ML20205J584

Conformance to Reg Guide 1.97,McGuire Nuclear Station, Units 1 & 2, Preliminary Rept

ML20205J584
Person / Time
Site:	McGuire, Mcguire
Issue date:	11/30/1985
From:	Stoffel J EG&G IDAHO, INC.
To:	Office of Nuclear Reactor Regulation
Shared Package
ML20205J570	List: ML20205J584
References
CON-FIN-A-6483, RTR-NUREG-0737, RTR-NUREG-737, RTR-REGGD-01.097, RTR-REGGD-1.097 EGG-NTA-7087, TAC-51104, TAC-51105, NUDOCS 8602260091
Download: ML20205J584 (25)

Text

._

ar$w we,,.7.mgcarm.c.:.t

.w 'm '

>~- . -

.c c._ . - - _.,

, EGG-NTA-7087 NOVEMBER 1985 5.

ey . -

Y INFORMAL REPORT .

A .

~

Idaho . ~ ~ CONFORMANCE TO REGULATORY GUIDE 1.97, MCC'JIRE National NUCLEAR STATION, UNIT NOS. 1 AND 2 Engineering -

Laboratory

1. 8"#N

• J. W. Stoffel by the U.S. ., .. ,.

Department . -.

s' ofEnergy

.. . i

. 4.

'5,

~

~~

~..~.*

9

. . 'eg22ggggck S$h2SI' P

dEsas

Prepared for the i U.S.NUCLEARREGULATORYC0.kMISS vG, woma-e==fua*r FIN No. A6483 DOE Contact .

r No. DE.AC07 hslD0!$M

~

PREUMENARY

( -.

! i i . . e o.

0 This doctment was prepared primarily for preliminary or internal use. It has not received full review and approval. Since there may be substantive changes, this

, document should not be considered final.

?  : .

e 4

~

l e

a

. . l CONFORMANCE TO REGULATORY GUIDE 1.97 MCGUIRE NUCLEAR STATION, UNIT NOS. 1 AND 2 r

J. W. Stoffel

~

9 -

P"blished November 1985 - -

EG&G Idaho, Inc.

Idaho Falls, Idaho 83415

Prepared for the -

j. U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission .

. Washington, D.C. 20555 Under DOE Contract No. DE-AC07-76IO01570 j FIN No. A6483 l

l

ABSTRACT This EG&G Idaho, Inc., report reviews the submittal for Regulatory ,,

Guide 1.97 for Unit Nos.1 and 2 of the McGuire Nuclear Station and identifies areas of nonconformance to the regulatory guide. Exceptions to ..

Regulatory Guide 1.97 are evaluated and those areas where suff1'cient basis for acceptability is not provided are identified.

FOREWORD This report is supplied as part of the " Program for Evaluating Licensee / Applicant Conformance to R.G. 1.97," being conducted for the U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission Office of Nuclear Reactor Regulation, Division of Systems Integration, by EG&G Idaho, Inc., NRR and I&C Support .

Branch. .

The U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission funded the work under authorization 20-19-10-11-3. .

~

5 -

Docket Nos. 50-369 and 50-370 -

TAC Nos. 51104 and 51105

• l

$1

' ** *= * ** *** ** -e mum an -m e . emo -e. ., ,_

4 -

0

. CONTENTS i

e

,. ABSTRACT .............................................................. 11

r0REw0Ro .............................................................. is 1

l. INTRODUCTION ..................................................... 1 j 2. REVIEW REQUIREMENTS .............................................. 2

3. EVALUATION ....................................................... 4 j 3.1 Adherence to Regulatory Guide 1.97 ......................... 4 2

