ML20070J534
| ML20070J534 | |
| Person / Time | |
|---|---|
| Site: | Vermont Yankee File:NorthStar Vermont Yankee icon.png |
| Issue date: | 11/29/1982 |
| From: | Office of Nuclear Reactor Regulation |
| To: | |
| Shared Package | |
| ML20069C510 | List: |
| References | |
| NUDOCS 8212280015 | |
| Download: ML20070J534 (2) | |
Text
,
>8L 1140y o,
UNITED STATES
',g NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSION
.-l WASHINGTON, D. C. 20555
- *... /
SAFETY EVALUATION BY THE OFFICE OF NUCLEAR REACTOR REGULATION SUPPORTING AMENDMENT NO. 73 TO FACILITY OPERATING LICENSE NO. DPR-28 VERMONT YANKEE NUCLEAR POWER CORPORATION VERMONT YANKEE NUCLEAR POWER STATION DOCKET NO. 50-271 Introdu'ction As a result of events involving common cause failures of Scram Discharge Volume (SDV) limit switches and SDV drain valve operability, the NRC staff issued IE Bulletin 80-14 on June 12, 1980.
In addition, the staff sent a letter dated July 7,1980 to all operating BWR licensees requesting that they propose Technical Specification changes to provide surveillance re-quirements for SDV vent and drain valves and LC0/ surveillance. requirement's on SDV limit switches. Model Technical Specifications were enclosed with this letter to provide guidance to licensees for preparation of the e-quested submittals. The Vermont Yankee Nuclear Power Corporation (ticensee) submittal dated October 14, 1980 responded to this request with information p.ertinent to the Vermont Yankee plant design and existing Technical Specifications, and the licensee submittal dated October 5,1981, contained the proposed Technical Specifications requested by the staff.
Evaluation A Technical Evaluation Report (TEPc-C5506-64) was prepared for us by Franklin Research Center (FRC) as part of our technical assistance contract program.
This report provides their technical evaluation of the compliance of the licensee's October 14, 1980 submittal with NRC provided criteria.
FRC has concluded that the licensee's response does not meet the explicit requirements of paragraph 3.3-6 and Table 3.3.6-1 of the NRC staff's Model Technical Specification (TSs). However, the FRC report concludes that technical bases are defined on p.50 of the staff's " Generic Safety Evaluation Report BWR Scram Discharge System," dated Decemb5r 1, ~T980'that permit con-~
sideration of this departure from the explicit requirements of the Model Technical Specifications. We conclude that these technical bases justify a deviation from the explicit requirements of the Model TSs.
In addition, FRC has also concluded that the proposed Vermont Yankee.TSs do not meet our Model TS requirements of paragraph 4.3.1.1 and Table 4.3.1.1-1 far SDV water level high channel functional test requirements. However, the FRC TER concludes that the proposed surveillance requirements for S0V water level high are acceptable, since the licensee is installing a second in-strument volume and the licensee is providing four reactor protection system s
'8212280015 821129 PDR ADOCK 05000271 PDR
,.p g
- (RPS) level instruments for each of the two instrument volumes, for a total of eight instruments for the RPS. The model TSs were developed for plants which have only one instrument volume (four level instruments);
therefo're, the second instrument volume significantly improves the design and reliability of the SDV. Taking this into account, we conclude that these technical bases justify a deviation from the explicit requirements of the model TSs.
Further, FRC has noted apparent' discrepancy between the licensee's TS requirements for two-rod withdrawal block trip systems and the actual Vermont Yankee instrumentation.
To eliminate the above discrepancy the licensee agreed to add a clarifying note to Table 3.2.5 of the Technical Specificaticns.
This note is included in this licease amendment.
FRC has concluded that the licensee's proposed TS revisions (as modified by subsequent discussions with the licensee) meet our criteria without need for further revision.
Summary Based upon our review of the contractor's report of his evaluation and discussions with the reviewer, we conclude that the licensee's proposed TSs satisfy our requirements for surveillance of SDV vent and drain valves and for Limiting Conditions of Operation and surveillance requirements for SDV limit switches. Consequently, we find the licensee's proposqd TSs acceptable.
Environmental Considerations We have determined that the amendment does not authorize a. change in effluent types or total amounts nor an increase in power level and will not result in any significant environmental impact. Having made this determination, we have further concluded that the amendment involves an action which is in-significant from the standpoint of environmental impact, and jarsuant to 10 CFR Section Sl.5(d)(4) that an environmental impact statement, or negative declaration and environmental impact appraisal need not be prepared in con-nection with the issuance of the amendment.
Conclusion We have concluded, based on the considerations discussed above, that:
(1) because the amendment does not involve a significant increase in the probability or consequences of an accident previously evaluated, does not create the possibility of an accident of a type different from any evaluated previously, and does not involve a significant reduction in a margin of safety, the amendment does not involve a significant hazards consideration, (2) there is reasonable assurance that the health and safety of the public will not be endangered by operation in the proposed manner, and (3) such activities will be conducted in compliance with the Commission's regulations and the issuance of this amendment will not be inimical to the common defense and security or to the health and safety of the public.
Dated:
November 29, 1982 Principal Contributor:
K. T. Eccleston
..