|
---|
Category:CORRESPONDENCE-LETTERS
MONTHYEARML20217L7971999-10-20020 October 1999 Submits Results of Review of 990521 & 0709 Ltrs Which Provided Core Shroud Insp Results & Tie Rod Stabilizer Assemblies ML20217G1291999-10-15015 October 1999 Forwards Errata to Safety Evaluation for Amend 168 Issued to FOL DPR-63 on 990921.Description of Flow Control Trip Ref Cards to Be Consistent with Application for Amend ML20217K2831999-10-14014 October 1999 Submits Response to NRC Administrative Ltr 99-02, Operating Reactor Licensing Action Estimates, for Fiscal Yrs 2000 & 2001 ML20217H3211999-10-0808 October 1999 Forwards Changed Pages for Issue 5,rev 1 of Nine Mile Point Station Physical Security & Safeguards Contingency Plan,Iaw 10CFR50.54(p).Without Encls ML20212K8601999-10-0606 October 1999 Responds to Concern in 990405 Petition Re Residual Heat Removal Alternate Shutdown Cooling Modes of Operation at Nine Mile Point Nuclear Station,Unit 2 ML20216J9311999-09-30030 September 1999 Forwards Response to NRC 981119 Suppl RAI Re GL 96-06, Assurance of Equipment Operability & Containment Integrity During Design-Basis Accident Conditions ML20212J4651999-09-30030 September 1999 Informs of Completion of mid-cyle PPR of Nine Mile Point Nuclear Station on 990916.Determined That Problems in Areas of Human Performance & Work Control Required Continued Mgt Attention.Historical Listing of Plant Issues Encl ML18040A3701999-09-30030 September 1999 Provides Changes to Application for Amend Re Volumes 1-11 of 981016 Submittal & Discard & Insertion Instructions Re Integration of Proposed Changes,In Response to NRC RAIs ML20212K8641999-09-30030 September 1999 Informs That During 990927 Telcon Between J Williams & J Bobka,Arrangements Were Made for Administration of Exams at Plant During Wk of Feb 14,2000.Preliminary RO & SRO License Applications Should Be Submitted 30 Days Prior Exam ML20212J8831999-09-30030 September 1999 Informs That Util 980810 & 990630 Responses to GL 98-01 & Suppl 1, Y2K Readiness of Computer Sys at NPPs Acceptable. NRC Considers Subj GL to Be Closed for Plant ML20212E9801999-09-23023 September 1999 Submits Info in Response to Request for Estimated Initial Operator Licensing Exam Needs,Per Administrative Ltr 99-03 ML20216F7101999-09-17017 September 1999 Forwards Response to NRC 990806 RAI Re USI A-46,verification of Seismic Adequacy of Mechanical & Electrical Equipment in Operating Reactors.Nrc Is Informed That Actions Required for Resolution of USI A-46 Have Been Completed ML20212B2821999-09-14014 September 1999 Responds to 990712 Correspondence Which Responded to NRC Ltr Re High Failure Rate for Generic Fundamentals Exam of 990407 for Nine Mile Point.Considers Corrective Actions Taken to Be Acceptable ML20212D8981999-09-14014 September 1999 Forwards ISI Summary Rept for Refueling Outage 15 & Flaw Indication Repts.Supporting Info Repts & Calculations, Encl ML20212B2581999-09-10010 September 1999 Requests That Name of Bm Bordenick Be Removed from Nine Mile Point,Units 1 & 2 Service List ML20211P5771999-09-10010 September 1999 Forwards Application for Amends to Licenses DPR-63 & NPF-69, to Transfer Licenses to Amergen Energy Co,Llc.Ts Pages & Proprietary Addendum,Included.Proprietary Encl Withheld ML20212A1341999-09-0707 September 1999 Forwards Summary Rept Secondary Containment Leakage Testing, Dtd June 1999 for Nine Mile Point,Unit 1,IAW TS 6.9.3.f ML20211K8141999-09-0101 September 1999 Forwards Reactor Containment Bldg Ilrt,Iaw Plant TS 6.9.3.e.Testing Confirmed That TS 3.3.3/4.3.3 & 6.16 Primary Containment Leakage Requirements Were Satisfactorily Met ML20211L9221999-09-0101 September 1999 Confirms That Licensee Will Retain Weld 32-WD-050 as IGSCC Category F Until Completion of Reinspection Program,In Response to NRC ML20211J6461999-08-30030 August 1999 Forwards Response to NRC 990625 RAI Re NMPC Responses to GL 92-01,rev 1,supplement 1, Reactor Vessel Structural Integrity ML20211K3001999-08-30030 August 1999 Forwards Semi-Annual Radioactive Effluent Release Rept for 990101-990630 & Revised ODCM, for Nine Mile Point,Unit 1. Format Used for Effluent Data Is Outlined in App B of Regulatory Guide 1.21,rev 1 ML20211K5031999-08-30030 August 1999 Responds to Ltr Addressed to Chairman Dicus, Expressing Concerns Involving 990624 Automatic Reactor Shutdown.Insp Findings & Conclusions Will Be Documented in Insp Repts 50-220/99-06 & 50-410/99-06 by mid-Sept 1999 ML20211H1921999-08-26026 August 1999 Forwards Application for Amend to License DPR-63,supporting Implementation of Noble Metal Chemical Addition by Raising Reactor Water Conductivity Limits in TSs 3.2.3.a,3.2.3.c.1 & 3.2.3.b ML20211P5161999-08-26026 August 1999 Discusses Submitted on Behalf of Niagara Mohawk Power Corp Written Comments Addressing 10CFR2.206 Petition & Request That Ltr & Attached Response Be Withheld from Public Disclosure.Request Denied ML20211G4921999-08-26026 August 1999 Advises That Info Re Comments