|
---|
Category:SAFETY EVALUATION REPORT--LICENSING & RELATED ISSUES
MONTHYEARML20217K3301999-10-19019 October 1999 Safety Evaluation Supporting Amend 195 to License DPR-61 ML20206C8761999-04-28028 April 1999 Safety Evaluation Supporting Amend 194 to License DPR-61 ML20238F2131998-08-28028 August 1998 SER Accepting Defueled Emergency Plan for Emergency Planning for Connecticut Yankee Atomic Power Co ML20202D1621998-06-30030 June 1998 Safety Evaluation Supporting Amend 193 to License DPR-61 ML20217K2101998-03-27027 March 1998 Safety Evaluation Supporting Amend 192 to License DPR-61 ML20198M8101997-10-14014 October 1997 SER Accepting Proposed Revs to Util Quality Assurance Program at Facility ML20141K4201997-05-22022 May 1997 Safety Evaluation Supporting Amend 191 to License DPR-61 ML20058F1151993-11-23023 November 1993 Safety Evaluation Supporting Amends 170,69,169 & 86 to Licenses DPR-61,DPR-21,DPR-65 & NPF-49,respectively ML20059G6411993-11-0101 November 1993 Safety Evaluation Supporting Amend 169 to License DPR-61 ML20059G5261993-10-27027 October 1993 Safety Evaluation Supporting Amend 168 to License DPR-61 ML20057E1921993-10-0404 October 1993 Safety Evaluation Supporting Amend 166 to License DPR-61 ML20057E2011993-10-0404 October 1993 Safety Evaluation Supporting Amend 167 to License DPR-61 ML20058M9291993-09-29029 September 1993 SE Re SEP Topics III-2 & III-4.A, Wind & Tornado Loadings & Tornado Missiles. Licensee Estimated Reactor Core Damage Frequency Reduced Signficantly Such That Likelihood of Core Damage Reasonably Low ML20058M9051993-09-29029 September 1993 Safety Evaluation Supporting Amend 165 to License DPR-61 ML20057A3501993-09-0202 September 1993 Safety Evaluation Supporting Amend 164 to License DPR-61 ML20057A3551993-09-0202 September 1993 Safety Evaluation Supporting Amend 163 to License DPR-61 ML20056G2891993-08-25025 August 1993 Safety Evaluation Supporting Amend 162 to License DPR-61 ML20056D7061993-07-26026 July 1993 Safety Evaluation on SEP VI-4 Re Containment Isolation Sys for Plant.All Penetrations Either Meet Provisions of or Intent of GDCs 54-57 Except for Penetration 39 ML20128E3291993-02-0404 February 1993 Safety Evaluation Granting Util Request for Authorization to Use Portion of Section XI of 1986 Edition of ASME Code for Visual Exams VT-3 & VT-4 to Be Combined Into Single VT-3 ML20128D5231992-11-25025 November 1992 Safety Evaluation Accepting 120-day Response to Suppl 1 to Generic Ltr 87-02, Verification of Seismic Adequacy of Mechanical & Electrical Equipment in Operating Reactors,Usi A-46, ML20210E1891992-06-12012 June 1992 Safety Evaluation Considers SEP Topic III-5.B to Be Complete in That If Pipe Breaks Outside Containment,Plant Can Safely Shut Down W/O Loss of Containment Integrity ML20062B7411990-10-22022 October 1990 Safety Evaluation Supporting Amend 132 to License DPR-61 ML20059H3101990-09-0606 September 1990 Revised Safety Evaluation Clarifying Individual Rod Position Indication Testing Exception & Bases for Approving Test Exception ML20059A8021990-08-14014 August 1990 Supplemental Safety Evaluation Accepting Electrical Design of New Switchgear Room at Plant ML20056A5641990-08-0303 August 1990 Safety Evaluation Concluding That Pressurizer Has Sufficient Fracture Toughness to Preclude Fracture of Head W/Flaws Remaining in Component & Pressurizer Acceptable for Continued Svc ML20055G5441990-07-19019 July 1990 Safety Evaluation Supporting Amend 128 to License DPR-61 ML20055G5561990-07-19019 July 1990 Safety Evaluation Supporting Amend 129 to License DPR-61 ML20055E2361990-07-0202 July 1990 Safety Evaluation Supporting Amend 126 to