ML19339A966
| ML19339A966 | |
| Person / Time | |
|---|---|
| Site: | Yankee Rowe |
| Issue date: | 10/01/1980 |
| From: | Lainas G Office of Nuclear Reactor Regulation |
| To: | Kay J YANKEE ATOMIC ELECTRIC CO. |
| Shared Package | |
| ML19339A967 | List: |
| References | |
| NUDOCS 8011060079 | |
| Download: ML19339A966 (4) | |
Text
c y1
.s.f,,
UNITED STATES y
- 3., (
g NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSION f
WASHINGTON, D. C. 20555 5
f
- =**
October 1, 1980 Docket No. 50-29 Mr. James A. Kay
, Senior Engineer - Licensing Yankee Atomic Electric Company 25 Research Drive Westborough, Massachusetts 01581
Dear Mr. Kay:
In our Safety Evaluation (SE) dated March 15, 1979, we summarized the results of our evaluation of the fire protect on program for Yankee Rowe.
i Section 3.1 of our SE addressed your planned modifications to improve the fire protection capability at Yankee Rowe.
de indicated by asterisks in Section 3.1 those modifications for wnicn we required that you suamit design details for staff approval. You submitted the required design details and other relevant information for items 3.1.1 Fire Protection Systems, 3.1.5 Water Suppression Systems, 3.1.6 Foam Suppression System, 3.1.7 Gas Suppression System, and.'.l.12 Smoke Detection System Tests, in your letters dated July 2, October ;, 4.M Novemoer 13, 1979.
In response to tne request in our letter dated April 23, 1980, you provided requirec i
aud tional information, including your schedule for implementing the modi fication.
Section 3.2 of our SE described several items for which your evaluation was not yet complete. You submitted your analysis and information concerning items 3.2.1 Smoke Detection Systems, 3.2.2 Fire Water Supply, anc 3.2.3 Alternate Shutcown Capability in your letter dated May 27, 1980.
Section 6 of our SE concerned administrative controls for fire protection, but, at the time the original SE was prepared, your description of these controls was not sufficient to permit us to make a conclusion concerning their adequacy.
In response to our letter of January 25, 1979, you sub-mitted additional details of your administrative controls program in a letter dated Februar > 23, 1979.
J
~8 0110 6 0 0 7f F
Mr. James A. Kay October 1, 1980 t
We have completed our review of the above-mentioned items and our evaluation is contained in Enclosure i to this letter. As indicated in the Enclosure, we find the design and implementation schedule for all items, viz November 1, 1980, to be acceptable, with the exception of Item 3.2.3 Dedicated Shutdown Capability and your proposed use of the Shift Supervisor as the fire brigade leader.
In your letter of May 27, 1980, you acknowledged that the issue of Alternate and Dedicated Shutdown capabilities is deferred to the Systematic Evaluation Program (SEP). You should realize, however, that on May 29, 1980, the Comission published for comment a proposed Appendix R to 10 CFR Part 50, which relates to fire protection in nuclear power plants. This proposed rule specifies December 1,1981, as the implementation date for alternate shutdown capability or October 1,1982, for dedicated shutdown capability for plants, including Yankee Rowe, which are under review in the SEP.
As indicated in Section 3.2.3 of the Fire Protection Safety Evaluation Report for Yankee Rowe, issued in support of Amencment No. 56 to Operating License No. OPR-3, we have informed you that a dedicated shutdown system or equivalent alternate capaoility must be provided for the Yankee Rowe Plant. This deter-mination is cased solely upon our fire protection review. However, as you are aware, other aspects of your facility currently uncer review in the SEP ma y also require a dedicated shutdown system. You also should be aware that tt e proposed rule on fire protection woula require you to submit your plans aid schedule for implementing the installation of the dedicated shutcown system by Novemoer 1,1980. Although there is no effective rule in place at ti.t present time, we believe it is prucent to anticipate a short ceac-line a o, therefore, request that you provide your proposed plans and schedulet for the dedicated shutdown system by November 1,1980.
During a reent telephone conversation with our representative you indicated that you wil' suomit proposed Technical Specifications, as appropriate for the added Sect on 3 fire protection features by November 1,1980, to become i
effective upon i9sumption of operation of Yankee Rowe. Your intentions in this regard are acceptable to us, and are considered Yankee Atomic Electric Company's comitments, unless advised by you otherwise.
1
Mr. James A. Kay October 1, 1980 In summary, we have concluded that the Fire Protection Program for Yankee Rowe, with the improvements alreacy made, is adequate at the present time and, with the scheduled modifications, will meet the guidelines contained in Appen' dix A to BTP ASB 9.5-1 and General Design Criterion 3.
We, therefore, find that this Fire Protection Plan, with exception of the implementation date for Item 3.2.3 Dedicated Shutdown Capability, and the proposed use of the Shif t Supervisor as the Fire Brigade Leader, is acceptable.
Sincerely,
SU us C. Lainas, Assistant Director for Safety Assessment Division of Licensing
Enclosure:
Supplement No. 1 to Fire Protection SER cc w/ enclosure:
See next page l
M J Mr. James A. Kay
-4 Octcber 1, 1990 cc w/ enclosure:
Mr. James E. Tribble, President Yankee Atomic Electric Company 25 Research Drive Westborough, Massachusetts 01581 Greenfield Comunity College 1 College Drive Greenfield, Massachusetts 01301 Chai rman Board of Selectmen Town of Rowe Rowe, Massachusetts 01367 Energy Facilities Siting Council 14th Floor One Ashburton Place Boston, Massachusetts 02108 Director, Technical Assessment Division Office of Radiation Programs (AW-459)
U. S. Environmental P rotection Agency Crystal M=11 #2 Arlington Vi rginia 20460 U. S. Environnental Protection Agency Region I Office ATTN: EIS COORDINATOR JFX Federal Building Boston, Massachusetts 02203
.