Addressing 10CFR2.206,dtd 990405 Will Be Withheld from Public Disclosure,In Response to ML20211D7731999-08-20020 August 1999 Forwards Semiannual FFD Program Performance Data Rept Covering Period 990101 Through 990630 ML20211B9371999-08-18018 August 1999 Provides Addl Info Re Application of Method a at Nmp,Unit 1 as Described in Generic Implementation Procedure,Rev 2 (GIP-2),NRC Supplemental SER 2 & Documents Ref in GIP-2 Upon Which GIP-2 Is Based ML18040A3691999-08-16016 August 1999 Forwards Response to NRC 990510 RAI Pertaining to NMP Application for Amend Re Conversion of NMPNS Unit 2 Current TS to Its.Nrc Requested Info Re Several Sections,Including Section 3.6, Containment Sys. ML20210Q0031999-08-11011 August 1999 Informs That Due to Printing Malfunction,Some Copies of Author Ltr Dtd 990726,may Not Have Included Second Page of Encl 2 of Ltr ML20210R6661999-08-10010 August 1999 Confirms Conversation on 990721 Re Concerns of Syracuse Anti-Nuclear Effort on Status of 2.206 Petition (Filed 990524) & Upcoming NRC Performance Review Meeting on Nine Mile Point Units 1 & 2 ML20210R8101999-08-10010 August 1999 Forwards 1998 Annual Repts for NMP & co-tenants,including Rg&E,Energy East Corp/Nyse&G,Chg&E & Long Island Power Authority,Per 10CFR50.71(b) ML20210L5321999-08-0606 August 1999 Forwards List of Subjects Discussed During 990714 Telcon with Representatives of Niagara Mohawk Power Corp on Unit 1 Re USI A-46 Issue ML18041A0711999-07-30030 July 1999 Forwards Rev 1 to NMP2-ISI-006, Second Ten Year Interval ISI Program Plan for Nine Mile Point Nuclear Power Station Unit 2. Significant Changes from Rev 0 Listed ML20210J9351999-07-29029 July 1999 Informs That NMP Is Changing Completion Date for Replacement of Valves Having O Rings with Installed Life Greater than Eight Years.Replacement to Be Completed by 991031, During Hydrogen Monitoring Sys Maintenance Outage ML20216E1491999-07-26026 July 1999 Forwards Two Ltrs Received from NMPC Re Nine Mile Point Unit 1 Core Shroud Related to 10CFR2.206 ML20210E9151999-07-23023 July 1999 Discusses Evaluation of Recirculation Line Weld 32-WD-050 Indication Found During 1997 Refueling Outage (RFO14) at NMPNS Unit 1.Requests Notification of Decision to Retain Category F Classification Until Listed Conditions Satisfied ML20209G7911999-07-12012 July 1999 Provides Info Requested in NRC Re 990407 Generic Fundamentals Exam Failure Causes & Corrective Actions ML20209G3711999-07-12012 July 1999 Provides Final Root Cause Evaluation Re GL 94-03, Intergranular Stress Corrosion Cracking of Core Shrouds in Bwrs, for Unit 1 ML20209G2001999-07-0909 July 1999 Forwards RFO-15 Core Shroud Insp Summary Rept, as Required by GL 94-03, Intergranular Stress Corrosion Cracking of Core Shrouds in BWRs & BWRVIP Rept BWR Core Shroud Insp & Flaw Evaluation Guideline (BWRVIP-01) ML20209F8561999-07-0606 July 1999 Forwards Rev 1 to Nmp,Unit 1 COLR for Cycle 14. Rept Is Being Submitted to Commission in Compliance with TS 6.9.1.f.4 ML20211K5071999-07-0606 July 1999 Submits Concerns Re 990624 Event Involving Automatic Reactor Shutdown.More than 5 Failures Were Identified in Event Number 35857 ML20196J6421999-06-30030 June 1999 Discusses Completion of Licensing Action for GL 96-01, Testing of Safety-Related Logic Circuits, Issued on 960110 ML20209B7071999-06-30030 June 1999 Responds to NRC Request for Info Re Y2K Readiness at Nuclear Facilities,As Contained in GL 98-01,Supp 1, Y2K Readiness of Computer Sys at Nuclear Power Plants. Y2K Readiness Disclosure,Encl ML20211P5271999-06-29029 June 1999 Submits Written Comments Addressing Petition Dtd 990405, Submitted by R Norway as It Relates to Expressed Concerns That Involve NMPC Activities.None of Relief Requested in Petition Warranted ML20196K6461999-06-29029 June 1999 Discusses Ofc of Investigations Rept 1-98-33 Re Unqualified Senior Reactor Operator Assuming Position of Assistant Station Shift Supervisor at Unit 1 on 980616.One Violation Being Cited as Described in Encl NOV ML20209B3501999-06-25025 June 1999 Submits Torus Shell & Coupon Corrosion Rate Determination for Nmpns,Unit 1.Torus Meets ASME Code Requirements,Iaw NRC 920825 & 940811 SERs ML20212J4431999-06-25025 June 1999 Discusses Responses to RAI Re GL 92-01,rev 1,suppl 1, Reactor Vessel Structural Integrity ML20209B3531999-06-25025 June 1999 Informs NRC That All Actions Associated with NRC Bulletin 96-003, Potential Plugging of ECC Suction Strainers by Debris in Bwrs, Has Been Completed.Summary of Actions Completed & Other Pertinent Info Is Provided in Attachment ML20196F5721999-06-23023 June 1999 Forwards Rev 3 to NMP1-IST-003, Third Ten Year Inservice Testing Program Plan, Which Will Begin on 991226.Program Plan Conforms to Requirements of 1989 Edition of ASME Boiler & Pressure Vessel Code.Three Relief Requests,Encl ML20196G1461999-06-23023 June 1999 Informs That Actions Requested in GL 96-01, Testing of Safety-Related Logic Circuits Completed 1999-09-07
