ML18142A221
| ML18142A221 | |
| Person / Time | |
|---|---|
| Site: | Surry  |
| Issue date: | 12/31/1984 |
| From: | VIRGINIA POWER (VIRGINIA ELECTRIC & POWER CO.) |
| To: | |
| Shared Package | |
| ML18142A220 | List: |
| 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 Section Introduction to Tables 1, 2, 3, and 4 l Table 1: Summary Comparison of 1 Post-Fire Safe Shutdown Systems Table 2: Summary Comparison by 2 NRC Plant-Specific Request Table 3: Summary Comparison by 3 NRC Generic Request Table 4: Summary Comparison of 4 VEPCO Conunitments
- 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 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 Attachment 1 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.
0 Table 2: Summary Comparison by*. NRC Plant-Specific Request 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.
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 1984 POST-FIRE SAFE SHUTDOWN SYSTEMS (REF: VEPCO LETTER SERIAL #885 DATED 10/31/80; (REF: 1984 APPENDIX R REANALYSIS)
VEPCO LETTER SERIAL #363 DATED 6/18/82)
(1) SYSTEMS REQUIRED FOR THE REACTIVITY !NO CHANGES FROM THE 1980-1982 REVIEW WITH THE EXCEPTION OF THE SER-CONTROL FUNCTION: IVICE WATER SYSTEM AND THE CHARGING PUMP SERVICE WATER SYSTEM WHICH
!ARE NO LONGER NEEDED FOR THIS FUNCTION DUE TO MODIFICATION III-6 (A) ROD CONTROL SYSTEM !DESCRIBED IN CHAPTER 6 OF THE 1984 REANALYSIS REPORT.
(B) CHEMICAL AND VOLUME CONTROL SYSTEM I (C) CHARGING PUMP COOLING WATER SYSTEM I (D) CHARGING PUMP SERVICE WATER SYSTEM I (El SERVICE WATER SYSTEM I (2) SYSTEMS REQUIRED FOR THE REACTOR COOLANT JSEE COMMENTS FROM (1) ABOVE.
I MAKEUP FUNCTION: I I
(A) CHEMICAL AND VOLUME CONTROL SYSTEM I (Bl CHARGING PUMP COOLING WATER SYSTEM I (C) CHARGING PUMP SERVICE WATER SYSTEM I (D) SERVICE WATER SYSTEM I (3) SYS1EMS REQUIRED FOR THE REACTOR HEAT JIN THE 1980-1982 REVIEW, ONE METHOD OF MAINTAINING SYSTEM PRESSURE REMOVAL FUNCTION: JWAS TO REPAIR PRESSURIZER HEATER CABLES. CREDIT WILL NOT BE TAKEN JFOR THE HEATERS IN THE 1984 REVIEW. IN ADDITION, SEVERAL ADDITIONAL (A) AUXILIARY FEEDWATER SYSTEM !MANUAL ACTIONS HAVE BEEN IDENTIFIED IN ORDER TO OPERATE THE SAME (B) MAIN STEAM SYSTEM JSYSTEMS. AN ALTERNATIVE LETDOWN PATH MAY BE USED IF THE NORMAL (C) SEMVICE WAfER SYSTEM JAND EXCESS LETDOWN PATHS ARE NOT AVAILABLE (AS DESCRIBED IN CHAPTER (U) RESIDUAL HEAT REMOVAL SYSTEM* 13 OF THE 1984 REANALYSIS REPORT).
(El COMPONENT COOLING WATER SYSTEM* I (Fl PRESSURIZER HEATERS* I I
- COLD SHUTDOWN ONLY I (4) INSTRUMENTATION REQUIRED FOR THE PROCESS NO CHANGES FROM THE 1980-1982 REVIEW WITH THE FOLLOWING TWO EXCEP-MONITORING FUNCTION. DIRECT READINGS OF TIONS. THE EMERGENCY CONDENSATE STORAGE TANK LEVEL IS REQUIRED FOR THE FOLLOWING PROCESS VARIABLES ARE OR HOT AND COLD SHUTDOWN AND AHR PUMP DISCHARGE TEMPERATURE IS REQUIRED WILL BE AVAILABLE AT THE RE~OTE MONITORING FOR COLD SHUTDOWN.
