ML18037A317
| ML18037A317 | |
| Person / Time | |
|---|---|
| Site: | Nine Mile Point  |
| Issue date: | 01/02/1981 |
| From: | Tedesco R Office of Nuclear Reactor Regulation |
| To: | Rhode G NIAGARA MOHAWK POWER CORP. |
| References | |
| NUDOCS 8101160590 | |
| Download: ML18037A317 (6) | |
Text
(
p g ~p~
g 1981 Docket No.:
50-410 Niagara Mohawk Power Corporation ATTN:
Nr. Gerald K. Rhode Vice President Project Management 300 Erie Boulevard Rest
- Syracuse, New York 13202 DIST:
~IIIIIcket File NRR Rdg DEisenhut RPurple JYoungblood KKiper HDLynch NRushbrook PCheck
'Rubenstein ASchwencer JHi 1 1 er FMiraglia RVollmer THurley
'Ross FSchro er JKnight
- RTedesco, VNoonan RHartfield, NPA OELD OIE (3) bcc:
TERA NRC/PDR c=c-L/PDR N SIC,~~~K TIC ACRS (16)I mI,
~
C>t; ~
.r!I:c-
- e~cp'
Dear Nr. Rhode:
Subject:
Proposed Design Change of the )fain Steam Isolation Valves for Nine Nile Point, Unit 2 In your letters, dated April 3, 1979 and September 8, 1980, you requested approval of a design change in the Nine Nile Point, Unit 2, main steam isolation valves.
You proposed using a 24-inch positive seal ball valve designed and manufactured by the Fluid Systems Division, Energy Products Group of Gulf and Restern Yianufacturing Company.
This valve would be substituted for the Y-pattern globe valve with its seal water system described in your PSAR.
You stated that because of the unique design of the positive valve seal, the leakage from this valve would be negligible.
You concluded that a main steam isolation valve leakage control system would not be necessary.
On this basis you stated that you do not plan to install such a system for these valves.
You referenced Gulf and Restern's Topical Report, No.
GER-FSD 2538, which deals with the main steam valve system and requested completion of our review of this report by December 31, 1980, in order to maintain your current engineering and construction schedule.
The NRC's review of topical reports in general has a
low priority at present.
Specifically, this GER Topical'Report is not scheduled for review.before mid-1981.
However, it is our position that use of this valve need not be contingent on our review of this topical report.
Re see no problem ifyou proceed with the procurement and installation of these
- valves, based on your determination that the valve satisfies our acceptance criteria.,
for HSIV's.
The basis for our position on this matter is that the integrity of these valves will be ascertained by strict in-service inspection and testing requirements.
In particular, you will be required to check these valves with the same frequency a'nd against the same leakage requirements as main steam valves with a supplemental leakage control system.
If the leakage exceeds these specifications or if our later review of the topical report discloses problems with the proposed
- system, we will require you to repair, modify, or replace these valves.
It is our further position that you should reserve space and the appropriate containment penetrations in the event that we require backfitting of a leakage control system at a later date.
stot'xV6 OFFICE P i.
SURNAME
~
~
DATE/ .
NRC FORM 318 {9./6) NRCM 0240 OU.S. GOVERNMENT PRINTING OFFICE: 1979.289 369
t8B 4
1 t
I rJ C
a 1
f AP J
II
Hr. Gerald K.,Rhode JAN 2 1981 r
Finally, we note that section A of Regulatory Guide 1.96, Revision 1, "Design of Main Steam Isolation Valve Leakage Control Systems for Boiling l<ater Reactor nuclear Power Plants," states:
"If an applicant proposes to use a method different from that described in this guide for implementing General Design Criteria 54 with regard to the control or limitation of leakage past the main steam isolation valves of a boiling water reactor, the acceptability of the alternative method will be determined by the staff on a case-by-case basis."
The method which the staff. recommends in section D.2 of Regulatory Guide 1.96 is a supplemental leakage control system, assuming that one of the more conventional MSIV's is being used.
Since your proposal is an alternative to this staff'osition, we will review it on a case-by-case basis no ear lier than 1981, as noted above.
, Sincerely, Robert L. Tedesco, Assistant Director for Licensing Division of Licensing gg/g@~
DE: AD)M E
VNoona
~,~i'.=;,.)VI)/8 12, /~( P~
~
E'C&SE I
OFFICE
~ SURNAME DATEP.
DL:LBP KLKiper
'1 1'/24'/'80"
'L:LB 1 MDLynch
"'11~0 D
B'll 1"
gbl oo 0""
DL:AD/L d
R Tedes
""'p.
>, NRC FORM'318 f9-76)'NRCM 0240 AU.S. GOVERNMENT PRINTING OFFICE! 1979 289 369
e g -e f88 g yy, ji
/
(
4
Niagara Mohawk Power Corporation ccs:
Eugene B. Thomas, Esq.
- LeBoeuf, Lamb, Leiby 5 MacRae 1333 New Hampshire Avenue, N.W.
Suite 1100 Washington, D.
C.
20036 Anthony Z. Roisman, Esq.
Natural Resources Defense Council 917 15th Street, N.
W.
Washington, D.
C.
20005 Mr. Richard Goldsmith Syracuse University College of Law E. I. White Hall Campus
- Syracuse, New York 13210 T.
K. DeBoer, Director Technological Development Programs New York State Energy Office Swan Street Building Core 1
2nd Floor Empire State Plaza
- Albany, New York 12223 Resident Inspector Nine Mile Point Nuclear Power Station P. 0.
Box 126
- Lycoming, New York 13093 Ezra I. Bialik Assistant Attorney General Environmental Protection Bureau New York State Department of Law 2 World Trade Center New York, New York 10047
.0
+ ~wa VV g->~ >
I I
I t
V 1