ML17055C427
| ML17055C427 | |
| Person / Time | |
|---|---|
| Site: | Nine Mile Point  |
| Issue date: | 09/18/1986 |
| From: | Haughey M Office of Nuclear Reactor Regulation |
| To: | Mangan C NIAGARA MOHAWK POWER CORP. |
| References | |
| NUDOCS 8609250218 | |
| Download: ML17055C427 (6) | |
Text
.0 September 18, 1986 Docket No. 50-410 Mr. C. V. Mangan, Senior Vice President Niagara Mohawk Power Corporation 300 Erie Boulevard West
- Syracuse, New York 13202
Dear Mr. Mangan:
D RIBUTION:
oc et o.
0-410 NRC PDR Local PDR BWD-3 r/f EAdensam MHaughey EHylton
Subject:
Response
to August 21, 1986, Letter Concerning Comments on Nine Mile Point Unit 2 SSER-3 In a letter dated August 21, 1986, you submitted comments to Supplement 3 to the Nine Mile Point Unit 2 (NMP-2) Safety Evaluation Report (SER).
The staff has reviewed your comments and our response is enclosed.
For'ome of these issues the staff has agreed to revise the SER for clarity.
No response to these items is required.
For other items,
- however, the staff has rejected the comments.
Niagara Mohawk should respond to these items to close them.
Drafts of some of the enclosures were provided to Mr. Don Hill of your staff to assist Niagara Mohawk in providing responses to open or unclear items.
The enclosed responses may have been revised since that draft and it is therefore appropriate that you respond to the enclosures to this letter, not the drafts.
Sincerely,
Enclosures:
As stated
/S/
Mary F. Haughey, Proiect Manager BWR Project Directorate No.
3 Division of BWR Licensing cc:
See next page 8609250218 860918 1
PDR 'DOCK 05000410 E,
PD~I W -3$ DB MHau hey/hmc gg /86 LA'BL on 9/jf/86 D:
3:DBL EA e am 9/( g/86
P I
c
Mr. C.'V. Mangan Niagara, Mohawk Power Corporation Nine Mile Point Nuclear Station Unit 2 CC:
Mr. Troy B. Conner, Jr.,
Esq.
Conner 8 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 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 Serice Commission Nine Mile Point Nuclear Station-Unit II l
~
P.O.
Box 63
- Lycoming, New York 13093 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 Don Hill Niagara Mohawk Power Corporation Suite 550 4520 East West Highway
- Bethesda, Maryland 20814
NRC RESPONSE TO NMPC COMMENTS TO SSER-3 LETTER DATED AUGUST 21 1986 2-3 Accepted.
The SER will be revised.
3-1 Accepted.
The SER will be revised.
3-4 Accepted.
The SER will be revised.
4-2 Section 4.4.4.1, Last paragraph, 4th line will be revised to a transient delta CPR of 0.17.
6-18 The SER will be revised to clarify these valves will be de-energized.
7-1 No change required.
SSEP.
F3 is consistent with Feb. 7, 1986, letter from applicant.
7-2 Requested change made for editorial purposes.
7-5 Requested change made for editorial purposes.
7-8 13-2 Change made as necessary per FSAR page 7.6-2a for clarification; applicant's specific change request was not made since it was not pertinent to the SSER issue (i.e., requested valve number changes were relative to iniection valves whereas SSER discussion referenced pertains to inboard check valves).
The Niagara Mohawk letter of August 21, 1986, requested that the words, "on an interim basis,"
be removed from SSER-3, Section 13.3.2.8, regard-ing the NMP-2 emergency response facilities.
The reference for the comment was given as NRC Inspection Report IR 86-23.
IR 86-23 is the report of the findings of the onsite emerqency preparedness implementa-tion appraisal and while some aspects of the NMP-2 emergency response facilities (ERFs) were evaluated, it is not the post-implementation review referred to in SSER-3.
As stated in the SER and SSER-3, final staff evaluation of the opera-
'tional capability of the ERFs will be conducted as part of the post-implementation review of emergency response capabilities in accordance with the requirements in Supplement I to NUREG-0737.
The schedule for the post-implementation appraisal of the final ERFs will be established by agreement between Niagara Mohawk and the NRC.
In summary, SSER-3, Section 13.3.2.8, provides an acceptable basis for our reasonable assur-ance finding and there is no need to address the issue further in a supplement to the SER.
~
Q~
4
~~l