ML20081J727
| ML20081J727 | |
| Person / Time | |
|---|---|
| Site: | North Anna  |
| Issue date: | 03/23/1995 |
| From: | Matthews D NRC (Affiliation Not Assigned) |
| To: | |
| Shared Package | |
| ML20081J731 | List: |
| References | |
| NUDOCS 9503280145 | |
| Download: ML20081J727 (4) | |
Text
)
k 7590-01 i
UNITED STATES NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMISSION VIRGINIA ELECTRIC AND POWER COMPANY DOCKET NO. 50-339 NORTH ANNA POWER STATION. UNIT NO. 2 i
ENVIRONMENTAL ASSESSMENT AND FINDING'0F NO SIGNIFICANT IMPACT The U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission (the Commission) is considering; issuance of an exemption from Facility Operating License N>. NPF-7, issued t$
Virginia Electric and Power Company (the licensee), for o'seration of the North Anna Power Station, Unit No. 2 (NA-2) located in Louisa County, Virginia.
ENVIRONMENTAL ASSESSMENT Identification of the Proposed Action:
This Environmental Assessment has been prepared to address potential environmental issues related to the licensee's application of March 2,1995.
The proposed action would exempt the licensee from the requirements of 10 CFR Part 50, Appendix J, Paragraph III.D.I.(a), to the extent that a one-time interval extension for the Type A test (containment integrated leak rate test) i i
by approximately 16 months from the March 1995 refueling outage to the October 1996 refueling outage would be granted.
In addition, the proposed action would exempt the licensee from a portion of Section IV.A that requires a Type A test to be performed following a major modification or replacement of a' component which is part of the primary reactor containment boundary.
N[ $
[
P
)
2 Specifically, the post-modification exemption is requested from performing a Type A test due to the activities associated with the upcoming NA-2 steam generator replacement.
The Need for the Proposed Action:
The propose.d action is needed to permit the licensee to defer the Type A tests from the NA-2 March 1995 refueling steam generator replacement outage to the October 1996 refueling outage, thereby saving the cost of performing the test and eliminating the test period from the critical path time of the outage.
Environmental Impacts of the Proposed Action:
[
The Commission has completed its evaluation of the proposed action and concludes that the proposed one-time exemptions would not increase the probability or consequences of accidents previously analyzed ar.d the proposed one-time exemptions would not affect facility radiation levels or facility radiological effluents.
The licensee will continue to be required to conduct the Type B and C local leak rate tests which historically have been shown to be the principal means of detecting containment leakage paths with the Type A tests confirming the Type B and C test results. The planned replacement of the NA-2 steam generators affects only the closed piping system inside containment which includes the main steam lines, the feedwater lines, and the secondary side of the steam generators. The affected area of the primary containment boundary is also part of the pressure boundary of an ASME Class 2 component / piping system and, as such, the replacement of the NA-2 steam i
generators are subject to the repair and replacement requirements of ASME Section XI. The ASME Section XI surface, volumetric, and system pressure test requirements are more stringent than the Type A testing requirements of
)
b 3
Appendix J.
The acceptance criteria for ASME Section XI system pressure testing of welded joints is zero leakage and the test pressure for the system pressure test will be in excess of 20 times that of a type A test.
In addition, the steam generator replacement activities do not affect the containment structure or the containment liner. The NRC staff considers that these inspections provide an important added level of confidence in the continued integrity of the containment boundary. The NRC staff also notes that the containment is maintained at a subatmospheric pressure which provides a means for continuously monitoring potential containment leakage paths during power operation.
The change will not increase the probability or consequences of accidents, no changes are being made in the types of any effluents that shy be released offsite, and there is no significant increase in the allowable,'
individual or cumulative occupational radiation exposure. Accordingly, the Commission concludes that there are no significant radiological environmental impacts associated with the proposed action.
With regard to potential nonradiological impacts, the proposed action does involve features located entirely within the restricted area as defined in 10 CFR Part 20.
It does not affect nonradiological plant effluents and has no other environmental impact. Accordingly, the Commission concludes that there are no significant environmental impacts associated with the proposed action.
Alternatives to the Proposed Action:
Since the Commission has concluded there is no measurable environmental impact associated with the proposed action, any alternatives with equal or greater environmental impact need not be evaluated. As an alterr,ative to the proposed action, the NRC staff considered denial of the proposed action.
4 Denial of the application would result in no change in current environmental impacts.
Alternative Use of Resources:
This action does not involve the use of any resources not previously considend in the, Final Environmental Statement for NA-2.
Aaencies and Perscas Consulted:
In accordance with its stated policy, the NRC staff consulted with the Virginia State official regsrding the environmental impact of the proposed action. The State official had no comments.
FINDING OF NO SIGNIFICANT IMPACT Based upon the environmental assessment, the Commission concludes that.;
the proposed action will not have a significant effect on the quality of the; human environment. Accordingly, the Commission has determined not to prepare an environmental impact statement for the proposed action.
For further details with respect to the proposed action, see the licensee's letter dated March 2,1995, which is available for public inspection at the Commission's Public Document Room, Swem Library, College of William and Mary, Williamsburg, Virginia 23185, and The Alderman Library, Special Collections Department, University of Virginia, Charlottesville, Virginia 22903-2498.
Dated at Rockville, Maryland, this 23rd day of March 1995.
FOR THE NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMISSION 4%
David B. Matthews, Director Project Directorate 11-2 Division of Reactor Projects - I/II Office of Nuclear Reactor Regulation