ML20205D297

Safety Evaluation Supporting Amend 79 to License DPR-61

ML20205D297
Person / Time
Site:	Haddam Neck File:Connecticut Yankee Atomic Power Co icon.png
Issue date:	08/06/1986
From:	Office of Nuclear Reactor Regulation
To:
Shared Package
ML20205D280	List: ML20205D276 ML20205D289 ML20205D297
References
NUDOCS 8608150324
Download: ML20205D297 (5)

Text

[pn =%q%, UNITED STATES g g NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSION L j WASHINGTON, D. C. 20$55

\**../

SAFETY EVALUATION BY THE OFFICE OF NUCLEAR REACTOR REGULATION SUPPORTING AMENDMENT N0. 79 TO FACILITY OPERATING LICENSE N0. DPR-61 CONNECTICUT YANKEE ATOMIC POWER COMPANY H,ADDAM NECK PLANT

^

DOCKET NO. 50-213,

1.0 INTRODUCTION

By letters dated May 2,1983, July 9,1985, and August 13, 1985, Connecticut Yankee Atomic Power Coapany (CYAPC0 or the licensee) requested amendments to the technical specifications (Appendix A to Operating License No. DPR-61) for the Haddam Neck Nuclear Power Plant. The proposed changes would add a reference to a new containment isolation valve, which has been installed at the facility; make several changes to clarify or correct administrative sections of the technical specifications, and incorporate the reporting requirements of 10 CFR 50.72 and 50.73. In addition, the proposed changes would clarify the definition of containment integrity, add new requirements for post-accident instrumentation and revise the schedule for removal of reactor vessel surveillance capsules.

By letter dated August 15, 1985, the licensee clarified and summarized these changes in a composite submittal. This letter also withdrew the proposed change to the definition of containment integrity. The proposed changes relating to post-accident instrumentation were addressed in Amendment 66 to the License and the revised schedule for removal of the reactor vessel surveillance capsules was subsequently withdrawn by letter dated June 3, 1986.

This evaluation concerns the remaining items in the above submittals for the proposed administrative and clarification changes and the proposed changes for 10 CFR 50.72 and 50.73 reporting requirements.

P

Notices of Consideration of Issuance of Amendment to License and Proposed No Significant Hazards Consideration Determination and Opportunity for Hearing related to the requested actions were published in the Federal Register on October 26, 1983 (48 FR 49581), August 14,1985(50FR32791),

and July 2,1986(51FR24252). No comments or requests for hearing were received.

2.0 EVALUATION AND DISCUSSION The licensee proposed to add a recently installed containment boundary valve to.the list of containment isolation valves contained in Table 3.11-1 of Specification 3.11. Since this change provides operability and surveillance requirements for the new valve which are equivalent to those specified for boundary valves currently covered by this specification, this change is acceptable.

The licensee proposed to revise Figure 6.2-1 to reflect current offsite organization titles and structure. The utility positions of Chairman and Executive Vice President were added to the organizational chart to correctly reflect the current utility organization. The organization, including Senior Vice President Nuclear Engineering and Operation, and subordinates who are responsible for management of the nuclear facilities, remains unchanged. Therefore, this change is acceptable.

The licensee proposed several changes to Specification 6.5 to consolidate and clarify Nuclear Review B'oard (NRB) requirements. The required NRB composition was simplified by specification of a minimum and maximum board membership and deletion of a provision for alternate members.

The areas of nondestructive testing and administration were added to the i scope of NRB review to conform with the guidance of ANSI N18.7-1976.

NRB review and audit requirements were also revised to conform more closely to NRC Standard Technical Specification (STS) and to clarify licensee implementation of these requirements. With regard to training I

9

1 and qualification audit requirements, it was recognized that a sampling technique, which reviews the entire facility staff over the course of several audits is acceptable for meeting these requirements. Since the proposed changes are consistent with the requirements of ANSI N18.7-1976 and NRC STS, these changes are acceptable. The licensee further proposed editorial changes to the addressees for the required reports listed in Specification 6.9. These changes reflect the current titles of NRC recipients and are, therefore, acceptable.

The licensee also proposed changes to be consistent with the revised reporting requirements of 10 CFR 50.72 and 50.73. The proposed revisions include changing the definition of " reportable occurrence" to that of " reportable event," deleting unnecessary and conflicting references to reporting requirements in the limiting conditions for operations and surveillance requirements section, revising the administrative controls section to reference 10 CFR Parts 50.72 and 50.73 and deleting the previous reporting requirements. The licensee's proposed changes included several revisions to reporting requirements in Specification 3.22, Fire Protection Systems. The staff concluded that these changes did not confonn properly with changes to the administrative controls section or to the revised reporting requirements of 10 CFR 50.72 and 50.73. The staff concluded in lieu of the licensee's proposed changes, that Specification 3.22 reporting requirements should l be revised to conform to Specification 6.9.2, Special Reports. These proposed changes were discussed during a meeting between F. Akstulewicz, NRC, and licensee representatives on May 19, 1986. The licensee's representatives agreed to the staff's editorial changes as documented in a meeting sunenary dated June 10, 1986, and, therefore, we find the proposed revisions acceptable.

a

4 We have evaluated the proposed changes to the technical specifications and have concluded that these changes are administrative and do not involve any physical change to the plant's safety-related structures, systems, or components. Further, these changes do not increase the likelihood of a malfunction of safety-related equipment, or increase the consequences of an accident previously analyzed or create the possibility of a malfunction different from those previously evaluated.

Therefore, as stated above, we find the licensee's requested changes to be acceptable.

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 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. Accordingly,

this amendment meets the eligibility criteria for categorical exclusion j

setforthin10CFR51.22(c)(9). Pursuantto10CFR51.22(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: (1)thereisreasonableassurancethatthehealthandsafetyof the public will not be endangered by operation in the proposed manner,

! and(2)suchactivitieswillbeconductedincompliancewiththe i

l

5-Comission'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 This Safety Evaluation has been prepared by P. Swetland, D. Johnson, and M. Kray.

Dated: August 6,1986 O

t