License DPR-61 ML20247K2531989-09-11011 September 1989 Safety Evaluation Supporting Amends 123 & 41 to Licenses DPR-61 & NPF-49,respectively ML20247E3761989-09-0707 September 1989 Safety Evaluation Supporting Amends 122,34,143 & 40 to Licenses DPR-61,DPR-21,DPR-65 & NPF-49,respectively ML20247A4841989-09-0505 September 1989 Safety Evaluation Supporting Amend 121 to License DPR-61 ML20245J0121989-08-14014 August 1989 Safety Evaluation Accepting Extension of Surveillance Intervals ML20247E6551989-07-20020 July 1989 Safety Evaluation Supporting Amend 120 to License DPR-61 ML20247E6841989-07-18018 July 1989 Safety Evaluation Supporting Amend 119 to License DPR-61 ML20246L2571989-06-26026 June 1989 Safety Evaluation Supporting Amends 118,33,142 & 36 to Licenses DPR-61,DPR-21,DPR-65 & NPF-49,respectively ML20246A8541989-06-23023 June 1989 Safety Evaluation Concluding That Large Containment at Plant Results in Slow Hydrogen Accumulation Rate & Ensures That Sufficient Time Available to Implement Addl Hydrogen Control Features After Accident.Requirements of 10CFR50.44 Met ML20244C4451989-06-0101 June 1989 Safety Evaluation Supporting Amend 117 to License DPR-61 ML20248B3001989-05-31031 May 1989 Safety Evaluation Supporting Amend 116 to License DPR-61 ML20245J0751989-04-25025 April 1989 Safety Evaluation Supporting Amends 114,30,141 & 33 to Licenses DPR-61,DPR-21,DPR-65 & NPF-49,respectively ML20245E8941989-04-21021 April 1989 Safeguards Evaluation Rept Supporting Amend 113 to License DPR-61 ML20235Z0881989-03-0707 March 1989 Safety Evaluation Supporting Amend 112 to License DPR-61 ML20196D8641988-12-0606 December 1988 Safety Evaluation Supporting Amend 109 to License DPR-61 ML20205M5731988-10-26026 October 1988 Safety Evaluation Supporting Amends 108,25,134 & 26 to Licenses DPR-61,DPR-21,DPR-65 & NPF-49,respectively ML20204G8641988-10-18018 October 1988 Safety Evaluation Supporting Licensee Analysis of Consequences of Steam Generator Tube Rupture Accident at Facility Followed by Minimization of Water in Affected Steam Generator After Tube Rupture ML20155G4801988-09-28028 September 1988 Safety Evaluation Supporting Amends 107,23,132 & 24 to Licenses DPR-61,DPR-21,DPR-65 & NPF-24,respectively ML20151T7641988-08-0909 August 1988 Safety Evaluation Supporting Amend 106 to License DPR-61 ML20150A9551988-07-0101 July 1988 Safety Evaluation Supporting Amend 105 to License DPR-61 ML20155F9811988-06-0101 June 1988 Safety Evaluation Supporting Amend 104 to License DPR-13 1999-04-28
[Table view] Category:TEXT-SAFETY REPORT
MONTHYEARML20217K3301999-10-19019 October 1999 Safety Evaluation Supporting Amend 195 to License DPR-61 ML20206C8761999-04-28028 April 1999 Safety Evaluation Supporting Amend 194 to License DPR-61 CY-99-047, Ro:On 981217,identified Unsuccessful Dewatering of Cnsi HIC, Model PL8-120R,containing Resins.Caused by Apparent Failure of Dewatering Tree.Other HICs Have Been Procured,Recertified & Returned to Plant for Use1999-03-23023 March 1999 Ro:On 981217,identified Unsuccessful Dewatering of Cnsi HIC, Model PL8-120R,containing Resins.Caused by Apparent Failure of Dewatering Tree.Other HICs Have Been Procured,Recertified & Returned to Plant for Use ML20206F1971998-12-31031 December 1998 Annual Rept for 1998 for Cyap. with CY-99-027, Annual Rept for 10CFR50.59, for Jan-Dec 1998.With1998-12-31031 December 1998 Annual Rept for 10CFR50.59, for Jan-Dec 1998.With ML20198G9101998-12-22022 December 1998 Proposed Rev 2 of Cyap QAP for Haddam Neck Plant. Marked Up Rev 1 Included ML20238F2131998-08-28028 August 1998 SER Accepting Defueled Emergency Plan for Emergency Planning for Connecticut