ML17053B115
| ML17053B115 | |
| Person / Time | |
|---|---|
| Site: | Nine Mile Point  |
| Issue date: | 10/09/1979 |
| From: | Varga S Office of Nuclear Reactor Regulation |
| To: | Rhode G NIAGARA MOHAWK POWER CORP. |
| References | |
| NUDOCS 7910230112 | |
| Download: ML17053B115 (12) | |
Text
OCT 9
1S79 Docket No: 60-410 I'r.
Gerald fl. Rhode, Vice President Niagara Mohawk Power Corporation
~ 3OO Erie Boulevard West
- Syracuse, New York 13202
SUBJECT:
MARK II POOL DYNAMIC LOADS PROGRAM -,NINE MILE POINT
-NUCLEAR STATION, UNIT 2
Dear MIr. Rhode:
'I The Mark II lead plarlt program.fs essentially complete, and we are now planning our review of the closure program for the Harb II pool dynamic loads.
A growing tendency of applicants to depend on plant-unique pro-grams, rather than generic programs, during the past year makes it nec-essary for us to request definition of the pool dynamic loads programs being relied on by each Nark II owner, especially that. part which falls outside the scope of the generic Mark II pool dynamic loads program.
We have believed for some time that joint efforts toward resolution of issues on a generic basis results'in substantial cost and-schedule savings to the NRC, the industry, and thus to the public.
We stated this view in April 1976 during the early stages of our review of the Nat k II program, and again in September 1978 when the Hark II lead plant acceptance criteria were issued.
On July 24, 1979 the staff met with the Mark II owners to discuss the closure efforts associated with the Mark II Long Term Program.
At this meeting, the Mark II owers stated that the generic programs. associated with SRV;, and LOCA pool dynamic loads would be completed in 1979 and 1980, respectively.
However, the, Mark II owners. identified a number of plants requesting relief from the generic pool dynamic loads specifications.
This resulted in a comparable number of new plant-unique programs.
Little information has been pro-vided to the.NRC defining these new plant-'unique pool dynamic programs.
Considering the design differences between Mark II plants, and the various licensing schedules for plants, we see a limited t>eed for re-
,liance on plant-unique pool, dynamic load programs.
The limitations on staff technical resources, hoover, make it possible for us to complete OI I Iaaf QQNNAIICW DATC~
WRC PO1M 318 (976) HHCM 0240
---: Brosset-I Q II,S, 44VCNNNCNT tNINTIN4 CNNICCI I ~ ) ~
40 ~
TO ~
~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~
I
t "J
F
Mr. Gerald K. Rhode OCT 9
197S our licensing activities for these plants in a timely manner only if the Mark II owners pursue a generic approach to resolution of pool dynamic load issues to the maximum extent practicable.
For those areas where a completely generic approach is not acceptable, we encourage use of semi-generic approaches, as in the case of the lead plant owners and the KTG "T" quencher.
Another possible sub-grouping would be to combine analyses for plants with a common architect engineer.
I'e ask that you provide a description of those pool dynamic load tasks, outside the generic Mark II pool dynamic loads program, that are a part of your pool dynamic loads definition program.
Your response should in-clude the'following information:
task description rationale for plant unique program task schedule documentation (contents and schedul e).
This information should be provided to us by November 'l5, 1979, so that we can plan our review efforts.
We anticipate-a meeting to discuss these items at an early date follo&ingthe submittal of the letters.
The pur-pose of this meeting would be to determine the extent to which a generic or semi-generic approach has been pursued, and to obtain information needed by'us to establish priorities for the review of the various plants.
Until that time, we will continue to review the pool dynamic load program on a
primarily generic basis.
We intend to review non-generic pool dynamic load programs on the basis of available NRC resources, with=review priorities for these programs established by the licensing schedule for each facility.
Sincerely, Original signed bye S. A; Varga S. A. Yarga, Acting Assistant Director for Light Hater Reactors Division of Project Management
'c:
See next page OFPICIC~
OV CHANCED DATCW DPM:
R-4 MS ce 10/
/79 D
M:
WR-4 DLynch 10!nW.?.9..
DP R-4 L
tei "10/5 (
g
~ r ~
V rga 1.0
......./.79.
NEC FORM 318 (9-76) NRCM 0240 4 V C OOVCNNMCNT CNINTINO Or> ICC I I ~ 1 ~ lI~ ~ 1 ~ ~
II V
I'/
\\
lg r
~8 lltcIIl~
+
0 p%~
++*++
Docket No: 50-410 UNITED STATES NUCLEAR R EGULATORY COMMISS!ON WASHINGTON, D. C. 20555 OCT g
1979 V
I Hr. Gerald K. Rhode, Vice President Niagara Mohawk Power Corporation 300 Erie Boulevard West
- Syracuse, New York 13202
SUBJECT:
'ARK II POOL DYNAHIC LOADS PROGRAM - NINE MILE POINT NUCLEAR STATION, UNIT 2
Dear Hr. Rhode:
The Mark II lead plant program is essentially complete, and we are now planning our review of the closure program. for the Hark II pool dynamic loads.
A growing tendency of appIicants to depend on plant-unique pro-grams, rather than generic programs, during the past'year makes it nec-essary for us to request definition of the pool dynamic loads programs being relied on by each Mark II owner, especially that part which falls outside the scope of the generic Mark II pool dynamic loads program.
We have believed for some time that joint efforts toward resolution of issues on a generic basis results in substantial cost and schedule savings to the NRC, the industry, and thus to,the public.
We stated this view in April 1976 during the early stages of our review of the Mark I I program, and again in September 1978 when the Hark II lead plant acceptance criteria were issued.
On July 24, 1979 the staff met with the Mark II'wners to discuss the closure efforts associated with the Mark II Long Term Program.
At this meeting, the Mark II owners-stated.
that the generic programs associated with SRV and LOCA pool dynamic loads would be completed in 1979 and 1980, respectively.
However, the Mark II.owners identified a number of plants requesting relief from the generic pool dynamic loads specifications.
This resulted in a comparable number of new plant-unique programs.
Little information has been pro-vided to"the NRC defining these new plant-unique poo'l dynamic programs.
Considering the design differences between Hark II plants, and the various licensing schedules for plants, we see a limited need for re-liance on plant-unique pool dynamic load programs.
The limitations on staff technical resources, however, make it possible for us to complete
0
Mr. Gerald K. Rhode 2
OQT 8
1979 4
~7 our licensing activities'or these plants in a timely manner only if the Mark II owners pursue a generic approach to resolution of pool dynamic load issues to the maximum extent practicable.
For those areas where a completely. generic approach is not acceptable, we encourage use of semi-generic approaches, as i n the case of the lead plant owners and the.KTG "T" quencher;,
Another possible sub-grouping. would be to combine analyses for plants with a common architect'engineer.
We ask that you provide a description of those pool dynamic load tasks, outside the generic Mark I I pool dynamic loads program, that 'are a part of your pool dynamic loads definition program; Your response should in-clude the following information:
task description p
rationale for'lant unique program task schedule documentation (contents and schedule).
This information should be provided to us by November 15, 1979, so that we can plan our review efforts.
We anticipate a meeting to discuss these items at-an early date following the submittal of the letters.
The pur-.
pose of this meeting would be to determine the extent to which a generic or semi-generic approach has been pursued, and to obtain information needed by us to establish priorities for the.review of the various plants.
Until that time, we will continue to review the pool dynamic load program on a
primarily gerieric basis.
We intend to review non-generic pool dynamic load programs on the basis of available NRC resources, with review priorities for these programs established by the licensing schedule for each facility.
Sincerely, cc:
See next page S. A.
- arga, c ing Assistant Director for Ligh ater Reactors Division of oject Management
0
DISTRIBUTION:
NRC PDR Local ~DR 0.cket Files ERA LWR-4 File S.
Varga M.. Williams B.
Moore R. Denise, DSS L..Rubenstein Project Manager Licensing Assistant (2)
- Attorney, ELD IaE (3) bcc:
Niagara Mohawk Power Corporation ccs+
Arvin E. Upton, Esq.
- Le8oeuf, Lamb,. Leiby 5 MacRae 1757 N Street, N.
W.
Washington, 0. C.
20036 Anthony Z. Roisman, Esq..
Natural Resources Def nse Council 917 15th Street, N-W.
, Washington,
- 0. C.
20005 Mr. Richard Goldsmith Syracuse University College of Law E. I. White Hall Campus
- Syracuse, New York 13210 T. K. DeBoer, Director Technological Development Programs New York State Energy Office Swan Street Building Core 1 - 2nd floor Empire State Plaza Albany, New York
,12223
~
~
~
'