ML18152A613
| ML18152A613 | |
| Person / Time | |
|---|---|
| Site: | Surry  |
| Issue date: | 12/09/1987 |
| From: | Chandu Patel Office of Nuclear Reactor Regulation |
| To: | Stewart W VIRGINIA POWER (VIRGINIA ELECTRIC & POWER CO.) |
| References | |
| TAC-65840, TAC-65841, NUDOCS 8712150197 | |
| Download: ML18152A613 (4) | |
Text
Docket Nos. 50-280 and 50-281 Mr. W. L. Stewart e
December 9, 1987 Vice President - Nuclear Operations Virginia Electric and Power Company P.O. Box 26666 Richmond, Virginia 23261
Dear Mr. Stewart:
SUBJECT:
REQUEST FOR ADDITIONAL INFORMATION RELATED TO APPENDIX R SHUTDOWN ANALYSIS FOR THE SURRY POWER STATION, UNITS 1 AND 2 (TAC NOS. 65840 AND 65841)
By letter dated April 10, 1986, Virginia Electric and Power Company (VEPCO) submitted Revision 2 to the Surry 10 CFR Part 50 Appendix R Report.
We are currently reviewing the alternative shutdown analysis submitted in that report.
In order to complete our review, we need additional information as stated in the enclosure to this letter. Please provide this information within 30 days of the date of this letter.
The reporting and/or recordkeeping requirements of this letter affect fewer than 10 respondents; therefore, 0MB clearance 1s not required under P.L.96-511.
Enclosure:
As stated cc w/enclosure:
See next page DISTRIBUTION Docket File NRC & Local PDRs PD22 Reading SVarga OGC-Beth EJordan JPartlow ACRS (10)
Gray File CPatel GLainas DMiller PMFfnf2 CPatel:bd 12/ q /87
(
8712150197 871209 PDR ADOCK 05000280 F
PDR Sincerely, Original signed by Chandu P. Patel, Project Manager Project Directorate II-2 Division of Reactor Projects-I/II Office of Nuclear Reactor Regulation CMcCracken CMEeL CMcCracken 12/!f /87 0*1
~e kow 12/ /87 l
Docket Nos. 50-280 and 50-281 Mr. W. L. Stewart e
e UNITED STATES NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSION WASHINGTON, D. C. 20555 December 9, 1987 Vice President - Nuclear Operations Virginia Electric Jnd Power Company P.O. Box 26666 Richmond, Virginia 23261
Dear Mr. Stewart:
SUBJECT:
REQUEST FOR ADDITIONAL INFORMATION RELATED TO APPENDIX R SHUTDOWN ANALYSIS FOR THE SURRY POWER STATION, UNITS 1 AND 2 (TAC NOS. 65840 AND 65841)
By letter dated April 10, 1986, Virginia Electric and Power Company (VEPCO) submitted Revision 2 to the Surry 10 CFR Part 50 Appendix R Report.
We are currently reviewing the alternative shutdown analysis submitted in that report.
In order to complete our review, we need additional information as stated in the enclosure to this letter. Please provide this information within 30 days of the date of this letter.
The reporting and/or recordkeeping requirements of this letter affect fewer than 10 respondents; therefore, 0MB clearance is not required under P.L.96-511.
Enclosure:
As stated cc w/enclosure:
See next page Sincerely,
~JA f.fd;)
Chandu P. Patel, Project Manager Project Directorate II-2 Division of Reactor Projects-I/II Office of Nuclear Reactor Regulation
Mr. W. L. Stewart Virginia Electric and Power Company cc:
Mr. Michael W. Maupin Hunton and Williams Post Office Box 1535
,/'
Richmond, Virginia 23212 Mr. Dave L. Benson, Manager Surry Power Station Post Office Box 315 Surry, Virginia 23883 Resident Inspector Surry Power Station
/
U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission Post Office Box 166, Route 1 Surry, Virginia 23883 Mr. Sherlock Holmes, Chairman Board of Supervisors of Surry County Surry County Courthouse
,/'
Surry, Virginia 23683 W. T. Lough Virginia Corporation Commission Division of Energy Regulation Post Office Box 1197
/.
Richmond, Virginia 23209 Regional Administrator, Region II U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission,,/
101 Marietta Street N.W., Suite 2900 Atlanta, Georgia 30323 James B. Kenley, M.D., Commissioner Department of Health
- /
109 Governor Street Richmond, Virginia 23219 Surry Power Station Attorney General Supreme Court Building
~
101 North 8th Street Richmond, Virginia 23219
e Enclosure REQUEST FOR ADDITIONAL INFORMATION FOR SURRY, UNITS 1 AND 2 APPENDIX R SHUTDOWN ANALYSIS
- 1.
Your analysis takes credit for manual operations for hot shutdown 1n areas where the fire is located (for example, on page 4-16, for a fire in area 17 (Auxi11ary~ fuel and Decontamination Building), manual operation of the cross-connect valves for the charging system is required]. Additional de-tails of the engineering analysis used to justify these actions are required.
- 2.
Have the required manual actions for shutdown after a fire been incorpora-ted into procedures? Sample procedures should be provided, particularly for the worst case fire scenario presented in Attachment 1 to Chapter 5.
- 3.
The Breaker Coordination Chapter (9) was not included.
Sample analysis for each power system (4kv, 480V, Vital AC and DC), particularly the study that resulted in the decision not to replace the Vital AC main breakers (Modification II-3}, should be provided.
An analysis of multiple high impedence faults is not included as part of the associated circuit analysis. If it was performed, provide more information about this part of the analysis.
- 4.
Appendix A to Volume l says that the Service Water System and the Charging Pump Service Water System are no longer required due to Modification III-6 although this modification has been withdrawn.
However, Chapter 3 still considers these systems to be required. Clarify this discrepancy (the Chapter 3 analysis appears to be the correct analysis).
- 5.
Instrumentation provided for alternate shutdown capability concentrates on process variables, not parameters such as tank levels or system operability (status}. Clarify the availability of condensate storage tank level indication and provide more detail of the RWST tank level exemption request engineering analysis.