ML20138B593

Conformance to Reg Guide 1.97,Pilgrim Nuclear Power Station

ML20138B593
Person / Time
Site:	Pilgrim
Issue date:	10/31/1985
From:	Udy A EG&G IDAHO, INC.
To:	NRC
Shared Package
ML20138B596	List: ML20138B593 ML20138K369
References
CON-FIN-A-6483, RTR-REGGD-01.097, RTR-REGGD-1.0197, RTR-REGGD-1.097 TAC-51119, NUDOCS 8510160360
Download: ML20138B593 (25)

Text

- INTERIM REPORT e -

e CONFORMANCE TO REGULATORY GUIDE 1.97 PILGRIM NUCLEAR POWER STATION A. C. Udy Published October 1985 EG&G Idaho, Inc.

Idaho Falls, Idaho 83415 Prepared for the U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Comnission Washington, D.C. 20555  ;

. Under DOE Contract No. DE-AC07-76fD01570 j FIN No. A6483  ;

[ , . .

jVJ g.L <o 3Gg 2 c,_

~~~,..-.,.,

^-

I **7***"

, e s , b, .-..m. *- , , , . . , .

,. ..-m ,

l l

ABSTRACT This EG&G Idaho, Inc., rep' ort reviews the submittal for Regulatory Guide 1.97, Revision 3, for the Pilgrim Nuclear Power Station and'-

identifies areas of nonconformance to the regulatory guide. Exceptions to Regulatory Guide 1.97 are evaluated and those areas where sufficient basis for acceptability is not provided are identified.

FOREWORD .

This report is supplied as part of the " Program for Evaluating Licensee / Applicant Conformance to RG 1.97," being conducted for the U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission, Office of Nuclear Reactor Regulation.

Division of Systems Integration, by EG&G Idaho, Inc., NRR and I&E Support Branch.

The U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Comission funded the work under authorization B&R 20-19-10-11-3.

n Docket No. 50-293 TAC No. 51119 11 l

- . - . . ~ . . . , _ . _ . . . , . - - . . . - . . - . - - . . . - - - - - . -

e .

1 CONTENTS A B ST RA C T . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 11 l

FOREWORD .............................................................. 11

• 1. INTRODUCTION ..................................................... I

2. REVIEW REQUIREMENTS .............................................. 2

3. EVALUATION ....................................................... 4 3.1 Adherence to Regulatory Guide 1.97 ......................... .

-4 3.2 Type A Variables ........................................... 4 3.3 Exceptions to Regulatory Guide 1.97 ........................ 5

4. CONCLUSIONS ...................................................... 15

5. REFERENCES ........................................................ 19 APPENDIX A ............................................................ 20 9

l l

iii

CONFORMANCE TO REGULATORY GUIDE 1.97 PILGRIM NUCLEAR POWER STATION

~

,, 1. INTRODUCTION On December 17, 1982, Generic Letter No. 82-33 (Reference 1) was issued by D. G. Eisenhut, Director of the Division of Licensing, Nuclear Reactor Regulation, to all licensees of operating reactors, applicants for cperating licenses, and holders of construction permits. This letter included additional clarification regarding Regulatory Guide 1.97,.

Revision 2 (Reference 2), relating to the requirements for emergency ,

response capability. These reauirersnts have been published as Supplement No. I to NUREG-0737, "TMI Action Plan Requirements" (Reference 3).

Boston Edison Company, the licensee for the Pilgrim Nuclear Power Station, provided a response to Section 6.2 of the generic letter on November 1,1984 (Reference 4).

This report provides an evaluation of that material.

4+

i 3:

o e

e I

w . . - .. ..... --- .

2. REVIEW REOUIREMENTS Section 6.2 of NUREG-0737, Supplement No. 1, sets forth the -

I documentation to be submitted in a report to the NRC describing how the f

licensee complies with Regulatory Guide 1.97 as applied to emergency ,

r:sponse facilities. The submittal should include documentation that 'l provides the following information for each variable shown in the l t ,

applicable table of Regulatory Guide 1.97.

