ML20138M363
| ML20138M363 | |
| Person / Time | |
|---|---|
| Site: | Vermont Yankee File:NorthStar Vermont Yankee icon.png |
| Issue date: | 10/09/1985 |
| From: | Office of Nuclear Reactor Regulation |
| To: | |
| Shared Package | |
| ML20138M345 | List: |
| References | |
| NUDOCS 8511010156 | |
| Download: ML20138M363 (5) | |
Text
C May e*
UNITED STATES
[
~ 'g NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSION r,
E w ASHINGTON, D. C. 20555
/
....+
1 SAFETY EVALUATION BY THE OFFICE OF NUCLEAR REACTOR REGULATION SUPPORTING AMENDMENT NO. 90 TO FACILITY OPERATING LICENSE NO. DPR-28 VERMONT YANKEE NUCLEAR POWER CORPORATION VERMONT YANKEE NUCLEAR POWER STATION DOCKET NO. 50-271
1.0 INTRODUCTION
By letter dated March 27, 1985, Vennont Yankee Nuclear Power Corporation (the licensee) requested an amendment to the Technical Specifications, Appendix A, Facility Operating License No. DPR-28 for the Vermont Yankee Nuclear Power Station. The amendment requested changes to the Technical Specifications to 1) reflect shift staffing levels for licensed operators consistent with the provisions of the recently revised 10 CFR 50.54; 2) provide corrections which are typographical or clerical in nature; 3) delete from the Technical Specifications pages referring to out-of-date testing provisions; 4) change an organization chart to reflect a recent 5)ganizational change in the offsite engineering support organization; and or revise the setting for low condensate storage tank level from "2-inches" to "3%" which is a physically equivalent value. The change is necessitated by 'the replacement of float type limit switches with analog instruments, with corresponding different units of calibration.
2.0 EVALUATION 2.1 Shift Staffino levels The existing Specification 6.1.0 contains a parenthetical reference to Table 6.1.1.
The revised Specification 6.1.0 deletes this reference. This is considered an editorial change and is acceptable. Table 6.1.1 is adequately referenced in revised Specification 6.1.D.2.
The existing Specification 6.1.D.1 requires a licensed senior operator and an individual qualified in radiation protection procedures to be on site whenever there is fuel in the reactor. The revised Specification 6.1.D.1 deletes the words associated with the licensed senior operator. This is acceptable because the requirement for having a senior operator on site whenever there is fuel in the reactor is covered by revised Table 6.1.1.
The existing Specification 6.1.0.2 requires that " Licensed Operators on site shall be in accordance with Table 6.1.1," and it requires at least one licensed operator to be in the control room whenever there is fuel in the reactor. The revised Specification 6.1.D.2 changes the wording somewhat by requiring the " minimum shift staffing on site shall be in accordance with Table 6.1.1," and it deletes the words associated with a licensed operator 8511010156 851009 PDR ADOCK 05000271 P
. having to be in the control room. The first change is considered to be an editorial change and is acceptable. The second change is also acceptable because the requirement for having a licensed operator in the control room whenever there is fuel in the reactor is covered by revised Table 6.1.1.
The existing Specification 6.1.D.3 requires that "a Licensed Senior Operator shall be in charge of any refueling operation." The revised Specification 6.1.D.3 requires that "a dedicated, Licensed Senior Operator shall be in charge of any reactor core alteration." This change brings the wording (of Specification 6.1.D.3 into closer agreement with 10 CFR 50.54(m)(2) iv) and is acceptable.
The existing Figure 6.1.2 (on-site organization chart) has a box in the operations chain of command containing the title " Senior Control Room Operators." The revised Figure 6.1.2 uses the title " Supervisory Control Room Operators," which brings the title used in the figure into agreement with the title used in Table 6.1.1.
This is an editorial change and is acceptable.
The existing Table 6.1.1 establishes operator license and shift staffing requirements for the Vermont Yankee plant. The table has been revised to conform with 10 CFR 50.54(m)(2); several editorial changes have also been made. The proposed changes, listed below, are acceptable:
o The column entitled " License" has been changed to " License Requirements " and the column entries entitled " Senior Operator" and " Operator" have been changed to " Licensed Senior Operator" and
" Licensed Operator," respectively. These are editorial changes, o
The license requirement for the Supervisory Control Room Operator has been upgraded from " Operator" to " Licensed Senior Operator." This brings the table into conformance with 10 CFR 50.54(m)(2)(i) by requiring two senior operators on each shift during startup and normal operation (the Shift Supervisor and the Supervisory Control Room Operator).
o The column entitled " Minimum Shift Crew Personnel & License Requirements" has been changed to " Minimum Shift Staffing On-Site."
This is considered an editorial change, since license requirements are specified elsewhere on the table.
o The existing columns entitled "Nonnal Operation" and " Plant Startup" are identical, therefore, they have been combined into a single column entitled " Plant Startup and Nonnal Operation." This is considered an editorial change.
