ML18152A388

Monthly Operating Repts for Jul 1991 for Surry Power Station Units 1 & 2.W/910815 Ltr

ML18152A388
Person / Time
Site:	Surry
Issue date:	07/31/1991
From:	Negron M, Stewart W VIRGINIA POWER (VIRGINIA ELECTRIC & POWER CO.)
To:	NRC OFFICE OF INFORMATION RESOURCES MANAGEMENT (IRM)
References
91-468, NUDOCS 9108210171
Download: ML18152A388 (27)

Text

.. ". -' . e e . \ *" VIRGINIA ELECTRIC AND POWER COMPANY RICHMOND, VIRGINIA 23261 August 15, 1991 U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission Attention:

Document Control Desk Washington, D. C. 20555 Gentlemen:

VIRGINIA ELECTRIC AND POWER COMPANY SURRY POWER STATION UNITS 1 AND 2 MONTHLY OPERATING REPORT Serial No. NO/RPC:vlh Docket Nos. License Nos.91-468 50-280 50-281 DPR-32 DPR-37 Enclosed in Attachment 1 is the Monthly Operating Report for Surry Power Station Units 1 and 2 for the month of July 1991. Attachment 2 includes one corrected page from the Monthly Operating Report for Surry Power Station Units 1 and 2 for the month of June 1991 submitted to you in a letter (Serial No.91-389) dated July 15, 1991. Very truly yours, 0\-S-~ W. L. Stewart Senior Vice President

-Nuclear Attachments

1. July 1991 Monthly Operating Report 2. Corrected Page -June 1991 cc: U. S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission Region II 101 Marietta Street, N. W. Suite 2900 Atlanta, Georgia 30323 Mr. M. W. Branch NRG Senior Resident Inspector Surry Power Station ~1Q821Q!?1 91073~1~~

~. Dh ADui_:1< 0!.50002:::0

] ' F'DR I I -ATTACHMENT 1

,, I' ,, . e e VIRGINIA ELECTRIC AND POWER COMPANY SURRY POWER STATION MONTHLY OPERATING REPORT REPORT NO. 91-07 Approved:

~j_C_Q ---<;;:-°t-°l\ Station Manager Date

/ e TABLE OF CONTENTS Section e Surry Monthly Operating Report No. 91-07 Page 2 of 23 Page Operating Data Report -Unit No. 1 .........................................................................................................

3 Operating Data Report -Unit No. 2 .........................................................................................................

4 Unit Shutdowns and Power Reductions

-Unit No. 1 ....................................................................................

5 Unit Shutdowns and Power Reductions

-Unit No. 2 ....................................................................................

6 Average Daily Unit Power Level -Unit No. 1 ..............................................................................................

7 Average Daily Unit Power Level -Unit No. 2 ..............................................................................................

8 Summary of Operating Experience

-Unit No. 1 .........................................................................................

9 Summary of Operating Experience

-Unit No. 2 .........................................................................................

9 Facility Changes That Did Not Require NRC Approval.

..............................................................................

12 Procedure or Method of Operation Changes That Did Not Require NRC Approval .....................

_ ......................

19 Tests and Experiments That Did Not Require NRC Approval ......................................................................

20 Chemistry Report .............................................................................................................................

21 Fuel Handling -Unit No. 1 ...................................................................................................................

22 Fuel Handling -Unit No. 2 ...................................................................................................................

22 Description of Periodic Test(s) Which Were Not Completed Within the Time Limits Specified in Technical Specifications

...................................................................................................

23 I. -e Surry Monthly Operating Report No. 91-07 Page 3 of 23 OPERATING DATA REPORT 1. Unit Name: .................................................. . 2. Reporting Period: ......................................... . 3. Licensed Thermal Power (MWt): ...................... . 4. Nameplate Rating (Gross MWe): ...................... . 5. Design Electrical Rating (Net MWe): ................. . 6. Maximum Dependable Capacity (Gross MWe): ... . 7. Maximum Dependable Capacity (Net MWe): ....... . Surry Unit 1 July 1991 2441 847.5 788 820 781 Docket No.: Date: Completed By: Telephone:

