ML19269D243

Updates Status of Corrective Actions Re Deficiency in Design of Safety Relief Valve Sys.Safety Relief Valve Load Assessment Will Be Completed in March 1979,final Rept Will Be Submitted by 790501

ML19269D243
Person / Time
Site:	Shoreham File:Long Island Lighting Company icon.png
Issue date:	11/27/1978
From:	Novarro J LONG ISLAND LIGHTING CO.
To:	Grier B NRC OFFICE OF INSPECTION & ENFORCEMENT (IE REGION I)
Shared Package
ML19269D242	List: ML19269D243
References
SNRC-339, NUDOCS 7903200322
Download: ML19269D243 (2)

Text

, .'.

l_ONG ISLAND LIGHTING COMPANY f4C@

awammw SHOREHAM NUCLEAR POWER STATION P.O. DOX 618, NORTH COUNTRY ROAD e WADING RIVER, N.Y.11792 November 27, 1978 SNRC-339 Mr. Boyce Grier, Director Office of Inspection & Enforcement Region 1 U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission 631 Park Avenue -

King of Prussia, PA 19406 LONG ISLAND LIGHTING COMPANY Shoreham Nuclear Power Station - Unit 1 Docket No. 50-322

Dear Mr. Grier:

On October 13, 1977, in accordance with 10CFR50.55(e) we reported verbally to Region 1 a deficiency in the design of the Safety Relief Valve (SRV) system. On November 18, 1977, we submitted an interim 30-day report, and on February 23, 1978, we submitted a 90-day follow-un report. This letter serves to further update the Co:=nission on the status of this particular deficiency and to establish an estimated date for " Full Compliance."

In our February 23, 1978, letter to the NRC we pointed out two alternative corrective actions that we could take denending upon data that was currently being generated as part of the Mark 11 containment test the first being to verify that the plant could withstand " program;second pop" loads and the second being a modi-fication to the SRV control system to preclude all SRV's acuating in the "second pop" mode. At that time we informed you that we anticipated making a decision on an SRV load mitigating device in May of 1978 and hoped to resolve the second pop deficiency a short time after that decision. Although Shoreham has made a oscision on an SRV load mitigating device and has selected the KWU "f" quencher, the load definition for this device has not been fully evaluated.

In order to make a determination as to which corrective action alternatives as defined in our Februs :y 23, 1978, letter will be employed; more detailed analysis is required to determine if the 7 90 3 20 0 37 L

_ .~ -

Mr. Boyce Grier November 27, 1978 Page 2 current "T" quencher subsequent pop loads are satisfactory. If that is the case, it would preclude the need to incorporate the GE SRV control system modification.

We will close out this issue by completing our SRV load assess-ment in March 1979, and will submit our final report on the "second pop" deficiency to you by May 1, 1979.

Very truly yours,

,~, -

,. ., ,4 J. P. Novar*

Proj ect Ma ; gal Shoreham N.-leet Power Station WJM:jv

.