|
---|
Category:GRANTS OF EXEMPTION FROM & EXTENSION TO NRC REQUIREME
MONTHYEARML20195J4791998-11-19019 November 1998 Exemption from Certain Requirements of 10CFR50.54(w) & 10CFR140.11 Re Reduction in Amount of Insurance Required for Facility ML20238F2111998-08-28028 August 1998 Exemption from Provision of 10CFR50.54(q) That Require Emergency Plans to Meet Standard of 10CFR50.47(b) & Requirements of App E to Part 50 ML20236S1901998-07-15015 July 1998 Exemption from Requirements of 10CFR73.55, Requirements for Physical Protection of Licensed Activities in Nuclear Power Reactors Against Radiological Sabotage ML20245J0081989-08-14014 August 1989 Exemption Permitting one-time Extension of Test Period for Type a Test from 870927,or Later,Until Next Refueling Outage & for Type B & C Tests from 870718,or Later,Until Next Refueling Outage ML20155G1031988-10-0303 October 1988 Temporary Exemption from Schedular Requirements of Property Insurance Rule 10CFR50.54(w)(5)(i),effective 881004 ML20237C1371987-11-27027 November 1987 Exemption from 10CFR50,App R Requirements Re Fire Protection Features in Primary Auxiliary,Svc & Turbine Bldgs & Emergency Lighting in Event of Fire ML20236D2351987-10-15015 October 1987 Exemption from Requirements of App J to 10CFR50,Paragraph III.A.3 to Allow Use of Mass Point Method as Provided in Ansi/Ans 56.8-1981 to Calculate Containment Leakage ML20235S4931987-09-29029 September 1987 Exemption from Requirements of 10CFR50,App J,For All Penetrations Identified in Table 2 of Exemption Package for Period of Two Refueling Outages Following 1987 Outage ML20212M8811986-08-25025 August 1986 Exemption from Schedular Requirements of 10CFR50.48 for Mod to Switchgear Room & Related Plant Areas,To Assure Adequate Level of Fire Protection,Subj to Licensee Submittal of Implementation Plan by 860930 & Subsequent Bimonthly Repts ML20203M5321986-04-28028 April 1986 Exemption from Requirements of GDC 35 & Interim Acceptance Criteria for Valves RH-MOV-784 & SI-MOV-24 for Cycle 14 Operation ML20137R0011985-11-22022 November 1985 Exemption from 10CFR50.71(e)(3)(ii),extending Date to 870630 for Util to File Updated Sar.Exemption Contingent Upon Util Ability to Meet Proposed Identified Guidelines ML20204K0481985-04-11011 April 1985 Exemption from 10CFR50.71(e) for Submittal of Updated Facility Description & Safety Analysis 1998-08-28
[Table view] Category:LEGAL TRANSCRIPTS & ORDERS & PLEADINGS
MONTHYEARML20195H1911999-06-15015 June 1999 Application of Montaup Electric Co & New England Power Co for Transfer of Licenses & Ownership Interests.Requests That Commission Consent to Two Indirect Transfers of Control & Direct Transfer CY-99-076, Comment Supporting Proposed Rules 10CFR1,2,4,7,9,15,16,76 & 110 Re Initiative to Implement New Document Mgt Sys That Would Permit Electronic Storage,Retrieval & on-line Ordering of Publicly Available NRC Official Records1999-05-20020 May 1999 Comment Supporting Proposed Rules 10CFR1,2,4,7,9,15,16,76 & 110 Re Initiative to Implement New Document Mgt Sys That Would Permit Electronic Storage,Retrieval & on-line Ordering of Publicly Available NRC Official Records ML20204B6631999-02-22022 February 1999 Comment on Recommended Improvements to Oversight Process for Nuclear Power Reactors.Forwards 5th Edition of Nuclear Lemons Assessment of America Worst Commerical Nuclear Power Plants ML20195J4791998-11-19019 November 1998 Exemption from Certain Requirements of 10CFR50.54(w) & 10CFR140.11 Re Reduction in Amount of Insurance Required for Facility ML20195E2361998-11-16016 November 1998 Director'S Decision 98-12,granting Petitioner Request to Investigate Licensee Proposal to Air Cool SFP & Denying