ML20217B149
| ML20217B149 | |
| Person / Time | |
|---|---|
| Site: | Vermont Yankee File:NorthStar Vermont Yankee icon.png |
| Issue date: | 03/04/1991 |
| From: | Office of Nuclear Reactor Regulation |
| To: | |
| Shared Package | |
| ML20217A984 | List: |
| References | |
| NUDOCS 9103110150 | |
| Download: ML20217B149 (3) | |
Text
ouco y[s UNITro STATES 3
n NUCLE AR REGULATORY COMMISSION g
w Asmotos, n. c. tons
\\.'..../
SAFETY EVALVATION BY THE OFFICE OF NUCLEAR REACTOR REGULATION SUPPORTING AMENDMENT __NO.128 TO FACILITY OPERATING LICENSE NO. DPR-28 VERMONT YANKEE NUCLEAR POWER CORPORATION VERMONT _ YANKEE NUCLEAR POWER STATION DOCKEf NO. 50.271
_ INTRODUCTION By letter dated July 20,1990, the Vermont Yankee Nuclear Power Corporation (the licensee) requested an atendnent to Facility Operating License No. DPR-28 for the Vermont Yankee Nuclear Power Station.
The proposed amendment would revise the surveillance testing requirements of certain engineered safeguards equipment in the Technical Specifications (TS) and deletes an obsolete requite-ment from the T.S.
DISCUS $10N Vermont Yankee has evaluated its current inservice testing program against the NRC Generic Letter Bb04 and as a consequence is proposing changes to the Technical Specifications concerning certain surveillances. The proposed j
changes will ensurti that all inservice testing of pumps and valves will be
~
conducted under American Society of Mechanical Engineers (ASME) Code Section XI.
In addition Vermont Yankee is requesting the deletion of a portion of Technical Speciflcation Sections 3.5.A.3 and 4.5 A.3 that concern extending the limiting condition of o rings on the RHR pumps.peration to facilitate the replacement of impeller wear These replacements were made during the 1986-1987 operating cycle thus this portion of the TS is now obsolete.
The systems with changes to the surveillance requirements are the following:
a)-
Reactor Standby Liquid Control System b)
Core Spray and Low Pressure Cooling injection System c)
Residual Heat Removal Service Water System d):
Station Service Water and Alternate Cooling Water System e)
-High Pressure Coolant Injection System f)
Automatic Depressurization System g)
Reactor Core Isolation Cooling System 9103110150 910304 PDR ADOCK 0b000271 P
o 2
h)
Pressure Suppression Chamber - Reactor Building Vacuum Breakers 1)
Pressure Suppression Chamber - Drywell Vacuum Breakers j)
Primary Contoinment Is01ation Valves k)
Diesel Fuel Oil Transfer Pumps The proposed change removes individual surveillance frequencies from the noted
- yttens ar.d substitutes a reference to Technical Specification Section 4.6.E.
f,tructural Integrity and Operability Testing.
Section 4.6.E states that inurrice inspection and testing programs are to be performed in accordance dth Se: tion XI of the ASME code in accordance with 10 CFR 50.55a(g).
EVALVAT10ti The current testing frequency of the applicable pumps and valves listed above, except for a few that are tested at intervals of three months or greater, is once per month. ASME Code Section XI permits this testing to t e performed once every three months unless testing is not practical during plant operation.
In that case the relevant components must be identified by the licensee and tested only during cold shutdown periods. ASME Code Section XI is included by reference in 10 CFR 50.55a.
t Based on the above we conclude that the ssrveillance interval changes are acceptable. The changes to TS 3.5.A.3 and 4.5.A.3 are also acceptable as they merely delete. an obsolete requirement.
ENVIRONMENTAL CONSIDERATION 1
This amendment involves a change in the ute of facility components located within the restricted area as defined in 10 CFR Part 20 and changes to the 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 offsite, and that there is no significant increase in individual or cumulative occupational radiation exposure. The Comission has previously published a proposed finding that the amendment involves no significant hazards consideration and there has been no public coment on suc1 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 assess-ment need be prepared in connection with the issuance of this amendment.
CONCLUSION The Commission made a proposed determination that the amendment involves no significant hazards consideration which was published in the Federal Register (55 FR 36357) on September 5,1990 and consulted with the State of Vermont.
No public comments were received and the State of Vermont did not have any comments.
3 The staff has concluded, based on the considerations discussed above, that:
(1) thebc is reasonable assurance that the health and safety of the will not be endangered by operation in the proposed manner, and (2) public such activities will be conducted in compliance with the Connission's regulations, and (3) the issuance of this amendaent will not be inim' cal to the conunon defense and security or to the health and safety of the public.
Principal Contributor:
J. Colaccino Dattd!
Ma*ch 4, 1991 l
- _ _ _ _ - _ _ _ _ - - - - _ _ - - - _.