ML20057E201

Safety Evaluation Supporting Amend 167 to License DPR-61

ML20057E201
Person / Time
Site:	Haddam Neck File:Connecticut Yankee Atomic Power Co icon.png
Issue date:	10/04/1993
From:	Office of Nuclear Reactor Regulation
To:
Shared Package
ML20057E197	List: ML20057E196 ML20057E200 ML20057E201
References
NUDOCS 9310080097
Download: ML20057E201 (3)

Text

na h

a E

UNITED STATES 3

NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSION k.....,/

WASHINGTON, D.C. 20555-0001 SAFETY EVALUATION BY THE OFFICE OF NUCLEAR REACTOR REGULATION RELATED TO AMENDMENT NO.167-TO FACILITY OPERATING LICENSE NO. DPR-61 CONNECTICUT YANKEE ATOMIC POWER COMPANY HADDAM NECK PLANT DOCKET NO.-50-213

1.0 INTRODUCTION

By .c|letter dated July 26, 1993]], the Connecticut Yankee Atomic Power Company (the licensee) submitted a request for changes to the Haddam Neck Plant Technical Specifications (TS). The amendment changes the Haddam Neck Technical Specifications Section 3.5.1, "ECCS Subsystems - T,how redundant Greater Than or Equal to 350 F," ACTION statement "a."

This change will.a train operability to be verified operable by examination of appropriate plant records rather than performing test of redundant equipment which would render the entire ECCS subsystem inoperable while the _ testing is being performed.

In addition the licensee has made editorial changes moving surveillance requirement 4.5.1.b from TS Section 3/4.5.1 to TS Section 3/4.5.2 as surveillance requirement 4.5.2.c and relettering the appropriate sections to reflect the change.

2.0 EVALUATION j

By teleconference the staff encouraged the licensee to reviets their TS to determine if their TS were in conformance with the current staff position regarding operability requirements during testing and requirements for i

alternate train testing. The licensee has reviewed their TS and determined a

thaptheTSSection3.5.1,"ECCSSubsystems-T Greater Than or Equal to I

350 F,"

is the only TS that does not comply wiOI the staff position for alternate train testing.

In particular, ACTION statement "a" of TS Section 1

3.5.1, states that with one ECCS subsystem inoperable, test the remaining operable high pressure safety injection (HPSI) pump, low pressure safety injection (LPSI)' pump or the residual heat removal (RHR) pump within 2 hours2.314815e-5 days <br />5.555556e-4 hours <br />3.306878e-6 weeks <br />7.61e-7 months <br />.

Due to the method of testing these pumps at the Haddam Neck Plant, the ECCS pump is inoperable during testire and it also renders the train inoperable.

The licensee has proposed that ACTION statement "a" be changed so that with one ECCS subsystem inoperable, the remaining HPSI, LPSI, or RHR pump "be verified operable" within 2 hours2.314815e-5 days <br />5.555556e-4 hours <br />3.306878e-6 weeks <br />7.61e-7 months <br /> rather than tested.

93100 BOO 97 931004 PDR ADOCK 05000213 i

P PDR2 l

J

. The alternate train: testing requirement was included;in early TS to provide a-positive demonstration that a-loss of safety function had not occurred. This requirement has.been deleted from the Standard Technical Specifications'and' newly issued TS because the added assurance'byLtesting is not sufficient.to justify the loss of safety function during _the test, provided required periodic surveillance testing is current and that there'are no known reasons to suggest that the alternate train is inoperable. The periodic surveillance-tests and,the proposed verifications that the redundant systems / components:are:

operable are sufficient to demonstrate'the operability of,theiredundant.'.

system / component. These operability verifications will be accomplished-by examination of appropriate plant records; e.g., surveillance' test records,.

equipment tagging records.: operating' logs, and-shift turnover. records.

The~.

operability verification would involve an assessment within 2 hours2.314815e-5 days <br />5.555556e-4 hours <br />3.306878e-6 weeks <br />7.61e-7 months <br /> of the cause of the pump being inoperable and a judgement as to the likelihood that the opposite train is similarly affected. The proposed change does not-eliminate the need for periodic ~~ surveillance as required by TS -(once per 31 days). At most it might extend the' routine surveillance by an. additional 25 percent or about 7 days as allowed by the TS.

Based on the above evaluation of the impacts.of deletingithe requirementito demonstrate operability by testing of a redundant system / component withL verification of operability, the staff concludes that:the TS change is acceptable.

The licensee has also proposed' to move' surveillance'. requirement 4.5.'1.b from -

~

TS Section 3/4.5.1 to TS Section 3/4.5.2 -as: surveillance requirement 4.5.2.c.,

TS 3/4.5.1 is applicable in Modes 1,.2,.and 3, while TS Section~3/4.5.2 applies to Mode 4.

Since'the valve condition _ requirements in' currenttTS

- Section 4.5.1.b are applicable to Mode 4, they would be more appropriately

-located in TS Section 3/4.5.2.. The proposed changessto' move the1 surveillance requirement to a 'more appropriate.TS: section = and.reletter TS :Section 3/4.5.1' are administrative in nature and the staff concludes'the changes are acceptable.

l

3.0 STATE CONSULTATION

j In accordance with the Commission's regulations, the Connecticut State official was notified'of the proposed issuance of. the. amendment. The State official had no comments.

4.0 ENVIR0leiENTAL CONSIDERATION j

The amendment changes a requirement with respect to installation or use of.a facility component located within the restricted area as defined in 10 CFR-Part 20 and modifies: surveillance requirements'.. The NRC 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 individua1Jor cumulative occupational radiation exposure. The Commission has previously issued a-proposed finding that'the amendment involves no~significant hazards:

9

_.1

- y.,

,_ a._..., _ _,

_...,......_a

,,a

...w....,

4

• D consideration, and there has been no public comment on such finding (58 FR I

46226) Accordingly, the 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 assessment need be prepared in connection with the issuance of the amendment.

5.0 CONCLUSION

The Commission has 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, (2) such activities will be conducted in compliance with.the Commission's regulations, and (3) the issuance.of the amendment will not be inimical to the common defense and security or to the health and safety of the public.

Principal Contributor:

A. Wang l

Date:

October 4, 1993 l

i w

y

+t