ML16341D887
| ML16341D887 | |
| Person / Time | |
|---|---|
| Site: | Diablo Canyon  |
| Issue date: | 09/10/1986 |
| From: | Varga S Office of Nuclear Reactor Regulation |
| To: | Harold Denton Office of Nuclear Reactor Regulation |
| References | |
| NUDOCS 8609250369 | |
| Download: ML16341D887 (36) | |
Text
Docket Nos.
50-275 and 50-323 MEMORANDUM FOR:
FROM:
SUBJECT:
Septem r 10, 1986 DISTRIBUTION g~j R. Vollmer Harold R. Denton, Director PD¹3 Rdg.
Office of Nuclear Reactor Regulation T. Novak C. Rossi Steven A. Varga, Director H. Schierling Project Directorate
¹3 C.
Vogan Division of PWR Licensing-A NRR SALP REPORT FOR PACIFIC GAS AND ELECTRIC COMPANY FOR DIABLO CANYON NUCLEAR POWER PLANT, UNITS 1
AND 2 Enclosed is the NRR SALP Report on the subject regarding the performance in the functional area "Licensing Activities" for the period August 1, 1985 through July 31, 1986.
The report includes a matrix of review activities and performance categories, and summarizes significant licensing actions and activities during the evaluation period'.
The licensee's performance in the functional area of Licensing Activities is at the Category 1 level.
Enclosed for your information is a summary of the NRR and overall assessments for the past two evaluation periods.
We plan to transmit the report to Region V on September 15, 1986.
A draft of this report was used at the SALP Board meeting on September 3,
1986.
I am the assigned SES for this SALP.
Enclosures:
As stated Steven A. Varga, Director Project Directorate ¹3 Division of PWR Licensing-A
- SEE PREVIOUS CONCURRENCE PD¹3 CVogan*
9/09/86 PDP3 HSchie ling 9/ fg/86 SVa 9/
ga 6
8609250369 860910 PDR ADOCK 05000275, 6
'1
~
~
IP'
~
'l M
~
J Docket Nos.
50-275 and 50-323 MEMORANDUM FOR:
FROM:
SUBJECT:
DISTRIBUTION RC PDR al P
Harold R. Denton, Director PD¹3 g.
Office of Nuclear Reactor Regulation T. Novak C
Rossi Steven A. Varga, Director
. Schierling,,
Project Directorate ¹3 C.
Vogan Division of PWR Licensing-A R. Vollmer"
'RR SALP REPORT FOR PACIFIC AS AND ELECTRIC COMPANY FOR DIABLO CANYON NUCLEAR OWER PLANT, UNITS 1 AND 2
'l Enclosed is the NRR SALP Report on the s
ject regarding the performance in the functional area "Licensing Activities" or the period August 1, 1985 through
,July 31, 1986.
The report includes matrix of review activities and performance categories, and summarizes signifi nt licensing actions and activities during the evaluation period.
The lice ee's performance in the functional area of Licensing Activities is at the tegory 1 level.
Enclosed for your information is a summary of the NRR and o
rail assessments for the past two evaluation periods.
We plan to transmit the port to Region V on September 15, 1986.
A draft of this report was used a
the SALP Board meeting on September 3,
1986.
I am the assigned SES for this ALP.
Enclosur s:
'As sta ed Steven A. Varga, Director Project Directorate ¹3 Division of PWR Licensing-A PD83 CVogan 9/8 /86 PD¹3 HSchierling 9/
/86 PD¹3 SVarga 9/
/86
~
~
A g
~
~~'1 I
Table 1
NRR SALP INPUT MATRIX Per formance Cate gor ies for Criteria 1,2,3,5 and 6 in Licensing Activities Subject 1.
Batteries/Charger s Amd.,
2.
RCP Trip Amd.
3.
RAOC Amd.
4.
Snubber Surveill. Amd.
5.
Tech Spec NRC Update Amd.
6.
DG Surveill.
Amd.
7.
Spent Fuel Pool Expan.
Amd.
8.
D.G. Outage Amd.
9.
Unit 1 Enrichment Amd.
10.
10 CFR 50.46 Exempt.
ll. 10 CFR 20 Exempt.