5

1. Instrument range

2. Environmental qualification

3. Seismic qualification -

4. Quality assurance

5. Redundance and sensor location

6. Power supply .

7. Location o.f display

8. Schedule of installation or upgrade Furthermore, the submittal should identify deviations from the' regulatory guide and provide supporting justification or alternatives.

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 this subject.

At these meetings, it was noted that the NRC review would only address exceptions taken to Regulatory Guide 1.97. Furthermore, where licensees or ,

' applicants explicitly state that instrument systems conform to the ,

regulatory guide it was noted that no furthe'r staff review would be .

i 1

l l

l

-~~- - . - - s~~ ~ ~ v:. -y. - -.- . . l gy.. .

m.- ,m. . - - - .

1 necessary. Therefore, this report only addresses exceptions to Regulatory ,

Guide 1.97. The following evaluation is an audit of the licensee's submittal based on the review policy described in the NRC regional meetings.

~

i l

l l

1.

l l

3

3. EVALUATION The licensee provided a response to Item 6.2 of NRP Generic Letter 82-33, on November 1, 1988 The response describes the licensee's _

position on post-accident monitoring instrumentation. This evaluation is

~

based on that material.

3.1 Adherence to Regulatory Guide 1.97 The licensee has provided a review of their post-accident monitoring instrumentation that compares the instrumentation characteristics against the recommendations of Regulatory Guide 1.97, Revision 3 (Reference 5).

Th2 report is divided into three areas; (a) instrumentation that meets the recommendations of the regulatory guide, (b) instrumentation that will be .

modified to meet the recommendations of the regulatory guide, and (c) instrumentation that the licensee has determined appropriate. The licensee has committed to implement the modifications noted in their report by the end of outage number 8. Therefore, we conclude that the licensee'-

~

i has provided an explicit commitment on conformance to Regulatory Guide 1.97. Exceptions to and deviations from the regulatory guide are noted in Section 3.3.

3.2 Type A Variables i

Regulatory Guide 1.97 does not specifically identify Type A variables, i.e., those variables that provide information required to permit the centrol room operator to take specific manually controlled safety actions.

The licensee classifies the following instrumentation as Type A.

1. Torus temperature ,

i

2. Torus water level .

3. Primary containment pressure

4. Drywell temperature 4

l

• - ,-----y*----

7_ =+ .,- --.._ - e .. 3, . . muw ,, e w . . ..f.r; . ;, . ; g_, ,, g y . g -,.g., , , - ,.

-These variabl es ei ther meet or will meet the Category 1 recommendations,

- consistent with the requirements for Type A variables.

., 3.3 Exceptions to Regulatory Guide 1.97 .

~

l The licensee identified deviations and exceptions from Regulatory Guide 1.97. These are discussed in the following paragraphs.

3.3.1 Seismic Oualification The licensee has identified the 22 variables listed in Appendix A of this report, for which more information is needed before they can be documented as meeting the requirements of Regulatory Guide 1.97. The licensee should show that the seismic qualification for each of these ,

variables is in accordance with the station's seismic design criteria.

3.3.2 Neutron Flux ' -

Regulatory Guide 1.97 recommends Category 1 instrumentation for this variable. The licensee is . supplying instrumentation that is not Category 1 in all respects, saying that a qualified drive unit is not available.

' ~

-In the process of our review of the r,autron flux instrumentation for boiling water reactors, we note that the mechanical drives of the detectors have not satisfied the environmental qualification requirement of Regulatory Guide 1.97. A Category I system that meets all the criteria of Regulatory Guide 1.97 is an industry developwent item. Based on our

- review, we conclude that the existing instrumentation is acceptable for interim operation. The licensee should follow industry developeent of this equipment, evaluate newly developed equipment, and install Category 1

• instrumentation to cover the recommended range when it becomes available.

I O I

I .

5

- - ,- _. ~ ~ - _ . -

,_. .... .. - _.-- - - - ,_.- - -._ _ _ ..~ -..

p ,_ - , . . - - - .._ _.. _ _ _ , , _ . . . . , _ _ _ _ , _ _ _ , _ _ . _ _ .