[Table view] Category:ENGINEERING/CONSTRUCTION/CONSULTING FIRM TO NRC
MONTHYEARML20247P9411989-05-17017 May 1989 FOIA Request for Final Open Item Transmittal Ltrs Per NRC Insp Procedure 94300B for Listed Plants 05000220/LER-1988-009, FOIA Request for LER 88-09,NRC Enforcement Conference W/Util on 880711,Insp Rept 50-220/88-15 & NRC Notice of Violation Ltr to Util1989-05-15015 May 1989 FOIA Request for LER 88-09,NRC Enforcement Conference W/Util on 880711,Insp Rept 50-220/88-15 & NRC Notice of Violation Ltr to Util ML20147G0741988-01-18018 January 1988 FOIA Request for All Documents Re NRC Investigation of Wg Dick Allegations About S&W & Lilco Re Performing NRC Instructions to Bring Facility Up to Fuel Load Stds ML20235A1251987-12-16016 December 1987 Forwards Info Re Resource Technical Svcs,Inc,Including Summary of NRC Contract Work,Nrc Form 26 for Three Existing Contracts,Audit Info,Work History & Lists of Expertise Available for Special Insps & of Current Resource Svcs ML20148F0581987-12-14014 December 1987 FOIA Request for Documents Re Vendor Lists for Facility as Compiled by Util or Any Contractors Between 1975 & 1978, Including Documentation Re Use of E-BRITE ML20238E3011987-06-29029 June 1987 FOIA Request for All Documents Described in App,Including Listed LERs & Revs for Plants,W/Original Attachments & Encls ML20216B8651987-05-0101 May 1987 Forwards Final EGG-NTA-7611, Conformance to Generic Ltr 83-28,Item 2.2.2-Vendor Interface Programs for All Other Safety-Related Components:Nine Mile Point Units 1 & 2, Informal Rept ML20209A8551987-01-16016 January 1987 FOIA Request for Documents to Be Placed in Pdr,Including NRC Re Calibr of Test Equipment allegation,1986 Inservice Insp Repts for McGuire 1 & Surry 1 & NRC 830307 SALP on Nine Mile Point 2 ML20195C5951986-03-14014 March 1986 FOIA Request for Structural Integrity Test Repts for Shoreham,Limerick-1,Nine Mile Point-2 & Susquehanna ML20141N5311986-02-10010 February 1986 Comments on Review of Structural Adequacy of BWR Mark II Downcomers for Nine Mile Point 2 Nuclear Power Station. Allowable Moments Are Less than Calculated Applied Moment of 4914 in-kips ML20133H0871985-10-10010 October 1985 Requests Ltr Stating That Listed Facilities Do Not Have Fuel Element Transfer Tubes.Documentation Needed for IE Bulletin 78-08 Closeout Rept ML18038A0031985-03-0707 March 1985 Forwards Rev 1 to Vol 1, Summary & Conclusions, to Final Rept of Independent Review of Nine Mile 2 Related NRC Const Assessment Team Insps & SALP Rept & Niagara Mohawk Identified Deficiencies, Per 841114 Presentation ML20093J1111984-09-21021 September 1984 Forwards Assessment Program Phase III Interim Repts.Rept Incomplete & Covers Only 169 of 216 Items Included in Program Scope.Total Results of Phase III Will Be Included in Final Rept.W/O Encl ML20084R6521984-02-24024 February 1984 FOIA Request for Computer Printout from Sept 1980 to Present of Civil Penalty Info on 27 Listed Nuclear Facilities.Sample Format Encl ML19347D1581981-03-0606 March 1981 Forwards for Review & Approval Sweco 8101, Models Used in Loctvs Computer Code to Determine Pressure & Temp Response of Vapor Suppression Containments Following Loca. ML20084Q6551970-04-0909 April 1970 Answers Questions Raised at 700426 Meeting,Outlining Alternative Procedures to Repair safe-ends & Future Actions to Minimize Possibility of Unexpected Stress Corrosion ML20084R3521969-10-31031 October 1969 Forwards Rept of Review of Stress Analysis of Steam Line Flow Restrictor Attachment Weld Affected by High Rate Stress Relief. W/O Encl ML20244D9691968-10-23023 October 1968 Provides Final Rept Prepared W/Wj Hall Re Seismic Design of Plant,W/Assistance of Wh Walker.Rept Based on Fsar,On Ref to Certain Sections in Preliminary Hazard Summary Rept & on Applicant Presentations During 680710-11 Site Visit 1989-05-17
[Table view] Category:INCOMING CORRESPONDENCE
MONTHYEARML20217K2831999-10-14014 October 1999 Submits Response to NRC Administrative Ltr 99-02, Operating Reactor Licensing Action Estimates, for Fiscal Yrs 2000 & 2001 ML20217H3211999-10-0808 October 1999 Forwards Changed Pages for Issue 5,rev 1 of Nine Mile Point Station Physical Security & Safeguards Contingency Plan,Iaw 10CFR50.54(p).Without Encls ML18040A3701999-09-30030 September 1999 Provides Changes to Application for Amend Re Volumes 1-11 of 981016 Submittal & Discard & Insertion Instructions Re Integration of Proposed Changes,In Response to NRC RAIs ML20216J9311999-09-30030 September 1999 Forwards Response to NRC 981119 Suppl RAI Re GL 96-06, Assurance of Equipment Operability & Containment Integrity During Design-Basis Accident Conditions ML20212E9801999-09-23023 September 1999 Submits Info in Response to Request for Estimated Initial Operator Licensing Exam Needs,Per Administrative Ltr 99-03 ML20216F7101999-09-17017 September 1999 Forwards Response to NRC 990806 RAI Re USI A-46,verification of Seismic Adequacy of Mechanical & Electrical Equipment in