- 12. Fire Protection
- 13. Masonry Walls 14.
Press.
Thermal Shock 16.
LTSP 17.
DCRDR 18.
Boron Mix Test
- 19. Reporting and Analysis of Reportable Events:
Criterion 6
2 2
1 2
2 2
2 1
1
~
1 2
1 2
1 1
1 1
1 1
1 1
2 2
1 1
1 2
1 1
1 2
2 1
1 1
I Criterion 5:
Category 2
~
~
~y f
Table 2
Summary of NRR SALP Evaluations of PGIIE Licensing Activities Criterion January 1,
1983
~J1 30, 1984 Proposed July 1, 1984 August 1, 1985
~55 31, 1985
~55 31, 1986 1.
Management Involve-ment in Assuring equality 2.
Approach to Resolution of Technical Issues from Safety Standpoint 3.
Responsiveness to NRC NRC Initiatives 4.
Enforcement History 5.
Reporting and Analysis of Reportable Events 6.
Staffing (Including Management) 7.
Training Effectiveness and gualification 8.
Housekeeping and Control Room Behavior n.a.
n.a.
noae n.a.
n.a.
noa
~
n.a.
Licensing Activities Overall
~
~
Table 3
Summary of NRC SALP Evaluations for Diablo Canyon Functional Area January 1,
1983 June 30, 1984 Proposed July 1, 1984 August 1, 1985
~J1 31, 1985 9~131, 1986 1.
Plant Operations 2.
Radiological Controls 3.
Maintenance 4.
Surveillance 5.
Fire Protection 6.
Security 5 Safeguards 8.
Outages 9.
guality Programs
- 10. Licensing Activities
- 11. Training and gualifica-tion Effectiveness
~
~
1
~p,S Afoot, (4
tp0 n +**++
UNITED STATES NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSION WASHINGTON, D. C. 20555 Docket Nos.
50-275 and 50-323 FACILITY:
LICENSEE:
Diablo Canyon Nuclear Power Plant, Units 1 and 2
Pacific Gas and Electric Company EVALUATION PERIOD:
August 1, 1985 through July 31, 1986 PROJECT MANAGER:
Hans Schierling I.
INTRODUCTION This report is the NRR input to the NRC SALP report for the Diablo Canyon Nuclear Power Plant, Units 1 and 2 for the evaluation period.
The assessment of the licensee's performance was conducted in accordance with NRR Office Letter No. 44, "NRR Inputs to SALP Process,"
dated January 3,
1984.
This Office Letter incorporates NRC Manual Chapter 0516, "Systematic Assessment of Licensee Performance."
II.
SUMMARY
NRC Manual Chapter 0516 specifies that each of eleven functional areas be evaluated and be assigned a performance category (Category I, 2 or 3), based on a composite of six criteria, each with a number of attributes.
The single, final performance category for each functional area should be tempered with judgment as to the sign-
.ificance of the individual elements.
Based on this approach, the performance of the Pacific Gas and Electric Company (PG8E'), the licensee for the Diablo Canyon Plant, has been evaluated by NRR.
for the functional area of "Licensing Activities." It is concluded that the overall licensee performance regarding licensing activities was at the Category 1
level for the evaluation period.
III.
CRITERIA The evaluation criteria used in this assessment are given in NRC Manual Chapter 0516 Appendix, Table I, Evaluation Criteria with Attributes for Assessment of Licensee Performance.
IV.
METHODOLOGY This evaluation represents the integrated inputs from technical reviewers who expended significant amounts of effort on licensing activities during the evalua-tion period and the evaluation by the Diablo Canyon Project Manager (PM).
Using the guidelines of NRC Manual Chapter 0516, the PM and the reviewers applied the evaluation criteria to the relevant licensee performance attributes, as delineated in Chapter
- 0516, and assigned an overall category (I, 2 or 3) to each applicable attribute.
The reviewers included this information as part of Safety Evaluation inputs transmitted to the Division of Licensing or as separate evaluations.
The PM, after reviewing and evaluating the SALP inputs from the technical reviewers, combined this information with his own assessment of the licensee's performance
- and, using appropriate weighting factors, arrived at a composite performance
category for the functional area to licensing Activities.
