ML20196D864

Safety Evaluation Supporting Amend 109 to License DPR-61

ML20196D864
Person / Time
Site:	Haddam Neck File:Connecticut Yankee Atomic Power Co icon.png
Issue date:	12/06/1988
From:	Office of Nuclear Reactor Regulation
To:
Shared Package
ML20196D848	List: ML20196D846 ML20196D854 ML20196D864
References
NUDOCS 8812090218
Download: ML20196D864 (3)

Text

-

1. ~p or

'o r

/ g o

UNITED STATES NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSION 5 *r E WASHING TON, D. C. 20556

~

s.,...../

SAFETY EVALUATION BY THE OFFICE OF NUCLEAR REACTOR REGULATION RELATED TO AMENDMENT NO.109 T0 FACILI_TLO,P,E,R,A,TI,N,G,,L,1, CENSE NO. DPR-61 CONNECTICUT YAhKEE A10 HIC POWER COMPANY HADDAM NECK PLANT DOCKET NO. 50-213 i

, INTRODUCTION Pursuant to 10 CFR 50.90, Connecticut Yankee Atomic Power Company (CYAFCO)  !

proposes to anend the Operating License No. CPR-61 for the Haddam Neck Plant. I By letter dated September 13, 1988 CYAPCO proposed to incorporate a new section of sprinkler protection in the turbine building into Technical Specification Section 3.22G., "Spray and/or Sprinkler Systems" and to reduce tie number of sn.oke detectors available in the containment from 23 to 22 as delineated in Table 3.22-2, "Fire Detection Instrunents."

DISCUSSION Spray an,djor_ Sprinkl,e,r ,5y,s,t, ems 1

The proposed change to the Haddam Neck Technical Specification Section 3.22G.,

"Spray and/or Sprinkler Systems," incorporates a new section of sprinkler protection in the turbine building from column lines C and D between column numbers 8 and 12 under the 59' 6" elevation. The structural steel located  :

between column lines C and D and column nunbers 8 and 12 supports the control , i room which is an area containing redundant safe shutdown equierent. In addition to the rew section of sprinkler protection in the turbine building, 1 CYAPCO is upgrading the fire watch patrol requirement from a roving patrol to  ;

a continuous fire watch should the sprinkler system in the area be declared '

inoperable. The upgrading of the fire watch requirenent is consistent with ,

fire watch requirenents in other areas of the plant where redundant safe shutdown cceponents could be damaged.

Fire De_tec_ tier. Instruments The proposed change to Table 3.22-2 reduces the number of smoke detectors in the containment from 23 to ?2. CYAPCO has evaluated the detection systen.

which was installed as part of the original plant design and detertnined that the detector located behind the service elevator is not required. The original design of the outer annulus (lower level) detection system consisted of 19 Pyrotronics detectors located around the annulus area. This included one detector behind the service elevator. Four addittor.a1 detectors were G812090218 GS1206 4 PDR ADOCK O'000213 P

__ PDC _. _. _ _ _ , _ , , __ ___

. installed in the upper level of the annulus as part of the BTP 9.5-1, Appendix A nodifications, bringing the total number of detectors to 23. The intent of this system is to provide fire detection for the cable trays located in the area.

,Ey,A,LUATION Spray andj,or,, Sprinkler ,5yst, ems CYAPCO has provided additional s building under the control room.prinkler system coverage The capability to controlinand/or the turbine extinguish postulated fires in this area will preclude the development of a fire of sufficient magnitude to danage the structural steel supporting the control roce and enclosed redundant safe shutdown cceponents. Shculd the sprinkler system be declared inoperable, a continucus fire watch will be maintained for the area under the control roce. The current requirement for a roving fire watch in all other areas of the turbine building rerains unchanged should the sprinkler system in those areas be declared inoperable. The change constitutes an additional control not presently included in the Technical Specifications. In addition, the fire watch requirenent for this area (continuous fire watch) is more restrictive than the present fire watch requirecent for this area.

Fire Detection Instruments CYAPCO proposed to remove detector 15 frou the containnent. Detector f5 was noted on tae original design drawings to be 1ccated on the ceiling within a snall confined area behind the service elevator in the lower annulus area.

This area is bounded by a steel column at colunn line 17 to the east and by steel plates attached to the elevator wall on the west. The back wall of the elevator sits out approximately IS" from the containnent liner, thereby creating a sna11, inaccessible, confined area. There are no exposed cable runs or other in-situ combustibles located in this area. Due to the inaccessibility of the area, CYAPC0 detemined that transient conbustibles are

not a concern. Detector f6 is located adjacent to this area (between column lines 17 and 18) and provides general area coverage for transient combustibles in the area and the area in front of the service elevator.

Therefore, detector f5 serves no effective purpose and can be eliminated.

Moreover, the coverage provided by detector f6 tor the area behind the elevator is in accordance with NFPA 72E, Standard on Autonatic Fire Detectors.

Sungnary Based on the considerations discussed above, we have concluded that the addition of the new sprinkler section provides more restrictive operability requirements and the proposed change will result in added assurance that fire suppression and detectior will be available. In addition, we have detemined that the deletion of detector f 5 from containcent is warranted as it provides no additional fire detection than that provided by detector fC.

l ,Egl,R,0bMENTALCONSIDERATION This an.endment changes a requirement with respect to the installation or use of a facility component located within the restricted area as defined in 10 CFR Part 20. The staff has determined that the amendment involves no significant increase in the arounts, and no significant change in the types, of any effluents that may be released offsite, and that there is no significant increase in irdividual or curulative occupational radiation exposure. The Comission has previously published a proposed finding that the an.endn.ent involves no signif-icant ha:ards consideration and there has been no public coment on such finding.

Accordingly, the arendment reets the eligibility criteria for categorical exclusion set forth in 10 CFR 651.22(c)(9). Pursuant to 10 CFR 651.22(b), no environnental impact statement or environnental assessrent need be prepared in connection with the issuance of the amendrent.

CONCLt!SION We have concluded, based on the considerations discussed above, that (1) there ic reasonable assurance that the health and safety of the public will not be ent' angered by operation in the proposed manner, and (2) such activities will be conducted in compliance with the Commission's regulationis, and the issuance of the amendnent will nct be inimical to the comon defense and security or to the heal th and safety of the public.

Cated: December 6, 1988 Principal Contributor Alan B. Wang i

t

,