|
---|
Category:CORRESPONDENCE-LETTERS
MONTHYEARML20217C1051999-10-0808 October 1999 Forwards Amend 153 to License DPR-3 & Safety Evaluation. Amend Revises TS Section 6.0,Administrative Controls,By Deleting TS Sections 6.2.2.f Which Contains Limits on Working Hours of Plant Staff ML20212J2231999-10-0101 October 1999 Forwards Copy of Environ Assessment & Fonsi Re 990317 Application for Amend to Revise TS Section 6.0 by Deleting TS Section 6.2.2.f Which Contains Limits on Working Hours of Plant Staff ML20211J5001999-08-31031 August 1999 Forwards Proposed Rev 29 to Yankee Decomissioning QA Program, for NRC Info & Approval.Yaec Requests That Rev 29, Dtd May 1999 & Originally Transmitted in Be Withdrawn from Further Consideration by NRC Staff ML20211J2711999-08-27027 August 1999 Forwards Amend 152 to License DPR-3 & Safety Evaluation. Amend in Response to Application Dated 990324,deletes License Condition 2.C (10) Which States: Licensee Shall Maintain FFD Program IAW Requirements of 10CFR26 ML20216F1891999-08-26026 August 1999 Forwards Copies of Maine Yankee & Yankee Rowe Refs Listed, Supporting Industry Position That Branch Technical Position Asb 9-2 Methodology over-estimates Spent Fuel Decay Heat ML20210S0621999-08-10010 August 1999 Forwards semi-annual fitness-for-duty Program Performance Data for six-month Period of 990101-990630,IAW 10CFR26.71(d) ML20210R1421999-08-0404 August 1999 Forwards Insp Rept 50-029/99-02 on 990411-0714.One Severity Level 4 Violation Occurred,Being Treated as NCV ML20210F3691999-07-21021 July 1999 Submits Response to NRC Request for Clarification of Certain Details of Yaec Proposed Mods to Yankee Nuclear Power Station Defueled TS ML20209D4881999-07-0909 July 1999 Forwards Rev 29 to Decommissioning QA Program, for Info & NRC Approval,Iaw 10CFR50.54(a)(3).Attachment a Provides Listing of Changes,But Does Not Discuss All Refomatting, Grammatical,Editorial or Typographical Changes ML20209C3271999-07-0101 July 1999 Forwards Rev 2 to Security Training & Qualification Plan.Rev Withheld ML20209C3151999-07-0101 July 1999 Forwards Rev 9 to Security Plan,Reflecting Plant Decommissioning Activities & Continues to Provide Protection Against Radiological Sabotage.Rev Withheld ML20209D1611999-06-28028 June 1999 Forwards UFSAR for Ynps.Updated Ynps FSAR Is Being Submitted Biennially,Iaw Commitment in Ltr Dtd 950614.Document Reflects Changes Made to Ynps as of 981231,unless Otherwise Noted ML20195H1741999-06-15015 June 1999 Forwards Original & Copy of Request for Approval of Certain Indirect & Direct Transfer of License & Ownership Interests of Montaup Electric Co (Montaup) with Respect to Nuclear Facilities Described as Listed ML20195D6781999-06-0707 June 1999 Forwards Original & Two Copies of New England Coalition on Nuclear Pollution & Consolidated Intervenor Opposition to Yankee Atomic Electric Co Motion to Terminate,As Required by Rule for Filing ML20207E6301999-06-0101 June 1999 Informs of Relocation of Yaec Corporate Ofcs,Effective 990501.New Address Submitted.All Formal NRC Correspondence to Util Should Be Directed to Duke Engineering & Svcs, Marlborough,Ma ML20207D7991999-05-29029 May 1999 Forwards Original & Two Copies of Ltr to ASLB Chairman in Matter of Yankee Nuclear Power Station Proceeding.With Certificate of Svc ML20207D8181999-05-29029 May 1999 Requests That Board Convey to Panel That within Period of Time Authorized by NRC Regulations Author Intends to File, on Behalf of Intervenors,Responsive Pleading to Yaec Pending Motion to Withdraw in Ref Matter.With Certificate of Svc ML20207D8131999-05-27027 May 1999 Discusses Reorganization of Nrr,Effective 990328.Forwards Organizational Chart ML20195B3491999-05-25025 May 1999 Submits Withdrawal of Proposed License Amend to Approve Plant Termination Plan.New Application Will Be Submitted in Future ML20206Q1881999-05-17017 May 1999 Forwards for Filing,Necnp Request for Permission to File Contentions & Contentions on Inadequacy of NRC Staff 990412 Environ Assessment & Finding of No Significant Impact of Approval of Util Termination Plan.With Certificate of Svc ML20206H8701999-05-0505 May 1999 Informs That DB Katz Unable to Locate Copy of Attachments to Which Zobler Referred to in Response to Block Ltr.Requests Info on How Panel Will View Receipt of Ea.With Certificate of Svc ML20206R3221999-05-0505 May 1999 Forwards Insp Rept 50-029/99-01 on 990101-0411.No Violations Noted.Activities at Rowe Facility Generally Characterized by safety-conscious Operations to Maintain Spent Nuclear Fuel & Careful Radiological Controls to Workers ML20206D1801999-04-30030 April 1999 Forwards Citizens Awareness Network First Set of Interrogatories,Requests to Produce & Certificate of Svc. Requests Any Objections Be Submitted Withing Five Days of Filing Receipt.Without Encls.Related Correspondence BVY-99-031, Forwards Ynps Annual Radiological Environ Operating Rept for Jan-Dec 1998, IAW Plant Defueled TS 6.8.2.a1999-04-26026 April 1999 Forwards Ynps Annual Radiological Environ Operating Rept for Jan-Dec 1998, IAW Plant Defueled TS 6.8.2.a ML20206B6641999-04-24024 April 1999 Requests Board Take Action to Remedy NRC Failure to Comply with Board Request & NRC Counsel Representation to Board in Relation to That Request Re Serving EA Upon Petitioners Per Request of Board.With Certificate of Svc ML20206C0801999-04-23023 April 1999 Requests That Change Proposed in Request for Transfer of Administrative Requirements for Ynps Defueled TS to Plant Decommissioning QA Program Be Withdrawn ML20206A6871999-04-22022 April 1999 Informs of Completion of Review of Re Nepco in Capacity as Minority Shareholder in Vermont Yankee Nuclear Power Corp,Yaec,Myap & Connecticut