Request to Suspend Operating License of Plant ML20154J9991998-09-11011 September 1998 Requests NRC Take Immediate Action to Revoke Util License to Operate Haddam Neck Nuclear Power Station Pursuant to 10CFR2.206 CY-98-139, Comment on Draft NUREG-1625, Proposed Standard TSs for Permanently Defueled Westinghouse Plants1998-09-0101 September 1998 Comment on Draft NUREG-1625, Proposed Standard TSs for Permanently Defueled Westinghouse Plants ML20238F2111998-08-28028 August 1998 Exemption from Provision of 10CFR50.54(q) That Require Emergency Plans to Meet Standard of 10CFR50.47(b) & Requirements of App E to Part 50 ML20236S1901998-07-15015 July 1998 Exemption from Requirements of 10CFR73.55, Requirements for Physical Protection of Licensed Activities in Nuclear Power Reactors Against Radiological Sabotage ML20216B5661998-03-31031 March 1998 Comment Supporting NRC Draft RG DG-1071, Std Format & Content for Post-Shutdown Decommissioning Activities Rept ML20217E9051998-03-13013 March 1998 Requests,Pursuant to 10CFR2.206,that NRC Take Immediate Action to Suspend CYAPCO License to Operate Connecticut Yankee Nuclear Power Station in Haddam Neck,Connecticut ML20199A1631997-10-28028 October 1997 Forwards Final Page of Exhibit 2,P Gunter Ltr to Commission on Behalf of Nirs Re Prs 10CFR2,50 & 51 Involving Immediate Recission of Current Decommissioning Rules,Conducting Site Specific Health Study & EA &/Or EIS ML20199A1351997-10-24024 October 1997 Comment Opposing Proposed Rules 10CFR2,50 & 51 Re Immediate Rescission of Current Decommissioning Rules & Provision for Hearing on Decommissioning Plan for Plant.W/Nirs & Affidavits of M Resnikoff,S Mangiagli & R Bassilakis DD-97-21, Partial Director'S Decision DD-97-21 Denying Request for Immediate Suspension or Revocation of Licenses & Granting Request for Investigation of Possible Matl Misrepresentations,In Response to 961125 & 1223 Petitions1997-09-12012 September 1997 Partial Director'S Decision DD-97-21 Denying Request for Immediate Suspension or Revocation of Licenses & Granting Request for Investigation of Possible Matl Misrepresentations,In Response to 961125 & 1223 Petitions DD-97-19, Partial Director'S Decision DD-97-19,deferring in Part & Denying in Part,Citizens Awareness Network & Nirs 970311 Petition to Commence Enforcement Action Against Util & Impose Civil Penalty1997-09-0303 September 1997 Partial Director'S Decision DD-97-19,deferring in Part & Denying in Part,Citizens Awareness Network & Nirs 970311 Petition to Commence Enforcement Action Against Util & Impose Civil Penalty ML20137P5481997-03-11011 March 1997 Petition Filed on Behalf of Citizens Awareness Network of Massachusetts,Connecticut & Vermont & Nirs to Modify License by Placing Certain Listed Conditions on License & Imposing Civil Penalty,Per 10CFR2.206 ML20137Q9171997-03-0303 March 1997 Constitutes Petition Filed on Behalf of AA Cizek,Per 10CFR2.206,to Modify Licenses Issued to Millstone & Connecticut Yankee by Placing Certain Conditions on OLs ML20134J5891997-01-15015 January 1997 Transcript of 970115 Public Meeting in Higganum,Ct.Pp 1-129. Supporting Documentation Encl ML20133E4651996-12-23023 December 1996 Amend to Citizens Awareness Network & Nirs Petition for Enforcement Per 10CFR2.206 to Revoke Northeast Utilities OL for Connecticut Nuclear Power Stations Due to Chronic, Systemic Mismanagement....