3.2 Type A Variables ........................................... 4 5

3.3 Exceptions to Regulatory Guide 1.97 ........................ 5

4. CONCLUSION ....................................................... 17 t'

j

• 5. REFERENCES ....................................................... 19 f

a i

4 i

h

=

i e -

i i

i 4

i 1

r 1

1 4

m>

e I

i A

. CONFORMANCE TO REGULATORY GUIDE 1.97 MCGUIRE NUCLEAR STATION UNIT NOS. 1 AND 2

~~

1. INTRODUCTION On December 17, 1982 Generic Letter No. 82-33 (Reference'1) was issued by D. G. Eisenhut. Directcr of the Division of Licensing, Nuclear-Reactor Regulation, to all licensees of operating reactors, applicants for operating licenses and holders of construction permits. This letter included additional clarification regarding Regulatory Guide 1.97, Revision 2 (Reference 2), relating to the requirements for emergency response capability. These requirements have been published as Supplement No. 1 to NUREG-0737, "TMI Action Plan Requirements" (Reference-3).

. s-Duke Power Company, the licensee for the McGuire Nuclear Station, Unit Nos. 1 and 2, provided a response to the Regulatory Guide 1.97 portion of the generic letter on March 29, 1984 (Reference 4).

This report provides an evaluation of that submittal, q .

e 1

i .

2. REVIEW REQUIREMENTS l

,. Section 6.2'of NUREG-0737, Supplement No. 1, sets forth the documentation to be submitted in a report to the NRC describing how the licensee complies to Regulatory Guide 1.97 as applied to emergency response , {

! facilities. The submittal should include documentation that provides the following information for each variable shown in the applicable table of

Regulatory Guide 1.97

i

1. Instrument range i

, 2. Environmental qualification -

3. Seismic qualification r

4. Quality assurance

5. Redundance and sensor location

6. Power supply

7. Location of display b 5 -

8. Schedule of installation or upgrade I

i, Furthermore, the submittal should identify deviations from Regulatory Guide 1.97 and provide supporting justification or alternatives.

3

~

4 Subsequent to the issuance of the generic letter, the NRC held

regional meetings in February and March 1983, to answer licensee and

applicant questions and concerns regarding the NRC policy on this subject.

At these meetings, it was noted that the NRC review would only address exceptions taken to Regulatory Guide 1.97. Furthermore, where licensees or applicants explicitly state that instrument systems conform to the

regulatory guide it was noted that no further staff review would be i

i 2

necessary. Therefore, this report only addresses exceptions to Regulatory Guide 1.97. The following evaluation is an audit of the licensee's submittal based on the review policy described in the NRC regional meetings.

e #

. t' e

5 -

O e

8 e

e 3

._ ._......._...i_....._

3. EVALUATION ,

The licensee provided a response to NRC Generic Letter 82-33 on March 29, 1984 This evaluation is based on that submittal.

3.1 Adherence to Reculatory Guide 1.97

! The licensee submitted information on accident-monitoring instrumentation that compares the instrumentation characteristics for each variable named in Table 2 of Regulatory Guide 1.97, Revision 2 with the

, recommended instrumentations. The licensee has committed to complete the

) identified modifications that will bring their instrumentation into i compliance with Regulatory Guide 1.97 by the end of 1988 refueling outages (Reference 5). Therefore, we c nclude that the licensee has provided an r explictt commitment on conformance to Regulatory Guide 1.97. Exceptions to and deviations from the regulatory guide are noted in Section 3.3.

3.2 Tyae A Variables Regulatory Guide 1.97 does not specifically identify Type A variables, i

1.e., those variables that provide information required to permit the i control room operator to take specific manually controlled safety actions.

7 The -licensee classifies.the following instrumentation as Type A. - -

I 1. Reactor coolant system (RCS) pressure

2. Core exit temperature i

3. RCS hot leg water temperature

4. RCS cold leg water temperature

. . 5. Pressurizer level

6. Degrees of subcooling .

4

7. , Steam generator narrow range level i

8. Steamline pressure l

9. Refueling water storage tank level ,

This instrumentation meets Category 1 recomendations consistent with the requirements for Type A variables, except as noted in Section 3.3.