50-280 08-06-91 M.A. Negron 804-365-2795

8. If Changes Occur in Capacity Ratings (Items Number 3 Through 7) Since Last Report, Give Reasons: 9. Power Level To Which Restricted, If Any (Net MWe): 10. Reasons For Restrictions, If Any: ' 11. Hours In Reporting Period ......................... . 12. Number of Hours Reactor Was Critical ......... . 13. Reactor Reserve Shutdown Hours .............. . 14. Hours Generator On-Line .......................... . 15. Unit Reserve Shutdown Hours .................... . 16. Gross Thermal Energy Generated (MWH) ..... . 17. Gross Electrical Energy Generated (MWH) ... . 18. Net Electrical Energy Generated (MWH) ....... . 19. Unit Service Factor .................................. . 20. Unit Availability Factor .............................. . 21. Unit Capacity Factor (Using MDC Net) .......... . 22. Unit Capacity Factor (Using DER Net) .......... . 23. Unit Forced Outage Rate ........................... . This Month 744.0 744.0 0.0 744.0 0.0 1752598.0 559705.0 529815.0 100.0% 100.0% 91.2% 90.4% 0.0% YID 5087.0 5087.0 0.0 5087.0 0.0 12276864.4 4092000.0 3887615.0 100.0% 100.0% 97.9% 97.0% 0.0% 24. Shutdowns Scheduled Over Next 6 Months (Type, Date, and Duration of Each): 25. If Shut Down at End of Report Period Estimated Date of Start-up:

26. Unit In Test Status (Prior to Commercial Operation):

Cumulative 163103.0 104561.2 3774.5 102567.2 3736.2 238496774.7 77668823.0 73670744.0 62.9% 65.2% 58.3% 57.3% 19.8% FORECAST INITIAL CRITICALITY ACHIEVED INITIAL ELECTRICITY COMMERCIAL OPERATION

• 4'surry Monthly Operating Report No. 91-07 Page 4of 23 OPERATING DATA REPORT 1. Unit Name: .................................................. . 2. Reporting Period: ........................................

.. 3. Licensed Thermal Power (MWt): ...................... . 4. Nameplate Rating (Gross MWe): ...................... . 5. Design Electrical Rating (Net MWe): ................

.. 6. Maximum Dependable Capacity (Gross MWe): .. .. 7. Maximum Dependable Capacity (Net MWe): ...... .. Surry Unit 2 July 1991 2441 847.5 788 820 781 Docket No.: Date: Completed By: Telephone:

50-281 08-06-91 M.A. Negron 804-365-2795

8. If Changes Occur in Capacity Ratings (Items Number 3 Through 7) Since Last Report, Give Reasons: 9. Power Level To Which Restricted, If Any (Net MWe): 10. Reasons For Restrictions, If Any: 11. Hours In Reporting Period ........................

.. 12. Number of Hours Reactor Was Critical ........ .. 13. Reactor Reserve Shutdown Hours .............. . 14. Hours Generator On-Line .......................... . 15. Unit Reserve Shutdown Hours .................... . 16. Gross Thermal Energy Generated (MWH) ..... . 17. Gross Electrical Energy Generated (MWH) .. .. 18. Net Electrical Energy Generated (MWH) ...... .. 19. Unit Service Factor .................................. . 20. Unit Availability Factor .............................. . 21. Unit Capacity Factor (Using MDC Net) .......... . 22. Unit Capacity Factor (Using DER Net) .......... . 23. Unit Forced Outage Rate ..........................

.. This Month 744.0 679.1 0.0 670.5 0.0 1525181.4 487605.0 462774.0 90.1% 90.1% 79.6% 78.9% 9.9% YTD 5087.0 2942.8 0.0 2855.8 0.0 6063355.5 2011995.0 1907594.0 56.1% 56.1% 48.0% 47.6% 16.6% Cumulative 159983.0 102115.1 328.1 100426.4 0.0 234198823.8 76242109.0 72286319.0 62.8% 62.8% 58.0% 57.3% 15.3% 24. Shutdowns Scheduled Over Next 6 Months (Type, Date, and Duration of Each): ) 25. If Shut Down at End of Report Period Estimated Date of Start-up:

26. Unit In Test Status (Prior to Commercial Operation):

FORECAST INITIAL CRITICALITY INITIAL ELECTRICITY COMMERCIAL OPERATION ACHIEVED (1) Date Type 7-19-91 s 7-26-91 s 7-29-91 s (1) F: Forced S: Scheduled (4) -4tsurry Monthly Operating Report No. 91-07 Page 5 of 23 UNIT SHUTDOWN AND POWER REDUCTION

{EQUAL To OR GREATER THAN 20%) REPORT MONTH: July 1991 (2) (3) (4) (5) Method Docket No.: 50-280 Unit Name: Surry Unit 1 Date: 08-06-91 Completed by: M. A. Negron Telephone:

804-365-2795 Duration of LEA System Component Cause & Corrective Action to Hours 0 0 0 Reason Shutting No. Code Code Prevent Recurrence B B B (2) REASON: Down Rx 4 NIA 4 N/A 4 N/A A -Equipment Failure (Explain)

B Maintenance or Test C Refueling D Regulatory Restriction SH HX SH HX EL BDUC E Operator Training & Licensing Examination F Administrative G Operational Error (Explain)

Reduced unit power to 65% power/485 MWe to maintain condenser vacuum while cleaning water boxes. Reduced unit power to 71 % power/540 MWe to maintain condenser vacuum while cleaning water boxes. Reduced unit power to 73% power/550 MWe to perform ground strap maintenance on the isolated phase bus duct. (3) METHOD: 1 -Manual 2 -Manual Scram. 3 -Automatic Scram. 4 -Other (Explain)

(5) Exhibit G -Instructions for Preparation of Data Entry Sheets for Licensee Event Report (LEA) File (NUREG 0161) Exhibit 1 -Same Source.

