ML20126J960
| ML20126J960 | |
| Person / Time | |
|---|---|
| Site: | North Anna  |
| Issue date: | 04/29/1981 |
| From: | Office of Nuclear Reactor Regulation |
| To: | |
| Shared Package | |
| ML20126J958 | List: |
| References | |
| NUDOCS 8105070416 | |
| Download: ML20126J960 (2) | |
Text
.
fi, s ung),
UNITED STATES f bs rT i NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSION 7 'h'kkf;N P/. C WASHINGTON, D. C. 20555
- +s~.
1 O
SAFtTY EvAluArt0N By THE OFFtCE OF NuCLtAa REACTOR REGulAT 0N RELATED TO AMENDMENT NO. 7 TO FACILITY OPERATING LICENSE NO. NPF-7 VIRGINIA ELECTRIC AND POWER COMPANY NORTH ANNA POWER STATION, UNIT NO. 2 1
DOCXET NO. 50-339
==
Introduction:==
By apolicatien dated Acril 22, 1981, the Virginia ~1ectric and Powe'r 20moany (the licensee) requested an amencment to Facility Operating License NPF-7 for the North Anna Power Stat. ion, unit 2 (NA-2). The amendment wculd add a condition to License NPF-7 to authcri:e a one time extension of 30 days to the requirement of the Technical Specification 4.0.2.a for Specification 4.8.2.3.2.d and 4.8.2.4.2 concerning the 125-vol t D. C. battery 18 month surveillance testing.
The licensee has stated that it has become necessary to delay the scheduled shutdown of NA-2 f0r a planned maintenance outage from May 1,1981 until May 15, 1981. The delay will allow the licensee to optimi:e the system load with planned maintenance outages for the licensee's nuclear units.
Discussion:
NA-2 has four 125-volt D. C. battery banks which are subject to Technical spect fications 3.3.2.3 and 3.8.2.4 Each battery bank is tested and demonstrated operable under the provisions of Technical Specifications 4.8.2.3.2 and 4.8.2.4.2.
The surveillance required by Scecification 4.8.2.3.2.a is pe, c'cr,ed weekly and the results of the surveillance have been satisfactory.
The surveillance required by Specification 4.8.2.3.2.D, which is reouired every 92 days, was last perforted on February 18, 1981 with satisf actory resul ts.
The next scheduled surveillance for Specification 4.8.2.3.2.b is scheduled for May 18, 1981 and can be performed while MA-2 is operating. The surveillance recuired by Specification 4.8.2.3.2.C.4 was begun on Acril 21, 1981 and should be completed orior to May 1,1981.
The preliminary results of this surveillance are recorted to be satisfactory and no problems are expected. The battery capacity test reouired by Specification a.8.2.3.2.e was perfor ed during pre-operational testing with satisf actory results.
Specification 4.8.2.3.2.d, which is an 18-menth battery service test, was last performed on June 14, 1979 and is now due to De ?e-forted. The battery surveillance interval of 18 conths plus the 25 percent extensten o# tne surveillance interval will exci e on May 1,1981. Soecificatien 4.5.2.4.2 requires the perfomance of Sceci fi:ation *.;.2.3.2 c cemera n operability of One 125-volt battery Dank and charper.
810 5070 h h
. Evaluation:
s Since all other more frequent surveillances have been performed and the batteries have been demonstrated operable, we find the licensee's requested extension of 30 days to the requirement of Technical Specification 4.0.2.a for Specifications 4.8.2.3.2.d and 4.8.2.4.2 to be acceptable.
~
c The 30 day exemption is stipulated in License Condition 2.C.(2)b whi:h is being added to Facility Operating License NpF-7. Conditions 2.C.(2)b stipulates:
"The end of the current surveillance period for the Surveillance Requirements listed below may be extended beyond the time limit specified by Technical Specification 4.0.2.a.
In each case, the required surveillance shall be completed by the revised due date.
Af ter May 31, 1981 the plant shall not be operated in Modes 1; i
2, 3, or 4 until the Surveillance Requirements listed below have been completed. Upon accomplishment of the surveillance, the
, provisions of Technfcal Specification 4.0.2.a shall apply."
(a) Specification 4.8.2.3.2.d 4.8.2.4.2 Environmental Consideration:
We have determined that the amendment does not authori:e a change in effluent types or total amounts nor an increase in power level and will not result in any significant environmental impact. Having mace this determination, we have further concluded that the anendment involves an action which is insignificant from the standcoint of environmental impact and, pursuant to 10 CFR 551.5(d)(4), that an environmental impact statement or negative declaration and environ-mental impact appraisal need not be prepared in connection with the issuance of this arandment.
==
Conclusion:==
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 amendrent does not involve 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 Concission'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: April 29, 1981 l
(
-