Yankee Atomic Power Co CY-98-136, Ro:On 980727,flow Blockage Occurred & Caused Pressure in Sys to Increase,Resulting in Relief Valve Lifting & Pipe Vibration,Which Caused Leaks to Develop.Caused by Nearly Closed post-filter Inlet Valve.Repaired 2 Leaks in Line1998-08-12012 August 1998 Ro:On 980727,flow Blockage Occurred & Caused Pressure in Sys to Increase,Resulting in Relief Valve Lifting & Pipe Vibration,Which Caused Leaks to Develop.Caused by Nearly Closed post-filter Inlet Valve.Repaired 2 Leaks in Line ML20237B7461998-07-22022 July 1998 1998 Defueled Emergency Plan Exercise Scenario Manual, Conducted on 980722 ML20202D1621998-06-30030 June 1998 Safety Evaluation Supporting Amend 193 to License DPR-61 CY-98-068, Follow-up to Verbal Notification on 980413 of Film on Discharge Canal.Investigation Continuing.Samples Collected for Petroleum Analyses & Biological Characterization at Intake Structure & Discharge Canal.Replaced Sorbent Booms1998-04-15015 April 1998 Follow-up to Verbal Notification on 980413 of Film on Discharge Canal.Investigation Continuing.Samples Collected for Petroleum Analyses & Biological Characterization at Intake Structure & Discharge Canal.Replaced Sorbent Booms CY-98-045, Ro:On 980212,0219,0225 & 0312,separate Sheens of Approx One Cup of oil-like Substance Was Observed at Discharge Canal. Cause Has Not Been Clearly Identified.Called in Vendor Spill to Install Sorbent Booms to Absorb Sheen.W/One Drawing1998-04-13013 April 1998 Ro:On 980212,0219,0225 & 0312,separate Sheens of Approx One Cup of oil-like Substance Was Observed at Discharge Canal. Cause Has Not Been Clearly Identified.Called in Vendor Spill to Install Sorbent Booms to Absorb Sheen.W/One Drawing ML20217F0611998-03-31031 March 1998 Historical Review Team Rept ML20217A0001998-03-31031 March 1998 Monthly Operating Rept for Mar 1998 for Haddam Neck Plant ML20217K2101998-03-27027 March 1998 Safety Evaluation Supporting Amend 192 to License DPR-61 CY-98-046, Follow-up to 980311 Verbal Notification of Film on Discharge Canal.Cause Not Yet Determined.Film Is Contained & Will Be Absorbed by Containment & Sorbent Booms That Were in Place in Discharge Canal1998-03-12012 March 1998 Follow-up to 980311 Verbal Notification of Film on Discharge Canal.Cause Not Yet Determined.Film Is Contained & Will Be Absorbed by Containment & Sorbent Booms That Were in Place in Discharge Canal ML20216D6531998-02-28028 February 1998 Monthly Operating Rept for Feb 1998 for Haddam Neck Plant ML20217D7381998-02-28028 February 1998 Revised MOR for Feb 1998 Haddam Neck Plant CY-98-012, Monthly Operating Rept for Jan 1998 for Connecticut Yankee Haddam Neck Plant1998-01-31031 January 1998 Monthly Operating Rept for Jan 1998 for Connecticut Yankee Haddam Neck Plant CY-98-010, Annual Rept for 10CFR50.59,Jan-Dec,19971997-12-31031 December 1997 Annual Rept for 10CFR50.59,Jan-Dec,1997 ML20198N6681997-12-31031 December 1997 Monthly Operating Rept for Dec 1997 for Haddam Neck Plant ML20217P4861997-12-31031 December 1997 1997 Annual Financial Rept, for Cyap ML20199L5891997-12-24024 December 1997 Independent Analysis & Evaluation of AM-241 & Transuranics & Subsequent Dose to Two Male Workers at Connecticut Yankee Atomic Power Plant ML20203K4271997-11-30030 November 1997 Monthly Operating Rept for Nov 1997 for Haddam Neck Plant ML20199B1141997-10-31031 October 1997 Monthly Operating Rept for Oct 1997 for Haddam Neck Plant ML20198M8101997-10-14014 October 1997 SER Accepting Proposed Revs to Util Quality Assurance Program at Facility ML20198J8811997-09-30030 September 1997 Monthly Operating Rept for Sept 1997 for Haddam Neck