ML20209D739
| ML20209D739 | |
| Person / Time | |
|---|---|
| Site: | Haddam Neck File:Connecticut Yankee Atomic Power Co icon.png |
| Issue date: | 09/03/1986 |
| From: | Office of Nuclear Reactor Regulation |
| To: | |
| Shared Package | |
| ML20209D696 | List: |
| References | |
| NUDOCS 8609090419 | |
| Download: ML20209D739 (3) | |
Text
.
+f UNITED STATES g
E g
NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSION 5
l WASHINGTON, D. C. 20555
\\...../
SAFETY EVALUATION BY THE OFFICE OF NUCLEAR REACTOR REGULATION SUPPORTING AMENDMENT N0. 82 TO FACILITY OPERATING LICENSE N0. DPR-61 CONNECTICUT YANKEE ATOMIC POWER COMPANY HADDAM NECK PLANT DOCKET N0. 50-213
1.0 INTRODUCTION
By letter dated April 15, 1986, as modified June 4, 1986, the Connecticut Yankee Atomic Power Company (CYAPC0) submitted a request for changes to the Haddam Neck Plant technical specifications. A waiver of compliance from Specification 4.10 for the four uninspected tubes in steam generator
- 4 was granted by the staff on April 21, 1986.
The waiver of compliance permitted the licensee to declare all four steam generators operable prior to plant startup.
This amendment revises the technical specifications to permit plant operation with four steam generator tubes in steam generator #4 not inspected as required by technical specification Table a.10.1-2.
Haddam Neck Plant operation in this condition is limited to the present cycle (cycle 14) only. The licensee has agreed to inspect these steam generator tubes during the next outage.
A Notice of Consideration of Issuance of Amendment to License and Proposed No Significant Hazards Consideration Determination and Opportunity for n
Hearing related to the requested action was published in the Federal gh Register on July 2, 1986 (51 FR 24251).
No comments or requests for hearing were received.
(D O 2.0 EVALUATION 88 o<
O By letter dated April 15, 1986, Connecticut Yankee Atomic Power Company Otr
$2n.
(CYAPC0) requested changes to the plant technical specifications to
I
. permit instances when up to 0.5 percent of all tubes in a steam generator need not be inspected. This request originated when four steam generator tubes were not inspected during the 1986 outage as required by technical specification Table 4.10.1-2.
The staff reviewed the proposed changes and infonned CYAPC0 that the permanent operation with a proposed number of uninspected and potentially defective steam generator tubes per steam generator would not be acceptable.
By letter dated June 4, 1986, CYAPC0 modified its original application to request operation only during Cycle 14 and to limit the number of uninspected tubes to the previously identified tubes in steam generator #4.
In support of their amendment applications, CYAPC0 presented data concerning previous inspections of the uninspected tubes, results of visual inspections of the flow slots, and the corrosion rates for development of potential flaws in these tubes.
The staff has reviewed the material provided and concludes that there is reasonable assurance that operation for one cycle would not endanger the health and safety of the public because the licensee's data show row numbers 1 through 3, where these tubes are located, have been relatively free of degraded tubes. The 100 percent 1984 eddy-current inspection and 1986 inspection results indicated no defects in the lower rows (Rows 1 - 3) of any of the four steam generators. The 1984 inspection results for the tubes in question (R1/C51, R1/C52, R1/C53, and R1/C54) show no detectable flaws; and the licensee has verified by visual inspections of Steam Generator Nos. 3 and 4, that no " hour glassing" of flow slots was observed.
The licensee's estimates for the corrcsion rates indicate that the corrosion rates in the steam generators have decreased over the past few operating cycles, which would reduce the potential for significant flaw development over the next operating cycle.
= Based upon the information provided to the staff and described above, the staff concludes that there is reasonable assurance that a serious primary to secondary tube defect would not originate in one of the tubes excluded from the inspection during the current operating cycle (Cycle 14).
Therefore, the staff concludes that the proposed change to the technical specifications is acceptable only for cycle 14 operation.
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 inspection or surveillance requirements. The 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 this amendment involves no significant hazards consideration and there has been no public comment on such finding (51 Fed. Reg. 24251, July 2, 1986). 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 eimpact statement or environmental 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 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 Commission's regulations and the issuance of this amendment will not be inimical to the common defense and security or to the health and safety of the public.
\\
l 5.0 ACKNOWLEDGEMENT 1
This Safety Evaluation has been prepared by F. Akstulewicz.
Dated: September 3, 1986 1
t e
i r
4 I
a l
4 f
i 4
...,...,. _. _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _. _ _ _. _ _ _ _. _. ~. _ _ _ _. _ -. _. _. -. - -