3.3.3. Reactor Coolant System (RCS) Soluble Boron Concentration Regulatory Guide 1.97 recommends instrumentation for this variable with a range o(0 to 1000 parts per million. The licensee states that the -

post-accident sampling system is being evaluated for use with this variable, however, they have not supplied the information required by Section 6.2 of Supplement No. 1 of NUREG-0737. The licensee should supply ,

this information. -

The licensee deviates from Regulatory Guide 1.97 with respect to . '

post-accident sampling capability. This deviation goes beyond the scope of this review and is being addressed by the NRC as part of their review of NUREG-0737, Item II.B.3.

3.3.4 Coolant Level in Reactor Regulatory Guide 1.97 recommends instrumentation for this variable uith a range from the bottom of the core support plate to the lesser of the -

too of the vessel or the centerline of the main steamline. The licensee states that this range recommendation is equivalent to 186 to 604 inches.

The licensee ut.ilizes two sets of Cctegory 1 instrumentation with ovarlapping ranges. They cover from 205 to 505 inches and from 432 to ,

532 inches. The licensee has not justified the deviation at either end (from 186 to 205 inches and from 532 to 604 inches) of the range.

The licensee should justify this deviation, showing why the ranges provided are acceptable. .

3.3.5 RCS Pressure Regulatory Guide 1.97 recommends Category 1 instrumentation for this variable. Thus, independent and redundant instrumentation should be ,

provided for this variable. Both redundant transmitters for this variable .

share the same vital instrument bus, Y2, as their power source. .

i 6

m_ .. ..~.,. . ..._ _. . ,_ .- . . mm.,

. , . . . . , . , , .w . . -

Additionally, both channals are r corded on a shared two channel recordar.

This configuration does not satisfy the single failure criteria for Category 1 instrumentation.

~

The licensee has not justified this lack of independence and full

~

redundancy. Therefore, we conclude that the licensee should modify this

. instrumentation to achieve full redundance and independence.

"~ ~

3.3.6 Drywell Sump Level Drywell Drain Sumps Level '

Regulatory Guide 1.97 recomends Category 1 instrumentation for these I

variables. The licensee has supplied Category 3 instrumentation for these variables. The drywell sump systems are automatically isolated at the primary containment penetration should an accident signal occur'.

4 We conclude that the instrumentation provided by the licensee will  !

provide the appropriate monitoring of the parameters of concern. This" -

conclusion is based on (a) for small leaks, the instrumentation is not expected to experience harsh environments during operation, (b) for larger leaks, the sumps fill prompitly and the sump drain lines isolate due to the increase in drywell pressure, thus negating the drywell. sump level and drywell drain sumps level instrumentation, and (c) this instrumentation neither automatically initiates nor alerts the operator to initiate operation of a safety-related system in a post-accident situation, Therefore, we find the Category 3 instrumentation provided acceptable.

3.3.7 Primary Containment Isolation Valve Position Regulatory Guide 1.97 recomends Category 1 position indication for these valves. .

l

, Position switches 258000 and 258001 control the valves that isolate the torus makeup line from the condensate storage tank. These control

. switches and their position indication are locally mounted in the residual 7

g.,............ _

u;::,:.: =w . . ..: .:.. .. . :...:: .-

heat removal (RHR) and core spray pump room "B", a potentially hars'h cnvironment. The power source and cabling for these two valves are not independent and redundant. The licensee states that these are not .

safety-relatedt These valves are not automatically closed by a containment isolation signal, but.are normally kept closed during power operation. ,

Therefore, we find that these valves are not true containment isolation valves and we determine that the deviations for these valves are acceptable.

~...

The 580 control rod drive directional control valves are considered part of this variable by the licensee. Position indication is not

~

provided. These valves are closed except when normal rod movement occurs.

These valves are not used to achieve a scram, and are not used in t'he post-accident situation. Based on this justification, we find that the lack of position indication for these valves is acceptable. .

3.3.8 Radiation Level in Circulating Primary Coolant The licensee indicates that radiation level measurements to indicath fuel cladding failure are provided by the post-accident sampling system, which is being reviewed by the NRC as part of their review of NUREG-0737, Item II.B.3.