Plant ML20210P8721997-08-31031 August 1997 Post Decommissioning Activities Rept, for Aug 1997 ML20217Q3171997-08-31031 August 1997 Addl Changes to Proposed Rev 1 to QA Program ML20210U9301997-08-31031 August 1997 Monthly Operating Rept for Aug 1997 for Haddam Neck Plant CY-97-082, Special Rept:On 970708,routine Surveillance Testing of Seismic Monitoring Sys Instrumentation Revealed,Data Was Not Being Reproduced by Portion of Playback Sys.Station Presently Pursuing Replacement of Seismic Monitoring Sys1997-08-14014 August 1997 Special Rept:On 970708,routine Surveillance Testing of Seismic Monitoring Sys Instrumentation Revealed,Data Was Not Being Reproduced by Portion of Playback Sys.Station Presently Pursuing Replacement of Seismic Monitoring Sys ML20210L0521997-07-31031 July 1997 Monthly Operating Rept for July 1997 for HNP ML20149E4451997-06-30030 June 1997 Monthly Operating Rept for June 1997 for Haddam Neck Plant ML20141A0041997-05-31031 May 1997 Independent Assessment of Radiological Controls Program at Cyap Haddam Neck Plant Final Rept May 1997 ML20140H5241997-05-31031 May 1997 Monthly Operating Rept for May 1997 for Haddam Neck Plant ML20141K4201997-05-22022 May 1997 Safety Evaluation Supporting Amend 191 to License DPR-61 ML20141D4141997-04-30030 April 1997 Monthly Operating Rept for Apr 1997 for Connecticut Yankee Haddam Neck ML20138G5901997-04-25025 April 1997 Proposed Rev 1 to Cyap QA Program for Haddam Neck Plant ML20137W8051997-03-31031 March 1997 Monthly Operating Rept for Mar 1997 for Haddam Neck Plant ML20137H3031997-03-31031 March 1997 Rev 2 to Nuclear Training Loit/Lout Audit Reviews ML20137C6281997-03-14014 March 1997 Redacted Version of Rev 1 to Nuclear Training Loit/Lout Audit Reviews ML20137A0801997-02-28028 February 1997 Monthly Operating Rept for Feb 1997 for Haddam Neck Plant ML20135C5101997-02-26026 February 1997 1996 Refuel Outage ISI Summary Rept for CT Yankee Atomic Power Co B16268, Special Rept:On 970205,declared Main Stack-Wide Range Noble Gas Monitor Inoperable.Caused by Inadequate Calibr Methods. Will Revise Calibr Procedure to Technique to Demonstrate Accuracy & Linearity Over Intended Range of Monitor1997-02-19019 February 1997 Special Rept:On 970205,declared Main Stack-Wide Range Noble Gas Monitor Inoperable.Caused by Inadequate Calibr Methods. Will Revise Calibr Procedure to Technique to Demonstrate Accuracy & Linearity Over Intended Range of Monitor ML20135E3221997-02-13013 February 1997 Independent Review Team Rept 1996 MP -1 Lout NRC Exam Failures ML20134L2751997-02-0303 February 1997 Draft Rev to GPRI-30, Spent Fuel Storage Facility Licensing Basis/Design Basis ML20138K5721997-01-31031 January 1997 Monthly Operating Rept for Jan 1997 for Haddam Neck Plant.W/ ML20134L2791997-01-10010 January 1997 Rev 0 to QA Program Grpi ML20134L2911997-01-0808 January 1997 Rev 0 to UFSAR Rev Grpi ML20134L2721996-12-31031 December 1996 Commitment Mgt Grpi 1999-04-28
[Table view] |
Text
-
~
gaareg
- y. It UNITED STATES j #'
j NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSION
$ 'f WASHINGTON, D.C. 2055MKc1
]
SAFETY EVALUATION BY THE OFFICE OF NUCLEAR REACTOR REGULATION RELATED TO AMENDMENT NO.194 CONNECTICUT YANKEE ATOMIC POWER COMPANY HADDAM NECK PLANT DOCKET NO 50-213
1.0 INTRODUCTION
By letter dated June 2,1998, as supplemented January 18 and March 9,1999, the Connecticut Yankee Atomic Power Company (CYAPCO, the licensee) submitted a proposed revision to the Haddam Neck Plant Technical Specifications (TSs). The June 2 letter proposed to relocate the requirements for a seismic monitor to the Technical Requirements Manual (TRM),
