ML16341A627
| ML16341A627 | |
| Person / Time | |
|---|---|
| Site: | Diablo Canyon  |
| Issue date: | 05/15/1985 |
| From: | Thompson H Office of Nuclear Reactor Regulation |
| To: | Shiffer J PACIFIC GAS & ELECTRIC CO. |
| References | |
| TAC-59655, TAC-59656, NUDOCS 8505310405 | |
| Download: ML16341A627 (16) | |
Text
~ 408 BECO
+o 1
fy
~i I
n C
O c, i
+a*++
Docket Nos.:
50-275 and 50-323 UNITED STATES NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSION WASHINGTON, D. C. 20555 ev >s ~ssS Mr. J, D. Shiffer, Vice President Nuclear Power Generation c/o Nuclear Power Generation, Licensing Pacific Gas and Electric Company 77 Beale Street, Room 1451 San Francisco, California 94106
Dear Mr. Shiffer:
SUBJECT:
DIABLO CANYON TECHNICAL SPECIFICATIONS In our letter dated April 23,
- 1985, we forwarded the final draft of the Technical Specifications (TS) for Diablo Canyon Unit 2 for your review and certification.
In that lette~,
we stated that the procedures for combining the TS for Unit I and Unit 2, as you originally proposed, would be addressed in a separate letter.
The purpose of'his letter is to describe those procedures and to identify those areas where additional consideration should be given to the consistency of the limiting conditions for operation, action requirements, and surveillance requirements for both units.
The Unit 2 TS reflect the most recent staff review of Diablo Canyon relative to the current Standard Technical Specifications (STS) for Westinghouse
- reactors, except for those areas where the existing Unit I requirements were adopted to avoid confusing the operating staff.
Consequently, you should prepare the proposed combined TS for both units by marking-up the Unit 2 TS certified on April 25, 1985 (DCL-85-167).
You should clearly identify those changes that are necessary to appropriately incorporate the specific design features of Unit 1.
Enclosure I to this letter identifies those areas which should be specifically addressed f'r the combined TS.
In general, these issues are related to recommended clarifications which were not adopted because they would have been inconsistent with the Unit I TS.
We concluded that these issues were not significant enough to require a change in the Unit 1
TS at that time; howeve~,
we believe that these issues warrant additional consideration to enhance the clarity and consistency of the combined TS.
8505310405 850515 PDR ADDCK 05000275 P
t
Mr. J.
D. Shiffer We intend to issue the combined TS when a full power license is approved for Unit 2.
The Unit 1 license will be appropriately amended in accordance with the applicable regulations for a license amendment.
To ensure that our review can be completed in a timely manner, we request that you submit your proposed combined TS within about (ohe'eek;,'( following your receipt of this letter; a tentative review schedule for the combined TS is presented in Enclosure 2.
Should you have any questions regarding this matter, please contact Diablo Canyon Project Manager, H. Schierling (301) 492-7100, or E. Butcher (301) 492-8947.
Sincerely, i~!
Hugh L. Thompson, Jr., Director Division of Licensing 3
Enclosures:
As stated cc w/enclosures:
See next page DISTRIBUTION:
..,~
55=2351323.
NRC PDR L
LB¹3 SEPB Rdg.
TSRG Rdg.
D. Ziemann W. Meinke S.
Diab B. Sheron W. Houston F. Allenspach F. Liederbach R. Becker J.
Calvo M. Srinivason
- SEE PREVIOUS CONCURRENCES:
SEPB:DL
- CGrimes:mn 5/6/85 AD:SA:D DCrutchfietd 5/g /85 LB¹3:DL LB¹3:DL
- HSchierling
- GKnighton 5/6/85 5/6/85 S.SI I
N vak BS on o tn 5/( /85 5/7 /85
/t /85 TSRG:DL CMoon< JE<PI <
5/ye/85 EB t her 5/Q /85 HThompson 5/l(/85
4
- (
S I
.Ih 1
ll' Ft g
I I
4 N
'I 1
4 P
I
Mr. J.
D. Shiffer, Vice President Nuclear Power Generation c/o Nuclear Power Generation, Licensing Pacific Gas and Electric Company 77 Beale Street, Room 1451 San Francisco, California 94106 Philip A. Crane, Jr.,
Esq.
Pacific Gas
& Electric Company Post Office Box 7442 San Francisco, California 94120 Mr. Malcolm H. Furbush Vice President - General Counsel Paci<ic Gas
& Electric Company Post Office Box 7442 San Francisco, California'4120 Janice E. Kerr, Esq.
California Public Utilities Commission 350 McAllister Street San Francisco, California 94102 Mr. Frederick Eissler, President Scenic Shoreline Preservation Conference, Inc.