1 o
The column entitled " Cold Shutdown" has been changed to " Cold Shutdown or Refueling with Fuel in the Reactor." By making this column apply in refueling situations with fuel in the reactor, the licensee can accommodate the proposed deletion from Specification 6.1.D.1 described above.
. o In the revised column entitled " Cold Shutdown or Refueling with Fuel in the Reactor," the entry specifying the minimum number of Shift Supervisors has been changed from 0 to 1, and the entry specifying the minimum number of Supervisory Control Room Operators has been changed from 1 to 0.
This change upgrades the table by requiring the senior member of the shift crew to be on site when the plant is in cold shutdown or refueling (with fuel in the reactor). The proposed change conforms with 10 CFR 50.54(m)(2)(ii).
o The existing table contains sumary information on the total number of operator licenses and senior operator licenses required on shift under various operating conditions. This information is redundant to other information in the table and has been deleted. This is considered an editorial change.
o The revised table contains two new footnotes that specify the number of licensed ooerators and/or senior licensed operators required to be in the control room under various operating conditions. By making this change, the licensee can accommodate the proposed deletion from Specification 6.1.D.2 described above. The proposed change confonns with 10 CFR 50.54(m)(2)(iii).
2.2 Editorial Changes The licensee has requested the following revisions to pages 5b, 41, 49, 51, 176 and 1871 of the Technical Specification to correct typographical errors:
The change to page 5b corrects the reference to Note number for Table 3.1.1 from 13 to 12.
The change to page 41 (Table 3.2.2) corrects the acceptable low vacuum setpoint from " greater than or equal to 12" Hg absolute to "less than or equal to 12" Hg absolute. This error was identified in I&E Inspection Report No. 50-271/83-17, dated August 3, 1983.
The change to page 49 adds a reference to Note 1 for torus water temperature which was inadvertently deleted by the issuance of Amendment No. 63 to the Facility Operating License.
The change to page 51 corrects the calibration requirements for the Low Reactor Pressure Trip Functions #2 and #3.
The change to page 176 corrects Specification 3.10.B to refer to Specification 3.10.A rather than 3.9.A.
The change to page 1871 corrects Specification 3.13.G.4 to refer to foam system being " inoperable" rather than " operable."
We have reviewed the changes, find they are editorial in nature and, therefore, are acceptable.
. 2.3 Deletion of Out-of-date Testing Provisions By letter dated February 21, 1981 Vermont Yankee requested a change to the Technical Specifications Table 3.2.1 to pemit stability and recirculation pump trip tests to be performed at the facility during Cycle 8.
The staff issued Amendment No. 64 on March 11, 1981 permitting the requested tests.
The actual time stated to perform the tests was 48 hours5.555556e-4 days <br />0.0133 hours <br />7.936508e-5 weeks <br />1.8264e-5 months <br /> over a period of 7 days.
The licensee, as a part of its March 27, 1985 request, asked that the Technical Specifications be changed to delete the test provisions since the plant has completed Cycle 8 and these provisions are no longer needed. We find the change acceptable because it is basically editorial in nature.
2.4 Offsite Engineering Support Organization Figure 6.1.1 is revised to update the organization of the Nuclear Services Division of the Yankee Atomic Electric Company, which provides offsite engineering support to the Vermont Yankee plant. The "Vice President--
Operations" position is deleted, and the Plant Engineering function that formerly reported to that position is moved under the remaining "Vice
]
President (s)" positions.
In addition, the " Radiological Safety" box on existing Figure 6.1.1 is deleted and a footnote is added to show that the " Environmental Engineering" function includes radiological safety.
Finally, a new " Project Management" box is added to Figure 6.1.1.
The proposed changes described above do not affect the scope of offsite engineering support provided by the Yankee Atomic Electric Company. The changes more accurately represent the offsite engineering support organization and are acceptable.
2.5 Cy densate Storage Tank Low Water Level Trip Table 3.2.1, " Emergency Core Cooling System Actuation Instrumentation," is revised to reflect a new trip level setting for the Condensate Storage Tank (CST) water level. This change is necessitated by the replacement of the original float level switches with analog instruments which have different i
units of calibration. The setting for low CST level is revised from "2-inches" to "3%."
This is effectively the same trip level setting presently required by the Technical Specifications, and is, therefore, acceptable.
3.0 ENVIRONMENTAL CONSIDERATION
S This amendment involves changes in the installation or use of a facility component located within the restricted area as defined in 10 CFR Part 20 and changes in 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 l
a 5-offsite, and that there is no significant increase in individual or cumulative occupational radiation exposure. The Commission has previously issued a proposed finding that this amendment involves no significant hazards consideration and there has been no public comment on such finding.
Accordingly, this 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 this amendment.
4.0 CONCLUSION
We have 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, and (2) 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.
Principal Contributors:
H. A. Schoppman R. A. Hermann K. E. Johnston Dated: October 9,1985 O
+
a
,m-w-
r.m.
7
.-n
,....,