ML20137Z627

Safety Evaluation Supporting Amend 89 to License DPR-3

ML20137Z627
Person / Time
Site:	Yankee Rowe
Issue date:	11/30/1985
From:	Office of Nuclear Reactor Regulation
To:
Shared Package
ML20137Z605	List: ML20137Z600 ML20137Z613 ML20137Z627 ML20137Z631
References
NUDOCS 8512110356
Download: ML20137Z627 (2)

Text

_ paaeg",

e # o g '

UNITED STATES 8 a NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSION

,; wAsmwoTow. o. c.20sss 3

R*...+,/

SAFETY EVALUATION BY THE OFFICE OF NUCLEAR REACTOR REGULATION SUPPORTING AMENDMENT NO.89 TO FACILITY OPERATING LICENSE NO. DPR-3 YANKEE ATOMIC ELECTRIC COMPANY YANKEE NUCLEAR POWER STATION DOCKET NO. 50-29

1.0 INTRODUCTION

By letter dated October 16, 1985, the Yankee Atomic Electric Company (YAEC) submitted a request for changes to the Yankee Nuclear Power Station Technical Specifications (TS).

. The amendment revises the TS surveillance interval for the second level (degraded grid voltage) undervoltage protection.

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 30, 1985 (50 FR 45181). No comments or requests for hearing were received.

2.0 EVALUATION Amendment-No. 84 to Facility Operating License No. DPR-3 for Yankee, dated October 1,1985, issued TS that required surveillance testing of the degraded grid voltage (second level undervoltage) protection feature of the Engineered Safeguards System (ESF) Instrumentation. The interval for this surveillance test was once per refueling outage. This interval was inconsistent with the interval specified in the Westinghouse Standard TS (STS). At the time of issuance of Amendment No. 84, the degraded grid voltage (second level under-voltage) did not have the necessary physical circuitry to allow monthly testing. The staff therefore required that the surveillance interval be modified for this degraded grid voltage (second level undervoltage) protection after completion of the circuit modification, to a monthly testing interval to assure consistency with STS.

By letter dated October 16, 1985, the licensec proposed to modify the surveillance interval to require monthly testing of the degraded grid voltage (second level undervoltage) protection feature. The necessary circuitry was installed during the refueling outage following Cycle 17 operation (November 1985). Monthly surveillance of the degraded grid voltage (second level undervoltage) relays will provide a more frequent, conservative surveillance interval for verification of operability of the degraded grid voltage (second level undervoltage) relays that is also i consistent with STS. The proposed change is, therefore, acceptable.  !

B512110356 851130 PDR ADOCK 05000029 P PDR

e .

As part of the proposed change, the licensee included a table notation to the degraded grid voltage (second level undervoltage) TS that stated the monthly surveillance for the "480 Volt Emergency Bus Degraded Voltage" applied only

" degraded voltage protection", and not to loss of voltage (first level undervoltage) protection. In its evaluation, the licensee stated that the current surveillance interval that includes testing the loss of voltage (first level undervoltage) every 18 months was being retained. As stated in

-its January 4,1985 letter, and restated in the October 1,1985 letter that forwarded = Amendment No. 84, the Yankee TS currently do not include surveillance requirements for the loss of voltage (first level undervoltage) relays. The table notation is not considered applicable to the existing TS,-and is, there-fore, not included in this amendment.

Additional modifications to the TS are still necessary to address the loss of voltage (first level undervoltage) protection specifically. The proposed change to address this modification should include documentation of the existing relays' reliability. The licensee is requested to provide within 30 days of issuance of this amendment a schedule for submission of a proposed change for loss of voltage (first level undervoltage) protection.

3.0 ENVIRONMENTAL CONSIDERATION

This amendment involves 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 set forth in 10 CFR 51.22(c)(9). Pursuant to 10 CFR 51.22(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) there is reasonable assurance that the health and safety of the will not be endangered by operation in the proposed manner, andsuch. (2) public activities will be conducted in compliance with the Commission's regulations and the issuance of this amendment will not be inimical- to the comon defense and security or to the health and safety of the public.

5.0 ACKNOWLEDGEMENT Principal Contributor: J. Clifford.

Dated: November 30, 1985