ML20134Q064

Safety Evaluation Supporting Amend 65 to License DPR-61

ML20134Q064
Person / Time
Site:	Haddam Neck File:Connecticut Yankee Atomic Power Co icon.png
Issue date:	09/03/1985
From:	Caphton D Office of Nuclear Reactor Regulation
To:
Shared Package
ML20134Q033	List: ML20134Q029 ML20134Q050 ML20134Q064
References
NUDOCS 8509090150
Download: ML20134Q064 (2)

Text

,

',8 jty UNITED STATES

g NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSION

% 'r j WASHINGTON, D. C. 20555

%*...+/

SAFETY EVALUATION BY THE OFFICE OF NUCLEAR REACTOR REGULATION SUPPORTING AMENDMENT NO. 65 TO FACILITY OPERATING LICENSE NO DPR-6'i CONNECTICUT YANKEE ATOMIC POWER COMPANY HADDAM NECK PLANT DOCKET NO. 50-?13

1.0 INTRODUCTION

By letter dated October 20, 1981, the Connecticut Yankee Atomic Power Company (CYAPCO) or the licensee, pursuant to 10 CFR 50.90, applied to modify its operating license, DPR-61, by incorporating revisions into the Haddam Neck Plant Technical Specifications (TS). Ite:1 1 therein proposes an arendment to Table 3.9-1 of Section 3.9, Operational Safety and Control Systems of the Haddam Neck Plant Appendix A TS to delete the logic requirements of pressurizer level-low for the safety injection trip, a change requested by the staff in Inspection and Enforcement (IE)

Bulletin 79-06A (Revision No. 1).

A Notice of Consideration of Issuance of Amendment to License and Proposed No Significant Hazards Consideration Determination and Opportunity for Hearing related to the requested action was published in the Federal Register on October 26, 1983 (48 FR 49580). No comments or requests for hearing were received.

2.0 EVALUATION The safety injection trip logic was revised following the incident at TMI-2 where it was identified that low pressurizer pressure could exist without )'

coincident low pressurizer level set point bistables in a tripped condition as per IE Bulletin 79-06A (Revision 1). Previously, pressurizer water level i coincident with pressurizer pressure trip was necessary for initiation of '

safety injection, which is less stringent than the current condition for low pressurizer pressure trip actuation of safety injection.

Deletion of the pressurizer level from actuation logic for safety injec-tion maintains the more conservative logic requirements as requested by IE Bulletin 79-06A (Revision 1). Removal of Item 7, Pressurizer Low Water Level Signal (for Safety In,iection Trip) from Table 3.9-1, Minimum Instru-mentation Operation Conditions, of Section 3.9 of the Paddam Neck Plant 4

TS is purely administrative.

e509090150 g M5000213 PDR ADOCK PDR P

• D Based on the discussion above, the staff has determined that the proposed licensee amendment is purely administrative and does not involve signifi-cant hazards considerations. The staf#, therefore, concludes that the proposed TS change will not reduce rargins of safety previously approved for the Haddam Neck Plart, and therefore is 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 requirerents. The staff has detennined that the amendment involves no significant increase in the amounts, and no significant change in the types, of ary e#fluents that way be released offsite and that there is no significant increase in individual or cumulative occupational radiation exposure. The Corrission has previously issued a proposed finding that this amendnent involves no significant hazards consideration and there has been no public corrent on such firding. 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 irpact statement or environmental assessment need be prepered in connection with the issuance of this amendment.

4.0 CONCLUSION

The staff has concluded, based on the considerations discussed above, that:

(1) 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 conpliance 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 This Safety Evaluation has been prepared by D. L. Caphton, Division of Reactor Safety, Region I.

Dated: September 3, 1985.