Yankee Atomic Power Co ML20205S0131999-04-17017 April 1999 Forwards Original & Two Conformed Copies of Necnp First Set of Interrogatories & Requests to Produce for Filing in Matter Re Yaec License Termination Plan.Related Correspondence ML20205L0701999-04-13013 April 1999 Grants Voluntary Extension to Allow CAN to Effectively Participate in Hearing Process (ASLBP 98-736-01-LA-R).With Certificate of Svc.Served on 990413 ML20205P9091999-04-13013 April 1999 Informs That Item Intended to Be Attached to 990412 Filing (Motion for Leave to Reply(Reconsideration of Portion of of Prehearing Conference Order)) Inadvertently Overlooked. Section 4, Final Radiation Survey Plan Encl ML20205P2191999-04-12012 April 1999 Informs That Mj Watkins Has Been Appointed to Position as Yankee Rowe Decommissioning Licensing Manager,Effective 990412.Individual Will Serve as Primary Point of Contact for All Info Flow Between NRC & Yaec ML20205K9361999-04-0808 April 1999 Informs That J Block,T Dignan & D Katz Came to Agreement to Extend Discovery in Yankee Rowe License Termination Plan Hearing Process (ASLBP 98-736-01-LA-R) by 1 Wk from 990611 Until 990618 ML20205G7791999-03-31031 March 1999 Provides Info Re Status of Decommissioning Funding for Yankee Power Station,Per 10CFR50.75(f) ML20206A6951999-03-29029 March 1999 Request Confirmation That No NRC Action or Approval,Required Relative to Proposed Change in Upstream Economic Ownership of New England Power Co,Minority Shareholder in Vermont Yankee Nuclear Power Corp,Yaec,Myap & Connecticut Yankee ML20205F6331999-03-29029 March 1999 Forwards Effluent & Waste Disposal Semi-Annual Rept, for Third & Fourth Quarters of 1998.Rept Summarizes Quantities & Estimated Dose Commitments of Radioactive Liquid & Gaseous Effluents Released During 1998 ML20205N1531999-03-24024 March 1999 Submits Request to Elminate fitness-for-duty Requirement from Plant.Proposed Change Has Been Reviewed by PORC & Nuclear Safety Audit & Review Committee ML20204E5051999-03-17017 March 1999 Requests NRC Review & Approval of Listed Mods to App a of Plant Possession Only License DPR-3 ML20207F8791999-03-0505 March 1999 Forwards Amend 151 to License DPR-3 & Safety Evaluation. Amend Revises Pol by Changing Submittal Interval for Radioactive Effluent Repts from Semiannual to Annual ML20207H8981999-03-0303 March 1999 Responds to Concerns Raised in Petitions to Intervene Filed with NRC by Necnp on 980224 & Citizens Awareness Network on 980226.Petitioners Requested Hearing on NRC Staff Consideration of License Termination Plan for Yankee Plant ML20203G2391999-02-12012 February 1999 Forwards Corrected Index Page for Amend 150 Issued to License DPR-3 on 990203 ML20202H5741999-02-0303 February 1999 Forwards Amend 150 to License DPR-3 & Safety Evaluation. Amend Revises Possession Only License Through Three Changes to TS ML20202F1921999-01-28028 January 1999 Forwards Copy of EA & Fonsi Re Application for Amend to Yaec Pol for Ynps Dtd 980820.Proposed Amend Would Revise Pol Through Listed Changes to TS ML20202E9401999-01-25025 January 1999 Submits Correction to Encl Request for Leave to Make Oral Appearance Statement, .Date of Conference & Desire to Make Oral Appearance Were Inadvertently & Incorrectly Entered on 990127 Instead of 990126 ML20199L1811999-01-22022 January 1999 Requests Opportunity for Representative of EPA to Make Oral Limited Appearance Statement & Submit Written Comments During 990126 Prehearing Conference Re Licensee Termination Plan ML20199K9151999-01-21021 January 1999 Requests Leave to Make Oral Limited Appearance Statement at 990127 Prehearing Conference Re License Termination Plan,Per 981130 Order Concerning Change in Filing Schedules & Date of Prehearing Conference ML20198N1691998-12-30030 December 1998 Forwards Motion for Leave to Participate in Matter of Yankee Atomic Electric Co License Termination Plan ML20198S1661998-12-17017 December 1998 Final Response to FOIA Request for Documents.Records Encl & Identified in App C & D.App E Records Withheld in Part & App F Records Withheld in Entirety (Ref FOIA Exemption 5) & App G Records Withheld in Entirety (Ref FOIA Exemptions 4 & 5) ML20154P9431998-10-16016 October 1998 Forwards Rev 28 to Yankee Atomic Electric Co Decommissioning QA Program. Program Name Changed Due to Status of Plant.Plant in Final Stages of Decommissioning ML20154F0861998-10-0101 October 1998 Forwards Insp Rept 50-029/98-03 on 980601-0731.No Violations Noted ML20153D7271998-09-23023 September 1998 Informs of Changes Made in Personnel Staff at Yankee Nuclear Power Station 1999-08-04
[Table view] Category:NRC TO UTILITY
MONTHYEARML20058G4961990-11-0808 November 1990 Advises That Maint Activity for Control Rod Relatch Witnessed by NRC on 901104.Activity Successful ML20197H6971990-11-0606 November 1990 Forwards Resident Safety Insp Rept 50-029/90-16 on 900821- 1001 & Notice of Violation ML20058F2151990-11-0202 November 1990 Forwards Safety Evaluation Accepting Util Responses to Generic Ltr 83-28,Item 1.2, Post-Trip Review - Data & Info Capability ML20058D3501990-10-30030 October 1990 Forwards Safety Insp Rept 50-029/90-17 on 900730-0803. Unresolved Items Noted ML20058D2411990-10-26026 October 1990 Requests Written Policies & Procedures Required by 10CFR26.20 Providing Background for fitness-for-duty Insp ML20058C3901990-10-22022 October 1990 Forwards Amend 137 to License DPR-3 & Safety Evaluation. Amend Modifies Surveillance Requirement 4.1.3.4 ML20062B8901990-10-19019 October 1990 Forwards one-time Exemption from 10CFR55.59(c)(3)(i)(A)-(L) Re Annual Operator Simulator Training ML20058D2811990-10-19019 October 1990 Discusses Violations Noted in Insp Rept 50-029/90-14 & Forwards Notice of