ML20011E260
| ML20011E260 | |
| Person / Time | |
|---|---|
| Site: | Vermont Yankee File:NorthStar Vermont Yankee icon.png |
| Issue date: | 02/05/1990 |
| From: | Office of Nuclear Reactor Regulation |
| To: | |
| Shared Package | |
| ML20011E259 | List: |
| References | |
| NUDOCS 9002130008 | |
| Download: ML20011E260 (3) | |
Text
u f'
{
3 UMTED STATES NUCLEAR RECULATORY COMMISSION I
{
wAsmworow. o. c. mos l
e SAFETY EVALUATION BY THE OFFICE OF NUCLEAR REACTOR REGULATION i
RELATED TO AMENDMENT NO.119 i
TO FACILITY OPERATING LICENSE N0. DPR-28 f
VERMONT YANKEE NUCLEAR POWER CORPORATION VERMONT YANKEE NUCLEAR POWER STATION l
DOCKET N0. 50-271 i
1.0 INTRODUCTION
By letter dated August 26,1986, and as supplemented January 16,1990, Vermont Yankee Nuclear Power Corporation requested an amendment to Appendix A, Technical Specification (TS), of Facility Operating License No. DPR-28. This amendment consists of four proposed changes to the TS.
Items 1, 2, and 3 regarding changes related to calibration, surveillance requirements and trip i
settingsassociatedwiththeuseofanaloginstrumentationwererevIewedand o
l evaluated by the staff in a. License Amendment dated March 29, 1989. The remaining item, 4 regarding the licensee's request for revision of the Pressure Suppression Chamber - Reactor Building Vacuum Breaker System operability requirements is the subject of this review and safety evaluation. Specifically, l.
the proposed chanon under item 4 are on pages 127 and 139a of Vermont Yankee's TS and would revise tbr.imiting Conditior for Operation (LCO) and Bases for operation with one ui the Pressure Suppression Chamber - Reactor Building Vacuum Breaker Systems out of service.
Proposed Changes The licensee proposed to change the above LCO under TS 3.7.A.5.b and its related Bases. The proposed wording removes the existing requirements that the vacuum breaker shall be locked closed and that the procedure not violate containment integrity.
Instead, the licensee proposed to change this TS by adding that at least one valve in the line is l
verified to be in the isolated condition, as required by Section 3.7,0.2.
Also, the licensee proposed additional wording in the Bases to better reflect the proposed new TS.
ReviewCriteria/Requiremeng Standard Technical Specifications for General Electric Boiling Water Reactors,"GE-STS(BWR/4)",
i 18 7,N
t
..' +c i
- 2.0 DISCUSSION AND EVALUATION The licensee states that the current TS 3.7.5.b requires the vacuum breaker to be locked closed when one of the Pressure Suppression Chamber - Reactor Building Vacuum Breaker Systems is inoperable.
The licensee considers that this is inconsistent with the other containment isolation requirement (Section i
3.7.D) and defeats the vacuum breaker function of the system; the licensee believes that it is not desirable to operate in this condition for an extended period of time.
The licensee's proposed LCO specifies that a valve in the failed line must be verified to be in the isolated condition, allowing greater i
flexibility in meeting the intent of the TS requirements. The staff review finds that, in accordance with the guideline of Standard Technical-Specifications for General Electric Boiling Reactor, "GE-STS (BWR/4)," the vacuum breaker is not required to be locked closed when one of the Pressure Suppression Chamber - Reactor Building Vacuum Breaker Systems is inoperable.
The staff agrees that to lock the valve closed defeats the vacuum breaker i
function and that it is not desirable to operate in this conditic; for an extended period of time.
However, the staff found that the proposed TS change would still deviate fromtheguidelinesofGE-STS(BWR/4). The staff recommended that it wculd be more beneficial to conform to the wording of the standard TS.
Therefore, in subsequent discussions with the licensee, they agreed to revise the proposed TS change to conform to'the standard TS wording except to retain the original seven day limit to restore the inoperable vacuum breaker to operable status. The staff finds this acceptable.
The staff also finds that the proposed change in TS Bases better reflects the proposed new TS 3.7.5.b and is, therefore, acceptable.
3.0 ENVIRONMENTAL CONSIDERATION
This amendment involves a change in the Limiting Condition for Operation i
requirements of facility components located within the restricted area, as defined in 10 CFR part 20. The staff has determined that the amendment involves no significant increase in the amounts, and no significant change in the types, of any effluents that may be released off site, and that there is no significant increase in individual or cumulative occupational radfation exposure. The Commission has previously issued a proposed finding that this amendment involves no significant hazards consideration and there has been no pubite comment on l
such finding. Accordingly, this amendment meets the eligibility criteria for categorical exclusion set forth in 10 CFR Section 51.22(c)(9).
Pursuantto10CFR51.22(b),noenvironmentalimpactstatementor environmental assessment need be prepared in connection with the issuance of this amendment.
. - ~ - ~ _.
- - +
i
[
3 i
i
4.0 CONCLUSION
We have concluded, based on the considerations discussed above, that: 1) i there is reasonable assurance that the health and safety of the public will not be endangered by operation in the proposed manner; 2) such j
activities will be conducted in compitance with the Commission's regulations; and 3) the issuance of this amendment will not be inimical to the common defense and security or to the health and safety of the public.
l l
PRINCIPAL CONTRIBUTOR: Angela T. Chu t
DATE:
February 5,1990 i
4 e
l l
l 1
-