consistent with the guidance contained in Generic Letter 95-10, Relocation of Selected Technical Specification Requirements Related to Instrumentation. The proposed amendment fulfills a commitment that CYAPCO made to the NRC in Licensee Event Report (LER)
LER 50-213/1998-001-00, dated May 7,1998.
By letter dated January 18,1999, CYAPCO submitted a revised page of its Updated Final Safety Analysis Report (UFSAR), which incorporated Section il of its TRM by reference and l stated that changes to the TRM require a [10 CFR) 50.59 Safety Evaluation. The January 18 letter also submitted a revision to Section 11 of its TRM, which contained the TS requirements for seismic monitoring.
l By letter dated March 9,1999, CYAPCO submitted an additional clarification of its proposed revision.
, The January 18 and March 9,1999, letters did not contain any information outside the scope of the initial Federal Reaister notice,
2.0 BACKGROUND
Section 182a of the Atomic Energy Act of 1954, as amended (the Act), requires applicants for nuclear power plant operating licenses to state the TS to be included as part of the license.
The Commission's regulatory requirements related to the content of the TS are set forth in 10 CFR 50.36. That regulation requires the TS to include items in five specific categories:
(1) safety limits, limiting system settings and limiting control settings; (2) limiting conditions for operation; (3) surveillance requirements; (4) design features; and (5) administrative controls.
However, the regulation does not specify the particular requirements to be included in a plant's TS.
9905030231 990428 PDR ADOCK 05000213 W PDR ,
[4
E . .
= ,
I I
2- )i The four criteria defined in 10 CFR 50.36 to be used in determining whether a particular matter is required to be included in the TS are as follows:
(1) installed instrumentation that is used to detect, and indicate in the control room, a significant abnormal degradation of the reactor coolant pressure boundary; j (2) a process variable, design feature, or operating restriction that is an initial condition of a design-basis accident or transient analysis that either assumes the failure of or presents a challenge to the integrity of a fission product barrier; (3) a structure, system, or component that is part of the primary success path and which functions or actuates to mitigate a design-basis accident or transient that either assumes the failure of or presents a challenge to the integrity of a fission product barrier; and (4) a structure, system, or component which operating experience or probabilistic safety assessment has shown to be significant to public health and safety.
As a result, existing TS requirements, which fall within or satisfy any of the criteria in the regulation, must be retained in the TSs, while those TS requirements that do not fall within or satisfy these criteria may be relocated to other licensee-controlled documents. )
3.0
SUMMARY
OF PROPOSED CHANGES The following information will be deleted from the TSs and transferred to the TRM:
3/4.3.3.3 Seismic Instrumentation Table 3.3-5 Seismic Monitoring Instrumentation Table 4.3-4 Seismic Monitoring Instrumentation Surveillance Requirements 4.0 DISCUSSION AND EVALUATION LER 50-213/1998-001-00 contained commitment number CY-98-048-01, which stated, "A proposed modification to the Haddam Neck Plant's technical specifications will be submitted to the NRC by July 1,1998." The licensee submitted a license amendment request on June 2,1998, which proposed a modification to the seismic monitoring instrumentation requirements. The licensee has, therefore, fulfilled its commitment.
