ML20138N975

Summarizes Evaluation of Significant Hazards Considerations for Proposed Changes 92 & 107.Util Responded to NRC Questions & Offered Suggestions Re Draft SER on 850304. NSHC Exists

ML20138N975
Person / Time
Site:	Maine Yankee
Issue date:	12/18/1985
From:	Whittier G Maine Yankee
To:	NRC OFFICE OF ADMINISTRATION (ADM)
References
6719L-FWS, GDW-85-313, MN-85-210, NUDOCS 8512240234
Download: ML20138N975 (2)

Text

__

CO M M

• AUGUSTA A NE (207) 623-3521

$1 December 18, 1985 MN-85-210 CDW-85-313 Director of Nuclear Reactor Regulation United States Nuclear Regulatory Commission Washington, D. C. 20555 Attention: Document Control Ocsk

References:

(a) Licenso No. OPR-36 (Docket No. 50-309)

(b) K/APCo Letter to USmC dated March 4,1985 - RPS and ESFAS (PC #92) and Generic Letter 83-37 (PC #107) Technical Specifications (PC #92 and #107, Supplement 1) (MN-85-45)

(c) RIAPCo Letter to USNRC dated April 26,1985 - ? Supplement 2 to Maine Yankco Proposed Change #92 and #107 (MN-85-80)

Subject:

Significant Hazards Determination for PC #92 and #107 Gentlemen:

It has como to our uttention that the Staff requires a more thorough discussion of significant hazards considerations for Proposed Changes #92 and

1. 107 to complete their review. This letter summarizes our evaluation.

With rc0ard to PC #92, Maino Yankee responded to Staff questions and offered our su0gestions on the language of a draft Safety Evaluation Report in Herorcoco (b). In t'1at letter we outilned our reasoning which led us to the conclusion that our approach to Reactor Protective Systems and Engineered Safeguards Features Actuation Sensors (RPS & ESFAS) bypass was in keeping with the guidanco provided by the Staff. Since we concluded that the proposed Specifications fulfills the intent of Staff guidance, and since the Specifications are equal to or more restrictive with regard to the number of operablo channels presently required, we conclude that thoso changes do not:

a. Increase the probability or consequences of a previously analyzed accident.

b. Create the possibility of a now kind of accident not previously analyzed.

c. Decreaso a margin of safety.

Q4 *. ES E p dd1 DD12240234 051210 l Ig 6719L-FW P ADOCK 03000309 I,DN PDN

.,. .( 1'4' ,

.?

l};

1 + > < .t ', r i

\

' 4.,'

r

(

-}

7:A4' },,,,,y,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,nc,,,,,,. ,

h$ 'y ,..

' 1 -i 1 - , . . . . ,

i >,

• 3: LunitedStatesLNuclearRegulatoryCommission' ' Page Two.

', jAttention HDocument Control Desk - DN-85-210

& ~

$_' , + , - ,. <

4 xj .o ,

m .

.c '

.; 0nlyL a portion of PC #107 remains'open stithis time. The Staff completed '

F <

. action on part of.this proposed change when issuing Amendment #81 to our; h C ,' . operating _ license. .. .

, a.N .. . .

1. . The itsee still under review concern the ' operability..of accident -

, monitoring instrumentation and the surveillance requirements for-these '. .

. instruments. D Additionally', Tables 3.9-3 and 3.9-4 are collected into a single-

~

Table'3.9-3.' The instruments in question have no accident' prevention or-

. mitigation role, nor any plant control functions.~ Rather,_they merely provide certain monitoring capability in the event.'of<an accident.

Hence, we conclude that no significant hazards' consideration exists. .

l Very truly yours, c ,

, MADE YAPMEE ATOMIC POWER CODPANY. F g .

,g s

ygg .

.n n sr - ,

, G. D. Whittler, Manager

- s+ >

. Nuclear Engineering & Licensing j

_ m .

IGM /bjp - .

+  !

.cc Mr.' Ashok Thadani j i* ,  ;

' Dr. Thomas E. Maley g 'Mr' Cornelius F Holden

' i i

~

i r

1 * ' .

a i

+ l '

s*, ,

r i

?

{

s a

i

. > I b

t

.j

. 8

y. .,

l an,t.rus - m  :

R ~ . a . _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ __ __ _ __

F