IR 05000280/1992015
| ML18153D100 | |
| Person / Time | |
|---|---|
| Site: | Surry  |
| Issue date: | 08/04/1992 |
| From: | Branch M, Tingen S, York J NRC OFFICE OF INSPECTION & ENFORCEMENT (IE REGION II) |
| To: | |
| Shared Package | |
| ML18153D099 | List: |
| References | |
| 50-280-92-15, 50-281-92-15, NUDOCS 9208200065 | |
| Download: ML18153D100 (7) | |
Text
e e
UNITED STATES NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSION
REGION II
101 MARIETTA STREET, ATLANTA, GEORGIA 30.323 Report Nos.:
50-280/92-15 and 50-281/92-15 Licensee:
Virginia Electric and Power Company 5000 Dominion Boulevard Glen Allen, VA 23060 Docket Nos:: 50-280 and 50-281 License No~.: DPR-32 and DPR-37 Facility Name: Surry 1 and 2 Inspection Conducted: June 23 *through July 10, 1992 Inspectors: lJf!-~~~
M. ranch Senior Resient Inspector Approved SUMMARY Scope:
'ir,4-' ~ 2 Date Signed
~ -'1 -72 Date Signed
~-(\\. -9 (.
Date Signed This special resident inspection was conducted on site and in the corporate*
offices of the licensee to review the licensee's evaluations of changes to the environs around the Surry station (TI 2515/112) for the following purposes:
1) Determine if the licensee's programs are adequate in evaluating public health and safety issues resulting from changes in population distribution or in industry, military, or transportation that could arise on or near the Surry sit ) Determine if the licensee routinely documents changes in population distribution or in industrial, military or transportation hazards that could occur on or near the reactor sites in updates to the updated final safety analysis report (UFSAR).
9208200065 920804 PDR ADOCK 05000280 G
Results:
The licensee has no formal program to routinely. review changing population distribution or new hazards created by demographic changes around the facility. The licensee also does not routinely update site* information*
cont,ined in Chapter 2 of the UFSA However, through other licensing actions, such as Operating License. (OL) amendment.No~ 111, which modified the lifetime of the licensee to 40 years fr6m OL issuance, and amendment No. 124, which allowed the removal of the control room chlorine monitoring system, the licensee has reassessed certain areas discussed in Chapter 2 of the UFSAR and informed the NR Since the intent of 10 CFR 50.71 is to periodically update the UFSAR to capture changes on and around the *facility that may pose unfotseen hazards, the lack ~fa formal program to update.chapter 2 of the UFSAR ~ay not meet 10 CFR 50.71. The licensee is currently reassessirig their UFSAR update process and, as part of phase 2 of the UFSAR quality review, has indicated that chapter 2 information will be.evaluated and program adjustment made as necessar Pending review by the licensee and further assessment by the NRC, this lack of a formal program is identified as Unre~olved Item (URI)
50-280,281/92-15-0l, Lack Of Form~l UFSAR Update Process For Non-Plant Type Modifications -0r Changes That Occur On Or Atound The Facilit The inspection also identified two potential hazards associated with military helicopter flight paths and on-site gas turbine construction, that are not clearly reflected in the UFSAR, and thus, are a part of URI*
50-280,281/92-15-0.
-
e
. REPORT DETAILS Persons Contacted Licensee Employees *W. Benthall, Supervisor, Licensing R. Bilyeu, Licensing Engineer
H. Blake, Superintendent of Site Services
- R. Blount, Superintend~nt of.Engineering
- B Bryant, Licensing Engineer D. Christian, Assistant Station Manager J. Downs, Superintendent of Outage and Planning
- R. Gwaltney, Superintendent of Maintenance M. Holdsworth, Supervisor, Security
- M. Kansler~ Station Manager
A. Keagy, Superintendent of Materials
- J. McCarthy, Superintendent of Operations A. Meekings, supervisor, Administrative Services
- A. Price, Assistant Station Manager
. *E. Smith, S fte Quality Assurance Manager
- R. Saunders, Assistint Vice President, Nuclear Operations NRC Personnel
- M. Branch, Senior Resident Inspector
- S. Tingen, Resident Inspector
- J. York~ Resident_Inspector
- Attended Exit Interview Other licensee employees contacted included control room operators, CT operators, EP and other plant personne Atronyms and initialisms used throughout this report are listed in the last paragrap *
Background Requirements Associated with Evaluation of New Hazards and UFSAR Update
.
