ML17055C651
| ML17055C651 | |
| Person / Time | |
|---|---|
| Site: | Nine Mile Point  |
| Issue date: | 11/19/1986 |
| From: | Office of Nuclear Reactor Regulation |
| To: | |
| Shared Package | |
| ML17055C650 | List: |
| References | |
| RTR-REGGD-01.097, RTR-REGGD-1.097 GL-82-33, NUDOCS 8611250553 | |
| Download: ML17055C651 (4) | |
Text
I ggII IIECI Po Cy on Ih CI VV+~
~O
+a*++
UNITED STATES NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSION WASHINGTON, D. C. 20555 SAFETY EVALUATION BY THE OFFICE OF NUCLEAR REACTOR REGULATION RELATED TO EMERGENCY RESPONSE CAPABILITY CONFORMANCE TO REGULATORY GUIDE 1.97 REVISION 2 NIAGARA MOHAWK POWER CORPORATION NINE MILE POINT NUCLEAR STATION UNIT NO.
1 DOCKET NO. 50-220 1.0
2.0 INTRODUCTION
Niagara Mohawk Power Corporation (NMPC), the licensee, was requested by Generic Letter 82-33 to provide a report to the NRC describing how the post-accident monitoring instrumentation meets the guidelines of Regulatory Guide (R.G.) 1.97, as it applies to emergency response facilities.
The licensee responded to the R.G. 1.97 portion of the generic letter on April 2, 1984..
Additional information was provided by letters dated October 18, 1985 and December 6, 1985.
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 R.G. 1.97.
At these meetings, it was noted that the NRC review would only address exceptions taken to the guidance of R.G. 1.97.
Further, where licensees or appli-cants explicitly state that instrument systems conform to the provision of the regulatory guide, it was noted that no further staff review would be necessary.
Therefore, the review performed and reported by the staff's contractor, EG&G Idaho, Inc., only addresses exceptions to the guidance of R.G. 1.97.
This Safety Evaluation addresses the licensee's submittals based on the review 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 TER and concur with its bases and findings.
The licensee either conforms to, or has provided an acceptable 5ustification for deviations from the guidance of R.G. 1.97 for each post-accident moni-toring variable except for the variable neutron flux. All R.G. 1.97, Category 1 and 2 instruments located in a harsh environment shall be included in the environmental qualification program unless adequate iustification is provided, as required in 10 CFR 50.49.
The justification provided by the licensee is that the source range and intermediate range detectors are driven into the core as a result of the I
esaa25o>>3 8 ooo2a'o pDR ADO "
pDR P
l 1%
J I
scram signal.
A harsh environment to the driven components would be brief.
The components normally operate in an environment of elevated temperature, though not a harsh environment.
The licensee states that these twelve detectors plus the power range monitors are able to detect
. inadvertent reactivity insertions.
However, the instrumentation has not been shown to provide reliable neutron flux data in a post-accident environment.
The staff has reviewed this justification and finds it not acceptable.
The instrumentation has not been shown to provide the necessary informa-tion required for post-accident monitoring in accordance with R.G. 1.97.
- However, a Category 1 neutron flux monitoring system that meets all the criteria of R.G.
1.97 is an industry development item.
Based on our
- review, we conclude that the existing instrumentation is acceptable for interim operation.
The licensee has committed to follow industry develop-ment of the Category 1 instrumentation, evaluate the acceptability of the newly developed equipment, and install this instrumentation when it becomes available.
3.0 CONCLUSION
Based on the staff's review of the enclosed Technical Evaluation Report and the licensee's submittals, we find that the Nine Nile Point Unit 1 design is acceptable with respect to conformance to R.G. 1.97, Revision 2.
The staff also finds acceptable the licensee's commitment to follow industry development of Category 1 Neutron Flux instrumentation, evaluate the acceptability of this instrumentation, and install such equipment when it becomes available.
Principal Contributors:
J. Joyce, J. Lazevnick Dated:
November 19, 1986.
'L J