ML20248D522
| ML20248D522 | |
| Person / Time | |
|---|---|
| Site: | Vogtle  |
| Issue date: | 03/31/1989 |
| From: | Office of Nuclear Reactor Regulation |
| To: | |
| References | |
| NUREG-1137, NUREG-1137-S09, NUREG-1137-S9, NUDOCS 8904110499 | |
| Download: ML20248D522 (22) | |
Text
NUREG-1137 Supplement No. 9
~
Safety Evaluation Report related to the operation of Vogtle Electric Generating Plant, Units 1 and 2 Docket Nos. 50-424 and 50-425 Georgia Power Company, et al.
U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission Office of Nuclear Reactor Regulation March 1989 p%9
$$s,hI((/
x ..-
gn"iB82 818sj!ga ,
1 AVAILABILITY NOTICE Availability of Reference Materials Cited in NRC Publications Most documents cited in NRC publications will be available frorn one of the following i Sources: j
- 1. The NRC Public Document Room, 2120 L Street, NW, Lower Level, Washington, DC 205S5'
- 2. The Superintendent of Documents. U.S. Govemment Printing Office, P.O. Box 37082, i Washington, DC 20013 ~TS2
- 3. The National Technical inioimation Service, Springfield. VA 22161 I
Although the listing that follows represents the majority of documents cited in NRC publica-tions, it is not incided to be exhaustive. ;
Referenced documents available for inspection and copying for a fee from the NRC Public Document Room include NRC correspondence and internal NRC memoranda; NRC Office of Inspection and Enforcement bulletins, circulars, information notices, inspection and investi-gation notices; Licensee Event Reports; vendor reports and correspondence; Commission ,
papers; and applicant and lit,ensee documents and correspondence. l The following doc'Jments in the NUREG series are available for purchase from the GPO Sales Program: formal NRC staff and contractor reports, NRC-sponsoreel conference proceed-I ings, and NRC booklets and brochures. Also available are Regulatory Guides, NRC regula-tions in the Code of Federal Regulations, and Nuclear Regulatory Commission issuances.
Documents available from the National Technical Information Service include NUREG series reports and technical reports prepared by other federal agencies and reports prepared by the Atomic Energy Commission, forerunner agency to the Nuclear Regulatory Commission.
Documents available from public and special technical libraries include all open literature items, such as books, journal and periodical articles, and transactions. Federal Register notices, federal and state legislation, and congressional reports can usually be obtained from these libraries.
Documents such as theses, dissertations, foreign reports and translations, and non,NRC conference proceedings are available for purchase from the organization sponsoring the publication cited.
Single copies of NRC draft reports are available free, to the extent of supply, upon written request to the Office of Information Resources Management, Distribution Section, U.S.
Nuclear Regulatory Commission, Washington, DC 20555.
Copies of industry codes and standards used in a substantive manner in the NRD regulatory process are maintained at the NRC Library, 7920 Norfolk Avenue, Bethesda, Maryland, and are available there for reference use by the public. Codes and standards are usually copy-righted and may be purchased from the originating organization or, if they are American National Standards, from the American Natior,al Standards Institute,1430 Broadway, New York, NY 10018.
1 ABSTRACT I
In June 1985, the staff of the Nuclear Regulatory Commission issued its Safety Evaluation Report (NUREG-1137) regarding .the application of Georgia Power l Company, Municipal Electric Authority of Georgia, Oglethorpe Power Corporation, and the City of Dalton, Georgia, for licenses to operate the Vogtle Electric Generating Plant, Units 1 and 2 (Docket Nos. 50-424 and 50-425). Supplement 1 to NUREG-1137 was issued by the staff in October 1985, Supplement 2 was issued in May 1986, Supplement 3 was issued in August 1986, Supplement 4 was issued in December 1986, Supplement 5 was issued in January 1987, Supplement 6 was issued in March 1987, Supplement 7 was issued in January 1988, and Supplement 8 was issued in February 1989. The facility is located in Burke County, Georgia, approximately 26 miles south-southeast of Augusta, Georgia, and on the Savannah River.
This ninth supplement to NUREG-1137 provides recent information regarding resolution of condit:onal items following issuance of Supplement 8.
Vogtle SSER 9 iii
_ _ - _ - =_ .___ __ ____ _ ______ __________________
TABLE OF CONTENTS P_ age ABSTRACT.............................................................. iii 1 INTRODUCTION AND GENERAL PLANT DESCRIPTION........................ 1-1 1.1 Introduction................................................ 1-1
- 1. 7 Open Items.................................................. 1-2
- 1. 8 C o n f i rma to ry I te m s . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1-2
- 1. 9 . L i c e n s e Cond i t i o n I tes;:s . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1-2 2 SITE CHARACTERISTICS............................................. 2-1 2.5 Geology and Seismology...................................... 2-1 2.5.2 Vibratory Ground Motion.............................. 2-1 3 DESIGN OF STRUCTURES, COMPONENTS, EQUIPMENT, AND SYSTEMS......... 3-1
- 3. 6 Protection Against Dynamic Effects Associated With the Postulated Rupture of Piping................................ 3-1 !
