ML17055E348
| ML17055E348 | |
| Person / Time | |
|---|---|
| Site: | Nine Mile Point  |
| Issue date: | 11/23/1988 |
| From: | Haughey M Office of Nuclear Reactor Regulation |
| To: | Office of Nuclear Reactor Regulation |
| Shared Package | |
| ML17055E349 | List: |
| References | |
| NUDOCS 8811290448 | |
| Download: ML17055E348 (8) | |
Text
gAI~IEGy+
ge UNITED STATES NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSION WASHINGTON, D. C. 20555 November 23, 1988 Docket No.60-220 LICENSEE:
Niagara Mohawk Power Corporation (NMPC)
FACILITY:
Nine Mile Point Nuclear Station Unit 1
(NMP-1)
SUBJECT:
SUMMARY
OF NOVEMBER 17, 1988 MEETING WITH NIAGARA MOHAWK CORPORATION CONCERNING LICENSEE FOLLOll-UP ACTIONS FROM THE SAFETY SYSTEMS FUNCTIONAL'NSPECTION OF NMP-1 During the period of September 12, 1988 through October 7, 1988 the NRC staff conducted a special announced team inspection (Safety Systems Functional Inspection (SSFI)) at NMP-1.
The systems reviewed during this inspection were the core spray system and the high pressure coolant injection system.
On October 26, 1988 the staff issued a "quick look letter" to the licensee to document a
summary of the significant findings from the SSFI in advance of the inspection report so that appropriate corrective actions might be factored into the licensee's restart planning activities for NMP-1.
A copy of this letter is included as Enclosure l.
On November 17, 1988 the staff met with representatives of NMPC to discuss the licensee's action plan to address the issues in the October 26 "quick look letter."
A copy of the licensee's slides outlining the proposed responses to the issues raised in the "ouick look letter" is included as Enclosure 2.
At the conclusion of the meeting the NRC staff noted the following concerns:
l.
Based on inspection findings concerning the core spray system alarm setpoints and procedural responses, the staff is concerned that the procedures contain some action statements which operators may be prepared to ignore because they may be inappropriate in certain situations.
The licensee should review its procedures to verify that they contain the appropriate actions in all circumstances and retrain the operators, if necessary, to fo'Ilow procedures.
P.
As indicated in Enclosure 1,
a number of staff concerns have been addressed by the licensee through either design basis calculations that have been located subsequent to the SSFI team visit or through new calculations that were performed subsequent to the team visit, often by outside consultants.
The staff requested that these calculations be submitted for staff review. If the results of the NRC review of these calculations are to be factored into the SSFI report, the calculations should be submitted as soon as possible.
88ii29044 5000220 48 88ii23 PDR ADOCK 0 pEp O
3.
The staff requested a more detailed schedule (i.e., actual dates) for the action items discussed in Enclosure 2.
4.
The staff is still concerned about the potential for water hammer in the core spray system.
The staff is not certain that the proposed analyses and tests would identify the potential for water hammer if it exists.
In addition, the licensee has not proposed any action should the potential be identified.
The staff suggested that the licensee reconsider the addition of a new design to keep the system filled.
5.
The licensee should review the plant design bases analyses to verify that the revised calculations do not affect other calculations.
'Because many of the proposed resolutions were based on analyses that had not yet been reviewed by the staff, tests that had not yet been performed, or other actions that had not yet been completed, the staff stated that it was not yet able to reach a conclusi'on on the adequacy of the proposed action plan in response to the "quick look letter."
Additional details with respect to the licensee's action plan are expected to be provided in the licensee's response to the "quick look letter" scheduled to be submitted December 15, 1988.
A list of meeting attendees is included as Enclosure 3.
Enclosures:
1.
guick Look Letter dated October 26, 1988 2.
NMP-1 SSFI guick Look Meeting 3.
Meeting Attendees cc w/enclosures:
See next page Mary F. Haughey, roject Manager Project Directorate I-1 Division of Reactor Projects, I/II
I
DISTRIBUTION FOR MEETING
SUMMARY
DATED:
Facility:
Nine Mile Point Nuclear Station Unit I
%Docket fi'lge NRC PDR Local PDR PDI-1 Rdg F. Miraglia D. Crutchfield A. Dromerick R. Capra M. Haughey R. Benedict OGC E. Jordan B. Grimes W. Hodges J.
Dyer C. Haughney J.
R. Johnson, RI B. Boger F. Orr A. Thadani S.
Varga ACRS (10)
M. Johnson, RI pro (
7 l7 7
DISTRIBUTION FOR MEETING
SUMMARY
DATED:
Facility:
Nine Mile Point Nuclear Station Unit 1
~Docket fil.e NRC PDR Local PDR PDI-1 Rdg F. Miraglia D. Crutchfield A. Dromerick R. Capra M. Haughey R. Benedict OGC E. Jordan B. Grimes W. Hodges J.
Dyer C.
Haughney J.
R. Johnson, RI B. Boger F. Orr A. Thadani S.
Varga ACRS (10)
M. Johnson, RI
S