ML19340C899

Responds to 790821 Suppl 6 to CP Application Describing Mod to Plant Design.Deletion of Containment Encl Bldg & Safety Grade Exhaust & Recirculation Sys Must Be Considered Under Amend to Cp.Decision May Be Delayed Until 810131

ML19340C899
Person / Time
Site:	Vogtle
Issue date:	12/01/1980
From:	Eisenhut D Office of Nuclear Reactor Regulation
To:	Ehrensperger W GEORGIA POWER CO.
References
NUDOCS 8012180119
Download: ML19340C899 (2)

Text

Wo T/C

+

$3 UNITED' STATES o

[s j

NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSION W

e g.,

np WASHINGTON, 0. C. 20555 r ni -

g t

m'

,o#

ci% b

,j DEC 011980

=y' a

j G

D 11

,}

d Docket Nos. 50-424 and 50-425 Mr. W. E. Ehrensperger Senior Vice President Power Supply Georgia Power Company P. O. Box 4545 Atlanta, Georgia 30302

SUBJECT:

DELETION OF THE CONTAINMENT ENCLOSURE BUILDING ON THE A. W. '.'0GTLE NUCLEAR PLANT In a letter dated August 21, 1979, Georgia Power Company filed Supplement 6 to its application for Construction Permit and Operating License for the A. W. Vogtle plant.

This supplement described a modificaticn to the plant design deleting the containment enclosure building and its safety grade exhaust and recirculation system.

The codification replaced the enclosure building with an equipment building extending upward from grade to about one third of the containment building height.

The equipment building is not designed to perform a safety function.

This supplement also included revised analyses for the radiological consequences of a Loss-of-Coolant Accident, with the calculations not taking credit for the enclosure building.

The proposed deletion of the enclosure building and its safety function was previously discussed in a meeting with the NRC staff on August 8,1979.

In that meetirg, you requested an expeditious review and prompt decision on the design change.

1 In a letter dated April 28, 1980, Georgia Power Company advised that the need for a prompt decision on this design change had atiated and may be delayed until January 31, 1981; and that the design was proceeding based upon deletion of the enclosure building.

i I

8012180 kh l

L

Mr. W. E. Ehrensperger DEC 011980 The staff believes that the deletion of the enclosure building appears to represent a significant change in safety margin to the design for which we issued the construction permits.

The change would impact and invalidate the evaluations presented in the Safety Evaluation Report issued March 8,1974.

Therefore, we concludd that the proposed change must be considered under an amendment to the construction permits.

If you wish to pursue this matter, please provide a Request for Amendment of Construction Permits. Such a request for amendment should include a cost-benefit analysis that demonstrates that the reduced safety margin would be warrar:ted by the savings in cost associated with deleting the containment enclosure building. Conversely, you may provide us with your basis for concluding that the proposed modification to the enclosure building should not be considered a change in "the proposed design of the facility as described in your application including, but not limited to the principal architectural and engineering criteria for the design" or in "the major features or components incorporated therein for the protection of the health and safety of the public."

incerely, 1

/

()

. J er ut, Direc o Division of Licensing b