3.6.3 Leak-Before-Break Eval uation. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 3-1
- 3. 9 Mechanical Systems and Components........................... 3-3 3.9.2 Dynamic Te ting and Analysis of Systems, Components, and Equipment........................................ 3-3 4 REACT 0R.......................................................... 4-1 4.4 Thermal-Hydraulic Design.................................... 4-1 4.4.8 Instrumentation for Detection of Inadequate Core Cooling.............................................. 4-1
! 4.4.8.5 Reactor Vessel Level Instrumentation System...................................... 4-1 I
9 AUXILIARY SYSTEMS................................................ 9-1 9.5 Other Auxiliary Systems..................................... 9-1 9.5.4 Emergency Diesel Engine Fuel Oil Storage and Transfer Systems..................................... 9-1 Vogtle SSER 9 v
TABLE OF CONTENTS (Continued) l 14 INITIAL TEST PR0 GRAM............................................. 14-1 22 FINANCIAL PROTECTION AND INDEMNITY REQUIREMENTS.................. 22-1 22.4 Onsite Property Damage Insurance........................... 22-1 22.6 Antitrust ................................................. 22-1 APPENDICES A CONTINUATION OF CHRONOLOGY OF RADIOLOGICAL REVIEW 0F V0GTLE UNITS 1 AND 2 OPERATING LICENSE REVIEW E NRC STAFF CONTRIBUTORS AND CONSULTANTS K ERRATA TO THE SAFETY EVALUATION REPORT AND ITS SUPPLEMENTS 1
l l
I l
i Vogtle SSER 9 vi
1 INTRODUCTION AND GENERAL DESCRIPTION OF PLANT 1.1 Introduction In June 1985, the Nuclear Regulatory Commission staff (NRC or staff) issued a Safety Evaluation Report (SER), NUREG-1137, on the application of the Georgia Power Company (hereinafter referred to as the licensee) for licenses to operate the Vogtle Electric Generating Plant, Units 1 and 2. Supplement 1 to NUREG-1137 was issued in October 1985, Supplement 2 was issued in May 1986, Supplement 3 was issued in August 1986, Supplement 4 was issued in December 1986, Supplement 5 was issued in January 1987, Supplement 6 was issued in March 1987, Supplement 7 was issued in January 1988, and Supplement 8 was issued in February 1989. This document, the ninth supplement to that SER (SSER 9), provides the staff evalua-tion of items that have been resolved since SSER 8 was issued. SSER 9 is the i final planned supplement to the SER and supports the issuance of a full power license for Vogtle Unit 2. This supplement provides the conclusions, on the basis of the staff's review of the Final Safety Analysis Report (FSAR) through Amendment 39, that Unit 2 may be issued a license authorizing power up to 100 percent.
In addition to updating the status of license conditions as identified in SSER 8, this supplement discusses seismic instrumentation and antitrust considerations.
The design of Unit 2 is essentially the same as Unit 1 except for the spent fuel racks and the application of leak-before-break analysis. The Unit 2 spent fuel racks were evaluated in SSER 8 and the leak-before-break analysis, which was evaluated in SSERs 7 and 8, Section 3.6.3, is further updated in this supplement <
as a result of NRC Bulletin 88-11.
Each of the sections and appendices of this supplement is designated the same as the related portion of the SER. Each section is supplementary to and not in lieu of the discussion in the SER, unless otherwise noted. Appendix A is a con-tinuation of the chronology of this safety review, Appendix E lists the prin-cipal contributors, and Appendix K is a continuation of errata to the SER and its supplements. Appendices B*, C, D, F, G, H, I, J, L, M, N, 0, P, Q, R, S, T, U, V, and W have not been changed by this supplement.
The NRC Project Manager for the operating license review of this supplement is Jon B. Hopkins. He may be reached by telephone at (301) 492-7000 or by mail at the following address:
l Office of Nuclear Reactor Regulation i U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission Washington, DC 20555 I
l
- Availability of material cited is described on the inside front cover of this report.
j Vogtle SSER 9 1-1
( ------ - --- _ -
. 1 Copies of this SER supplement are available for inspection at the NRC Public j Document Room, 2120 L Street N.W., Washington, D.C. 20555, and at the local Public Document Room at the Burke County Library, 412 4th Street, Waynesboro, Caorgia 30830.
