ML20133N186: Difference between revisions

From kanterella
Jump to navigation Jump to search
(StriderTol Bot insert)
 
(StriderTol Bot change)
 
Line 27: Line 27:
==SUBJECT:==
==SUBJECT:==
CONFORMANCE WITH REGULATORY GUIDE 1.97 REVISION 2 i  We have completed our review of the information that was requested by Generic Letter 82-33 dealing with the post-accident monitoring instrumentation conforming to the guidelines of Regulatory Guide 1.97 Revision 2 for the Prairie Island Nuclear Generating Plant, Unit Nos. I and 2.
CONFORMANCE WITH REGULATORY GUIDE 1.97 REVISION 2 i  We have completed our review of the information that was requested by Generic Letter 82-33 dealing with the post-accident monitoring instrumentation conforming to the guidelines of Regulatory Guide 1.97 Revision 2 for the Prairie Island Nuclear Generating Plant, Unit Nos. I and 2.
Our review covers your response to GL 82-33 transmitted by letter dated April 15, 1983 and additional information provided by letters dated January 18 and June 6, 1985.
Our review covers your response to GL 82-33 transmitted by {{letter dated|date=April 15, 1983|text=letter dated April 15, 1983}} and additional information provided by letters dated January 18 and June 6, 1985.
A detailed review and evaluation of your submittals was performed by our consultant, EG&G Idaho, Inc. The evaluation is reported by EG&G in their Technical Evaluation Report (TER) entitled "Conformance to Regulatory Guide 1.97 - Prairie Island Nuclear Generating Plant, Unit Nos.1 and 2" dated August 1985 (attached to the staff's Safety Evaluation). We have reviewed this report and concur with the conclusions that Prairie Island conforms to or that adequate justification was given for deviating from the guidance of Regulatory Guide 1.97 for each of the post-accident monitoring devices. On this basis, we conclude that the post accident monitoring devices at the Prairie Island Nuclear Generating Plant, Unit Nos. I and 2 are in conformance with Regulatory Guide 1.97, Revision 2 and are adequate to monitor plant conditions under post accident conditions.
A detailed review and evaluation of your submittals was performed by our consultant, EG&G Idaho, Inc. The evaluation is reported by EG&G in their Technical Evaluation Report (TER) entitled "Conformance to Regulatory Guide 1.97 - Prairie Island Nuclear Generating Plant, Unit Nos.1 and 2" dated August 1985 (attached to the staff's Safety Evaluation). We have reviewed this report and concur with the conclusions that Prairie Island conforms to or that adequate justification was given for deviating from the guidance of Regulatory Guide 1.97 for each of the post-accident monitoring devices. On this basis, we conclude that the post accident monitoring devices at the Prairie Island Nuclear Generating Plant, Unit Nos. I and 2 are in conformance with Regulatory Guide 1.97, Revision 2 and are adequate to monitor plant conditions under post accident conditions.
Plant modifications resulting from conforming with requirements of Regulatory Guide 1.97, Revision 2 which you committed to are; (1) the installation of a power monitoring system for the pressurizer heaters, (2) replacement of the non-qualified instrumentation associated with steam 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.
Plant modifications resulting from conforming with requirements of Regulatory Guide 1.97, Revision 2 which you committed to are; (1) the installation of a power monitoring system for the pressurizer heaters, (2) replacement of the non-qualified instrumentation associated with steam 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.
You committed to implement all of these modifications by Cycle 12 (May 1987) for Unit No. 1 and Cycle 11 (December 1986) for Unit No. 2. We find your i    implementation schedule for completing the modifications unacceptable because the implementation dates fall beyond the specified dates in item 3b of our Confirmatory Order 11 sued by letter dated June 14, 1984 and revised by letter dated March 11, 1985. You are committed by item 3b to complete all 8510280443 851018 hDR    ADOCK 05000282 PDR
You committed to implement all of these modifications by Cycle 12 (May 1987) for Unit No. 1 and Cycle 11 (December 1986) for Unit No. 2. We find your i    implementation schedule for completing the modifications unacceptable because the implementation dates fall beyond the specified dates in item 3b of our Confirmatory Order 11 sued by {{letter dated|date=June 14, 1984|text=letter dated June 14, 1984}} and revised by {{letter dated|date=March 11, 1985|text=letter dated March 11, 1985}}. You are committed by item 3b to complete all 8510280443 851018 hDR    ADOCK 05000282 PDR


necessary modifications to meet the guidance of Regulatory Guide 1.97 by three months after returning to power following refueling Cycle 11 (May 1986) for Unit i and four months af ter returning to power following Cycle 10 (October 1985) for Unit 2. The Confirmatory Order does allow an extension of time for completing items provided that good cause can be shown. You are therefore requested to submit an extension of time request for the Confirmatory Order within 45 days from the date of this letter giving adequate justification for establishing good cause for these modifications that cannot be completed within the existing acceptable schedule.
necessary modifications to meet the guidance of Regulatory Guide 1.97 by three months after returning to power following refueling Cycle 11 (May 1986) for Unit i and four months af ter returning to power following Cycle 10 (October 1985) for Unit 2. The Confirmatory Order does allow an extension of time for completing items provided that good cause can be shown. You are therefore requested to submit an extension of time request for the Confirmatory Order within 45 days from the date of this letter giving adequate justification for establishing good cause for these modifications that cannot be completed within the existing acceptable schedule.

