ML20235R423

Safety Evaluation Supporting Amend 95 to License DPR-61

ML20235R423
Person / Time
Site:	Haddam Neck File:Connecticut Yankee Atomic Power Co icon.png
Issue date:	09/23/1987
From:	Office of Nuclear Reactor Regulation
To:
Shared Package
ML20235R350	List: ML20235R348 ML20235R412 ML20235R423
References
GL-84-13, NUDOCS 8710080045
Download: ML20235R423 (3)

Text

. _ _. - - -

l

+f UNITED STATES 8

NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSION g

y E

WASHINGTON, D. C. 20555 l

SAFETY EVALUATION BY THE OFFICE OF NUCLEAR REACTOR REGULATION SUPPORTING AMENDMENT NO. 95 TO FACILITY OPERATING LICENSE NO. DPR-61 CONNECTICUT YANKEE ATOMIC POWER COMPANY l

HADDAM NECK PLANT DOCKET NO. 50-213

1.0 INTRODUCTION

By letter dated June 1, 1987, the Connecticut Yankee Atomic Power Company (CYAPCO) submitted a request for changes to the Haddam Neck Plant Technical Specifications.

This license amendment revises Technical Specifications (TS) 3.19 and 4.13 pertaining to snubbers by replacing the existing TS with technical specifica-tions which are largely consistent with the NRC model standard technical specifications (STS) and which are more consistent with current industry guidelines such as NRC Generic Letter 84-13.

2.0 EVALUATION The licensee states that the proposed changes to replace snubber TS 3.19 and

)

4.13 with TS consistent with STS is in accordance with NRC Generic Letter l

84-13 (May 3, 1984). All deviations from the model STS are justified in accordance with the NRC letter of September 1, 1983. Although there will be no hydraulic snubbers after the 1987 outage (the four on the reactor neutron I

shield tank were removed), the licensee is proposing TS requirements for hydraulic snubbers for future use. There are currently 35 mechanical snubbers at the Haddam Neck Plant.

l The staff review of the proposed changes was basically a comparison of the l

present TS and the licensee's submittal with the STS.

Individual TS changes were found acceptable if identical to STS or previously approved TS for other sites.

Four significarit changes / differences were identified and discussed with the licensee.

The resolution of each change / difference I

issue is addressed as follows.

2.1 Engineering Evaluation To Determine Operability The STS action statement requires that for an inoperable snubber, within 72 hours8.333333e-4 days <br />0.02 hours <br />1.190476e-4 weeks <br />2.7396e-5 months <br />, replace or restore this/these snubber (s) and perform an engineering evaluation on the supported component or declare the supported system inoperable and follow the appropriate action statement for that system.

8710080045 870923 DR ADOCK 0500 3

I

~

i

, Inthefune1,1987applicationCYAPC0proposedtoperformanengineering evaluation instead of replacement or repair. This would make the TS read as if an or was between the required corrective actions and the engineering evaluatioii~in the STS.

In pro exists (see Section 2.5 below) posed TS 3.19.B. however, no such statement We have reviewed the licensee's proposed wording concerning engineering evaluations and have concluded that it is consistent with the guidance contained in Generic Letter 84-13 and is, therefore, acceptable. The engineering evaluation shall not be used for the purpose of declaring a system operable while snubbers remain inoperable.

2.2 Manually Induced Snubber Movement The STS visual inspection acceptance criteria requires, in those locations where snubber movement can be manually induced without disconnecting the snubber, that the snubber has freedom of movement and is not frozen up. The licensee stated that this requirement shows nothing and could damage small snubbers and is nearly impossible to perform on big snubbers. This change from the STS is consistent with the Millstone 3 TS. The CYAPC0 application also adds a requirement to check for excessive leakage from hydraulic snubber 1

reservoirs or connections. This is found to be a meaningful requirement.

Therefore, both of these differences from the STS are acceptable.

2.3 Follow-up Inspection Sample Size The licensee's proposed TS 4.13.C would reduce the follow-up sample size

{

from 10% (same as the first sample size) to 5% additional snubber inspection i

for each failure. The May 3, 1984 STS, previously referenced, also requires l

a 10% follow-up sample size for each failure. However, in more recently issued TS, such as those for Millstone 3, a 5% follow-up sample size has been authorized. Justification for this change is based on statistics showing that a 5% follow-up sample for each failure provides essentially the same confidence level as the first 10% sample. Since this change has f

been approved for other licensees, it is acceptable for the Haddam Neck l

Plant.

2.4 Increased Drag Force Limitation The STS mechanical snubber functional test acceptance criteria requires that the drag force shall not have increased more than 50% since the last functional test. The licensee states that because drag force measurements.

especially on small snubbers, are very hard to measure and are not usually repeatable, this requirement is unrealistic. Again, this requirement has been eliminated from rt;cently issued TS such as those for Millstone 3.

Therefore, this requirement is not necessary for Haddam Neck.

l

• ... 2.5 Administrative Issue ThelichnseeproposedTSSection3.19.Aincludedreferencestosections 3.19.B and 3.19.C however, no Section 3.19.C was included. We have discussed this problem with the licensee and were informed that the failure to delete the reference to Section 3.19.C was an administrative oversight.

Therefore, the staff has deleted the reference to Section 3.19.C from Section 3.19.A of the approved TS on the basis that it is administrative in nature.

Based on the above evaluations, we find the proposed changes to technical specifications 3.19, " Snubber," and 4.13, " Snubbers" to be acceptable.

l

3.0 ENVIRONMENTAL CONSIDERATION

This amendment involves a change to a requirement with respect to the l

installation or use of facility components located within the restricted area as defined in 10 CFR Part 20 and changes to the surveillance j

requirements. The staff has determined that the amendment involves i

i 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. 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 impact 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: (I) 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.

5.0 ACKNOWLEDGEMENT Principal Contributors:

E. Conner, Region 1 and F. Akstulewicz, PDISA, NRR.

Dated: September 23, 1987 I

l

_ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _. ___