PANEL:
(A) PRESSURIZER PRESSURE (B) PRESSURIZER LEVEL (C) REACTOR COOLANT HOT LEG TEMPERATURE 1, (D) REACfOR COOLANT COLD LEG TEMPERATURE (E) STEAM GENERATOR LEVEL (F) STEAM GENERATOR PRESSURE (G) SOURCE RANGE NEUTRON Fl UX PAGE 1 OF 2 T/SURRV-
SUMMARY
COMPARISON/I
I I 1980-1982 POST-FIRE SAFE SHUTDOWN SYSTEMS 1984 POST-FIRE SAFE SHUTDOWN SYSTEMS l(REF: VEPCO LETTER SERIAL #885 DATED 10/31/80; (REF: 1984 APPENDIX R REANALYSIS)
I VEPCO LETTER SERIAL #363 DATED 6/18/82)
I I
1(5) SYSTEMS REQUIRED FOR SUPPORT FUNCTIONS: !ADDITIONAL SYSTEMS REQUIRED FOR SUPPORTING FUNCTIONS HAVE BEEN I !FORMALLY INCLUDED: EMERGENCY LIGHTING, EMERGENCY COMMUNICATIONS, I (A) EMERGENCY DISTRIBUTION SYSTEM IAND VENTILATION SYSTEMS FOR CERTAIN FIRE AREAS. THESE SYSTEMS WERE I (B) CHARGING PUMP COOLING WATER SYSTEM INOT SPECIFICALLY IDENTIFIED IN THE 1980-1982 REVIEW AS SYSTEMS RE-I (C) CHARGING PUMP SERVICE WATER SYSTEM IQUIRED FOR SUPPORTING FUNCTIONS. THESE SYSTEMS HAVE BEEN FULLY I (D) SERVICE WATER SYSTEM !EVALUATED IN THE 1984 REVIEW. THE CHARGING PUMP SERVICE WATER SYSTEM I (E) COMPONENT COOLING WATER SYSTEM IIS NO LONGER REQUIRED AS DISCUSSED IN (1) ABOVE. INSTRUMENT AIR I (F) CONTAINMENT INSTRUMENT AIR SYSTEM !SYSTEMS ARE NO LONGER REQUIRED SINCE AN ALTERNATIVE PROCEDURE MAY I OR STATION INSTRUMENT AIR SYSTEM BE USED FOR OPERATING THE REQUIRED AIR-OPERATED VALVES.
I e
e PAGE 2 OF 2 T/SURRY-
SUMMARY
COMPARISON/I
VIRGINIA ELECTRIC AND POWER COMPANY SURRY POWER STATION Table 2
SUMMARY
COMPARISON BY NRC PLANT-SPECIFIC REQUEST NRC PLANT-SPECIFIC REQUESTS FOR CHANGES FROM THE 1980-1982 POST-FIRE ADDITIONAL INFORMATION SAFE SHUTDOWN REVIEW (REF: NRC LETTER TO VEPCO OF APRIL 12, 1982, BASED ON 1984 APPENDIX R REANALYSIS ENCLOSURE 1)
- 1. I e
PROVIDE A POINT BV POINT RESPONSE WITH ISEE TABLE 3.
RESPECT TO THE INTERACTIONS OF ASSOCIATED I CIRCUITS AS OUTLINED IN ENCLOSURE 2 OF THE I FEBRUARY 20, 1981 LETTER (INCLUDING ALL I REQUESTED TABLES). I I
- 2. I STATE CONFIRMATION THAT THE RELOCATED. !THIS REQUEST IS NO LONGER APPLICABLE DUE TO MODIFICATION III-6 DESCRIBED CHARC;ING f'UMP SERVICE WATER PUMPS AND JIN CHAPTER 6 OF THE 1984 REANALYSIS REPORT.
