ML20100J810
| ML20100J810 | |
| Person / Time | |
|---|---|
| Site: | North Anna  |
| Issue date: | 11/28/1984 |
| From: | Office of Nuclear Reactor Regulation |
| To: | |
| Shared Package | |
| ML20100J800 | List: |
| References | |
| NUDOCS 8412100461 | |
| Download: ML20100J810 (2) | |
Text
.-
_ yn neo o
UNITED STATES o
g g
NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSION r.
E WASHINGTON. D. C. 20S55
\\.....}
e SAFETY EVALUATION BY THE OFFICE OF NUCLEAR REACTOR REGULATION SUPPORTING AMENDMENT NO.42 TO FACILITY OPERATING LICENSE N0. NPF-7 VIRGINIA ELECTRIC AND POWER COMPANY OLD DOMINION ELECTRIC COOPERATIVE NORTH ANNA POWER STATION, UNIT N0. 2 DOCKET NO. 50-339
==
Introduction:==
By letter dated March 15, 1984, the Virginia Electric and Power Company (the licensee) requested a change to the Technical Specifications (TS) for the North Anna Power Station, Unit No. 2 (NA-2). The licensee's proposed change is in accordance with NRC Generic Letter No. 83-30, dated July 21, 1983. The proposed change would delete the NA-2 TS 4.8.1.1.2.C.6 which requires verification that on a simulated loss of the diesel generator (with offsite power not available), the loads are shed fr a the emergency busses and that subsequent loading of the diesel generator is in accordance with design requirements.
l Discussion:
NRC Generic Letter No. 83-30 stated that the diesel generator Surveillance Requirement 4.8.1.1.2.d.6 in the Standard TS (STS) should be deleted. Generic Letter 83-30 went on to say that the current revision of the STS is not consistent with the provisions of General Design Criteria (GDC) 17, Regulatory Guide 1.108 and the NRC Standard Review Plan (SRPs 8.2 and 8.3.1).
In order to rectify this inconsistency, the Surveillance Requirement 4.8.1.1.2.d.6 for diesel generator testing has been modified to delete this requirement which is i
in excess of the scope of GDC 17.
In addition, the revision as specified by Generic Letter 83-30 will provide consistency between the NA-1&2 TS and with the STS for Westinghouse Pressurized Water Reactors which is appropriately applied to NA-1&2.
In addition, the proposed change will also reduce the number of diesel generator
~
ambient fast starts which addresses the concerns expressed in NRC Generic letter 83-41 dated December 16, 1983.
Evaluation:
The proposed change is in accordance with NR Generic Letter 83-30 and also will reduce the number of ambient starts-a concern expressed in NRC Generic Letter 83-41.
In addition, the proposed change which would delete the NA-2 TS 4.8.1.1.2.C.6 will provide consistency between the NA-182 TS. Finally, 9'
DRAG 61841128K05000g 841210
. even with the proposed deletion of the above Surveillance Requirement, the remaining Surveillance Requirements will provide sufficient information to assess the status of the diesel generators with regard to degradation and the ability of the diesel generators to serve as a standby (onsite) power supply. These requirements for periodic diesel generator testing include starting test, design load capacity test, load rejection test, auto-start test, load acceptance test and functional test. Therefore, based on all of the above, we find the licensee's proposed deletion of the NA-2 TS 4.8.1.1.2.C.6 to be acceptable.
Environmental Consideration:
This amendmer,t involves a change in the installation or use of a facility component located within the restricted area as defined in 10 CFR Part 20.
The staff has determined that the 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 in-dividual or cumulative occupational radiation exposure. The Commission has previously issued a proposed finding that this amendment involves no signifi-cant 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.
==
Conclusion:==
We have concluded, based on the considerations discussed ai;ove, that:
(1) there is reasonable assurance that the health and safety of the blic will not be endangered by operation in the proposed manner, and (2) pu such activities will be conducted in compliance with the Commission's regula-tions and the issuance of the amendment will not be inimical to the common defense and security or to the health and safety of the public.
Date: November 28, 1984 Principal Contributor:
L. Engle, DL/0RB#3 l
l l
1
--