* ML20133H1131996-11-25025 November 1996 Petition for Enforcement,Per 10CFR2.206,to Revoke Northeast Utils Operating Licenses for CT Nuclear Power Stations Due to Chronic,Systemic Mismanagement Resulting in Significant Violations of NRC Safety Regulations ML20134P0681996-11-14014 November 1996 Comment on Draft RG DG-1051, Monitoring Effectiveness of Maint at Npp ML20133G2791996-08-29029 August 1996 Transcript of 960829 Connecticut Public Television Broadcast of Citizens Regulatory Commission, Nuclear Safety Issues, Discussion W/Former Employee of Plant.Pp 1-59 ML20059F7761994-01-0303 January 1994 Comment on Proposed Rule 10CFR73 Re Proposal to Amend Its Physical Protection Regulations for Operating Nuclear Power Reactors by Modifying Design Basis Threat for Radiological Sabotage B14644, Comment on Proposed Rules 10CFR30,40,50,60,70 & 72 Re Whistleblower Protection for Nuclear Power Plant Employees.Supports Rules1993-10-14014 October 1993 Comment on Proposed Rules 10CFR30,40,50,60,70 & 72 Re Whistleblower Protection for Nuclear Power Plant Employees.Supports Rules B14346, Comment Supporting Draft RG DG-1020, Monitoring Effectiveness of Maint at Nuclear Power Plants1993-01-15015 January 1993 Comment Supporting Draft RG DG-1020, Monitoring Effectiveness of Maint at Nuclear Power Plants ML20059P0631990-10-15015 October 1990 Comment on Proposed Rules 10CFR2,50 & 54 Re Nuclear Power Plant License Renewal.Endorses Comments Submitted by NUMARC B13572, Comment Opposing Petition for Rulemaking PRM-50-55 Re Periodicity of Submissions of FSAR Revs1990-07-0202 July 1990 Comment Opposing Petition for Rulemaking PRM-50-55 Re Periodicity of Submissions of FSAR Revs B13567, Comment on Proposed Rule 10CFR55 Re Operators Licenses Mod for fitness-for-duty.Endorses NUMARC Position That Rule Challenges Licensed Operators Trustworthiness W/O Justification & Would Affect Morale of Licensed Operators1990-07-0202 July 1990 Comment on Proposed Rule 10CFR55 Re Operators Licenses Mod for fitness-for-duty.Endorses NUMARC Position That Rule Challenges Licensed Operators Trustworthiness W/O Justification & Would Affect Morale of Licensed Operators B13367, Comment on Proposed Rules 10CFR30,40,50,60,70,72 & 150 Re Preserving Free Flow of Info to Commission.Nrc Made Wise Choice to Not Impose Any Obligation on Private Parties to Include Affirmative Statement in Employment Agreements1989-09-20020 September 1989 Comment on Proposed Rules 10CFR30,40,50,60,70,72 & 150 Re Preserving Free Flow of Info to Commission.Nrc Made Wise Choice to Not Impose Any Obligation on Private Parties to Include Affirmative Statement in Employment Agreements ML20245J0081989-08-14014 August 1989 Exemption Permitting one-time Extension of Test Period for Type a Test from 870927,or Later,Until Next Refueling Outage & for Type B & C Tests from 870718,or Later,Until Next Refueling Outage ML20245G0721989-08-0303 August 1989 Comment on Draft Reg Guide, Assuring Availability of Funds for Decommissioning Nuclear Reactors. Recommends That NRC Recommendation on Trust Agreement Wording Be Deleted or NRC Should Grandfather Existing Trusts Such as for Plants ML20246K4801989-07-0505 July 1989 Comment Opposing Proposed Rule 10CFR50, Acceptance of Products Purchased for Use in Nuclear Power Plant Structures,Sys & Components ML20246N9471989-03-0808 March 1989 Comment on Proposed Rev 3 to Reg Guide 1.9 Re Selection Design,Qualification,Testing & Reliability of Diesel Generator Units Used as Onsite Electric Power Sys at Nuclear Power Plants B13113, Comment on Proposed Rev 3 to Reg Guide 1.9, Selection, Design,Qualification,Testing & Reliability of Diesel Generator Units.... Util Recommends Rule Be Revised to Incorporate Addl Flexibility in Considering Age of Diesel1989-03-0808 March 1989 Comment on Proposed Rev 3 to Reg Guide 1.9, Selection, Design,Qualification,Testing & Reliability of Diesel Generator Units.... Util Recommends Rule Be Revised to Incorporate Addl Flexibility in Considering Age of Diesel