ML19322E381

From kanterella
Jump to navigation Jump to search

Responds to IE Bulletin 80-04 Re Analysis of PWR Main Steam Line Break W/Continued Feedwater Addition.Details of Control Grade Automatic Initiation of Auxiliary Feedwater Scheme Are Being Finalized.Necessity of Installation Is Questionable
ML19322E381
Person / Time
Site: Haddam Neck, Millstone  File:Connecticut Yankee Atomic Power Co icon.png
Issue date: 03/05/1980
From: Counsil W
CONNECTICUT YANKEE ATOMIC POWER CO., NORTHEAST NUCLEAR ENERGY CO.
To: Grier B
NRC OFFICE OF INSPECTION & ENFORCEMENT (IE REGION I)
References
IEB-80-04, IEB-80-4, TAC-42410, TAC-46844, NUDOCS 8003270343
Download: ML19322E381 (1)


Text

NORTHEA!TT UTILTFIES 1

535f5EEE.'.

$ah? ""' " * '

L L

'
:='a'r!"X T C' March 5, 1980 Docket Nos. 50-213 50-336 Boyce H. Grier, Director Region I Office of Inspection and Enforcement U. S. Nuclear Regulatory Cc= mission 631 Park Avenue King of Prussia, PA 19h06

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. Zie= ann 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 Ma. Steam Line Break with Continued Feenvater Addition In Reference (1), Connecticut Yankee Atomic Power Company (CYAPCO) aad Northeast Nuclear Energy Company (UNECO) were requested to respond to several Staff concerns relating to potential non-conservatisms in the analysis of a postulated main steam line break. The expressed Staff concerns were addressed in References (2) and (3) for CYAPC0 and NNECO, respectively, and were available to the Staff prior to the issuance of Reference (1). As indicated in References (2) and (3),

efforts are in progress to finalise the details of the control grade automatic initiation of auxiliary feedvater 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 su==arised in Reference (h).

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

Very truly yours, CONNECTICUT YANKEE ATOMIC POWER COMPANY NORTHEAST NUCLEAR INERGY COMPA'iY p

y 0'%r (W./n

))on c

W. G. Counsil 3

Vice President j/f0 j

8 0032 70 3b