ML20196J478

Safety Evaluation Supporting Amends 221 & 221 to Licenses DPR-32 & DPR-37,respectively

ML20196J478
Person / Time
Site:	Surry
Issue date:	07/01/1999
From:	NRC (Affiliation Not Assigned)
To:
Shared Package
ML20196J467	List: ML20196J462 ML20196J478
References
NUDOCS 9907070301
Download: ML20196J478 (4)

Text

p f. Egg UNITED STATES g

,j NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSION WASHINGTON, D.C. 2065H001 n% *****/

SAFETY EVALUATION BY THE OFFICE OF NUCLEAR REACTOR REGULATION RELATED TO AMENDMENT NO. 221 TO FACILITY OPERATING LICENSE NO. DPR-32 AND AMENDMENT NO. 221 TO FACILITY OPERATING LICENSE NO. DPR-37 VIRGINIA ELECTRIC AND POWER COMPANY SURRY POWER STATION. UNIT NOS.1 AND 2 DOCKET NOS. 50-280 AND 50-281

1.0 INTRODUCTION

By letter dated February 16,1999, Virginia Electric and Power Company (the licensee) submitted for staff review and approval a proposed Technical Specifications (TS) change

'egarding inspection requirements for the reactor coolant pump (RCP) flywheels. This issue as addressed in the Westinghouse topical report, WCAP-14535A, " Topical Report on Reactor Joolant Pump Flywheel Inspection Elimination," which was approved by the United States Nuclear Regulatory Commission (USNRC) with certain conditions. These conditions are specified in the safety evaluation report (SER) dated September 12,1996, for WCAP-14535A.

The licensee intended to apply this topical report to Surry Units 1 and 2 and change their RCP

)

flywheels inspection intervals in accordance with the conclusion of the SER on WCAP-14535A.

]

The function of the RCP in the reactor coolant system (RCS) of a pressurized water reactor (PWR) plant is to maintain an adequate cooling flow rate by circulating a large volume of primary coolant water at high temperature and pressure through the RCS. A concern over overspeed of the RCP and its potential for failure led to the issuance of Regulatory Guide (RG) 1.14 in 1971. Since then, all licensees for PWR plants, with very few exceptions, have adopted the guidelines of RG 1.14 to conduct their RCP flywheel examinations. These requirements are normally specified in the individual plant's TS as is the case for Surry Units 1 and 2.

2.0 EVALUATION in the SER on Westinghouse topical report WCAP-14535A, the staff stated that the evaluation methodology for RCP flywheels in WCAP-14535A is appropriate and the criteria are in

)

accordance with the design criteria of RG 1.14. In addition, the staff specified:

(1) Licensees who plan to submit a plant-specific application of this topical report for flywheels made of SA 533 B material need to confirm that their flywheels are made of l

l SA 533 8 material. Further, licensees having Group-15 flywheels need to demonstrate that the material properties of their A516 material are equivalent to i

SA 533 8 material, and its reference temperature, RTa, is less than 30"F.

Enclosure 9907070301 990701 PDR ADOCK 05000200 P

PDR 1

l

4 e

2 (2) Licensees who plan to submit a plant-specific application of this topical report for their flywheels not made of SA 533 B or A516 material need to either demonstrate that their flywheel material properties are bounded by those of SA 533 B material, or provide the minimum specified ultimate tensile stress, S, the fracture toughness, K, and the o

g reference temperature, RTuot, for that material. For the latter, the licensees should employ these material-specific properties, and use the methodology in the topical report, as extended in the two responses to the staff's request for additional information, to provide an assessment to justify a change in inspection schedules for their plants.

(3) Licensees meeting either (1) or (2) above should either conduct a qualified in-place ultrasonic testing (UT) examination of the volume from the inner bore of the flywheel to the circle of one-half the outer radius or conduct a surface examination (MT and/or PT) of exposed surfaces defined by the volume of the disassembled flywheels once every 10 years. The staff considers this 10-year inspection requirement not burdensome when the flywheel inspection is conducted during scheduled inservice inspection or RCP motor maintenance. This would provide an appropriato level of defense in depth.

Further, the staff required:

Licensees with Group-10 flywheels need to confirm in the near term that their flywheels have an adequate shrink fit of the flywheel at the maximum overspeed.

The licensee confirmed in its submittal that the flywheels for Surry Units 1 and 2 are made of SA 533 B material. Hence, only (1) and (3) apply. The staff further verified that the flywheels for Surry Units 1 and 2 do not belong to either Group 10 or Group 15 flywheels, for which j

additional analyses need to be performed. Therefore, the plant-specific applicability of WCAP-14535A to Surry Units 1 and 2 has been established, and the 10-year inspection requirement with details specified in (3) is acceptable.

The staff has determined that the analysis in the Westinghouse topical report WCAP-14535A is applicable to Surry Units 1 and 2. Hence, the staff accepts the licensee's proposed changes, i.e.,10-year inspection intervals for RCP flywheels, in accordance with (3) above, to TS 4.2, Augmented Inspections, Table 4.2-1, item 1.3, for both units.

3.0 STATE CONSULTATION

I 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 comment.

4.0 ENVIRONMENTAL CONSIDERATION

These amendments change a requirement with respect to installation or use of a facility component located within the restricted area as defined in 10 CFR Part 20 and 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 I

I 1

s 3-may be released offsite, and that there is no significant increase in individual'or cumulative occupational radiation exposure. The Commission has previously issued a proposed finding

. that these amendments involve no significant hazards consideration and there has been no public comment on such finding (64 FR 24204). 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;

5.0 CONCLUSION

The Commission 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 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 S. Sheng

. Date: July 1,1999 i

4 i

s

i-

.. w.

l l

l l

DATED:

Julv 1.1999 AMENDMENT NO. 221 TO FACILITv OPERATING LICENSE NO. DPR SURRY UNIT 1 AMENDMENT NO. 221 TO FACILITY OPERATING LICENSE NO. DPR SURRY UNIT 2 I

fOoolest FileJD PUBLIC PDil-1 R/F H. Berkow R. Emch E. Dunnington G. Edison OGC G. Hill (4), TWFN, 5/C/3 W. Beckner S.Sheng ACRS R. Hasg, Ril e-mail R. Scholl-SE only i

i l

l l

1

_