(1) &urry Monthly Operating Report No. 91-07 Page 6 of 23 UNIT SHUTDOWN AND POWER REDUCTION (EQUAL To OR GREATER THAN 20%) REPORT MONTH: July 1991 (2) (3) (4) (5) Method Docket No.: 50-281 Unit Name: Surry Unit 2 Date: 08-06-91 Completed by: M. A. Negron Telephone:

804-365-2795 Duration of LER System Component Cause & Corrective Action to Date Type Hours 7-1-91 F 73.5 7-12-91 s 0 7-20-91 s 0 (1) F: Forced S: Scheduled Reason Shutting No. C B B (2) REASON: Down Rx* 4 NIA 4 NIA 4 NIA A -Equipment Failure (Explain)

B Maintenance or Test C Refueling D Regulatory Restriction Code Code Prevent Recurrence AA DRIV SH HX SH HX Unit was in a forced refueling shutdown (RSD) to relatch the driveshaft to the control rod at core location F-6. The unit was brought on line on 7-4-91 at 0131 hours0.00152 days <br />0.0364 hours <br />2.166005e-4 weeks <br />4.98455e-5 months <br />. Reduced unit power to 75% powerl600 MWe to maintain condenser vacuum while cleaning water boxes. Reduced unit power to 80% powerl615MWe to maintain condenser vacuum while cleaning water boxes. (3) METHOD: 1 -Manual 2 -Manual Scram. 3 -Automatic Scram. 4 -Other (Explain)

E Operator Training & Licensing Examination F Administrative G Operational Error (Explain)

(4) Exhibit G -Instructions for Preparation of Data Entry Sheets for Licensee Event Report (LER) File (NU REG 0161) (5) Exhibit 1 -Same Source.

Month: July 1991 Day 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 INSTRUCTIONS -Surry Monthly Operating Report No. 91-07 Page 7of 23 AVERAGE DAILY UNIT POWER LEVEL Docket No.: 50-280 Unit Name: Surry Unit 1 Date: 08-06-91 Completed by: M.A. Negron Telephone:

804-365-2795 Average Daily Power Level Average Daily Power Level (MWe-Net) Day (MWe-Net) 742.5 17 735.7 753.2 18 733.5 749.6 19 709.3 751.8 20 473.2 752.9 21 594.8 748.1 22 736.8 742.3 23 732.4 739.0 24 733.5 738.0 25 737.1 738.1 26 710.8 736.8 27 531.4 735.6 28 680.3 737.3 29 622.4 733.6 30 718.0 734.1 31 758.5 735.3 On this format, list the average daily unit power level in MWe -Net for each day in the reporting month. Compute to the nearest whole megawatt.

• esurry Monthly Operating Report . No. 91-07 Page 8 of 23 AVERAGE DAILY UNIT POWER LEVEL Docket No.: 50-281 Unit Name: Surry Unit 2 Date: 08-06-91 Completed by: M.A. Negron Telephone:

804-365-2795 Month: July 1991 Average Daily Power Level Average Daily Power Level Day (MWe-Net) Day (MWe-Net) 1 0.0 17 756.4 2 0.0 18 752.3 3 0.0 19 748.3 4 233.7 20 731.3 5 464.9 21 709.8 6 471.8 22 748.6 7 689.1 23 744.1 8 715.5 24 746.5 9 700.2 25 747.4 10 677.0 26 752.8 11 695.2 27 752.1 12 717.6 28 707.8 13 616.1 29 764.8 14 635.1 30 761.3 15 736.4 31 758.0 16 748.3 INSTRUCTIONS On this format, list the average daily unit power level in MWe -Net for each day in the reporting month. Compute to the nearest whole megawatt.

\ . e Surry Monthly Operating Report No. 91-07 Page 9 of 23

SUMMARY

OF OPERATING EXPERIENCE MONTH/YEAR:

July 1991 Listed below in chronological sequence by unit is a summary of operating experiences for this month which required load reductions or resulted in significant non-load related incidents.

