ML20051C871
| ML20051C871 | |
| Person / Time | |
|---|---|
| Site: | Haddam Neck File:Connecticut Yankee Atomic Power Co icon.png |
| Issue date: | 05/07/1982 |
| From: | Office of Nuclear Reactor Regulation |
| To: | |
| Shared Package | |
| ML20049A609 | List: |
| References | |
| NUDOCS 8205140547 | |
| Download: ML20051C871 (4) | |
Text
[,f') j,, ( (,g NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSION
'o, UNITED STATES WASHINGTO N, D. C. 20555 SAFETY EVALUATION BY THE OFFICE OF NUCLEAR REACTOR REGULATION
- SUPPORTING AMENDMENT NO. 49 TO FACILITY OPERATING LICENSE NO. DPR-61 CONNECTICUT YANKEE ATOMIC POWER COMPANY HADDAM NECK PLANT APPENDIX J REVIEW DOCKET N0. 50-213
1.0 BACKGROUND
AND DISCUSSION On January 2, 1975 [1], we requested Connecticut Yankee Atomic Power Company (CYAPCO) (the licensee) to review its containment testing program for the Haddam Neck Plant, and the associated technical specifications, for compliance with the requirements of Appendix J to 10 CFR Part 50.
Appendix J to 10 CFR Part 50 was published on February 14, 1973. Since by this date there were already many operating nuclear plants and a number more in ad-vanced stages of design or construction, the NRC decided to have these plants re-evaluated against the requirements of this new regulation. Therefore, be-ginning in 1975, requests for review of the extent of compliance with the requirements of Appendix J were made of each licensee.
Following the initial responses to those requests, NRC staff positions were developed which would assure that the objectives of the testing requirements of the above cited regulation were satisfied.
These staff positions have since bee'n applied in our review of the submittals filed by the licensee for the Haddam Neck Plant.
The results of our evaluation are provided below.
2.0 EVALUATION i
Our consultant, the Franklin Research Center, (FRC), has reviewed the licensee's submi'Mals [2, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9,10,11,12,13] and prepared the attached Technical Evaluation Report which documents it review and evaluation of contain-ment leakage tests for the Haddam Neck Plant. We have reviewed this evaluation and concur in its bases-and findings.
On this basis we find the licensee's proposals acceptable.
3.0
SUMMARY
Based on our review of the enclosed Technical Evaluation Report (TEP) dealing with the Appendix J review for the Haddam Neck Plant, we conclude that:
820S140547 00 3
3.1 CYAPCO's proposal to test containment airlocks at the reduced pressure of 10 psig within 72 hours8.333333e-4 days <br />0.02 hours <br />1.190476e-4 weeks <br />2.7396e-5 months <br /> of the first of every series of openings during the interval between 6-month Pa_ air tests and to conservatively extrapolate the results to 40 psig (Pa) is acceptable.
No. exemption from the requirements of Appendix J is necessary because of the revi-sion to Section III.D.2, effective October 1980.
Special Maintenance Procedure SPL 10.7-20 is an acceptable method for determining the extra-polation correction factor.
3.2 The isolation valves in the following penetrations for which exemption from the Type C testing requirements of Appendix J were proposed do not need exemptions because Appendix J does not require that they be tested:
RHR System (penetrations P-1 and P-2);
- Main steam and feedwater lines (penetrations P-42 through P-49);
Service water to and from containment recirculation units (penetrations P-51 through P-58);
- Reactor coolant charging (penetration P-8); and
- RCP seal water supply (penetrations P-74 through P-77).
3.3 Exemption from the Type C testing requirements of nitrogen supply valve 3/4-in C-32-557 is not necessary.
The licensee has committed to per-form this Type C testing in accordance with Appendix J.
3.4 Type C testing with water as a* test medium in lieu of air or nitrogen is acceptable only where the hydraulic test is used to demonstrate a water seal at the penetration throughoct the post-accident period.
3.5 CYAPC0's proposals for reverse. direction testing of certain isolation
,-9hlves is acceptable with exception of valve VH-V-507, which must be tested in 'the direction of its safety function. The licensee has committed to modify this penetration to permit this testing.
l 3.6 The following proposed changes to the Technical Specifications for l
the Haddam Neck Plant have been found acceptable as related to con-tainment leakage testing (Section 4.4);
Reference 12 (Total leakage from local testing not to exceed 0.6 La); and Reference 13 (Changes related to airlock testing).
l l
l
l.
4.0 ENVIRONMENTAL CONSIDERATION
We have determined that the amendment does not authorize a change in effluent types or total amounts nor an increase in power level and will not result in any significant environmental impact.
Having ma~de this determination, we have further concluded that the amendment involves.
an action which is insignificant from the standpoint of environmental impact and, pursuant to 10 CFR 151.5(d)(4), that an environmental impact statement or negative declaration and environmental impact appraisal need not be prepared in connection with the issuance of this amendment.
5.0 CONCLUSION
We.have concluded, based on the considerations discussed in the attached Technical Evaluation Report dated July 31,1981, that: (1) because the amendment does not involve a significant increase in the probability or consequences of accidents previously considered and does not involve a significant decrease in a safety margin, the amendment does not involve a significant hazards consideration, (2) there is reasonable assurance that the health and safety of the public will not be endangered by operation in the proposed manner, and (3) such activities will be conducted in com-pliance 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.
6.0 ACKNOWLEDGMENT The following people have contributed to this Safety Evaluation:
J. Pulsipher C. Tropf Attached:
TechnicaJ-naluation Report dated July 31, 1981 Date:
May 7, 1982 4
(
t
4-REFERENCES 1.
E. J. Brunner (NRC, I&E Region 1) 13.
W. G. Counsil (CYAPCO)
Letter to D. C. Switzer (CYAPCO)
Letter to D. L. Ziemann (ORB-2)
January 2,1975 September 21, 1979 2.
D. C. Switzer (CYAPCO)
- 14. NRC/CYAPC0 Meeting
. Letter to R. A. Purple (ORB-1)
December 2, 1976 March 14,1975
- 15. NRC/CYAPCO Meeting 3.
R. A. Purple (ORB-1)
November 17, 1977 Letter to D. C. Switzer (CYAPO)
April 11,1975 4.
D. C. Switzer (CYAPCO)
Letter to R. A. Purple (ORB-1)
May 28,1975 5.
D. C. Switzer (CYAPCO)
Letter to.R. A. Purple (ORB-1)
August 20,'1976 6.
D. C. Switzer (CYAPCO)
Letter to A. Schwencer (ORB-1)
December 27, 1976 7.
D. C. Switzer (CYAPCO)
Letter to A. Schwencer (ORB-1)
August 8,1977 8.
D. C. Switzer (CYAPCO)
Letter to A. Schwencer.(ORB-1)
September 19, 1977
- 9. 'N. G. Couns.il (CYAPCO)
Letter to D. L. Ziemann (ORB-2)
June 12,1978 10.
W. G. Counsil (CYAPCO)
Letter to D. L. Ziemann (ORB-2)
November 13, 1978 11.
W. G. Counsil (CYAPCO)
Letter to D. L. Ziemann (ORB-2)
July 24,1979 l
12.
D. C. Switzer (CYAPCO)
Letter to A. Schwencer (ORB-1)
June 27, 1977 4
w
,-