ML20010E151

Forwards Safety Evaluation for SEP Topic VI-7.C.1 Re Independence of Redundant Onsite Power Sources.Supports Proposed Mods to Class IE Cross Tie Breaker Controls & Tech Specs

ML20010E151
Person / Time
Site:	Haddam Neck File:Connecticut Yankee Atomic Power Co icon.png
Issue date:	08/28/1981
From:	Crutchfield D Office of Nuclear Reactor Regulation
To:	Counsil W CONNECTICUT YANKEE ATOMIC POWER CO.
References
TASK-06-07.C1, TASK-6-7.C1, TASK-RR LSO5-81-08-081, LSO5-81-8-81, NUDOCS 8109030150
Download: ML20010E151 (4)

Text

T August 28, 1981 f[

ke s W

( I l' g OLL )(( D'g Docket tio. 50-713 LS05-01 03-081 5 SEi' 0 219815 3". ** t %= y' 5

!!r. W. G. Counsil, Vice Prestaeot

^

s iUclear Engineering and Operations M

'[v x / TNW* \\

Connecticut Yankee Atonic Power Co.

MI Post Office Box 270 Hartford, Connecticut 06101

SUBJECT:

SEP TOPIC VI-7.C.1, IflDEPEilDErJCE OF REDU!OA*!T ONSITE F0HER SOURCSS - HADD/!! FLECK The enclosed staff safety evaluation supplenents our contractor's evaluation tht has been nade available to you previously.

This evaluation sunports the findings of the enclosed staff safety evaluation on Topic VI-7.C.! that proposes nodifications to Class lE cross tie breaker controls and the Technical Specifications.

The need to actually implerent these changes will be deternined during the integrated plant safety assessnent.

This tonic assessnent may be revised in the futere if your facility design is changed or if fiRC criteria relatina ti this topic are nodified before the integrated assessnent is completed.

Sincerely, Dennis M. Crutchfield, Chief Operating Reactors Branch flo. 5 Division of Licensing

Enclosure:

As stated cc u/ enclosure:

See next page y

YAg l)l:p)fahaNC c

' 'lt pga oss Elb)),

S L

SEPB:DL SEPB:DL ORByS OL:PM ORrl ir AD': A:DL

.w..

.3

.. ~....

omce>

..r..

ll:dk RHermann WRussell WPaulson DCn,,chfield Gla na_s, sunsmo )

8.8#'81 8/f-181 8/../31 8/ M' 81..

883S1

.8$/81..

/

om 6

- 8109030150 810828 r.-

PDR ADOCK 05000213 OFFICIAL RECORD COPY ma.

PDR ro

_ _ = _ _ _ _ _

1 HADDAM NECK Docket No. 50-213 kr.W.G.Counsil i

CC Day, Berry & Howard Counselors at Law One Constitution Plaza i

Hartford, Connecticut 06103 Superintendent Haddam Neck Plant RFD #1 Post Office Box 127E East Hampton, Connecticut 06424 Mr. Richard R. Laudenat Manager, Generation Facilities Licensing Northeast Utilities Service Company P. O. Box 270 Hartford, Connecticut 06101 Russell Library 119 Broad Street Middetown, Connecticut 06457 Board of Selectmen Town Hall Haddam, Connecticut 06103 Connecticut Energy Agency ATTN: Assistant Director Fesearch and Policy Development Departnent of Planning and Energy Policy l

20 Grand Street Hartford, Connecticut 06106 U. S. Environmental Protection Agency Region I Office ATTN: EIS COORDINATOR JFK Federal Building Boston, Massachusetts 02203 Resident Inspector Haddam Neck Nuclear Power Station i

i c/o U. S. NRC East Haddam Post Office East Haddam, Connecticut 06423 1

1

i SYSTEMATIC EVALUATION PROGRAM TOPIC VI-7.C.1 HADDAM NECK TOPIC: VI-7.C.1 APPENDIX X - ELECTRICAL INSTRUMENTATI0ft AND CONTROL

~

ff&'C)'RE-REVIEWS _

I.

INTRODUCTION During the Appendix K reviews of some facil[ ties initially considered, a detailed El&C review was not performed. Accordingly we intended to re-review the modified ECCS of these facilities to confirm that it is designed to meet the most limiting single failure. Several types of failure were considered as candidates for designation as the most limiting.

Because l

of the scope of the other SEP Topics, it was decided that, for the purpose of this study (and to reduce replication of effort on other SEP Topics),

the loss of a single ac or de onsite power system was the most limiting failure. Accordingly, this topic was limited to an evaluation of the independence between the onsite power systems.

II.

REVIEW CRITERIA The review criteria are presented in Sectior. 2 of EG&G Report 1622F.

" Independence of Redundant Onsite Power Systems."

).

III. RELATED SAFETY TOPICS AND INTERFACES The scope of review for this topic was limited to avoid duplica' tion of effort since some aspects of the review were performed under related topics. The related topics and the subject matter are identified below.

Each of the related topic reports contain the acceptance criteria and review guidance for its subject ratter.

VI-4 Bypass and Reset of Engineered Safety Features (B-24)'

VI-7.A.3 ECCS Actuation System VI-7.B ESF Switchover from Injection to Recirculation VI-7.C.2 Failure Mode Analysis-ECCS VI-7.D Long Term Cooling Passive Failures (e.g., flooding)

VI-10. A Testing of Reactor Protection Systems VII-1.A Reactor Trip System Isolation g

VII-3 Systems Required for Safe Shutdown VIII-2 Onsite Emergency Power Systems VIII-3 Emergency de Power Systems VIII-4 Electrical Penetrations IX-6 Fire Protection I

The conclusien that suitable isolation devices are provided is a basic assumption for Topics VI-7.C.2 and VII-3.

l

2 IV.

REVIEW GUIDELINES lhe review guidelines are presented in Section 2 of Report 1622F,

" Independence of Redundant Onsite Power Systems."

V.

EVALUATION As noted in Report 1622F, " Independence of Redundant Onsite Power Systems," the Haddam Neck onsite standby ac and dc power systems do not comply with current licensing criter.ia.

In each case, a manual breaker exists which a..ows paralleling of the two power divisions; no interlocks or procedures prevent this. Additionally, the de power system design permits all four inverters to be supplied from a single battery.

VI.

CONCLUSIOJJ As a result of our review of our contractor's work the staff concludes that the subject ac and dc onsite systems do not satisfy the review criteria and we propose that the manual cross ties be modified to prevent paralleling of redundant sources and that the Technical Specifications be modified to prohibit placing more than one inverter on the same battery except when the plant is in cold shutdown.

_ _ _ -