ML20084B350
| ML20084B350 | |
| Person / Time | |
|---|---|
| Site: | Nine Mile Point  |
| Issue date: | 04/03/1984 |
| From: | Mangan C NIAGARA MOHAWK POWER CORP. |
| To: | Starostecki R NRC OFFICE OF INSPECTION & ENFORCEMENT (IE REGION I) |
| References | |
| 84-04, 84-4, NMP2L-0023, NMP2L-23, NUDOCS 8404260187 | |
| Download: ML20084B350 (2) | |
Text
r
... ~
M V NIAGARA RUMOHAWK NIAGARA MOHAWK POWER CORPORATION /300 ERIE BOULEVARD WEST, SYRACUSE, N Y.13202/ TELEPHONE (315) 474-1511 April 3,1984 (NMP2L 0023)
Mr. R. W. Starostecki, Director U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission Region I Division of Project and Resident Programs 631 Park Avenue King of Prussia, PA 19406 Re: Nine Mile Point Unit 2 Docket-No. 50-410
Dear Mr. Starostecki:
Enclosed is a final report in accordance with 10CFR50.55(e) for the problem concerning hydrostatic uplift pressure in the reactor building mat design (55(e) 04). This problem was reported via telecon to S. Collins of your staff on January 30, 1984 and followed by an interim report on February 29, 1984.
Very truly yours, d2/h%dA C. V. Manffan Vice President Nuclear Engineering & Licensing CVM/TL:ja Enclosure xc: Director of Inspection and Enforcement U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission Washington, DC 20555
. R. A. Granen, Resident Inspector-8404260187 840403 PDR ADOCK 0500 y'\\
__S l
N'O
s NIAGARA M0 HAWK POWER CORPORATION NINE MILE POINT - UNIT 2 DOCKET N0. 50-410 Final Report for a Problem Concerning Reactor Building Mat Design (55(e) 04)
Description of the-Problem The reactor building mat design did not consider hydrostatic uplift pressure because at the time it was believed that this pressure would not exist due to the mat drainage system. However, during final design verification of the mat, it was concluded that since the drainage pumps are non-Category I, the hydrostatic uplift pressure should be included in the mat design.
Analysis of Safety Implications Our review of the reactor building mat design indicates that the stresses in the mat for load combination (s) that includes hydrostatic uplift pressure would still remain within allowable limits, and the minimum factors of safety against overturning, sliding and flotation given in Final Safety Analysis Report Section 3.8.5.5 would also be met. Therefore, if this problem were to have remained uncorrected, it would not have adversely affected the safety of operation of the plant. As a result, the criteria for reportability under 10CFR50.55(e) have not been met.
i L