ML17059C552
| ML17059C552 | |
| Person / Time | |
|---|---|
| Site: | Nine Mile Point  |
| Issue date: | 02/08/1999 |
| From: | Hood D NRC (Affiliation Not Assigned) |
| To: | Mueller J NIAGARA MOHAWK POWER CORP. |
| References | |
| GL-95-07, GL-95-7, TAC-M93489, NUDOCS 9902100306 | |
| Download: ML17059C552 (12) | |
Text
February 8, 1999
Dear Mr. Mueller:
Mr. John H. Mueller t
Chief Nuclear Officer Niagara Mohawk Power Corporation Nine Mile Point Nuclear Station Operations Building, Second Floor
'P.O. Box 63 Lycoming, NY 13093
SUBJECT:
SUPPLEMENTAL REQUEST FOR ADDITIONALINFORMATION REGARDING GENERIC LETTER 95-07, "PRESSURE LOCKINGAND THERMALBINDINGOF SAFETY-RELATED POWER OPERATED GATE VALVES," NINE MILEPOINT NUCLEAR STATION, UNIT NO. 2 (TAC NO. M93489)
The U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission (NRC) issued Generic Letter (GL) 95-07 on August 17, 1995, and you responded by letters dated October 16, 1995, and February 13, 1996. The NRC staff requested additional information on May 21, 1996, and you responded June 20, 1996. On November 21, 1996, you revised your response to our request of May 21, 1996, based upon further review of your method for evaluating pressure locking and thermal binding.
We are reviewing your November 21, 1996, response and find that additional information, identified in the enclosure, is needed.
The schedule for responding to this letter was discussed with Mr. S. Leonard and others in your organization.
Based upon that discussion, a mutually agreeable response date is April 15, 1999.
Ifyou have questions regarding this letter or are unable to meet this response schedule, please contact me by phone on (301) 415-3049 or by electronic mail at dsh@nrc.gov.
Sincerely, 9902i00306 990208 PDR ADOCK 05000410 P
PDR Docket No. 50-410 Origina1 signed by:
Darl S. Hood, Senior Project Manager Project Directorate I-1 Division of Reactor Projects - I/II Office of Nuclear Reactor Regulation
Enclosure:
Supplemental Request for Additional Information cc w/encl: See next page DISTRIBUTION:
~ f,, -,W P'-/
37'I Docket File PUBLIC PDI-1 R/F SBajwa S Little DHbod OGC ACRS LDoerflein, Rl S Tingen RWessman T~
JZwolin ski pe DOCUMENT NAME: G:hNMP2>RAI93489.WPD To receive a copy of this document, indicate in the box: "C" = Copy without attachment/enclosure "E" = Copy with attachment/enclosure "N" = No co OFF!CE PM:PDl-1 E
LA:PDI-1 0:PDi-'I EMEB NAME DHood/rsl SLjtti SBa wa RNossman DATE 02/
/99 02/
/99 02/
/ 9 02/
/99 Official Record Copy I ' L/g j
I
\\
J'% '
Mr. John H. Mueller Chief Nuclear Officer Niagara Mohawk Power Corporation Nine Mile Point Nuclear Station Operations Building, Second Floor P.O. Box 63 Lycoming, NY 13093 February 8, 1999
SUBJECT:
SUPPLEMENTAL REQUEST FOR ADDITIONALINFORMATION REGARDING GENERIC LETTER 95-07, "PRESSURE LOCKINGANDTHERMALBINDINGOF SAFETY-RELATED POWER OPERATED GATE VALVES," NINE MILEPOINT=
NUCLEAR STATION, UNIT NO. 2 (TAC NO. M93489)
Dear Mr. Mueller.
The U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission (NRC) issued Generic Letter (GL) 95-07 on August 17, 1995, and you responded by letters dated October 16, 1995, and February 13, 1996. The NRC staff requested additional information on May 21, 1996, and you responded June 20, 1996. On November 21, 1996, you revised your response to our request of May 21, 1996, based upon further review of your method for evaluating pressure locking and thermal binding.