This performance category also reflects the comments of the NRR Senior Executive assigned to the Diablo Canyon Plant SALP assessment.
An evaluation was then prepared
'by the PM and circulated to NRR management for comments which were incorporated in the final draft.
The basis for this appraisal was the licensee's performance in support of Licensing Activities that were either completed or had a significant level of activity dyring the evaluation period as discussed below.
The functinal area of-Licensing Activities encompasses the licensee's performance regarding the technical and regulatory adwquacy and timeliness of all licensee s submittals, responsivesness to NRC licensing initiatives, and the licensee's approach to resolution of technical issues from a safety standpoint.
It also includes the efforts by contractors and consultants of the licensee.
V.
ASSESSMENT OF PERFORMANCE CRITERIA A.
Su+vary The NRR assessment of the licensee's performance regarding the functional area of Licensing Activities is based on consideration of the six criteria and their attri-butes specified in NRC Manual Chapter 0516.
In addition, the licensee's performance regarding "Training" and "Housekeeping" and Control Room Behavior" were evaluated as related to Licensing Activities.
The results are as follows:
Criterion Performance Cate or l.
Management Involvement in Assuring guality 2.
Approach to Resolution of Technical Issues from a Safety Standpoint 3.
Responsiveness to NRC Initiatives 4.
Enforcement History 5.
Reporting and Analysis of Reporting, Events 6.
Staffing 7.
Training 8.
Housekeeping and Control Room Behavior n/a The detailed assessments for each of the eight criteria is presented in sections V.C. 1 through V.C.8. It is concluded that the licensee's overall performance in Licensing Activities was at the Category I level.
NRR also evaluated the "Reporting and Analysis of Reportable Events" for the func-tional areas of "Plant Operations" and "Radiological Controls."
The details are provided in Sections V.C.9 and V.C.10.
For both elements the performance was at the Category 2 level.
B.
Summary of Licensing Activities Durina this SALP period NRR Licensing Activities for the Diablo Canyon Plant (both units) remained at a high level, expending more than in excess 6000 professional hours in support of the various licensing activities.
The Unit 2 Full Power License was issued in late August 1985, including the issuance of combined Technical Specifi-cations for Unit I and Unit 2.
Seven additional license amendments were issued for each unit.
Ten license amendments submitted during the evaluation period are cur-rently under staff review.
Enclosure I is a listing of NRR meetings with the Licen-see and the major NRC documents issued as a result of licensing activities.
More than half of the entire NRR effort was associated with the Long Term Seismic Program (LTSP) and the Spent Fuel Pool Expansion (SFPE) amendment request.
The LTSP was established by the licensee inaccordance with a license condition in the Unit I Full Power License, was approved by the staff in July 1985, and is expected to be completed in 1988.
The program includes extensive interactions between the licensee and the staff and its consultants.
There were five meetings onthe LTSP, including a site/plant visit (see Enclosure I, Items I and II).
The licensee has formed a
team of experts, including consultants, in the areas of geology, seismology, geo-physics, soil structure interaction, ground motion, and probabilistic risk assess-ment.
The program is well underway.
The NRR effort is well as conducting indepen-dent studies, including field observations, soil structure interaction, ground motion modeling and probailistic risk assessment.
The SFPE amendment request was submitted in October 1985 to facilitate the first unloading of spent fuel from Unit I in August/September 1986 into the expanded pool.
During its evaluation of the amendment the staff issued a number of requests for additional information and met with the licensee and the designer/manufacturer of the new high density racks, including a tour of the manufacturing plant and of the existing spent fuel pool at Diablo Canyon Unit 1.
The staff was assisted by a consultant from the Frank Researach Center in its evaluation of the seismic/
structural aspects of the spent fuel on pool and high density racks.
License Amendments No. 8 and No.
6 were issed on May 20, 1986 for Units I and 2, respec-tively, including a safety evaluation.
A hearing before the Atomic Safety and Licensing Board is expected to be scheduled for early 1987.
(As a result of motion for stay by intervenors, the SFPE matter is currently being considered by the U.S. Ninth Circuit Court for Appeals).