Operating Reactors.Nrc Is Informed That Actions Required for Resolution of USI A-46 Have Been Completed ML20212D8981999-09-14014 September 1999 Forwards ISI Summary Rept for Refueling Outage 15 & Flaw Indication Repts.Supporting Info Repts & Calculations, Encl ML20212B2581999-09-10010 September 1999 Requests That Name of Bm Bordenick Be Removed from Nine Mile Point,Units 1 & 2 Service List ML20211P5771999-09-10010 September 1999 Forwards Application for Amends to Licenses DPR-63 & NPF-69, to Transfer Licenses to Amergen Energy Co,Llc.Ts Pages & Proprietary Addendum,Included.Proprietary Encl Withheld ML20212A1341999-09-0707 September 1999 Forwards Summary Rept Secondary Containment Leakage Testing, Dtd June 1999 for Nine Mile Point,Unit 1,IAW TS 6.9.3.f ML20211K8141999-09-0101 September 1999 Forwards Reactor Containment Bldg Ilrt,Iaw Plant TS 6.9.3.e.Testing Confirmed That TS 3.3.3/4.3.3 & 6.16 Primary Containment Leakage Requirements Were Satisfactorily Met ML20211L9221999-09-0101 September 1999 Confirms That Licensee Will Retain Weld 32-WD-050 as IGSCC Category F Until Completion of Reinspection Program,In Response to NRC ML20211K3001999-08-30030 August 1999 Forwards Semi-Annual Radioactive Effluent Release Rept for 990101-990630 & Revised ODCM, for Nine Mile Point,Unit 1. Format Used for Effluent Data Is Outlined in App B of Regulatory Guide 1.21,rev 1 ML20211J6461999-08-30030 August 1999 Forwards Response to NRC 990625 RAI Re NMPC Responses to GL 92-01,rev 1,supplement 1, Reactor Vessel Structural Integrity ML20211H1921999-08-26026 August 1999 Forwards Application for Amend to License DPR-63,supporting Implementation of Noble Metal Chemical Addition by Raising Reactor Water Conductivity Limits in TSs 3.2.3.a,3.2.3.c.1 & 3.2.3.b ML20211D7731999-08-20020 August 1999 Forwards Semiannual FFD Program Performance Data Rept Covering Period 990101 Through 990630 ML20211B9371999-08-18018 August 1999 Provides Addl Info Re Application of Method a at Nmp,Unit 1 as Described in Generic Implementation Procedure,Rev 2 (GIP-2),NRC Supplemental SER 2 & Documents Ref in GIP-2 Upon Which GIP-2 Is Based ML18040A3691999-08-16016 August 1999 Forwards Response to NRC 990510 RAI Pertaining to NMP Application for Amend Re Conversion of NMPNS Unit 2 Current TS to Its.Nrc Requested Info Re Several Sections,Including Section 3.6, Containment Sys. ML20210R6661999-08-10010 August 1999 Confirms Conversation on 990721 Re Concerns of Syracuse Anti-Nuclear Effort on Status of 2.206 Petition (Filed 990524) & Upcoming NRC Performance Review Meeting on Nine Mile Point Units 1 & 2 ML20210R8101999-08-10010 August 1999 Forwards 1998 Annual Repts for NMP & co-tenants,including Rg&E,Energy East Corp/Nyse&G,Chg&E & Long Island Power Authority,Per 10CFR50.71(b) ML18041A0711999-07-30030 July 1999 Forwards Rev 1 to NMP2-ISI-006, Second Ten Year Interval ISI Program Plan for Nine Mile Point Nuclear Power Station Unit 2. Significant Changes from Rev 0 Listed ML20210J9351999-07-29029 July 1999 Informs That NMP Is Changing Completion Date for Replacement of Valves Having O Rings with Installed Life Greater than Eight Years.Replacement to Be Completed by 991031, During Hydrogen Monitoring Sys Maintenance Outage ML20209G3711999-07-12012 July 1999 Provides Final Root Cause Evaluation Re GL 94-03, Intergranular Stress Corrosion Cracking of Core Shrouds in Bwrs, for Unit 1 ML20209G7911999-07-12012 July 1999 Provides Info Requested in NRC Re 990407 Generic Fundamentals Exam Failure Causes & Corrective Actions ML20209G2001999-07-0909 July 1999 Forwards RFO-15 Core Shroud Insp Summary Rept, as Required by GL 94-03, Intergranular Stress Corrosion Cracking of Core Shrouds in BWRs & BWRVIP Rept BWR Core Shroud Insp & Flaw Evaluation Guideline (BWRVIP-01) ML20209F8561999-07-0606 July 1999 Forwards Rev 1 to Nmp,Unit 1 COLR for Cycle 14. Rept Is Being Submitted to Commission in Compliance with TS 6.9.1.f.4 ML20211K5071999-07-0606 July 1999 Submits Concerns Re 990624 Event Involving Automatic Reactor Shutdown.More than 5 Failures Were Identified in Event Number 35857 ML20209B7071999-06-30030 June 1999 Responds to NRC Request for Info Re Y2K Readiness at Nuclear Facilities,As Contained in GL 98-01,Supp 1, Y2K Readiness of Computer Sys at Nuclear Power Plants. Y2K Readiness Disclosure,Encl ML20211P5271999-06-29029 June 1999 Submits Written Comments Addressing Petition Dtd 990405, Submitted by R Norway as It Relates to Expressed Concerns That Involve NMPC Activities.None of Relief Requested in Petition Warranted ML20209B3501999-06-25025 June 1999 Submits Torus Shell & Coupon Corrosion Rate Determination for Nmpns,Unit 1.Torus Meets ASME Code Requirements,Iaw NRC 920825 & 940811 SERs ML20209B3531999-06-25025 June 1999 Informs NRC That All Actions Associated with NRC Bulletin 96-003, Potential Plugging of ECC Suction Strainers by Debris in Bwrs, Has Been Completed.Summary of Actions Completed & Other Pertinent Info Is Provided in