1.7 Open ILems All open items were resolved in previous supplements to the SER.
1.8 Confirmatory Items )
l All confirmatory items were resolved in previous supplements to the SER.
1.9 License Condition Items License cor.ditions 12, 18, 23, 24, and 26 are discussed in this supplement. The complete list of license conditions and their status is provided in updated Table 1.6. For those conditions discussed in this supplement, the relevant sec-tion is noted.
l l
I Vogtle SSER 9 1-2 1
4 Table 1.6 Listing of license conditions (revised from SSER 7)
Item Status
- Section**
(1) Long-term groundwater and settlement Resolved (SSER 4) monitoring requirements l
(2) Inservice testing of pumps and valves Resolved for Unit 1 (SSER 5), resolved for Unit 2 (SSER 8)
(3) Final baseline report for th+ loose Resolved (SSER 5) parts monitoring system (4) Technical Specification for maximum Resolved (SSER 3) permissible temperature mismatch (5) Inservice inspection program Resolved for Unit 1 (SSER 4)
Resolved for Unit 2 (SSER 8)
(6) Operability requirements for vent Resolved (SSER 4) system in Technical Specifications (7) Exemption from 10 CFR 50, Appendix J, Paragraph III.D.2(b)(ii)
(8) Exemption from 10 CFR 70.24 (9) Operating experience on shift Resolved (SSER 5)
(10) Implementation and maintenance of physical security plan (11) Technical Specification to require four Resolved (SSER 3) valves to be closed during refueling (12) Reactor vessel level instrumentation Completed for system implementation report Unit 1 (SSER 7)
Resolved for Unit 2 4.4.8.5 (SSER 9)
(13) Fire protection (14) Receipt of leak rate test results Resolved (SSER 8)
(15) Steam generator tube rupture Resolved (SSER 8)
(16) Natural circulation boration and Resolved (SSER 5) cooldown tests (17) Replacement of zinc coating of Unit 1 Completed (SSER 7) diesel fuel oil storage tanks See footnotes at end of table.
Vogtle SSER 9 1-3
Table 1.6 (Continued)
Item Status
- Section**
(18) TDI maintenance and surveillance items Completed for Unit 2 9.5.4 (SSER 9)
(19) Monitoring of alternate radwaste Completed (SSER 8) facility exhaust (20) Detailed control room design Resolved (SSER 8) review (21) Schedular exemption for Unit 1 spent Completed (SSER 7) fuel pool racks (22) Safety parameter display system Resolved (SSER 8)
(23) Pressurizer surge line thermal Completed (SSER 9) 3.6.3 stratification (24) Exemption for Unit 2 from Resolved (SSER 9) 22.4 10 CFR 50.54(w)(5)(i)
(25) Exemption for Unit 2 from Addressed (SSER 8) 10 CFR 50.33(k)(1)
(26) Initial Test Program Resolved for Unit 2 14 (SSER 9)
- " Resolved" indicates resolution before full power licensing; thus the issue was never identified as a condition in the full power license; " Completed" indicates that the licensee has fulfilled the requirements of a condition in the license.
- Section of this supplement in which item is discussed.
Vogtle SSER 9 1-4
t .
2 SITE CHARACTERISTh 2.5 Geology and Seisnology 2.5.2 Vibratory Ground Motion In a letter to the NRC, dated December 12, 1988, the licensee requested approval to combine the technical specifications for Units 1 and 2 into one document.
Among the items affected by this action was the location of a free-field seismic monitoring instrument to be approximately 225 feet from the Unit 1 containment building on structural backfill material rather than at the previously reported 500-foot distance.
In conference calls on January 26 and January 31, 1989, the staff discussed with !
the licensee the appropriateness of the location of this instrument, which accord- '
ing to the licensee was expected to be influenced by soil / structure interaction and therefore could not be considered a free-field instrument. The staff ex-pressed concern that the primary purpose of the free-field seismic monitoring instrument could not be satisfied; namely, the use of true free-field recorded !
motion to verify the accuracy of the mathematical models ut,ed in the seismic analysis of the seismic Category 1 buildings and equipment.
Subsequently, the licensee submitted additional information by letter dated February 6,1989, suggesting a mathod to estimate, under earthquake conditions, ,
the free-field motion from the instrument located on the structural backfill. '
This method involved three-dimensional modeling of the structures and the sur-rounding soil properties utilizing the SASSI soil / structure interaction computer program or a similar program. The staff found this acceptable and approved the change in Amendment 18 to Operating License NPF-68 on February 9, 1989.
