ML19309B199

From kanterella
Jump to navigation Jump to search
Submits Response to IE Bulletin 80-04,re Analysis of PWR Main Steam Line Break W/Continued Feedwater Addition.Efforts Are in Progress to Finalize Details of Control Grade Automatic Initiation of Auxiliary Feedwater Scheme
ML19309B199
Person / Time
Site: Haddam Neck, Millstone  File:Connecticut Yankee Atomic Power Co icon.png
Issue date: 03/05/1980
From: Counsil W
NORTHEAST UTILITIES
To: Grier B
NRC OFFICE OF INSPECTION & ENFORCEMENT (IE REGION I)
References
IEB-80-04, IEB-80-4, NUDOCS 8004030261
Download: ML19309B199 (1)


Text

/'%

NORTHEAST IITIIJTIES 1

l l,

((

CONNECTICUT 06101

< <L = = = = = =

March 5, 1980 Docket Nos. 50-213 50-336 Boyce H. Grier, Director Region I Office of Inspection and Enforcement U. S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission 631 Park Avenue King of Prussia, PA 19406

References:

(1)

B. H. Grier letter to W. G. Counsil dated February 8,1980, transmitting I&E Bulletin No. 80-04.

(2)

W. G. Counsil letter to D. L. Ciemann dated January 30, 1980.

(3)

W. G. Counsil letter to R. Reid dated January 25, 1980.

(4)

W. G. Counsil letter to J. Hendrie dated November 30, 1979 Gentlemen:

Haddam Neck Plant Millstone Nuclear Power Station, Unit No. 2 Analysis of a PWR Main Steam Line Break with Continued Feedvater Addition In Reference (1), Connecticut Yankee Atomic Power Company (CYAPCO) and Northeast Nuclear Energy Company (NNECO) were requested te respond to several Staff cencerns relatirg to potential non-conservatisms in the analysis of a postulated main stean line break.

The expressed Staff concerns were addressed in References

'(2) and U) for CYAPCO and NNECO, respectively, and were available to the Staff prior to the issuance of Reference (1).

As indicated in References (2) and (3),

effort:s are in progress to finalize the details of the control grade automatic initiation of auxiliary feedwater scheme, and vill be the subject of future correspondence to the Office of Nuclear Reactor Regulation.

The necessity of this installation remains questionable in the judgment of CYAPCO and NNECO for reasons summarized in Reference (4).

No further action is planned in direct response to Reference (1).

Very truly yours, CONNECTICUT YANKEE ATOMIC POWER COMPATI NORTHEAST NUCLEAR ENERGY COMPANY q

.A 8 (4:4 W. G. Counsil Vice President 80040goag; l