The UFSAR, the SERs based on the UFSAR, and related technical information submitted to the NRC in support of the license application comprise licensee commitments for licensing a nuclear power plan Consistent with the Statement of Consideration accompanying the rulemaking of Section 50.7l(e) of the Title 10 of the Code of Federal Regulatjons (10 CFR 50.7l(e), appropriate chapters of *the FSAR, such as Chapters 2, 3, and 13, should be updated when significant changes to the areas around a reactor site have occurre Recent events such as the
discovery of new natural gas wells at one facility or the proposed constructi~n of an airport near another raise concerns that licensees may not be fulfilling existing requirements of 10 CFR 50.7l(e) for.
- *
- e
evaluation of new hazards and updating the FSAR to accurately reflect the current site conditions.
. Items Reviewed The inspector reviewed Chapter 2 of the licensee's UFSAR, held discussions with responsible licensing personn~l, and made tou~s and i~spections at the facility and in the surro~nding areas to accomplish the following objectives: Determine if the licensee has implemented a program to periodically review, identify, and evaluate changes in site proximity hazards and demography to determine their effect on the safety of the plan Determine if the licensee has updated the FSAR to reflect the changes to the licensing basis since the plant was license Those areas where significant changes m~y have occurred since the plant was licensed include: Population increases or shifts that exceed those predicted
. i~ the licensee's FSAR or the staff's SE.
Changes in the use of the exclusion are.
Expansion of transient populations such as nearby recreational camping facilitie.
Major ihanges to transportation routes, incltiding highways, waterways, railways, military or civilian airways, or changes in the frequency of the movement or amount of hazardous cargo on new or existing roadway.
Addition of new facilities or significant changes in use of existing major industrial, medical, institutional, or military facilities near the sit.
Routing of gas ind oil transmission lines or the drilling or operation of new natural gas or oil wells near the sit.
Addition of hazard.ous or explosive material processing or manufacturing facilities, terminals, or storage areas near the sit.
Erection of dams, dikes, or other structures that affect th~
supply of cooling wate.
Naturally occurring changes in geological, seismological, or meteorological features in the area of the site *
- e
Determine if the licensee has *evaluated any noted changes for the effect on license requirements and has documented the results of their evaluatio.