In its letter of February 6, 1989, the licensee also co uitted to place a free-field seismic monitoring instrument on an outcrop of the Blue Bluff Marl, which is the bearing stratum for the plant structures. This additional redundant l
instrument would provide data that would not need to be analyzed by a program using a three-dimensional model. An area being explored for locar.ing the in-strument is approximately 2000 feet northeast of the Unit 1 containment building.
The staff has reviewed this additional action and finds that it is in accordance with recommendations in NRC Regulatory Guide 1.12, " Instrumentation for Earth-quakes," and is acceptable. When installed, this instrument should be included in the Technical Specifications with the other seismic instrumentation.
l l
l l
l Vogtle SSER 9 2-1
1 1
3 DESIGN OF STRUCTURES, COMPONENTS, EQUIPMENT, AND SYSTEMS j 3.6 Protection Against Dynamic Effects Associated With the Postulated Rupture l of Piping 3.6.3 Leak-Before-Break Evaluation The pressurizer surge line (PSL) for Vogtle Unit 2 is a stainless steel pipe connecting the bottom of the pressurizer vessel to the hot leg of one of the '
reactor coolant system (RCS) loops. The PSL has two portions with different pipe diameters--16 inches and 14 inches--and a connecting reducer. The out flow of pressurizer water is generally warmer than the RCS hot-leg flow. Such temperature differential (delta T) varies with the plant operation activities and can be as high as 315 F during initial plant heatup for Unit 2. Thermal stratification is the separation of hot and cold flow in the horizontal portion of the PSL, resulting in a temperature difference from the top and bottom of the pipe. The potential for stratification is increased as delta T increases and as the insurge or outsurge flow rate decreases. Stratification in PSLs was found recently and confirmed by data measured from several pressurized-water reactor (PWR) plants.
In the original PSL design analysis for Unit 2, the insurges or outsurges were assumed to sweep the fluid along the line, resulting in uniform thermal loading at any particular piping location. Such analysis did not reflect the actual thermal condition of the PSL; thus, undesirable line dcflection and the result-ing actual high stresses may exceed design limits. In addition, the striping phenomenon may induce high-cycle fatigue in the inner pipe wall; this phenomenon ;
also was not analyzed. Thus, assessment of stratification effects on PSL is necessary to ensure piping integrity and conformance to the American Society of Mechanical Engineers Boiler and Pressure Vessel Code (ASME Code).
Since stratification in the PSL is a generic concern to all PWRs, NRC Information Notice 88-80 was issued on October 7, 1988, and NRC Bulletin 88-11 on December 20, 1988.
On January 24 and March 9,1989, the licensee and Westinghouse presented the staff with preliminary and final results of their bounding analysis of PSL t-o account for the stratification effects. Viewgraph of the presentations were documented in two draft proprietary reports by Westin@ ouse.* The licensee submitted a final report on March 22, 1989, which pr(vided presentation
- Letter from Georgia Power Company to NRC, " Pressurizer Surge Line Stratifica-tion," File X7BC30, February 2, 1989,
Attachment:
Draft Westinghouse Proprie-tary Report WCAP-12132, " Surge Line Stratification Pre:;entation Overheads, Georgia Power /NRC Meeting, January 24, 1989.'"
Draf t Westinghouse Proprietary Report WCAP-12199, " Surge Line Stratification Presentation Overheads," Georgia Power /NRC meeting, submitted March 13, 1989.
Vogtle SSER 9 3-1
material and explanatory text. In addition, the licensee intends to review the data from its monitoring program to confirm the design thermal transients and the temperature stratification profile that have been used in the analyses.
The staff's evaluation of the licensee's efforts and information provided in its two presentations follows.
The licensee monitored the PSL and collected data for verifying stratification conditions. This data was used in conjunction with data collected from PSLs of five other Westinghouse-designed PWRs for developing flow stratification pro-files. An enveloping temperature profile and plant-specific profile were investigated. The staff found that the licensee's efforts for monitoring and updating PSL stratification conditions were comprehensive and acceptable. The licensee indicated that PSL monitoring will continue until the next refueling outage for Unit 2 to confirm the design thermal transients and stratification profile used at this time. The staff concurs with the licensee's approach.
To account for thermal striping effects to the PSL, Westin( c ? had conducted a flow test in its Waltz Mill Laboratory. Test results were s d to define m striping amplitudes and frequencies, based on their more severe ra ner than actual effects to PSL stresses and fatigue. Portions of PSL that a<perienced stratification and striping were defined on the basis of measured results. No stratification was found at the 16-inch-diameter portion of the PSL, which is located near the vertical portion connecting the pressurizer. The time and distance factors that decay the striping effects also were considered. The staff found that the approach for assessing the striping effects is conservative and acceptable.
