ML18152A838
| ML18152A838 | |
| Person / Time | |
|---|---|
| Site: | Surry  |
| Issue date: | 03/03/1988 |
| From: | Chandu Patel Office of Nuclear Reactor Regulation |
| To: | Stewart W VIRGINIA POWER (VIRGINIA ELECTRIC & POWER CO.) |
| Shared Package | |
| ML18152A839 | List: |
| References | |
| RTR-REGGD-01.097 TAC-51138, TAC-51139, NUDOCS 8803140199 | |
| Download: ML18152A838 (3) | |
Text
Docket Nos. 50-280 and 50-~81 Mr. W. L. Stewart March 3, 1988 DISTRIBUTION Docket FITe-**
NRC & Local PfJRs PD22 Reading Vice President - Nuclear Operations Virginia Electric and Power Company Post Office Box 26666 S. Varga G. Lainas D. Mi1 l er E. Jordan J. Partlow ACRS (10)
Gray Fi le Richmond, Virginia 23261
Dear ~r. Stewart:
C. Patel H. Perkow OGC-WF
SUBJECT:
EMERGENCY RESPONSE CAPABILITY - CONFORMANCE TO REGULATORY GUIDE 1.97 AT SURRY POWER STATION UNIT NOS. 1 AND 2 (TAC NOS. 51138 AND 51139)
By letters dated January 31, 1984, May 10, 1985, June 21, 1985, August 2, 1985, April 21, 1986 and August 12, 1987, Virginia Electric and Power Company (VEPCO) provided a detailed description of conformance to post-accident monitoring instrumentation guidelines of RE:9ulatory Guide 1.97, as app1ied to emergency response facilities.
We have completed our review of these submittals and find the instrumentation pro vi dect by VEPCO for meeting the recommendations of Regulatory Gui de 1. 97, Revision 3, to be acceptable except for the containment sump water temperature variable.
We are enclosing our Safety Evaluation, along with a Technical Evaluation Report prepared by our consultant, EGAG Idaho, Inc.
As discussed in our Safety Evaluation, the acceptability of instrumentation for the containment sump water temperature will remain open pending the outcome of the staff's generic review.of the need for environmentally qualified Category 2 instrumentation to monitor this variable. Therefore, this issue will be handled separately on a generic basis.
Based on the above 9 we conclude that the post-accident monitoring instrumentation at Surry Units 1 and ? conforms to Regulatory Guide 1.97, Revision 3, except as noted above.
This completes our review of Multi-Plant Action.(MPJ!.) A-17 for both Surry units. It is our understanding that you implemented these require-ments on or before December 30, 1986.
You are requested to inform us if _you do not agree with this implementation date.
,,--aso3140199 *sao303 *.
PDR ADOCl{, 05000280..
- p PDR
Enclosures:
As stated cc w/enclosures:
See next page
- See previous concurrence
- LA:PDII-2 DMil 1 er 3/ /8B
- PM:PDII-2 CPatel:bg 3/ /88 Sincerely, Chardu P. Patel, Project Manager Project Directorate II-2 Division of Reactor Projects-I/II Office of Nuclear Reactor Regulation D~[?
HA~~~ow 3///88
~
- f'_
Docket Nos. 50-280 and 50-281 Mr. W. L. Stewart Vice President - Nuclear Operations Virginia Electric and Power Company Post Office Box 26666 Richmond, Virginia 23261
Dear Mr. Stewart:
DISTRIBUTION Docket File NRC & Local PDRs PD22 Reading S. Varga G. Lainas D. Miller C. Patel H. Berkow OGC-WF E. Jordan J. Partlow ACRS (lO)
Gray File
SUBJECT:
EMERGENCY RESPONSE CAPABILITY - CONFORMANCE TO REGULATORY GUIDE 1.97 AT SURRY POWER STATION UNIT NOS. 1 AND? (TAC NOS. 51138 AND 51139)
By letters dated January 31, 1984, May 10, 1985, June 21, 1985, August 2,.1985, April 21, 1986 and Auqust 12, 1987, Vi rgi ni a Electric and Power Compan.v (VEPCO) provided a detailed description of conformance to post-accident monitoring instrumentation guidelines of Regulatory Guide 1.97, as applied to emergency response facilities.
We have completed our review of these submittals and find the instrumentation provided by VEPCO for meeting the recommendations of Regulatory Gui de 1. 97, Revision 3, to be acceptable except for the containment sump water temperature variable.
We are enclosing our Safety Evaluation, along with a Technical Evaluation Report prepared by our consultant, EG&G Idaho, Inc.
As discussed in our Safety Evaluation, the acceptability of instrumentation for the containment sump water temperature will remain open pending the outcome of the staff 1s generic review of the need for environmentally qualified Category?
instrumentation to monitor this variable. Therefore, this issue will be handled separately on a generic basis.
Based on the above, we conclude that the post-accident monitoring instrumentation at Surry Units 1 and 2 conform to Regulatory Guide 1.97, Revision 3, except as noted above.
This completes our review of Multi-Plant Action (MPA) A-17 for both Surry units. It is our understanding that you have already implemented these requirements on or before December 30, 198n.
You are requested to inform us if you do not agree with this implementation date.
Enclosures:
As stated cc w/enc1osures:
See next page
~~~
~~r~r 3/'t,/88 o/JP PM: PDII-?.
CPatel:bg 3/2-- /88 Sincerely, Chandu P. Patel, Project Manager Project Directorate II-2 Division of Reactor Projects-I/II Office of Nuclear Reactor Regulation D: PDII-?
HBerkow 3/ /88
I..
. *-*~
e Mr. W. L. StPwart Virginia Electric and Power Company cc:
Mr. Michael W. Maupin Hunton and Williams Post OfficP ~ox 1535 Richmond, Virginia 23?.1?.
Mr. David L. BPnson, ~anager Surry Power Station Post Office Bnx 315 Surry, Virginia ?38R3 Resident Inspector Surry Power Station ll.S. Nuclear Regulatorv Commi5sion Post Officp 8~x 166, Route 1 Surry, Virginia ?3883 Mr. Sherlock Holmes, Chairman Roarn of Supervisors of Surry County Surrv Countv Court.house Surry, Virginia 23683 W. T. Lough Virqinia Corporation Commission Division of EnPrqv Requlation Post Office 8ox 1197 Richmond, Virqinia 23?.09 Regional Anministrator, Region II U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission 101 Marietta Street N.W., Suite ~900 Atlanta, Georqia 30323 James B. Kenley, M.n., Co1T111issioner Department of ~ealth 109 Governor Street Richmond, Virginia 23219
~urry Power Station A+tnrney General Supreme Court Buildi~g 101 North Rth Street Richmond, Virginia ?3?19