4623 More Mesa Drive Santa Barbara, California 93105 Ms. Elizabeth Apfelberg 1415 Cozadero San Luis Obispo, California 93401 Mr. Gordon A. Silver Ms. Sandra A. Silver 1760 Alisal Street San Luis Obispo, California 93401 Harry M. Willis, Esq.
Seymour
& Willis 601 California Street, Suite 2100 San Francisco, California 94108 Mr. Richard Hubbard MHB Technical Associates Suite K
1725 Hamilton Avenue San Jose, California 95125 Mr. John Marrs, Managing Editor San Luis Obis o Count Tele ram Tribune Jo nson venue P. 0.
Box 112 San Luis Obispo, California 93406 Diablo Canyon Resident Inspector/Diablo Canyon NPS c/o US Nuclear Regulatory Commission P. 0.
Box 369 Avila Beach, California 93424 Ms. Raye Fleming 1920 Mattie Road Shell Beach, California 93440 Joel
- Reynolds, Esq.
John R. Phillips, Esq.
Cente~ for Law in the Public Interest 10951 West Pico Boulevard Third Floor Los Angeles, California 90064 Mr. Dick Blankenburg Editor
& Co-Publisher South County Publishing Company P. 0.
Box 460 Arroyo Grande, California 93420 Bruce Norton, Esq.
Norton, Burke, Berry
& French, P.C.
202 E. Osborn Road P. 0.
Box 10569
- Phoenix, Arizona 85064 Mr.
W. C. Gangloff Westinghouse Electric Corporation P. 0.
Box 355 Pittsburgh, Pennsylvania 15230 Da vid F.
Fl ei schaker, Esq.
P. 0.
Box 1178 Oklahoma City, Oklahoma 73101
IL
Arthur C. Gehr, Esq.
Snell
& Wilmer 3100 Valley Center Phoenix, Arizona 85073 Mr. Lee M. Gustafson, Director Federal Agency Relations Pacific Gas
& Electric Company 1050 17th Street, N.W.
Suite 1180 Washington, DC 20036 Regional Administrator - Region V
US Nuclear Regulatory Commission 1450 Maria Lane Suite 210 Walnut Creek, California 94596 Michael J. Strumwasser, Esq.
Special Counsel to the Attorney General State of California 3580 Wilshire Boulevard, Suite 800 Los Angeles, California 90010 Mr. Tom Harris Sacramento Bee 21st and 0 Streets Sacramento, California 95814 Mr. H. Daniel Nix Gal ifornia Ener gy Commission 1516 9th Street, MS 18 Sacramento, California 95814 Lewis Shollenberger, Esq.
US Nuclear Regulatory Commission Region V
1450 Maria Lane Suite 210 Walnut Creek, California 94596 Mr. Thomas Devine Government Accountability Project Institute for Policy Studies 1901 gue Street, NW Washington, DC 20009
r
Enclosure 1
DIABLO CANYON TECHNICAL SPECIFICATIONS Section Descri tion 2.1 3.3.1 During the review of the Unit 2 Technical Specifcations it was suggested that the term "reactor coolant system" be used throughout the TS rather than being intermingled with "primary system."
If you agree, you may wish to implement this suggestion in your proposed combined Technical Specifications.
The source-range neutron flux instrumentation provides the operator with direct annunciation for the onset of a bo~on dilution event.
The staff agreed that one operable channel is sufficient in Modes 3, 4 and 5, rather than two as recommended by the STS, based on the operator's response to the channel's failure described in the PG8E letter dated April 22,
- 1985, and to be consistent with the Unit I requirement.
Response
time testing for this instrumentation was revised for Unit 2 to be consistent with the
- STS, 3.3.2 The operability and surveillance requireme~ts for the source-range neutron flux instrumentation should be consistent for both units and appropriately reflect the assumptions in the boron dilution event analysis.
The ESF actuation instrumentation for safety injection (contain-ment high pressure) and steam line isolation (manual) is required to be operable in Modes 1, 2 and 3.
For Unit 2, this instrumenta-tion is also required to be operable in Mode 4, because there is not an explicit analysis which demonstrates that the consequences of'he associated accidents are less severe in Mode 4 if this instrumentation fails to function.
3.3.3.3 The operability requirements for all ESF actuation instrumentation should be consistent for both units and should ensure that the instrumentation is operable when it is required to mitigate the consequences of an accident.
The seismic monitoring instrumentation shown in Table 3.3-7 shall be operable.
Table 4.3-4 of the Diablo Canyon Technical Specifications shows N.A.
on the Channel Calibration column for 2. Triaxial Peak Accelographs and for 3, Triaxial Response-Spectrum recorders.
The staff believes that the channel calibration should be conducted at each refueling outage (R).
This change would would be a valuable means for demon-strating compliance with the OPERABILITY requirements of 3.3.3.3.
