ML17055E254
| ML17055E254 | |
| Person / Time | |
|---|---|
| Site: | Nine Mile Point  |
| Issue date: | 10/12/1988 |
| From: | Varga S Office of Nuclear Reactor Regulation |
| To: | Mangan C NIAGARA MOHAWK POWER CORP. |
| Shared Package | |
| ML17055E255 | List: |
| References | |
| TAC-66750, NUDOCS 8810240537 | |
| Download: ML17055E254 (6) | |
Text
October 12, 1988 Docket No. 50-F20 Distribution Jt, RI NRCPDR BBoger Local PDR OGC PDI-1 Rdg CVogan TMurley/JSniezek FMiraglia SECY CRossi
'RM/LFMB TBarnhart (4)
SVarga MHaughey EJor dan GPA/PA ACRS (10)
Mr. Charles V. Mangan Senior Vice President Niagara Mohawk Power Corporation 301 Plainfield Road
- Syracuse, New York 13212
Dear Mr. Mangan:
SUBJECT:
FOR NINE MILE POINT UNIT 1 (TAC 66750)
In a letter dated
)anuary 21,
- 1988, vou discussed exceptions taken at Nine Mile Point Unit 1 to the June 24, 1983.Confirmatory Order regarding the SDV.
These exceptions included (1) an exception to Design Criterion 3 of the Generic Safety Evaluation (GSE which states instrument taps shall be provided on the vertical instrument volume and not on the connected piping and (2) an exception to Surveillance Criterion 3 of the GSE concerning a periodic 50 percent control rod density test.
A third requested deviation regarding diverse level instrumentation was retracted in your letter of October 9, 1981.
In the process of reviewing the design of the instrument taps for the level instrumentation, the staff determined that the SDV design at Nine Mile Point Unit 1 did not fully resolve the GSE's concern regarding adequate hydraulic coupling.
Specifically, there was a potential for a common mode failure resulting from corrosion product ("crud") buildup or blockage in the instrument lines.
On March 1, 1988, the NRC staff met with members of your staff to discuss these concerns.
During that meeting the NRC staff was shown a video tape of a boroscope inspection of the SDV instrument lines.
While this video tape alleviated the staff's immediate concerns relating to the potential crud buildup in the instrument lines, the staff was concerned that the operability of the SDV system be verified after rewelding the piping that was cut to allow the boroscope entrance.
In a letter dated June 3, 1988, you submitted a
commitment to perform post-maintenance testing before and during startup to confirm the operability of the SDV system.
The staff has reviewed the January 21, 1988 letter concerning the deviations to the SDV Confirmatory Order, as well as your June 3, 1988 commitment to perform post-maintenance testing.
The staff has determined that the proposed
- tests, in conlunction with the boroscope inspection reviewed during the March 1, 1988 meeting and the recording and review of the system response during the scrams which occurred during the last cycle, are sufficient to ensure SS10240537 SS1012 PDR ADOCK 05000220 P
~
~
21 I
operability of the SDV system for one cycle.
The details of our review are contained in the enclosed Safety Evaluation.
I In a letter dated August 17, 1988, you proposed performing" a 'periodic test consisting of the post-maintenance testing discussed in your June 3, 1988
- letter, each refueling outage if a scram has not occurred during the last
,. operating cycle, or if the pressure boundary of the scram discharge instrument volume is opened to perform maintenance, testing, or inspections.
Furthermore, your August 17, 1988 letter indicated that a request for a Technical Specifications amendment to include this test requirement would be s0bmitted by December 31, 1988.
The staff will review the proposed amendment when it is submitted to determine the ability of the testing to ensure the acceptability of the SDV design for long term operation.
Sincerely,
Enclosure:
Safety Evaluation cc:
See next page original signed by Steven A. Varga, Director Division of Reactor Projects I/II Office of Nuclear Reactor Regulation
- SEE PREVIOUS CONCURRENCE PDI-1: LA CVogan 9/13/88*
PDI-1: PM MHaughey:vr 9/13/88*
SRXB MMHodges 9/13/88*
OGC MYoung 9/19/88*
PDI 1
D P
D 1
D RCapra B oger QV I0/5 /88 (0/ 8/88 I
i 88
I
)I
/ II t
I 11 I
V
Mr. C. V. Mangan Niagara Mohawk Power Corporation Nine Mile Point Nuclear Station, Unit No.
1 CC:
Mr. Troy B. Conner, Jr., Esquire Conner 8 Wetterhahn Suite 1050 1747 Pennsylvania
- Avenue, N.
W.
Washington, D.
C.
20006 Mr. Frank R. Church, Supervisor Town of Scriba R.
D. ¹2
- Oswego, New York 13126 Mr. James L. Willis General Supt.-Nuclear Generation Niagara Mohawk Power Corporation Nine Mile Point Nuclear Station Post Office Box 32
- Lycoming, New York 13093 Resident Inspector U. S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission Post Office Box 126
- Lycoming, New.York 13093 Mr. Gary D. Wilson, Esquire Niagara Mohawk Power Corporation 300 Erie Boulevard West
- Syracuse, New York 13202
,, Regional Administrator, Region I U.
S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission 475 Allendale Road King of Prussia, Pennsylvania 19406 Ms.
Donna Ross New York State Energy Office 2 Empire State Plaza 16th Floor
- Albany, New York 12223 Mr. Thomas W.
Roman Unit 1 Station Superintendent Nine Mile Point Nuclear Station Post Office Box 32
- Lycoming, New York 13093 Mr. Peter E. Francisco, Licensing Niagara Mohawk Power Corporation 301 Plainfield Road
- Syracuse, New York 13212 Charlie Donaldson, Esquire Assistant Attornye General New York Department of Law 120 Broadway New York, New York 10271
r