We are reviewing your November 21, 1996, response and find that additional information, identified in the enclosure, is needed.
The schedule for responding to this letter was discussed with Mr. S. Leonard and others in your organization.
Based upon that discussion, a mutually agreeable response date is April 15, 1999.
Ifyou have questions regarding this letter or are unable to meet this response schedule, please contact me by phone on (301) 415-3049 or by electronic mail at dsh@nrc.gov.
Sincerely, Docket No. 50-410 original signed by:
Darl S. Hood, Senior Project Manager Project Directorate I-1 Division of Reactor Projects - I/II Office of Nuclear Reactor Regulation
Enclosure:
Supplemental Request for Additional Information 4
ccw/encl: See next page DISTRIBUTION'ocket File PUBLIC PDI-1 R/F SBajwa OGC S Little ACRS DHood LDoerflein, Rl S Tingen RWessrnEIn ~T~
JZwolinski DOCUMENT NAME: G:WMP2<RAI93489.WPD To receive a copy of this document, indicate in the box: "C" = Copy without attachment/enclosure "E" = Copy with attachment/enclosure.
"N"= No co OFFICE HAHE DATE PH:PDI 1
DHood/rsI 02/
/99 E
LA:PDI-1 SLIttI 02/
/99 D:PDI-1 SBaIwa 02/
/
Official Record Copy EHEB Rwessman 02/
/99
~
~
gP,R REGS
+4 'o 0O
~o
++*++
UNITED STATES NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSION WASHINGTON, D.C. 2055&4001 February 8, 1999 Mr. John H. Mueller Chief Nuclear Officer Niagara Mohawk Power Corporation Nine Mile Point Nuclear Station Operations Building, Second Floor P.O. Box 63 Lycoming, NY 13093
SUBJECT:
SUPPLEMENTAL REQUEST FOR ADDITIONALINFORMATION REGARDING GENERIC LETTER 95-07, "PRESSURE LOCKINGAND THERMALBINDINGOF SAFETY-RELATED POWER OPERATED GATE VALVES," NINE MILEPOINT NUCLEAR STATION, UNIT NO. 2 (TAC NO. M93489)
Dear Mr. Mueller:
The U.S. Nuclear ReguIatory Commission (NRC) issued Generic Letter (GL) 95-07 on August 17, 1995, and you responded by letters dated October 16, 1995, and February 13, 1996. The NRC staff requested additional information on May 21, 1996, and you responded June 20, 1996. On November 21, 1996, you revised your response to our request of May 21, 1996, based upon further review of your method for evaluating pressure locking and thermal binding. We are reviewing your November 21, 1996, response and find that additional information, identified in the enclosure, is needed.
The schedule for responding to this letter was discussed with Mr. S. Leonard and others in your organization.
Based upon that discussion, a mutually agreeable response date is April 15, 1999.
Ifyou have questions regarding this letter or are unable to meet this response schedule, please contact me by phone on (301) 415-3049 or by electronic mail at dsh@nrc.gov.
Sincerely, Docket No. 50410 Darl S. Hood, Senior Project Manager Project Directorate I-1 Division of Reactor Projects - I/II Office of Nuclear Reactor. Regulation
Enclosure:
Supplemental Request for Additional Information ccw/encl: See next page
John H. Mueller Niagara Mohawk Power Corporation Nine Mile Point Nuclear Station Unit No. 2 cc:
Regional Administrator, Region I
U. S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission 475 Allendale Road King of Prussia, PA 19406 Resident Inspector Nine Mile Point Nuclear Station P.O. Box 126 Lycoming, NY 13093 Mr. Jim Rettberg NY State Electric & Gas Corporation Corporate Drive Kirkwood Industrial Park P.O. Box 5224 Binghamton, NY 13902-5224 Mr. John V. Vinquist, MATS Inc.