! 3.3 Exceptions to Reaulatory Guide 1.97 The licensee identified deviations and exceptions from Regulatory i Guide 1.97. These are discussed in the following paragraphs.

i 4

l

• 3. 3.1 Neutron Flux- .

Regulatory Guide 1.97 reconmends Category 1 instrum.ntation for this variable. The licensee has provided instrumentation that is not in compliance with the regulatory guide recommendations for environmental and seismic qualification. The licensee is evaluating new neutron flux I

monitoring system components that will bring the system up to Category 1 standards. The licensee has not identified what changes will be made.

? .

In accordance with Section 6.2 of Supplement No. 1 the NUREG-0737 the

licensee should submit what changes are going to be made and when they are i scheduled for completion.

i

3.3.2 RCS Soluble Boron Concentration l Regulatory Guide 1.97 re m mends instrumentation with a range of l 0 to 6000 ppe for this variable. The licensee's instrumentation has dual indication with ranges of 0 to 2500 ppm and 0 to 5000 ppm. The licensee

! states that this range is adequate for anticipated concentration ( of boron, .

^

l with sampling and analysis available to provide backup information.

1 t

5

3 l~

The licensee deviates from Regulatory Guide 1.97 with respect to the range of this post-accident sampling capability. This deviation goes

beyond the scope'of this review and is being addressed by the NRC as part

! of their review of NUREG-0737, Item II.B.3.

3.3.3 RCS Cold Lea Water Temperature l

} Regulatory Guide 1.97 Revision 2 recommends redundant instrumentation l with a range of 50 to 750*F for this variable. The Itcensee's

! instrumentation is not totally redundant and has a range of 0 to 700*F.

1 4

The present configuration for this instrumentation is that all four 4

thermocouples feed into the same qualified channel of the process control i system (PCS) and are powered by the Class 1E bus for that channel. The ,.

licensee states that r,edundancy and diversity is provided by the hot leg l water temperature instruments, the incore thermocouples, and steam pressure i indication. Therefore, the licensee considers the existing instrumentation i acceptable.

1 The cold leg temperatura instrumentation is powered by an j uninterruptable power source (i'PS). Diverse instrumentation-(hot let l temperature, core exit temperature and steamline pressure) are powered by '

g addtlional UPS power sources. This power source arraingement was . '. ,

previously reviewed by the NRC and found acceptable. We find this to be a

~

i good faith attempt, as' defined in NUREG-0737 Supplement No. 1 Sect 1on 3.7

, (Reference 3), to meet NRC requirements and is, therefore, acceptable, i

Regulatory Guide 1.97, Revision 3 (Reference 6), recommends a range of 50 to 700*F for this variable. The instrumentation supplied by the l

licensee meets this range and is, therefore, acceptable, i 3.3.4 RCS Hot Leo Water Temoerature -

i, .

l The maximum indication of the instrumentation for this variable is l 700*F. This is 50*F less than the Regulatory Guide 1.97 Revision 2, range i guidelines (50 to 750*F). Regulatory Guide 1.97, Revision 3. recommends a 6

l

4 range of 50 to 700*F for this variable. The instrumcntation supplied by

) the licensee meets this range and is, therefore, ac.ceptable.

! i 3.3.5 Containment Sump Water level (Narrow Rance) l The licensee deviates from the Category 2 environmental q0alification I

reconunended by the regulatory guide for this variable. - The licensee states

that their instrumentation is adequate for the intended monitoring function.

, r l Environmental qualification has been clarified by the Environmental Qualification Rule, 10 CFR 50.49. We conclude that Regulatory Guide 1.97

) has been superseded by a regulatory requirement. Any exception to this '

j rule is beyond the scope of this review and should #3 addressed in l l accordance with 10 CFR 50.49.

