ML19254C853
| ML19254C853 | |
| Person / Time | |
|---|---|
| Site: | Haddam Neck File:Connecticut Yankee Atomic Power Co icon.png |
| Issue date: | 09/14/1979 |
| From: | Ziemann D Office of Nuclear Reactor Regulation |
| To: | Counsil W CONNECTICUT YANKEE ATOMIC POWER CO. |
| References | |
| NUDOCS 7910180016 | |
| Download: ML19254C853 (2) | |
Text
'
s
[pm REGg#'o, e
UNITED STATES 8Y hmk, +l.
NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSION 1
WASHINGTON, D. C. 20555 bbk/
September 14, 1979 t
u.-
y p
Docket t'o. 50-213 Mr. W. G. Coursil, Vice President Nuclear Engineering and Operations Connecticut Yankee Atomic Power Company Post Office Box 270 Hartford, Connecticut 06101
Dear Mr. Counsil:
In the Safety Evaluation Report (SER) for fire protection supporting Amendment No. 28 to Facility Operating License No. DPR-61 for the Haddam Neck Plant, Alternate Safe Shutdown Capability was identified as an incomplete item of review in Section 3.2.1.
To expedite the completion of our review of this item, we are enclosing our position entitled, " Safe Shutdown Capability".
Section 8 of this document specifies the information we require to complete our review. Since you are integrating the safe shutdown requirements for fire protection with any other requirements which result from the review of other topics in the Systematic Evaluation Program, there may be additional criteria and infomation requirements resulting from those topics. However, when you submit your safe shutdown analysis arid any proposed modifications resulting therefrom, you should use the enclosed document for guidance in neeting our fire protection criteria.
Sincerely, wo Y
p Dennis L. Ziemann, Chief i
Operating Reactors Branch #2 Division of Operating Reactors
Enclosure:
Staff Position -
Safe Shutdown Capability cc w/ enclosure:
}% }72 See next page 1910 ; 8 0 o, g kIMd2O E
s Mr. W. G. Counsil
-2_
September 14, 1979 cc w/ enclosure:
Day, Berry & Howaro Counselors at Law One Constitution Plaza Hartford, Connecticut 06103 Superintendent Haddam Neck Plant RFD #1 Post Office Box 127E East Hampton, Connecticut 06424 Mr. James R. Himmelwright Northeast Utilities Service Company P. O. Box 270 Hartford, Connecticut 06101 Russell Library 119 Broad Street Middletown, Connecticut 06457 e
STAFF POSITION SAFE SHUTDOWN CAPABILITY Staff Concern During the staff's evaluation of fire protection programs at operating plants, one or more specific plant areas may be identified in which the staff does not have adequate assurance that a postulated fire will not damage both redundant divisions of shutdown systems.
This lack of assurance in safe shutdown capability has resulted from one or both of the following situations:
- Case A: The licensee has not adequately identified the systems and components required for safe shutdown and their location in specific fire areas.
Case B: The licensee has not demonstrated that the fire protection for specific plant areas will-prevent damage to both redundant divisions of safe shutdown components identified in these areas.
For Case A, the staff has required that an adequate safe shutdown analysis be performed. This eveluation includes the identification of the systems required for safe shutdown and the location of the system components in the plant. Where it is determined by this evaluation that safe shutdown components of both redundant divisions are located in the same fire area, the licensee is required to demonstrate that a postulated fire will not damage both divisions or provide alternate shutdown capability as in Case B.
For Case B, the staff may have required that an alternate shutdown capability be provided with is independent of the area of concern or the licensee may have proposed such a capability in lieu of certain additional fire protection modifications in the area. The specific modifications associated with the area of concern along with other systems and equipment already independent of the area fonn the alternate shutdown capability.
For each plant, the modifications needed and the combinations of systems which provide the shutdown functions may be unique for each critical area; however, the sh0tdown functions provided should maintain plant parameters within the bounds of the limiting safety consequences deemed acceptable for the design basis event.
Staff Position Safe shutdown capability should be demonstrated (Case A) or alternate shutdown capability provided (Case B) in accordance with the guidelines provided below:
110g 174 ii*
- 1. Design Basis Event The design basis event for cons shutdown is a postulated fire i DUPLICATE DOCUMENT redundant safe shutdown cables /
it has been determined that fir Entire document previously that safe shutdown capability w entered into system under:
Qfg/_
be considered:
(1) offsite po j
/[ W_
power is not available.
ANO No. of pages:
.