Attachment ML20196G1461999-06-23023 June 1999 Informs That Actions Requested in GL 96-01, Testing of Safety-Related Logic Circuits Completed ML20196F5721999-06-23023 June 1999 Forwards Rev 3 to NMP1-IST-003, Third Ten Year Inservice Testing Program Plan, Which Will Begin on 991226.Program Plan Conforms to Requirements of 1989 Edition of ASME Boiler & Pressure Vessel Code.Three Relief Requests,Encl ML20209B2951999-06-22022 June 1999 Informs That Training Re Pressure Relief Panels Was Completed for Remainder of Target Population on 990226 ML20196E9231999-06-21021 June 1999 Forwards Response to NRC 990510 RAI Re NMP 981116 Application Proposing Changes to TSs to Provide Reasonable Assurance That Coupled neutronic/thermal-hydraulic Instabilities Were Detected & Suppressed in NMPN-1 Reactor ML18040A3651999-06-0707 June 1999 Forwards for Filing Original Application of Central Hudson & Gas & Electric Corp Seeking Extension of Expiration Date of Order,Dtd 980719,issued by Commission ML18040A3661999-06-0404 June 1999 Informs That Entire Attachment to Ltr NMP2L 1862 Dtd 990421, Should Be Replaced with Entire Attachment Being Sent with Present Ltr ML20195C9751999-06-0101 June 1999 Informs That Weld 32-WD-050 Will Be Reclassified Back to GL 88-01 Category a Weld & ASME Code Section XI Insps Will Be Conducted in Next Three Insp Periods ML20195C9601999-05-28028 May 1999 Provides Final Extent of Condition Evaluation Re Failed Cap Screw Beyond Upper Spring.Nmpc Continues to Conclude as Stated in That No Addl Mods Are Needed Other than Those Indicated in Ltr ML20207F1811999-05-24024 May 1999 Petitions NRC to Suspend Operating License of NMP for NMPNS Unit 1 Until Such Time as NMPC Releases Most Recent Insp Data on Plant Core Shroud & Adequate Public Review of Plant Safety Accomplished Because of Listed Concerns ML20195B1861999-05-21021 May 1999 Requests Staff Approval of Proposed Mod to Each of Four Tie Rods Per 10CFR50.55a(a)(3)(i).Summary of Tie Rod Insp Findings,Summary of Root Cause Evaluation of Failure of Cap Screw,Calculation B-13-01739-23 & Summary of Se,Encl ML20207D1541999-05-21021 May 1999 Forwards Issue 5,rev 0 of Physical Security & Safeguards Contingency Plan for Nmpns.Summary of Changes Included to Facilitate Review.Encls Withheld ML20207D5331999-05-21021 May 1999 Forwards Issue 3,Rev 1 of NMP Nuclear Security Training & Qualification Plan.Summary of Changes Is Included with Plan to Provide Basis for Individual Changes & to Facilitate NRC Review.Plan Withheld Per 10CFR2.790 ML20206S2621999-05-16016 May 1999 Expresses Concerns About Safety of Nmp,Unit 1 Nuclear Reactor.Nrc Should Conduct Insp of Reactor Including Area Besides Core Shroud Welds & Publicly Disclose Results at Least Wk Before Restart Date ML20195D5911999-05-13013 May 1999 Submits Final Copy of Open Ltr to Central Ny,With Proposals Re Nine Mile One Core Shroud Insp During Refueling Outage Which Began on 990411 ML20206P1981999-05-11011 May 1999 Forwards Response to NRC RAI Re NMP Previous Responses to GL 96-05, Periodic Verification of Design-Basis of SR Movs, for NMP Units 1 & 2 ML20206R6941999-05-10010 May 1999 Responds to 990413 & 0430 Ltrs Re Apparent Violation Noted in Investigation Rept 1-98-033.Util Agrees with Violation, But Disagrees with Characterization That Violation Was Willful or Deliberate ML20206N0291999-05-0707 May 1999 Forwards Rev 39 to NMP Site Emergency Plan & Revised Epips,Including Rev 1 to EPMP-EPP-03,rev 5 to EPIP-EPP-25 & Rev 5 to EPIP-EPP-28 ML20206G8121999-04-30030 April 1999 Forwards Comments on Draft Reg Guide DG-1083, Content of UFSAR IAW 10CFR50.71(e), Dtd Mar 1999.Util Generally Supports DG-1083 ML20206F7731999-04-22022 April 1999 Forwards Renewal Application for SPDES Permit Number NY-000-1015 for Nmpns,Units 1 & 2 1999-09-07
[Table view] |
Text
- _ _ _
NATHAN M NEWMARK I co s 9u trir m r N olN c E nit s a ,s te vic Es, 11:1 CWil. ENGINEERING P L4 LCIN G s AC3S Cec =ittee Members
) '
SHb # HO:.t_
G HE - AA0 t ..
WLF- - DO - '. ':
SHH -
1:n- u 4 F!
JMH - I 3
CPS t- iO l4 HSI v LS - E H3M Was c- 72.G
- . ' ;! E L
- r . Peter A. Morris,Iirector D~~
C;E v E5i ' 4 l'ivision of Peac tor i icons i ncDate Hailed /k[#/
l' , '. Atomic i r,< ryy Conwit s iori Us' ~
f
/ / M a' f -
W.e h i no t cin ,
i.C. 27545 9 * .
Re Contract A f (h9-$ )-2 667 Nine Mile Point f.ucleer Station,
^
[Y ]
Niacara Mohawk Ci,r:> ore t ion
~ l /
AEC Docket No.91-229 :.
7
Dear Dr. Morris:
p j
)
The folIowina is our final report, i;r epared by Dr . W. J. Hei1 l 9
and mys e l f , on t he sc ismic des ion of t tir hine Milc 'oint bucina f
Stat ion, with the ass is tance of Dr. W. P. Walker. This report is based on l
the Fina: Safet y Anal ys is Report (FSAR), on reference to certain <cctiens in the Preliminary Hazard Sumn.ary Report (PHSfs) wh ich s upr> l ied s ome de t a i led information not available in t he FSAR, and on presentat ions by t he applicant during our visit to the site on 10 and 1I .lu l y 1 %8.
