ML20154J567

Application for Amend to License DPR-61,incorporating New Section of Sprinkler Protection in Turbine Bldg & Reduction in Number of Smoke Detectors Available in Containment from 23 to 22.Fee Paid

ML20154J567
Person / Time
Site:	Haddam Neck File:Connecticut Yankee Atomic Power Co icon.png
Issue date:	09/13/1988
From:	Mroczka E CONNECTICUT YANKEE ATOMIC POWER CO., NORTHEAST UTILITIES
To:	NRC OFFICE OF ADMINISTRATION & RESOURCES MANAGEMENT (ARM)
Shared Package
ML20154J571	List: B12967, Proposed Tech Spec Changes Incorporating New Section of Sprinkler Protection in Turbine Bldg & Reduction in Number of Smoke Detectors Available in Containment from 23 to 22 ML20154J567
References
B12967, NUDOCS 8809230070
Download: ML20154J567 (4)

Text

e'

' NORTHEAST UTILITIES cone,o Ome.. . seio.n sir .i. s.,nn. connect.cei 1 UCNN' UI$*~

.u .w .. i . r . u -

P.O. BOX 270 HARTFORD. CONNECTICUT 06141-0270 k k J N,[,C',C (203) 665-$000 September 13, 1988 Docket No. 50-213 B12967 Re: 10CFR50.90 U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission Attn: Document Control Desk Washington, D.C. 20555 Gentlemen:

Haddam Neck Plant Proposed Revision to Technical Specifications Fire Detection Instruments and Sorav and/or Sorinkler Systen Pursuant to 10CFR50.90, Connecticut Yankee Atomic Power Company (CYAPCO) hereby proposes amending its operating license, DPR-61, by incorporating the changes identified in Attachment I into the Technical Specifications of the Haddam Neck Plant.

Specifically, the proposed changes involve incorporation of a new section of sprinkler protection in the turbine building and a reduction in the number of smoke detectors available in the containment from 23 to 22.

Description of Chance Sorav and/or Sprinkler Systems The proposed change to the Haddam Neck Technical Specification Section 3.22.G.

Spray and/or Sprinkler Systems, incorporates a new section of sprinkler protection in the turbine building from column lines C and D between column numbers 8 and 12 under the 59' 6" elevation. The structural steel located between column lines C and D and column numbers 8 and 12 supports the control room which is an area containing redundant safe shutdown equipment. In addition to the new section of sprinkler protection in the turbine building, CYAPC0 is upgrading the fire watch patrol requirement from a roving patrol to a continuous fire watch should the sprinkler system in the area be declared inoperable. The upgrading of the fire watch requirement is consistent with fire watch requirenents in other areas of the plant where redundant safe j shutdown components could be damaged. This new sprinkler system provides more coverage as well as the capability to control and/or extinguish postulated fires in this area thereby precluding the development of a fire of sufficient severity to cause structural steel failure, hence protecting the control room and redundant safe shutdown components. As previously noted, the requirement for a contint.ous fire watch applies only to the area directly beneath the control room (from column lines C and D and betwcen column numbers 8 and 12, under elevation 59' 6"). The current requirement for a roving fire watch in all other areas of the turbine building remains unchanged should the sprinkler system in these areas be declared inoperable. 8 Cob 8909230070 DR 000913 #

LMM ADOCK 05000213 gj fckglt PNV

U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission B12967/Page 2 September 13, 1988 Fire Detection Instruments The proposed change to Table 3.22-2 reduces the number of smoke detectors in the containment from 23 to 22. CYAPC0 has evaluated the detection system which was installed as part of the original plant design and determined that the detector located behind the service elevator is not required. The original design of the outer annulus (lower level) detection system consisted of 19 Pyrotronics detectors located around the annulus area. This included one detector behind the service elevator. Four additional detectors were installed in the upper level of the annulus as part of the BTP 9.5-1 Appendix A modifications, bringing the total number of detectors to 23. The intent of this system is to provide fire detection for the cable trays located in the area.

Detector #5 was noted on the original design drawings to be located on the ceiling within a small confined area behind the service elevator in the lower annulus area. This area is bounded by a steel column at column line 17 to the east and by steel plates -attached to the elevator wall on the west. The back wall of the elevator sits out approximately 18" from the containment liner, thereby creating a small, inaccessible, confined area. There are no exposed cable runs or other in situ combustibles located in this area. Due to the inaccessibility of the area, CYAPC0 has determined that transient combustibles are not a concern. Detector #6 is located adjacent to this area (between column lines 17 and 18) and provides general area coverage for transient combustibles in the area and the area in front of the service elevator.

