ML17055B761
| ML17055B761 | |
| Person / Time | |
|---|---|
| Site: | Nine Mile Point  |
| Issue date: | 05/29/1986 |
| From: | Haughey M Office of Nuclear Reactor Regulation |
| To: | Office of Nuclear Reactor Regulation |
| Shared Package | |
| ML17055B763 | List: |
| References | |
| NUDOCS 8606120037 | |
| Download: ML17055B761 (12) | |
Text
May 29, 1986 Docket No. 50-410 APPLICANT:
Niagara Mohawk Power Corporation (NMPC)
FACILITY:
Nine Mile Point Unit 2 (NMP-2)
SUBJECT:
SUMMARY
OF MAY 20,
- 1986, MEETING ON DETAILED CONTROL
" ROOM DESIGN REVIEW (DCRDR)
FOR NMP-2 On April 14, 1986, Niagara Mohawk Power Corporation submitted the "Supplemental
'eport to the Detail Control'oom Design Review Final Summary'eport" which included the results of the checklist survey, results of the studies performed since the September 1985 final report, and responses to concerns in the 'NRC draft SER transmitted on January 22, 1986.
On May 13,
- 1986, NMPC was given a
copy of the draft technical evaluation report (TER) from the NRC consultants at Lawrence Livermore National Laboratories (LLNL) which identified concerns relating to the April 14, 1986, submittal.
On May 20, 1986, the 'NRC staff met with representatives from NMPC and their consultants from 'ARD Corporation to, discuss the concerns raised in the LLNL draft TER (Enclosure 1).
At the meeting NMPC provided draft responses (Enclosure
- 2) to each of the concerns in th'e LLNL
, draft TER.
The following discusses specific comments made concerning the draft responses.
Item 2.1.3 2.2 Comments (a)
Any changes needed as a result of the revie'w of EOPs need to be completed and verified before fuel load.
(b)
Comercial operation should be defined.
(c)
A statement should be added that modifications that would not be complete by fuel load are not safety related.
(d)
The average suppression pool temperature is safety related and fixes will be phased in.
NMPC needs to provide details of phase-in.
A license condition may be needed for this.
NMPC should add the statement that the documents as dis-cussed in the draft TER will be available in the control room.
Also this response should state that there is no discrepancy with NUREG-0700 in this area.
8606120037 860529 PDR ADOCK 050004l0
I I N ag
'%/
p e
4 lp S
II'1 i)1"
~ !
)
lf Si
Item 6.1.4.2.b 6.2.1.5.c Comments NNPC should add a commitment to clearly label the locations of emergency equipment.
NMPC should commit to clearly mark restrictive areas for radio transmission.
2.4.3 HEDs 403, 405, 407 409 Zone Banding:
(a) study should be completed before fuel load (b) temporary markers should be in place by 5X (c) permanent markers should be in place by first refueling.
Comments draft response acceptable (a) response should be revised to delete the words after
"...NUREG-0700 criteria" 411 412 413 419, 420, 422, 424,
- 425, 65, 909 Attachments (b) normal operating conditions cannot be confirmed until the plant is in the normal operating, mode.
draft response acceptable if NNPC encounters problems with nuisance alarms resulting from problems with equipment, then equipment may need to be replaced.
concern is written wrong; response in draft is acceptable.
response in draft is acceptable Comments (a) p.
2 of 3 875 - similar item has been reviewed; needs to be verified 851 - needs to be verified (b) a statement needs to be made in the introduction that these items will be verified before fuel l,oad.
k hi I'l~ )
)I fa h
'h
'r )
)r)~) 'I l )
ih))
')
))
)) ~\\
~
il)F Il f F
~
I' Attachments Comments This attachment is redundant 'and will not be submitted.
In addition, during a conference call on May 22, 1986, with Mr.
Don Hill con-cerning the DCRDR the NRC stated that NMPC should include in their response the results of the eight HEOs discussed on pages 22 and 23 of the May 16,
The 'NRC indicated that the need for an additional site visit before fuel load has not yet been determined.
A list of meeting attendees for the May 20, 1986, meeting is included as Enclosure 3.
Enclosures:
As stated y F. Haughey, Project Manager
~
~
~
~
~
~
BWR Proiect Directorate No.
3 Division of BWR Licensing cc:
see next page MHaughey/hmc 5/gg/86 D:
- DBL EAdensam 6/g/86
'I e
~ i
~ ie
)
MEETING
SUMMARY
DISTRIBUTION cket No:
50-410
'NRC PDR Local PDR BWD ¹3 r/f J. Partlow E.
Adensam
- Attorney, OELD E. Jordan B. Grimes A'CRS (10)
P '.lf I
~M.H h
E. Hylton
'NRC PARTICIPANTS M. Haughey S.
N. Saba J.
Kramer bcc:
Applicant 8 Service List
4 4 1
F
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
'egion 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 Nucl'ear 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
)
~
'I
~~~~ ~~
ENCLOSURE I Lawrence Livermore
< n tory NUCLEAR SYSTEMS SAPEIY PROGRAM May 8, 1986
- r. Saba Saba Nuclear Regulatory Commission Air Wrights Building 4550 Montgomery Ave.
North Lobby, Fifth Floor
- Bethesda, MD 20814
SUBJECT:
Supplemental Technical Evaluation Report of the ¹ine Mile Point Unit 2 Detailed Control Room Design Review
Dear Saba:
Attached is the first draft of our Supplemental Technical Evaluation Report (TER) that assesses the information provided by the Nine Mile Point Unit 2 (NMP-2) DCRDR Supplemental Summary Report.
As part of our review, we examined all the reported differences between the NUREG-0700 control room survey human factors criteria and the criteria used at NMP-2.
With respect to the criteria you specifically asked us about, our findings are included in Section 2.2 or the Supplemental TER (i.e., 6.1.2.3.a, 6.1.2.5.a, 6.1.2.5.b.l, 6.2.l.l.b, 6.3.1.5).
Ifyou wish any revisions to the TER Supplement, please give us a calL jyb:860501 G
L J HN0 Electronics Engineering Systems Research Group men Copy to:
J. W. Moore, LLNL R. Ramirez, NRC L. Ruth, NRC R. L. White, LLNL-LY An EqVal CPPOrrVrNryEmPlOyer Un'UerSi tyOlCallOm'a
~ PO 9OX 808 LAermOre. Cal'famia 94550
~ TelePhOne (415) 422-1 100 ~ TWX910.386-8339 UCLLL LYME
I