ML20246K185

Safety Evaluation Supporting Amends 132 & 132 to Licenses DPR-32 & DPR-37,respectively

ML20246K185
Person / Time
Site:	Surry
Issue date:	08/28/1989
From:	Office of Nuclear Reactor Regulation
To:
Shared Package
ML20246K180	List: ML20246K175 ML20246K185
References
NUDOCS 8909050399
Download: ML20246K185 (3)

Text

.

ap y

, [p figg %g p

UNITED STATES lE

')

NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSION 1;

,t WASHINGTON. D. C. 20555 '

%,s SAFETY EVALUATION BY THE CFFICE OF f;UCLEAR REACTOR REGULATICN..

RELATED TO AfiENDMENT NO.132' TO FACILITY OPERATIf;0 LICENSE NO.- EPR-32 ALD AMENDMENT NO.132 TO FACILITY OPERATING LICENSE H0. OPR-37 VIRGINI A ELECTRIC AND POWER COMPANY SURRY POWER STATION, UNIT NOS. I AND 2-j DOCKET h05. 50-280 AND 50-281 l

' INTRODUCTION

'The licensee, the Virginia Electric and Fewer Company, in its submittal dated

~

April: 6,1989,. proposed to amend the Technical. Specifications (TS) to facility Operating License Nos. DPR-32 and DPR-37.. The proposed amendments would modify the requirement for dry rotation testing of the inside recirculation spray pumps (IRSFs) from monthly to quarterly, and add a requirement to perform-full flow testing of the IRSPs each refueling outage. The approval of-the. full flow testing of the IRSPs on a refueling outage frequency also requires the granting 'of relief from the quarterly flow testing requirements of the FSffE Boiler and Pressure Tessel Code which is addressed below.

In addition, the proposed amendrents will require a visual inspection of the containment sumps each refueling outage and after major maintenance of the IRSPs to verify sump comper,ent integrity and the absence of foreign debris.

The aropos"ed revision to change.the ' dry rotation testing of the IRSPs from acr.t11y to ouarterly was also requested in an earlier amendment application end was approved in Amendment Nos.128 and 128 dated May 24,1989. Consequently, this Evaluation addresses only the remaining.peoposed revisions cited above.

y, y

EVALUATION

. Es The Code of Federal Regulations in 10 CFR 50.55a(g) requires that inservice h;.dk[

{"

testing (IST) of ASME Code Class 1, 2 and 3 pumps and valves shall be perforried in-accordance with Section XI of the ASME Boiler and Pressure Vessel Code and i

@75 applichble addenda, except where specific written relief has'been requested by

-CO l

the licensee and granted by the Commission pursuant to 10 CFR 50.EEa, In L

pc requesting relief, the licensee must demonstrate that confornance with certain M

requirements of the applicable Code edition and addenda is impractical for its facility. - Regulations in 10 CFR 50.55(g)(6)(i) and 10 CFR 50.55a(3)(i) authorize lt to-the Conraission to grant relief from these requirements and approve alternatives Upon making the necessary findings.

L Section XI cf the ASME Code requires, among other things, that the IRSPs be flow tested on. a quarterly frequency. The IRSPs are located inside the subatmospheric containment.

Flow testing of these pumps would require shutting down the facility as well as physical modifications of the pumps discharge p'iping and the erection of a temporary dike to contain the recirculated water.

i m

[..

e m

. The licensee stated that the length of time required to set-up for the test, perform the test, and then reconfigure the system for normal operation is I-L prohibitive to conducting the test on a quarterly basis or even during short l.

duration cold shutdown periods. Alternately, the licensee has proposed to l

l perform the flow test: on a refueling outage frequency and perform an overhaul of the pumps once every 5 years as part of routine maintenance to provide further assurance of continued pump operability.

Due to system design, compli-ance with the Code-required testing is impractical for the licensee since the I

testing would require quarterly shutdown and containment entry.

Based on the impracticality of complying with the Code-required testing frequency, the i

licensee's proposed alternate testing of verifying pump operability during refueling outages, and the overhauling of the pumps every 5 years, relief is granted from the Code requirements os requested for the IRSPs at Surry Units 1 I

l and 2 pursuant to 10 CFR 50.55a(g)(6)(1). This relief is authorized by law and will not endanger life or property or the common defense and security and is I

otherwise in the public interest given due consideration to the burden upon the licensee that could result it the requirements were imposed on the facility.

In addition, the Surry Unit 1 and Unit 2 TS do not currently require a full flow test of the IRSPs.

The staff finds that the licensee's proposal to amend the TS to require a full flow test of these pumps on a refue~ ling outage frequency to be acceptable.

l l

The licensee has also proposed to add a TS to require that a visuai inspection i

of the containment sump, including the inside containment recirculation spray pump wells and the engineered safeguards system suction inlets, be perforced at least once eacn refueling period and/or after major maintenance activities in the containment. The inspection would verify that the containment sump and pump wells are free of debris that could degrade the containment spray system operation anc that the sump components (i.e., trash racks, screens) are properly installed and show no sign of structural distress or excessive corrosion. The staff finds that these additional inspections will enhance pump operability and reliability and therefore finds the proposeo revision to the TS to require the above-cited visual inspection acceptable.

E!N RONM_ ENTAL CONSIDERATION These amenoments involve a change in the installation or use of the facilities ccmponents located within the restricted areas as defined in 10 CFR Part 20.

Thc staff has determined that these 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 raciation exposure. The Commission has previously I

issued a proposed finding that these amendments involve no significant hazards considerations-and there has been no public comment on such finding. According ly,

hese 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 cr environmental assessment need be prepared in connection with the issuance of these amendments.

1 i

i

-~A---___-______-__L.-____.____-.____--_______.

.A

e..

. CONCLUSION We have concluded, based on the considerations discussed above, that:

(1) there is reasonable assurance that the neelth and safety of the public will not be endangered by operation in the proposed inanner, and (2) such activities will be conducted in-complier.ce with the Commission'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.

l Dated: August 23, 1989 Principal Contributor:

B. Buckley i

1 l

I i

j l

l I

1 j

1

(

l l

1 Eu____

--_________--_-______._______--___-._--__--_--__---_____--_-_--.-_-_o