ML20083F309
| ML20083F309 | |
| Person / Time | |
|---|---|
| Site: | Surry  |
| Issue date: | 09/26/1991 |
| From: | Office of Nuclear Reactor Regulation |
| To: | |
| Shared Package | |
| ML20083F307 | List: |
| References | |
| NUDOCS 9110040194 | |
| Download: ML20083F309 (4) | |
Text
e-(
o,j UNITED STATES E
NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSION o
g 1l W ASHINGT ON. D. C. 20555 r...../
SAFETY EVALUATION RY THE OFFICE OF NUCLEAR REACTOR REGULATION RELATED TO AMENDMENT NO.163 TO FACILITY OPERATING LICENSE NO. DPR-32 i
AND AMENDMENT N0.162 TO FACILITY OPERATING LICENSE NO. DPR-37 VIRGINIA ELECTRIC AND POWER COMPANY SURRY POWER STATION, UNIT NOS. 1 AND 2 DOCKET NOS. 50-?80 AND 50-281
1.6 INTRODUCTION
By-letter dated August 24, 1990, as supplemented August 28, 1991, Virginia Electric and Power Company, the licensee for the Surry Power Station, submitted a request for amendments in the form of changes to the Technical Specifications (TS) for Units 1 and 2.
The amendments involve changi.ig the requirement for
- establishing proper fire surveillance of the containraent when the number of operable fire detection instruments becomes less than required by Specification 3.21.A.I.
The proposed changes provide an alternative to the requirement for hourly containment entries by a fire watch to compensate for an inoperable fire / smoke detector in containment. The changes will require hourly monitoring of general area containment Resistance Temperature Detectors (RTDs) or containment inspections every 8 hours9.259259e-5 days <br />0.00222 hours <br />1.322751e-5 weeks <br />3.044e-6 months <br /> -in the event that-the required number of fire-detectors are not operable within containment. The August 28, 1991 letter provided supplemental information.that did not change the initial proposed
-no significant hazards consideration determination.
2.0 EVALUATIO_N The licensee has evaluated the effect of the TS changes to the proposed fire watch surveillance'. requirements when local area fire detectors have become inoperable. The proposed TS changes' provide an alternative to the requirement of. hourly' containment entries by a fire watch to compensate for a j~
failed smoke / heat detector lin containment. The permanently installed RTDs in L
the containment will be used as an alternative means of providing fire detection.
In the event of a failed containment fire. detector, the licensee, as a minimum, will monitor RTDs. located rt the containment dome, at annulus L
elevations 72'-0" and 21'-0",-near the cable penetration area, and at elevation'18'-0"Lin the containment cubicles, on a hourly basis. These RTDs will be monitored for small increases in containment air temperature.. In the event of a' temperature rise of 10-20'F on any of the RTDs, a fire watch will o
L be dispatched and-a containment entry will be made to' investigate and identify 9110040194 910926 ADOCKOSOOgfj0 PDR P
F-
.. =
.p.
the cause of this increase in air temperature.
If inspections are deemed necessary in lieu of monitoring the RTDs, they would be performed at 8-hour intervals rather than 1-hour intervals. Performing inspections of contairnent on an hourly basis creates an unnecessary burden on the licensee. By the time a fire patrol dons breathing apparatuses, equalizes pressure between the personnel air lock and containment, makes its entry, performs the inspection, and exits from subatmospheric containment, the next inspection would be due.
Alternatively, inspccting the containment at 8-hour intervals does not significantly increase the probability of a fire going undetected.
An alternative means of providing fire detection for containment is reasonable since the risk of fire in containment is low. Welding and construction are seldom performed in containment during operations and a fire watch is required for such activities.
In addition, administrative controls require that transit combustibles must be removed from containment imediately af ter work is completed. Considering these factors, monitoring RTDs will provide an acceptable alternative to Ga installed smoke and heat detectors.
3.0
SUMMARY
The staff has reviewed the effects of the proposed TS changes on fire surveillance and concludes that all pertinent safety criteria are met. The licensee's request to provide for hourly surveillance through the use of permanently installed RTDs inside containment and near the general area of a failed smoke / fire detector is acceptable. The alternative of a fire patrol once every 8 hours9.259259e-5 days <br />0.00222 hours <br />1.322751e-5 weeks <br />3.044e-6 months <br /> is also acceptable provided maintenance efforts are initiated to return a detector to an operable status without undue burden on the licensee.
4.0 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.
5.0 ENVIRONMENTAL CONSIDERATION
These amendments change a surveillance requirement. The NRC staff has 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 (55 FR 53078). 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.
6.0 CONCLUSION
The Commission has concluded, based on the considerations discussed above, that:
not be endangered by operation in the proposed manner, (2) y of the public will (1) there is reasonable assurance that the health _and safet such activities will be conducted in compliance with the Commission's regulations, and (3) the issuance of these amendments will not be inimical to the common defense and security or to the health and safety of the public.
Principal Contributor: F. Talbot Date: September 26, 1991 1
_