• t' j 3.3.6 Radioactivity Concentration or Radiation Level in Circulatino Primary Coolant

The licensee has one channel of primary coolant radiation level j instrumentation. This monitor does not meet the range recomunended by i Regulatory Guide 1.97 nor was it installed as a Category 1 instrument. The j licensee states that the information for this variable is also obtained by

!  ; grab, samples and analysis. The post-accident sampling system is being -

~ . .

reviewed by the NRC as part of their review of NUREG-0737, Item II.8.3.

Based on the alternate instrumentation provided by the licensee, we conclude that the instrumentation supplied for this variable is adequate j and, therefore, acceptable.

3.3.7 Radiation Exoosure Rate The licensee identified two deviations for this variable. First, the j instrumentation is Category 3 which the licensee considers adequake for the .

,i intended monitoring function. Regulatory Guide 1.97, Revision 2,.

j recommends Category 2 instrumentation. Secor.d. of the areas monitored, -

i only the reactor coolant filter area monitors have the recommended range of 7

a i

10 t$ 10# R/hr. The other monitored areas have instrumentation with a range of 10' to 10* mR/hr. ,

t Regulatory Guide 1.97, Revision 3 recommends Category 3 instrumentation for this variable. Since the instrumentation supplied by the licensee meets Category 3 requirements it is acceptable. -

From a radiological standpoint, if the radiation levels reach or exceed the upper limit of the range, personnel would not be permitted into the areas without portable monitoring (except for life saving). Based on the alternate instrumentation used by the licensee for this variable, we find the proposed ranges for the radiation exposure rate monitors acceptable.

• 3.3.8 Residual Heat Removal (RHR) Heat Exchanaer Outlet Temoerature Regulatory Guide 1.97, Revision 2, recommends a range for this variable of 32 to 350'F. Revision 3 changed the recommended range to 40 to 350*F. The licensee has supplied a range of 50 to 400*F. The instrumentation supplied has a range where the lower limit of the span does not conform to either revision of the regulatory guide. The licensee states that the existing range of this instrumentation is suited to the operating and accident temperature expected in the RHR system. , ,

Based on the justification provided by the licensee, we conclude that the instrumentation supplied for this variable is adequate to monitor this' variable during post-accident conditions and is, therefore, acceptable.

3.3.9 Accumulator Tank Level and Pressure The licensee has taken exception to the pressure range (0 to 750 psig) and the level range (10 percent to 90 percent volume) recommended by

, Regulatory Guide 1.97 for this variable. The licensee has instrugentation for this variable that is Category 2, with the exception of environmental

. qualification.

~

8

The licensee has pressure instrumentation with a range of 0 to  :

700 psig. The licensee states that the purpose of this instrumentation is to monitor the pre-accident status of the accumulators to assure that this passive safety system is prepared to serve its safety function. The '

licensee states that since pressure in these tanks is maintained at 425 psig. the existing range is adequate to meet the intended monitoring function.

Based on the licensee's justification we conclude that the pressure range provided for this variable is adequate to monitor accumulator pressure.

The licensee has level instrumentation with a range that indicates from 0 to 100 percent. but corresponds to approximately.78 to 86 percent of the tank volume. The licensee states that this range is appropriate to perform technical specification monitoring and that this instrumentation plays no significant role in the management of an accident.

The existing instrumentation is not acceptable. An environmentally qualified instrument is necessary to monitor the status of these tanks.

The licensee should designate either level or pressure as the key variable to directly indicate accumulator discharge and provide instrumentation for that, variable that meets the requirements of 10 CFR 50.49. If the level is . -

used as the key variable, then the range should be expanded to satisfy the recommendations of Regulatory Guide 1.97.

3.3.10 Refuelina Water Storace Tank Level

, The licensee designated this variable as type A for which Regulatory Guide 1.97 requires Category 1 instrumentation with a recommended range from the top to the bottom of the tank. The licensee has provided Category 1 instrumentation to monitor the tank level from 0 to 160 inches.