Based on the alternate instrumentation provided by the licensee, we

>' ccnclude that the instrumentation supplied for this variable is adequate, and therefore, acceptable. -

i 3.3.9 Containment and Drywell Hydrogen Concentration '

( Regulatory Guide 1.97 recommends instrumentation for this variable with a range from 0 to 30 percent. The licensee's instrumentation has a  ;

l range of 0 to 10 percent. The licensee states that this range is l- sufficient because it was installed to meet the requirements of Attachment 6 to Item II.F.1 of NUREG-0737. .

1 8

- ~ ~ - -

7-3 _ __

The NRC reviewed the acceptability of this variable as part of their review of NUREG-0737, Item II.F.1.6, finding it acceptable.

3.3.10 Containment and Drywell Oxygen Concentration

. I Regulatory Guide 1.97 recommends that power for this instrumentation be taken from Class 1E sources. The licensee indicates that this instrumentation does not comply with this requirement, but that the power '

l source is acceptable. The licehsee did riot provide justification for this deviation.

We recomend that this instrumentation be supplied power from Class 1E power sources in compliance with the regulatory guide.

3.3.11 Effluent Radioactivity i

. Regulatory Guide 1.97 recomends environmentally qualified

' ~

instrumentation for this variable with a range of 10-6 to 3

10 uCi/cc. .The licensee indicates that the range and environmental qualificationsarenotmet(therangeisnotidentified). Additionally, the licensee indicates that the instrument loop (channel) availability is inadequate for this variable. The licensee did not provide justifications for these deviations.

The licensee should provide the recomended instrument range and improved channel availability.

t

- Environmental qualification has been clarified by the Environmental Qualification Rule 10 CFR 50.49. We conclude that Regulatory Guide 1.97 has been superseded by a regulatory requirement. Any exception to this rule is beyond the scope of this review and should be addressei in accordance with 10 CFR 50.49. -

9

^' '

^

-,mn-m- - - , , ,m, * ,=, a %e-e- ---m-- -Y~-

3.3.12 Condensate Storage Tank Level Regulatory Guide 1.97 recommends instrumentation for this variable with a range from the top to the bottom. The licensee indicates that this instrumentation does not meet the recenwended range. The actual range and l the extent of the deviation is not identified.

The licensee should identify the extent or' this deviation from i Regulatory Guide..l.97 and proside' supporting justification or alternatives for this deviation.

3.3.13 Drywell Atmosphere Temperature The licensee identifies this as a Type A variable. Thus, Regulatory .

Guide 1.97 recommends Category 1 instrumentation with a range of 40 to 440*F. The licensee indicates that their instrument range is acceptable with justification. Additionally, the licensee indicated that the recommended electrical isolation between channels is not provided. This' ~

configuration does not satisfy the single failure criteria for Category 1 instrumentation. The licensee did not provide justification for either of these deviations.

The licensee should identify the range of this instrumentation and justify the deviation. The licensee should also provide the reconner.ded electrical isolation.

3.3.14 Drywell Spray Flow ,

Regulatory Guide 1.97 recommends environmentally qualified instrumentation with a range of 0 to 110 percent of design flow. The licensee identifies a deviation with respect to environmental qualification and the range. The extent of the deviation is not identified, nor is the d;viation justified. ,

l 10

The licensee should identify the extent of this deviation from the recommended range and provide supporting justification or alternatives for this deviation.

• Environmental qualification has been clarified by the Environmental Qualification Rule,10 CFR 50.49. We conclude that Regulatory Guide 1.97 has been superseded by a regulatory requirement. Any exception to this l

rule is beyond the scope of this review and should be addressed in

~

accordancewith10CFR50.4Y.-

~

3.3.15 Main Steamline Isolation Valves' Leakage Control System Pressure

~

Regulatory Guide 1.97 recommends Category 2 instrumentation for this variable. The licensee has not provided the information required by .

Section 6.2 of Supplement No, 1 to NUREG-0737.

The licensee should provide the required information, identify any deviation from Regulatory Guide 1.97 and provide supporting justificat' ion .

or alternatives for those deviations.