In order to facilitate our rev iew, t he a.ipl icant t ransmit ted to us inf ormall y copies of t he br ief ing char t s used in his t resent at ion dur ing the '
site visit, and copies of additional calculations on which the briefinq charts 4 J
were based, as well as computer outputs for the piping dynamic analysis. We v+
t~
are especially appreciative of the applicant's cooperation and willingness /
to supply information regarding the details of the procedures used by his e ng i nee r s . In our opinion the applicant h.is voluntar il y cons idered many l
enginees ing ques t ions involved in the des ign and has res ponded fully to the var ious ques t ions raised by vs. Since we did not have any contact with t his
,u .
-- 3
.y X lO ~? -
. ; 9,n m \v[
\
Q )
8904240229 89041b P&LJF9fe
'J '
JJ .
.. , ' plant during Ihe construction permit stages, it would have proved impossible
/ ' to have determined the bas is f or certain aspects of the des ign without the complete and willing cooperat ion of the applicant in f urnishing detailed -
J information and in making additional studies in response to the ques t ions iL raised informtlly during our meet ings.
7, r.eneral Description 5
.j'
- The Nine Mile Point Nuclear Stat ion contains a boiling water reartor
- l4 with a pressure suppress ion f ys tem involving a dry well and suppress ion chamber 1
i - f or pr imary contai nment , with secondary containment provided by a reactor building ventilated to a stack. The des ign capacit y of the plant is 1,538 MWt (500 MWe ne t ) .
i The plant is located on the southeast shore of Lake Ontario, Oswego Count y, New York, 36 miles NNW of Syracuse, and f ive miles NF' of Oswego, t
.p New York. The geology at the site is characterized by overburden of J
( approximately 11 ft. in thickness overlying light grey to greenish grey
.y
.} ' moderately hard Oswego sands tone. The maj or nuclear s t ruc t ures are f ounded on
+
bedrock.
1
- The plant is designed for a seismic input corresponding to a maximum 1
j hypothetical earthquake of 0.119 horitnntal ground acceleration. This design basis antedates the current use of an Operat ing Das is f arthquake and a Des ign
{~
Bas is f'ar t hquak e , wi t h t he latter generally twice the former in i nt ens i t y, Because of this c ircums tance, cons iderat ion was given in our review to the rl capability of the plant f or safe shutdown, cons ider ing the conservat ive des ign
- s f bas is that was generally used to account for the single earthquake considered.
-F Seismic Response Spectra lhe f ollowing comments are based on the conf erences held with the '
applicant in July 1968, and on the information in Supp lement ? t o t he F '.AF t o
/
m
( - - - - . - . - -
_y_
s upplement .his answers to our ques t ions , and supplemental data including
/- '
computer out puts of c alculat ions , s ke tches and drawings of the _ s im li f ied l
s t ructures cons idered ' in the analyses, and some descr ipt ions of the' output in terms of equivalent' accelerat ions, etc. , presented at t he conf erance.
The earthquake cons idered for. the design of the plant was ore
.. corresponding to a maximum ground acceleration of 0.119, but with a response
'l. .
f spectrum that is not-of the normal type commonly used now for other plants.
I The complex response spectrum shown in Page C-22 of the f irst supplement to i
the i H5R, ref erred to in the FSAR as the one used in the analyses , was not
, the one actually used in the analysrs cons idered herein. The actual response
'f I spectrum used has r'ot been furnished to us. However, a briefing chart t
., showing the general nature of the resporee spec t rum apparent l y used . was made available, and the descr ipt ion of t he computer solut ions gi ve i
! data f rom which the response spectra actually used can be inferred. From a cons iderat ion of these data it appears that in the region of major interest f the response spectrum used in most of the calculat lons can be approximated e
-i by a sweeping curve having a velocity response of the order of about 3 in/sec.
f j at 0.5 Hertz, rising to a maximum of about 4 in/sec. at about 1.5 to 2 Hertz
} and dronning of f to 3 in./sec. at about 5 Hertz, where the curve becomes tangent l
- 1* to a line corresponding to a constant acceleration response of the order of
.i
[
about 0.2 to 0.59,which drops off at much h igher f requenc ies,over about t
f 40 He rt z, to about 0.119. Some variations in these values are used to correspond to various values of damping, but t he variat ions are not s ubs tant ia l .
1 '
For moderate amounts of damping, of the order of 2.5 to 5 percent, this 5' response spect rum is in reasonably close agreement with t hat given in TfD 7024 for f requencies higher than about 2.5 Hert z, but departs by success ivel y I
l
- 1 i
, n
.. y 4
/
9reater amounts' f rom the TID response spectrum for lower f requencies. At about i Hertz there is a f actor of dif f erence of nearly 2, and at about
. 0.5 Hertz about 3 In other words, for moderate amounts of damping, the l' response spectrum used by the applicant would in general be unconservative -
i l below a f requency of 2 Hertz, with the lack of conservat Ism corresponding
}, to a factor of 2 at 1.0 He r t z and a f ac t or o f 3 a t 0. 5 He rt z .
'l For the s tack, for which the detailed calculations are poss ible to s
fl check in some detail, the response spectrum used in the computer computat ions corresponds to a velocity response of the order, on the average, of about 3.0 t
to 3.5 in./sec. up to a f requency of the order of about 4 Hertz and then
! -j
- i corresponds to a cons tant accelerat ion response of the order of about 0.20 to
[ 0.229 above that f requency.
