ML20005G287
| ML20005G287 | |
| Person / Time | |
|---|---|
| Site: | Vogtle  |
| Issue date: | 01/09/1990 |
| From: | Office of Nuclear Reactor Regulation |
| To: | |
| Shared Package | |
| ML20005G285 | List: |
| References | |
| NUDOCS 9001180388 | |
| Download: ML20005G287 (2) | |
Text
- !( purog\\
UNITED STATES g
NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSION g3 E
W ASHINGTON, D, C. 20555
\\.....J SAFETY EVALUATION BY THE OFFICE OF NUCLEAR REACTOR REGULATION RELATED -TO AMENDMENT NO. 26 TO FACILITY OPERATING LICENSE NPF-68 AND AMENDMENT NO. 7 TO FACILITY OPERATING LICENSE NPF-81 GEORGI A POWER COMPANY, ET AL.
DOCKETS N05. 50-424 AND 50-425 V0GTLE ELECTRIC GENERATING PLANT, UNITS 1 AND 2 i
i
1.0 INTRODUCTION
By "ELV-00491, Application for Amends to Licenses NPF-68 & NPF-81,revising Tech Specs 3.3.2 & 3.7.6 Re Control Room Emergency Filtration Sys & Instrumentation & Adding Exceptions to [[TS" contains a listed "[" character as part of the property label and has therefore been classified as invalid. to Allow Continued Operation of Plant|letter dated May 19, 1989]], Georgia Power Company (the licensee) requested amendments to the Technical Specifications (TSs) for Vogtle Electric Generating _
Plant, Units 1 and E.
These amendments would revise the action statements of TSs 3.3.2 and 3.7.6 concerning the control. room emergency filtration system (CREFS) and its associated actuation instrumentation such that an exception to TS 3.0.4 is allowed for those action statements which permit continued unit operation for an unlimited period of time.
The licensee stated that entry into one of the above action statements (i.e.,
when a limiting condition for operation (LCO) is not met and designated i
actions are required under TSs 3.3.2 and 3.7.6) as currently written would restrict operating mode changes due ttoTS 3.0.4 This could result in a needless delay in a mode change since most of the action statements allow continued unit operation for an unlimited time. The licensee, therefore, proposes the change on the basis that the action statement establishes an acceptable level of safety for continual unit operation, hence, mode changes nced not be restricted.
2.0 EVALUATION I
i The licensee stated that the corrhined TSs for the CREFS ensure that the control room would remain habitable during and following all credible accident conditions (including meeting single failure criteria) and that equipment qualification temperatures would not be exceeded. The requirements for the CREFS actuation instrumentation ensure a redundant and diverse means for initiating a > control room isolation in response to credible accidents (including meeting single-failure criteria). The action statements were written such that continued' unit -
operation for an unlimited period of time is-not permitted unless these bases continue to be met.
The licensee further stated that, as currently written, if any CREFS or CREFS instruantation action statement were entered, mode changes in both; units would be restricted by TS 3.0.4.
Thus, for example, the reactor could not go from hot standby mode to power operation mode without repairs to meet the LCO.
This is overly conservative for those action statements where remedial action allows continued operation for an unlimited time.
For these action statements,'the TS bases continue to be met and, therefore, an acceptable level of safety for con-9001180388 900109 PDR ADOCK 05000424.
P PDC '
.n
~
.' 1 i"
tinued operation is provided.
The licensee, therefore, proposes to add TS 3.0.4 exemptions to those CREFS and CREFS _ instrumentation action statements which permit continued unit operation for an unlimited period of time.
The NRC stuff has reviewed the licensee's submittal and, based on its review, concurs with the licensee's conclusions, as described above.
The NRC staff also finds that the proposed changes are consistent with the intent of the Standard Technical Specifications.
Based on these findings, the NRC staff concludes that the above-described changes to the Vogtle Units 1 and 2 TSs are acceptable.
3.0 ENVIRONMENTAL CONSIDERATION
These amentents-involve changes in the use of the facility's components located within the restricted area as defined in 10 CFR Part 20.
The 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 Comission has previously issued a proposed finding that the amenhents involve no significant hazards consideration, and there has been no public comment on such finding.
According ly, the 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 the amendments.
4.0 _ CONCLUSION The Comission made a proposed determination that the amendments involve no significant hazards consideration which was published in the Federal Register on July 26,1989 (54 FR 31108), and consulted with the State of Georgia.
No l
public comments were received, and the State of Georgia did not have any comments.
The staff has concluded, based on the considerations discussed above, that: (1) there is reasonable assurance that-the health and safet endangered by operation in the proposed manner, and (2)y of the public will not be such activities will be conducted in compliance with the Commission's regulations, and the issuance of the amentents will nct be inimical to the comon defense and security or to the health and safety of the public.
Principal Contributor: Jon B. Hopkins, PDII-3/DRP-I/II Charles R. Nichols, SPLB/DET 2
Dated: January 9, 1990