ML20235V009
| ML20235V009 | |
| Person / Time | |
|---|---|
| Site: | Vogtle  |
| Issue date: | 02/09/1989 |
| From: | Office of Nuclear Reactor Regulation |
| To: | |
| Shared Package | |
| ML20235V007 | List: |
| References | |
| NUDOCS 8903090478 | |
| Download: ML20235V009 (4) | |
Text
_ _ _ - _ _ _
UNITED STATES g
g NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSION 7,
[
WASHINGTON, D. C. 20655
%...../
SAFETY EVALUATION BY THE OFFICE OF NUCLEAR REACTOR REGULATION RELATED TO AMENDMENT NO. 18 TO FACILITY CPERATING LICEN3E NPF-68 GEORGIA POWER COMPANY, ET AL.
V0GTLE ELECTRIC GENERATING PLANT, UNIT 1 00CKET NO. 50-424
1.0 INTRODUCTION
The Vogtle Electric Generating Plant, Units 1 and 2 are of similar design with a shared control room.
In order to maximize the advantages of the similarities in the two units, Georgia Power Comp (TS) document for both units.
any (GPC) (the licensee) decided to utilize one Technical Specifications This document, a combined TS for both Units 1 and 2, was developed b9 revising the Unit 1 TS to make it applicable to both units.
By, letter dated December 12, 1928 GPC proposed changes to the TS for Vogtle Electric Generating Plant (VEGP), Unit I which would replace the Unit 1 TS with a combined Units 1 and 2 TS. The combined TS would become effective for Unit 2 when the Unit 2 Operating License is issued. All the changes necessary to convert the current Unit 1 TS into the combined Units 1 and 2 TS were included in the proposed amendment and are covered by this safety evaluation.
Additional information was submitted by letters dated January 13, 30, and 31, 1989.
Incluced in those submittals were additional editorial changes to the Technical Specifications, such as spelling corrections, capitalization, and correctico of titles for TS headings, tables, and figures. These additional changes do not substantially affect the amendment request as noticed or the staff's initial determination;.therefore, the amendment was not renoticed.
2.0 EVALUATION During the development of the combined Units 1 ano 2 TS the Unit 1 TS was reviewed relative to the design of Unit 2 in order to identify those portions of-the Unit 1 TS where requirements would be different for the two units. Those requirements.that apply only to Unit 1 were identified and, where necessary, requirements for Unit 2 were coded without changing the Unit I requirements.
The changes proposed by GPC include those necessary for Unit 1 to continue operation following start-up of Unit 2.
In the process, numerous editorial and formet changes were adoed that did not alter the TS requirements.
This evaluation involves the review of each proposed change. All but five of the changes represent format and coitorial changes, changes necessary in order to incorporate Unit 2 requireircnts, changes necessary to distinguish Unit 1 F
-2~
requirements from Unit 2 requirements, and changes necessary to indicate that the TS apply to each unit.
These proposed changes were evaluated by the NRC staff and found to be acceptable.
It shculd be noted that GPC recently proposed amendments to the Unit 1 TS which affect conversion to the combined Units 1 and 2 TS that have already been reviewed and approved by the NRC staff in separate actions.
The five changes incorporated into the combined Units 1 and 2 TS, that are not included with the changes mentioned above, are discussed below:
1)
Location of " Free" Field Accelerometer Seismic monitoring instrumentation for VEGP consists of 9 time history strong motion accelerometers (SMAs), 4 peak recording accelerometers (FRAs), a response-spectrum analyzer and 2 seismic switches. Data from the SMAs are fed to the control room for recording and processing by the response-spectrum analyzer. The spectrum analyzer produces the associated earthquake spectrum immediately following an earthquake for comparison with the design spectra. Since both Units share common buildings and the expected response is the same for both units, only one set of seismic instrumentation is provided for the site.
The purpose of the Free Field Accelerometer is to record a base line ground acceleration time history that is representative of a location that is not significantly influenced by the presence of structures. This information is to be used, along with the more significant acceleration time history information collected from in-structure accelerometers (SMAs), to form the basis for the evaluation that is required following an earthquake. The location of the VEGP " Free" Field Accelerometer is 225 feet from the Unit 1 Containment rather than 500 feet as stated in TS in order to assure that the data measured are free of soil / structure interaction (SSI) effects from adjacent structures. Therefore, GPC proposed changing the instru-mentation designation in Tables 3.3-5 and 4.3-4 from " Free Field (500 ft.
from containment)" to " Free Field (approx' 'tely 225 ft. from containment)."
By letter dated January 31, 1989, GPC res sted that the word " Free" be deleted from the designation of this instrument in TS Tables 3.3-5 and 4.3-4, because the instrument is not located in the free field. The NRC staff questioned whether GPC can verify the adequacy of the SSI used in the FSAR to justify startup in the event of a required shutdown due to an earthquake with data from the accelerometer located 225 f t from containment.
