ML18142A221

10CFR50 App R Rept - App A,Summary Comparison of 1984 App R Reanalysis & 1980-1982 Post-Fire Safe Shutdown Review

ML18142A221
Person / Time
Site:	Surry
Issue date:	12/31/1984
From:	VIRGINIA POWER (VIRGINIA ELECTRIC & POWER CO.)
To:
Shared Package
ML18142A220	List: ML18142A219 ML18142A221
References
NUDOCS 8503270493
Download: ML18142A221 (14)

Text

'

VIRGINIA ELECTRIC AND.POWER COMPANY SURRY POWER STATION 10 CFR 50 APPENDIX R REPORT - APPENDIX A Summary Comparison of the 1984 Appendix R ReAnalysis and the 1980-1982 Post-Fire Safe Shutdown Review December, 1984

e 10 CFR 50 APPENDIX R REPORT - APPENDIX A Sununary Comparison of the 1984 Appendix R ReAnalysis and the 1980-1982 Post-Fire Safe Shutdown Review Table of Contents Introduction to Tables 1, 2, 3, and 4 Table 1:

Summary Comparison of Post-Fire Safe Shutdown Systems Table 2:

Summary Comparison by NRC Plant-Specific Request Table 3:

Summary Comparison by NRC Generic Request Table 4:

Summary Comparison of VEPCO Conunitments Section l

1 2

3 4

e INTRODUCTION TO TABLES 1, 2, 3, AND 4 The attached tables are a comparison of the 1980-1982 Post-Fire Safe Shutdown Review and the 1984 Appendix R reanalysis.

The 1980-1982 Post-Fire Safe Shutdown Review was sent to the NRC by VEPCO letters 6f October 31, 1980 and June 18, 1982 (Serial Numbers 885 and

363, respectively).

It is noted that other correspondence on this subject was submitted in this time period.

The format of the four tables varies in the.following manner.

Tables 1 and 4 use a format of summarizing in the left-hand column statements from VEPCO's 1980-1982

review, and summarizing in the right-hand column the changes based on the 1984 reanalysis.

Tables 2 and 3

use a format of summarizing in the left-hand column the NRC requests for information, and summarizing in the right-hand column the major differences between the 1980-1982 and the.1984 analyses.

A brief description of the attached tables is given below:

o Table 1:

Summary Comparison of Post-Fire Safe.Shutdown Systems 0

In the left-hand column of Table 1, the post-fire safe shutdown systems used in the 1980-1982 review are listed by safe shutdown function.

These systems were described in of the VEPCO letter of October 31, 1980 and in Attachment 1

of the VEPCO letter of June 18, 1982.

The right-hand column of Table 1 shows the systems that are used in the 1984 reanalysis.

Table 2:

Summary Comparison Request by*.

NRC Plant-Specific In the left-hand column of Table 2, the NRC requests are listed that are specific to Surry.

These requests are from the NRC letter to VEPCO of April 12, 1982.

The responses to these requests were described in Parts A and B of the VEPCO letter of June 18, 1982.

The right-hand column of Table* 2 gives a summary of the major differences between the 1980-1982 and the 1984 analyses.

e Page 2 o

Table 3:

Summary Comparison by NRC Generic Request In the left-hand column of Table 3, the NRC requests are listed that are seneric.

These requests are from the NRC Generic Letter 81-12 and its clarifications.

The responses to these *requests were described in the VEPCO letters of October 31, 1980 and June 18, 1982.

The right-hand column of Table 3

gives a summary of the major differences between the 1980-1982 and the 1984 analyses.

o Table 4:

Summary Comparison of VEPCO Commitments Specific commitments were made by VEPCO in the June 18, 1982 (Part D) letter to the NRC.

These commitments are listed in the left-hand column of Table 4.

The right-hand column of Table 4 gives a

summary of the major differences in the, VEPCO commitments between the 1980-1982 and the 1984 *analyses.

Because the 1980-1982 review is considered the "Base Case,"

only the major changes from the 1980-1982 review, as determined by the 1984 reanalysis, are given in the right-hand columns of the tables.

It must be emphasized that these tables are not intended to show a

cable-by-cable or line-by-line comparison between the 1980-1982 review and the 1984 reanalysis.

These tables are a summary comparison, or overview, of changes.

For detailed information, the reader is referred to the 1980-1982 review and the 1984 reanalysis.