THE ASSOCIATED PIPING WILL Be INSTALLED I TO [HE SAME LEVEL OF CAPABILITY.AS BEFORE I REU)CAl ION. I e
PAGE 1 OF 1 T/SURRV-
SUMMARY
COMPARISON/2
VIRGINIA ELECTRIC ANO POWER COMPANY SURRY POWER STATION Table 3
SUMMARY
COMPARISON BY NRC GENERIC REQUEST I
I NRC GENERIC REQUESTS FOR CHANGES FROM THE 1980-1982 POST-FIRE I A0D1Tl0NAL INFORMATION SAFE SHUTDOWN REVIEW i(REF: GENERIC LETTER 81-12 ANO CLARIFICATIONS) BASED ON 1984 APPENDIX R REANALYSIS I __________ _
( 1)
IDENTIFY THOSE AREAS OF THE PLANT THAT A DETAILED REVIEW OF POST-FIRE MANUAL ACTIONS HAS RESULTED IN THE WILL NOT MEET THE REQUIREMENTS OF SECTION ADDITION OF TWO NEW ALTERNATE SHUTDOWN FIRE AREAS:
III.G.2 OF APPENDIX R ANO, THUS ALTERNA-TIVE SHUTDOWN WILL BE PHOVIOED. - TURBINE BUILDING ADDITIONALLY, PROVIDE A STATEMENT THAT - MECHANICAL EQUIPMENT ROOM NO. 3 ALL OTHEH AREAS OF THE PLANl ARE OR WILL BE IN COMPL[ANCE WilH SECTION III.G.2 OF THE AUXILIARY BUILDING HAS BEEN REDEFINED FROM TWO FIRE ZONES TO ONE APPENDIX R. FIRE AREA.
---**----------------------+--------------------------------------
(aJ I LISl THE SVSTEM(S) OR PORTIONS THEREOF !REFER TO TABLE 1 WHICH LISTS THESE SYSTEMS.
USED TO PROVIDE THE NORMAL SHUTDOWN I CAPABILITY ASSUMING LOSS OF OFF-SITE I POWEH. I lb)
FOR THOSE SYSTEMS IDENTIFIED IN "a"' FOR THE METHODOLOGY FOR PERFORMING THE CABLE SEPARATION ANALYSIS IS WHICH ALTERNATE OR DEDICATED SHUTDOWN BASICALLY THE SAME FOR THE 1980-1982 REVIEW AND THE 1984 REANALYSIS.
CAF-ABII ITV MUST BE PROVIDED, LIST THE HOWEVER, IN THE 1984 REANALYSIS, THE NUMBER OF FIRE AREAS REQUIRING EQUIPMENT AND COMPONENTS OF THE NORMAL ALTERNATIVE SHUTDOWN ANO THE LEVEL OF DETAIL OF THE CABLE AND SHUTDOWN SYSTEM IN THE FIRE AREA AND EQUIPMENT SEPARATION ANALYSIS HAVE INCREASED.
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)
PAGE I OF 5 T/SURRY-SU~~ARY COMPARISON/3
I I NRC GENERIC REQUESTS FOR CHANGES FROM THE 1980-1982 POST-FIRE J ADDITIONAL INFORMATION SAFE SHUTDOWN REVIEW J (REF: GENERIC LETTER 81-12 AND CLARIFICATIONS) BASED ON 1984 APPENDIX R REANALYSIS 1------
1 (b) c:unt inu~d I
I DESCR!UE THE SYSTEM(S) OR PORTIONS CHANGES ARE ON PREVIOUS PAGE 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 e
IN ACCORDANCE WITH SECrION III.G.2.
