NUREG-0881, Safety Evaluation Accepting Licensee Submittals & Addl Info on Environ Qualification & Design for Instrumentation,Per Reg Guide 1.97
| ML20246F488 | |
| Person / Time | |
|---|---|
| Site: | Wolf Creek  |
| Issue date: | 07/05/1989 |
| From: | Office of Nuclear Reactor Regulation |
| To: | |
| Shared Package | |
| ML20244D246 | List: |
| References | |
| RTR-NUREG-0881, RTR-NUREG-881, RTR-REGGD-01.097, RTR-REGGD-1.097 GL-82-33, NUDOCS 8907130270 | |
| Download: ML20246F488 (3) | |
Text
_ _ _ _ _ - _ _ - - _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _
'/..p '8'4 9'e, UNITED STATES 8'Y 6,l )
NUCLE AR REGULATORY COMMISSION 5
WASHINGTON, D. C. 205$$
c.
- ...+
SAFETY EVALUATION BY THE OFFICE ~0F NUCLEAR REACTOR REGULATION PELATED TO CONFORMANCE TO REGULATORY GUIDE 1.97 WOLF CREEK NUCLEAR OPERATING CORPORATION WOLF CREEK GENERATING STATION DOCKET NO. 50-482 INTRODUCTION AND
SUMMARY
Kansas Gas and Electric Company (KGE) was requested by Generic Letter 82-33 to provide a report tn the NRC describing how the post-accident monitoring instrumentation meets the guidance of Regulatory Guide 1.97 as applied to emergency response facilities. The licensee responded to the generic letter by letter dated April 15, ISE3, referring to the Final Safety Analysis Report for a review of the instrumentation provided for Regulatory Guide 1.97. Additional information was provided by letter dated August 16, 1984 A detailed review and technical evaluation of the licensee's submittels was performed by EG&G Idaho, Inc., under contract to the NRC, with general super-vision by the NRC staff. This work is reported by EG&G in their Technical Evaluation Report (TER), "Conformance to Regulatory Guide 1.97, Wolf Creek Station, Unit No.1," dated January 1985 (attached). We have reviewed this report and enneur with the conclusion that the licensee either conforms to, or is justified in deviating from, the guidance of Regulatory Guide 1.97 ist each post-accident monitoring variable except the containment spray flow.
For this variable, KGE has not identified the appropriate environmental qualification.
8907130270 890705 PDR ADOCK 05000482 E
FDC 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
. l 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 teken to the guidance of Regulatory Guide 1.97.
Further, where licensees or-appli.
cents' explicitly state that instrument systems conform to'the provisions of the guide, it was noted thet no further staff review would be necessary. There-fore, the review perfomed 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 ccntained in the enclosed TER and concur with its bases and findings. The licensee either conforms to, or has provided an acceptable justification for deviations from l
the guidance of Regulatory Guide 1.97 for each post-accident monitoring l
variable except for the environmental qualification of the variable identi-fied in Section 4 (cerclusions) of the TER. The following paragraph addresses the acceptability of this variable.
I 10 CFR 50.49 requires that all Regulatory Guide 1.97, Category 1 and 2 instru-ments located in a harsh environment be included in the environmental qualifi-cation program unless adequate justificat en is provided. We have reviewed the justification provided by the licensee for excluding the containment spray I
flow sensors from the qualification program. The justification for the lack l
I
-l:.
. of' environmental qualification' is that suitably qualified instrumentation
' (i.e., spray additive tank level monitor'and indication of spray pump motor'
. operation and valve position) is available to perform the necessary function during' accidents.- On that basis, we' find adequate justification for not providing^ harsh environment qualification for these sensors.
' C0fdLUS10N Based on the staff:'s review of the enclosed Technical Evaluation Report,'the licensee's submitta's, and additional informationon environmental qualifica-
- tion, we find that the Wolf Creek Station, Unit No.1, design is acceptable with respect to conferr.ance to the guidelines of Regulatory Guide 1.9/,.Rev. 2.
Dated: ' July.' 5, :1989 Principle Contributor:
J. Joyce,' SICB
Attachment:
' TER.
.i
)
(
L
_a