1, VIRGINIA ELECTRIC AND POWER COMPANY SURRY POWER STATION Table 1

SUMMARY

COMPARISON OF POST-FI RE.SAFE SHUTDOWN SY.STEMS 1980-1982 POST-FIRE SAFE SHUTDOWN SYSTEMS (REF:

VEPCO LETTER SERIAL #885 DATED 10/31/80; VEPCO LETTER SERIAL #363 DATED 6/18/82)

(1) SYSTEMS REQUIRED FOR THE REACTIVITY CONTROL FUNCTION:

(A) ROD CONTROL SYSTEM (B) CHEMICAL AND VOLUME CONTROL SYSTEM (C) CHARGING PUMP COOLING WATER SYSTEM (D) CHARGING PUMP SERVICE WATER SYSTEM (El SERVICE WATER SYSTEM (2) SYSTEMS REQUIRED FOR THE REACTOR COOLANT I

MAKEUP FUNCTION:

(A) CHEMICAL AND VOLUME CONTROL SYSTEM (Bl CHARGING PUMP COOLING WATER SYSTEM (C) CHARGING PUMP SERVICE WATER SYSTEM (D) SERVICE WATER SYSTEM (3) SYS1EMS REQUIRED FOR THE REACTOR HEAT REMOVAL FUNCTION:

(A) AUXILIARY FEEDWATER SYSTEM (B) MAIN STEAM SYSTEM (C) SEMVICE WAfER SYSTEM (U) RESIDUAL HEAT REMOVAL SYSTEM*

(El COMPONENT COOLING WATER SYSTEM*

(Fl PRESSURIZER HEATERS*

• COLD SHUTDOWN ONLY (4) INSTRUMENTATION REQUIRED FOR THE PROCESS MONITORING FUNCTION.

DIRECT READINGS OF THE FOLLOWING PROCESS VARIABLES ARE OR WILL BE AVAILABLE AT THE RE~OTE MONITORING PANEL:

(A) PRESSURIZER PRESSURE (B) PRESSURIZER LEVEL (C) REACTOR COOLANT HOT LEG TEMPERATURE (D) REACfOR COOLANT COLD LEG TEMPERATURE (E) STEAM GENERATOR LEVEL (F) STEAM GENERATOR PRESSURE (G) SOURCE RANGE NEUTRON Fl UX T/SURRV-

SUMMARY

COMPARISON/I 1984 POST-FIRE SAFE SHUTDOWN SYSTEMS (REF: 1984 APPENDIX R REANALYSIS)

!NO CHANGES FROM THE 1980-1982 REVIEW WITH THE EXCEPTION OF THE SER-IVICE WATER SYSTEM AND THE CHARGING PUMP SERVICE WATER SYSTEM WHICH

!ARE NO LONGER NEEDED FOR THIS FUNCTION DUE TO MODIFICATION III-6

!DESCRIBED IN CHAPTER 6 OF THE 1984 REANALYSIS REPORT.

I I

I I

JSEE COMMENTS FROM (1) ABOVE.

I I

I I

I I

JIN THE 1980-1982 REVIEW, ONE METHOD OF MAINTAINING SYSTEM PRESSURE JWAS TO REPAIR PRESSURIZER HEATER CABLES.

CREDIT WILL NOT BE TAKEN JFOR THE HEATERS IN THE 1984 REVIEW.

IN ADDITION, SEVERAL ADDITIONAL

!MANUAL ACTIONS HAVE BEEN IDENTIFIED IN ORDER TO OPERATE THE SAME JSYSTEMS.

AN ALTERNATIVE LETDOWN PATH MAY BE USED IF THE NORMAL JAND EXCESS LETDOWN PATHS ARE NOT AVAILABLE (AS DESCRIBED IN CHAPTER 13 OF THE 1984 REANALYSIS REPORT).

I I

I I

NO CHANGES FROM THE 1980-1982 REVIEW WITH THE FOLLOWING TWO EXCEP-TIONS.

THE EMERGENCY CONDENSATE STORAGE TANK LEVEL IS REQUIRED FOR HOT AND COLD SHUTDOWN AND AHR PUMP DISCHARGE TEMPERATURE IS REQUIRED FOR COLD SHUTDOWN.