I In our oninion, a more appropriate response spectr.* tor the stack,
( assuming the applicant 's value of 7.5 percent critical damping, would be one j that corresponds approximately to one-third the conventionalind El Centro response spect rum, which would correspond to a cons tant velocit y response of I
f about 7 in./sec. for all frequencies below about 2.5 Hertz, (which is 2.0 to 1
'! 2.3 t imes the applicant's values) and a c ons tant accelerat ion response of 0.229
.l above that frequency (which is about equal to the applicant 's values),
1-
[ Similar, but not exactly the same, corrections apply for other
,.. degrees of damping for the spectra that should be used for other parts of the 4
s ys t em. It is necessary to keep these comparisons in mind in interpreting the capability of the various parts of the plant.
Ano t he r wa y of s umma r i z i ng t he response spectrum actually used in
^{
[* the calculation is to point out that for relatively stiff or rigid i t ems , and l
l L in general for most items of equipment and instruments, where the frequencies
! are over 2.5 Hertz, the response spectrum used does indeed correspond to that T
! for a maximum ground acceleration of 0.119 However, for large buildings,
- c. .
-)
5 s tacks , long runs of unsupported pipe, and in general for all items with a b lower f undamental natural f requency, t he response spect rum actually used corresponds to approximately 0.069 maximum ground acceleration.
- Int erpretat ton of Applicant 's Seismic ites Ian Cri terla
'In general, the des ign was made. for .the earthquake specif ied by the applicant, at working stresses or i n s ome instances with an augmentation of i ,
i*
one-third over the normal working stresses. In general, for Class I items t
t he normal wor k ing s t resses we re used wi t hout the increase. For the turbine i-building the one-third increase over the normal working s t resses was used but the actual stresses cre stated to be generally within code allowables.
- , For Class I s ys tems in the turbine building the one-third increase was not applied.
For s tceI and concrete and for elements made of.combinat ions of these materials in general, yielding occurs at stresses of the order of about
] twice the working s t resses, or at a s tress of the order of about 1.5 times
(
the working s tresses increased by t he one-third augmentat ion f ac tor. Hence,
!. for Class I s tructures and s tructural elements and for equipment that is i
pr imarily s t ruc tural in its characteris t ics , where the f requency is higher
'I than 2.5 Hertz, the design is generally adequate without yielding for an i
i earthquake hazard of the order of 0.2 9. However, for longer or more flexible i
,. I t ems or in general for structures and structural elements with a f requency J
I below 2.5 Hertz, the capability in terms of res istance to yielding is of the b
{ order of 0.119 because of the inadequacy of the response spec t rum used in the low f requency range, subject to an uppe r revis ion, however, because of the conservat ism of the methods of analys is generally used by the applicant , as discussed later.
For vert ical earthquake exc itat ion, a "s tat ic" vert ical accelerat ion factor was used corresponding to one-half the horizontal acceleration at the particular point in the building. These vertical forces were applied to the structure and stresses computed from them.
g- -
c ,
. 4 For .the pressure suppression chamber or torus a hor izontal stet ic
/- coefficient of 0.15g was applled, combined with a vert ical coef ficient of 0.0559 _
Se lsmic De's lan and Ana l ys is -
In general the appile ont's analysis corresponded to the calculations
'i of the maximum accelerations in each mode, the combination of the nodal accelerations as the square root of the sums of the squares of the nodal accelerat lons cons idered, in most ins tances us ing 5 modes of respor.se, and f the determir.at ion of the forces corresponding to these accelerat ions as s tat ic
.! t
-; forces f rom which momenti and shears in t he s t ruct ere were de termined. In the case of the stack, the turbine building, and the reactor building, an (
l l
addit ional " external" input was cons idered as if it were a separate mode, j
corresponding to a horizontas acceleration of 0.119 at the bsse and varying v.
J linearly to 0 at the top of the structure.
I ihis is admittedly an incorrect me t hod o f a na l ys i s . An appropr iate
( correct method would involve the computation for each mode of the moments
,e
,_ and shears, or accelerat ions and displacements or other modal responses, and 1
[ the conbinat ion of these modal responses, taking into account the excitation of each mode as determined f. am the appropr iate response spect rum curve, i
t by combining the maximum modal responses us ing the square root of the sums
-l of the squares of the individual responses cons idered. The combining of the t
'f accelerations and the determinat ion of scismic forces f rom them gives forces i
{ which correspond to over-es t imates of the octual moments and shears in the lower parts of t he var ious s t ruct ures by f actors which may range f rom a few g percent for moderate to high f requency items, to as much as a f actor of 1.5
.V l
,1 for low f requency items. Hence, the combination of the various degrees of 1-conservat ism used in the individual stages of the analytif leads generally to a capability on the verge of yielding of the order of about 9.15g to 0.2g f
4
l .' -
-7 I
for structural components and for other items for which stress is the crimary L
l '
criterion.
A part icular example was analyred 'n detail. Th i s is the stack, which has a f undament al period of 1.90 secs, and which was analyzed f or 7.5 j percent damping, lhe shears near the base were computed by us f rom the i l
3 applicant. 's nodal anal yses , us ing the values given by him for the model
't 6 respontes and his response spectrum, for the lover elevations in the stock 1 the square root of the sums of the squares of the modal responses of base r
modal thears corresponds to 4.5 to 5 percent of tiie we ight above t he point considered. This 's in cont rast to the values computed by means of the I applicant's procedure for the same cend i t ions and input s , of 11 to 13 percent considering the first f ive modes onl y tiut without the so-called " external" I
g additional t r iangula r mode. With the latter included, t he appl icant 's I calculat ions , as summar ized by our procedure, corres. pond t o 14 to 14.5 percent r
(
s of the weight. The applicant 's values are reported in the briefing charts /
I i as 14.5 to 15.2 percent .
