ML20056H414
| ML20056H414 | |
| Person / Time | |
|---|---|
| Site: | Surry  |
| Issue date: | 09/07/1993 |
| From: | Office of Nuclear Reactor Regulation |
| To: | |
| Shared Package | |
| ML20056H408 | List: |
| References | |
| NUDOCS 9309090284 | |
| Download: ML20056H414 (3) | |
Text
,
, p' cg
$~
h%
e i Mi ]i E I
UNITED STATES
, Qyp NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSION g '.w. ej WASHINGTON, D.C. 20555-0001 SAFETY EVALUATION BY THE OFFICE OF NUCLEAR REACTOR REGULATION RELATED TO AMENDMENT NO. 183 TO FACILITY OPERATING LICENSE NO. DPR-32 AND AMENDMENT NO.183 TO FACILITY OPERATING LICENSE NO. DPR-37 VIRGINIA ELECTRIC AND POWER COMPANY SURRY POWER STATION. UNIT NOS. 1 AND 2
[ LOCKET NOS. 50-280 AND 50-281
1.0 INTRODUCTION
Pursuant to 10 CFR 50.90, by letter dated July IS,1993, the Virginia Electric and Power Company (the licensee) proposed changes to the Technical Specifications (TS) for the Surry Power Station (SPS), Units 1 and 2.
The changes would (1) allow operation with a three degree Fahrenheit increase in the service water temperature limit for containment air partial pressures of 9.1, 9.2, and 9.35 psia and (2) correct typographical errors associated with the reactor coolant system temperature and pressure values which were transposed in Amendment Nos. 172 and 171, dated January 22, 1993. The licensee is proposing the changes since the temperature limits are approached during periods of extended hot weather, minimal rainfall, and low tide.
2.0 PROPOSED TECHNICAL SPECIFICATION CHANGES TS 3.8.D.1 is being revised to require the containment air partial pressure to be maintained within the Figure 3.8-1 range whenever the reactor coolant system temperature and pressure exceed 350 F and 450 psig, respectively. This corrects a typographical error made previously which specified values of 450*F and 350 psig.
TS Figure 3.8-1 is being revised to permit operation with a three degree increase in the service water temperature limit for containment air partial pressures of 9.1, 9.2, and 9.35 psia. The revised service water temperature limits for these partial pressures are 95 F, 93 F, and 91*F respectively. The curve on the figure is being revised to fit these points.
In addition, the Basis Section of TS 3.8 is being revised to reflect the above changes.
3.0 EVALUATION The SPS containment depressurization ad long-term cooling for a design basis accident (DBA) is dependent on the following three parameters: (1) containment air partial pressure, (2) the average containment air temperature, and (3) the
"~
9309090284 930907 PDR ADOCK 05000280 P
PDR g
]
2 temperature of the ultimate heat sink, i.e., the James River. The James River 4
is the source cf service water to the recirculation spray heat exchangers for the containment depressurization and cooling following a DBA.
Operation with the containment air temperature, containment air partial pressure, and service water temperature within the limits of TS figure 3.8-1 ensures the containment response to a DBA will remain bounded by the safety analysis.
The licensee has performed containment response analysis at a three degree higher service water temperature for containment air partial pressures of 9.1, 9.2, and 9.35 psia. Models, methods, and input consistent with the current analysis of record were used for the analysis. The licensee used previously existing analysis margins to accomodate the impact of the three degree service water temperature shift. The results of the analysis indicate that the worst case values for the post loss-of-coolant accident containment response criteria are still bounded by the safety analysis. The response criteria are peak pressure, depressurization time, subatmospheric peak pressure and engineered safety features pump net positive suction head.
Section 9.9, Service Water System, of the Updated Final Safety Analysis Report i
for Surry states that the system is designed for the removal of heat resulting i
from the simultaneous operation of various systems and components of two SPS units based on a maximum river water temperature of 95'F.
The proposed change to TS 3.8.D.1 is to correct a typographical error and is acceptable.
4.0
SUMMARY
Since the analysis indicates that the containment will continue to meet its design basis acceptance criteria following a DBA, and since the analysis was performed with current models, methods and inputs, the staff finds the licensee's proposed revi-ion to TS 3.8 acceptable.
5.0 STATE CONSULTATION
In accordance with the Commission's regulations, the Virginia State official was notified of the proposed issuance of the amendments.
The State official had no coment.
6.0 ENVIRONMENTAL CONSIDERATION
S These amendments change a requirement with respect to installation or use of facility component located within the restricted areas defined in 10 CFR Part
- 20. The NRC staff has determined that the amendments involve no significant increase it. the amounts, and no significant change in the types, of any effluent that may be released offsite, and that there is no significant increase in individual or cumulative occupational radiation exposure. The Comission has previously issued a proposed finding that these amendments involve no significant hazards consideration and there has been no public ccment on such finding (58 FR 41519). Accordingly, these amendments meet the
3 eligibility criteria for categorical exclusion set forth in 10 CFR 51.22(c)(9). Pursuant to 10 CFR 51.22(b) no environmental impact statement or environmental assessment need be prepared in connection with the issuance of i
these amendments.
7.0 CONCLUSION
The Comission has concluded, based on the considerations discussed above, that:
(1) there is reasonable assurance that the health and safety of the public will not be endangered by operation in the proposed manner, (2) such activities will be conducted in compliance with the Comission's regulations, and (3) the issuance of these amendments will not be inimical to the comon defense and security or to the health and safety of the public.
Principal Contributor:
R. P. Croteau Date: September 7, 1993 l
l l
l l
l l
l l
l