ML20211D534

Safety Evaluation Re Rev 1 to EGG-EA-6794, Conformance to Reg Guide 1.97,Joseph M Farley Nuclear Plant,Units 1 & 2 & Licensee Submittals.Response Acceptable

ML20211D534
Person / Time
Site:	Farley
Issue date:	01/07/1987
From:	Office of Nuclear Reactor Regulation
To:
Shared Package
ML20211D513	List: ML20211D508 ML20211D523 ML20211D534 ML20211D544
References
RTR-REGGD-01.097, RTR-REGGD-1.097 GL-82-33, NUDOCS 8702240016
Download: ML20211D534 (2)

Text

~

. ENCLOSURE SAFETY EVALUATION BY THE OFFICE OF NUCLEAR REACTOR REGULATION 10SEPH M. FARLEY NUCLEAR PLANT, UNIT NOS.1 AND 2 DOCKET NOS. 50-348 AND 364 CONFORMANCE TO REGULATORY Clf7DE 1.97 INTRODUCTION AND

SUMMARY

Alabama Power Company (APCo), the licensee for Joseph M. Farley Nuclear Plant, Unit Nos. I and 2, was reauested by Generic Letter 82-33 to provide a report to the NRC describing how the post-accident monitoring instrumentation meets the guidelines of Regulatory Guide 1.97 as applied to emergency response facilities. APCo's response to Regulatory Guide 1.97 was provided by letters dated March 30, 1984 for Unit No. I and June 29, 1984 for Unit No. 2. Additional information was provided by APCo in letters dated April 10, 1985 and August 8, 1986.

A detailed review and technical evaluation of the licensee's submittals was per-formed by EG&G Idaho, Inc., under contract to the NRC, with general supervision by the NRC staff. This work was reported by EG8G in their Technical Evaluation Report (TER), "Conformance to Regulatory Guide 1.97, Joseph M. Farley Nuclear Plant, Unit Nos.1 & 2," dated November 1986 (attached). We have reviewed this report and concur with the conclusion that the licensee either conforms to, or is justi-fled in deviating from the guidance of Regulatory Guide 1.97 for each post-accident monitoring variable.

Pg2240016e70fgy48 ADOCK 05 PDR

EVALUATION CRITERIA Subsequent to the issuance of Generic Letter 82-33, the NRC held regional meetings in February and March 1983 to answer licensee and applicant questions and concerns regarding the NPC policy on Regulatory Guide 1.97. At these meetings, it was noted that the NRC review would only address exceptions taken to the guidance of Regulatory Guide 1.97. Further, where licensees or apolicants explicitly state that instrument systems conform to the provisions of the regulatory guide, it was noted that no further staff review would be necessary.

Therefore, the review performed and reported by EGAG 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 recional 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 TER and concur with its bases and findings. The licensee either con-forms to, or has provided an acceptable justification for deviatino from, the d

guidance of Regulatory Guide 1.97 for each post-accident monitoring variable.

CONCLUSION Based on the staff's review of the enclosed Technical Evaluation Report, and the ifcensee's submittals, we find that the Joseph M. Farley Nuclear Plant, Unit Nos. I and 2 design is acceptable with respect to conformance to Regulatory Guide 1.97, Revision 2.

Date:

Principal Contributor: J. Lazevnick

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