ML20085L295
| ML20085L295 | |
| Person / Time | |
|---|---|
| Site: | Vermont Yankee File:NorthStar Vermont Yankee icon.png |
| Issue date: | 06/20/1995 |
| From: | Office of Nuclear Reactor Regulation |
| To: | |
| Shared Package | |
| ML20085L253 | List: |
| References | |
| NUDOCS 9506280420 | |
| Download: ML20085L295 (3) | |
Text
-.
.~
1 y%
j 1
UNITED STATES -
.p J
j NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSION WASHINGTON, D.C. soseMeet
.\\...../
SAFETY EVALUATION BY THE OFFICE OF NUCLEAR REACTOR REGULATION RELATED TO AMENDMENT NO.145 TO FACILITY OPERATIE LICENSE NO. DPR-28 VERMONT YANKEE NUCLEAR POWER CORPORATION VERMONT YANKEE NUCLEAR POWER STATION DOCKET NO. 50-271
1.0 INTRODUCTION
i i
Section 6.2 of Generic Letter (GL) 82-33 requested that licensees provide a report on their implementation of Regulatory Guide (R.G.) 1.97, Revision 2, and methods for complying with the r.1:ission's regulations including supporting technical justification is, any proposed deviations or alternatives. A large number of deviation requests were received regarding neutron flux monitoring instrumentation at boiling water reactor (BWR) facilities. These requests were initially denied.
In support of these requests, the BWR Owners Group (BWROG) submitted NEDO-31558, " Position on NRC Regulatory Guide 1.97, Revision 3, Requirements for Post-Accident Neutron Monitoring System." NED0-31558 proposed alternate criteria for neutron flux monitoring instrumentation in lieu of the Category I criteria stated in R.G. 1.97.
The staff's evaluation of NED0-31558 is contained in a safety evaluation (SE) dated January 13, 1993, which was forwarded to the Vermont Yankee Nuclear Power Corporation (the licensee) in a letter dated April 29, 1993. The staff concluded the Category I neutron flux monitoring instrumentation is not needed for existing BWRs to cope with a Loss-of-Coolant Accident, Anticipated Transient Without Scram, or other accidents that do not result in severe core damage conditions.
In the letter of April 29, 1993, the staff requested that the licensee review its neutron flux monitoring instrumentation against the criteria of NEDO-31558 to determine whether it met the stated criteria. The staff also noted that since the neutron flux monitoring instrumentation is no longer considered to be Category 1 instrumentation as defined in R.G.1.97, the licensee may request removal of that instrumentation from the post-accident monitoring technical specification (TS) for the Vermont Yankee Nuclear Power Station (VYNPS).
i The licensee reported the results of its review in a letter dated December 1, 1993. The staff reviewed the licensee's submittal and concluded in a letter i
dated February 7, 1994, that the post-accident monitoring system at the VYNPS i
meets the criteria of NED0-31558 and is, therefore, an acceptable alternative to the guidance in R.G. 1.97.
9506280420 950620 PDR ADOCK 05000271 P
By letter dated October 28, 1994, the licensee submitted a request for changes to the Vermont Yankee Nuclear Power Station Technical Specifications (TS).
The requested changes would remove the neutron monitoring system (NMS) and control rod position instrumentation from the Vermont Yankee Technical Specifications for post-accident monitoring and incorporates unrelated administrative changes.
2.0 EVALUATION The licensee proposed to change Tables 3.2.6 and 4.2.6 and associated Notes to remove the NMS instrumentation from the post-accident monitoring TS. As discussed in Section 1.0 above, the staff has previously determined that the NMS instrumentation at VYNPS is not Category 1 instrumentation as defined in R.G. 1.97 and may be removed from the plant TS. Therefore this change is r
acceptable.
The licensee proposed to change Tables 3.2.6 and 4.2.6 and associated Notes to remove the control rod position instrumentation from the post-accident monitoring TS. This instrumentation is classified as Category 3 in R.G. 1.97 and was provided in the VYNPS TS to provide redundancy for the NMS instrumentation which would be removed from the TS by the proposed amendment.
This change is therefore acceptable.
The licensee proposed to change Table 3.2.6 and associated Notes and Bases to j
revise the ranges for the Containment Pressure instruments from "0-275 psia" to "(-15) - (+260) psig" and for the Torus Pressure instruments from "0-80 psia" to "(-15) - (+65) psig." These changes do not alter the actual
)
instrument ranges, but by revising the units of pressure amend the TS to be j
consistent with the plant's Final Safety Malysis Report, the licensee's R.G.
1.97 submittal and the actual indicated ranges of the installed instruments.
This change is therefore acceptable, and the staff has no objection to the proposed change to the associated Bases.
The licensee proposed to change the t&tification numbers for " Safety / Relief Valve Position from Pressure Switches
- in Table 3.2.6 to correct a typographical error. This change is administrative and is therefore acceptable.
3.0 STATE CONSULTATION
In accordance with the Commission's regulations, the Vermont State official was notified of the proposed issuance of the amendment. The State official had no comments.
4.0 ENVIRONMENTAL CONSIDERATION
The amendment changes a requirement with respect to installation or use of a facility component located within the restricted area as defined in 10 CFR Part 20 and changes surveillance requirements. The NRC 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 i
, offsite, and that there is no significant increase in individual or cumulative occupational radiation exposure. The Commission has previously issued a proposed finding that the amendment involves no significant hazards consideration, and there has been no public comment on such finding (60 FR 24922). Accordingly, the amendment meets 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 amendment.
5.0 CONCLUSION
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 Commission's regulations, and (3) the issuance of the amendment will not be inimical to the common defense and security or to the health and safety of the public.
Principal Contributor:
D. Dorman Date:
June 20,1995 I
F t
I