ML20211D187
| ML20211D187 | |
| Person / Time | |
|---|---|
| Site: | North Anna  |
| Issue date: | 09/26/1986 |
| From: | Office of Nuclear Reactor Regulation |
| To: | |
| Shared Package | |
| ML20211D163 | List: |
| References | |
| NUDOCS 8610220130 | |
| Download: ML20211D187 (2) | |
Text
_-.
/
\\
UNITED STAYES 8
NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSION o
{
WASHINGTON D. C.20655
\\...../
SAFETY EVALUATION BY THE OFFICE OF NUCLEAR REACTOR REGULATION RELATED TO AMENDMENT N0. 86 FACILITY OPERATING LICENSE NO. NPF-4 VIRGINIA ELECTRIC AND POWER COMPANY OLD DOMINION ELECTRIC COOPERATIVE NORTH ANNA POWER STATION, UNIT NO. 1 DOCKET NO. 50-338 INTRODUCTION By letter dated July 11, 1986, (Serial No.86-398), the Virginia Electric and Power Company (the licensee) requested a change to the North Anna Power Station, Unit 1 (NA-1) Technical Specifications (TS). Specifically, the proposed change would reinstate the NA-1 TS 3.4.9.1.C which was inadvertently deleted in the NA-1 Amendment No. 74 issued January 15, 1986.
DISCUSSION TS 3.4.9.1.C specifies "a maximum temperature change of less than or equal to 10*F in any one hour period during inservice hydrostatic and leak testing operations above the heatup and cooldown limit curves." An identical requirement is presently specified in the NA-2 TS, and Station Operating Procedures for both NA-182 presently contain the necessary restrictions on temperature changes during inservice hydrostatic and leak testing.
EVALUATION The proposed change would reinstate TS 3.4.9.1.C which was deleted by administrative error in Amendment No. 74 for NA-1.
Therefore, the proposed change is administrative in content and reinstatement of TS 3.4.9.1.C for NA-1 would correct an error presently existing in the NA-1 TS.
In addition, reinstatement of TS 3.4.9.1.C would provide consistency between the TS for NA-182. On this basis, the staff finds the proposed change to be acceptable.
ENVIRONMENTAL CONSIDERATION This amendment 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 detemined that the amendment involves no significant increase in the amounts, and no significant change in the types, of any effluents that may be released of fsite, and that there is no significant increase in individual or cumulative occupational radiation exposure. The 8610220130 860926 PDR ADOCK 05000338 p
o,
Commission has previously published a proposed finding that.the amendment involves no significant' hazards consideration and there has been no public comment on such finding. Accordingly, the amendment meets the eligibility criteria for categorical exclusion set forth in 10 CFR 651.22(c)(9).
Pursuant to 10 CFR 651.22(b), no environmental impact statement or environmental assessment need be prepared in connection with the issuance of the amendment.
CONCLUSION We have 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, and (2) such activities will be conducted in compliance with the Commission's regulations, 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: September 26, 1986 Principal Contributor:
L. B. Engle