UNIT ONE 07-01-91 07-19-91 07-20-91 07-26-91 07-27-91 07-28-91 07-29-91 07-31-91 UNIT TWO 07-01-91 07-02-91 07-03-91 0000 2020 2208 This report period started with the Unit opeating at 100% power and 795 MWe. Started ramp down to maintain condenser vacuum while cleaning waterboxes; 100% power, 775 MWe. Started ramp up; 65% power, 485 MWe. 221 O Stopped ramp; 100% power, 780 MWe. 2035 1920 0630 Started ramp down to maintain condenser vacuum while cleaning waterboxes; 100% power, 760 MWe. Started ramp up; 71 % power, 540 MWe. Stopped ramp; 100% power, 780 MWe. 0830 Started ramp down to maintain condenser vacuum while cleaning waterboxes; 100% power, 775 MWe. 1700 Stopped ramp; 90% power, 700 MWe. 1107 Started ramp down to perform maintenance on Isolated Phase Bus Duct ground straps; 91% power, 700 MWe. 1250 Stopped ramp; 73% power, 550 MWe. 1949 Started ramp up after ground strap maintenance was completed; 72% power, 560 MWe. 2100 Stopped ramp; 100% power, 780 MWe. 2400 0000 0614 This report period ended with the Unit operating at 100% power and 795 MWe. This report period started with the Unit at Cold Shutdown (CSD). Unit began heat up from 200°F. 2308 Unit at Hot Shutdown (HSD). 1652 Reactor critical.

\ . UNIT TWO 07-04-91 0131 0225 1113 07-07-91 1359 07-09-91 1723 2340 07-10-91 0555 0958 2150 2332 07-11-91 0310 0830 2210 2310 07-12-91 0320 0530 2150 07-13-91 1500 1815 07-14-91 0530 1810 esurry Monthly Operating Report No. 91-07 Page 10 of 23

SUMMARY

OF OPERATING EXPERIENCE MONTH/YEAR:

July 1991 [continued]

Unit on line and ramping up. Stopped at 30% power for flux mapping. Started ramp up; 30% power, 195 MWe. Unit at 99.5% power, 780 MWe. Started ramp down to maintain condenser vacuum while cleaning waterboxes; 99% power, 760 Mwe. Stopped ramp; 83% power, 640 MWe. Started ramp up; 83% power, 630 MWe. Stopped ramp at 97.8% power due to receipt of B loop High Delta T computer alarms. Started ramp down to maintain condenser vacuum while cleaning waterboxes; 97.4% power, 760 MWe. Stopped ramp; 82% power, 630 MWe. Started ramp up; 82% power, 630 MWe. Stopped ramp at 97.5% power due to receipt of B loop High Delta T computer alarm. Started ramp down to maintain condenser vacuum while cleaning waterboxes; 97.5% power, 770 MWe. Stopped ramp; 93% power, 720 MWe. Started ramp up; 93% power, 730 MWe. Stopped ramp; 97.5% power, 780 MWe. Started ramp down to maintain condenser vacuum while cleaning waterboxes; 97.5% power, 745 MWe. Stopped ramp; 75% power, 600 MWe. Started ramp up; 75% power, 600 MWe. Stopped ramp; 97% power, 780 MWe. Ramped unit up to 100% power, 800 MWe after inserting revised setpoints for B loop Delta T.

UNIT TWO 07-20-91 07-21-91 07-28-91 07-31-91 2200 e Surry Monthly Operating Report No. 91-07 Page 11 of 23

SUMMARY

OF OPERATING EXPERIENCE MONTH/YEAR:

July 1991 [continued]

Started ramp down to maintain condenser vacuum while cleaning waterboxes; 100% power, 790 MWe. 2328 Stopped ramp; 80% power, 615 MWe. 0320 Started ramp up; 83% power, 650 MWe. 091 O Stopped ramp; 100% power, 780 MWe. 0505 Started ramp down to maintain condenser vacuum while cleaning waterboxes; 100% power, 790 MWe. 0615 Stopped ramp; 87% power, 680 MWe. 1542 Started ramp up; 87.7% power, 719 MWe. 1643 Stopped ramp; 100% power, 800 MWe. 2400 This report period ended with the Unit operating at 100% power and 800 MWe.

4tsurry Monthly Operating Report No. 91-07 Page 12 of 23 FACILITY CHANGES THAT DID NOT REQUIRE NRC APPROVAL MONTH/YEAR:

July 1991 FS 89-72 AC S1-91-0219A AC S1 0702 FS 89-58 FS 90-32 UFSAR Change 02-07-91 (Safety Evaluation 91-022) The Updated Final Safety Analysis Report (UFSAR) section 11.3.5 was revised to be consistent with the Radiological Environmental Monitoring Program, Technical Specifications, and associated procedures.

The changes were made to more accurately reflect current offsite environmental monitoring practices.