(cl I PROVIDE DRAWINGS OF THE ALTERNATIVE JDRAWINGS SUBMITTED IN THE 1980-1982 REVIEW ARE GENERALLY STILL SHUTDOWN SYSTEM(S) WHICH HIGHLIGHT ANY JAPPLICABLE; HOWEVER, CURRENT ISSUES OF ALL DRAWINGS ARE AVAILABLE CONNECTIONS TO THE NORMAL SHUTDOWN JAT THE SITE. DRAWINGS TO SUPPORT NEW MODIFICATIONS OR NEW SYSTEMS (P&IDs FOR PIPING ANO CO~PONENTS, JALTERNATIVE SHUTDOWN PROCEDURES ARE OR WILL BE AVAILABLE AT THE SITE.
ANO FLEMENTARY WIRINu DIAGRAMS). SHOW I THE ELECTRICAL LOCATION OF ALL BREAKERS I FOR POWER CABLES, AND ISOLATION DEVICES I OF CONTROL ANO INSTRUMENTATION CIRCUITS I FOR THE ALTERNATIVE SHUTDOWN SYSTEMS FOR I THAT FIRE AREA. I (d)
VERJ~; THAT CHANGES TO SAFETY SYSTEMS NO CHANGE FROM THE 1980-1982 REVIEW WITH THE FOLLOWING EXCEPTION. THE WILL NOT DEGRADE SAFETY SYSTEMS; (E.G., ISOLATION SWITCHES ARE NOT INDIVIDUALLY ALARMED IN THE CONTROL ROOM NEW ISOLATION SWITCHES AND CONTROL WHEN IN THE LOCAL POSITION. HOWEVER, THE AUXILIARY SHUTDOWN PANEL IS SWITCHES SHOULD MEET DESIGN CRITERIA AND PROVIDED WITH A KEYLOCKED DOOR WHICH ALARMS IN THE CONTROL ROOM STANDARDS IN THE FSAR FOR ELECTRICAL WHEN THE DOOR IS OPENED.
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).
PAGE 2 OF 5 r, *;u1mv-
SUMMARY
COMPARISON/3
I I NRC GENERIC REQUESTS FOR CHANGES FROM THE 1980-1982 POST-FIRE I ADDITIONAL INFORMATION SAFE SHUTDOWN REVIEW I (REF: GENERIC LETTER 81-12 AND CLARIFICATIONS) BASED ON 1984 APPENDIX R REANALYSIS 1-1 (e) I .
I VERIFY THAT LICENSEE PROCEDURES HAVE BEEN JNO CHANGE FROM THE 1980-1982 REVIEW. ADDITIONAL PROCEDURES WILL BE I OR WILL BE DEVELOPED WHICH DESCRIBE TASKS !DEVELOPED FOR THE REQUIRED POST-FIRE OPERATIONS. THESE INCLUDE I TO BE PERFORMED TO EFFECT THE SHUTDOWN JTHE PROCEDURES FOR THE MODIFICATIONS COMMITTED TO IN THE 19B0-19B2 I METHOD. PROVIDE A
SUMMARY
OF THESE !REVIEW, AND FOR THE REQUIRED ACTIONS IDENTIFIED DURING THE 1984 PROCEDURES OUTLINING OPERATOR ACTIONS. I REANALYSIS.
I
( t) I VERIFY THAT THE MANPOWER REQUIRED TO JBOTH THE 1980-1982 REVIEW AND THE 1984 REANALYSIS VERIFIED THAT THE 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
!REQUIRED MANPOWER IS AVAILABLE. THE 1984 REANALYSIS IS MORE
!COMPREHENSIVE IN ITS EVALUATION OF OPERATOR ACTIONS.
I I
e TECHNICAL SPECIFICATIONS. I (g) I PROVl~E A COMMITMENT TO PERFORM ADEQUATE JNO CHANGE FROM THE 1980-1982 REVIEW.