The stratification-induced global bending of the Unit 2 surge line was calculated using the computer code. A 315 F step temperature change was assumed for strati-fication throughout the surge line. The changes were linearalized in the ANSYS computation using conventional pipe element model analysis. The staff has re-viewed details of some sample calculations and discussed analytical techniques with Westinghouse. The staff's review verified that, in these sample cases, the results of simplified ANSYS analysis and results of elaborate non-linear finite element analysis were similar in calculated surge line displacements. The li-censee also reported that the best estimate in analytical results compared favor-ably with measured displacement data observed during the Unit 2 heatups. The staff concludes that the calculated results using ANSYS and the measured results are adequate and acceptable.
The Unit 2 surge line has some special features. The line was designed with two portions of different pipe diameters, the 14-inch and 16-inch portions connected by a reducer, which has a stress concentration effect. In addition, the surge line had two rigid vertical supports that were inflexible to accommodate !
stratification-induced thermal stress. The licensee reported in WCAP-12199 that one of the two rigid supports was replaced by a spring hanger and snubber. In addition, a plant-specific temperature profile was developed and used instead of using a generic bounding profile. Eleven cases were analyzed to calculate piping response under all required loading conditionr. Nozzle loads at locations connecting the surge line to the pressurizer and the hot leg of the main RCS l loop also were evaluated. The analysis results indicated that the calculated l stresses in piping and pipe supports, after taking appropriate combinations of stresses produced by other loadings, are within the limits of the ASME Section III Code. The staff finds that the licensee's corrective measure and analysis are acceptable.
Vogtle SSER 9 3-2
The staff found the PSL at Vogtle Unit 2 in compliance with the revised General Design Criterion 4, of Appendix A to 10 CFR Part 50 (GDC-4) using leak-before-break (LBB) technology. However, the recently reported phenomenon of thermal stratification in PSLs necessitated the reevaluation of the surge line. The staff finds the additional information provided by the licensee and the licensee's 1 action to revise plant operating procedures to provide prompt depressurization in the event of a leak adequate in resolving the pressurizer surge line LBB issue for Unit 2. Thus, the conclusion that the PSL at Vogtle Unit 2 was in compliance with the revised GDC-4 is still valid.
On the basis of its review of information provided by the licensee, the staff concludes that acceptable efforts have been made for Unit 2 to meet the requested action items 2.a and 2.c as delineated in NRC Bulletin 88-11. These efforts have demonstrated that, based on a plant-specific temperature profile defined by available stratification data of Vogtle Unit 2, the surge line meets the appli-cable design Code and design criteria.
- 3. 9 Mechanical Systems and Components 3.9.2 Dynamic Testing and Analysis of Systems, Components, and Equipment By letter dated December 7, 1988, the licensee responded to NRC Bulletin 88-09,
" Thimble Tube Thinning in Westinghouse Reactors." The response contained the re-sults of the Unit 1 thimble tube inspection conducted during the first refueling outage and the licensee's schedule to inspect the Unit 2 thimble tubet during the first refueling outage for Unit 2. The staff reviewed this information and found it acceptable; the licensee was informed by letter dated January 26, 1989.
I I
Vogtle SSER 9 3-3 (
4 REACTOR 4.4 Thermal-Hydraulic Design 4.4.8 Instrumentation for Detection of Inadequate Core Cooling 4.4.8.5 Reactor Vessel Level Instrumentation System By letter dated March 6, 1989, the licensee responded to a request for additional information from the staff dated February 25, 1989, regarding three items ad-dressed by special license conditions in the Vogtle Operating License NPF-79 for low power operation of Unit 2. The licensee's implementation of the Unit 2 reactor vessel level instrumentation system (RVLIS) was one of the items ad-dressed in the response. The licensee has filled, calibrated, performed initial startup, and functionally tested the RVLIS for Unit 2. A final dynamic calibra-tion remains to be performed for the Unit 2 RVLIS. The dynamic calibration adjusts the compensation curve for the RVLIS dynamic range using actual differ-ential pressures and system temperatures collected during plant heatup with all reactor ccolant pumps running. The licensee expects that only minor adjustments will be made, based on its Unit 1 experience. The licensee expects that this action will be complete by the end of April 1989. As stated in SSER 8, the licensee, by letter dated December 8, 1988, committed to submit the RVLIS imple-mentation report before commercial operation.
On the basis of current operational capability of the Unit 2 RVLIS and on the operational experience of the Unit 1 minor dynamic adjustment, the NRC staff finds that there is no need for a license condition with regard to the RVLIS.
This resolves License Condition 12 for Unit 2.