The remaining range (160 to 500 inches) is not monitored with Category 1 ,

9

ins trument,ation. No justification for this deviation was submitted by the licensee.

i The licensee'should provide Category 1 instrumentation for the entire tank range.

3.3.11 Pressurizer Level Regulatory Guide 1.97 recommends a range from the bottom to the top of the pressurizer. The instrumentation provided by the licensee does not read this full range. The licensee states that the indicated range is 0 to 100 percent corresponding to an approximate volume of 5 to 95 percent. The licensee considers this instrumentation to be adequate for I the intended monitoring function.

f I

The portion of the pressurizer level that is not indicated (approximately 10 percent) is the upper and lower hemispherical head regions, where the volume to level ratto is not linear. We find this deviation minor and acceptable.

}

3.3.12 Quench Tank Level 1

,, The range of the existing instrumentation for this variable does not , ,

meet the range recommended by Regulatory Guide 1.97 (top to bottom). The licensee's justification for this deviation is that the indicated range is from 0 to 100 percent corresponding to tank volume of approximately 3 to 97 percent. The licensee considers the range of the installed instrumentation adequate for the intended monitoring function.

We find the existing level range adequate to monitor the operation of this tank. Therefore, this is an acceptable deviation from Regulatory Guide 1.97.

e 10

_ _ _ . __ _ _ _ _ - - . _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ . _ _ _ _ . - - _ - _ _ _ _ _ _ _ -__A.--- - - - - - - - - - - - - . - - - - - ~ - . - - - - - - - - - - - - . - - - - - - - - - - - -

I i 3.3.13 Quench Tank Temperature '

i -

{ Regulatory Guide 1.97 recomends a temperature range of 50 to 750'F f .for this variable. The licensee presently has instrumentation with a range l l of 50 to 300'F. A conunitment has been made by the licensee to expand the .=

existing range to 350*f. This expanded range would cover the r'ange of saturation temperatures up to the tank rupture disk pressure of 100 psig.

i i

Based on the licensee's justification, we find the proposed range adequate to monitor quench tank temperature, i

i l

3.3.14 Steam Generator Level l '

Regulatory Guide 1.97 recomends Category 1 instrumentation with a r

~

) range from the tube sheet to the separators'for this variable. The l licensee has wide range instrumentation that reads from 9 inches above the tube sheet to the separators. This instrumentation does not meet the environmental or seismic qualification criteria for Category 1

] .

instrumentation. The licensee considers the installed range to be adequate for measuring the wide range steam generator level. The licensee states j that the primary indication of steam generator level is provided by the i

narrow range indicatar and that wide range indication is not required to be j g used.by the operator during or following an accident. Therefore, the - -

i licensee considers Category 3 instrumentation adequate for the intended i monitoring function.

I .

j. The steam generator is, in effect, empty at 9 inches above the tube '

l sheet. This range deviation is minor with respect to the overall range and j system accuracy of this instrumentation. The existing range is adequate to l monitor this variable during all accident and post-accident conditions.

Environmental qualification has been clarified by the Environmental Qualification Rule, 10 CFR 50.49. We conclude th4t Regulatory Gu+de 1.97 .

! has been superseded by a regulatory requirement. Any exception to this

) 11 1

~

lI rule is beyond the scope of this review and should be addressed in 4

accordance with 10 CFR 50.49.

) '

l Regulatory Guide 1.97 recommends seismic qualification for all l ,

Category 1 instrumentation. The licensee's justification is not j acceptable. The licensee should provide the recommended seisafe i

qualifications for each of the Category 1 systems in accordance with their seismic design, criteria at the time of licensing.

l-i 3.3.15 Steam Generator pressure The licensee has instrumentation for this variable with a range of 0 to 1300 psig. This indicated range corresponds to 11 percent above the  :

lowest safety valve. setting and 6 percent above the highest safety valve . ,.

