ML17055B645
| ML17055B645 | |
| Person / Time | |
|---|---|
| Site: | Nine Mile Point  |
| Issue date: | 05/08/1986 |
| From: | Haughey M Office of Nuclear Reactor Regulation |
| To: | Hooten B NIAGARA MOHAWK POWER CORP. |
| References | |
| RTR-REGGD-01.075, RTR-REGGD-1.075 NUDOCS 8605160040 | |
| Download: ML17055B645 (6) | |
Text
it "4
?1
~
l l.
4? q RECI?
?
0 C
O o~
+p*y4 Docket No. 50-410 UNITED STATES NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSION WASHINGTON, D. C. 20555 u<V OS lI><<
Mr. B.
G. Xooten Executive Director of Nuclear Operations Niagara Mohawk Power Corporation 300 Erie Boulevard West
- Syracuse, New York 13202
Dear Mr. Xooten:
DISTRIBUTION:
et Files NRC PDR Local PDR PRC System Subiect:
Separation of Class 1E Equipment and Circuits for Nine Mile Point Unit 2 On January 28, 1986, Niaqara Mohawk submitted a report entitled, "Failure Modes and Fffects Analysis (Requlatory Guide 1.75)" for Nine Mile Point Unit 2 (NMP-2).
That report identified certain cases where non-Class lE devices are connected to Class 1E power sources and provide non-Class 1E signals to Class 1E systems.
Subsequently, the NRC staff had a number of conference calls with Niaqara Mohawk staff to discuss concerns in this area.
The NRC staff has identified additional information, identified in the enclosure, which is required for us to continue the review of this issue.
This information has been discussed with Mr. Norman Rademacher of your staff.
In order to support a fuel load date of May 29,
- 1986, please provide a response to the request for additional information in the enclosure within ten days 'of the date of this letter.
The reporting and/or recordkeeping requirements contained in this letter affect fewer than ten respondents; therefore, OMB clearance is not required under P.L.96-511.
Sincerely,
~
~
~
~pc?.~g M7/~c.
Mary F. tfaughey, r
. ct Manager BWR Proiect Directorate No.
3 Division of BWR Licensing
Enclosure:
As stated cc:
See next page DESIGNATED ORE ML'Ce&ifleQ.
By 8605160040 860508 PDR ADQCK 05000410 A
? D??
~,
T~r I
Mr. B. G. Hooten Niagara Mohawk Power Corporation Nine Mile Point Nuclear Station Unit 2 CC:
Mr. Troy B. Conner, Jr.,
Esq.
Conner 5 Wetterhahn Suite 1050 1747 Pennsylvania
- Avenue, N.W.
Washington, D.C.
20006 Richard Goldsmith Syracuse University College of Law E. I. White Hall Campus
- Syracuse, New York 12223 Ezra I. Bialik Assistant Attorney General Environmental Protection Bureau New York State Department of Law 2 World Trade Center New York, New York 10047 Resident Inspector Nine Mile Point Nuclear Power Station P. 0.
Box 99
- Lycoming, New York 13093 Mr. John W. Keib, Esq.
Niagara Mohawk Power Corporation 300 Erie Boulevard West
- Syracuse, New York 13202 Mr. James Linville U. S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission Region I 631 Park Avenue King of Prussia, Pennsylvania 19406 Norman Rademacher, Licensing Niagara Mohawk Power Corporation 300 Erie Boulevard West
- Syracuse, New York 13202 Regional Administrator, Region I U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission 631 Park Avenue King of Prussia, Pennsylvania 19406 Mr. Paul D.
Eddy New York State Public Service Commission Nine Mile Point Nuclear Station-Unit II Post Office Box 63
- Lycoming, New York 13093 Don Hill Niagara Mohawk Power Corporation Suite 550 4520 East West HighWay
- Bethesda, Maryland 20814
b
ENCLOSURE Nine Mile Point - Unit 2 The information provided to date is insufficient to allow the staff to completeI its review associated with the separation of Class 1E and non-Class 1E devices.,
This concern was originally identified in the NMP-2 SER, dated February 1985 (Section 7.2.2.10).
Additional information should be provided on the NMP-2 useI of (1) isolation devices and (2) non-Class lE components that provide signals to Class 1E systems.
As a minimum, the following should be provided:
(1)
Identify any Regulatory Guide (R.G.) 1.97 Category 1 variables (functions);
that have non-Class lE components.
The staff position (R.G. 1.97) is that; all Category 1 variables should be Class 1E.
(2)
Justify the use of non-Class lE components for High Pressure Core Spray (HPCS) bypass valve position indication or provide Class 1E components fori this position indication.
(3)
Justify. the use of non-Class lE siqnal resistor units (SRUs) for the ser vice water heat exchanger flow indication (AIER) or provide Class lE SRUs for th~is indication.
(4)
Justify the use of two non-Class 1E diodes for arc suppressions on the RHR'lass 1E optical isolators.
Discuss the design implications associated with upgrading these diodes to Class 1E.
A similar concern exists for the'on-Class 1E diodes utilized as arc suppression devices in the End-of-Cycle Recirculation Pump Trip Systems.
Justify the use ot these diodes.
(5)
Provide the maximum wattaae that would be expended by each non-Class 1E device listed in the NMP-2 January 1986 report.
(6)
Discuss the differences (desian, surveillance, and documentation) that distinquish Class 1E fuses from the non-Class lE fuses.
Provide new anal.yses (credit cannot be taken for non-Class 1E protection devices) for those instances where credit has been taken for non-Class lE fuses,
- breakers, and resistance devices to protect Class lE circuits from worst-case credible failures within the non-Class 1E circuits. If an analysis indicates that a
Class 1E bus would be lost by these failures, then provide redundant Class 1E protection devices.
Resistance devices cannot be used as isolation or protection devices (R.G. 1.97).
h 0