ML20042C967
Text
!
i
\\
L P,25 MAY 8 1966 MEMORANDllM FOR:
M. Haughey, Project Manager, RWR Project Directorate #3 Division of BWR Licensing FROM:
Gus C. Lainas, Assistant Director for BWR Division of BWR Licensing
SUBJECT:
EMERGENCY RESPONSE CAPABILITY, CONFORMANCE TO R.G. 1.97, REV. 2 Plant Name:
Nine Mile Point Nuclear Station, Unit #?
Utility:
Niagara Mohawk Power Corooration Docket Nos.:
50-410 Licensing Status:
NT0L l
Resp. Directorate:
PD #3/ DBL Pro.iect Manager:
M. Haughey Review Branch:
EICSB/DPA Review Status:
Complete We are transmitting herewith our subject safety evaluation with its attachment, l
EG&G Idaho, Inc., Technical Evaluation Report (TER) dated March 1986.
We find the instrumentation provided by the Niagara Mohawk Power Corpnration for meet-j ing the recommendations of Regulatory Guide 1.97 acceptable, except for the variable neutron flux.
l Our safety evaluation is based on our review of EGAG's TER EGG-NTA-7059. This completes EICSB's action on this item.
The EICSB evaluation of licensee per#ormance (SALP input) is also enclosed.
U/
i Gus C. Lainas, Assistant Director for BWR Division of BWR Licensing
Enclosures:
Distribution:
As stated Document control 016 EICSB Rdg.
cc (w/ enc.):
E. Adensam H. Walker 49tmaevnick"(PR$ft)
C. E. Rossi F. Witt J. E. Knight D. Crutchfield J. Joyce F. Rosa R. W. Houston R. Stevens G. Lainas J. Mauck A. Udy (EG&G)
NMP-2 S/F M. Srinivasan
Contact:
J. Lazevnick, EICSB/DPA X?4864 E1CSB/DPA SL/ETCSB/DPA BC/EICSWJA BC/E DBL AD L
JLaze ick:ct JEnigt FRosa MSrinivasan GC inas 5/ M/86 5/ 7 /86 5/7/86 5/y/86 5/h/86 0FFICIAL RECORD COPY
%C6200M
- n. ~e
L l
i ilr l
SAFETY EVALUATION j
NINE MILE POINT NUCLEAR STATION, UNIT NO. 2 DOCKET NO. 50-410 CONFORMANCE TO REGULATORY GUIDE 1.97 INTRODUCTION AND
SUMMARY
Niagara Mohawk Power Corporation (NMPCT was requested by Generic Letter 82-33 to provide a report to the NRC describing how the post-accident monitorino instru-mentation meets the guidelines of Regulatory Guide 1.97 as applied to emergency response facilities. The applicant responded to the Regulatory Guide 1.97 portion of the generic letter on October 5, 1984 Additional information was provided by letter dated January 20, 1986 and by_ Revision 17 of the FSAR.
A detailed review and technical evaluation of the applicant's submittals was perforned by EG&G Idaho, Inc., under contract to the NRC, with general super-f vision by the NRC staff. This work was reported by EG&G in their Technical i
Evaluation Report (TER), "Conformance to Regulatory Guide 1.97, Nine Mile i
Point Nuclear Station, Unit Nn, 2," dated March 1986 (attached). We have reviewed this report and concur with the-conclusion that the applicant either l
conforms to, or, is justified in deviating from, the guidance of Regulatory l
l Guide 1.97 for each post-accident monitoring variable, except for the' vari-able neutron flux.
EVALUATION CRITERIA Subsequent to the issuance of the generic letter, the NRC held regional meet-ings in February and March 1983 to answer licensee and applicant questions i
and concerns regarding the NRC policy on Regulatory Guide 1.97.
At these meetings, it was noted that the NRC review would only address exceptions taken to the guidance of Regulatory Guide 1.97.
Further, where licensees or
1
] i applicants explicitly state that instrument systems conform to the provisions of the regulatory guide, it was noted that no further staff review would be necessary.
Therefore, the review perfonned and reported by EGAG only addresses exceptions to the guidance of Regulatory Guide 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 i
We have reviewed the evaluation performed by our consultant contained in the encloseo TER and concur with its bases and findings. The applicant either conforms to, or has provided an acceptable justification for deviations from the guidance of Regulatorv Guide 1.97 for each post-accident monitnring vari-able except for the variable neutron flux.
l
~
Regulatory Guide 1.97 recommends that the neutron flux monitoring instrumenta-tion be Category 1, however existing neutron flux monitoring instrunentation for BWR's is not fully environmentally cualified. A fully qualified Category 1 instruirent is presently an industry development item.
In his April'1, 1986 letter the applicant committed to monitor industry efforts to develop a qualified Neutron Monitoring System for long-tern post-accident monitoring.
He further comitted that, when qualified equipment becomes available, he would i
install it at Unit 2 by the first refueling following availability, unless he justifies to the staff that installation of the specific equipment would
i l
l result in an overall decrease in the safety of the plant.
In this case he would continue his efforts to identify and procure acceptable quelified equipment. The staff finds this commitment acceptable.
l CONCLUSION l
Based on the staff's review of the enclosed Technical Evaluation Report and the applicant's submittals, we find that the Nine Mile Point Nuclear ~ Station, Unit No. 2, design is acceptable with respect to conformance to Regulatory Guide 1.97, Revision 2, except for the neutron flux instrumentation.
The staff also finds that the existing neutron flux instrumentation is accept-able for interim operation. When qualified neutron flux instrumentation be-comes available the applicant should install it et Unit 2 by the first refuel-ing followina availability, unless he justifies to the staff that installation of the specific, equipment would result in an overall decrease in the_ safety
~
of the plant.
. ~
s i
EICSB SALP INPUT Plant:
Nine Mile Point Nuclear Station, linit No. 2
Subject:
R.G. 1.97/NUREG-0737, Supplement No. 1 Performance Evaluation Criteria Category:
Basis 1.
Management 1
Management has been cooperative in establishing communication to clarify their positions.
Responses have been timely.
2.
Approach to 1
The applicant demonstrated an j
Resolution of adequate understanding of the issue Technical Issues and provided technically sound justification supporting their positions.
3.
Responsiveness 1
The applicant responded to staff l"
request for additional information l
in a timely manner.
Response was l
adequate.
4.
Enforcement N/A No basis for assessment.
History 5.
Reportable N/A No basis for assessnent.
l Events 6.
Staffing N/A No basis for assessment.
7.
Training N/A No basis for assessment.
y--,.
-.m.,,..,
.o---.
p._-
.m.-
--7m e--
M
'+"+wr
-a@
'e-