ML20236B4641989-03-0808 March 1989 Comments on Proposed Rev 3 to Reg Guide 1.9, Selection, Design,Qualification,Testing & Reliability of Diesel Generator Units Used as Onsite Electric Power Sys at Nuclear Power Plants. Reg Guide Does Not Provide Flexibility B13136, Comment Opposing Proposed Rule 10CFR50 Re Effectiveness of Maint Programs for Nuclear Power Plants.Proposed Rule on Maint Will Not Improve Maint in Plants Nor Improve Safety or Reliability of Plants.Proposed Rule Much Too Vague1989-02-27027 February 1989 Comment Opposing Proposed Rule 10CFR50 Re Effectiveness of Maint Programs for Nuclear Power Plants.Proposed Rule on Maint Will Not Improve Maint in Plants Nor Improve Safety or Reliability of Plants.Proposed Rule Much Too Vague ML20235N5471989-02-0909 February 1989 Undated Comment Opposing Proposed Rules 10CFR50 & 55 Re Education & Experience for Senior Reactor Operators & Supervisors at Nuclear Power Plants.Neither Alternative Acceptable or Needed ML20206M5321988-11-21021 November 1988 Comment Supporting Proposed Rule 10CFR26 Re fitness-for-duty Program ML20155G1031988-10-0303 October 1988 Temporary Exemption from Schedular Requirements of Property Insurance Rule 10CFR50.54(w)(5)(i),effective 881004 ML20196E5931988-06-22022 June 1988 Comment Supporting Proposed Rule 10CFR50 Re Emergency Planning & Preparedness Requirements for Nuclear Power Plant Fuel Loading & Initial Low Power Operations B12891, Comment Opposing Proposed Rule 10CFR50 Re Licensee Announcement of Inspector on Site1988-04-18018 April 1988 Comment Opposing Proposed Rule 10CFR50 Re Licensee Announcement of Inspector on Site ML20151A8881988-03-31031 March 1988 Comments Supporting Proposed Rule 10CFR50 Re Leakage Testing of Containment to Permit Use of Mass Point Method as Alternative Method for Calculating Containment Leakage Rates.Mass Point Method More Accurate for Calculating Rates B12870, Comment Supporting Proposed Rule 10CFR50 Re Leakage Testing of Containments to Permit Use of Mass Point Method as Alternative Method for Calculating Containment Leakage Rates1988-03-31031 March 1988 Comment Supporting Proposed Rule 10CFR50 Re Leakage Testing of Containments to Permit Use of Mass Point Method as Alternative Method for Calculating Containment Leakage Rates ML20147C3191988-01-0606 January 1988 Comment Opposing SRP Section 3.6.3 of NUREG-0800.Utils Endorse Comments by Nuclear Util Group on Equipment Qualification ML20237C1371987-11-27027 November 1987 Exemption from 10CFR50,App R Requirements Re Fire Protection Features in Primary Auxiliary,Svc & Turbine Bldgs & Emergency Lighting in Event of Fire ML20236D2351987-10-15015 October 1987 Exemption from Requirements of App J to 10CFR50,Paragraph III.A.3 to Allow Use of Mass Point Method as Provided in Ansi/Ans 56.8-1981 to Calculate Containment Leakage B12706, Comment Supporting Proposed Rule 10CFR50 Re Rev of Backfitting Process for Power Reactors1987-10-13013 October 1987 Comment Supporting Proposed Rule 10CFR50 Re Rev of Backfitting Process for Power Reactors ML20235S4931987-09-29029 September 1987 Exemption from Requirements of 10CFR50,App J,For All Penetrations Identified in Table 2 of Exemption Package for Period of Two Refueling Outages Following 1987 Outage ML20212M8811986-08-25025 August 1986 Exemption from Schedular Requirements of 10CFR50.48 for Mod to Switchgear Room & Related Plant Areas,To Assure Adequate Level of Fire Protection,Subj to Licensee Submittal of Implementation Plan by 860930 & Subsequent Bimonthly Repts ML20205F4181986-08-12012 August 1986 Correction to Commission 860702 Order Confirming Licensee Commitments on Emergency Response Capability 1999-06-15
[Table view] |
Text
.