ACCEPTANCE TESTS OF THE ALTERNATIVE I SHUTDOWN CAPABILITY. THESE TESTS SHOULD I VER I I , fl1AT: tQU I PMENT OPERATES* FROM I THE LOCAL CONTROL STATION WHEN THE TRANS- I FER OR ISOLATION SWITCH IS PLACED IN THE I
"'LOCAi ** POSITION AND THAT THE EQUIPMENT I CANNOT BE OPERATED FROM THE CONTROL ROOM I AND THAT EQUIPMENT OPERATES FROM THE I CUNlNOL ROOM BUT CANNOT BE OPERATED AT I THE LOCAL CONTROL STATION WHEN THE I TRANSFER ISOLATION SWITCH IS IN THE I
"'REMOTE" PO~ITION. I
-~--~--------------------------------------------------------------
( ll)
PROVIDE TECHNICAL SPECIFICATIONS OF THE NO CHANGE FROM THE 1980-1982 REVIEW. TECHNICAL SPECIFICATIONS WILL SURVEILLANCE REQUIREMENTS AND LIMITING BE SUBMITTED WHERE REQUIRED.
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.
PAGE 3 OF 5 T/SURRY-
SUMMARY
COMPARISON/3
NRC GENERIC REQUESTS FOR CHANGES FROM THE 1980-1982 POST-FIRE ADDl TIONAL INFORMATit,,, SAFE SHUTDOWN REVIEW (REF: GENERIC LETTER 81-12 AND CLARIFICATIONS) BASED ON 1984 APPENDIX R REANALYSIS
( i ) I FOR NEW EQUIPMENT COMPRISING THE ALTERNA- iNO CHANGE FROM THE 1980-1982 REVIEW WITH THE FOLLOWING EXCEPTION.
TIVE SHUTDOWN CAPABILITY, VERIFY THAT I INDICATIONS ON THE AUXILIARY SHUTDOWN PANEL ARE NOT ISOLATED BY THE SYSTEMS AVAILABLE ARE ADEQUATE TO I ISOLATION SWITCHES, BUT INDICATION IS AVAILABLE AT OTHER PERFORM THE NECESSARY SHUTDOWN FUNCTION. I LOCATIONS.
THE FUNCTIONS REQUIRED SHOULD BE BASED I ON PR[VIOUS ANALYSES, IF POSSIBLE (E.G., I IN lHE FSAR), SUCH AS A LOSS OF NORMAL I AC POWER OR SHUTDOWN ON GROUP 1 ISOLATION I (BWR). THE EUU!PMENT REQUIRED FOR THE I ALTERNATIVE CAPABILITY SHOULD BE THE SAME I OR EQUIVALENT TO THAT RELIED ON IN THE I ABOVE ANALYSIS. I
( j ) I VERIFY Tt-lAT REPAIR PROCEDURES FOR COLD IND CHANGE FROM THE 1980-1982 REVIEW WITH THE FOLLOWING EXCEPTIONS.
SHUTUUWN SYSTEMS ARE DEVELOPED AND !REPAIRS ARE NO LONGER REQUiRED FOR THE PRESSURIZER HEATER CABLES MAfERJAL FUR REPAIRS IS MAINTAINED ON !BECAUSE THE HEATERS ARE NOT NECESSARY TO ACHIEVE COLD SHUTDOWN.
SITE. PHOVIDE A
SUMMARY
OF THESE PRO- !REPAIRS WILL BE REQUIRED FOR THE COMPONENT COOLING WATER PUMPS AND CEOURtS AND A LIST OF THE MATERIAL I CABLES.
