ML20112C158

Application for Amend to License DPR-28,consisting of Proposed Change 105 to Tech Specs Limiting Conditions for Operation & Surveillance Requirements for Power Protection Equipment Added to Reactor Protection Sys

ML20112C158
Person / Time
Site:	Vermont Yankee File:NorthStar Vermont Yankee icon.png
Issue date:	03/04/1985
From:	Murphy W VERMONT YANKEE NUCLEAR POWER CORP.
To:	Harold Denton Office of Nuclear Reactor Regulation
Shared Package
ML20112C161	List: ML20112C158 ML20112C185
References
FVY-85-26, NUDOCS 8503210337
Download: ML20112C158 (5)

Text

Proposed Chang No. 105 VERMONT YANKEE NUCLEAR- POWER CORPORATION

, RD 5, Box 169 Ferry Road, Brattleboro, VT 05301 o ENGINEERING OFFICE 1671 WORCESTER ROAD

• FRAMINGHAM, MASSACHUSETTS 01701

• TELEPHONE 6 t F472-8100 U.S. Nuclear Pegulatory Commission Washington, D.C. 20555 Attention: Office of Nuclear Reactor Regulation Mr. Harold R. Denton, Director ,

References:

a) License No. OPR-28 (Docket No. 50-271) b) Letter, USNRC to VYNPC, NVY 82-124, dated 8/2/82 c) Letter, VYNPC to USNRC, FVY 81-15, dated 1/27/81 d) Letter, VYNPC to USNRC, FVY 81-149, dated 10/27/81 e) Letter, VYNPC to USNRC, FVY 83-88, Proposed Change No. 105, dated 8/5/83 f) Telephone Conference, J. Sinclair, P. Johnson, D. Reese, R. Paguiin and R. Wanczyk (VYNPC); V. Rooney and J. Donohew (NRC); and J. Selan (LLNL), dated 11/28/83 g) Letter,llSNRC to VYNPC, NVY 84-143, dated 6/27/84

Subject:

RPS Power Protection Panel Specifications - Proposed Change No.105, Supplemantal Submittal Pursuant to Section 50.59 of the Commission's Rules and Regulations, Vermont Yankee Nuclear Fower Corporation bereby proposes the following modifica-tions to Appendix A of the Operating License.

Proposed Change Replace pages 175, 177 and 178 of the Vermont Yankee Technical Specifications with the attached revised pages 175, 177 and 178, and add pages 175a, 177a, 177b and 178a. These pages propose limiting conditions for opera-tion and surveillance requirements for the power protection equipment added to our Reactor Protection System during the 1983 refueling outage. These pages were initially submitted to the USNRC in Reference e). Subsequent discussions with members of the USNRC staff [ Reference f)] and receipt of Reference g) have resulted in additional changes as indicated in the attached revised pages. This submittal supersedes the Tecnnical Specification pages originally submitted with Proposed Change No. 105, Reference e).

8503210337 850304 ADOCK 05000271 O b '

PDR p PDR ,

L gg e i

U.S. Nuclear R:gulatory Commission March 4, 1985 VERMONT YANKEE NUCLEAR POWER CORPORATION Pag; 2~

Reason for Change Prior to the issuance of the Edwin I. Hatch Unit 2 operating license, the Nuclear Regulatory Commission (NRC) identified a concern that the Reactor Protection System (RPS) power supply output voltage of 120 volts alternating current (V ac) could be varied sufficiently by a seismic event to cause a failure of the RPS.

The normal power supply for the RPS consists of an MG set. An alternate power supply is also provided. Normally, the MG set's output voltage is main-tained virtually constant by means of a voltage regulator. Additionally, over-

' voltage and undervoltage protective devices isolate the MG's output from the RPS

.if the voltage exceeds +_.10% of nominal value. Isolation also occurs if output voltage frequency drops by more than 5%.

The NRC's concern was that the overvoltage, undervoltage, and underfrequency devices were not seismically qualified and could become inoperable, along with the voltage regulator, as a result of a seismic event. The RPS could then receive an out-of-limits voltage supply and thereby sustain damage to the RPS which could prevent a required reactor scram.

In Reference c), we committed to install power protection panels which would alleviate the NRC's concerns, and additional design details on our system were forwarded in Reference d). By letter dated August 5, 198J [ Reference e)],

we submitted prcposed Technical Specifications as raquested by the NRC in their letter of August 2, 1982 [ Reference b)]. As a result of subsequent discussions with the NRC staff [ Reference f)], VY agreed to provide additional information regarding the voltage and frequency setpoints for the power protection panel specification package. This letter transmits revised Technical Specifications incorporating the additional information requested, as well as the guidance con-tained in the Safety Evaluation and Technical Evaluation Report provided by the NRC in.their letter of June 27, 1984 [ Reference g)].

