ML20077S622

Safety Evaluation Supporting Amends 80 & 59 to Licenses NPF-68 & NPF-81,respectively

ML20077S622
Person / Time
Site:	Vogtle
Issue date:	01/12/1995
From:	Office of Nuclear Reactor Regulation
To:
Shared Package
ML20077S624	List: ML20077S622
References
NUDOCS 9501240181
Download: ML20077S622 (2)

Text

.-

_ -~

p ur

1. 8g UNITED STATES Y

S NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSION Y

S s.,.....j'I WASHINGTON, D.C. 30606 41001 SAFETY EVALUATION BY THE OFFICE OF NUCLEAR REACTOR REGULATION RELATED TO AMENDMENT NO. 80 TO FACILITY OPERATING LICENSE NPF-68 AND AMENDMENT NO. 59 TO FACILITY OPERATING LICENSE NPF-81 GEORGIA POWER COMPANY V0GTLE ELECTRIC GENERATING PLANT. UNITS 1 AND 2 DOCKET NOS. 50-424 AND 50-425

1.0 INTRODUCTION

By letter August 16, 1994, Georgia Power Company, et al. (the licensee) submitted a request for changes to the Vogtle Electric Generating Plant (Vogtle or VEGP), Units 1 and 2 Technical Specifications (TS). The requested changes would revise TS 3/4.7.1.1 and its Bases to increase the main steam safety valve (MSSV) setpoint tolerance ranges from fl% to +2%, -3% to accommodate setpoint drift that may occur with these valves during plant operation. The proposed changes also require that normal surveillance testing of the MSSVs, and any additional testing of the MSSVs if a setpoint tolerance is exceeded, be performed in accordance with the provisions of Section XI of the ASME Code. Additionally, following testing, the as-left lift setting of the MSSVs will be within fl% of the pressure specified in the TS. At Vogtle 1 and 2, there is a total of 20 MSSVs per Unit (i.e., five per main steam line),

each set at increments which range from 1185 psig to 1235 psig.

2.0 EVALUATION The increase in MSSV setpoint tolerance was reviewed with respect to the accident analyses presented in the VEGP Final Safety Analysis Report (FSAR).

The licensee's submittal included the results of evaluations of the proposed change for Loss-of-Coolant-Accident (LOCA), non-LOCA and Steam Generator Tube Rupture (SGTR) events. The licensee concluded the proposed change will not adversely affect the pressure boundary integrity or safety function of the valves. The evaluation demonstrated that the acceptance criteria of the accident analyses continued to be met.

The licensee's submittal included the provision that the MSSVs will be tested in accordance with the requirements of Section XI of the ASME Code.

In the event an MSSV lifts outside the setpoint tolerance values, the Section XI provisions for adjusting the setpoint and testing additional valves will apply. This condition is included in the proposed changes to the TS.

The licensee has determined that the proposed TS changes do not result in a significant reduction in the margin of safety. The limiting transient in each accident category has been analyzed to determine the effect of the change in the setpoint tolerances. Further, in order to prevent the setpoints from 9501240181 950112 PDR ADOCK 05000424 P

PDR

c i *

-9.

i drifting outside the +2%, -3% range, the licensee will continue to require MSSV setpoint tolerances to be restored to 11% when the as-found lift setting i

exceeds fl% prior to declaring the MSSVs operable. This will prevent.

l excessive setpoint drift which would cause the peak system pressures to exceed the allowable limits.

The staff has reviewed the licensee's submittal and agrees with their conclusion that the analysis demonstrates the acceptability of the proposed TS l

changes. The proposed increase in the setpoint tolerances of the MSSVs has been shown to be acceptable for meeting the plant design basis. Also, for those occurrences where the as-found setpoints of MSSVs are in excess of i 1%,

resetting to within fl% of the nominal setpoint will be required prior to i

declaring them operable.

In addition, the proposed changes to the TS are consistent with the requirements of the Improved Standard Technical Specifications found in NUREG-1431. Therefore, these proposed TS changes have no significant safety impact on the operation of Vogtle Units 1 and 2, and are acceptable.

1

3.0 STATE CONSULTATION

In accordance with the Commission's regulations, the Georgia State official was notified of the proposed issuance of the amendments. The State official had no comments.

4.0 ENVIRONMENTAL CONSIDERATION

[

The amendments change requirements with respect to installation or use of a l

facility component located within the restricted area as defined in 10 CFR Part 20 and change surveillance requirements. The NRC staff has determined that the amendments involve no significant increase-in the amounts, and no i

significant change in the types, of any effluent that may be released offsite, and that there is no significant increase in individual or cumulative i

occupational radiation exposure. The Commission has previously issued a proposed finding that the amendments involve no significant hazards consideration, and there has been no public comment on such finding (59 FR 47168 dated September 14,1994). Accordingly, 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.

5.0 CONCLUSION

I The Commission has concluded, based on the considerations discussed above, that:

(1) there is reasonable assurance that the health and safety of the public will not be endangered by operation in the proposed manner, (2) such activities will be conducted in compliance with the Commiss;on's regulations, and (3) the issuance of the amendments will not be inimical to the common defense and security or to the health and safety of the public.

Principal Contributor:

C. Hammer L. Wheeler Date:

January 12, 1995

-