NEEDEO FOR REPAIRS. I
*--------------'---------+--------------------------------------
( 1 a) I FOR EACH FIRE AREA WHERE AN ALTERNATIVE !THE METHODOLOGY FOR PERFORMING THE ANALYSIS OF ASSOCIATED CIRCUITS OR DEC*ICATED SHUTDOWN METHOD, IN iBY COMMON POWER SUPPLY IS THE SAME IN THE 1980-1982 REVIEW AND THE ACCORDANCE WITH SECTION 111.G.3 OF I 1984 REANALYSIS. IN THE 1984 REANALYSIS THE SCOPE OF THE ELECTRICAL APPENDIX R IS PROVIDED, THE FOLLOWING !BREAKER COORDINATION STUDY'AND THE NUMBER OF FIRE AREAS REQUIRING INFORMATION rs REQUIRED TO DEMONSTRATE !ALTERNATIVE SHUTDOWN HAVE INCREASED.
THAT ASSOCIATED CIRCUITS WILL NOT PREVENT I OPERATION OR CAUSE MALOPERATION OF THE !DRAWINGS AND BREAKER COORDINATION STUDIES WILL BE AVAILABLE AT THE ALTERNATIVE OR DEDICATED SHUTDOWN METHOD. !SITE TO DEMONSTRATE THAT ASSOCIATED CIRCUITS WILL NOT PREVENT OR CAUSE PROVIDE A TABLE THAT LISTS ALL THE POWER IMALOPERATION OF ALTERNATIVE SHUTDOWN METHODS.
CABLES IN THE FIRE AREA THAT CONNECT TO I THE SAME POWER SUPPLY OF THE ALTERNATIVE I OR DEDICATED SHUTDOWN METHOD AND THE I FUNCTION OF EACH POWER CABLE LISTED I (I.E., POWER FOR RHR PUMP). I (bl I PROVIDE A TABLE THAT LISTS ALL THE CABLES !THE METHODOLOGY AND ASSUMPTIONS USED BY VEPCO IN ITS ANALYSIS OF IN THE FIRE AREA THAT WERE CONSIDERED !SPURIOUS OPERATIONS HAVE CHANGED SINCE THE 1980-1982 REPORT. THE FOR POSSIBLE SPURIOUS OPERATION WHICH !RESULTS OF THAT REANALYSIS WILL BE INCLUDED IN VEPCO'S SUBMITTAL OF WOULD ADVERSELY AFFECT SHUTDOWN AND THE !THE 1984 REANALYSIS.
FUNCTION OF EACH CABLE LISTED. I I
PAGE 4 OF 5 T/SURRY-SUMMARV COMPARISON/3
I I NRC GENERIC REQUESTS FOR CHANGES FROM THE 1980-1982 POST-FIRE I ADDITIONAL INFORMATION SAFE SHUTDOWN REVIEW I (REF: GENERIC LETTER 81-12 AND CLARIFICATIONS) BASED ON 1984 APPENDIX R REANALYSIS I
I I (cl I I PROVIDE A TABLE THAT LISTS ALL THE CABLES !REFER TO ITEM (b), ON PAGE 4 I IN THE FIRE AREA THAT SHARE A COMMON I I ENCLOSURE WITH CIRCUITS OF THE ALTERNA- I I lIVE OR DEDICATED SHUTDOWN SYSTEMS AND I I THE FUNCTION OF EACH CABLE LISTED. I I
(a) I SHOW THAT FIRE-INDUCED FAILURES (HOT !REFER TO ITEM (b), ON PAGE 4 SHORTS, OPEN CIRCUITS OR SHORTS TO I GROUND) OF EACH OF THE CABLES LISTED IN I a, u AND c WILL NOT PREVENT OPERATION I OR CAUSE MALOPERATION OF THE ALTERNATIVE I OR DEDICATED SHUTDOWN METHOD. I I
(el I FOR EACH CABLE LISTED IN a, b AND c !REFER TO ITEM (b), ON PAGE 4 WHERE NEW ELECTRICAL ISOLATION HAS BEEN I PROVIDED OR MODIFICATION TO EXISTING I ELECTRICAL I~OLATION HAS BEEN MADE, I PROVIDE DETAILED ELECTRICAL SCHEMATIC I DRAWINGS THAT SHOW HOW EACH CABLE IS I ISOLATED FROM THE FIRE AREA. I PAGE 5 OF 5 T/SURRY-
SUMMARY
COMPARISON/3 I
VIRGINIA ELECTRIC AND POWER COMPANY
- SURRY POWER STATION Table 4
SUMMARY
COMPARISbN riF VEPCO COMMITMENTS VEPCO COMMITMENTS CHANGES FROM THE 1980-1982 POST-FIRE (REF: VEPCO LETTER SERIAL NO. 363 SAFE SHUTDOWN REVIEW DATED JUNE 18, 1982 BASED ON 1984 APPENDIX R REANALYSIS
- 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.