No physical changes were made to the station. Therefore, an unreviewed safety question does not exist. Administrative Control (Safety Evaluation No.91-031 A) 02-19-91 .. Administrative Control will be established over the fire actuated automatic closure valve (1-SW-236), the Service Water (SW) cross-connect for the charging pumps/service water pumps. Manual control of the valve will keep it in the open position to allow maintenance work to be performed in Mechanical Equipment Room (MER) Number 3. A fire watch will be posted in MER No. 3 and, in the event of a fire, the Control Room will be notified and the valve will be closed. This change will not interrupt or reduce SW flow and does not affect the UFSAR accident analyses.

Therefore, an unreviewed safety question is not created. UFSAR Change 03-19-91 (Safety Evaluation 91-058) The Updated Final Safety Analysis Report (UFSAR) section 10.3.1.4 was revised to incorporate new hydrazine concentration specifications (recommended by Westinghouse) for steam generators while in wet layup. This change does not alter the operation of plant equipment and an analysis of this change determined that there would be no adverse effects on steam generator corrosion rates. Therefore, an unreviewed safety question does not exist. UFSAR Change 03-17-91 (Safety Evaluation 91-060) The Updated Final Safety Analysis Report (UFSAR) sections 6.3, 14.3, 14.5.2, 14.5.5, and 148 Appendix was revised to be more consistent with the Technical Specifications regarding Refueling Water Storage Tank (RWST) temperature limits. This change was administrative in nature and did not affect existing Technical Specifications limits or UFSAR analyses.

Therefore, an unreviewed safety question does not exist.

FS 90-15 FS 90-16 FS 90-17 FS 90-13 e Surry Monthly Operating Report No. 91-07 Page 13 of 23 FACILITY CHANGES THAT DID NOT REQUIRE NRC APPROVAL MONTH/YEAR:

July 1991 [continued]

UFSAR Change 04-23-91 (Safety Evaluation 91-099) The Updated Final Safety Analysis Report (UFSAR) section 7.2 was revised to incorporate changes identified by the UFSAR Verification Project. The changes were administrative or editorial in nature and made for clarification purposes only. No physical changes were made to the station. Therefore an unreviewed safety question does not exist. UFSAR Change 04-23-91 (Safety Evaluation 91-100) The Updated Final Safety Analysis Report (UFSAR) section 7.4 was revised to incorporate changes identified by the UFSAR Verification Project. The changes were administrative or editorial in nature and made to provide consistency between the UFSAR and design documents.

No physical changes to the station were made. Therefore an unreviewed safety question does not exist. UFSAR Change 04-23-91 (Safety Evaluation 91-101) The Updated Final Safety Analysis Report (UFSAR) section 7.4 was revised to incorporate changes identified by the UFSAR Verification Project. The changes were administrative or editorial in nature and made for . clarification purposes only. No physical changes were made to the station. Therefore an unreviewed safety question does not exist. UFSAR Change 04-23-91 (Safety Evaluation 91-102) The Updated Final Safety Analysis Report (UFSAR) section 7.2 was revised to incorporate changes identified by the UFSAR Verification Project. The changes were administrative or editorial in nature and made to provide consistency between the UFSAR and design documents.

No physical changes to the station were made. Therefore an unreviewed safety question does not exist.

FS 90-18 FS 90-20 FS 90-23 FS 90-19 e ----------

e Surry Monthly Operating Report No. 91-07 Page 14of 23 FACILITY CHANGES THAT DID NOT REQUIRE NRC APPROVAL MONTH/YEAR:

July 1991 [continued]

UFSAR Change 05-07-91 (Safety Evaluation 91-114) The Updated Final Safety Analysis Report (UFSAR) section 7.5 was revised to incorporate changes identified by the UFSAR Verification Project. The changes were administrative or editorial in nature and made for clarification and correctional purposes only. No physical changes to the station were made. Therefore an unreviewed safety question does not exist. UFSAR Change 05-07-91 (Safety Evaluation 91-115) _ .The Updated Final Safety Analysis Report (UFSAR) section 7.7 was revised to incorporate changes identified by the UFSAR Verification Project. The changes were administrative or editorial in nature and made to provide consistency between the UFSAR and the Surry Power Station Appendix R Report. No physical changes in the plant were made. Therefore an unreviewed safety question does not exist. UFSAR Change 05-07-91 (Safety Evaluation 91-116) The Updated Final Safety Analysis Report (UFSAR) section 7.2 was revised to incorporate changes identified by the UFSAR Verification Project. The changes were administrative or editorial in nature and made to provide consistency between the UFSAR and plant operations.

No physical changes to the station were made. Therefore an unreviewed safety question does not exist. UFSAR Change 06-11-91 (Safety Evaluation 91-154) The Updated Final Safety Analysis Report (UFSAR)section 7.5 was revised to incorporate changes identified by the UFSAR Verification Project. The changes were administrative or editorial in nature and made to clarify wording and correct setpoints stated in the UFSAR. No physical changes to the station were made. Therefore an unreviewed safety question does not exist.

