ML20002C172

Clarifies Responses to NRC Staff Requirements on Open Items in App R to 10CFR50 Re Alternate Shutdown Capability. Inclusion of Statement That Util Has Not Responded to NRC Request Was Unneccessary & Misleading

ML20002C172
Person / Time
Site:	Yankee Rowe
Issue date:	01/05/1981
From:	Moody D YANKEE ATOMIC ELECTRIC CO.
To:	Crutchfield D Office of Nuclear Reactor Regulation
References
FYR-81-1, NUDOCS 8101090521
Download: ML20002C172 (2)

Text

1. 5 YANKEE ATOMIC ELECTRIC COMPANY FYR 81-1

-ma gQ 1671 Worcester Road, Framingham, Massachusetts 01701 Y

. ANKEE, January 5, 1981 B.3.2.1 United States Nuclear Regulatory Commission Washington, D.C. 20555 Attention:

Dennis M. Crutchfield, Chief Operating Reactors Branch #5 Office of Nuclear Reactor Regulation

References:

(a) License No. DPR-3 (Docket No. 50-29)

(b) USNRC Letter dated November 24, 1980;

Subject:

Revised Section 10 CFR 50.48 and Appendix R to 10 CFR 50

Subject:

Staff Requirements on Open Items Yankee Atomic Electric Company has reviewed Enclosure 2 to Reference (b) above, and we offer the following clarifications.

3.2.3 Alternate Shutdown Capability The staff did not request us to provide a dedicated shutdown system in our Fire Protection Safety Evaluation Report. On page 3-7, of Section 3.2.3 of the SER it very clearly states, "The staff has requested the provision of a dedicated shutdown system or equivalent alternate features for safe shutdown".

(Emphasis added.) It is still our intent to provide either one or the other. We have not yet determined which would be best for our plant.

l l

We would also like to clarify NRC's inference that Yankee Atomic Electric Company has been lax in providing information with respect I

to an alternate shutdown capability by your statement that, "To date l

no information has been received regarding this modification".

l l

The Fire Protection SER, issued March 15, 1979, clearly stated, "The licensee has been requested to propose the additional shutdown c

f

'O

[2 features at the completion of the Systematic Evaluation Program".

I 1

G I

An NRC letter to us dated April 23, 1980 again listed the response to Section 3.2.3, Shutdown Capability as " Deferred to SEP".

We have been aware that NRC has had under consideration a proposal

~

that would change the schedule for this particular fire protection y

modifiction by removing it froa.the SEP evaluation. For that 2

reason, this particular letter with its 10 CFR 50 changes is not O

8101090SM F

~

'{

U. S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission January 5, 1981 Attention:

Mr. Dennis M. Crutchfield, Chief Page 2 unexpected. However, we feel it is inappropriate to charge unresponsiveness to schedule and information requirements that by the same letter have been drastically altered.

It is particularly inappropriate in light of the fact that the shutdown criteria that were to be developed by the NRC as a result of the SEP Evaluation have not yet been promulgated for us to use in development of our alternate shutdown capability.

Yankee Atomic Electric Company has always been active in nuclear plant fire protection and responsive to the NRC concerns. We feel that the inclusion of the statement that we have not responded to an NRC request was totally unnecessary and misleading to anyone who might read it.

i If you have any question or comment on this, please contact us.

Very truly yours, 4

YANKEE ATOMIC ELECTRIC COMPANY ps

')

' b.)t4 eq.

D. E. Moody

)

Manager of Operations j

EAS/sec 1

(.

i l

l l

t

.,.,~.- _ _ _... -.. -, _,....,.. _.