3.3.16 Reactor Core Isolation Cooling System Flow Low Pressure Coolant Injection System Flow Cooling Water Flow to Engineered Safety Feature (ESF)

System Components 4

. Regulatory Guide 1.97 recommends environmentally qualified instrumentation for these variables with ranges from 0 to 110 percent of design flow. The licensee identifies a deviation with respect to environmental qualification and range. The extent of the deviation is not identified, nor is the deviation justified.

The licensee should identify the extent of these deviations from the recommended range and provide supporting justification or. alternatives for these deviations. .

11

m. . . 1, ..._,.m._,..-..w.,..s ...:..._..:..-....

t Environmental qualification has been clarified by the Environmental

. Qualification Rule,10 CFR 50.49. We conclude that Regulatory Guide 1.97 has been superseded by a regulatory requirement. Any exception to this rule is beyond the scope of this review and should be addressed in accordance with 10 CFR 50.49. ,

3.3.17 Standby Liauid Control System Flow RegulatoryGuide1.97redoNn'endsCategory2instrumentationforthis variable. The licensee has not provided the information required by-Section 6.2 of Supplement No. I to NUREG-0737.

The licensee should provide the required information, identify any deviations from Regulatory Guide 1.97 and provide supporting justification ,

or alternatives for those deviations. '

3.3.18 Standby Liquid Control System Storage Tank Level Regulatory Guide 1.97 reconnends Category 2 instrumentation for this variable. The licensee has instrumentation that is not Category 2, stating that they anticipate future changes to the standby liquid control system and that the level instrumentation will be evaluated for adequacy at that time. '

The licensee should identify the specific deviations from the I Category 2 requirements and justify those deviations.

i 3.3.19 High Radioactivity Liquid Tank Level 8

Regulatory Guide 1.07 recom,nends instrumentation for this variable '

with a range from the top to the bottom of the tank. The licensee

• i identifies a deviation from this reconnendation. The extent of the dtviation is not identified, nor did the licensee provide justification for .

the deviation.

! 12 p _. . _ . _ _

The licensee should identify the extent of the deviation and provide supporting justification or alternatives for the deviation.

3.3.20 Status of Standby Power ,

Regulatory Guide 1.97 recommends Category 2 instrumentation for this variable, with plant specific ranges. Category 2 criteria includes environmental qualification. The licensee has not identified the -

~

instrumentrangesasrequirid"6ySection6.2ofSupplementNo.1.to NUREG-0737. The licensee should provide the required infomatiori, identify any deviations from Regulatory Guide 1.97 and provide supporting justification or alternatives for those deviations.

The licensee indicates that this instrumentation is not environmentally qualified. The licensee did not provide justification for this deviation. ,

!

• Environmental qualification has been clarified by the Environmenth1 ~

! Qualification Rule, 10 CFR 50.49. We conclude that Regulatory Guide 1.07. .

has been superseded by a regulatory requirement. Any exception to this rule is beyond the scope of this review and should be addressed in accordance with 10 CFR 50.49. -

3.3.21 Secondary Containment Area Radiation .

Regulatory Guide 1.97 recomends Category 2 instrumentation for this variable, with a range from 10-I to 104 R/hr. The licensee has not

' provided the infomation required by Section 6.2 of Supplement No.1 to .

NUREG-0737 for this variable.

The licensee should provide the required infomation, identify an.y i- deviations from Regulatory Guide 1.97 and provide supporting justification or alternatives for those deviations. .

e 13 i

j

, 3.3.22 Particulates and Halogens--All Identified Release Points Airborne Radiohalogens and Particulates ,

Plant and Environs Radiation Plant and Environs Radioactivity

~

Regulatory Guide 1.97 recommends Category 3 instrumentation for these variables. The licensee has not provided the infomation required by  ;

Section 6.2 of Supplement No. I to NUREG-0737 for these variablec.

- The licensee should provide the required information, identify any deviations from Regulatory Guide 1.97 and provide supporting justification or alternatives for those deviations.

3.3.23 Accident Sampling (Primary Coolant, Containment Air and Sutnp)

• The licensee's sample system is being installed. It is expected to be able to obtain samples and provide the analyses within the ranges recomended for this variable, except for dissolved gas. For dissolved "

~

gas, the recomended range is 0 to 2000 cc/kg. The range being provided is 0 to 400 cc/kg.

