ML20134P968

Safety Evaluation Supporting Amend 67 to License DPR-61

ML20134P968
Person / Time
Site:	Haddam Neck File:Connecticut Yankee Atomic Power Co icon.png
Issue date:	09/03/1985
From:	Office of Nuclear Reactor Regulation
To:
Shared Package
ML20134P953	List: ML20134P951 ML20134P963 ML20134P968
References
NUDOCS 8509090112
Download: ML20134P968 (2)

Text

,_ _ __ _ _ . _ _ ._ _ ;__m _ . - _

l autoq%

UNITED STATES

[ $ NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSION E

-l WASHINGTON, D. C. 20555

\...../

SAFETY EVALUATI0t! PY THE OFFICE OF NUCLEAR REACTOR REGULA SUPPORTING AMENDMENT NO. 67 TO FACILITY OPERATING LICENSE CONNECTICUT YANKEE ATOMIC POWER COMPANY HADDAM NECK PLANT i

DOCKET NO. 50-213

1.0 INTRODUCTION

By letter dated May 31, 1984, the Connecticut Yankee Atomic Power Company (CYAPCO) submitted a request for changes to the Haddam Neck i' Plant Technical Specifications. By letter dated May 7,1985, CYAPC0 responded to the staff's request for additional information concerning the characteristic pump curves used in the safety analysis and the basis test for increasing the low pressure safety injection pump discharge requirements.

The amendment modifies Section 4.3, " Core Cooling Systems - Periodic

- Testing," by changing the discharge pressure requirements for emergency core cooling system (ECCS) periodic flow testing to reflect true pump performance with allowance for ECCS pump degradation due to nomal wear.

A Notice of Consideration of Issuance of Amendment to License and Proposed

No Significant Hazards Consideration Detemination and Opportunity for Hearing related to the requested action was published in the Fcderal Register on July 12, 1984 (49 FR 28484).

i hearing were received. No comments or requests for 2.0 EVALUATION By letter dated May 31, 1984, the licensee requested revised technical specification requirements for the pump discharge pressure of the high pressure and low pressure safety injection pumps. Verification of the discharge pressure for safety injection is required during each refueling shutdown.

The revised technical specification requirements for discharge pressure are set slightly below the manufacturer's characteristic pump perforriance but remain substantially above the values used in the Haddam Neck ECCS performance analysis. The revision provides for more realistic test acceptance criteria and at the same time allows for normal pump wear.

The new requirement for the high pressure pumps is 0.6% lower than the 3

' previous requirement. The new required discharge pressure for the low i pressure pumps is 9% higher than the previous requirement. The staff does I not expect any significant degradation in pump performance between tests based on the trend of data from previous pump tests.

..P 3

. ~ . . -. . _ , - . _ _ . . . , . , _ . - _ , , , ,, . . _ _ . , _ . . , , _,,m , . . _ , ,

1 The proposed technical specification requirements are sufficiently in excess of the required ECCS performance that if any degradation did occur it would be detected and corrected before the minimum safety limit would be reached. The staff concludes that the revised technical specifications are acceptable.

3.0 ENVIRONMENTAL CONSIDERATION

This amendment involves a change to a requirement with respect to the installation or use of facility components located within the restricted area as defined in 10 CFR Part 20 and changes to the surveillance requirements.

The staff has determined that the amendment involves no significent increase in the amounts, and no significant change in the types, of any effluents that may be released offsite and that there is no exposure. increase in individual or cumulative occupational radiation significant The Commission has previously issued a proposed finding that this amendment involves no significant hazards consideration and there has been no public comment on such finding. Accordingly, this 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 4

assessment need be prepared in connection with the issuance of this amendment.

4.0 CONCLUSION

The staff has concluded, based on the considerations discussed above, that:

(1) there is reasonable assurance that the health and safet will not be. endangered by operation in the proposed manner,y of (2) and thesuch public activities will be conducted in compliance with the Commission's regulations and theand defense issuance securityoforthis amendment to the will not health and safety be public.

of the inimical to the common 5.0 ACKNOWLEDGEMENT This Safety Evaluation has been prepared by W. Jensen, Reactor Systems Branch, Division of Systems Integration.

Dated: September 3, 1985.