Other NRR Licensing activities and interactions with the licensee during the evaluation period consisted of mult-plant action items and Diablo Canyon Plant Specific items, including the following:
Generic Letter 83-28 (ATWS Event)
ISI/IST Program Masonry Mall Analysis Natural Circulation Cooldown Boron Mixing Test Detailed Control Room Design Review Appendix R Inspection and Evaluation Relief and Safety Valve testing Procedures Generation Package Pressurized Thermal Shock
A
~
~
These matters are at various stages of NRR review/completion at this time.
During the evaluation period the NRR effort also included activities that are not considered "licensing activities" as such and which did not involve any or only a minimal interaction with the licensee.
The NRR review and evaluation of allegations was the major effort and.was documented in the Supplement No.
33 to the Safety Evaluation Report (NUREG-0675, SSER-33).
The report also includes the results of NRC Region V inspection efforts on allegations.
C.
Assessments 1.
Mana ement Involvement in Assurin gualit During this evaluation period the licensee continued to maintain a high level of management attention to licensing activities by meeting the standards as described in the attributes for this functional area in NRC Manual Chapter 0516.
The licensee's Department of Nuclear Regulatory Affairs (NRA) is the principal inter-face organization with the NRC in licensing activities, including the resolution of technical mltters, establishments of schedules and priorities.
This process is well established and has worked very effectively during this evaluation period.
The licensee's records and documentation system is well established, maintained and available to its staff as well as for NRC audits.
The licensee has established a tracking system for all matters that require NRR licensing action (e.g., license amendments, license conditions, SER requirements).
The status of these matters is routinely discussed between the NRR Project Manager and the licensee's Director of NRA.
The licensee's management is actively involved in the review of all activi-ties.
For example, the licensee's submittals and interactions with the NRR staff regarding the request for exemption to 10 CFR 20 showed careful planning and pre-
- paration, and administrative considerations.
Concern for quality assurance related to the canisters (used for radioiodine protection) involved in the request was evident for both onsite and vendor programs.
Similarly, management awareness of technical matters and commitment to quality was demonstrated in the fire protection review by prior planning, assigning of priorities and actions to assure completion of this effort.
Weekly meetings at the Diablo Canyon Plant are attended by the Vice President, Nuclear Power Operations, and the heads of operations, engineering, support and licensing departments.
During the previous evaluation period the close interaction among these departments was evident in all licensing activities.
During the current evaluation period there were some instances when the NRC review process was impacted by a lack of departmental interfacing.
For example, in its evaluation of the postulated radiological consequences associated with the spent fuel pool expansion amendment - the most important licensing activity since the issuance of the Unit 2 Full Power license - the NRC staff did not always have the necessary and timely interaction with the licensee's appropriate technical staff.
The licensee's Long Term Seismic Program is a well managed effort in itself, but did not always reflect appropriate consideration of licensing and regulatory aspects.
After the NRC approval of the LTSP in mid-1985 there appeared to be some let-up in the licensee's aggressive efforts and pace for implementing the program.
~
~
NRC staff concerns regarding the licensee's performance in licensing activities, in particular with respect to quality, were promptly discussed by the NRR Project Manager with the licensee's Director of NRA and corrective action was taken by the licensee.
In conclusion, the licensee's management commitment and involvement in assuring quality regarding the functional area of Licensing Activities was at the Category l level.
The need for all deyartments to interface and coordinate their efforts in support of needed licensing actions and regulatory requirements should be re-emphasized by licensee management.
2.
A roach to Resolution of Technical Issues from a Safet Stand oint The major technical issues considered the issuance of the Unit 2 Full Power license in August 1985 included amendments to the Technical Specifications (the most important one was the spent fuel pool expansion amendment),
two exemption requests, fire protection evaluation, masonry wall analysis, detailed control room design review and the Long Term Seismic Program.
In most cases the licensee's technical and licensing staff demonstrated a clear understanding of the technical and regulatory aspects of the issues and provided technically sound and thorough approaches, exhibiting appropriate conservatism when there existed a potential for safety significance.
For example, the technical discussion in the safety evaluation in support of the amendment request for increase in fuel enrichment (LAR 86-02) was lucid and complete, demonstrating above average understanding of the technical issues.
