ML20148F882
| ML20148F882 | |
| Person / Time | |
|---|---|
| Site: | Yankee Rowe |
| Issue date: | 03/26/1962 |
| From: | Bryan R US ATOMIC ENERGY COMMISSION (AEC) |
| To: | |
| Shared Package | |
| ML20148F880 | List: |
| References | |
| NUDOCS 8011060839 | |
| Download: ML20148F882 (1) | |
Text
_-..
"j i
..1 HAZARDS ANALYSIS' BY THE RESEARCH AND POWER REAC'IDR SAFETY BRANCH W
t m
- U-
-DIVISION OF LICENSING AHD REGULATION 1 IN THE MATTER OF :
'.g..
YANKEE 'A'IDMIC' ELECTRIC COMPANY E
E PROPOSED CHAUGE NO~. 16
. j Introduction-
~
E=,
- Pursuant-to the provision of. paragraph 3. A'. of License No. DPR-3, as d
amended, Yankee Atomic Electric Company in Proposed Change'No. 16 dated 5
~
January 18, 1962. requested authorization to: install an instrumentation
-l connection in the high side line to the wide range pressurizer level
. differential pressure cell.
This ' connection,' together with the appropriate valving' and' connecting oiping which Yankee proposes to install,. would permit control of accurate pressure measuring equipment from a position
.outside the vapor-container.
If the Change is authorized, it is Yankee's
=E:
. intention to install this equipment at the time of the next reactor
//E-refueling.
]'",;.
m=
Discussion (i
Yankee has reported that pressure instrumentation, with an accuracy psi _.
greater than that of the existing control board-mounted equipment, is secs) required for periodic reactor physics testing.
The method which has been-employed in the past to obtain accurate pressure data involved subjecting r=-
the. pressurizer drain valve to service beyond that originally intended.
Installation of the proposed connection and related piping would obviate the necessity for the use of the pressurizer drain valve during-reactor physics testing, and would permit manual control of pressure.neasuring instrunentation at a position external to the containment vessel. We believe that both the saving of ' wear on the pressurizer drain valve and the establishing'of a better means of controlling the pressure measuring instrunentation are in the interest of greater safety and should be authorized.
t E.
hi Conclusion Based on our review of the Proposed Change, we have concluded that it does not present significant hazards considerations not described or implicit in the license application as amended to June 23, 1961. 'We k
have further concluded that there is reasonable assurance that the f.f
' " ~
health and safety of the publi'c would not.be endangered by operation of the facility as proposed.
5
' Robert H. Bryan, Chief R
+
Resea.ch & Power Reactor Safety Branch Division of Licensing and Regulation 4
Inte:
l OA1 o.g.oJ3 j
. -