered during rod drop testing or during plant startup after refueling.
Based on the generic evaluation it was concluded in GL 93-05 that the surveillance interval for control rod motion testing could be increased to once every 92 days without any decrease in plant safety.
NA-l&2 have not identified any stuck rods during routine surveillance testing.
However, NA-l&2 have experienced Rod Control Drive System failures during surveillance testing.
In these cases the control rods could not be moved by the control rod system but they remained trippable and continued to be capable of performing their intended safety function.
9400000073 940728 PDR ADOCK 05000338 P
t 2
Thus, from review of this operating experience, the proposed control rod i
surveillance test improvements specified in the NUREG are appropriate and applicable to NA-1&2.
The proposed changes are all consistent with the Standard TS and GL 93-05. Therefore, based on all of the above, the staff 3
finds the proposed changes to the NA-1&2 TS to be acceptable.
3.0 TECHNICAL SPECIFICATION CHANGES TS 3.1.3.1d.1 (NA-2) Correct typographical error.
TS 4.1.3.1.2 Change the surveillance interval from once every 31 days to once per 92 days.
TS 4.1.3.1.1 (NA-1)
Correct typographical error.
4.0 STATE CONSULTATION
In accordance with the Commission's regulations, the Virginia State official was notified of the proposed issuance of the amendment. The State official had no comment.
5.0 ENVIRONMENTAL CONSIDERATION
I The change in TS 4.1.3.1.2 changes a requirement with respect to installation or use of a facility component located within the restricted area as defined in 10 CFR Part 20 and change surveillance requirements. The NRC staff has determined that the amendments involve 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 these amendments involve no significant hazards consideration and there has been no public comment on such finding (59 FR 27070). Accordingly, these amendments meet 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 amendments.
6.0 CONCLUSION
The Commission has 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, (2) such activities will be conducted in compliance with the Commission's regulations, and (3) the issuance of the amendments will not be inimical to the common defense and security or to the health and safety of the public.
Principal Contributor:
M. Chatterton Date: July 28, 1994 l
4 DATED:
July 28, 1994 AMENDMENT NO. 185 TO FACILITY OPERATING LICENSE NO. NPF-4-NORTH ANNA UNIT 1 AMENDMENT N0. 166 TO FACILITY OPERATING LICENSE NO. NPF-7-NORTH ANNA UNIT 2 Docket' File-NPC & Local PDRs PI,,1-2 Reading S. Varga, 14/E/4 V. McCree E. Tana L. Engle OGC D. Hagan, TWFi', 4/A/43 G. Hill (2), TWFN 5/C/3 C. Grimes, ll/F/23 ACRS (10)
OPA OC/LFMB D. Verelli, RII
,