NUREG-0737, To NUREG-0737, Request for Extension of Time for Commission Order Dated June 14, 1984
| ML23222A217 | |
| Person / Time | |
|---|---|
| Site: | Prairie Island, 05000386  |
| Issue date: | 02/05/1996 |
| From: | Novak T NRC/NRR/DORL/LPL3 |
| To: | Musolf D State of MN |
| References | |
| Download: ML23222A217 (1) | |
Text
UCENSE AUTHOR ITY FILE CQpy UNITED STATES NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSION WASHINGTON, D. C. 20555 Docket Nos. ~
50-306 Mr. D. M. Musolf Nuclear Support Services Dept.
414 Nicollet Mall Midland Square - 4th Floor Minneapolis, Minnesota 55401
Dear Mr. Musolf:
FES o 5 1986
~'JQ/)VYU..,
DONOTR 31~
£MOVE
SUBJECT:
SUPPLEMENT 1 TO NUREG-0737, REQUEST FOR EXTENTION OF TIME FOR COMMISSION ORDER DATED JUNE 14, 1984 Re:
Prairie Island Nuclear Generating Plant, Unit Nos. 1 and 2 By letter dated November 27, 1985, you requested that we extend the completion date for items lb and 3b dealing with the Safety Parameter Display System (SPDS) being fully operational and the requirements of Regulatory Guide 1.97 contained in the Convnission Order dated June 14, 1984, relating to Supplement 1 of NUREG-0737.
The Corrmission Order allows an extension of time to be granted by the Director of the Division of Licensing for good cause shown.
In your November 27, 1985 submittal, you requested that the completion date for item lb (related to SPDS) be extended to December 31, 1986 for both units.
You also requested that the completion date for item 3b (meeting the requirements of Regulatory Guide 1.97, Revision 2) be extended to June 30, 1987 for both units.
You stated in your request that the schedular extension for completing the installation of the SPDS (item lb) was necessary because of significant delays in the development of a generic software package necessary to scan, process, and display the SPDS inputs.
The software package is required in the operation of the new plant data acquisition and computer system which supports the SPDS system.
The delays were caused by (1) the vendor's decision to develop a standard generic product to support scan logging and alarming systems for all its projects instead of producing a custom package for your plant, (2) the vendor underestimated the required efforts because of the complexity involved which resulted in establishing unrealistic schedules, (3) management reorganized and restafted which resulted in additional delays
D. F£S O E J82r.
without success, and (4) the contract was terminated with the original vendor and an alternate vendor had to be selected. Attachment 1 of your submittal showing the sequence of events, indicates that you had taken reasonable steps to monitor and expedite the project and you have tried to minimize delays.
In addition, the problems associated with your initial vendor were unforeseen and, therefore, could not be considered in the terms of the June 14, 1984, Commission Order.
Judging from the information in your submittal and the problems associated with your initial vendor, we conclude that the time extension is reasonable when considering the work involved.
Therefore, we find that the proposed schedule is consistent with a proper level of remaining work activities needed to complete the implementation of the SPDS (item lb) and, thus, we find that you have shown a good faith effort. Therefore, in accordance with the terms of the June 14, 1984, Commission Order, we conclude that there is adequate justification for modifying the Commission's Order and are hereby granting the extension of item lb until December 31, 1986, for both units.
In support for the schedular extension for item 3b, "Compliance with Regulatory Guide 1.97, Revision 2," you stated that additional time is required for engineering, procurement and plant construction to be coor-dinated with future refueling outages in order to complete modifications in several plant areas.
The plant modifications resulted from our review of your responses to Generic Letter (GL) 82-33, transmitted by your letters dated April 15, 1983, January 18 and June 6, 1985 and our safety evaluation transmitted by our letter dated October 18, 1985 describing the modifica-tions. Specifically, plant modifications that resulted from our review of your submittals that are deemed requirements of Regulatory Guide 1.97, Revision 2, are (1) the installation of a power monitoring system for the pressurizer heaters, (2) replacement of the nonqualified instrumentation associated with steam generator wide-range level indication to a fully qualified system, (3) installation of temperature sensors at the RHR heat exchanger inlet, and (4) upgrading the containment air temperature sensors and display to meet the environmental qualification pursuant to 10 CFR 50.49.