Latest revision as of 22:59, 9 August 2022

Forwards Safety Evaluation & Eg&G Technical Evaluation Rept Accepting 830415,850118 & 0606 Responses to Generic Ltr 82-33 Re Conformance of post-accident Monitoring Instrumentation W/Rev 2 to Reg Guide 1.97
ML20133N186
Person / Time
Site: Prairie Island  Xcel Energy icon.png
Issue date: 10/18/1985
From: Butcher E
Office of Nuclear Reactor Regulation
To: Musolf D
NORTHERN STATES POWER CO.
Shared Package
ML20133N190 List:
References
RTR-REGGD-01.097 GL-82-33, NUDOCS 8510280443
Download: ML20133N186 (3)


Text

~

October 18, 1985

([ 2 Docket Nos. 50-282 ,

and 50-306 Mr. D. M. Musolf Nuclear Support Services Department Northern States Power Company 414 Nicollet Mall - 8th Floor Minneapolis, Minnesota 55401

Dear Mr. Musolf:

SUBJECT:

CONFORMANCE WITH REGULATORY GUIDE 1.97 REVISION 2 i We have completed our review of the information that was requested by Generic Letter 82-33 dealing with the post-accident monitoring instrumentation conforming to the guidelines of Regulatory Guide 1.97 Revision 2 for the Prairie Island Nuclear Generating Plant, Unit Nos. I and 2.

Our review covers your response to GL 82-33 transmitted by letter dated April 15, 1983 and additional information provided by letters dated January 18 and June 6, 1985.

A detailed review and evaluation of your submittals was performed by our consultant, EG&G Idaho, Inc. The evaluation is reported by EG&G in their Technical Evaluation Report (TER) entitled "Conformance to Regulatory Guide 1.97 - Prairie Island Nuclear Generating Plant, Unit Nos.1 and 2" dated August 1985 (attached to the staff's Safety Evaluation). We have reviewed this report and concur with the conclusions that Prairie Island conforms to or that adequate justification was given for deviating from the guidance of Regulatory Guide 1.97 for each of the post-accident monitoring devices. On this basis, we conclude that the post accident monitoring devices at the Prairie Island Nuclear Generating Plant, Unit Nos. I and 2 are in conformance with Regulatory Guide 1.97, Revision 2 and are adequate to monitor plant conditions under post accident conditions.

Plant modifications resulting from conforming with requirements of Regulatory Guide 1.97, Revision 2 which you committed to are; (1) the installation of a power monitoring system for the pressurizer heaters, (2) replacement of the non-qualified instrumentation associated with steam 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.

You committed to implement all of these modifications by Cycle 12 (May 1987) for Unit No. 1 and Cycle 11 (December 1986) for Unit No. 2. We find your i implementation schedule for completing the modifications unacceptable because the implementation dates fall beyond the specified dates in item 3b of our Confirmatory Order 11 sued by letter dated June 14, 1984 and revised by letter dated March 11, 1985. You are committed by item 3b to complete all 8510280443 851018 hDR ADOCK 05000282 PDR

necessary modifications to meet the guidance of Regulatory Guide 1.97 by three months after returning to power following refueling Cycle 11 (May 1986) for Unit i and four months af ter returning to power following Cycle 10 (October 1985) for Unit 2. The Confirmatory Order does allow an extension of time for completing items provided that good cause can be shown. You are therefore requested to submit an extension of time request for the Confirmatory Order within 45 days from the date of this letter giving adequate justification for establishing good cause for these modifications that cannot be completed within the existing acceptable schedule.

We consider our evaluation of Prairie Island's conformance to Regulatory Guide 1.97 complete. A copy of our Safety Evaluation is enclosed.

Sir.cerely, Edward J. Butcher, Acting Chief Operating Reactors Branch No. 3 Division of Licensing

Enclosure:

Safety Evaluation with attached TER cc w/ enclosure:

See next page Distribution:

Docke: File DDilanni NRC & L PDRs ACRS 10 OELD BGrimes PKreutzer Branch Files HThompson EButcher EJordan JPartlow r

l ORB #3:DL -

ORB #3:DLT [D OR hPVrStzer DDilanni;ef E c e

\ 10 // 7/ 8 5 /d /67/85 jo/,q /85

Prairie Island Nuclear Generating Mr. D. M. Musolf Northern States Power Company Plant 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. 55099 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 i

w w~* w r