ML14188B293
| ML14188B293 | |
| Person / Time | |
|---|---|
| Site: | Robinson  |
| Issue date: | 03/05/1987 |
| From: | NRC |
| To: | |
| Shared Package | |
| ML14188B292 | List: |
| References | |
| RTR-REGGD-01.097, RTR-REGGD-1.097 GL-82-33, NUDOCS 8703170002 | |
| Download: ML14188B293 (3) | |
Text
SAFETY EVALIIATION REPoPT H. R. ROBINSON STEAM ELECTRIC PLANT UNIT NO. 2 DACKET NnS. 50-?61 CONFORMANCE TO REGlLATARY tilnE 1.07 INTRODUCTION ANn
SUMMARY
The Carolina Power and Light Company was requested by Generic Letter AP-33 to provide a report to the NRC describing how the post-accident monitoring instru mentation meets the guidelines of Requlatory Guide 1.07 as applied to emeraency response facilities. Response specific to Pegulatory Guide 1.97 was provided on December 31, 1Q84. Additional information was provided by letters dated.luly 18, 1985 and July 28, 1986.
A detailed review and technical evaluation of the licensee's submittals was per formed by EG&G Idaho, Inc., under contract to the NRC, with general supervision by the NRC staff. This work was reported by EGAn in their Technical Evaluation Report (TER), "Conformance to Regulatory Guide 1.97, H. 8. Robinson Steam Electric Plant, Unit No. 9," dated November 1986 (attached). We have reviewed this report and concur with the conclusion that the licensee either conforms to, or is justified in deviating from the guidance of Regulatory Guide 1.97 for each post-accident monitoring variable except for the variable containment sump water temperature.
EVALUATION CRITERIA Subsequent to the issuance of the generic letter, the NRC held regional meetings in February and March 1983 to answer licensee and applicant questions and concerns regarding the NRC policy on Regulatory Guide 1.97.
At these meetings, it was noted that the NRC review would only addres exceptions taken to the guidance of Regu latory Guide 1.97. Further, where licensees or applicants explicitly state that 8703170002 670305 PDR ADOCK 05000261 F
instrument systems conform to the provisions of the regulatory guide, it was noted that no further staff review would be necessary. Therefore, the review performed and reported by EG&G only addresses exceptions to the guidance of Regulatory Guide 1.97.
This Safety Evaluation addresses the licensee's submittals based on the re view policy described in the NRC regional meetings and the conclusions of the review as reported by EG&G.
EVALUATION We have reviewed the evaluation performed by our consultant contained in the enclosed TFR and concur with its bases and findings except for the finding con tained in TER section 3.3.15.
Tn TER section 3.3.15 our consultant found the lack of a containment sump water temperature instrument to be acceptable on the basis of the justification and the alternate instrumentation provided by the applicant. The staff, however, is currently generically reviewing the need for Category 2 instrumentation to monitor the containment sump water temperature.
We will therefore report on the acceptability of this item'when the generic review process is complete.
For the remaining items, the licensee either conforms to, or has provided an acceptable justification for deviating from, the guidance of Regulatory Guide 1.97 for each post-accident monitoring variable. However, for one Category ? vari able (CCW Temperature to ESF System Components) identified in TER section 3.3.18, the applicant has stated that they will evaluate the current equipment to determine if their environmental qualification can be established to meet Category 2 requirements;
0 0
-3 and if they cannot be qualified, they will either replace them with qualified equipment or identify other instruments that provide the same information in an acceptable category. This commitment is acceptable, however, should the licensee choose to use alternate instrumentation, it should be identified and justified.
CONCLUSION Based on the staff's review of the enclosed Technical Evaluation Report, and the licensee's submittals, we find that the H. R. Robinson Steam Electric Plant, Unit No. 2, design is acceptable with respect to conformance to Regulatory Guide 1.97, Revision 2, with the exception of the instrumentation for containment sump water temperature. The licensee's position on instrumentation for containment sump water temperature is under generic review, and the staff's conclusion will be reported on when the ceneric review process is complete.
If the licensee decides to use alternate instrumentation for the variable component cooling water temperature to ESF system components, the licensee should identify the alternate instrumentation and justify its use.