ML20217C541
| ML20217C541 | |
| Person / Time | |
|---|---|
| Site: | Surry  |
| Issue date: | 07/08/1991 |
| From: | Office of Nuclear Reactor Regulation |
| To: | |
| Shared Package | |
| ML20217C535 | List: |
| References | |
| NUDOCS 9107170195 | |
| Download: ML20217C541 (3) | |
Text
--
-~
p ets 4
- og UNITED STATES NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSION n
W ASHING TON, D. C. 20656
\\+..../
SAFETY EVALUATION BY THE OFFICE OF NUCLEAR REACTOR REGULATION RELATED TO AMENDMENT NO. 158 TO FACILITY OPERATING LICENSE NO. DPR-32 l
AND AMENDMENT NO 157 TO FACILITY OPERATING LICENSE NO. DPR-37 VIRGINIA ELECTRIC AND POWER COMPANY SURRY POWER STATION, UNIT N05. 1 AND 2 DOCKET NOS. 50-280 AND 50-281 1
1.0 INTRODUCTION
By letter dated August 1, 1990, Virginia Electric and Power Company (the licensee) submitted an application to amend the Surry Units 1 and 2 Technical Specifications.
The proposed change to Technical Specification 4.5.C wculd revise the frequency of the surveillance for the outside recirculation spray and containment spray weight-loaded check valves from once every 18 months to every refueling outage.
Technical Specification 4.5.C requires each weight-loaded check valve in the l
Containment Spray and Recirculation Spray Systems to be cycled one complete cycle of full travel and verified open on air pressure and seated with a l
vacuum at least once per 18 months.
2.0 DISCUSSION AND EVALUATION l
In order to perform this surveillance, scaffolding must be erected in containment and test equipment installed in the containment.
Setting up for and performing this test in a subatmospheric containment'would expose personnel to risks due to the need to use a breathing apparatus and the time needed to allow for the differr aces in pressure upon entry and exit from containment. Because of these risks, performance of this surveill6nce as required by the. existing Technical Specification (TS) 4.5.C would necessitate a plant shutdown. The spray systems are normally dry and the only' service that they are exposed to is during the testing of these valves.
In a meeting on February 16, 1990, between the licensee and NRC, a review of the results of past surveillances of these valves under TS 4.5.C and-under the Appendix J Type C testing was conducted.
A review of the maintenance history of these valves was-also performed.
As a result of these-reviews, it was concluded that the surveillance and maintenance history of these valves indicates that they have performed reliably.
The normal operating cycle is-18 months and the test would typically be performed within the 18-month-plus-25% interval.
Only if an extended shutdown during the operating cycle for maintenance or resolution of a technical issue was necessary would the 18-month-plus-25%
interval be exceeded.
Exceeding the 18-month-plus-25% interval on an infrequent basis would not have a significant effect on valve operability.
9107170195 91070s PDR ADOCK 05000290 P
PDR 7>
3 Based on the service history of these valves, the acceptability of these valves when they were last tested, and the benign service and environment to which the valves are normally exposed, the staff has concluded that the proposed change to TS 4.5.C is acceptable.
3.0 STATE CONSULTATION
In accordance with the Commission's regulations, the Virginia State official sas notified of the proposed issuance of the amendments. The State official had no comment.
4.0 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 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 (55 FR 53078). Accordingly, those 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, j
5.0 CONCLUSION
l The Commission has concluded, based on the consideratior.s discussed above, that:
(1) there is reasonable essurance 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 amendnents will rct be inimical to the common defense and security or to the health and safety of the public.
Principal Contributors:
Bart Buckley Ted Sullivan Date: July 8,1991
DATED:
July 8,1991 AMENDMENT N0. 158 TO FACILITY OPERATING LICENSE NO DPR SURRY UNIT 1 f
AMENDMENT N0. 157 TO FACILITY OPERATING LICENSE N0. DPR SURRY UNIT 2
': Docket File:.-
NRC & Local PDRs PDII-2 Reading S. Varga, 14/E/4 G. Lainas, 14/H/3 H. Berkow D. Miller B. Buckley T. Sullivan 7/E/23 J. Norberg 7/E/23 OGC-WF D. Hagan, 3302 MNBB E. Jordan, 3701 MNBB B. Grimes, 9/A/2 G. Hill (8), P-137 Wanda Jones, P-130A C. Grimes, 11/F/23 ACRS (10)
GPA/PA OC/LFMB M. Sinkule, R-Il cc:
Plant Service list
_ _ _ _ _.