Vogtle SSER 9 4-1
_ _ _ _ _ - _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ . _ _ l
9 AUXILIARY SYSTEMS ,
- 9. 5 Other Auxiliary Systems 9.5.4 Emergency Diesel Engine Fuel Oil Storage and Transfer Systems By letter dated March 6, 1989, the licensee provided additional information concerning three items that were addressed as conditions in Operating License NPF-79 for low power operation of Unit 2, One of the items concerned the Transamerica Delavel, Inc. (TDI), diesel generators (DGs). The licensee stated that all of the maintenance and surveillance requirements contained in the low power license condition have been incorporated into plant procedures.
Furthermore, the licensee stated that there have been no major problems imple-menting those requirements for the TDI DGs.
On the basis of its review of the information provided, the NRC staff finds' that the maintenance and surveillance requirements for TDI DGs tre being appro-priately implemented and therefore there is no need for a condition regarding the TDI DGs in the Unit 2 full power license. This completes License Condi-tion 18 for Unit 2.
l l
Vogtle SSER 9 9-1 L_ __ - - - - _ - _ - _ - _ _ - - - _ _ -
l 14 INITIAL TEST PROGRAM I
By letter dated March 6, 1989, the licensee provided additional information concerning three items that were addressed as conditions in Operating License NPF-79 for low power operation of Unit 2. One of the items concerned the initial test program (ITP) described in Section 14 of the Vogtle Final Safety Analysis Report (FSAR). The licensee provided information about the changes ,
made to the Unit 1 ITP in accordance with 10 CFR 50.59.
The NRC staff reviewed the ITP changes for Unit 1 and provided the results of its review to the licensee by letter dated October 8, 1987. The staff presented its evaluation of the Unit 1 ITP changes in SSER 7. In its evaluation, the staff accepted the ITP changes except for deletion of the load swing test from 100 per-cent power, which also included performing an automatic steam generator level control test during that load swing test. The licensee performed thost two tests in November 1987. After the staff s evaluation of the Unit 1 ITP changes on the basis of ITP data for Unit 1 and construction test data for Unit 2, the licensee proposed numerous changes to the Unit 2 ITP in FSAR Amendments 35 through 39.
The staff reviewed those changes and found them acceptable in SSER 8. After SSER 8 was issued, the licensee informed the staff by letter dated February 28, 1989, that the Unit 1 ITP had been completed. On the basis of the completed Unit 1 ITP and the numerous changes approved for the Unit 2 ITP, the staff finds tnat there is no need for a license condition with regard to reporting the Unit 2 ITP changes within 30 days. Therefore, license condition 26 is resolved for Unit 2.
l l
1 Vogtle SSER 9 14-1 1
l 1
~
\
l i
22 FINANCIAL PROTECTION AND INDEMNITY REQUIREMENTS 22.4 Onsite Property Damage Insurance !
On February 9,1989, the NRC issued Operating License NPF-79 authorizing opera-tion to 5 percent of full power for Vogtle Unit 2. A temporary exemption from the schedule requirement of 10 CFR 50.54(w)(5)(i) until April 1, 1989, was con-tained in that license. The staff's evaluation of the temporary exemption is given in SSER 8.
On March 17, 1989, the NRC published in the Federal Register (54 FR 11161) an immediately effective final rule amending 10 CFR 50.54(w). The rule establishes April 4, 1990, as the date by which licensees are to obtain insurance policies that prioritize insurance proceeds for stabilization and decontamination after an accitient and provide for payment of proceeds to an independent trustee who ur will disburse Therefore, funds for from an exemption decontamination and cleanup the schedule requirement before of 10 any other CFR 50.54 (5)(i) p(w) pose.
is not needed to issue a full power license. This reso'lves License Condition 24. l 22.6 Antitrust Pursuant to Section 105c of the Atomic Energy Act of 1954, as amended, and the Commission's rules and regulations, the staff will analyze changes in the licens-ees' activities that have occurred since the initial antitrust review at the con-struction permit stage. As in the case of Vogtle, if multiunits are included'in the application for the construction permit review, separate operating license reviews of antitrust issues are conducted for those units that are scheduled to be licensed 18 months or more after the previous unit has been licensad. Vogtle Unit 1 received its full power license from the Commission on March 16, 1987, and the antitrust review for the Unit 1 operating license was completed on Novem-ber 16, 1986. Since more than 18 months has passed since the Unit 1 review, the staff conducted an antitrust review for Vogtle Unit 2. In the process of con-ducting its review, the staff considered the structure of the electric utility industry in Georgia and the events relevant to the Unit 1 operating license review, as well as the events that have occurred since that review. The staff believes the competitive stimuli introduced during the antitrust review at the construction permit stage are continuing to promote competition and enhance the competitive process throughout the Georgia electric bulk power market. As a result of this latest review, the staff has determined that there have been no significant changes in the licensee's activities since the previous antitrust l review conducted for Unit 1; therefore, there are no antitrust issues to be resolved before the Unit 2 full power operating license is issued.
