ML20149M885

Safety Evaluation Supporting Amend 99 to License DPR-61

ML20149M885
Person / Time
Site:	Haddam Neck File:Connecticut Yankee Atomic Power Co icon.png
Issue date:	02/22/1988
From:	Office of Nuclear Reactor Regulation
To:
Shared Package
ML20149M876	List: ML20149M875 ML20149M884 ML20149M885
References
NUDOCS 8802290209
Download: ML20149M885 (2)

Text

_ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _

1. " o

~g UNITED STATES

! o NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSION

( WASHINGTON, D. C. 20666

\+..../

SAFETY EVALUATION BY THE OFFICE OF NUCLEAR REACTOR REGULATION SUPPORTING AMENDMENT NO. 99 TO FACILITY OPERATING LICENSE NO. DPR-61 CONNECTICUT YAN_KE! ATOMIC POWER COMPANY HADDAM NECK PLANT DOCKET NO. 50__213,

1.0 INTRODUCTION

By letter dated September 9,1987, the Connecticut Yankee Atomic Power Company (CYAPCO) submitted a request for changes to the Haddan Neck Plant Technical Specifications.

The amendment revises Technical Specification 5.4, "Containment," by deleting Section 5,4.B., "Penetrations," which references the design information concerning the containment penetrations and their associated bases. Specific design information concerning penetrations is currently discussed in Section 3.8 and 8.3 of the Haddam Neck Plant Updated Final Safety Analysis Report (UFSAR).

2.0 EVALUATION

~

Section (c)(4) of 10 CFR 50.36 requires that technical specifications for operating nuclear plants include design features of the facility i such as materials of construction and geometric arrangements, which if altered or modified, would have a significant effect on safety and are not included in the categories of safety limits, limiting ccnditions of operation or surveillance requirements. The reference l to sections in the Facility Description and Safety Analysis containing  :

information concerning the design of the containment penetrations was included in Chapter 5 of the plant technical specifications at the time the Faddam Neck Plant was licensed. By letter dated September 9, 1987, the licersee requested the deletion of the technical specification references to the design infomation concerning the containment penetraticns.

The staff has reviewed the licensee's Technical Specifications and has  !

determined that ccntainnent penetrations are covered in the Technical l Specifications in the categories of safety limits, limiting conditions of l cperation and surveillance requirements. The Technical Specifications 1 contain varicus requirements regarding containment penetrations including '

activation, time of closure, individual and total allewable leakage.  !

Additionally, the licensee states that containment penetration design l infernation is oiscussed in Section 8.3 of the UFSAR and will be maintaired l as part of the updating process of the UFSAR, as required by 10 CFR 50.71. '

8902290209 880222 PDR ADOCK 05000213 l P PDR i

Additionally, the references made, in Technical Specification 5.4a, to the i Facility Description and Safety Analysis have been revised to reflect the l equivalent sections in the updated final Safety Analysis Repcrt.

The staff has concluded that there are no features of containment penetrations which if altered would have a significant effect on safety which are not covered by other portions of the technical specifications.

Therefore, the staff concludes that the deletion of the reference to the design basis infortnation concerning the containment penetrations at the Haddam Neck Plant is acceptable.

3.0 ENV,IR,0MIENTALCONSIDERATION This amendment involves a thange to a requirement with respect to the installation or use of facility corrponents located within the restricted area as defined in 10 CFR Part 20. The staff has detennined that the amendment involves no significant increase in the amount 3, and no significant change in the types, of any effluents that may be released offsite and that there is no significant 'ncrease in individual or curulative occupaticnal radiation exposure. The Coninission has previously issued a proposed finding that this amendment involves no significant ha:ards consideration and there has been no public courent on such finding.

Accordingly, this amendment meets the eli exclusion set forth in 10 CFR 51.22(c)(9)gibility criteria Pursuant for categorical to 10 CFR 51.22(b) no environmental impact staterrent or environmental assessment need be prepared in connection with the issuance of this arendment.

4.0 CONCLUSION

The staff has concluded, based on the considerations discussed above, '

tFat: (1) there is reasenable assurance that the health and safety of the public will not be endangered by operation in the proposed manner, and (2) such activities will be conducted in compliance with the Connission's regulations and the issuance of this amendn.ent will not be inimical to the cortron defense and security or to the health and safety of the public.

5.0 A1KNO,WLEDGEMENT This Safety Evaluation has been prepared by A. Vang, PDI-4, NRR Dated: February 22, 1988

, _ _ .