ML20055E271
| ML20055E271 | |
| Person / Time | |
|---|---|
| Site: | Vermont Yankee File:NorthStar Vermont Yankee icon.png |
| Issue date: | 07/02/1990 |
| From: | Office of Nuclear Reactor Regulation |
| To: | |
| Shared Package | |
| ML20055E270 | List: |
| References | |
| GL-89-14, NUDOCS 9007110236 | |
| Download: ML20055E271 (3) | |
Text
--
~.
m, 4
4 s-
.l
,1 s ze c
,(,
..,'T UNITED STATES 7,
.y o
~
'g NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSION
]
y[y k * * *. * ;g [.
r, -
WASHINGTON l 0. C. 20655
/
f SAFETY EVALUATION BY THE OFFICE OF NUCLEAR REACTOR REGULATION h
SUPPORTING AMENDMENT NO.124 TO FACILITY' OPERATING LICENSE NO. DPR-28 VERMONT YANKEE NUCLEAR POWER CORPORATION VERM0hT YANKEE NUCLEAR POWER STATION
+
L
~
DOCKET NO. 50-271-1 1
wf
' INTRODUCTION i
- By letter dated March 5,1990, the Vermont Yankee Nuclear Power Corporation (thelicensee)proposedchangestotheTechnicalSpecifications(TS)for 1
Vermont Yankee. The proposed change removes the provision of Definition "Y" in the TS section entitled 1.0 DEFINITIONS that limits the combined timed interval for three consecutive surveillances to less than 3.25 times the specified interval. Guidance on this proposed change to TS was provided to all 4
power reactor licensees and applicants by the NRC Generic Letter 89-14, dated-August 21, 1989.
In addition the' licensee advised of a needed change to basis page 178 for-Technical Specification 3.10, Auxiliary Power Systems by letter dated June 7, 1990.
EVALUATION Definition "Y" includes the provision that. allows a surveillance interval
.to be extended by 25-percent of the specified time interval. This extension m
provides flexibility for scheduling the performance of surveillances and to j
permit consideration of plant operating conditions.that may not be suitable-
"l
' for conducting a surveillance at the specified time interval. Such operating conditions include transient plant operation or ongoing surveillance or-maintenance activities. Definition "Y" further limits the allowance for-
- extending surveillance intervals by requiring that the combined time interval for any three consecutive surveillances not exceed 3.25 times the specified time interval.. The purpose of this provision is to assure that surveillances
-'are:not: extended repeatedly as an operational convenience ~to provide an overall
. increase in the surveillance interval.
Experience has (cown that the 18-month surveillance interval, with the
- provision to extend it by 25 percent, is usually'sufficicnt to accommodate normal variations in the length of a fuel cycle. However, the NRC staff has routinely granted requests for one-time exceptions to the 3.25 limit on extending refueling surveillance because the risk to safety is low in contrast a
ito the alternative of a forced shutdown to perform these surveillances.
- Therefore, the 3.25 limitation on extending surveillances has not been a
- ' practical limit on the use of the 25-percent allowance for extending surveillances that are performed on a refueling outage basis.
110236 90cyo2 ys
.p ADOCK 05000271 PDC i
.[
V w-
,en
{
-2
~
Extending surveillance intervals during plant operation can also result in a benefit to safety when a scheduled surveillance is due at a time that is not_
l suitable for conducting the surveillance. This may occur when transient plant' s
operating conditions exist or when safety systems.are out of service for maintenance or other surveillance activities.
In such cases, the benefit to safety of extending a surveillance interval would. exceed any safety. benefit' i-L
. derived by limiting the use of the 25-percent allowance to extend a L
surveillance. Furthermore, there is the administrative burden associated with tracking the use of the 25-percent allowance to ensure compliance with the 3.25 lirait.-
L In view of these findings, the staff concluded that. Definition "Y" should i
be changed to remove the 3.25 limit for all.surveillances because its removal i
o l
will have an overall positive effect upon safety. The guidance provided in our Generic Letter 89-14 included the following change to this specification and L,
removes the 3.25 limit on three consecutive surveillances with the following statement:
p L
"4.0.? Each Survei11ance Requirement shall be performed within the' i
specified surveillance interval with a maximum allowable extension not to exceed 25 percent of the specified surveillance interval."
The licensee has proposed changes to Definition "Y" that are consictent
- with the guidance provided in Generic Letter 89-14, as noted above. On the L
basis of its review of this matter, the staff finds that the above change to l~
the TS for Vermont Yankee Nuclear Power. Station is acceptable.
Page'178 of the Basis to Technical Specification 3.10 has been changed to reflect current design.
Because.this page'is part of the Basis it~is descriptive'and J
does not affect requirements.
ENVIRONMENTAL CONSIDERATION u
-The amendment involves changes with respect to the use of. facility cotnponents i
located within the restricted area-as, defined in.10 CFR'Part 20 and-surveillance
-requirements. 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 exposure. The staff has determined that
'the amendment involves no significant-hazards consideration, and there has-been no public comment on such finding. Accordingly the^ amendment meets the eligibility criteria.for categoricai exclusion set forth in 10 CFR 51.22(c)(9). Pursuant to-101CFR 51.22(b).-no environmental impact statement or environmental assessment
[
need be prepared in connection with the issuance of this amendment.
L L
i i i
e
.m.
n
+-
{
3-d
~
- CONCLUSION The Commission made a proposed determination that the amendment involves no-significant hazards consideration which was published in the Federal Register (55 FR 12602) on April 4, 1990. The Commission consulted with the State of j
Vermont.- No public comments were received and the State of Vermont did.not have i
any comments.
On the basis of the censiderations discussed above, the staft has concluded i
that:
(1)thereisreasonableassurancethatthehealthand safety.of-the'public will:not be endangered by operation in the proposed manner, and (2) such activities will be conducted in compliance with the Commission's-regulations, and (3)'the issuance of this amendmer.t will not be inimical to the-common defense and security or to the health and safety of the public.
Principal Contributor: Thomas G Dunning f
'Vernon L. Rooney Dated:
July 2,1990 h
i b
b 3
1
-l b
-q
.