Results Chapter 2 of the licensee's UFSAR addresses the areas described above and provides information on siting environmental hazards associated with Surr The majority of the information contained in Chapter 2 is Revision 1 dated June 1983. Several of the discussions related to population distribution are based on 1960 and 1970 census dat The licensee's controlling procedure is Nuclear Standard LINS-2802, Revision 1, dated April 17, 1992, Preparation and Control of UFSAR Update Based on the above review, the inspectors determined that the licensee has no formal program to routinely review changing population distribution or new hazards created by demographic changes around the facility. Nuclear Standard LINS-2802 does not require periodic evaluations and revisions to sections of the UFSAR that are not affected by plant modification The licensee also does not routinely update
'siting information contained in Chapter 2 of the UFSA However, through other licensing actions, such as OL amendment No. 111, which modified the lifetime of the license to 40 years from OL i~suance, and amendment No. 124, which allowed the removal of the*control room chlorine monitoring system, the licensee has reassessed certain areas discussed in Chapter 2 of the UFSAR and provided this information to the NR Additionally, as part of emergency planning, the licensee contracted a reassessment of evacuation routes and this study reviewed and included population data based on the 1990 census. Since the intent of 10 CFR 50.71 is to periodically update the UFSAR to caRture changes on and around the facility that may pose unforseen hazards, the lack of a formal program to update Chapter 2 of the UFSAR may not meet the intent of 10 CFR 50.7 The licensee is currently reassessing their UFSAR update process and as part of phase* 2 of the UFSAR quality review the licensee has indicated that chapter 2 information will be evaluated and program adjustment made as necessar Pending review by the licensee and further asssessment by the NRC, this lack of a formal program identified as the first part of URI 50-280,289/92-15-0l, Lack Of Formal UFSAR Update Process For Non-Plant Type Modifications or Changes That Occur On Or Around The Facilit The inspectors also identified that there were two hazards that were not adequately addressed in the UFSAR, the installation of new CTs and helicopter flight paths over the facilit The new CT installations involved the 1989 construction of four 80 MegWatt combustion turbine generators inside the owner controlled area per DCP 88-35-3. This modification is not discussed in the UFSAR; but, the licensee did perform a safety evaluation prior to implementation of the chang The safety evaluation did not provide a detailed evaluation of hazards such as missiles, although it did contain a statement that a CT missile
e
-
analysis was not required because the turbine casing was designed to contain the fragments of the rotor and blading should they fai In addition to the possible CT missile hazard the CT installation required the construction of two 3,000,000 gallon oil storage tanks and piping to. supply natural *gas since the CTs can burn either fue The UFSAR does not address these new hazards either, although the safety evaluation for the DC did evaluate the fire hazard and impact of sharing of some of Surry's.fire equipment and canal wate The licensee indicated that changes to the UFSAR to reflect the new CT facility were proposed by the"DC However, the UFSAR update did not occur due.to an oversight during the DC closure proces The licensee documented the failure to update th~ UFSAR on *DR S-92-115 Not properly updating the UFSAR is identified*as the second part of URI 50-280,281/92-15-0l pending review of the li~ensee's corrective actions to improve UFSAR qualit The concern with the helicopter flight path involved a discussion in section 2.1.4.2.4 of the UFSAR that stated that there are no federal airways within 5 miles of the plant. The inspectors questioned the licensee's meaning of airways because helicopters from Fort Eustis which is located approximately 5 miles east-southeast of Surry, typically fly clo~er than 5 miles to the site. On occasion, the inspectors have seen both military and commercial helicopters fly directly over the containment building. The licensee provided the inspectors with aeronautical charts that indicate that there are no electronic homing paths that are within 5 miles of the facility. However, aircraft that fly visually are not restricted from flying directly over the nuclear statio The licensee plans to clarify information in this area when UFSAR Chapter 2 is updated as part of the UFSAR quality revie No violations were identified in the areas reviewe.
Exit The inspection scope and results were sunvnarized on July 8, with those individuals identified by an asterisk in paragraph The followin summary of inspection activity was discussed by the inspectors during this exit:
Item Number Status URI 280,281/92-15-01 Open Description Lack of Formal UFSAR Update Process for Non-Plant Type Modifications or Changes That Occur On or Around The Facility
The licensee acknowledged the inspection findings with no dissenting comment The lice!"lsee did not identify as proprietary any material provided to or reviewed by the inspectors during this inspectio e
The licensee acknowledge.d the inspection findings with-no dissenting comment The licensee did not identify as proprietary any material provided to or reviewed by the inspectors duri~g this inspection.
. List of Acronyms and Initialisms CT DC DCP EP FSAR -
LINS -
COMBUSTION TURBINE DESIGN CHANGE DESIGN CHANGE PACKAGE EMERGENCY PLANNING FINAL SAFETY ANALYSIS REPORT LICENSING NUCLEAR STANDARD OPERATING LICENSE SAFETY EVALUATION REPORT TECHNICAL SPECIFICATIONS UPDATED FINAL SAFETY ANALYSIS REPORT