The nature of these modifications was not considered when the initial schedule was developed for the confirmatory order. Moreover, the modifications were not known until our review was completed.
In responding to the results of our review, you immediately agreed to increase the scope of the modifications and expeditiously planned for their implementation.
Judging from the response, the nature of the modifications involved and coordination necessary for plant construction with the planned refueling outages, we conclude that the time extension is reasonable.
Therefore, we find that the proposed schedule is consistent with similar work activities performed in the past, and thus you have shown a good faith effort. Therefore, in accordance with the terms of the June 14, 1984, Commission Order, we conclude that there is adequate justification for modification of the Commission's Order and hereby grant the extension of item 3b (compliance with Regulatory Guide 1.97, Revision 2) until June 30, 1987 for both units.
Your proposed deviation related to the modification of temperature sensors
FEB O 5 i9ou D. at the RHR heat exchanger inlet and the clarification associated with the construction of the fiber optic cable is under staff review and wil I be addressed in a separate letter.
For your convenience, a copy of the revised table which was included with the Commission's Order is enclosed.
Enclosure:
Revised Table cc's next page Sincerely, T~s ~Director Oivision of PWR Licensing-A
Mr. D. M. Musolf Northern States Power Company cc:
Gerald Charnoff, Esq.
Shaw, Pittman, Potts and Trowbridge 1800 M Street, NW Washington, DC 20036 Executive Director Minnesota Pollution Control Agency 1935 W. County Road, B2 Roseville, Minnesota 55113 Mr. E. L. Watzl, Plant Manager Prairie Island Nuclear Generating Plant Northern States Power Company Route 2 Welch, Minnesota 55089 Jocelyn F. Olson, Esq.
Special Assistant Attorney General Minnesota Pollution Control Agency 1935 W. County Road, B2 Roseville, Minnesota 55113 U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission Resident Inspector's Office Route #2, Box 500A Welch, Minnesota 55089 Regional Administrator, Region III U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission Office of Executive Director for Operations 799 Roosevelt Road Glen Ellyn, Illinois 60137 Mr. William Miller, Auditor Goodhue County Courthouse Red Wing, Minnesota 55066 Prairie Island Nuclear Generating Plant
TITLE
- 1.
Safety Parameter Display System (SPDS)
- 2.
Detailed Control Room Design Review (DCRDP)
- 3.
Application to Emergency Response Facilities Enclosure Page 1 of 2 LICFNSEE'S COMMITMENTS ON SUPPLEMENT 1 TO NUREG-0737 REQUIREMENT la. Submit a safety analysis and implementation plan to the NRC.
lb.
SPDS fully operational and operators trained.
2a.
Submit a program plan to the NRC.
2b.
Submit a summary report to the NRC including a proposed schedule for implementation.
3a.
Submit a report to the NRC describing how the reauirements of Supplement 1 to NUREG-0737 have been, or will be, met.
3b.
Implement (installation or upgrade) requirements SCHEDULE (OR ST~J~~J Complete December 31, 1986, for both units Complete Complete Complete June 30, 1987 for both units
TITLE
- 4.
Upgrade Emergency Operating Procedures
( EOPs)
- 5.
Emergency Response Facilities Enclosure Page 2 of 2 LICENSEE'S COMMITMENTS ON SUPPLEMENT 1 TO NUREG-0737 REQUIREMENT 4a.
Submit a Procedures Generation Package to the NRC.
4b.
Implement the up9raded EOPs.
5a.
Technical Support Center fully functional.
5b.
Operational Support Center fully functional.
5c.
Emergency Operations Facility fully functional.
SCHEDULE (OR STATUS)
Complete Complete Complete*
Complete*
Complete*
- Enhancement to be completed with implementation of R.G. 1.97 (3b above) and SPDS operational (lb above).