ML20066C881
| ML20066C881 | |
| Person / Time | |
|---|---|
| Site: | Surry  |
| Issue date: | 12/28/1990 |
| From: | Parczewski K Office of Nuclear Reactor Regulation |
| To: | |
| Shared Package | |
| ML20066C880 | List: |
| References | |
| NUDOCS 9101110276 | |
| Download: ML20066C881 (2) | |
Text
o* **cw ff I*,,
UNITED sTAf tS y
3m j
NUCLE AR REGULATORY COMMISSION L
j W ASHINo ton. D. C. 20656
%, 'e.../
SAFETY _EVALVAT10N BY THE_0FFICE OF_NUCLFAR_ REACTOR REGULATION RELATED TO AMENDMENT N0___150_ TO FAtlLITY OPERATING LICENSE NO. OPR-32 AND_ AMENDMENT N0.147 T0__ FACILITY OPERATING LICENSE _ NO. OPP-37 VIRGINIA ELECTRIC AND POWER _ COMPANY SU_RRY_ POWER STAT 10 E UNIT NOS'._1 AND_2 DOCKET _NOS. 50-?B0_AND 50-201 INTRODUCTION By letter dated March 8,1990, the Virginia Electric and Power Company (the licensee) submitted a request for amendments to Technical 5)ecifications (TS) Sections 4.1.E and 4.1.H and to the Bases Section for tie Surry Power Station, Units 1 and 2.
The amendments would eliminate the monthly flush requirements for the sensitized stainless steel piping installed in the safety injection and containment spray systems.
Instead, the systems containing sensitized steel will be flushed thenever the concentration of chlorides and/or fluorides in the refueling water storage tank (RWST) exceeds 0.15 ppm.
Also, a requirement would be added to perform weekly sam)1ing of the solution in the RWST for chloride and fluoride contamination. T1e proposed modifications would i
Simplify the existing operating procedures.
EVALUATION The Surry plant contains a number of stainless steel pipes which, during the construction phase, became sensitized and prone to intergranular stress corrosion cracking (IGSCC).
In order to prevent damage, a special procedure was devised to assure that they would not be exposed to the chemical environment conducive to such type of corrosion.
The subsystems containing sensitized stainless steel piping which communicated with the RWST and which contained stagnant water were required by TS Sections 4.1.E and 4.1.H to undergo monthly flushing to assure that chloride and fluoride concentrations remained below 0.15 ppm. The flush flow paths were as follows:
containment spray pump discharge, low head safety injection pump discharge, low head safety injection pump up to first isolation valve, high head safety injection pump inside containment, and the high head safety injection pump discharge.
In an effort to upgrade the plant's TS, the licensee proposed that the requirement of TS Sections 4.1.E and 4.1.H for monthly flushing be replaced by i
flushing only during refueling or whenever the concentrations of chloride and/or fluoride in the RWST exceed 0.15 ppm. Flushing would then be performed long enough to bring the concentration to below the 0.15 ppm. limit.
9101110276 901D28 DR ADDCK 0500 0
i
- The licensee has provided justification for the proposed changes.
The licensee has determined that, under normal operating conditions, these subsystems will always remain filled with sater, impurities concentration would remain in the range of 20-25 ppb for chlorides and 1-2 ppb for fluorides, and that there are no identifiable mechanisms which could account for an increase of these concentrations above the 0.15 ppm limit.
Therefore, as long as the water in the RWST meets the specifications, the sensitized stainless steel components are not susceptible to damage.
To assure that the water in the RWST remains below this limit, the licensee included in Table 4.1-2B a requirement that the RWST water be sampled weekly for chlorides and fluorides. We have reviewed the justifications provided by the licensee and find that they adequately support the proposed TS amendments.
SUMMARY
On the basis of our evaluation, we find that the changes proposed by the licensee to Technical Specification Sections 4.1.E and 4.1.H of the Surry plant are acceptable.
ENVIRONMENTAL CONSIDERATION These amendments involve a change to a requirement with respect to installation or use of a facility component located within the restricted area as defined in 10 CFR Part 20. We have determined that the amendments involve no significant increase in the amounts, and no significant change in the types, of any effluents 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 coment on such finding.
Accordingly, these amendments meet the 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 these amendments.
CONCLUSION We have 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, and (2) such activities will be conducted in compliance with the Comission'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.
Dated: December 28, 1990 Principal _ Cont _r_i_butor:
K. Parczewski