Violation ML20062B8671990-10-12012 October 1990 Extends Invitation to Attend 910220-21 Util Symposium/ Workshop in King of Prussia,Pa Re Engineering Role in Plant. Interest to Participate,Intent to Attend & Approx Number of Representatives to Attend Requested by 901115 ML20059P0161990-10-12012 October 1990 Advises That 900920 Response to Generic Ltr 90-03, Relaxation of Staff Position in Generic Ltr 83-28,Item 2.2 Part 2, 'Vendor Interface for Safety-Related Components,' Acceptable ML20059N4801990-10-0303 October 1990 Forwards Maint Team Insp Rept 50-029/90-81 on 900709-20 & 0806-10.Weaknesses & Unresolved Item Noted ML20059M0511990-09-26026 September 1990 Forwards Corrected Pages to Amend 136 to License DPR-3 ML20059M5301990-09-25025 September 1990 Forwards Safety Insp Rept 50-029/90-12 on 900619-0820. Violations Noted But Not Cited ML20059J2411990-09-12012 September 1990 Advises That 900828 Revised Diesel Generator Test Plan for Qualification & Preoperational Testing Acceptable.Tech Spec Changes to Enable Util Achieve Credit for Increased Generator Capacity Will Be Considered When Proposed ML20059H5671990-09-12012 September 1990 Advises That NRC Terminated Review of YAEC-1710, Yankee Nuclear Power Station Pilot Evaluation Rept for Plant License Renewal, Per Util 900716 Request.Resolution of Issues Will Occur as Part of Review of Application ML20059K7111990-09-10010 September 1990 Forwards Insp Rept 50-029/90-14 on 900802-27.Enforcement Conference Scheduled for 900921 ML20059H0601990-09-0707 September 1990 Discusses Unescorted Access to Licensee Facilities & fitness-for-duty Program,Per .Nrc Regulations Do Not Prohibit Licensee from Accepting Access Authorization Program of Another Licensee,Contractor or Vendor ML20059G2231990-09-0606 September 1990 Forwards Amend 135 to License DPR-3 & Safety Evaluation. Amend Modifies Tech Spec Surveillance Requirement 4.5.2a to Change ECCS Pump Surveillance Frequency from Monthly to Quarterly ML20059E3011990-08-31031 August 1990 Forwards Safety Assessment of Yae 1735, Reactor Pressure... Evaluation Rept for Yankee Nuclear Power Station, Submitted w/900705 Ltr.Nrc Calculations Recognizing Uncertainties Conclude That Plant May Operate Until Feb 1992 ML20058P0701990-08-0909 August 1990 Forwards Insp Rept 50-029/90-11 on 900619-22.No Violations Noted ML20058N0681990-08-0606 August 1990 Discusses Licensee Engineering Initiatives.Cooperative Effort Would Promote Efficiency & Enhance Effectiveness of Nuclear Power Plant Activities ML20056A9341990-08-0303 August 1990 Forwards Radiological Safety Insp Rept 50-029/90-13 on 900709-13.One Noncited Violation Noted ML20058L0241990-08-0202 August 1990 Forwards Amend 133 to License DPR-3 & Safety Evaluation. Amend Incorporates Wording from Std Westinghouse Tech Specs Into Util Limiting Condition for Operation Specs 3.10.3 & 3.10.4 ML20058L5331990-08-0202 August 1990 Forwards Rept from NRC Consultant Gr Odette Re Yankee Rowe Reactor Vessel Integrity.Response Requested by 900806 ML20058L5981990-08-0202 August 1990 Forwards Amend 134 to License DPR-3 & Safety Evaluation. Amend Incorporates NRC Guidance in Generic Ltr 88-17 to Facility Tech Specs.Three New Tech Specs Added & Change Also Addresses Low Temp Overpressurization ML20055J4861990-07-31031 July 1990 Requests Performance of PTS Probablistic Analysis Using Broad Range of Matl Properties Re Reactor Pressure Vessel Evaluation Rept ML20055J2651990-07-27027 July 1990 Forwards Request for Addl Info Re Yankee Rowe Severe Accident Closure Submittal.Questions Concern Individual Plant Exam,Containment Performance Improvement Program & Accident Mgt.Response Requested within 1 Month IR 05000029/19890801990-07-25025 July 1990 Ack Receipt of Re Violations Noted in Insp Rept 50-029/89-80 ML20058L4761990-07-25025 July 1990 Forwards Exam Rept 50-029/90-06OL on 900619-21 ML20055G7991990-07-16016 July 1990 Forwards Safety Insp Rept 50-029/90-09 on 900515-0618.No Violations Noted ML20055C8531990-06-18018 June 1990 Forwards Amend 132 to License DPR-3 & Safety Evaluation. Amend Changes Title of Technical Svc Supervisor & Establishes New Positions Entitled Maint Support Supervisor & Operations Support Supervisor ML20059M9131990-06-13013 June 1990 Forwards NRC Performance Indicators for First Quarter 1990. W/O Encl ML20055C2961990-02-19019 February 1990 Forwards Safeguards Insp Rept 50-029/90-05 on 900207-09.No Violations Noted ML20248H7331989-10-0303 October 1989 Forwards Safety Evaluation Re Procedures Generation Program for Plant.Program Incomplete in Some of Its Content & Should Be Revised.Revision Need Not Be Submitted to NRC But Retained for Subsequent Review ML20247H4021989-09-0909 September 1989 Formalizes Requests Made in Conversation Between M St Lauren,R Clark & G Maret Re Planned Insp of Plant Emergency Operating Procedures During 891106-17 ML20247F0841989-09-0707 September 1989 Forwards Amend 124 to License DPR-3 & Safety Evaluation. Amend Moves Onsite & Facility Organizational Charts from Section 6.0 of Tech Specs to Section 401 of FSAR ML20246P6861989-09-0101 September 1989 Forwards Notice of Withdrawal of 890321 & 0414 Applications for Amend to License DPR-3,revising Tech Specs Re Snubber Listing,Per Generic Ltr 88-12.List of Snubbers Should Be Included in FSAR or Other Document IR 05000029/19890141989-08-31031 August 1989 Forwards Insp Repts 50-029/89-14 & 50-271/89-10 on 890717-21.No Violations Noted ML20246Q0121989-08-31031 August 1989 Forwards Insp Repts 50-029/89-14 & 50-271/89-10 on 890717-21.No Violations Noted ML20247E6531989-08-31031 August 1989 Forwards Amend 123 to License DPR-3 & Safety Evaluation. Amend Removes Description of High Pressurizer Water Level in Section 2 Re Bases on Page B2-4 of Tech Specs ML20246L6361989-08-31031 August 1989 Forwards Safety Insp Rept 50-029/89-11 on 890626-0731.No Violations Noted.Tmi Action Plan Commitments Re Main Steam Line Radiation Monitor Should Have Received More Attention. Addl Info Re Four Unresolved Items Requested ML20246L0551989-08-25025 August 1989 Forwards Safeguards Insp Rept 50-029/89-13 on 890724-28.No Violations Noted ML20246G1741989-08-23023 August 1989 Forwards Requalification Exam Rept 50-029/89-03OL.Licensee Requalification Program Assigned Overall Program Rating of Satisfactory ML20246H7301989-08-18018 August 1989 Clarifies NRC Position Re Definition of Extremity for Purposes of Setting Occupational Exposure Limits.Request That Util Ensure Procedures Incorporate Applicable Dose Limits of 10CFR20 ML20246C7181989-08-15015 August 1989 Forwards Safety Insp Rept 50-029/89-15 on 890731-0803.No Violations Noted ML20245H4521989-08-11011 August 1989 Responds to 890712 Application for Amend to License DPR-3, Revising Tech Specs Re Main Steam Line Monitors & Primary Vent Stack Noble Gas Monitor.Verification Requested That Util Withdraw 890712 Application,Per 890810 Meeting ML20245J7211989-08-0909 August 1989 Advises That Adequate Review of Exercise Objectives & Scenario Essential in Order to Fully Support Plant Partial Participation Emergency Exercise Scheduled for Wk of 891127 ML20248D8661989-08-0101 August 1989 Forwards Insp Rept 50-029/89-12 on 890710-14.No Violations or Deviations Noted ML20247Q8331989-07-28028 July 1989 Informs That Fee Paid for 890712 Application for Proposed Tech Spec Changes Re Main Steam Line Monitors & Primary Vent Stack Noble Gas Monitor Unnecessary.Fee Will Be Credited for Future Applications ML20247M8971989-07-27027 July 1989 Forwards Safety Insp Rept 50-029/89-09 on 890522-0625 1990-09-07
[Table view] Category:OUTGOING CORRESPONDENCE
MONTHYEARML20217C1051999-10-0808 October 1999 Forwards Amend 153 to License DPR-3 & Safety Evaluation. Amend Revises TS Section 6.0,Administrative Controls,By Deleting TS Sections 6.2.2.f Which Contains Limits on Working Hours of Plant Staff ML20212J2231999-10-0101 October 1999 Forwards Copy of Environ Assessment & Fonsi Re 990317 Application for Amend to Revise TS Section 6.0 by Deleting TS Section 6.2.2.f Which Contains Limits on Working Hours of Plant Staff ML20211J2711999-08-27027 August 1999 Forwards Amend 152 to License DPR-3 & Safety Evaluation. Amend in Response to Application Dated 990324,deletes License Condition 2.C (10) Which States: Licensee Shall Maintain FFD Program IAW Requirements of 10CFR26 ML20210R1421999-08-0404 August 1999 Forwards Insp Rept 50-029/99-02 on 990411-0714.One Severity Level 4 Violation Occurred,Being Treated as NCV ML20207D8131999-05-27027 May 1999 Discusses Reorganization of Nrr,Effective 990328.Forwards Organizational Chart ML20206R3221999-05-0505 May 1999 Forwards Insp Rept 50-029/99-01 on 990101-0411.No Violations Noted.Activities at Rowe Facility Generally Characterized by safety-conscious Operations to Maintain Spent Nuclear Fuel & Careful Radiological Controls to Workers ML20206A6871999-04-22022 April 1999 Informs of Completion of Review of Re Nepco in Capacity as Minority Shareholder in Vermont Yankee Nuclear Power Corp,Yaec,Myap & Connecticut Yankee Atomic Power Co ML20205L0701999-04-13013 April 1999 Grants Voluntary Extension to Allow CAN to Effectively Participate in Hearing Process (ASLBP 98-736-01-LA-R).With Certificate of Svc.Served on 990413 ML20207F8791999-03-0505 March 1999 Forwards Amend 151 to License DPR-3 & Safety Evaluation. Amend Revises Pol by Changing Submittal Interval for Radioactive Effluent Repts from Semiannual to Annual ML20207H8981999-03-0303 March 1999 Responds to Concerns Raised in Petitions to Intervene Filed with NRC by Necnp on 980224 & Citizens Awareness Network on 980226.Petitioners Requested Hearing on NRC Staff Consideration of License Termination Plan for Yankee Plant ML20203G2391999-02-12012 February 1999 Forwards Corrected Index Page for Amend 150 Issued to License DPR-3 on 990203 ML20202H5741999-02-0303 February 1999 Forwards Amend 150 to License DPR-3 & Safety Evaluation. Amend Revises Possession Only License Through Three Changes to TS ML20202F1921999-01-28028 January 1999 Forwards Copy of EA & Fonsi Re Application for Amend to Yaec Pol for Ynps Dtd 980820.Proposed Amend Would Revise Pol Through Listed Changes to TS ML20198S1661998-12-17017 December 1998 Final Response to FOIA Request for Documents.Records Encl & Identified in App C & D.App E Records Withheld in Part & App F Records Withheld in Entirety (Ref FOIA Exemption 5) & App G Records Withheld in Entirety (Ref FOIA Exemptions 4 & 5) ML20154F0861998-10-0101 October 1998 Forwards Insp Rept 50-029/98-03 on 980601-0731.No Violations Noted ML20237F1281998-08-27027 August 1998 First Partial Response to FOIA Request for Documents. Forwards App a Records Already Available in Pdr.App B Records Being Made Available in PDR ML20236F3391998-06-24024 June 1998 Forwards Combined Insp Repts 50-029/98-01 & 50-029/98-02 on 980101-0331.No Violations Noted ML20249A7841998-06-17017 June 1998 Forwards Amend 149 to License DPR-3 & Safety Evaluation. Amend Revises TS Sections Pertaining to Minimum Water Cover Over Sf,Crane Travel Over Sf & Related Bases ML20248M0111998-06-0909 June 1998 Informs That Review of QA Program (YOQAP-1-A),rev 28,has Been Terminated & TAC M99265 Closed,Per 980414 Withdrawal ML20217C2501998-03-18018 March 1998 Requests Info to Provide NRC W/Adequate Assurance That Ynps Operated IAW Provisions of Yaec QAP Description Following Sale of Yankee Nuclear Svcs Div to Duke Engineering & Svcs ML20216G1311998-03-17017 March 1998 Forwards NRC Staff Response to Requests for Hearing, Filed on 980316 Re Yankee Atomic Electric Co Proceeding Per 980317 Telcon.Name Inadvertently Omitted from Service List. Related Correspondence ML20217Q4251998-03-11011 March 1998 Responds to Addressed to Chairman SA Jackson Forwarding Hearing Request of Franklin Regional Planning Board (Frpb).Aslb Established to Consider Hearing Requests Including That of Frpb.Served on 980311 IA-98-175, Submits Request for Addl Info Re Spent Fuel Pit License Amend Request Concerning Defueled TSs of Plant1998-03-0202 March 1998 Submits Request for Addl Info Re Spent Fuel Pit License Amend Request Concerning Defueled TSs of Plant ML20237F2221998-03-0202 March 1998 Submits Request for Addl Info Re Spent Fuel Pit License Amend Request Concerning Defueled TSs of Plant ML20216F8551998-02-0505 February 1998 Forwards Copy of Transcript of 980113 Public Meeting in Shelburne,Ma.Meeting Sponsored by NRC in Order to Inform Public About Regulations Re License Termination Process for Permanently Shutdown Nuclear Power Plant ML20202E5031997-11-28028 November 1997 Ack Receipt of License Termination Plan,Dtd 970515.NRC Placed Notice of Receipt in Fr 62FR43559.Application for Amend That Complies W/Appropriate Sections of Commission Regulations Should Be Filed by Licensee ML20202F4041997-11-26026 November 1997 Responds to ,Supplemented by Facsimile Addressed to J Callan,Executive Director for Operations, Requesting Hearing on Proposed Action by NRC Licensee. Informs That Request Denied by NRC for Listed Reasons ML20217C4401997-09-23023 September 1997 Forwards Insp Rept 50-029/97-02 on 970401-0814.No Violations Noted ML20217B0511997-09-0909 September 1997 Requests Addl Info to Complete Review of Licensee License Termination Plan ML20217K7561997-08-0808 August 1997 Ack Receipt of License Termination Plan & Forwards Notice of Receipt of Availability for Comment ML20148P5161997-06-30030 June 1997 Second Partial Response to FOIA Request for Documents.App B Records Being Made Available in PDR ML20141J4461997-05-16016 May 1997 Forwards Insp Rept 50-029/97-01 on 970301-31.No Violations Noted ML20138H2951997-05-0202 May 1997 Responds to Offering NRC Staff Opportunity to Participate in 970620 Meeting.Informs That NRC Staff Will Not Participate in Meeting ML20148B2201997-05-0101 May 1997 Discusses Expressing Concerns Re Security Program at Facility Being Maintained Under License from Nrc. NRC Will Conduct Evaluation of Program Including Security Risks Involved W/Configuration If License Requests Change ML20134B5141997-01-24024 January 1997 Forwards Insp Rept 50-029/96-04 on 961121.No Violations Noted ML20129G9121996-10-28028 October 1996 Forwards Notice of Completion of Hearing Process Re Approval of Decommissioning Plan.Commission Denied Petition for Review by Hearing Re Approval of Decommissioning Plan. Plan Is Considered PSDAR ML20129C9211996-10-16016 October 1996 Forwards Insp Rept 50-029/96-03 on 960829.No Violations Noted ML20237F1771995-08-10010 August 1995 Informs That NRC Would Like to Conduct Site Release Research at Yankee Rowe Reactor Site ML20149H0801994-11-0404 November 1994 Ack Receipt of Providing Comments on Plant Decommissioning Plan.Nrc Currently Reviewing Plan & Comments Will Be Addressed During Review CLI-94-03, Forwards Decision CLI-94-03 in Response to Formal Petition Re Decommissioning Activities at Plant.Commission Ruled That Component Removal Program Does Not Involve Any Activities Requiring Adjudicatory Hearing & Denies Request1994-03-31031 March 1994 Forwards Decision CLI-94-03 in Response to Formal Petition Re Decommissioning Activities at Plant.Commission Ruled That Component Removal Program Does Not Involve Any Activities Requiring Adjudicatory Hearing & Denies Request ML20059K1851994-01-26026 January 1994 Discusses 930804 Telcon & Subsequent Correspondence Phone Calls Re NRC Commitment to Respond to Concerns Raised by Citizens Awareness Network.Nrc Response Will Be Delayed Beyond Early January & Response Provided within Two Months ML20059D6291993-12-29029 December 1993 Forwards Insp Rept 50-029/93-07 on 930826-27,0923 & 1115-18 & Notice of Violation ML20059C7701993-12-29029 December 1993 Discusses to J Taylor of Allegations Against NRC Re Early Component Removal Project.Informs Licensee of No Objection Re Removal of Four Sg,Pressurizer & Portions of Intervals from Plant & Site.W/Encl ML20059A6911993-12-22022 December 1993 Forwards Which Requested Info Re Potential Radiation Doses from Plant Reactor Vessel Internals Proposed for Removal Under Util Component Removal Program ML20059J7591993-12-20020 December 1993 Responds to to Chairman Selin Re Component Removal Project at Plant & NRC Provisions to Obtain Public Comments on Project ML20058P2741993-12-0808 December 1993 Advises That Rev 2 to Defueled Security Plan Consistent W/ Provisions of 10CFR50.54(p) & Acceptable for Inclusion Into Plan ML20058E3461993-11-19019 November 1993 Forwards Granted Exemption from Requirements of 10CFR50.54 to Util in Response to Licensee Request of 930924 ML20058D6241993-11-19019 November 1993 Forwards Approved Partial Exemption Request from Training rule,10CFR50.120,in Response to Util ML20059C8101993-11-18018 November 1993 Responds to Re Request for Hearing on Early Removal Project at Plant.Requests Specific Info Re Early Component Removal Project ML20058B6331993-11-15015 November 1993 Forwards Physical Security Insp Rept 50-029/93-08 on 931018-19.No Safety Concerns or Violations Noted 1999-08-04
[Table view] |
Text
. __ _ _ _ . _ _ . _ _ . _ . . _ _
l A ,
,fk
~
-d I - , _
DISTRIBUTION: '
LDc6ket :
NRC PDR Local PDR JUN B 1978 ORB #2 RDG M DLZiemann ucchet No. Ob [ HSmith ABurger .
TVWambach
- Yankee Atomic Electric Companv OELD -
ATTil: !!r. hocert !!. Groce OI&E (3) '
Licensing Engineer DEisenhut 20 Turnpike Road VStello
!!estbcro, !:assachusctts 01581 TBAbernathy ;_ "!
JRBuchanan ,
Gentlemen: ACRS (16) ,.e RE: !!ANPCl!ER P.EOUIP. Diet 1TS FOR OPE!:ATING P.EACTORS lle are enclosing a document entitled, "Manpover Require,cr,ts for Operating Reactors." !!c are using the bases given in this docunent ij for allowing the sharing of duties to r'eet mininun staffing reoutre-r.1ents for fire brigades at nuclear power plants. This is being provided for your guidance in meeting flP.C requirements in this ,
area. is %
b '
By letter dated December 14, 1977, you on,iected to e rerguire- F ment for o ninicua fire brigaue size of S beino it, corn > rated in !
the Tecnnical Specifications for the Yankee-Rowe Atonic Poesr O
. Station. We request that you review the enclosed guionnce in l:
regaro to the use of personnel on the operating staff and security ,
force in r:anning the fire brigade an't infona us by letter vitnin tventy daft vi.ctbor you continue to objcct to our pr sition on nininu, fire brigade size.
Sincerely,
\h ..
ictor
. Stello, Jr. , Di rector Division of Operating reactors Of fice of leuclear Reactor 9eculation Enciescrc:
hanposte r oe quire.:ents for THIS DOCUMENT CONTAINS -
Dceratinn "eactors POOR QUAllTY PAGES ,/ '
/WA/<l cc s/ enc 1:
See no.: pare '/ /
401303079'6 9W N DOR:0RB#2 o r,.c. ,
DOR:0RBfg , DOR:0RB#2 D0RMD(S&P DOR:DId
. o . ~ m , ,. A,B,,u,,r,ge r : sa h TV0am' bach DLZiemann Dghhtrt VSte/lo m,, 6[(,/78/pt 6Lb/78 6/ J /78 6 78 , _6/ /78 mc mm n, <o.26> sncu d24o *u.......~~,...r..orr,c'....-.......
J-- -
c u l
Yankee Atomic Electric Company June 8,1978 l l
. cc: Mr. Donald G. Allen, President Yankee Atomic Electric Company 1 20 Turnpike Road l Westbtro, Massachusetts 01581 Greenfield Community College 1 College Drive Greenfield, Massachusetts 01301 0
l l
I 1
. .,: - . . . /
. /
./ .
. /
l MANPOWER REQUIREMENTS FOR OPERATING REACTORS i l
The NRC has established requirements for personnel at operating reactors for purposes of plant operation, industrial security, and fire fighting. The following discussion considers the extent to which plant personnel assigned to either plant operation or security may also be temporarily allowed to man a fire brigade in the event of a fire for a single unit facility and sets forth an acceptable sharing scheme for operating reactors.
Summary of Manpower Recuirements
- 1. Fire Brigade: The staff has concitded that the minimum size of the fire brigade shift should be five persons unless a specific site evaluation has been completed and some other
) number justified. The five-man team would consist of one leader and four fire fighters and would be expected to provide defense against the fire for an initial 30-minute period. See Attachment A for the basis for the need for a five-man fire brigade. '
l
- 2. Plant Operation: Standard Review Plan Section 13.1.2 requires that for a station having one licensed unit, each shift crew -
! should have at least three persons at all times, plus two additional persons when the unit is operating. For ease of reference, Attachment B contains a copy of this SRP.
- 3. Plant Security: The requirements for a guard force are outlined -
in 10 CFR Part 73.55. In the course of the staff's review of proposed security plans, a required minimum security response force will be established for each specific site. In addition to the response team, two additional members of the security :
force will be required to continuously man the Central Alarm Station (CAS) and Secondary Alarm Station (SAS). It is expected that many facilities will have a security organization with greater numbers of personnel than the minimum number assumed for purposes of discussion in this paper.
l The NRC' staff has given consideration to'the appropriateness of per-t mitting a limited degree of sharing to satisfy the requirements of plant operation, security and fire protection and has concluded that, (1) subject to certain site and plant specific conditions, the fire i brigade staffing could generally be provided through operations and 3 security personnel, and (2) the requirements for operators and'the j security force should remain uncompromised. Until a site specific review is completed, the following indicates the interin distribution and justification for these dual assignments, and there#cre cur interim minimum requirements for a typical presently operating comercial single unit facility. The staff believes that manpower for the fire brigade for multi-unit facilities is not now a problem because of the larger numbers of people generally present at the sites. Situations which do pose problems will be reviewed on a case-by-case basis.
i
- 1. Plant Operation: The staff has concluded that for most events at a single unit nuclear facility, a minimum of three operators should be available to place the reactor in a safe condition.
The two additional operators required to be available at the nuclear facility are generally required to be present to perform routine jobs which can be interrupted to accomodate unusual situations that may arise. That is, there is the potential for the remaining two members of the operating crew to assume other short-tem duties such as fire fighting. In light of the original rationale for providing extra plant operators to cope with off-normal conditions, it appears justified to rely on these personnel for this function. The staff recommends that one of the two operators assigned to the fire brigade should be designated as -
leader of the fire brigade in view of his backgrourd in plant operations and overall familiarity with' the plant. In this' regard , .
the shift supervisor should not be the fire brigade leade "
because his presence is necessary elsewhere if fires occur in certain critical areas of the plant.
- 2. Plant Security: In the event of a fire, a contingency plan and -
proceoures will be used in deploying tne security organization to assure that u appropriate level of physical protection is maintained during the event. The staff has determined that it is possible in the planning for site response to a fire, to assign a maximum of three members of the security organization to serve on the fire brigade and still provide an acceptable level of physical protection. While certain security posts must be manned continuously (e.g., CAS, SAS), the personnel in other assignments, including the response force, could be temporarily (i.e., 30 minutes)- assigned to the fire brigade. In judging the merits of this allowance the underlying question is whether the minimum security force strength must be maintained continuously in the event of a plant emergency l such as a fire. Further examination of this issue leads to two I potential rationales for reaching an affirmative decision. First, could there be a causal connection between a fire and the security threat? Second, are there compelling policy reasons to postulate a simultaneous threat and fire? i l
The first potential rationale would only be credible if, (1) the insider (posed as part of the threat definition) was an active participant in an assault and started a fire coincident with the attack on the plant or, (2) a diversionary fire was started by an attack force somewhere external to the plant itself where no equipment required for safe shutdown is located. The role of the insider will be discussed first. While 73.55 assigns an active status to the insider, the rule also requires that measures be implemented to contain his activities and thereby reduce his
, ,, i
(. >
1 effectiveness. At present, these measures include background checks on plant employees, limited access to vital plant areas, badging systems and the two-man rule. Here, limited access l means that only designated employees are allowed in vital areas and that their entry is controlled by either conventional locks or card-key systems. Also, if separate trains of safety equip- ;
ment are involved,then either compartmentalization or the two- I man rule is required. These measures to contain the insider are presently being implemented and will provide assurance that people l of questionable reliability would not be able to gain employee status at a nuclear plant and should they become an employee with unescorted access, significant restraints would be inter-posed on the ability of such a person to carry out extensive damage to plant vital areas. Recognizing that additional safeguards may still be appropriate, the staff has recomended to the Comission that plant personnel also be required to obtain an NRC security clearance. The staff believes that the attendant background investigation associated with a clearance, in con-junction with the other 73.55 measures, will provide a high degree of assurance that plant personnel will not attempt to take an active sabotage role. If the clearance rule is adopted the staff believes some of the measures, such as the two-man rule, designed to contain the insider can be relaxed. Thus,'
there does not now appear to be a reasonably credible causative relationship between a fire intentionally set by an insider and the postulated external security threat. For the case of diversionary fires set external to the plant itself, adequate security forces can still be maintained by allowing only part of the fire brigade to respond while both fire fighters and security forc6 armed responders maintain a high degree of alertness for a possible real attack somewhere else on the plant. Thus, the effective number of armed responders required by 73.55 can be i maintained for external diversionary fires.
1 The second potential rationale concerns whether a serious, I spontaneous fire should be postulated coincident with an external security threat as a design basis. In evaluating such a require-ment it is useful to consider the likelihood of occurrence of i this combination of events. While it is difficult to quantify the probability of the 73.55 threat, it is generally accepted that it is small, comparable probably to other design basis type events. The probability of a fire which is spontaneous and located in 'or in close proximity to a vital area of the plant '
and is serious enough to pose a significant safety concern is also small. It would appear, therefore, that the random coincidence l of these two unlikely events would be sufficiently small to not
require protection against their simultaneous occurrence. In ;
addition, it should be noted that the short time period (30 minutes) (
for which several members of the security force would be dedicated j to the fire brigade would further reduce the likelihood of coincidence. (
As neither of the two potential rationales appear to preclude the use of members of the security force in the event of a fire the staff has concluded that the short assignment of security personnel from the armed response force or other available security personnel to the fire brigade under these conditions would be, acceptable.
To ensure a timely and effective response to a fire, while still preserving a flexible security response, the staff believes that
, the fire brigade should operate in the following manner. In the event of an internal fire, all five members of the fire brigade should be dispatched to the scene of the fire to assess the nature and seriousness of the fire. Simultaneously, the plant security I force should be actively evaluating the possibility of any security l threat to the plant and taking any actions which are necessary to 1 counter that threat. For external fires, a lesser number than the five-man brigade should respond for assessment and fire fighting.
As the overall plant situation becomes apparent it would be expected-that the most effective distribution of manpower between plant operations, security and fire protection would be made, allowing a balanced utilization of manpower resources until offsite assistance becomes available. The manpower pool provided by the plant operations personnel and security force are adequate to respond to the occurrence of a design basis fire or a security threat equivalent to the 73.55 performance requirements. It is also recognized that other, more likely combinations of postulated fires and security threats of a lesser magnitude than the design basis, could be censidered. .While the probabilities of these higher likelihood events may be sufficient to warrant protecting against them in combination, the manpower requirements required to cope with each event would be similarly reduced thereby allowing adequate coverage by plant personnel.
Conclusion The staff believes tha.t it would be reasonable to allow a limited amount of sharing of plant personnel in satisfying the requirements of plant operhtion, security, and fire protection. An acce'ptable sharing scheme would entail reliance on two plant operators and three members of the security organization to constitute the fire brigade. Since availability of the full fire brigade would only
- i
,_y
( ( / ',
1 1
\
be required for fires with potential for serious damage, actual distribution of plant personnel during a plant emergency world be I governed by the exigencies of the situation. Of course, all personnel !
assigned to the fire brigade would have to fulfill all applicable I training requirements. It should also be recognized that the diversion of personnel to the fire brigade would- be of short duration and that substantial additional offsite assistance would be forthcoming in accordance with the emergency and contingency plan developed for each facility. In evaluating licensee proposals for manpower sharing due consideration will also. have to be made of unique facility characteristics, such as terrain and plant lay-out, as well as the overall strengths of the licensee's fire and security plan 2. Minimum protection levels 4n either area could preclude the sharing of manpower.
e 5
h 6
l 1
1 4
6 i
.- 4
m u mg
y.,* , ,/
/
/
/
Staff Position Minimum Fire Dri'cade Shift Size _ '
Nuclear power plants depend on the response of an onsite fire brigade ~
for d..fense cgainst the effects of fire on plant safe shutdown capabilities. In some areas, actions by the fire brigade are th'e
,only means of fire suppression. In other ereas, that are protected by correctly designed cutenstic detection and suppression systems, manual fire fignting efforts are used to extinguish: (1) fires too small to actuate the autcmatic system; (2) well developed fires if the auten: tic system fails to function; and (3) fires that are not completely controlled by the automatic system. Thus, an adeouste fire brigade is -
essential to fulfiil the defense in depth requirements which protect '
safe shutdewn systems from the effects of fires and .their related
- combur. tion by-products.
. DISCUSSICH There are a number of factors that should be considered in establishing the minircum fire brigade shift size. They include: i
- 1) picnt cecmet.ry and size;
- 2) quant-ity and quality of detection and suppression systems;
- 3) fire fighting strategics for postulated fires;
- 4) fire brigace training;
- 5) fire brigado equipment; and
- 6) fire brigade supplements by plant personnel and local fire
~
department (s). .
In all plants, tha majority of postulated fires are in enclosed window-less structures. In such arci.s, the working environment of the brigade
. created by the heat and s=cke buildup within the enclosure, will require the use of self-contained brecthing apparatus, socke ventilation ecuipment,
. and a personnel replacement capability.
Certain functions must be performed for all fires, i.e. , comand brigade actions, infom plant management, fire suppression, ventilation control, provide exira equipment, and account for possible injuries. Until a site specific review can be completed, an interim minimum fire brigade size of five persons has been established. This rigade size should provide a minimum working number of personnel to deal with those postulated fires in a typical presently operating comercial nuclear power station.
i
. l
s t I a
'- * * / /
- ? -
,s' c 2 I if the brigoce is composed of a smaller number of personnel, the fire attcck may be stopped whenever new equipT.ent is needed 'or a person is i injured or f atigued. We note that in t5e career fire service, the j
minimum engine comnany manning considered to be effective for an initial
- attack on .a fire is also five, including one of ficer. and four team members.
It is assured for the purposes of this position that brigade training and equipment 1.s adequate and that a backup capability of trained individuals exist whether through plant personnel call back or from the local fire department.- l POSITIOU .
- 1. The minimum fire br*,gade shif t size should be , justified by an analysis of the plant specific factors stated above f.or the plant, after modifications are cemplete. " -
j
- 2. In the interim, the minimum fire brigade shift size shall be five persons. These persons shall be fully qualified to perform their assigned responsibility, and shall include: ,
One Su9ervisor - This individual must have fire tactics trainino.
He wili assume all command responsibilities for fighting the fife.
During plant emergencies, the brigade supervisor should not have other resconsibilities that would detract from his full attention being devoted to the fire. This supervisor should not be actively engag7d in the fighting of the fire. His total function should be to survey the fire area, ccmmand the brigade, and keep the upper levels of plant r.ianagement infermed. .
Two Hose Men - A 1.5 inch fire hose being handled within a window-
- less enclosure would require two trained individuals. The two team members are required to physically handle the active hose line and to protect each other while in the adverse environment of the fire.
. . Two Additionc1 Team Mercers - One of these individuals would be requir:c to supply Tilloc air cylinders to the fire fighting
- members of the brig &de and the second t ~ establish smoke ventilation and aid in filling the air cylinder. These two individuals y ould also a'ct as the first backup to the engaged team.
4 .
4 b
D I ' *-
, TA C ttm FdT* 8 l
.?*.*.*.*.* . ,
I 4 a. Assignrents of personnel reeting Ah$1 N18.1 1971 cualifi-stions, Section 4.3.1 or Section 4.$.1, should be made to onsite shif t operatina cys in numbers not less l than the following: l
-- 1
- ; 1 i For a station having one licensed unit, each shif t crew should have at least three l 1
persons at all times, plus tw additional persons when the unit is operating. l For a rulti-unit station, each shift crew should have at least three persons per licensed unit at all times, plus one additional person per, operating unit.
~*-
l ~
- b. Operator license qualifications of persons assigned to operating shift crews should be as follows: ,
- (1) A licensed senior operator wne is also a memoer of the station supervisory staff should be onsite at all tirnes when at least one unit is loaded with fuel.
(2) For any station with more than one reactor containing fuel, (1) the fiucer of licensed senior oper: tors onsite at a' oes should n:t be less than the I number of control rooms from which th' 4 units are monitored, and (2) the number of licensed senior ope .cors should not be less than the nutnter of reactors operating.
(3) For e ch rea: tor containing fuel, there should be at least one licensed oper..or in the conte:1 roo- at all times. Shift cre. co ::sitions should be spe:ified such that this condition can be satisfied independently of
!' licensed senior operators assigned to shift crews to meet the :riteria of
- (1) and (2) above. -
(41 For each control reor frew which one or more reactors are in coeration, an t
additional operator should be ensite and available te serve as relief operator for that cor. trol ro:1 shif* crew comoesitions sh:uld be spe:ified such that this condition can te satisfied independently of (1), (2), and (3), and for eacn such centrol re:m.
~
C. Iladiation prote: tier c',ali#icati ns'ef at least ont person on ea:h operating shif t should oe as follows:
The mar. age ent of each s*1 tion havin; one or rnere writs containing fuel should either, (1) qualify anc designate at least one me .:er of ea:n shif t operating c rew to ir;1e ant radiation prote:ti:n pro:edwres, including routine or spe:ial radiati:n surveys using poeta:1e radiation detectors, use of pr:tec-tive barriers and signs, use of pr tective clothing and breathin; a::aratus, perfornante of contatination surveys, chetis or, radiation m:nitors, and limits of exposure rates and a::grulated dese, or (2) assign a health paysics tethrician to each shift, such assigerent to De in addition to those assigne: to shift operating crews in aCCgedance with (a) and (b) above. ,
I 1
!!!.Riv!!Ff:GOU:!$ )
. selecti:n ar: e..p. asis of various aspects of the areas covered by this review plan will be grade by the revies.er on each cast. The judg N'*t on the areas to De given at*entier d.rir; 13.1.2 3 11/24/75 t
.