ML20248B793

Forwards Response to NRC Request for Addl Info Re Util 890421 Application for Amend to License DPR-61,revising Tech Spec 3.6, Eccs. Revised Tech Spec Also Encl

ML20248B793
Person / Time
Site:	Haddam Neck File:Connecticut Yankee Atomic Power Co icon.png
Issue date:	07/31/1989
From:	Mroczka E CONNECTICUT YANKEE ATOMIC POWER CO., NORTHEAST UTILITIES
To:	NRC OFFICE OF INFORMATION RESOURCES MANAGEMENT (IRM)
Shared Package
ML20248B797	List: B13284, Proposed Tech Spec 3.6 Re ECCS ML20248B793
References
B13284, NUDOCS 8908090333
Download: ML20248B793 (5)

Text

_ - . _ - - __ _ _ _ _ _ _ . - -- __

4 y r

..~ .

N UTILITIES conor i Orrico. . seie.n si,eet, seriin. Connecticut 9 ' Ie

• s Sine P.O. BOX 270 HARTFORD. CONNECTICUT 06141-0270 k L J Z CC,'[$ (203) 665-5000 July 31, 1989 Docket No. 50-213 B13284 Re: 10CFR50.90 U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission Attention: Document Control Desk Washington, DC 20C55

Reference:

(1) E. J. Mroczka letter to U.S. NRC, Proposed Re ision to Technical Specifications, Section 3.6, Emergency Core Cooling Systems (ECCS), dated April 21, 1989.

Gentlemen:

Haddam Neck Plant Proposed Revision to Technical Specifications Section 3.6, Emergency Core Cooling Systems (ECCS)

Additional Information On April 21, 1989, pursuant to 10CFR50.90, Connecticut Yankee Atomic Power Company (CYAPC0) submitted a proposed amendment to Facility Operating License, DPR-61 by incorporating the proposed changes (Attachment 1 to Reference (1))

into the Technical Specifications of the Haddam Neck Plant. Specifically, Technical Specification Sccction 3.6 " Core Cooling Systems," Section ~ 3.7,

" Minimum Water Volume and Boron Concentration. in the Refueling Water Storage Tank," and Section 4.3, " Core Cooling Systems - Periodic Testing," have been revised and combined into a new Section 3.6 titled, " Emergency Core Cooling Systems."

lhe purpose of this submittal is to respond to a verbal request from the NRC Staff for additional information (see Attachment 1) regarding the subject

' Technical Specification changes.

The proposed Technical Specification changes transmitted via Reference (1) have been revised to reflect the discussion with the Staff and are included herewith (Attachment 2). CYAPC0 has reviewed the proposed changes in accor-dance with 10CFR50.92 and has determined that they involve no significant hazards consideration. It is noted that the previous significant hazards consideration discussion included in Reference (1) is still applicable for the above changes. The Had;Lu Neck Plant Nuclear Review Board has reviewed and approved the proposed changes ano has concurred with the above determinations.

8908090333 890731 \

. PDR ADOCK 05000213 0 0\

l F' FDC E ,

n.

U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission B13284/Page 2 July 31, 1989 We believe the information included in Attachment 1 to this letter along with information provided in Reference (1), provides a complete basis for approval of the requested amendment. Of course, should the Staff have any additional questions, CYAPC0 will be available to discuss the Staff's concerns.

Very truly yours, CONNECTICUT YANKEE ATOMIC POWER COMPANY M

E. J. czka f Senio Vice President cc: W. T. Russell, Region I Administrator A. B. Wang, NRC Project Manager, Haddam Neck Plant J. T. Shedlosky, Senior Resident Inspector, Haddam Neck Plant Mr. Kevin McCarthy Director, Radiation Control Unit Department of Environmental Protection Hartford, Connecticut 06116 STATE OF CONNECTICUT)

) ss. 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.

p1MnL Notary d 77 l' blic~

i MyCommission Expires March 31,1993 I

L____-

? .

~.

• l Docket No. 50-213 B13284 Attachment 1 Additional Information Regarding Technical Specification Change Section 3.6 " Emergency Core Cooling Systems" July 1989

Attachment 1 B13284/Page 1 Attachment 1 Haddam Neck Plant Additional Information Regarding Technical Specification Chances - Section 3.6. "Emeraency Core Coolina Systems" Item 1: Surveillance Requirement. d.2 Provide a basis for a 72-hour time window for completion of debris inspection.

Response

Surveillance Requirement d.2 provides a 72-hour time window for completion of the debris inspection for entries made to do work with integrity already established. This would allow the performance of the containment debris inspection prior to the containment air lock test. This time window would allow the plant to perform one debris inspection for multiple containment entries made during the 72-hour period for the same job. Surveillance Requirement d.2 has been revised to clarify the relationship with the contain-ment airlock testing.

l Item 2: Surveillance Requirement e.1 Define the term " proper interlock" used in this surveillance requirement.

Response

The design of the residual heat removal (RHR) system includes two isolation valves in each line connecting the high pressure reactor coolant system and l the lower pressure RHR system. These valves are closed during normal opera-I tion and are opened only for residual heat removal during a plant cooldown after the RCS pressure is reduced to 300 psig or lower. These valves are provided with an interlock that prevents the valves from being opened when the RCS pressure exceeds 400 psig. This interlock protects the RHR system piping which has a design pressure of 500 psig. It is noted that the word " proper" is meant to describe the action, not the interlock.

Item 3 The existing Technical Specifications call for a periodic testing of the containment spray water valve during each refueling (Item D, Section 4.3). It is the Staff's position that it should not be deleted from the proposed Technical Specification changes.

l

10 ,

. . +' 4 Attachment 1

-B13284/Page 2

~

Response

The ' proposed Technical ' Specification Section 3.6 has been modified to rein-state the deleted surveillance (see Surveillance Requirement g)- .

Item 4 - Surveillance Requirement a Provide a basis for a 60-months testing of the ECCS pump.

Response

' Surveillance requirement c.2 has been modified. to include an additional test

. (i.e. ' verification of differential- pressure on recirculation flow) . on a

- monthly basis in lieu of surveillance requirement, g. The deleted surveil-lance (g)_will be carried out as a part of the inservice testing program. -The proposed additional surveillance requirement is consistent with the M STS.

I 1

i i