Section 3.3.3.6 3.3.3.11 4.3.3.11 3.4.1.3 3.4.4 3.7.l.l.b Descri tion In SSER 10
( II.D.5), the staff concluded that a single positive indication of PORV and safety valve position is acceptable, based on the availability of backup methods to determine valve position.
Consequently, the staff agreed that T3.3-10 (item 13) need only require one operable instrumentation channel for PORV indication consistent with the requirement for Unit l.
The operability requirements for PORV and safety valve position for both units should ensure that backup instrumentation is available whenever the primary instrumentation is inoperable.
The staff's Safety Evaluation dated October 16, 1974, stated that the applicant's commitment to install a loose parts monitoring system prior to plant operation was acceptable to the staff.
The staff believes that the addition of a technical specification like Technical Specification 3/4.3.3.9 of the STS is important in ensuring proper functioning of the Loose Parts Detection System.
The staff agreed that the operability requirements for the reactor coolant loops for Unit I are acceptable for Unit 2, although they do not specifically preclude control rod withdrawal in Mode 4.
This conclusion was based on the procedural and testing provisions described in the PGSE letter dated April 11, 1985.
The procedural and testing provisions described in the April ll, 1985 letter provided for energizing the control rods only for certain tests during which either two coolant pumps will be operating, for which rod withdrawal accidents have been analyzed, or the reactor system will be borated sufficiently so that inadvertent criticality cannot occur from rod withdrawal.
The staff agreed that the actions required for inoperable PORVs for Unit I is acceptable for Unit 2 for an interim period until the technical specifications can be revised for both units.
The actions do not specifically require the operability of an alternate depressurization method when the PORYs are inoperable and they require power removal from the block valves whenever the PORVs are inoperable.
The staff requires that the technical specifications for both units be revised to ensure operability of the PORV in all modes, consistent with the safety analyses.
The operability requirements for the main-steam safety valves are generally based on bench testing surveillance.
The staff believes that the insitu testing provided for Unit I is preferable and, therefore, is acceptable for Unit 2.
- However, it is not apparent whether alternate conditions are necessary to ensure relief capacity in Mode 3.
I
~
~
3 Section Descri tion 3.8.1.1 3.8.3.1 4.7.7.1 6.5.1.5 6.8.1 6.9.1.2 The staff included appropriate provisions in the Unit 2 TS to avoid contradictory operability requirements on excessive surveillance requirements for the "swing" diesel generator (1-3),
as compared to the amended operability and surveillance requirements for Unit l.
In the combined TS, explicit and consistent operability and surveillance requirements should be included for the swing diesel.
The staff included operability requirements for the battery sets and associated chargers which do not distinguish specific chargers for specific battery sets.
The combined TS should clearly identify'he charger/battery combinations wh'ich will compromise the redundancy of the dc system in the event of a single failure.
"Each snubber shall be demonstrated OPERAHLE by performance of the following augmented inservice inspection program in lieu of the requirements of Specification 4.0.5."
The staff recommends "in lieu of" be replaced with "and."
The staff agreed that the provisions for a quorum of the PSRC (chairman and two members) for Unit 1 is acceptable for Unit 2.
However, the staff recommends that further consideration be given to whether this quorum can ensure continuity of the PSRC.
The references for the emergency operating procedures need not include Supplement 1 to NUREG-0737 and Generic Letter 82-33.
The provisions, for startup reports should refer to Table 14.2-5 in the FSAR.
6.13 6.14 The staff has concluded that Revision 1 to the Process Control
- Program, dated May 8, 1984, generally complies with NRC criteria and is, therefore, acceptable.
However, revised guidelines are being developed which will likely require a future revision to the Process Control Program.
The future prevision should address compliance with 10 CFR 61 in more detail.
PG8E has stated that the Offsite Dose Calculational Procedure (ODCP) and Environmental Radiation Monitoring Program (ERMP) are being revised concurrent with the RETS upgrade for Unit 2.
The staff expects that the revised ODCP and EMRP will be submitted within about two to three months, following approval by the PSRC.
~
~
Enclosure 2
Diablo Can on Unit 1 Unit 2 Combined TS 05/17/85 05/24/85 05/24/85 05/28/85 06/04/85 06/11/85 06/18/85 06/25/85 07/01/85 07/03/85 Letter to licensee requesting markup of Unit 2 TS Receive Markup from licensee (Licensee to mail directly to EG&G and Region V)
Page changes to EGIIG and Region V
Substantive changes to NRR reviewers Comments from reviewers, EGING and Region V
Staff positions to licensee (Meeting and/or Telecon)
Licensee comments on staff positions Final Draft to licensee for certification Licensee certification Appendix A to Projects
0
~\\