2 setting. Regulatory Guide 1.97 recommends a range from atmospheric pressure to 20 percent above the lowest safety valve setting. The licensee

, states that the maximum system pressure during the worst postulated loss of l

heat sink accident is 1304 psig. .

}

i .

We note that there are flow restrictors between the steam generators

and the safety relief valves. The steam generator pressure would be higher than at the safety relief valves. We also note that the pressure

~

instrumentation accuracy and the tolerance of the lift point of the safety. _

] relief valves may vary.' Therefore, we conclude that the range provided by

the licensee is insufficient to monitor the worst pressure transient anticipated by the licensee's Final Safety Analysis Report (FSAR). This j deviation is not acceptable. The licensee should provide the range

! recommended by the regulatory guide for this variable.

4 3.3.16 Condensate Storaae Tank Water Level L

i Regulatory Guide 1.97 recoseends Category 1 level instrumentation to

, monitor the tank level which is the primary source of auxiliary feed

water. The licensee has not provided any information on the condensate storage tank level instrumentation. The licensee points out that the 12 j._- --

- _ - - . _ _ . _ _ _ , . ~ _ . _ _ _ . _ _ _

safety related source for the auxiliary feedwater system is the nuclear service water system.

Since the nu'elear service water system is Category 1 and is the '

assui'ed source of secondary side inventory, the condensate storage tank

~

level can be Category 3. The licensee should provide the information i 1, required by Section 6.2 of NUREG-0737, Supplement No. 1 for the condensate storage tank water level instrumentation. '

e 3.3.17 Containment Sumo Water Temperature The licensee has not provided instrumentation for this variable, oi stating that for their design it is not used in the management of design basis accidents.

, c r

This is insufficient justification for this exception. The licensee

! should provide the recommended instrumentation for the functions outlined

?n Regulatory Guide 1.97 or identify other instruments that provide the ,

I same information that satisfy the reconnendations of the regulatory guide.

3.3.18 Makeun Flow-In ,

Regulatory Guide 1.97 recommends Category 2 instrumentation for this vafiable. The licensee ~has provided a flow' transmitter in this system that  !

is Category 3. The remainder of the instrumentation satisfies Category 2 requirements. The licensee states that for accidents in which harsh environments are a result, the system containing this instrumentation is not required and is isolated upon an engineered safety features (ESF) actuation.

As this variable is not utilized in conjunction with a safety system at this station, and is isolated on an accident signal, we find that the instrumentation provided is acceptable.

G e

13

b

)

3.3.19 Volume Control Tank Level The licensee takes exception to the range (top to bottom) and the Category 2 requirement for this variable. The licensee states that the indication reads from 0 to 100 percent but covers only the linear portion of the tank (approximately 18 to 82 percent of tank volume). The licensee states that the minimum and maximum tank levels are maintained within the range of this instrument.

Extending the range into the domed portion of this tank would result in nonlinear readings at each extreme of the scale.

The licensee states that for accidents in which harsh environments are a result, this system is not required and is isolated upon an ESF actuation.

Therefore, Category 3 instrumentation is consistent with the performance expectations of the system.

j The licensee's-justification indicates that the instrumentation will l remain on scale for all accident conditions. Therefore, we find this range deviation acceptable. Since this variable is not utilized in conjunction with a safety system at this station, and is isolated on an accident signal, we find that the Category 3 instrumentation'provided is acceptable.

3.3.20 High Level Radioactive Liould Tank level 4

1 1

Regulatory Guide 1.97 recommends a range of top to bottom for this , ,

~

variable. The licensee' states that the indicated range for each of the three tanks is 0 to 100 percent. However, the actual instrument taps correspond to the tank volume of 2 to 99 percent on the two recycle holdup tanks and 11 to 93 percent on the waste drain tank. The licensee states that the range of the installed instruments is adequate to provide the required tank level information.