e UNITED STATES OF AMERICA NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSION In the matter of ) Docket No. 50-213
)
CONNECTICUT YANKEE ATOMIC )
POWER COMPANY )
)
HADDAM NECK PLANT )
EXEMPTION 1 I. l The Connecticut Yankee Atomic Power Company (CYAPC0 or the Licensee) is the hoIder of Ope. rating License No. DPR-61 which authorizes operation of l
Haddam Neck Plant. The License provides, among other things, that the Haddam Neck Plant is subject to all rules, regulations, and Orders of the l Commission now or hereafter in effect. I The plant is a single-unit pressurized water reactor at the Licensee's l
site located in Middlesex County, Connecticut.
II.
On March 25, 1986, (CYAPC0) reported that the results of analyser a t
of a small limited range of break sizes in one loop of reactor coole system (RCS) for which safety injection flow during only the high p t recirculation mode may be insufficient to provide adequate core cor l
By letter dated April 10, 1986, CYAPCO identified measures to provide l adequate core cooling in the event of a small-break loss-of-coolant accident (LOCA).
l I
l l
8605010563 860428 PDR P
ADOCK 05000213 PDR ,
l >
i l
CYAPC0's proposed immediate corrective action measures included the use !
of the high pressure safety injection (HPSI) system, the residual heat i removal (RHR) system and certain operator actions. However, CYAPC0 noted that two valves, which are used during the HPSI recirculation mode, do not meet the prescribed single failure requirements.
j l Provisions requiring consideration of single failures in this context l are set forth both in GDC 35 and the Interim Acceptance Criteria. GDC 35 provides, in applicable part, as follows:
j A system to provide abundant emergency core cooling shall be l
provided ... to assure that for onsite electric power system operation (assuming offsite power is not available) and for offsite electric power system operation (assuming onsite power is not available) the system safety function can be accomplished, assuming a single failure.
Further, the Interim Acceptance Criteria, to which Haddam Neck was l originally evaluated, provide as follows:
The combination of systems used for analyses should be derived from a failure mode and effects analyses, using the single failure criterion. (Interim Acceptance Criteria for Emergency Core Cooling Systems for Light Water Power Reactors, Appendix A, Part 3, 36 FR 12249.)
III I For the following cases, a small break LOCA with a break size between 2 2 0.02 ft and 0.045 ft in the number 2 cold leg between the charging entry nozzle and the reactor vessel or in the charging line downstream from the 4 inline check valve, adequate recirculation flow might not be delivered to
) the core. If the break is less than 0.02 ft , the charging pumps provide I
adequate makeup flow, and if the break is greater than 0.045 ft2 , the j reactor coolant system (RCS) would depressurize rapidly enough to use the j RHR pumps. By letter dated April 10, 1986, CYAPC0 proposed a HPSI pump l recirculation mode to provide adequate flow to the core for the above cases of small break LOCAs until CYAPC0 could identify and establish a permanent resolution. By letter dated April 22,1986, CYAPC0 requested a temporary
I l
exemption from the single failure criteria for two valves outside of containment that would be used under procedurally defined conditions to respond to small break LOCAs. On April 23, 1986, the staff and CYAPC0 met to discuss this exemption. During this meeting, CYAPC0 agreed there were several actions that could be taken to improve the emergency procedures the operators would follow to respond to such events. By letter dated April 25,1986, CYAPC0 formalized several consnitments made during this meeting, including the conduct of special training to assure operator awareness of both the actions to be taken and the reasons behind those actions. l 1
To operate a HPSI in a high pressure recirculation mode, the HPSI system must be realigned from the RWST to the RHR pump discharge. This requires l
closing valve SI-MOV-24 to isolate the RWST, and opening valve RH-MOV-784 '
to align suction from the RHR system which draws from the containment sump.
These valves do not meet the prescribed single failure requirement. These valves are outside of containment and can be aligned manually if necessary.
Even if these valves cannot be aligned, the HPSI or charging pumps could inject water from the RWST at a rate sufficient to cool the core for several hours. The operator will assure the core is being adequately cooled by monitoring the core exit thermocouples and reactor vessel level instrumentation.
The injection from the RWST at low flow can provide adequate time for the operator to depressurize the RCS, allowing the RHR pumps to be used in the recirculation mode.