i The licensee deviates from Regulatory Guide 1.97 with respect to l:

p

st-accident sampling capability. This deviation goes beyond the scope of

! this review and is being addressed by the NRC as part of their review of NUREG-0737 Item II.B.3.

e i

14

_ __ _ _ _ _ _.~ ._ ._ _-- . _

4. CONCLUSIONS -

Based on our review, we find that the licensee either conforms to or ,

is justified.in deviating from Regulatory Guide 1.97, with the following ,

exceptions: l

• f i

1. Seismic qualification--the licensee should verify the I e

acceptability of the seismic qualification for the variables l listed in Appends 'A'(Section 3.3.1). -

l l

2. Neutron flux--the licensee's instrumentation is acceptable on an j interim basis until Category 1 instrumentation is developed and j installed (Section 3.3.2). l l

3. RCS soluble boron concentration--the licensee should supply the l 1

information required by Section 6.2 of Supplement No. 1 to  ;

NUREG-0737 (Section 3.3.3) }

. 3

4. Coolant level in reactor--the licensee should justify the range l provided, where the span is less than recommended by the l regulatory guide (Section 3.3.4). l

5. RCS pressure--the licensee should modify this instrumentation to achieve full redundancy and independence between channels (Section 3.3.5).

n h

! 6. Containment and drywell oxygen concentration--power for this

• instrumentation should be derived from Class lE power sources  !

(Section3.3.10). e l

7. Effluent radioactivity--the licensee should improve channel -

t 2

availability and provide the recommended range; environmental  ;

. qualification should be addressed in accordance with 10 CFR 50.49 l t

(Section3.3.11).

l f

15 l

[Q*.s v *s*** **v * * * -

s-

'3- _s[*'y ~^* 3~'~f*3+.~ y . - ~. rr s s. .

=- 1

~

.c

, 8. Condensate storage tank level--the licensee should identify the extent of the range deviation and provide justification or alternativesforthedeviation(Section3.3.12).

9. Drywellatmospheretemperature--thelicenseeshouldjustNythe '

deviationintherangeofthisinstrumehtation; electrical isolation between channels should be provided (Section 3.3.13).  !

10. Drywell spray flow [-tfie' licensee should identify the extent of the range deviation and justify the deviation; environmental' qualification should be addressed iri' accordance with 10 CFR 50.49 (Section3.3.14).

11. Main steamline isolation valves' leakage control system" pressure--the licensee should provide the information required by Supplement No.1 to NUREG-0737, identify any deviations from Regulatory Guide 1.97, and justify those deviations (Section3.3.15). .

12. Reactor core isolation cooling system flow--the licensee should identify the extent of the range deviation and justify the deviation;' environmental qualification should be' addressed in accordance with 10 CFR 50.49 (Section 3.3.16).

~

13. Low pressure coolant injection system flow--the licensee should identify the extent of the range deviation and justify the

- deviation; environmental qualification should be addressed in accordance with 10 CFR 50.49'(Section 3.3.16).

14. Cooling water flow to ESF system components--the licensee should identify the extent of the range deviation and justify the i deviation; environmental qualification should be addressed in accordance with 10 CFR 50.49 (Section 3.3.16). .

0 16

15. Standby liauid control system flow--the licensee should provide

~

the infort.ation required by Supplement No. I to NU2EG-0737, identify any deviations from Regulatory Guide 1.97 and justify th.ose deviations (Section 3.3.17).

16. Standby liquid control system storage tank level--the licensee should identify the specific deviations from the Category 2 requirements and justify those deviations (Section 3.3.18). ,

17. High radioactivity liquid tank level--the licensee should-identify the extent of the range deviation and justify the deviation (Section3.3.19).

18. Status of standby power--the licensee should identify the plant .

l specific ranges of this instrumentation; environmental qualification should be addressed in accordanc . with 10 CFR 50.49 (Section3.3.20).

