ML17179A544
| ML17179A544 | |
| Person / Time | |
|---|---|
| Site: | Dresden, LaSalle  |
| Issue date: | 10/27/1992 |
| From: | Miller H NRC OFFICE OF INSPECTION & ENFORCEMENT (IE REGION III) |
| To: | Zwolinski J Office of Nuclear Reactor Regulation |
| Shared Package | |
| ML17179A539 | List: |
| References | |
| RTR-REGGD-01.097, RTR-REGGD-1.097 NUDOCS 9211030125 | |
| Download: ML17179A544 (2) | |
Text
MEMORANDUM FOR:
FROM:
SUBJECT:
OCT 2 7 1992 John A. Zwolinski, Assistant Director for Region III Reactors Division of Reactor Projects - III/IV/V Office of Nuclear Reactor Regulation (NRR)
Hubert J. Miller, Director Division of Reactor Safety, Region III REQUEST FOR TECHNICAL ASSISTANCE INTERPRETATION AND RESOLUTION OF REGULATORY GUIDE (RG) 1.97 AT LASALLE, DOCKET NUMBERS 50-373 AND 50-374 (AITS # 92-0638)
ENCLOSURE 4 Determine if the licensee complies with RG 1.97, Revision 2 for the neutron flux monitoring instrumentatjon, the use of Rochester Model SC-1302 isolators, and the use of 22k Ohm resistors used as isolators.
Three unresolved items remain open.
- Unresolved Item C373/88027-0lCDRSl:374/88026-0lCDRS)):
Determine adequacy of the neutron flux monitoring instrumentation in meeting the Category 1 requirements.
The licensee's position is documented in the BWR Owner'~ Group letter dated August 16, 1990i and was also stated during subsequent discussions with the NRC, which indicated that further review by NRR was required.
Unresolved Item C373/88027-05CDRSl:374/88026-05CDRSll:
Evaluate and determine acceptance of the licensee's use of Rochester Model sc~l302 isolators.
Maximum credible fault testing of the device was completed per Rochester Test Report No. 16376, Revision 4, copies of which were previously forwarded to NRR/SICB.
Unresolved Item C373/90022-0lCDRSl:374/90023-0lCDRSll:
Evaluate and determine acceptability of the licensee's use of 22k Ohm resistors to isolate the Category 1 variable, reactor vessel level from the plant's nonsafety-related Startrec system.
We issued a Notice of Deviation (NOD) to the licensee for failure to use an acceptable isolation device to comply with the isolation*
requirements of RG 1.97, Revision.2.
The NOD was based on previous discussions with NRR/SICB, which revealed that resistors were not considered acceptable isolation devices because*adequate testing had not been performed.
The licensee responded to the NOD in a letter dated November 9, 1990, which stated that they did not agree with the NOD, and that the resistor configuration provided adequate isolation protecti.on to meet the requirements of RG 1.97.
The licensee tested the resistor configuration (See letters dated June 14, and June 21, 1991). Test results verify that the resistors meet the requirements of RG 1.97.
9211030125 921027 PDR ADOCK 05000237 p
J. A. Zwolinski 2
OCT 2 7 1392 Direct any questions concerning this subject to either George Hausman at {708) 790-5523 or Frank Jabloriski at {708) 790-5555.
We consider this to be a Priority 2 item with a completion date of January 16, 1993.
Attachments:
- 1. Commonwealth Edison Letter dated November 9, 1990
- 2. Commonwealth Edison Letter*
dated April 15, 1991
- 3. Commonwealth Edison Letter dated June 21, 1991
- 4. Sargent & Lundy Engineers Letter dated November 9, 1990
- 5. Sargent & Lundy Engineers Letter dated June 14, 1991 cc.w/attac~ments:
B. L. Siegel, NRR A. G. Hansen, NRR B. S. Marcus, NRR S. F. Newberry, NRR DCD/DCB {RIDS)
RlII RlII Riil Hubert J. Miller, Director Division of Reactor Safety Riil Riil RlII
~
Jabl~ki ~~ ~
(t"-
Martin 101:,,/92 ~
WJ1192 Hausman 10/u,/92 10/u, /92 10/2k /92 Ring 10/~/92