The licensee has informed the staff that they can verify the adequacy of the SSI using data from this accelerometer. To verify the adequacy of the SSI, the licensee would use the accelerometer data to derive a representative free field motion by using a three dimensional methodology such as the computer code SASSI. The staff finds this acceptable, and therefore, the TS change to reflect the as-built condition is acceptable.
In addition, the licensee plans to install another accelerometer to be located on the blue marl. The staff finds this acceptable.
~ 2)
Temperature Instrumentation for Room RC41 During the construction of VEGP Unit 2, GPC decided that the planned Unit 2 waste evaporator could be eliminated and so it was. This eliminated the need for routing the high energy steam lines through room RC41 to the planned Unit 2 waste evaporator.
Two high temperature detection instruments (ATE 19722B and ATE 19723B) were located in this room for the purpose of detecting a temperature increase that would indicate a rupture in the high energy steam line in the evaporator area.
GPC disconnected and capped the high energy line outside of room RC41 eliminating the need for these instruments. Therefore, GPC has proposed eliminating these instruments from Table 3.3-11 of the combined Units 1 and 2 TS. The NRC staff finds this proposed action acceptable.
3)
Additional Valve with Thermal Overload Protection Bypass During the development of the combined Units 1 and 2 TS an additional valve (1/2 HV-3548, RCS Hot Leg Sampic Valve) was identified as having a thermal overload protection bypass device and thus GPC has proposed adding it to Table 3.8-1.
The inclusion of this valve in Table 3.8-1 does not alter its current surveillance requirements. The NRC staff finds the proposed correction of this oversight adequate and acceptable.
4)
Unit 1 Area Temperature Monitoring for Room D067 The rooms identified in Table 3.7-3 cuntain safety-related equipment that is required for safe shutdown and is not served by ESF HVAC systems.
Temperature monitoring of these rooms ensures that the equipment will not be subjected to excessive temperatures for prolonged periods of time.
During the preparation of the combined Units 1 and 2 TS it was discovered that pressure transmitter IPT-11742, which controls one train of the NSCW tower spray header inlet and bypass valves, was located in auxiliary building room 0067 rather than room D068. Room D068 does not contain any safety-related safe shutdown equipment. Therefore, GPC has proposed revising Table 3.7-3 to add room D067 to the list of rooms requiring temperature monitoring and to delete room 0068. The NRC staff finds the proposed change acceptable.
5)
Fuel Handling Building Heater Requirement During the review of the combined Unit I and 2 TS a concern was raised that the TS 4.9.12 value for the Fuel Handling Building HVAC system heater dissipation (18 + or - 2 kW) was inconsistent with the design rating of 20 kW.
As stated in ANSI N509, the heater should be sized to ensure that the relative humidity of incoming air will be reduced to less than 70 percent to ensure that water does not build up on the charcoal adsorber bed.
In a telephone conference the licensee explained that the initial calculation
4 s
-. s t
for heater size, Lased on a generic equation commonly used in the industry for this purpose, yielded a minimum heat dissipation requirement of 18.9 kW. This resulted in the purchase of the 20 kW HVAC system heater which when tested according to survelliance requirement 4.10.1.2.d.4 has consistently exceeded 20 kW. GPC revised the design calculation for heater sizing using plant specific data, and the new calculation indicates a minimum heat dissipation requirement of 17 4' is sufficient value. GPC proposed correcting the "18 + or - 2 kW" requiN. ment in surveillance requirement 4.9.12.d.4 to "20 + or - 2 kW."
The NRC staff finds the proposed change acceptable.
Summary The replacement of the Unit 1 TS with a combined Units 1 and 2 TS and all changes necessary to affect the conversion, as de,cribed in this amendment proposed by GPC, are judged by the NRC staff to be adequate and acceptable.
3.0 ENVIRONMENTAL CONSIDERATION
This amendment involves changes in the installation or use of the facility's components located within the restricted areas as defined in 10 CFR 20. 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 Commission has previously issued a proposed finding that this amendment involves no sigr.ificant hazards consideration, and there has been ne public comment on such finding. Accordingly, this amendment meets the eligibility criteria for categorical exclusion set forthin10CFR51.22(c)(9).
Pursuant to 10 CFR 51.22(b) no environmental assessment need be prepared in connection with the issuance of this amendment.
4.0 CONCLUSION
The Commission made a proposed determination that the amendment involves no significant hazards consideration which was published in the Federal Register on December 27, 1988 (53 FR 52266), and consulted with the state of Georgia.
No public comments were received, and the state of Georgia did not have any comments.
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 j
conducted in compliance with the Commission's regulations and the issuance of l
these amendments will not be inimical to the common defense and security or to j
the health and safety of the public.
Principal Contributors:
John 0. Schiffgens, PDII-3/DRP-1/II l
Jon B. Hopkins, PDII-3/DRP-1/II 1
l Dated: February 9, 1989 l
_-