ML18153C377
| ML18153C377 | |
| Person / Time | |
|---|---|
| Site: | Surry  |
| Issue date: | 09/24/1990 |
| From: | NRC OFFICE OF INSPECTION & ENFORCEMENT (IE REGION II) |
| To: | |
| Shared Package | |
| ML18153C376 | List: |
| References | |
| 50-280-90-22, 50-281-90-22, NUDOCS 9010030221 | |
| Download: ML18153C377 (1) | |
See also: IR 05000280/1990022
Text
.. - -
Enclosure
2
The SER dated March 1988 concluded th~t the licensee's instrumentation for
- RG 1.97 either conforms to or is justified in deviating from RG 1.97,
Revision 3 with the exception of addressing the variable, containment sump
water temperature.
The containment sump water temperature variable will
remain open pending the outcome of the staff's generic review of the need
for environment qualification.
In Section 2.0, -Evaluation Criteria, of
the SER, it is specifically stated that regional meetings were held in
February and March 1983 to answer licensee questions and co~cerns.
At
these meetings the NRC policy for RG -1.97 was established that the NRC
would only address exceptions taken to RG 1.97. Further, where licensees
explicitly state that the instrumentation system conform to the
provisions, no further staff review would be necessary for those items!
Therefore, the review performed and reported by the SER only addresses
exceptions to the guidance of RG 1.97.
This is further discussed in
Paragraph 2.b. _
This inspection assessed the licensee's RG 1.97 instrumentation program
using (1) the design and qualification criteria described in Table 1 of
RG 1.97, Revision 3; (2) the Technical Evaluation Report No. EGG-EA-6799
dated November 1987, Conformance to Regulatory Guide 1.97. Surry 1 and 2;
(3) the licensee's submittals as discussed previously; and (4) 10 CFR
Part 50 *
A random sample of 23 variables from the licensee's submittal were
selected to evaluate the licensee's program.
The variables selected were
classified as Category 1 and 2 which have the most stringent design
requirements of all RG 1.97 instruments.
The instruments examined and the
results achieved are discussed in the paragraphs and tables below.
a.
Category 1 and 2 Instruments
The instrumentation listed in the following Tables was examined to
verify that the design and qualification criteria for RG 1.97, the
SER and licensee commitments had been satisfied. The instrumentation
was inspected by reviewing drawings; procedures, data sheets and
other documentation; and performing walkdowns for visual observation
of selected installed equipment including control room indicators and
recorders.
The following areas were inspected:
(1)
Equipment Qualification - The EQ Master Equipment List, Q-list,
I&C List, and instrument drawings were reviewed for confirmation
that the licensee had addressed environmental qualification -
requirements and seismic qualification.
An example of the
deviation in this area is discussed in Paragraph 2.b.
(2)
Redundancy -
Walkdowns were performed to verify by visual
observation that selected instruments were installed as
specified and that separation requirements were met.
In
addition, wiring drawings for all listed Category 1 instrumen-
tation were reviewed to verify redundancy and channel
separation.
90 l 003022 l
900*:.i2,<1
ADOCK 0~000280
Q