PAGE 1 OF 2

I I

1980-1982 POST-FIRE SAFE SHUTDOWN SYSTEMS l(REF:

VEPCO LETTER SERIAL #885 DATED 10/31/80; I

VEPCO LETTER SERIAL #363 DATED 6/18/82)

I I

1(5) SYSTEMS REQUIRED FOR SUPPORT FUNCTIONS:

I I

I I

I I

I I

I (A)

(B)

(C)

(D)

(E)

(F)

EMERGENCY DISTRIBUTION SYSTEM CHARGING PUMP COOLING WATER SYSTEM CHARGING PUMP SERVICE WATER SYSTEM SERVICE WATER SYSTEM COMPONENT COOLING WATER SYSTEM CONTAINMENT INSTRUMENT AIR SYSTEM OR STATION INSTRUMENT AIR SYSTEM T/SURRY-

SUMMARY

COMPARISON/I 1984 POST-FIRE SAFE SHUTDOWN SYSTEMS (REF: 1984 APPENDIX R REANALYSIS)

!ADDITIONAL SYSTEMS REQUIRED FOR SUPPORTING FUNCTIONS HAVE BEEN

!FORMALLY INCLUDED:

EMERGENCY LIGHTING, EMERGENCY COMMUNICATIONS, IAND VENTILATION SYSTEMS FOR CERTAIN FIRE AREAS.

THESE SYSTEMS WERE INOT SPECIFICALLY IDENTIFIED IN THE 1980-1982 REVIEW AS SYSTEMS RE-IQUIRED FOR SUPPORTING FUNCTIONS.

THESE SYSTEMS HAVE BEEN FULLY

!EVALUATED IN THE 1984 REVIEW.

THE CHARGING PUMP SERVICE WATER SYSTEM IIS NO LONGER REQUIRED AS DISCUSSED IN (1) ABOVE.

INSTRUMENT AIR

!SYSTEMS ARE NO LONGER REQUIRED SINCE AN ALTERNATIVE PROCEDURE MAY BE USED FOR OPERATING THE REQUIRED AIR-OPERATED VALVES.

PAGE 2 OF 2 e

e

VIRGINIA ELECTRIC AND POWER COMPANY SURRY POWER STATION Table 2

SUMMARY

COMPARISON BY NRC PLANT-SPECIFIC REQUEST NRC PLANT-SPECIFIC REQUESTS FOR ADDITIONAL INFORMATION (REF: NRC LETTER TO VEPCO OF APRIL 12, 1982, ENCLOSURE 1)

1.

PROVIDE A POINT BV POINT RESPONSE WITH RESPECT TO THE INTERACTIONS OF ASSOCIATED CIRCUITS AS OUTLINED IN ENCLOSURE 2 OF THE FEBRUARY 20, 1981 LETTER (INCLUDING ALL REQUESTED TABLES).

2.

STATE CONFIRMATION THAT THE RELOCATED.

CHARC;ING f'UMP SERVICE WATER PUMPS AND THE ASSOCIATED PIPING WILL Be INSTALLED TO [HE SAME LEVEL OF CAPABILITY.AS BEFORE REU)CAl ION.

T/SURRV-

SUMMARY

COMPARISON/2 I

ISEE TABLE 3.

I I

I I

I I

CHANGES FROM THE 1980-1982 POST-FIRE SAFE SHUTDOWN REVIEW BASED ON 1984 APPENDIX R REANALYSIS

!THIS REQUEST IS NO LONGER APPLICABLE DUE TO MODIFICATION III-6 DESCRIBED JIN CHAPTER 6 OF THE 1984 REANALYSIS REPORT.

I I

I PAGE 1 OF 1 e

e

VIRGINIA ELECTRIC ANO POWER COMPANY SURRY POWER STATION Table 3

SUMMARY

COMPARISON BY NRC GENERIC REQUEST I I NRC GENERIC REQUESTS FOR I

A0D1Tl0NAL INFORMATION i(REF: GENERIC LETTER 81-12 ANO CLARIFICATIONS)

I __________ _

( 1 )

IDENTIFY THOSE AREAS OF THE PLANT THAT WILL NOT MEET THE REQUIREMENTS OF SECTION III.G.2 OF APPENDIX R ANO, THUS ALTERNA-TIVE SHUTDOWN WILL BE PHOVIOED.

ADDITIONALLY, PROVIDE A STATEMENT THAT ALL OTHEH AREAS OF THE PLANl ARE OR WILL BE IN COMPL[ANCE WilH SECTION III.G.2 OF APPENDIX R.

CHANGES FROM THE 1980-1982 POST-FIRE SAFE SHUTDOWN REVIEW BASED ON 1984 APPENDIX R REANALYSIS A DETAILED REVIEW OF POST-FIRE MANUAL ACTIONS HAS RESULTED IN THE ADDITION OF TWO NEW ALTERNATE SHUTDOWN FIRE AREAS:

TURBINE BUILDING MECHANICAL EQUIPMENT ROOM NO. 3 THE AUXILIARY BUILDING HAS BEEN REDEFINED FROM TWO FIRE ZONES TO ONE FIRE AREA.

---**----------------------+--------------------------------------

(aJ LISl THE SVSTEM(S) OR PORTIONS THEREOF USED TO PROVIDE THE NORMAL SHUTDOWN CAPABILITY ASSUMING LOSS OF OFF-SITE POWEH.

lb)

FOR THOSE SYSTEMS IDENTIFIED IN "a"' FOR WHICH ALTERNATE OR DEDICATED SHUTDOWN CAF-ABII ITV MUST BE PROVIDED, LIST THE EQUIPMENT AND COMPONENTS OF THE NORMAL SHUTDOWN SYSTEM IN THE FIRE AREA AND JOE~Tl~Y THE FUNCTIONS OF THE CIRCUITS OF THE NUHMAL SHUTDOWN SYSTEM IN THE FIRE AHEA (POWEH TO WHAT EQUIPMENT, CONTROL OF WHAT COMPONENTS AND INSTRUMENTATION).

(continued on page 2)

T/SURRY-SU~~ARY COMPARISON/3 I

!REFER TO TABLE 1 WHICH LISTS THESE SYSTEMS.

I I

I THE METHODOLOGY FOR PERFORMING THE CABLE SEPARATION ANALYSIS IS BASICALLY THE SAME FOR THE 1980-1982 REVIEW AND THE 1984 REANALYSIS.

HOWEVER, IN THE 1984 REANALYSIS, THE NUMBER OF FIRE AREAS REQUIRING ALTERNATIVE SHUTDOWN ANO THE LEVEL OF DETAIL OF THE CABLE AND EQUIPMENT SEPARATION ANALYSIS HAVE INCREASED.

PAGE I OF 5

I I NRC GENERIC REQUESTS FOR J

ADDITIONAL INFORMATION J (REF: GENERIC LETTER 81-12 AND CLARIFICATIONS) 1------

1 (b) c:unt inu~d I I DESCR!UE THE SYSTEM(S) OR PORTIONS J THEREOF USED TO PROVIDE THE ALTERNATIVE J SHUTDOWN CAPAHILITY FOR THE FIRE AREA AND J PROVIDE A TABLE THAT LISTS THE EQUIPMENT AND COMPONENTS OF THE ALTERNATIVE SHUT-DOWN SYSTEM FOR THE FIRE AREA.

FOR THE ALTERNATIVE SYSTEM, IDENTIFY THE FUNC~ION OF THE NEW CIRCUllS BEING PROVIDED, THE LOCATION (FIRE ZONE) OF THE ALTERNATIVE SHUTDOWN LUUIPMENT AND/OR CIRCUITS THAT BYPASS THE FIRE AREA AND VERIFY THAT THE ALTERNATIVE SHUTDOWN EQUIPMENT AND/OR CIRCUITS ARE SEPARATED FROM THE FIRE AREA IN ACCORDANCE WITH SECrION III.G.2.

(cl PROVIDE DRAWINGS OF THE ALTERNATIVE SHUTDOWN SYSTEM(S) WHICH HIGHLIGHT ANY CONNECTIONS TO THE NORMAL SHUTDOWN SYSTEMS (P&IDs FOR PIPING ANO CO~PONENTS, ANO FLEMENTARY WIRINu DIAGRAMS).

SHOW THE ELECTRICAL LOCATION OF ALL BREAKERS FOR POWER CABLES, AND ISOLATION DEVICES OF CONTROL ANO INSTRUMENTATION CIRCUITS FOR THE ALTERNATIVE SHUTDOWN SYSTEMS FOR THAT FIRE AREA.

(d)

VERJ~; THAT CHANGES TO SAFETY SYSTEMS WILL NOT DEGRADE SAFETY SYSTEMS; (E.G.,

NEW ISOLATION SWITCHES AND CONTROL SWITCHES SHOULD MEET DESIGN CRITERIA AND STANDARDS IN THE FSAR FOR ELECTRICAL EQUIPMENT IN THE SYSTEM THAT THE SWITCH IS TO BE INSTALLED; CABINETS THAT THE SWITCHES ARE TO BE MOUNTED IN SHOULD ALSO MEET THE SAME CRITERIA (FSAR) AS OTHER SAFETY-RELATED CAB!NErs AND PANELS; TO AVOID INADVERTENT ISOLATION FROM THE CONTROL ROOM, THE ISOLATION SWITCHES SHOULD BE KEYLOCKED OR ALARMED IN THE CONTROL ROOM If IN THE "LOCAL" OR "I SO-LA TED" POSITION; PERIODIC CHECKS SHOULD BE MADE TO VERIFY THAT THE SWITCH IS IN THE PROPER POSITION FOR NORMAL OPERATION; AND A SINuLE TRANSFER SWITCH OR OTHER

~EW DEVICE SHOULD NOT BE A SOURCE OF A

~AILURE THAT CAUSES LOSS OF REDUNDANI SAFETY SYSTEMS).

r, *;u1mv-

SUMMARY

COMPARISON/3 I

CHANGES FROM THE 1980-1982 POST-FIRE SAFE SHUTDOWN REVIEW BASED ON 1984 APPENDIX R REANALYSIS CHANGES ARE ON PREVIOUS PAGE JDRAWINGS SUBMITTED IN THE 1980-1982 REVIEW ARE GENERALLY STILL JAPPLICABLE; HOWEVER, CURRENT ISSUES OF ALL DRAWINGS ARE AVAILABLE JAT THE SITE.

DRAWINGS TO SUPPORT NEW MODIFICATIONS OR NEW JALTERNATIVE SHUTDOWN PROCEDURES ARE OR WILL BE AVAILABLE AT THE SITE.

I I

I I

I I

NO CHANGE FROM THE 1980-1982 REVIEW WITH THE FOLLOWING EXCEPTION.

THE ISOLATION SWITCHES ARE NOT INDIVIDUALLY ALARMED IN THE CONTROL ROOM WHEN IN THE LOCAL POSITION.

HOWEVER, THE AUXILIARY SHUTDOWN PANEL IS PROVIDED WITH A KEYLOCKED DOOR WHICH ALARMS IN THE CONTROL ROOM WHEN THE DOOR IS OPENED.

PAGE 2 OF 5 e

I I

I NRC GENERIC REQUESTS FOR ADDITIONAL INFORMATION I (REF: GENERIC LETTER 81-12 AND CLARIFICATIONS) 1-1 I

I I

I (e)

VERIFY THAT LICENSEE PROCEDURES HAVE BEEN OR WILL BE DEVELOPED WHICH DESCRIBE TASKS TO BE PERFORMED TO EFFECT THE SHUTDOWN METHOD.

PROVIDE A

SUMMARY

OF THESE PROCEDURES OUTLINING OPERATOR ACTIONS.

( t)

VERIFY THAT THE MANPOWER REQUIRED TO PERFORM THE SHUlDOWN FUNCTIONS USING THE PROCEDURES OF (e) AS WELL AS TO PROVIDE FINE BRIGADE MEMBERS TO FIGHT THE FIRE IS AVAILABLE AS REQUIRED BY THE FIRE BRIGADE TECHNICAL SPECIFICATIONS.

(g)

PROVl~E A COMMITMENT TO PERFORM ADEQUATE ACCEPTANCE TESTS OF THE ALTERNATIVE SHUTDOWN CAPABILITY.

THESE TESTS SHOULD VER I I,

fl1AT:

tQU I PMENT OPERATES* FROM THE LOCAL CONTROL STATION WHEN THE TRANS-FER OR ISOLATION SWITCH IS PLACED IN THE

"'LOCAi ** POSITION AND THAT THE EQUIPMENT CANNOT BE OPERATED FROM THE CONTROL ROOM AND THAT EQUIPMENT OPERATES FROM THE CUNlNOL ROOM BUT CANNOT BE OPERATED AT THE LOCAL CONTROL STATION WHEN THE TRANSFER ISOLATION SWITCH IS IN THE

"'REMOTE" PO~ITION.

CHANGES FROM THE 1980-1982 POST-FIRE SAFE SHUTDOWN REVIEW BASED ON 1984 APPENDIX R REANALYSIS I

JNO CHANGE FROM THE 1980-1982 REVIEW.

!DEVELOPED FOR THE REQUIRED POST-FIRE JTHE PROCEDURES FOR THE MODIFICATIONS

!REVIEW, AND FOR THE REQUIRED ACTIONS I REANALYSIS.

I I

ADDITIONAL PROCEDURES WILL BE OPERATIONS.

THESE INCLUDE COMMITTED TO IN THE 19B0-19B2 IDENTIFIED DURING THE 1984 JBOTH THE 1980-1982 REVIEW AND THE 1984 REANALYSIS VERIFIED THAT THE

!REQUIRED MANPOWER IS AVAILABLE. THE 1984 REANALYSIS IS MORE

!COMPREHENSIVE IN ITS EVALUATION OF OPERATOR ACTIONS.

I I I I

JNO CHANGE FROM THE 1980-1982 REVIEW.

I I

I I I

I I

I I

I I

I

-~--~--------------------------------------------------------------

( ll)

PROVIDE TECHNICAL SPECIFICATIONS OF THE SURVEILLANCE REQUIREMENTS AND LIMITING CONDITIONS FOR OPERATION FOR THAT EQUIP-MENT NOT ALREADY COVERED BY EXISTING TECHNICAL SPECIFICATIONS.

FOR EXAMPLE, IF NEW ISOLATION AND CONTROL SWITCHES ARE ADUED TO A SHUTDOWN SYSTEM, THE EXl~TING TECHNICAL SPECIFICATION SURVEILLANCE REQUIREMENTS SHOULD BE*

SUPPLEMENTED TO VERIFY SYSTEM/EQUIPMENT FUNCTION FROM THE ALTERNATE SHUTDOWN STATION CONSISTENT WITH THE GUIDELINES OF REGULATORY GUIDE 1.22 AND IEEE 338.

CREDIT MAY BE TAKEN FOR EXISTING TESTS

~SING GROUP OVERLAPPING TEST CONCEPTS.

T/SURRY-

SUMMARY

COMPARISON/3 NO CHANGE FROM THE 1980-1982 REVIEW.

TECHNICAL SPECIFICATIONS WILL BE SUBMITTED WHERE REQUIRED.

PAGE 3 OF 5 e

NRC GENERIC REQUESTS FOR ADDl TIONAL INFORMATit,,,

(REF: GENERIC LETTER 81-12 AND CLARIFICATIONS)

( i )

FOR NEW EQUIPMENT COMPRISING THE ALTERNA-TIVE SHUTDOWN CAPABILITY, VERIFY THAT THE SYSTEMS AVAILABLE ARE ADEQUATE TO PERFORM THE NECESSARY SHUTDOWN FUNCTION.

THE FUNCTIONS REQUIRED SHOULD BE BASED ON PR[VIOUS ANALYSES, IF POSSIBLE (E.G.,

IN lHE FSAR), SUCH AS A LOSS OF NORMAL AC POWER OR SHUTDOWN ON GROUP 1 ISOLATION (BWR).

THE EUU!PMENT REQUIRED FOR THE ALTERNATIVE CAPABILITY SHOULD BE THE SAME OR EQUIVALENT TO THAT RELIED ON IN THE ABOVE ANALYSIS.

( j )

VERIFY Tt-lAT REPAIR PROCEDURES FOR COLD SHUTUUWN SYSTEMS ARE DEVELOPED AND MAfERJAL FUR REPAIRS IS MAINTAINED ON SITE.

PHOVIDE A

SUMMARY

OF THESE PRO-CEOURtS AND A LIST OF THE MATERIAL NEEDEO FOR REPAIRS.

I CHANGES FROM THE 1980-1982 POST-FIRE SAFE SHUTDOWN REVIEW BASED ON 1984 APPENDIX R REANALYSIS iNO CHANGE FROM THE 1980-1982 REVIEW WITH THE FOLLOWING EXCEPTION.

I INDICATIONS ON THE AUXILIARY SHUTDOWN PANEL ARE NOT ISOLATED BY I ISOLATION SWITCHES, BUT INDICATION IS AVAILABLE AT OTHER I LOCATIONS.

I I

I I

I I

I I I

IND CHANGE FROM THE 1980-1982 REVIEW WITH THE FOLLOWING EXCEPTIONS.

!REPAIRS ARE NO LONGER REQUiRED FOR THE PRESSURIZER HEATER CABLES

!BECAUSE THE HEATERS ARE NOT NECESSARY TO ACHIEVE COLD SHUTDOWN.

!REPAIRS WILL BE REQUIRED FOR THE COMPONENT COOLING WATER PUMPS AND I CABLES.

I

---

*--------------'---------+--------------------------------------

( 1 a)

FOR EACH FIRE AREA WHERE AN ALTERNATIVE OR DEC*ICATED SHUTDOWN METHOD, IN ACCORDANCE WITH SECTION 111.G.3 OF APPENDIX R IS PROVIDED, THE FOLLOWING INFORMATION rs REQUIRED TO DEMONSTRATE THAT ASSOCIATED CIRCUITS WILL NOT PREVENT OPERATION OR CAUSE MALOPERATION OF THE ALTERNATIVE OR DEDICATED SHUTDOWN METHOD.

PROVIDE A TABLE THAT LISTS ALL THE POWER CABLES IN THE FIRE AREA THAT CONNECT TO THE SAME POWER SUPPLY OF THE ALTERNATIVE OR DEDICATED SHUTDOWN METHOD AND THE FUNCTION OF EACH POWER CABLE LISTED (I.E., POWER FOR RHR PUMP).

(bl PROVIDE A TABLE THAT LISTS ALL THE CABLES IN THE FIRE AREA THAT WERE CONSIDERED FOR POSSIBLE SPURIOUS OPERATION WHICH WOULD ADVERSELY AFFECT SHUTDOWN AND THE FUNCTION OF EACH CABLE LISTED.

T/SURRY-SUMMARV COMPARISON/3 I

!THE METHODOLOGY FOR PERFORMING THE ANALYSIS OF ASSOCIATED CIRCUITS iBY COMMON POWER SUPPLY IS THE SAME IN THE 1980-1982 REVIEW AND THE I 1984 REANALYSIS.

IN THE 1984 REANALYSIS THE SCOPE OF THE ELECTRICAL

!BREAKER COORDINATION STUDY'AND THE NUMBER OF FIRE AREAS REQUIRING

!ALTERNATIVE SHUTDOWN HAVE INCREASED.

I

!DRAWINGS AND BREAKER COORDINATION STUDIES WILL BE AVAILABLE AT THE

!SITE TO DEMONSTRATE THAT ASSOCIATED CIRCUITS WILL NOT PREVENT OR CAUSE IMALOPERATION OF ALTERNATIVE SHUTDOWN METHODS.

I I

I I

I I

!THE METHODOLOGY AND ASSUMPTIONS USED BY VEPCO IN ITS ANALYSIS OF

!SPURIOUS OPERATIONS HAVE CHANGED SINCE THE 1980-1982 REPORT.

THE

!RESULTS OF THAT REANALYSIS WILL BE INCLUDED IN VEPCO'S SUBMITTAL OF

!THE 1984 REANALYSIS.

I I

PAGE 4 OF 5

I I

I NRC GENERIC REQUESTS FOR ADDITIONAL INFORMATION I (REF: GENERIC LETTER 81-12 AND CLARIFICATIONS)

I I

I I

I I

I I

(cl PROVIDE A TABLE THAT LISTS ALL THE CABLES IN THE FIRE AREA THAT SHARE A COMMON ENCLOSURE WITH CIRCUITS OF THE ALTERNA-lIVE OR DEDICATED SHUTDOWN SYSTEMS AND THE FUNCTION OF EACH CABLE LISTED.

(a)

SHOW THAT FIRE-INDUCED FAILURES (HOT SHORTS, OPEN CIRCUITS OR SHORTS TO GROUND) OF EACH OF THE CABLES LISTED IN a, u AND c WILL NOT PREVENT OPERATION OR CAUSE MALOPERATION OF THE ALTERNATIVE OR DEDICATED SHUTDOWN METHOD.

(el FOR EACH CABLE LISTED IN a, b AND c WHERE NEW ELECTRICAL ISOLATION HAS BEEN PROVIDED OR MODIFICATION TO EXISTING ELECTRICAL I~OLATION HAS BEEN MADE, PROVIDE DETAILED ELECTRICAL SCHEMATIC DRAWINGS THAT SHOW HOW EACH CABLE IS ISOLATED FROM THE FIRE AREA.

T/SURRY-

SUMMARY

COMPARISON/3 I

I CHANGES FROM THE 1980-1982 POST-FIRE SAFE SHUTDOWN REVIEW BASED ON 1984 APPENDIX R REANALYSIS

!REFER TO ITEM (b), ON PAGE 4 I

I I I

I I

!REFER TO ITEM (b), ON PAGE 4 I

I I

I I

I I

!REFER TO ITEM (b), ON PAGE 4 I

I I

I I

I PAGE 5 OF 5

VIRGINIA ELECTRIC AND POWER COMPANY SURRY POWER STATION Table 4

SUMMARY

COMPARISbN riF VEPCO COMMITMENTS VEPCO COMMITMENTS (REF:

VEPCO LETTER SERIAL NO. 363 DATED JUNE 18, 1982

1. ADDITIONAL INSTRUMENTATION WILL BE ADDED TO THE REMOTE MONITORING PANEL.

THE CIRCUITS FOR THIS INSTRUMENTATION WILL BE ROUTED THROUGH SEPARATE FIRE AREAS FROM THE NORMAL INSTRUMENTATION.

a) 51EAM GENERATOR PRESSURE bl REACTOR COOLANT COLD LEG TEMPERATURE L) SOURCE RANGE NEUTRON FLUX

2. 01E5EL GENERATOR CONTROL CIRCUIT TO LOCAL PANEL WILL BE ELECTRICALLY 150LATED SO THAT A FIRE IN ANY OTHER AREA OF THE PLANT WILL NOT AFFECT ITS OPERAfION.