In the resolution of the fire damper issue as part of the fire protection evaluation, the licensee displayed a clear understanding of the staff's concerns.
The resolution was based on sound fire protection engineering principles.
The licensee's approach to resolve the issue of masonry wall adequacy demonstrated a sound understanding of the issue and a considerable effort in justifying the energy-balance technique.
Regarding the LTSP, the licensee clearly defined the issues in meetings and proposed technically sound methods for addressing and resolving them; the specific details,
- however, were not submitted or documented.
During the staff evaluation of the spent fuel pool expansion amendment request is'sues were raised by the staff.
The licensee's technical and licensing staff in nearly all cases displayed a clear understanding of NRR staff concerns and included appropriate conservatisms in timely resolutions.
In particular, the consideration of criticality aspects was unusually complete and showed a thorough grasp for the technical issues.
A major part of the pool expansion evaluation was the structural/seismic design of the pool and the high density racks.
The licensee and its consultant provided a sound basis for the approach taken which was discussed in meetings with the staff and described in detail in a number of submittals.
The radiological and environmental
- aspects, however, were not addressed sufficiently in the license amendment request and the initial supporting report.
While the basis for the amendment in the these areas was technically
- sound, several conclusions lacked a detailed quantitative comparison necessary for staff review.
The issue was resolved through meetings, letters and discussions with the licensee.
~
~
In conclusion, although documentation was not always complete, the licensee's approach to the resolution of technical issues from a safety standpoint regarding Licensing Activities continued at the Category I level.
3.
Res onsiveness to NRC Initiatives The majority of licensing activities during the evaluation period was the result of license amendment requests by the licensee which frequently dictated the licensee's own schedule.
Therefore, the licensee provided timely resolution to issues, and deadlines were met.
The licensee's technical staff was available whenever necessary for telephone discussions and appropriate documentation was subsequently provided.
When major issues were under active NRC staff review the licensee's technical and licensing staff was available at the NRR Offices in Bethesda, Maryland for discussion.
As stated
- above, schedules and priorities were regularly discussed between the NRR Diablo Canyon Project Manager and the licensee to assure that the responses were timely and acceptable.
During the evaluation period there were a few occasions when the NRR staff promptly needed certain plant data and information for purposes not directly related to the Diablo Canyon Plant.
This information was not always submitted on the necessary expedited schedule.
As discussed
- above, the licensee's responses and discussions with respect to the spent fuel pool expansion amendment were sound and prompt, except in the area of the radiological review, where the responses provided the minimum information needed by the staff.
As stated earlier, the licensee's Long Term Seismic Program (LTSP) was initiated as a direct result of a license condition.
It is a long term program expected to be completed in 1988 and thus may not reflect at this time a great need of urgency.
The licensee and NRC technical staffs, including consultants have met on numerous occasions to discuss details of the program.
Generally, the licensee provided extensive information at these meetings in the form of viewgraphs and handouts.
In addition, the licensee provided quarterly progress reports on the program.
However, the staff has found that this form of documentation is not adequate for the staff to evaluate and to comment on the progress of the program.
This issue was discussed between NRR and the LTSP management, but a resolution has not been reached.
In this particular case the performance was at the Category 2 level.
In conclusion, the licensee's overall responsiveness to NRC initiatives in the functional area of Licensing Activities continued at the Category I level.
4.
Enforcement Histor During this evaluation period there were no enforcement actions taken as a
result of NRR activities or which involved NRR evaluations and reviews.
There is no basis for an evaluation of the licensee's performance.
5.
Re ortino and Anal sis of Re ortable Events The licensee reported 53 non-security events to the NRC Operations Center and submitted 70 Licensee Event Reports (LERs) during the assessment period.
The staff reviewed these reports for promptness and completeness of reporting, proper identification and analysis of events, and effective corrective action.
All phone reports were accomplished within the time requirements of 10 CFR 50.72.
All but two of the LERs were dated within the time requirement of 10 CFR 50.73,
- however, many of them were dated on the last allowable day.
Measures should be taken to expedite investigation and review of reportable events to ensure required dates are not missed.
The two reports were late because of initial misinterpretation by the licensee of the reporting requirements.