Basis-for Change In our letter of January 27, 1981 [ Reference c)], Vermont Yankee committed to install Reactor Power System power protection panels. As a result of this installation, and at the request of the NRC, Proposed Change No. 105 to the Vermont Yankee Technical Specifications was submitted on August 5,1983

[ Reference e)]. Following subsequent conversations with the NRC [ Reference f)],

VY agreed to submit revised proposed Technical Specifications for the power protection panels providing additional information regarding the voltage and frequency setpoints which would incorporate the guidance contained in the Safety Evaluation and Technical Evaluation Report provided by the NRC [ Reference g)].

I J

U.S. Nucicar-Rcgulatory Commission March 4, 1985 VERMONT YANKEE NUCLEAR POWER CORPORATION Page 3 Specifically, in response to your request for additional information, we have revised pages 175a and 177 of our Technical Specification pages previously submitted with Proposed Change No. 105 [ Reference e)] and added page 177b. The setpoints specified in Table 4.10.1 (page 177b) were selected based on the results of our engineering evaluation showing that these setpoints provide ade-quate equipment protection, while minimizing the possibility of spurious actuation of the protection panels and maximizing the availability of the Reactor Protection System. Page 175a was modified to include a reference to Table 4.10.1 and page -177 was modified to provide additional clarification to the RPS Protection System Power Protection Limiting Condition for Operation.

Safety Considerations This proposed change provides Technical Specification for the power protec-tion panels, which were installed to~ provide an enhanced level of protection for g the Reactor Protection System. Thus, this proposed changa constitutes an addi-tional limitation and control not presently included in the Vermont Yankee Technical Specifications. This change was requested by the NRC and is not con-sidered to constitute an unreviewed safety questico as defined in 10CFR50.59(a)(2).

The addition of two redundant, Class lE, seamically qualified, power pro-tection panels connected in series with each ac power source, including the alternate power source, will provide an enhanced level of overvoltage, under-voltage and underfrequency protection for the Redctoi' Protection System. With the protective packages installed, any random undetectable or seismically-induced abnormal voltage or frequency conditions in the outputs of the MG sets or alternate power supply would trip either one or both of the protective panels thereby producing a half scram.

This change has been reiewed by the Vermont Yankee Nuclear Safety Audit and Review Committee (NSARC).

Significant Hazards Consideration The Commission has provided guidance concerning the application of the standards for determining whether a "significant hazards" consideration exists by providing certain examples (48FR14870).

One of these examples (ii) states that a change which constitutes an addi-

' tional limitation, restriction, or control not presently included in the Tech-nical Specifications (for example, a more stringent surveillance requirement) does not involve a significant hazards consideration.

U.Sc Nuc1 car Regulatory Commission March 4, 1985 VERMONT YANKEE NUCLEAR POWER CORPORATION Page 4 As described above, the change being proposed constitutes an additional limitation and control not presently included in the Technical Specifications for Vermont Yankee.

Therefore, we conclude that this proposed change does not constitute a significant hazards consideration, as defined in 10CFR50.92(c).

Fee Determination This proposed change is a continuation of a proposed change requiring an approval that involves a single safety issue and is deemed not to involve a significant hazards consideration. A payment of $4,000.00 was forwarded with Reference e).

Schedule of Change This change to the Vermont Yankee Technical Specifications will be imple-mented as soon as practicable following NRC approval.

We trust that the information provided is sufficient to allow for your review and subsequent issuance of a license amendment; however, should you have any questions or require additional information, feel free to contact us.

Very truly yours, VERMONT YANKEE NUCLEAR POWER CORPORATION M

Vice President and Manager of Operations WPM /dm STATE OF VERMONT)

)ss WINDHAM COUNTY )

Then personally appeared before me, Warren P. Murphy, who, being duly sworn, did state that he is Vice President and Manager of Operations of Vermont Yankee Nuclear Power Corporation, that he is duly authorized to execute and file the foregoing document in the name and on the behalf of Vermont Yankee Nuclear r t nd that the statements therein are true to the best of his j

L Diane M. McCue '

D})6LI Notary Public NOTARY My Commission Expires February 10, 1987

\,,V0ff'tT1./$.

Q-

1 U.S. . Nuclcar - Regul atory Comission .

March 4, 1985 VERMONT YANKEE NUCLEAR POWER CORPORATION Page 5 cc: ' U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commiscion

. tte t douentControlDesk(40 copies)  ;

Vermont Department of Public Service 120 State Street Montpelier, Vermont 05602

. Attention: Mr. Gerald Tarrant, Chairman J

h-

.>