ML20203D917

Forwards Safety Evaluation & Eg&G Technical Evaluation Rept Accepting Util 850830 & 1127 Responses to Generic Ltr 82-33 Re post-accident Monitoring Instrumentation Compliance W/ Guidelines of Reg Guide 1.97,Rev 2

ML20203D917
Person / Time
Site:	Point Beach
Issue date:	07/11/1986
From:	Colburn T Office of Nuclear Reactor Regulation
To:	Fay C WISCONSIN ELECTRIC POWER CO.
Shared Package
ML20198S974	List: ML20198S973 ML20203D917 ML20207D620 ML20207D678
References
RTR-REGGD-01.097 GL-82-33, TAC-51120, TAC-51121, NUDOCS 8607220151
Download: ML20203D917 (3)

Text

__ _

l .

JUL 11 ms Docket Nos. 50-266 and 50-301 Mr. C. W. Fay, Vice President Nuclear Power Department Wisconsin Electric Power Company 231 W. Michigan Street, Room 306 Milwaukee, Wisconsin 53201

SUBJECT:

CONFORMANCE TO REGULAT0RY GUIDE 1.97 FOR THE POINT BEACH h0 CLEAR PLANT UNITS 1 AND 2 Generic Letter 82-33 requested that licensee's provide a report to the NRC

+

describing how the post-accident monitoring instrumentation meets the guidelines of Regulatory Guide 1.97 Revision 2 as applied to' emergency .

response facilities. You responded to this request by letters dated September 1, 1983, August 30, 1985 and November 27, 1985.

We have completed our review of your responses, the details of which are included in the enclosed staff Safety Evaluation (SE) and attached

' Technical Evaluation Report (TER) prepared by our contractor EG&G of Idaho.

Based on our review, we find that the Point Beach Nuclear Plant Units 1 and 2 design acceptably conforms to, or has provided acceptable justification for deviation from, Regulatory Guide 1.97 Revision 2. However, as stated in the SE, because the neutron flux instrumentation will only have one environmentally and seismically qualified channel, the staff will require more frequent surveillance intervals as Technical Specifications for this instrumentation than it would for a qualified two channel system. This has I

SGjsg

2 been discussed with members of your staff. If you have any questions, please contactmeat(301)482-9787.

Sincerely, D/

Timothy G. Colburn, Project Manager Project Directorate #1 Division of PWR Licensing-A

Enclosure:

Safety Evaluation with attached Technical Evaluation Report cc's: See Next Page l

l I

Office: PM/ PAD 71TJ' PD/ PAD *1 Surname: TColburn/tg Glear Date: 07/ 't /86 07/g/86

o e Mr. C. W. Fay Point Beach Nuclear Plant Wisconsin Electric Power Company Units 1 and 2 cc:

Mr. Bruce Churchill, Esq.

Shaw, Pittman, Potts and Trowbridge 1800 M Street, N.W.

Washington, DC 20036 Mr. James J. Zach, Manager Point Beach Nuclear Plant Wisconsin Electric Power Company 6610 Nuclear Road '

Two Rivers, Wisconsin 54241 Mr. Gordon Blaha Town Chairman Town of Two Creeks Route 3-Two Rivers, Wisconsin 54241 Chairman Public Service Commission of Wisconsin Hills Farms State Office Building Madison, Wisconsin 53702 Regional Administrator, Region III U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission Office of Executive Director for Operations 799 Roosevelt Road Glen Ellyn, Illinois 60137 Resident Inspector's Office U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission 6612 Nuclear Road Two Rivers, Wisconsin 54241

SAFETY EVALUATION BY THE OFFICE OF NUCLEAR REACTOR REGULATION FOR THE POINT BEACH NUCLEAR PLANT, UNIT N05. 1 AND 2 DOCKET fiOS. 50-266 AND 50-301 CONFORMANCE TO REGULATORY GUIDE 1.97 INTRODUCTION AND

SUMMARY

Wisconsin Electric Power Company (WE) w6s requested by Generic Letter 82-33 to provide a report to the NRC descr,ibing how the post-accident monitoring instru-mentationmeetstheguidelinesofRegulatoryGuide1.97asappliedtoemergency response facilities. Response specific to Regulatory Guide 1.97 was provided on September 1, 1983. Additional information was provided by letters dated August 30, 1985 and November 27, 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 EG&G in their Technical Evaluation Report (TER), "Conformance to Regulatory Guide 1.97, Point Beach Nuclear Plant, Unit Nos. I and 2," dated February 1986 (attached). We have reviewed this report and concur with the conclusion that the licensee either 1 -

conforms to, or is justified in deviating from, the guidance of Regulatory Guide 1.97 for each post-accident monitoring variable.

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 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

- ./

Lp 'j W0 bY

/

2 guidance of Regulatory Guide 1.97. Further, where licensees or applicants ex-plicitly state that instrument systems conform to the provisions of the regu-latory guide, it was noted that no further staff review would be necessary.

Therefore, 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. Tne licensee either con-forms to, or has provided an acceptable justification for deviating from, the guidance of Regulatory Guide 1.97 for each post-accident monitoring variable.

However, because the neutron flux instrumentation will have only one

~~~

channel of instrumentation which is environmentally and seismically qualified, the staff will require that it have more frequent surveillance intervals than a qualified two channel system when this equipment is required to be incorporated into the plant Technical Specifications in the future.

It is also noted that in section 3.3.19 of the enclosed TER it is incorrectly stated that Regulatory Guide 1.97 recommends Category 1 instrumentation for emergency ventilation. The Regulatory Guide actually recommends Category 2 instrumentation. Seismic qualification is therefore not necessa'rily required.

CONCLUSION Based on the staff's review of the enclosed Technical Evaluation Report, and the licensee's submittals, we find that the Point Beach Nuclear Plant, Unit .

Nos.1 and 2, design is acceptable with respect to conformance to Regulatory Guide 1.97, Revision 2. However, the staff will require more frequent surveillance intervals for the neutron flux instrumentation when this equipment is required to be put into future plant technical specifications.

Date:

Principal Contributors:

~

A. Toalston J. Lazevnick T. Colburn

Attachment:

Technical Evaluation Report

--