The licensee has recently tested the valves in the HPSI suction line and determined them to be operable. Also, CYAPC0 has committed to impose j
a monthly surveillance and cycling requirement for these valves to provide assurance of valve operability. Additionally, during this refueling, CYAPC0 conducted a 100% ultrasonic examination of the welds in the piping between the last check valve in loop 2 charging and the RCS main loop, including the joint to which the piping segments are connected. The probability of breaks in this piping is greatest at the weld locations. This examination
' provides further evidence that the probability of a break occurring in this piping remains remote, i
Based on all of the above, the staff concludes that the measures taken by CYAPCO will provide reasonable assurance that adequate core cooling for a small break LOCA at the Haddam Neck Plant can be accomplished.
The NRC staff's consideration of the safety aspects of the requested exemption has been discussed in detail above. The high pressure recirculation mode using the charging pumps has been found to be deficient for a narrow spectrum of breaks, whereas the safety benefits derived from using the HPSI pumps recirculatfor, mode represent a capability for a much broader range of postulated breaks. CYAPC0 has estimated that the implementation of the proposed interim response measure (use of HPSI pumps during recirculation) decreases the overall core melt frequency associated with small and medium break LOCAs at Haddam Neck by approximately 27 percent over the original design. Thus, the licensee has concluded that the granting of the requested exemption will be a net benefit to plant safety.
CYAPC0 has significantly upgraded their accident analyses for the Haddam Neck Plant in the past few years. This upgrade involved reanalyses of large and small break LOCA events, and non-LOCA events, including analyses performed in connection with the response to TMI Action Plan Items II.K.3.5, II.K.3.30, and II.K.3.31. In the recently completed probabilistic safety study (PSS) for the Haddam Neck Plant, CYAPC0 identified the ECCS system sensitivity to breaks in loop 2 or the charging line during the recirculation phase of a small break LOCA. The present condition was identified as a result of CYAPCO's own initiatives to reevaluate Haddam Neck's LOCA analyses. Once identified, CYAPC0 ;
has shown diligence and willingness to resolve this safety issue. In the i proposed immediate corrective action, CYAPC0 identified a non-conformance with the prescribed single failure requirement. CYAPC0 promptly evaluated this non-conformance and provided an exemption request with a basis for operation while in non-conformance with the single failure requirement. The staff has concluded that CYAPC0 has been expeditious in its efforts to satisfy the ECCS requirements, including the IAC.
Based on its review, the staff concludes that issuance of this temporary
- exemption will have no significant effect on plant safety. Further, the licensee has shown good faith in rectifying the problem and in attempting to comply with the Commission's regulations as promptly as practicable.
IV Pursuant to 10 CFR 51.32, the Commission has determined that the granting of this exemption will have no significant impact on the environment (51 FR 15708).
Accordingly, the Commission has determined that, pursuant to 10 CFR 50.12(a)(2)(v), the requested temporary exemption is authorized by law and
- will not endanger life or property or the common defense and security.
Therefore, the Commission hereby grants the temporary exemption from the requirements of General Design Criteria 35 of Appendix A to 10 CFR Part 50 and the Interim Acceptance Criteria for valves RH-MOV-784 and SI-M0V-24 for the period of cycl.e 14 operation. By September 1986, CYAPC0 shall provide a description of the long-term resolution of this issue and a schedule for completion of any plant modifications. Thereafter, the Director of the Office of Nuclear Reactor Regulation may extend the period of this exemption for good cause shown.
A copy of the Safety Evaluation dated April 28, 1986, related to this action is available for public inspection at the Commission's Public Document Room,1717 H Street, N.W., Washington, D.C., and at the local Public Document Room, located at the Russell Library, 123 Broad Street, Middletown, Connecticut 06457. A copy may be obtained upon written request addressed to the U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission, Washington, D.C. 20555, Attention: Director Division of PWR Licensing-8.
This Exemption is effe ctive upon issuance.
Date at Bethesda, Maryland this 28thday of April 1986.
FOR THE NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSION M
FrankJ.Oraglfa, rector Division of PWR Licensing - B Office of Nuclear Reactor Regulation
_ _ _ - _ _ _ _ _ _ _ .