FS 90-75 , * . EWR 91-087 e e Surry Monthly Operating Report No. 91-07 Page 15 of 23 FACILITY CHANGES THAT DID NOT REQUIRE NRC APPROVAL MONTH/YEAR:

July 1991 (continued)

UFSAR Change 06-11-91 (Safety Evaluation 91-155) The Updated Final Safety Analysis Report (UFSAR) was revised to add a new section 15A.3.4.4, "Use of Seismic Experience Data", as an alternate method for seismic verification of mechanical and electrical equipment.

This change incorporates a methodology for performing seismic verification of equipment using seismic experience data. This methodology was provided by the NRC in Generic Letter 87-02. Since this revision represents only a methodology of assessment and no modifications were made to the plant, an unreviewed safety question does not exist. ... Engineering Work Request 06-26-91 (Safety Evaluation Nos.91-165, 91-166) This Engineering Work Request (EWR) replaced the original control rod guide tube insert at Unit 2 reactor core location F-6 with a new (flexure-less) design. This EWR also evaluated the operation of Unit 2 with failed or broken flexure heads (assuming the flexure heads become nonfunctional during operation).

This modification replaced the original guide tube insert design with an enhanced insert design which equivalently performs the function.

It was also concluded that even with failed guide tube flexures or the loose parts they may generate, assurance existed that safe operation of Unit 2 can continue without creating the possibility of a new accident or increasing the probability or consequences of a previously evaluated accident.

Therefore, an unreviewed safety question is not created. AC S2-91-0708 Administrative Control (Safety Evaluation No.91-171) 07-09-91 Upon removal of the missile shield, Administrative Control will be established over the Unit 2 "A" Recirculation Spray (RS)/Service Water (SW) Valve Pit to allow an inspection of the valve pit sump level. This inspection is being performed as part of an investigation as to the cause of the valve pit Hi Level alarm actuation.

The missile shield is a passive component required to protect RS/SW piping during adverse weather conditions.

Only blank flanged RS/SW piping exists in the "A" valve pit and personnel and equipment will be available to replace the shield if adverse weather conditions approach the plant. Therefore, an unreviewed safety question is not created.

e Surry Monthly Operating Report No. 91-07 Page 16 of 23 FACILITY CHANGES THAT DID NOT REQUIRE NRC APPROVAL MONTH/YEAR:

July 1991 TM S2-91-29 EWR 91-022 TM S2-91-30 [continued)

Temporary Modification (Safety Evaluation No.91-174) 07-12-91 This Temporary Modification (TM) removes the internals from failed valve 2-CP-PCV-221 to allow air flow from air compressor 2-CP-C-1 to the Condensate Polishing air system. This TM does not affect safety-related equipment or accident analyses and will be used only until a replacement valve is procured.

Therefore, an unreviewed safety question is not created. Engineering Work Request (Safety Evaluation Nos.91-043) 07-18-91 This Engineering Work Request (EWR) capped auxiliary steam piping supply and return lines to the Waste Disposal Evaporator Reboiler (1-LW-E-1) to prevent steam and/or water leaks associated with this component.

As stated in the UFSAR, the Waste Disposal Evaporator Reboiler is no longer used. Capping the supply and return lines will reduce ALARA concerns and help prevent personnel injury caused by steam and/or water leaks. This modification will not affect other plant equipment and will not reduce the margin of safety described in the Technical Specifications.

Therefore an unreviewed safety question does not exist. Temporary Modification (Safety Evaluation No.91-178) 07-22-91 This Temporary Modification (TM) reduces the Unit 2 Main Steam (MS) line high flow Safety Injection setpoint due to the uncertainty associated with the existing scaling of the MS flow transmitters.

This TM will be effective until further analysis is completed and, if necessary, new setpoints are established.

This change does not affect accident analyses and provides additional conservatism and assurance that associated plant Technical Specifications are not violated.

Therefore, an unreviewed safety question is not created.

esurry Monthly Operating Report No. 91-07 Page 17of 23 FACILITY CHANGES THAT DID NOT REQUIRE NRC APPROVAL MONTH/YEAR:

July 1991 TM S1-91-13 TM S1-91s14 TM S2-91-31 [continued]

Temporary Modification (Safety Evaluation No.91-179) 07-23-91 This Temporary Modification (TM) reduces the Unit 1 Main Steam (MS) line high flow Safety Injection setpoint due to the uncertainty associated with the existing scaling of the MS flow transmitters.

This TM will be effective until further analysis is completed and, if necessary, new setpoints are established.

