ML20202C521
| ML20202C521 | |
| Person / Time | |
|---|---|
| Site: | River Bend  |
| Issue date: | 06/30/1986 |
| From: | NRC |
| To: | |
| Shared Package | |
| ML20202C514 | List: |
| References | |
| RTR-REGGD-01.097, RTR-REGGD-1.097 NUDOCS 8607110295 | |
| Download: ML20202C521 (4) | |
Text
_
SAFETY EVALUATION REPORT RIVER BEND STATION, UNII NO. 1 CONFORMANCE TO REGULATORY GUIDE 1.97 INTRODUCTION AND
SUMMARY
The Gulf States Utilities Company (GSUC) was requested by Generic Letter 82-33 to provide a report to the NRC describing how the post-accident monitoring in-strumentation meets the guidelines of Regulatory Guide 1.97 as applied to emergency response facilities. The licensee responded to Section 6.2 of the generic letter on April 15, 1983. Response specific to Regulatory Guide 1.97 is part of the Final Safety Analysis Report. Additional information was provided by letters dated June 24, 1985 and July 23,-1985.
A detailed review and technical evaluation of the licensee's submittals was performed by EG&G Idaho, Inc., under contract to the NRC, with general super-vision by the NRC staff. This work was reported by EG8G in the Technical Evaluation Report (TER), "Conformance to Regulatory Guide 1.97, River Bend Station,UnitNo.1,"datedAugust1985(attached). We have reviewed this report and concur with the conclusion that the licensee either conforms to, or is justified in deviating from, the guidance of Regulatory Guide 1.97 for each post-accident monitoring variable, except for neutron flux.
For this variable,RiverBendhasalicensecondition(ConfirmatoryIssue#34)to install or upgrade Neutron Flux prior to start up following the first refueling outage.
EVALUATION CRITERIA Subsequent to the issuance of the generic letter, the NRC held regional meetings in February and March 1983 to answer licensee applicant questions and concerns regarding the NRC policy on Regulatory Guide 1.97. At these meetings, it was 8607110295 860630 DR ADOCK 05000458 PDR
noted that the NRC Review would only address exceptions taken to the guidance
~
Further, where licensees or 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. There-fore, the review performed and reported by EG&G 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 We have reviewed the evaluation performed by our consultant contained.in the enclosed TER and concur with its bases and findings. The licensee either con-forms to, or has provided an acceptable justification for any deviations from the guidance of Regulatory Guide 1.97 for each post-accident monitoring variable except for the variable neutron flux.
Regulatory Guide 1.97 recommends Category 1 instrumentation for this variable.
l The licensee has identified that the instrumentation being provided for this variable deviates from the recommendations of the regulatory guide in that the i
detectors are not environmentally qualified.
The licensee provides justification for this deviation. First, the licensee states that the neutron flux (NMS) instrumentation is needed only during the initial stage of a loss of coolant accident (LOCA) to determine that the reactor has shut down down as designed. Second, the anticipated transient without
_ - _, _ ~
~
scram (ATWS) rule does not require consideration of coincidental ATWS event and LOCA. Third, loss of offsite power does not render the NMS inoperable.
Fourth, the source range monitors and the intermediate range monitors are able to trend the power level even though not fully inserted into the core.
Fifth, the flow rate through the safety relief valves gives a diverse indi-cation of power in the event of an ATWS.
This deviation is similar to that in most boiling water reactors. A Category I system that meets all the criteria of Regulatory Guide 1.97 is an industry development item. Based on our review, we conclude that the existing instru-mentation is acceptable for interim operation. The applicant should follow industry development of this equipment, evaluate newly developed equipment, and install Category 1 instrumentation when it becomes available. The River Bend license was conditional to install or upgrade instrumentation consistent with the guidance of Regulatory Guide 1.97, Rev. 2 prior to start up following the first refueling outage. Therefore, River Bend is required to install or upgrade their Neutron Flux instrumentation to conform to Regulatory Guir'e 1.97 and 10 CFR 50.49 prior to start up following the first refueling outage.
CONCLUSION Based on the staff's review of the enclosed Technical Evaluation Report, and the licensee's submittals, we find that the River Bend Station, Unit No. 1, design is acceptable with respect to c3nformance to Regulatory Guide 1.97, except for neutron flux instrumentation.
The staff also finds acceptable the existing neutron flux instrumentation for i
interim operation. Prior to start up following the first refueling outage River Bend must install or upgrade the Neutron Flux instrumentation to con-1 form to Regulatory Guide 1.97, Rev. 2 and 10 CFR 50.49.
i
'I l
i.
l i
i
-.