1 Vogtle SSER 9 22-1
i 1
APPENDIX A CONTINUATION OF CHRON0 LOGY OF RADIOLOGICAL REVIEW 0F V0GTLE UNITS 1 AND 2 OPERATING LICENSE REVIEW January 17, 1989 Letter from licensee certifying that Unit 2 is designed, constructed, and tested in accordance with 10 CFR 20, 50, 51, and 100 and conforms with the FSAR and other licensing documents.
I January 25, 1989 Letter from licensee responding to request for additional 4 information related to FSAR Amendment 39.
January 26, 1989 Letter from licensee concerning control room emergency filtration system.
January 27, 1989 Letter from licensee forwarding Revision 4 to Inservice Test Program.
January 30, 1989 Letter from licensee concerning seismic qualification.
January 30, 1989 Letter from licensee concerning environmental qualification.
January 30, 1989 Letter from licensee forwarding revision to the final draft for combined Technical Specifications.
January 31, 1989 Letter from licensee concerning containment isolation valve leakage rate tests.
January 31, 1989 Letter from licensee providing statement of completion and ,
requesting low power operating license for Unit 2.
i January 31, 1989 Letter from licensee forwarding revision to the final draft l for combined Technical Specifications.
1 January 31, 1989 Letter from licensee forwarding safeguards event log.
February 1,1989 Letter from licensee certifying that Technical Specifications reflect the "as-built" condition of Unit 2 and the FSAR.
February 2, 1989 Letter from licensee concerning Confirmatory Item C-14(k)(1),
pump and valve installation and qualification.
February 2, 1989 Letter from licensee responding to Generic Letter 88-17.
February 3,1989 Letter from licensee forwarding Revision 5 to Training and Qualification Plan.
Vogtle SSER 9 1 Appendix A i
e I
February 3, 1989 Letter from licensee responding to IE Bulletin 85-03. I l
February 3, 1989 Letter from licensee forwarding Amendment 11 to Security J Plan.
February 3, 1989 Letter from licensee responding to request for additicnal information related to FSAR Chapter 14.
February 6, 1989 Letter from licensee concerning free-field strong-motion accelerometers.
February 7, 1989 Letter from licensee forwarding statement of completion and requesting a low power operating license.
February 9, 1989 Letter to licensee forwarding Amendment 17 to Operating License NPF-68. .The amendment modified the Technical Speci-fications to reflect the control reoa configuration for two-unit operation.
February 9, 1989 Letter to licensee forwarding Facility Operating License NPF-79 authorizing Unit 2 to operate at up to 5 percent of full power.
February 9, 1989 Letter to licensee forwarding Amendment 18 to Operating License NPF-68. The amendment replaces the Unit 1 Techni- '
cal Specifications with combined Technical Specifications for Units 1 and 2.
February 22, 1989 Letter from licensee forwarding Inservice Inspection Summary Report.
February 24, 1989 Letter from licensee responding to request for information regarding FSAR Chapter 14, "NSCW NPSH Evaluation."
February 25, 1989 Letter to licensee requesting additional information in order to complete review of four items before the full-power license is issued.
February 25, 1989 Letter to licensee forwarding notice of withdrawal of application for amendment.
February 28, 1989 Letter to licensee forwarding revised copies of Arr.endment 4 to Indemnity Agreement.
February 28, 1989 Letter from licensee concerning reactor containment building integrated leakage rate test.
February 28, 1989 Letter from licensee forwarding Supplement 6 to Summary Report of Startup Test Program.
March 6, 1989 Letter from licensee forwarding additional information concerning three conditions of low power Operating License NPF-79.
Vogtle SSER 9 2 Appendix A
March 8, 1989 Letter to licensee forwarding Amendments 19 and 1 to Facility Operating Licenses NPF-68 and NPF-79, respectively. Amend-ments modify Technical Specification 4.5.2.h.1(b) for Unit 2 !
to increase the maximum total charging pump flow rate with a single pump running.
March 9, 1989 Meeting with licensee to discuss the Unit 2 pressurizer surge line. (Summary issued March 10, 1989.)
March 10, 1989 Letter from licensee concerning safety parameter display system availability testing.
March 13, 1989 letter from licensee concerning pressurizer surge line stratification.
March 22, 1989 Letter from licensee providing final report on stratifica-tion effects of pressurization surge line.