e a) 51EAM GENERATOR PRESSURE NO CHANGE FROM THE 1982 REVIEW.
bl REACTOR COOLANT COLD LEG TEMPERATURE NO CHANGE FROM THE 1982 REVIEW.
L) SOURCE RANGE NEUTRON FLUX NO CHANGE FROM THE 1982 REVIEW.
- 2. 01E5EL GENERATOR CONTROL CIRCUIT TO NO CHANGE FROM THE 1982 REVIEW.
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 NO CHANGE FROM THE 1982 REVIEW.
FRAME SIZE BREAKERS.
- 4. MAIN BREA~ERS ON THE VITAL BUS PANELS jTHE 1984 APPENDIX R REANALYSIS HAS DETERMINED THAT CURRENT BREAKERS ARE WILL BE REPLACED WITH MOLDED CASE !SATISFACTORY. SEE CHAPTER 6, MODIFICATION 11-3, OF THE 1984 REPORT.
SWITCHES. I e
PAGE 1 OF 2 T/SURRY-
SUMMARY
COMPARISON/4
- ' >J (REF:
VEPCU COMMITMENTS VEPCO LETTER SERIAL NO. 363, CHANGES FROM THE 1980-1982 POST-FIRE SAFE SHUTDOWN REVIEW
- DATED JUNE HI, 1982) BASED ON 1984 APPENDIX R REANALYSIS
- 5. 4B0/1~0V CONTROL TRANSFORMERS OF INO CHANGE FROM THE 1982 REVIEW.
CLASS IE MOTOR CONTROL CENTER WILL BE I REPLACED WITH ENCAPSULATED TRANSFORMERS I OR FUSED. I I
- 6. ADDITIONAL PROCEDURES WILL BE WRITTEN I TO CuVEH THE FOLLOWING AREAS: I I
a) COMPLElL LINEUP OF THE ALTERNATE jNO CHANGE FROM THE 1982 REVIEW.
METHOD OF CHARGING. I I
b) PROCElllJRl:S 10 RE(JUlRE BREAKERS ON jNO CHANGE FROM THE 1982 REVIEW.
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 THE METHODOLOGY AND ASSUMPTIONS USED BY VEPCO IN ITS ANALYSIS OF HELEASE VALVES. 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.
~) EMfRGENCY CLOSURE OF THE ~RESSURIZER THE METHODOLOGY AND ASSUMPTIONS USED BY VEPCO IN ITS ANALYSIS OF RELIEF VALVES. 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.
~) REMOTE OPERATION OF DIESEL NO CHANGE FROM THE 1982 REVIEW.
GENERATORS.
- 7. CHARGING PUMP SERVICE WATER PUMP NO CHANGE FROM THE 1982 REVIEW. HOWEVER, THIS SYSTEM WILL BE ABANDONED RELOCATION IN THE TURBINE BUILDING. WHEN MODIFICATION III-6, DESCRIBED IN CHAPTER 6, IS COMPLETED.
PAGE 2 OF 2
'/SURRY-
SUMMARY
COMPARISON/4