ML19347F714
| ML19347F714 | |
| Person / Time | |
|---|---|
| Site: | Surry  |
| Issue date: | 05/12/1981 |
| From: | Office of Nuclear Reactor Regulation |
| To: | |
| Shared Package | |
| ML19347F710 | List: |
| References | |
| NUDOCS 8105260101 | |
| Download: ML19347F714 (2) | |
Text
.
J' UNITED STATES
[ '
. J' i NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSION
\\p-x], ;:
w.um me. 0 c.::m SAFETY EVALUATION BY THE OFFICE OF NUCLEAR P.EACTOR REGULATION RELATED TO AMENDMENT NO. 67 TO FACILITY OPERATING LICENSE NO.'DPR-32 AND AMENDMENT NO. 67 TO FACILITY OPERATING LICENSE NO. DPR-37 VIRGINIA ELECTRIC AND POWER COMPANY SURRY POWEP STATION, UNIT NOS. 1 AND 2 DOCKET NOS. 50-280 AND 50-281 INTRODUCTION By letter dated November 14, 1980, Virginia Electric and Power Comparv (the licensee) requested amendments to License Nos. DPR-32 and DPR-37 for the Surry Power Station, Unit Nos.1 and 2.
The proposed changes would assure that redundancy in decay heat removal capability will be maintained, and would provide a minimum water level over fuel assemblies during rifueling operations.
The TMI Lessons Learned Technical Specifications proposed in the November 14, 1980 letter will be issued by a separate amendmen't.
DISCUSSION AND EVALUATION
~
NRC letter dated June 11, 1980, requested that all PWR licensee's amend their Technical Specifications with respect to reactor decay heat removal capability.
The basis for this request was founded in a number of events t%t have occurred at operating PWR facilities where decay heat removal capability has been seriously degraded due to inadequate administrative controls utilized when the plants were in shutdown modes of operation.
IE Bulletin 80-12 requested l
the licensee to immediately implement administrative controls which would l
ensure that proper means are available to provide redundant methods of decay heat removal. The proposed Technical Specifications are to provide long term assurance that redundancy will be maintained.
We have reviewed the licensee's proposed Technical Specifications and find that adequate redundancy has been provided for removing decay heat during all modes of operation. We, therefore, conclude that the Technical Specifications related to decay heat removal are acceptable.
~By letter of August 15, 1980 we advised the licensee of changes that had been made in Westinghouse Standard Technical Specifications. These changes require at least 23 feet of water over the top of the reactor pressure vessel flance during movement of fuel assemblies or control rods. This requirement assures that fuel assemblies can be transferred out of the reactor pressure vessel with sufficient water coverage to prevent exposure of fuel handlers.
81052egl0l l
l n.
\\
~
-2 The current Technical Specifications have ro requirements on minimum water level.
Consequently, the licensee was requested to make the necessary review and modifications to assure that exposure of fuel assemblies cannot occur.
In the response of November 14, 1980, the licensee revised the Technical a
Specifications to provide the 23 feet of minimum water level above the reactor pressure vessel flange during movement of fuel assemblies and to provide residual heat removal capability when the level falls below 23 feet.
We have reviewed the Technical Specifications related to minimum water level and conclude that they are acceptable.
ENVIRONMENTAL CONSIDERATION We have determined that the amendments do not authorize a change in effluent types or total amounts nor an increase in power level and will not result.in any significant environmental impact. Having made this determination, we have further concluded that the amendments involve an action which is insig-nificant from the standpoint of environmental impact and, pursuant to 10 CFR 551.5(d)(4), that an environmental impact statement or negative declaration and environmental impact appraisal need not be prepared in connection with the issuance of these amendments.
CONCLUSION We have concluded, based on the considerations discussed above, that:
(1) because the amendments do not involve a signif.icant increase in the probability or consequences of accidents previously considered and do not involve a signif-icant decrease in a safety margin, the amendments do not involve a significant hazards consideration, (2) there is reasonable assurance that the health and safety of the public will not be endangered by operacion in the proposed manner, and (3) such activities will be conducted in compliance with the Commission's regulations and the issuance of these amendments will not-be inimical to the common defense and security or to the health and. safety of the public.
Date:
MAY l 21c81 t
i