The licensee proposed a relocation of the requirements for seismic monitoring instrumentation to the TRM and a correction of a typographical error.
Section Vi(a)(3) of Appendix A to 10 CFR Part 100 requires that seismic monitoring l instrumentation be provided to promptly determine the response of those nuclear power plant features important to safety in the event of an earthquake. This capability is required to allow for a comparison of the measured response to that used in the design basis for the unit. 1 L Comparison of such data is needed to determir'e whether the plant can continue to be operated l safely and to permit such timely action as may be appropriate. However, the capability of a L.
plant to withstand a seismic event or other design-basis accident is determined by the initial design and construction of systems, structures, and components. The seismic instrumentation is used after the initiating event occurs to alert operators and to evaluate the plant response.
Seismic monitoring instrumentation requirements do not meet the four criteria of 10 CFR 50.36 and are not required to be included in the TSs as discussed below.
Regarding the first criterion, the Final Commission Policy Statement on Technical Specifications Improvements for Nuclear Power Reactors (58 FR 39132) explained that instrumentation to detect precursors to reactor coolant pressure boundary leakage, such as seismic instrumentation is not included as a first criterion. Regarding the second criterion, the seismic instrumentation does not serve as a process variable, protective design feature, or operating restriction that is an initial condition of a design-basis event, which challenges fission product barriers. Regarding the third criterion, seismic instrumentation is not part of a primary success path and does not actuate any protective equipment or serve any direct role in the mitigation of a design-basis accident. Regarding the fourth criterion, the seismic instrumentation does affect the probability or consequences of a seismic event, and is not significant to public health and safety. The staff has co'icluded that the seismic monitoring instrumentation does not satisfy the 10 CFR 50.36 criteria and may be relocated to a licensee-controlled document.
By letter dated January 18,1999, the licensee proposed a method to relocate seismic monitoring requirements to a licensee-controlled document. The January 18 letter contained copies of approved changes to its UFSAR and TRM. The approved changes have incorporated Section 11 of the TRM into the UFSAR by reference and will transfer seismic monitoring instrumentation TS requirements to Section 11 of the TRM. By incorporating the TRM into its UFSAR, changes to the TRM are subject to the requirements of 10 CFR 50.59. The staff concludes that sufficient regulatory controls exist to adequately protect public health and safety.
In addition, the licensee provided a commitment to implement changes to the TRM concurrent with implementation of the license amendment.
- The licensee corrected a typographical error in the measurement range of the Triaxial Servo Accelerometer. Upon transfer from the TSs to the TRM, the measurement range will be corrected from "O to 0.59" to "O to 0.5g." The licensee stated that the revised measurement range is adequate to determine if earthquake motion is within the design basis of the plant.
Based on the preceding facts, the staff finds that the relocation of seismic monitoring instrumentation requirements from the TSs to the TRM is acceptable.
5.0 STATE CONSULTATION
in accordance with its regulations, on October 20,1998, the State of Connecticut official was notified of the proposed issuance of the amendment. The State official had no comment.
I g
~
4 60 ENVIRONMENTAL CONSIDERATION 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 changes 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 individual or cumulative occupational radiation exposure. The Commission has previously issued a proposed finding that the proposed amendment involves no significant hazards consideration, and there has been no public comment on such finding (63 FR 50936, September 23,1998). Accordingly, the amendment meets the eligibility enteria for categorical exclusion set forth in 10 CFR 51.22(c)(9). Pursuant to 10 CFR 51.22(b), no environmental assessment or environmental impact statement need be prepared in connection with the issuance of die amendment.
7.0 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: Thomas L. Fredrichs Date: April 28, 1999