Vogtle SSER 9 3 Appendix A
1.
c I
I APPENDIX E NRC STAFF CONTRIBUTORS AND CONSULTANTS i
This supplement to the Vogtle Safety Evaluation Report is a product of the NRC staff and its consultants. The NRC staff members and consultants listed below were principal contributors to this report.
i Name Title Unit G. Giese-Koch Seismologist Structural and Geosciences Branch J. Hopkins ProjectManager Project Directorate II-3
- 5. Hou Mechanical Engineer Mechanical Engineering Branch P. Kuo Section Leader Mechanical Engineering Branch W. Lambe Antitrust Analyst Policy Development and Technical Support Branch S. Lee Materials Engineer Materials Engineering Branch :
J. Schiffgens Project Engineer Project Directorate II-3 ,
i K, Wichman Section Leader Materials Engineering Branch
)
I Vogtle SSER 9 1 Appendix E
4.'
e APPENDIX K ERRATA TO THE SAFETY EVALUATION REPORT AND ITS SUPPLEMENTS
% Paragraph
- Line Change Supplement 8 2-2 2 8 Insert "as" after "well" 3-4 --
Top of Add " Code requirements are impractical page within the limits of design,' geometry, and" 3-4 --
Item (3) Change the first "PR-2" to "PR-1" Change "PR-26" to "RR-26" 9-2 1 3 Delete line 9-5 3 1 Insert "as supplemented," after "1987" 9-6 1 3 Change "or" to "of" 9-6 1 4 Insert " Westinghouse 17 x 17 standard or" before " optimized" 9-6 3 1 Change "0.936" to "0.943" 9-7 5 6 Change "105 F" to "115 F" 9-8 4 6 Change " dated" to " data" 9-13 1 3 Change "retracking" to "reracking" 9-18 3 5 Change " reply" to " rely" l 11-3 3 3 Insert " building" after " turbine" i
- Full paragraph Vogtle SSER 9 1 Appendix K 1
l a_---__---_---__-__ _ .- _
u uCan mm,OR v
- Rg- - -..O., ,,T,,u...,_m0,,._,..,,,,,,
$7'37 BIBLIOGRAPHIC DATA SHEET NUREG-1137 ae ihsTRucTiO=s O., tai Rivims, Supplement No. 9 2 TITLE AND SueTITLE 3 ggaygggang Safety Evaluation Report related to the Operation of Vogtle Electric Generating Plant, Units 1 and 2 4 DATE REPORT COMPttf tD MONTM vtAR Taarno"($' March 1989 6 DATS REPORT ISSUED M.sNTM YEAR March 1989
- 7. Pimf DRMING ORGAN 12 AllON NAME AND MANING ACORESS ffacswald Ce'ar[ $ PHOJEC1/T ASK/fv0RK UNIT NUM0tR Division of Reactor Projects I/II Office of Nuclear Reactor Regulation 0 ,ies OR GR A Nuu im U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission Washington, D. C. 2055.5 1G SPONSORaNG ORGANi2ATION NAUT AND WAeLi8eG ADORis$ twaverle cases tis TvPE OF REPORT Same as 7 above b PE RIOD COVERED (sacsusse. massi 12 $UPPLgwggt AR v NOT ES Pertains to Docket Nos. 50-424 and 50-425 13 A48TR ACT (200 eorve se sessi In June 1985, the staff of the Nuclear Regulatory Commission issued its Safety Evaluation Report (NUREG-1137) regarding the application of Georgia Power Company, Municipal Elec- .
tric Authority of Georgia, Oglethorpe Power Corporation, and the City of Dalton, Georgin, for licenses to operate the Vogtle Electric Generating Plant, Units 1 and 2 (Docket Nos.
50-424 and 50-425). Supplement 1 to NUREG-1137 was issued by the staff in October 1985, Supplement 2 was issued in May 1986, Supplement 3 was issued in August 1986, Supplement 4 was issued in December 1986, Supplement 5 was issued in January 1987, Supplement 6 was issued in March 1987, Supplement 7 was issued in January 1988, and Supplement 8 was issued in February 1989. The facility is located in Burke County, Georgia, approximately 26 miles south-southeast of Augusta, Georgia, and on the Savannah River.
This ninth supplement to NUREG-1137 provides recent information regarding resolution of ;
conditional items following issuance of Supplement 8. 1
- i. oOcuuiNT AN A6viis _ . .e rwO.cosioiscwfDRs is ,A,v,Agi v Safety Evaluation Report Unlimited Vogtle Electric Generating Plant Units 1 and 2 se secuRi rv etassmeATiON er.. >
. .o NT i. i Rs,OP N eNovo veRus Unclassified irn. no Unclassified 17 NUM0ER OF P AGil e4 PRIC4
_ . _ _ _ _ . _ _ _ _ _ . - _ . _ _ _ _ . _ _ _