3. ASSURE COORDINATION OF THE 480V 225A FRAME SIZE BREAKERS.

4. MAIN BREA~ERS ON THE VITAL BUS PANELS WILL BE REPLACED WITH MOLDED CASE SWITCHES.

T/SURRY-

SUMMARY

COMPARISON/4 NO CHANGE FROM NO CHANGE FROM NO CHANGE FROM NO CHANGE FROM THE THE THE THE CHANGES FROM THE 1980-1982 POST-FIRE SAFE SHUTDOWN REVIEW BASED ON 1984 APPENDIX R REANALYSIS 1982 REVIEW.

1982 REVIEW.

1982 REVIEW.

1982 REVIEW.

NO CHANGE FROM THE 1982 REVIEW.

jTHE 1984 APPENDIX R REANALYSIS HAS DETERMINED THAT CURRENT BREAKERS ARE

!SATISFACTORY.

SEE CHAPTER 6, MODIFICATION 11-3, OF THE 1984 REPORT.

I PAGE 1 OF 2 e

e

VEPCU COMMITMENTS (REF:

VEPCO LETTER SERIAL NO. 363, DATED JUNE HI, 1982)

5. 4B0/1~0V CONTROL TRANSFORMERS OF CLASS IE MOTOR CONTROL CENTER WILL BE REPLACED WITH ENCAPSULATED TRANSFORMERS OR FUSED.

6. ADDITIONAL PROCEDURES WILL BE WRITTEN TO CuVEH THE FOLLOWING AREAS:

a) COMPLElL LINEUP OF THE ALTERNATE METHOD OF CHARGING.

b) PROCElllJRl:S 10 RE(JUlRE BREAKERS ON MOVs 1100 AND 1701 TO BE OPEN

~,EN REAClOH COULANT PRESSURE REQUIRt:S THE VALVES TO BE CLOSED.

cJ EMERGENCY CLOSURE OF THE DECAY HEAT HELEASE VALVES.

~) EMfRGENCY CLOSURE OF THE ~RESSURIZER RELIEF VALVES.

~) REMOTE OPERATION OF DIESEL GENERATORS.

7. CHARGING PUMP SERVICE WATER PUMP RELOCATION IN THE TURBINE BUILDING.

'/SURRY-

SUMMARY

COMPARISON/4 CHANGES FROM THE 1980-1982 POST-FIRE SAFE SHUTDOWN REVIEW BASED ON 1984 APPENDIX R REANALYSIS INO CHANGE FROM THE 1982 REVIEW.

I I

I I

I I

I jNO CHANGE FROM THE 1982 REVIEW.

I I

jNO CHANGE FROM THE 1982 REVIEW.

THE METHODOLOGY AND ASSUMPTIONS USED BY VEPCO IN ITS ANALYSIS OF SPURIOUS OPERATIONS HAVE CHANGED SINCE THE 1982 REVIEW.

IN THE 1984 REANALYSIS A PROCEDURE FOR THE EMERGENCY CLOSURE OF THE DECAY HEAT RELEASE VALVES, 1-HCV-MS-104 AND. 2 HCV-MS-201, IS NO LONGER REQUIRED BECAUSE THE UPSTREAM BLOCK VALVES FOR THE DECAY HEAT RELEASE VALVES WILL BE CHANGED TO NORMALLY SHUT.

THE METHODOLOGY AND ASSUMPTIONS USED BY VEPCO IN ITS ANALYSIS OF SPURIOUS OPERATIONS HAVE CHANGED SINCE THE 1982 REVIEW.

THE RESULTS OF THE 1984 REANALYSIS REQUIRES A HARDWARE MODIFICATION AND A CHANGE TO THE PROCEDURE FOR THE EMERGENCY CLOSURE OF THE PRESSURIZER POWER OPERATED RELIEF VALVES.

NO CHANGE FROM THE 1982 REVIEW.

NO CHANGE FROM THE 1982 REVIEW.

HOWEVER, THIS SYSTEM WILL BE ABANDONED WHEN MODIFICATION III-6, DESCRIBED IN CHAPTER 6, IS COMPLETED.

PAGE 2 OF 2

>J

-