ML19343A519
| ML19343A519 | |
| Person / Time | |
|---|---|
| Site: | Yankee Rowe |
| Issue date: | 08/20/1964 |
| From: | Boyd R US ATOMIC ENERGY COMMISSION (AEC) |
| To: | |
| Shared Package | |
| ML19343A518 | List: |
| References | |
| NUDOCS 8011140451 | |
| Download: ML19343A519 (2) | |
Text
.
~
- ==
.b t
b 9
UNITED STATES ATOMIC ENERGY COMISSION i:
HAZARDS ANALYSIS EY THE RESEARCH AND POWER REACTOR SAFETY BRANCH f~
DIVISION OF REACTOR LICENSING
~
IN THE MATTER OF YANKEE ATOMIC ELECTRIC COMPANY PROPOSED CHANGE No. 58
'=
DOCKET NO. 50-29
==::
Introduction Purs
- ank,uant to the provisions of Section 50.59 of the Commission's regulations, 59E29 ee Atomic Electric Company in Propcsed Change _No. 58, dated August 11,
==
\\964, requested authorization of a change in the Technical Specifications c==
attachad as Appendix A to License No. DPR-3.
This Proposed Change would authorize the removal of the two 1 1/4 inch capped steam isolation valves 1
in the spray line to the pressurizer.
[""'"
Discussion h
The pressurizer spray line automatically injects water-into the pressurizir to_ reduce minor increases in the reactor system pressure. This line con-tains two 1 1/4 inch isolation valves to permit maintenance on the automeric I
spray valve without depressurizing the reactor system. The isolation valves were originally inetailed (pursuant to Change No.12)becar.se the automatic valve in the line was of the solenoid type and required frequent maintenance.
d The solenoid valve w'as subsequently replaced with a motor-operated valve 4
(Change No. 35) which has proven to be very reliable.
The isolation valves are no longer required for nernal maintenance c2 the spray valve.
Further, the pressure drop acroes the isolstien valves is sufficient to limit tha-flow rate through the apray eystem.
Removal of
=d these valves would, accordingly, improve the operation of the pressurizer y
spray system by prcviding a faster respense to system overpressure.
In our opinion, elimination of the' isolation velves is desirable and should not ze result in any decrease in the saferj,; cperation.
sc.
- ^'^:
- 8011140hS'/
=
.: ei:
j.:..
tj e+.'=q
=
.yc: ;;.
2-o Conclusion We have concluded that the Proposed Change does not present significant h
hazards consideration not described or i:nplicit in the hazards sum:cary B
report, and that there is reasonable assurance that the health and
"=
safety of the public will not be endangered,
- a...
i Original signed tr.
=
bgu S. Boyd Roger S. Boyd, Chief Research & Power Reactor Safety Branch Division of Reactor Licensing j::{:+=, :
Date:
AUG 2 01964
[jy3j
- 7:;7
.;:; y -- :
1 p
e i
i m
J g
...i f
.