This change does not affect accident analyses and provides additional conservatism and assurance that associated plant Technical Specifications are not violated.

Therefore, an unreviewed safety question is not created. Temporary Modification (Safety Evaluation No.91-180) 07-24-91 This Temporary Modification (TM) mechanically wires open damper 1-VS-D-41 in the Unit 1 Main Steam Valve house to ensure adequate ventilation is provided to maintain the ambient air temperature for the auxiliary feedwater pumps in accordance with the station blackout analysis.

This TM will ensure the damper is not inadvertently closed during plant operation and will be replaced with a permanent mechanical device following preparation and approval of design change documents.

The damper is not safety-related and its operation is not discussed in the UFSAR. Therefore, an unreviewed safety question is not created. Temporary Modification 07-24-91 . (Safety Evaluation No.91-181) This Temporary Modification (TM) mechanically wires open damper 2-VS-D-41 in the Unit 2 Main Steam Valve house to ensure adequate ventilation is provided to maintain the ambient air temperature for the auxiliary feedwater pumps in l accordance with the station blackout analysis.

This TM will ensure the damper is not inadvertently closed during plant operation and will be replaced with a permanent mechanical device following preparation and approval of design change documents.

The damper is not safety-related and its operation is not discussed in the UFSAR. Therefore, an unreviewed safety question is not created.

) e e Surry Monthly Operating Report No. 91-07 Page 18 of 23 FACILITY CHANGES THAT DID NOT REQUIRE NRC APPROVAL MONTH/YEAR:

July 1991 TM S2-91-32 TM S2-91-33 [continued]

Temporary Modification (Safety Evaluation No.91-182) 07-25-91 This Temporary Modification (TM) changes the scale range of Unit 2 Component Cooling (CC) system flow transmitters, 2-CC-FT-230A and 2-CC-FT-230B, to allow ASME Section XI testing. This change is temporary to provide an appropriate range required for an acceptable ASME Section XI flow test. The transmitters provide flow indication for CC system pumps, 2-CC-P-2A and 2-CC-P-2B, and will not affect the operation or performance of the pumps. These flow indications are Category "D" Regulatory Guide (RG) 1.97 variables.

Upon completion of the testing, the transmitters will be rescaled to comply with the current design requirements of RG 1.97 variables.

Therefore, an unreviewed safety question is not created.

.) ... 1-PT-29.1 e Surry Monthly Operating Report No. 91-07 Page 19 of:23 PROCEDURES OR METHOD OF OPERATION CHANGES THAT DID NOT REQUIRE NRC APPROVAL MONTH/YEAR:

July 1991 Periodic Test Procedure (Safety Evaluation No.91-170) 07-02-91 A change to Periodic Test Procedure 1-PT-29.1, Turbine Inlet Valve Stroke and Oil Pump Autostart Test, was implemented to allow postponement of the test due to difficulties associated with the failure of the turbine control system speed channels.

An independent evaluation, performed by Westinghouse (also used in the Owners Group Study, WCAP-11525, "Probabilistic Evaluation of Reduction in Turbine Valve Test Frequency"), determined that the probability of a turbine missile ejection event will not increase above the probability assumed in the UFSAR or the acceptance criteria developed by the NRC. This analysis demonstrates that it is acceptable to defer the performance of the subject test until October 4, 1991. Therefore, an unreviewed safety question is not created.

-' e Surry Monthly Operating Report No. 91-07 Page 20of 23 TESTS AND EXPERIMENTS THAT DID NOT REQUIRE NRC APPROVAL MONTH/YEAR:

July 1991 None During This Reporting Period.

Primarv Coolant Analvsis Gross Radioact., uCi/ml Susoended Solids, oom Gross Tritium, uCi/ml 1131, uCi/ml 113111133 HvdroQen, cc/kg Lithium, oom Boron -10, oom* Oxvaen, COO), oom Chloride, oom oH at 25 decree Celsius Boron -1 O = Total Boron x 0.196 Comments:

Unit 1: No Comments.

CHEMISTRY REPORT MONTH/YEAR:

July 1991 Unit No.1 Max. Min. Avg. 6.58E-1 4.05E-1 5.25E-1 0.0 0.0 0.0 3.33E-1 2.40E-1 2.77E-1 3.51 E-3 1.63E-3 2.21E-3 0.13 0.07 0.09 40.9 26.9 32.5 2.34 2.07 2.19 105 89 96 <0.005 <0.005 <0.005 0.003 <0.001 0.002 7.02 6.87 6.95 -Surry Monthly Operating Report No. 91-07 Page 21 of 23 Unit No. 2 Max. Min. Avg. 2.24E-1 4.93E-4 1.10E-1 0.0 0.0 0.0 2.48E-1 5.51E-2 1.53E-1 5.91 E-4 1.05E-04 3.02E-4 0.17 0.07 0.10 41.2 15.5 27.8 3.50 1.07 2.29 492 258 310 0.080 <0.005 0.013 0.005 <0.001 0.002 6.32 5.39 6.18 Unit 2: Lithium concentration on 7-3-91 was not within the recommended band during reactor startup. The band was 3.07 to 3.37 ppm for a Boron concentration of 1870 ppm. Lithium hydroxide was added to increase the Lithium concentration from 2.73 to 3.37 ppm. Lithium was out-of-spec for 3 hours3.472222e-5 days <br />8.333333e-4 hours <br />4.960317e-6 weeks <br />1.1415e-6 months <br /> and 15 minutes. The Dissolved Hydrogen concentration was also out-of-specification low during reactor startup. On 7-3-91, at 1705, the hydrogen concentration was 21.2 cc/kg. The specification for reactor critical is 25-50 cc/kg. The hydrogen was in specification on 7-4-91 at 0315 and was out-of-specification for a total of 1 O hours and 10 minutes. The Lithium concentration was out-of-specification high on 7-5-91 at 0820. The Cation resin exchange bed was placed in service to bring the Lithium concentration to within the band. Lithium was out-of-specification for a total of 7 hours8.101852e-5 days <br />0.00194 hours <br />1.157407e-5 weeks <br />2.6635e-6 months <br /> and 1 O minutes.

Units One and Two Cask Stored FUEL HANDLING UNITS 1 & 2 MONTH/YEAR:

July 1991 Number for Assemblies per Shipment Assembly Number ANSI Number None during this reporting period. e Surry Monthly Operating Report No. 91-07 Page 22 of 23 Nominal Initial Enrichment New or Spent Fuel Shipping Cask Activity

... , e Surry Monthly Operating Report No. 91-07 Page 23of 23 DESCRIPTION OF PERIODIC TEST(S) WHICH WERE NOT COMPLETED WITHIN THE TIME LIMITS SPECIFIED IN TECHNICAL SPECIFICATIONS MONTH/YEAR:

July 1991 None During This Reporting Period.

,

• e :' ' ATTACHMENT 2 CORRECTED PAGE t::J.. ' , J....,,,,\

• .. -.., ,.? ,. .. ..

• Surry Monthly Operating Report No. 91-06 Page 4of 22 OPERATING DATA REPORT 1. Unit Name: ................................................

.. 2. Reporting Period: ........................................ . 3. Licensed Thermal Power {MWt): ....................

.. 4. Nameplate Rating {Gross MWe): .................... . 5. Design Electrical Rating {Net MWe): ................ . 6. Maximum Dependable Capacity {Gross MWe): .. . 7. Maximum Dependable Capacity {Net MWe): ...... . Surry Unit 2 June 1991 2441 847.5 788 820 781 Docket No.: Date: Completed By: Telephone:

50-281 07-05-91 M.A. Negron 804-365-2795

8. If Changes Occur in Capacity Ratings {Items Number 3 Through 7) Since Last Report, Give Reasons: 9. Power Level To Which Restricted, If Any {Net MWe): 10. Reasons For Restrictions, If Any: This Month YID Cumulative

11. Hours In Reporting Period ..........................

720.0 4343.0 159239.0 12. Number of Hours Reactor Was Critical ..........

127.7 2263.7 101436.0 13. Reactor Reserve Shutdown Hours ...............

0.0 0.0 328.1 14. Hours Generator On-Line ...........................

70.5 2185.3 99755.9 15. Unit Reserve Shutdown Hours .....................

0.0 0.0 0.0 16. Gross Thermal Energy Generated

{MWH) ...... 44230.9 4538174.1 232673642.4

17. Gross Electrical Energy Generated

{MWH) .... 14075.0 1524390.0 75754504.0

18. Net Electrical Energy Generated

{MWH) ........ 11960.0 1444820.0 71823545.0

19. Unit Service Factor ...................................

9.8% 50.3% 62.6% 20. Unit Availability Factor ...............................

9.8% 50.3% 62.6% 21. Unit Capacity Factor {Using MDC Net) ...........

2.1 % 42.6% 57.9% 22. Unit Capacity Factor {Using DER Net) ...........

2.1% 42.2% 57.2% 23. Unit Forced Outage Rate ............................

87.6% 18.5% 15.3%1 24. Shutdowns Scheduled Over Next 6 Months {Type, Date, and Duration of Each): Forced outage expected to end 7-4-91. 25. If Shut Down at End of Report Period Estimated Date of Start-up:

7-4-91 26. Unit In Test Status {Prior to Commercial Operation):

FORECAST ACHIEVED INITIAL CRITICALITY INITIAL ELECTRICITY COMMERCIAL OPERATION