19. Secon,dary containment area radiation--the licensee should provide the information reouired by Supplement No. I to NUREG-0737, identify any deviations from Regulatory Guide 1.97 and justify those deviations (Section 3.3.21).

20. Particulates and halogens-all identified release points--the licensee should provide tne information required by Supplement No. I to NUREG-0737, identify any deviations from Regulatory Guide 1.97 and justify those deviations (Section 3.3.22).

21. Airborne radiohalogens and particulates--the licensee should provide the information required by Supplement No. 1 to NUREG-0737, identify any deviations from Regulatory Guide 1.97 and justify these deviations (Section 3.3.22).

4 17

.+ . . . . . .

22. Plant and Gnvirons radiation--th2 lic:;nsee should provid2 tha infonnation required by Supplement No.1 to NUREG-0737, identify any deviations from Regulatory Guide 1.97 and justify those devijitions (Section 3.3.22). .

23. Plant and en~virons radioactivity--the licensee should provide the

- information required by Supplement No. 1 to NUREG-0737, idenH fy l any deviations from Regulatory Guide 1.97 and justify those deviations (Section"3'.L22).

t b

i b

~

18

^

5. REFERENCES

1. NRC letter, D. G. Eisenhut to All Licensees of Operating Reactors,

. Applicants for Operating Licenses, and Holders of Construction Pemits, " Supplement No. I to NUREG-0737--Requirements for Emergency Response Capability (Generic Letter No. 82-33)," December 17, 1982. ,

2. Instrumentation for Lis ht-Water-Cooled Nuclear Power Plants to Assess Plant and Environs Concitions Durino and Following an Accident, Regulatory Guide 1.97, Revision 2, NRC, Office of 5tandarcs Development, December 1980. -

l 3. Clarifichtion of TMI Action Plan Requirements, Requirements for Emergency Response Capability, NUREG-0737, Supplement No.1,- NRC, Office of Nuclear Reactor Regulation, January 1983. l

4. Boston Edison Company letter, W. D. Harrington to D. B. Vassallo, NRC,

" Generic Letter 82-33: Regulatory Guide 1.97," November 1, lo84, letter #84-187.

5. Instrumentation for Licht-Water-Cooled Nuclear Power Plant's to Assess Plant and Environs concittons Dur1nt and Following an Accident, Regulatory Guide 1.97, Revision 3, PRC, Office of Nuclear Regulatory Research, May 1983.

0 e

• 4 0

l 19

. . . . . . . . . _ _ . , . _ . _ _ . , _ _,.....,...,...n..g

e 0 0

4 9

4 O

e 9

f e, ,

O APPENDIX A SEISMIC OUALIFICATION OF INSTRUMENTATION e

4 O 6 O

O 6 e b'

f I

i l

20 Q- - - . . - ~ ~ ~ . ~ myy , -- -- u - . -- . ~ . . . .. u. 3. -

- - ~

1 APPENDIX A SEISMIC QUALIFICATION OF INSTRUMENTATION The licensee has identified the following variables for which ,

additional information is needed to show compliance with Regulatory Guide 1.97. See Section 3.3.1.

Neutron flux -

Coolant level in reactor ,

Reactor coolant system pressure Drywell pressure ,

Primary containment pressure Primary containment isolation valve position

• Primary containment area radiation ,

Containment and drywell hydrogen concentration Containment and drywell oxygen concentration

Suppression chamber spray flow Drywell atmosphere temperature Drywell spray flow Primary system safety relief valve position Reactor core isolation cooling system flow 21 l

i g-----..... - ,- -

- -% ,.g,,gm._ _y ,, 4 . . , . ., . _ , . . . . . , . . . ..

l V. .

- i i High pressure coolant injection system flow l i

Core spray system flow l

Low pressure coolant injection system flow l I

Residual heat removal (RHR) system flow 9

RHR heat exchanger outlet temperature , i

. t Cooling water temperature to ESF system components l l

Cooling water flow to ESF system components l Status of standby power and other energy sources important to safety I

h l

i t

f t,  !

i e

ie D

k L

37774 ,

22 t 1

......;. __ . _ __ _ _,