P.O. Box 63 Lycoming, NY 13093 Supervisor Town of Scriba Route 8, Box 382 Oswego, NY 13126 Mr. Richard Goldsmith Syracuse University College of Law E.l. White Hall Campus
- Syracuse, NY.12223 Charles Donaldson, Esquire Assistant Attorney General New York Department of Law 120 Broadway New York, NY 10271 Mr. Timothy S. Carey Chair and Executive Director State Consumer Protection Board 5 Empire State Plaza, Suite 2101 Albany, NY 12223 Mark J. Wetterhahn, Esquire Winston 8 Strawn 1400 L Street, NW.
Washington, DC 20005-3502 Gary D. Wilson, Esquire Niagara Mohawk Power Corporation 300 Erie Boulevard West Syracuse, NY 13202 Mr. F. WilliamValentino, President New York State Energy, Research, and Development Authority Corporate Plaza West 286 Washington Avenue Extension Albany, NY 12203-6399
t q7
SUPPLEMENTAL RE VEST FOR ADDITIONALINFORMATION REGARDING RESPONSE TO GENERIC LETTER 95-07 NIAGARAMOHAWKPOWER CORPORATION NINE MILE POINT NUCLEAR STATION UNIT NO. 2 DOCKET NO. 50-410 1.
Your November 21, 1996, submittal states that the RCIC-steam-exhaust-to-suppression-pool valve, 2ICS*MOV122, is susceptible to thermal binding.
It also states that no corrective action is required because the valve would be declared inoperable and a Technical Specification (TS) action statement would be entered.
Please clarifywhen the valve would be declared inoperable (i.e., the instant the valve dosed or when the valve failed to open').
2.
You performed calculations for numerous valves to demonstrate that they could operate without pressure locking. Ifadditional calculations have been performed that change the November 26, 1996 results regarding the valves listed below, then provide those calculations.
You evaluated the following valves as having adequate actuator capacity to overcome pressure locking scenarios at the specific point of operation during an accident; therefore, you plan no modification for pressure locking mitigation:
2CSH*MOV101 2CSL'MOV107 2ICS*MOV121 2ICS*MOV122, 2ICS'MOV129 2ICS*MOV128 2RHS'MOV4A/B/C 2RHS*MOV115 2RHS'MOV116 2SWP'MOV17A/B 2SWP*MOV18A/8 2SWP*MOV21A/B 2SWP*MOV66A/8 2SWP*MOV67A/8 2SWP*MOV94A/B High Pressure Core Spray (HPCS) Pump Suction Isolation Low Pressure Core Spray (LPCS) Pump Minimum Flow Bypass Isolation Reactor Core Isolation Cooling (RCIC) Steam Supply Outboard Isolation RCIC Steam Exhaust to Suppression Pool RCIC Pump Suction Isolation RCIC Steam Supply Inboard Isolation Residual Heat Removal (RHR) Loop Pump Minimum Flow Isolation Service Water (SW)/RHR Containment Flooding Cross Tie SW/RHR Containment Flooding Cross Tie Isolation SW to Spent Fuel Cooling (SFC) Heat Exchanger Isolation SW from SFC Heat Exchanger Isolation SW Spent Fuel Pool Makeup Isolation SW Return Isolation From Diesel Generator (DG)
Cooler SW To Control Room Chiller Isolation SW Return From HPCS DG Cooler Isolation Enclosure
C iJ Regarding the methodology used for these calculations, discuss:
(1)
Minimum margins that should be applied between calculated pressure-locking thrust and actuator capability, (2)
Any diagnostic equipment accuracy requirements, and (3)
Methodology limitations.
Is this methodology used for fiexible and/or double disk gate valves'P How did you validate this methodology
'UREG/CR-6611, "Results of Pressure locking and thermal Binding Tests of Gate Valves," may help in validating your methodology.
The margins along with diagnostic equipment accuracy and methodology limitations for the Commonwealth Edison (ComEd) methodology are defined in a letter from ComEd to the NRC dated May 29, 1998. The above questions about your methodology are similar to the questions we asked regarding the ComEd methodology.
4