Therefore, CYAPCO has determined that detector #5 serves no effective purpose and can be eliminated. Moreover, the coverage provided by detector #6 for the area behind the elevator is in accordance with NFPA 72E, Standard on Automatic Fire Detectors.

CYAPC0 has reviewed the proposed change in accordance with 10CFR50.92 and has conclutted that it does not involve a significant hazards consideration in that the change would not:

1. Involve a significant increase in the probability or consequences of an accident previously analyzed. The increased surveillance for fires in the area below the control room structural steel, when the fire suppression system is inoperable, has the potential to reduce the consequences and probability of turbine building fires, and therefore does not increase the probability or consequences of an accident previously analyzed.

The reduction in the number of smoke detectors will not affect any design basis event. There are no cable trays or transient combustibles in the vicinity of this detector which is intended to be removed. The change will not impact the ability to detect fires in the outer annulus, therefore the change will not affect previously analyzed accidents.

U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission B12967/Page 3 September 13, 1988 I 2. Create the possibility of a new or different kind of accident from any l

previously analyzed. Since there are no changes in the way the plant is operated, the potential for an unanslyzed accident is not created. No new failure modes are introduced.

3. Involve a significant reduction in a margin of safety. The change does not impact any of the protective boundaries, nor does it impact the consequences of any event previously analyzed or performance of any safety system. Therefore, the change does not reduce the margin of safety.

Moreover, the Commission has provided guidance concerning the application of standards in 10CFR50.92 by providing certain examples (March 6,1986, FR7751) of amendments that are considered not likely to involve a significant hazards consideration. The proposed change to the sprinkler system is enveloped by example (ii), a change that constitutes an additional limitation, restriction, or control not presently included in the technical specifications, e.g., a more stringent surveillance requirement. The addition of a new section of sprinkler protection in the turbine building (from column lines C and D between column numbers 8 and 12 under the 59' 6" elevation) will require the 4 fire watch in that area to be upgraded to a continuous fire watch should the i

sprinkler system be declared inoperable. Incorporation of this requirement into the technical specifications is consistent with fire watch requirements in other areas of the plant where redundant safe shutdown components could be damaged, and is more restrictive than the present fire watch requirement for the area.

Although the change proposed for the fire detection instruments is not enveloped by a specific example, the proposed change would not involve a

, significant increase in the probability or consequences of an accident i previously analyzed. As stated earlier, the lack of detector #5 which is located behind the service elevator will have no adverse effect on the systems ability to alert the operator to a cable tray fire in the area. CYAPC0 has determined that there are no exposed cable runs or in situ combustibles i located within this confined area. Due to the inaccessibility of the area, transient combustibles are not a concern. Moreover, adequate coverage for the

! area behind the service elevator is provided by detector #6 in accordance with

! NFPA 72E, Standards on Automatic Fire Detectors.

'l Conclusion Based upon the information contained in this submittal and the environmental assessment for the Haddam Neck Plant, there are no signit'icant radiological or l nonradiological impacts associated with the proposed change and the proposed license amendment will not have a significant effect on the quality of the human environment.

I The Haddam Neck Nuclear Review Board has reviewed and approved the attached

proposed revisions and has concurred with the above determinations.

a

-..v,---- -.n- --n n,- ,, _

, , _ ,,,-,,_...____._,,.n_, _ _ - _ - . . - . _ , , _ , , - . - . , - , , , . . ,

_ --.n.. , - , . . - ~ , , -,

U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission B12967/Page 4 September 13, 1988 In accordance with 10CFR50.91(b) we are providing the State of Connecticut with a copy of this proposed amendment.

Pursuant to the requirements of 10CFR170.12(c), enclosed with this amendment request is the application fee of $150.00.

Very truly yours, CONNECTICUT YANKEE ATOMIC POWER COMPANY

/ N E. C kToczka /

Senior Vice President cc: Kevin McCarthy, Director Radiation Control Unit Department of Environmental Protection Hartford, Connecticut 06116 W. T. Russell, Region 1 Administrator A. B. Wang, NRC Project Manager, Haddam Neck Plant J. T. Shediosky, Senior Project Manager, Haddam Neck Plant STATE OF CONNECTICUT i sc. Berlin COUNTY OF HARTFORD Then personally appeared before me E. J. Mroczka, who being duly sworn, did state that he is Senior Vice President of Connecticut Yankee Atomic Power Company, a Licensee herein, that he is authorized to execute and file the foregoing information in the name and on behalf of the Licensee herein and that the statements contained in said information are true and correct to the best of his knowledge and belief.

/ t aUt / W otpryPubJc

[O d2Nd 0

fx:nmn Dyres umn y, w

/