ML20213G877
| ML20213G877 | |
| Person / Time | |
|---|---|
| Site: | North Anna  |
| Issue date: | 05/11/1987 |
| From: | Office of Nuclear Reactor Regulation |
| To: | |
| Shared Package | |
| ML20213G875 | List: |
| References | |
| NUDOCS 8705190003 | |
| Download: ML20213G877 (3) | |
Text
.
'o UNITED STATES
~,
f3 j
NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSION g
-E W ASHINGTON. D. C. 20555
\\..... p5 SAFETY EVALUATION BY THE OFFICE OF NUCLEAR REACTOR REGULATION RELATED TO AMENDMENT NO. 79 TO FACILITY OPERATING LICENSE NO. NPF-7 VIRGINIA ELECTRIC AND POWER COMPANY OLD DOMINION ELECTRIC COOPERATIVE NORTH ANNA POWER STATION, UNIT NO. 2 DOCKET NO. 50-339 INTRODUCTION By letter dated February 19, 1987, the Virginia Electric and Power Company (the licensee) proposed a change to the North Anna Power Station, Unit No. 2 (NA-2) Facility Operating License No. NPF-7. Specifically, the proposed change would modify the NA-2 Facility Operating License Condition 2.C.(15)(c) which requires the inspection of the recirculation spray pumps inside containment at least once every five years. The proposed change would permit the second inspection to be performed during the forthcoming NA-2 refueling outage which is scheduled to connence on July 31, 1987. The inspection is currently required to be performed on May 27, 1987, and would require a plant shutdown. Therefore, the proposed change would allow the second inspection to take place during the 1987 refueling outage after an additional 64 days has transpired from the presently specified date for the second inspection.
DISCUSSION l
Supplement 10 to NUREG-0053, Final Safety Evaluation Report, NA-182, Section 6.3.3 concerns the testing performed on the Inside Recirculation Spray Pumps.
Paragraph 3 of Section 6.3.3 states: "We also require that these pumps be removed and inspected at the first planned major outage. The pump bearings should be replaced if necessary." Paragraph 4 adds "... We require a i
similar inspection of the pumps at least once every five years... [and] the i
Technical Specifications (TS) will reflect these requirements." By stating that the TS will reflect these requirements, Supplement 10 to NUREG-0053 indicates that these inspections will be subject to the same requirements regarding time intervals and allowable extensions as specified in the NA-2 TS 4.0.2.
The NA-2 TS 4.0.2 specifies (in part) that "Each surveillance requirement shall be performed within the specified time interval with a maximum allowable extension in time not to exceed 25% of the surveillance interval." Twenty-five percent of the five year surveillance interval (1825 days) is 456 days and thus, the licensee's request to exceed the five year testing interval by an additional 64 days to the forthcoming refueling outage is well within the allowable extension in time specified in the NA-2 TS 4.0.2.
N b DOOk P
It is noted that during the first refueling outage for NA-2, the inside recirculation spray pumps were removed and inspected. The inspections revealed no significant degradation of the pump bearings.
Section 6.2.2.5.2 of the Updated Final Safety Analysis Report describes the instrumentation available in the control room to monitor system parameters during the operation of the recirculation spray pumps. This includes: pump discharge pressure; containment sump and recirculation pump discharge water temperature; vibration alarms; and indication of shaft rotation. Also, NA-?
TS 3.6.2.2 requires that "four separate and independent containment recirculation spray subsystems, each composed of a spray cump, associated heat exchanger and flow path" shall be OPERABLE during MODES 1, 2, 3, and 4.
In addition, station periodic test procedures require that the inside recirculation spray pump be run every 3 months to determine OPERABILITY. This is accomplished by verifying that the pump achieves a speed greater than 100 rpm as indicated by a rotation sensor. No problems related to the bearings have been identified as a result of these periodic tests.
Based upon the satisfactory results of the inspection of the bearings during the first refueling outage, the diverse instrumentation available in the control room to detect system degradation during emergency operation, the current NA-2 TS requirements for system operability, and the periodic testing of the pumps for OPERABILITY determination, there is adequate assurance that the inside recirculation spray pumps will remain operable during the reouested extension of time to the surveillance interval.
EVALUATION j
i In sumary, the proposed change in the NA-2 Facility Operating License Condition 2.C.(15)(c) would not change the testing reouirements. Only the required surveillance interval would be changed and the requested _ extension in the surveillance interval is well within the maximum allowable extension in time specified in the NA-2 TS.
Previous inspections have not shown any significant degradation on the recirculation spray pump bearings inside containment.
In addition, periodic testing of the pumps for OPERABILITY (every three months over the past 5 yearsi have not indicated any problems. Also, the proposed change does not affect the NA-2 TS OPERABILITY requirement for the containment recirculation spray system. Finally, diverse instrumentation is available in the control room to detect system degradation during emergency operations. Therefore, based on all of the above, we find the proposed change to be acceptable, and the NA-2 Facility Operating License Condition 2.C.(15)(c) is hereby revised to permit the second inspection of the inside containment recirculation spray pumps-to be performed during the forthcoming 1987 refueling outage.
ENVIRONMENTAI. CONSIDERATION This amendment involves a change in the installation or use of a facility 4
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 offsite, and that there is no significant increase in individual i
t
or cumulative occupational radiation exposure. The 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 CFP 651.22(c)(9). Pursuant to 10 CFR 551.22(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:
May 11, 1987 Principal Contributtr:
Leon B. Engle O
L..