ML20209F324
| ML20209F324 | |
| Person / Time | |
|---|---|
| Site: | 05000000, Diablo Canyon |
| Issue date: | 01/31/1985 |
| From: | NRC |
| To: | |
| Shared Package | |
| ML082410749 | List:
|
| References | |
| FOIA-86-197, RTR-REGGD-01.097, RTR-REGGD-1.097 GL-82-33, NUDOCS 8704300260 | |
| Download: ML20209F324 (3) | |
Text
.
-. -. ~.
SAFETY EVALUATION REPORT' 1
. DIABLO CANYON POWER PLANT, UNIT NOS. 1 AND 2 i
DOCKET N05. 50-275/323 1
CONFORMANCE TO REGULATORY GUIDE 1.97 l
INTRODUCTION AND
SUMMARY
Pacific Gas and Electric Company (PG&E) was requested by Generic Letter 82-33 to provide a report t1 the NRC describing how the post accident monitoring in-
)
strumentation meets the guidance of Regulatory Guide 1.97 as applied to emergency response facilities. The licensee responded to the generic letter by letter dated Apr.il 18, 1983.
Information on post-accident monitoring instru-i mentation (Regulatory Guide 1.97) was provided by letters dated September 9, 1983 and September 4,1984.-
l A detailed review and technical evaluation of the licensee's submittal's was 1
performed by EG&G Idaho, Inc., under contract to the NRC, with general super-l vision by the NRC staff. This work is reported by EG&G in their Technical Evaluation Report (TER), "Confomance to Regulatory Guide 1.97 Diablo Canyon Power Plant, Unit Nos. I and 2," dated October 19'84 (attached). We have re-viewed this report and concur wN. the conclusioni hat the licensee either
.t confarms to, or is justified in deviating from, the guidance of Regulatory
{
Guice 1.97 for each post accident monitoring variable.
4 l
EVALUATION CRITERIA i
Subsequent to the issuance of the generic letter, the NRC held regional meet-j ings in February and March 1983, to answer licensee and applicant questions and concerns regarding the NRC policy on this matter. At these meeting's, it l
8704300260 870417 l
~, _,
m.
1
~
2
~
was noted that the NRC review would only address exceptions taken to the guidance of Regulatory Guide 1.97.
Further, where licensees or applicants explicitly state that instrument systems conform to the provisions of the guide it was noted that no further staff review would be necessary~. There-fore 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 Technical Evaluation Report, and concur with its bases and findings.
The licensee either conforms to or has provided an acceptable justification for deviations from the guidance of Regulatory Guide 1.97 for each post-accident monitoring variable.
The licensee has provided the following schedular information for Unit No. 2 as consnitted to in their letter dated September 4,1984. The schedule for modifications to the instrumentation was provided in a letter dated January 28, 1985. We find this schedule acceptable.
e e
ei
~
l 1.
Containment Isolation Valve Position Fuel Load 2.
Radiation Exposure Rate First Refueling
'(InsideBuildingorAreas) 3.
Accumulator Tank Level Fuel Load 4.
Pressurizer Level Fuel Load 5.
Quench Tank Temperature Fuel Load 6.
Containment Spray Flow Fuel Load 7.
Containment Sump Water Temperature First Refueling 8.
Containment Atmosphere Temperature Initial Criticality 9.
High Level Radioactive Liquid Tank Level Fuel Load 10.
Accident Sampling Capability Power Ascension CONCLUSION i
l Based on the staff's review of the enclosed Technical Evaluation Report and
~
the licensee's submittals, we find that the Diablo Canyon Power Plant, Unit Nos. I and 2, design is acceptable with respect to conformance to the guidelines of Regulatory Guide 1.97, Rev. 2.
G
.=e.e.-ee...w=
.