ML20205F298

Forwards Request for Addl Info Re 880701 Application for Amend Changing Tech Specs in Response to Generic Ltr 83-37. Response Requested within 30 Days

ML20205F298
Person / Time
Site:	Haddam Neck File:Connecticut Yankee Atomic Power Co icon.png
Issue date:	10/21/1988
From:	Wang A Office of Nuclear Reactor Regulation
To:	Mroczka E CONNECTICUT YANKEE ATOMIC POWER CO.
References
GL-83-37, TAC-54538, NUDOCS 8810280037
Download: ML20205F298 (4)

Text

_ _ _

• ~.

Docket No. 50-213 IN l

~

Mr. Edward J. Mroczka Senior Vice President

,' Nuclear Engineering and Operations Connecticut Yankee Atomic Power Company i Port Office Eox 270 -

Hartford, Connecticut 06141-0270

SUBJECT:

REQUEST FOR ADDITIONAL INFORMATION REGARDING HADDAM NECK PLANT TECHNICAL SPECIFICATION FOR GENERIC LETTER 83-37 -

(TAC No. 54538)  !

The NRC staff has reviewed Connecticut Yankee Atomic Power Coripany's (CYAPCO) proposed license amendment dated July 1, 1988 to change the Technical '

Specifications in response to Generic Letter 83-37. Based on our review, we i have determined that additional infonration is needed to cocplete our review.

As discussed with your staff, this information should be submitted within 30 days of receipt of this letter.

The reporting and/or recordkeeping requirements contained in this letter affect fewer than 10 respondents; therefore, CMB clearance is not required under P.L.96-511.

t If you have any questions regarding this request please contact me at (301) '

492-1313.

Sincerely. [

/$

Alan B. Wang, Project Manager Project Directorate I-4 l Divisicn of Reactor Projects, I/II  ;

Enclosure:

As stated f f

cc w/ enclosure: l Sse next page i DISTRIBUTION:

ibisi$in m e; NRC & Local PDRs SVarga BBoger i

$Norris ACRS(10) i EJordan DJaffe I Gray File EGrimes [

, p lA:PDI-4 C4:PDI-4 I-4 SNorris A0 Kang:cdSg z 10 p [

0 10/XO /88 10/t.s/88 j

?

G$10280037 GG1021 , .

p DR ADOCK 05000213 l

PDC lll l i

e 1

Mr. Edward J. Mroczka Connecticut Yankee Atomic Power Company Haddam Neck Plant o ec:

Gerald Garfield Esquire R. M. Kacich, Manager Day, Berry and Howard Generation facilities Licensing Counselors at Law Northeast Utilities Service Company City Place Post Office Box 270 Hartford, Connecticut 06103-3499 Hartford, Connecticut 06141-0270 W. D. Romberg, Vice President D. O. Nordquist Nuclear Operations Panager of Quality Assurance Northeast Utilities Service Company Northeast Nuclear Energy Cowpany Post Office Box 270 Post Office Box 270 Hartford, Connecticut 06141-0270 Hartford, Cennecticut 06141-0270 Kevin McCarthy, Director Regional Administrator Radiation Control Unit Region !

Cepartment of Environmental Protection U. S. Nuclear Regulatory Comission State Office Building 475 Allendale Road Hartford, Connecticut 06106 King of Prussia, Pennsylvania 19406 Bradford S. Chase, Under Secretary Board of Selectmen Energy Division Town Hall Office of Policy and Management Haddam, Connecticut 06103 80 Washington Street Hartford, Connecticut 06106 J. T. Shedlosky, Resider.t Inspector Haddam Neck Plant D. B. Miller, Station Superintendent c/o V. S. Nuclear Regulatory Conmission Haddam Neck Plant Post Office Box 116 Connecticut Yankee Atomic Power Cowpany East Haddam Post Office RFD 1 Post Office Box 127E East Haddam, Connecticut OM23 East Hampton, Connecticut 06424 G. H. Pouchard, Unit Superintendent

• Haddam Neck Plant RFD #1 Post Office Box 127E East Hampton, Connecticut 06424

. ENCLOSURE REQUEST FOR ADDITIONAL INFORMATION REGARDING TECHNICAL SPECIFICATION CHANGE FOR GENERIC LETTER 83-37 s

The NRC staff has reviewed your letter of July 1,1988 and requests additional infonnation regarding the following items:

A) RCS Vents

1) The intent of GL 83-37 was to always have at least two vent paths operable. The action statement refers to the  !

PORVs as the back-up vent path. Are the PORVs qualified similar to the vent valves so that credit can be given to the PORVs as a alternative path'

2) As previously stated by the staff, removal of the power to '

the vent valves is not necessary. Provide the basis for removing power from the vent valves.

B) Long Tern Auxiliary Feedwater System Evaluation I

1) Provide the proposed TS change for the Auxiliary Feedwater Systen.

C) Noble Gas Eff'luent Fonitors

1) Provide the basis for having only one noble gas ironitor

location as coe. pared to the seven rnonitoring locations

reconnended in GL 83-37.

t

2) Provide the basis for not inciuding the alam/ trip setpoint ,

and reasuren.ent range for the noble gas acnitor as reconnended '

by GL 83-37. If an alam/tr'p setpoint is established, the

, corresponding action statereat needs to be added.

3) Provide the basis for allowing isolption of the stack wide range [

rioble gas acnitor during periods of high steam generator blowdewn. !

4) The action statement for less than the Minimum Channels Operable should provide for a preplanned alternative trethod of noble gas tronitoring,  !

l D) Containment High Range Radiation Ponitor

! Provide the basis for not including the alare/ trip setpoint and

1) l reasurenent range for the containment high rar radiation i monitor. If an alarm / trip setpoint is establisned, the 7 1

corresponding action statement needs to be added. ,

! 2) Provide the basis for not including a functional test at '

least once per rnenth as recorrended by GL 83-37.  !

1  :

i

. -?-

E) Instrumentation for Detection of Inadequate Core Cooling

1) Core Exit Themocouples (CET) a) The staff recomends that CYAFC0 specify that the number ,

of CETs will be a least 4/ quadrant except Quadrant IV  :

which will be 3/ quadrant and that the total number of channels will be 16/ core, c

b) Provide a discussion of the distribution of CETs in i Quadrant III and why Quadrant III requires only one channel operable versus the recomendation in GL 83-37 for two operable channels.

(

c) Provide the basis for why there is no action statement i for less than the minimum of channels operable for f the CETS as recomended in GL 83-37.

2) Reactor Yessel Water Level (RVWL) f a) Provide the basis for why there is no action statement  !

for less than the total number of channels operable for the RVWL channels as recomended in GL 83-37.

I j 3) ReactorCoolantSystemSubcoolingMarginMonitor(SMM) i l a) Provide the basis for why there is no action statement f

) for less than the total number of channels operable for l l the SPM channels as recomended in GL 83-37.  ;

i b) CYAPCO should revise the action statement to limit the r

! time the SVH can be inoperable, An additional statement such as "Restore the system to operable status at the i next scheduled refueling," as was provided for the RVWL i system, would be acceptable.

'i 1 L i l

! l k

I l  !

t (

l i i