The 0 to 100 percent indicated range for these tanks will be, treated by the operator as empty or full. The range is adequate to monitor the

, storage volume during all accident and post-accident conditions. ,

Therefore, this deviation is acceptable. .

14

i . .

1 3.3.21 Emergency Ventilation Damper Position Regulatory Guide 1.97 recommends open-closed status indication for the

' ~

emergency ventilation dampers. The licensee has position indication on some dampers, and on others, positive indication of damper position is ,

indicated by system flows and pressures that can be monitored in the

control room.

We conclude that the licensee's instrumentation for this variable is adequate. The control room operator is provided with positive indication that emergency dampers have achieved their safety mode alignment during and 4

after an accident.

J 3.3.22 Wind SDeed t' Regulatory Guide 1.97, Revision 2, recommends a range of 0 to 67 mph for this variable. The licensee has instrumentation with a range of 0 to '

60 mph. The licensee justifies this deviation by stating that their existing wind speed instrumentation has historically provided reliable indications that are representative of meteorological conditions in the l plant vicinity. We find this justification acceptable.-

g . In addition, Regulatory Guide 1.97, Revision 3, reconnends '. - -

instrumentation with a range of 0 to 50 mph for this variable. Since the existing instrumentation meets the Regulatory Guide 1.97, Revision 3 -

requirement, this deviation is acceptable.

i 3.3.23 Estimation of Atmospheric Stability Regulatory Guide 1.97 recommends a temperature range of -5 to 10*C for this variable. The licensee has provided instrumentation with a range of ,

-4 to 8'C. The licensee states that temperatures for determining i

atmospheric stability are taken at 30 meter intervals. Atmospher4c ,  :

stability classifications are normally categorized by the temperature '

change per 100 meters of elevation. With a 30 meter change in elevation .  !'

15

for the McGuire meteorological tower, the licensee states that an adequate  ;

instrument range is provided.

Table 1 of Regulatory Guide 1.23 (Reference 7) provides seven atmospheric stability classifications based on the difference in temperature per 100 meters elevation change. These clas'sifications range from extremely unstable to extremely stable. Any temperature difference greater than +4*C or less than -2*C does nothing to the stability l classification. The licensee's instrumentation includes this range, and is based on an elevation change of 30 meters. Therefore, we find that this instrumentation is acceptable to determine the atmospheric stability.

, e.

a f

5 -

e 16

2. . - - --

- 4. CONCLUSIONS Based on our review, we find that the licensee either conforms to or is justified in deviating from Regulatory Guide 1.97, with the following

• exceptions:

1. Neutron flux--the licensee should identify neutron flux monitoring system modifications and submit the information required by Supplenent No.1 to NUREG-0737 (Section 3.3.1).

2. Containment sump water level (narrow range)--environmental qualification should be addressed in accordance with 10 CFR 50.49 (Section 3.3.5).

3. Accumulator tank level and pressure--the applicant should provide a level or pressure instrument for this variable that is environmentally qualified in acceordance with 10 CFR 50.49. If 4

the level instrument is the variable environmentally qualified then the range should be expanded to that recommended by the regulatory guide (Section 3.3.11).

4. Refueling water storage tank level--the licensee should install j g .

Category 1 instrumentation with the range recommended by - -

Regulatory Guide 1.97. (Section 3.3.10).

5. Steam Generator level--environmental qualification should be addressed in accordance with 10 CFR 50.49; seismic qualification should be shown to be in accordance with the plant seismic design criteria (Section 3.3.14).

6. Steam generator pressure--the licensee should provide the range recommended by the regulatory guide (Section 3.3.15).

e m

17 i

, =. .c e--- a ~-, -- , - - . , , . , , . , , , .a. ~ , " * * * *

7. , Condensate storage tank water level--the licensee should provide the information required by Supplement No. 1 to Section 6.2 of NUREG-0737 for this variable (Section 3.3.16).

8. Containment sump water temperature--the licensee should provide the instrumentation recommended by Regulatory Guide 1.97 for this variableorjustifytheexception(Section3.3.17).

q - . . .

O t e e

e 18 O

? .-

, 5. REFERENCES

1. NRC letter, D. G. Eisenhut to All Licensees of Operating Reactors, Applicants for Operating Licenses, and Holders of Construction Permits, " Supplement No. 1 to NUREG-0737--Requirements for Emergency ,

Response Capability (Generic Letter No. 82-33)," December 17, 1982.

~

2. Instrumentation for Light-Water-Cooled Nuclear Power Plants to Assess .

Plant and Environs Conditions Durino and Followino an Accident, Regulatory Guide 1.97, Revision 2, NRC, Office of Standards 4

Development, December 1980.

3. Clarification of TMI Action Plan Requirements. Recuirements for Emergency Response Capability, NUREG-0737, Supplement No. 1, NRC, Office of Nuclear Reactor Regulation, January 1983.

4. Duke Power Company letter, H. B. Tucker to H. R. Denton Director, Nuclear Reactor Regulation, NRC, March 29, 1984.

5. Duke Power Company letter, H. B. Tucker to H. R. Denton Director, Nuclear Reactor Regulation, NRC, August 30, 1985. r

6. Instrumentation for Licht-Water-Cooled Nuclear Power Plants to Assess Plant and Environs Conditions Durina and Followina an Accident, Regulatory Guide 1.97, Revision 3, NRC, Office of Nuclear Regulatory Research, May 1983.

7. Regulatory Guide 1.23 (Safety Guide 23), Onsite Meteorolooical Procrams, NRC, February 17, 1972 or Proposed Revision 1 to Regulatory  ;

Guide 1.23, Meteorolocical Procrams in Support of Nuclear Power Plants, NRC, Office of Standards Development, September 1980.

O 37864 e

l l

19 )

l

. .- - i

• i (aeo-t sw.ee- u. e, noc = ve =.. .au mac son us u s. muctasa astu6.tvoay ca.m ssioes

' -7087

". 2d'a BIBLIOGRAPHIC DATA SHEET l i

See s4stauctiones 04 Tag sevensa 3, f. fit .No sys tiTLt 3 bl&WGSLAh*

Conformance to Regulatory Guide 1.97, McGuire Nuclear Station, Unit Nos. I and 2 , ,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,

oo r. ....

g

,,,,,,,,,, November 1985

. C , . .vo., .ua.

J. W. Stoffel ..

g

. November 1985

, ,s. o... oo. a .. . . . ... ... . . con n. - < c , . oacra.s .=oa= o vana EG&G Idaho, Inc. , ,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,

Idaho Falls, ID 83415 A6483

! ,,s,o,so....o. y.4.r.o,... ... 6.... nu, - e.c . . r... o, n on Division of Systems Integration Preliminary Technical Office of Nuclear Reactor Regulation Evaluation Report U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission = **a oo conno u--

Washington, DC 20555 ..

1 -

l is. sue.sa.amt.a. notes

.3..SsTA.cf m eses.c w This EG&G Idaho, Inc. report reviews the submittal for McGuire Nuclear Station, Unit Nos. I and 2 and identifies areas of nonconfonnance to Regulatory Guide 1.97. Exceptions to these guidelines are evaluated and those-areas where sufficient basis for acceptability is not provided

are identified.

l 5 -

i

. l l

4

.os onc.., von

i. oocv=,1 6 s.s . . n isp.,.g.gr. _

Limited d Distribution 54 $8Cua.Tv CLAsstFICATioN

,r,

. . on=T . .=,o =4 o.o f .. Unclassified i ra. ,asem Unclassified it muasets os ,eGes it PAect

.-, , _ . . , . , , . - . . _ , - . _ . . . . - - _ , . _ - , , - - _ . . . _ . - , . _ - , , _ . , ~ , , .

-