I 1
. i An interpretation of these results is in order. With the appropriate 3 spectrum for an 0.I19 na ximum ground occ"lera t ion, as i nd ic a t ed ea r 1 it r., we would es t irw e resnons e values 2.0 t o ?.; t imes as high as the values f
referred to above, of 4.5 to 5 percent of the weight. Consequently, the
{*
base shears that we would compute as being appt roriate f or an 0.119 i
excitation would be 10 oercent to 12 percent of the weight of the stack.
j The value for the base shear used in the design by the applicant was i
l presumably 14.5 percent of the weight of the ack. He nc e , this would correspond to a capability, based on our concept of the appropriate shape of spectrum, of 0.139 to 0.159 maximum ground acceleration.
In the earthquake anal ys is 36,000 ps i st ress was used for the
(
re inf orcerrent , which would ind ica te sonie add i t ional marg in t r ior to yielding,
- .s '
c i .-
l
.and hence a capability before yielding or collapse of the order of . os s ib l y l~ l f 0.16. to 0.1P9. makirnum ground accelerat ion.
F The overturning moment at the base of the stack is also' conservatively-
-figured b"y the applicant; in~ general the stack has a capability i
- 1. cons iderably greater than the earthquake for'which it was des igned, even
,.) allowing.for the inadequacies in the response spectrum used in the design.
':i
,jf
.In our opinion,_ in general the various items of equipment, 6
ins t rumentat ion, and mount ing racks eppear to have a capability of the order of S. I5g or' more, because of the conservat ism in the methods used in the ana l ys i s , in spite of the fact that the response spectra may not have been entirely appropriate.
+
F ip i no-The piping des ign for the plant was made in accordance tvith the C
I 1955 Piping code, Bl.1, and the applicant has not yet completed analyses of
(
the capability of the piping design. The applicant 's addi t ional analyses i
j 'which are being made will be based on the use of horizontal accelerat ions 1
computed at the various elevat ions f rom the analyses described above, with
- vert ical accelerat ions one-hal f the hor izontal accelerat ions at each point.
i j
These values are stated to range from n.llg at the 198 ft. elevation, near 14-the base of the building, to 0.389 at the 340 ft, elevation, for the horizontal f accelerat ion coef f ic ients.
g From the results of these analyses the applicant
[
j has s tated that he will add supports and s tays as required to increase the capability of the piping to be in reasonable agreement with current codes such J. as USAS B31.1.0 j
A descript ion of the method of analys is used by the applicant was made available to us. The applicant describes the piping s ys tem as idealized as a mult i-lumped mass sys tem interconnected by weightless I
1 i
- - -- -- - - - - - - . - -- a
.. _ . _ ._ u ._
s, o.
_l e*
- s. <
9..
structural elements. These s t ruc tural element s take into consideration I<
flexural, shear and axial defornetion. The maximum accelerat ions in each of therfirst five modes is determined and the individual modal accelerations
,[ are combined by taking the square root of the sums of the squares to obtain net. acceleration values.
The seismic f orces act ing on the system are determined by multiplying 1
- i. ' t he mass a t cach node point by the acceleration at that point and then the
.V O. y . s tat ic forces 'are used to obtain moments , shears, and deflect ions for the i
p iping s ys tem.
In orderfto take account of the fact that the bends in the piping
[ j were treated as square corners intersecting at the bend working point, the t ,
res ult ing~ s t resses' were mul t iplied by a f actor of 2.
This Is not an accurate calculation and in general would not be
{.
1 .
j considered adequate. However, the method does have built-in conservat ism 1 as does the method used for other parts of the facility as described earlier.
h.
'k':
Hence, we are prepared to accept this bas is of calculation as being reasonable
.a.
17 for the plant, in view of the original des ign criteria, although we would not
.I be willing to cons ider such a procedure acceptable ab initio in a new plant.
{ Of particular concern to us would be the problem of relative defernations between points that are connected together and which may move x
l' ', ' in dif f erent ways. For exanple, the piping connecting the reactor vessel
[ through the drywell to the turbines is subject to differential motions at its two ends, both f rom the long period relat ive displacements and f rom the t'
t rans lent responses of the points of attachment of the piping. Consideration' i does not appear to have been given to this point, but it is likel y that the stresses arising f rom this cause are not large in view of the rock foundat ions, and the relatively small earthquake input under cons iderat ion.
.. e
- i l
l Ifferts if l'ir nadoes q l
tnrnado loading was not considered in the or1 9 i nal des ign cr i ter ia.
[ i From the discuss ion in Sur plement 2 to the FSAR, p. 1-33, 34, it appears that
- the plant can resist most of the effects of a tornado, but not missiles, etc. lhe applicant indicated that he will give cons iderat ion to the ef f ects of tornadoes and of high intens ity winds on the s tack and on ot her exposed L
} portiens of the facility and will take measures to avoid accidents following i
f a tornado that might impair the capabilities of the plant for safe shutdown.
i
- Jns t rowntet ion and Cont roll the control room components are des ignated as Cla I items and the se ismic anal ys is used corresponded to an applicat ion of accelerat ion f actors I
i of A.?q harirontal1y, and O.Ir verticalIy as static loads. Ihe applicant has
) i nd ica t ed. t ha t provis ions will be made to insure the safe shutdown capability k
of the instrumentation and controls in ihe cont rol room under either seismic
( or tornadic conditions.
.- E umma r y
,. As a result of our review of the des ign provis ions and tha construction t
program to date, and after conferences with the applicant and his representatives and study of material transmitted to os through your office, it is our i
f conc l us inn that the Nine Mile Point Nuc. l ea r S t a t ion wi l l have a capabilit y V
j of res is t ing an ear t hquake of maximum ground accelerat ion of the order of i f 0.159, in general, in the sense that it will have the capability of safe Shutdown after such exposure.
Ve ry t rul y yours ,
/ f .')).! }' .
f'T N. M. Newma r k bj w cc: W. .l . HalI
['
s J. i. HaItiwanger W. H. Walker l _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ . _ _ _ _ _ . _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ . _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ __i