ML18150A289
| ML18150A289 | |
| Person / Time | |
|---|---|
| Site: | Surry  |
| Issue date: | 02/07/1986 |
| From: | Stewart W VIRGINIA POWER (VIRGINIA ELECTRIC & POWER CO.) |
| To: | Harold Denton, Rubenstein L Office of Nuclear Reactor Regulation |
| References | |
| 86-027, 86-27, TAC-60713, NUDOCS 8602130069 | |
| Download: ML18150A289 (2) | |
Text
..
e e
VuioINIA ELECTRIC AND PowER COMPANY RICHMOND, VIRGINIA 23261 W. L. STEWABT VICE PRESIDENT NUCLEAR OPERATIONS February 7, 1986 Mr. Harold R. Denton, Director Office of Nuclear Reactor Regulation Attn:
Mr. Lester S. Rubenstein, Director PWR Project Directorate #2 Division of PWR Licensing - A U. S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission Washington, D. C.
20555 Gentlemen:
VIRGINIA ELECTRIC AND POWER COMPANY SURRY POWER STATION UNIT NO. 2 TYPE A TEST SCHEDULE Serial No.
NO/WDC:dln Docket No.
License No.86-027 50-281 DPR-37 Per the provision of 10CFR50.12, Virginia Electric and Power Company requests specific exemption from Article III.A.6(b) of 10CFR50, Appendix J which requires that a Type A test be performed at each plant shutdown until two consecutive Type A tests meet the acceptance criteria of III.A.5(b) of 10CFR50, Appendix J for Surry Power Station Unit 2.
It. is requested that Surry Unit 2 resume its Type A test schedule as stated in III.D of 10CFR50, Appendix J.
The basis for this relief request is the successful completion of the Type A test on Unit 2 in June 1985. It is our position that the purpose of Type A tests is to measure and ensure that the leakage through the primary reactor containment does not exceed the maximum allowable leakage rate.
It is also to ensure that surveillance, maintenance and repairs are made to systems or components penetrating the containment.
The test in June 1985 demonstrated that the containment has not degraded since the previous test.
After a review of the previous three tests on Unit 2, the difficulties associated with each of these tests were technical in nature and were not concerns during power operations.
The holes in the liner from the 1980 test were drilled during the outage and were not present during the operating cycle.
The leaking electrical penetration from the 1981 test was not present during the previous cycle as verified by weekly periodic tests performed on electrical penetrations.
The leakage into the secondary system from the 1983 test was not present during the previous operating cycle as verified by walkdowns which indicated no significant leakage in the main steam and associated piping.
As a result of the difficulties encountered in previous tests, changes were made to the Type A, B, and C testing programs to ensure that the maximum allowable leakage is not exceeded.
Procedures were changed to test electrical penetrations at Pa. The steam generators were tested with (l
~o \\
8602! 3(>069 860207 1
{'.liDOCi4, 05000281 P
PDR AD - J. KNIGHT EB (BALL.ARD)
EICSB (ROSA)
PSB (GAMMILL)
RSB (BERLINGER)
FOB (BENAROYA)
(ltr only)
I 0
e e
VIRGINIA ELECTRIC AND POWER COMPANY TO Mr. Harold R. Denton air prior to the 1985 Type A test and the leakage identified was repaired which resulted in a tight secondary system during the test. Additional test equipment has been purchased to provide better accuracy for Type C testing.
In addition, the Type C test procedure has been changed to use the makeup method in lieu of the downstream method were possible (when it is necessary to quantify individual valve leakage, both methods will be used).
Acceptance criteria have been included in the procedure that require repair or replacement of valves that_ exhibit significant leakage.
Administrative procedures ensure that work affecting the containment boundary is properly reviewed and that proper testing is accomplished.
In summary, we feel that a high level of management attention has been devoted to the containment leak rate testing program and that the necessary improvements have been made to eliminate the inadequacies that previously existed.
The results of the June 1985 test proved that with the Type A, B and C program, as it exists now, a successful test can be performed.* These actions and their results support our request that Unit 2 should revert to the Type A schedule per Article III.D of 10CFR50, Appendix J.
In accordance with 10CFR170 an, application fee of $150 is enclosed.
If you have any questions, or need additional information to process this request please contact us.
Very truly yours,
&L~
W. L. Stewart cc:
Dr. J. Nelson Grace Regional Administrator Region II Mr. Donald J. Burke NRC Resident Inspector Surry Power Station