All reports required by 10 CFR 50.72 and 50.73 were made and, for the most part, the reports were complete and adequately described the event being reported.
The licensee identified two actuations of engineered safety features (ESF) as requiring phone reports.
There was no follow-up with LERs as had been agreed earlier with the NRC Resident Inspector that LERs need not be submitted for this particular type of spurious ESF actuation.
The events had been initially misidentified by the licensee as reportable.
Analyses of reportable events were generally thorough and indicative of a proper concern for safety of the public and plant personnel.
Two events at Diablo Canyon during the reporting period resulted in further NRR interest.
On November 28, 1985, Unit 2 reactor tripped with failure of one trip breaker to open.
The licensee thoroughly investigated the event, including exten-sive testing of the trip breakers.
It was determined that the momentary trip signal existed long enough,(30 milliseconds) to trip one breaker but not long enough to trip the other breaker.
On July 21,
- 1986, an earthquake of magnitude
- 6. 1 occurred with the epicenter 220 miles from the Plant The quake did not trigger the strong motion indicators at the Diablo Canyon Plant but was recorded on the more sensitive supplemental instrumentation.
Thirty percent of the LERs involved some failure of administrative controls.
Fourteen events were missed surveillance tests; four were failure to meet other time limits, such as LCO action statements or management review of procedure changes; two were failures to post a fire watch when required; and one was a
failure to observe a Technical Specifications requirement.
These repetitive failures to observe time limits or other administrative requirements indicate that corrective actions were not fully effective.
The licensee has undertaken a program to reduce or eliminate the number of missed surveillance tests.
The licensee should increase the attention to this problem.
In conclusion, the licensee's performance regarding reporting and analysis of reportable events regarding Licensing Activities was at the Category 2 level.
tt
~
~
6.
~Staffin During this evaluation period there were frequent and extensive interactions between the NRR staff and the licensee's staff and its consultants, In all cases the technical and regulatory staff and management involved in licensing activities were highly qualified.
Furthermore, there did not appear to be any vacant position that was significant for the conduct of any licensing activity.
The individuals associated with the Long Term Seismic
- Program, including manage-ment and consultants, have excellent professional qualifications and provide the necessary expertise in all engineering and scientific aspects to address and resolve issues and concerns being raised in the program.
The licensee's NRA Department is staffed with experienced individuals thoroughly familiar with NRC reaulatory requirements and representing various engineering backgrounds.
In conclusion, the staffing in all engineering, operational, and regulatory areas involved in Licensing Activities continued at the Category 1 level 7.
~Trainin The training program in the licensee's NRA Department includes informal on the Job training for new employees and required formal training in quality assurance requirements and procedures, departmental procedures, and operating procedures for the licensee's Division of Nuclear Power Generation (NPG).
In-house formal courses are regularly offered on technical issues such as reactor theory and Diablo Canyon plant specific systems.
These courses are open to all staff.
The licensee also encourages individuals to pursue or continue formal education and provides financial support-in this area.
Most of the technical staff in the NRA Department are graduated and many are professional engineers.
The training and qualification of the plant operational staff is evaluated in the functional area of Training and gualification Effectiveness.
With respect to licensing activities the staff finds that the licensee's training and qualification program is at the Category 1 level.
8.
Housekee in and Control Room Behavior During this evaluation period NRR staff toured the Diablo Canyon Plant facilities and site.
Overall cleanliness throughout the Plant was good.
Rooms were kept free of extraneous material and equipment.
Control room operations appeared smooth and professional.
Since mid l985 the licensee has in progress a very extensive construction program for support services facilities, including an administration/security building, warehouse, maintenance training facility, and cold machine shop.
These facilities will enhance the day to day operation of the entire Diablo Canyon Plant.
In conclusion, the performance with regard to Housekeeping and Control Room Behavior was at the Category 2 level.
9.
Plant 0 erations - Re ortin and Anal sis of Re ortable Events Unit I experienced three reactor scrams during this assessment period.
Two of these were due to a component failure and one was due to an installation error.
This rate of 0.36 scrams per 1000 critical hours is significantly lower than the 1985 average for Westinghouse plants of 0.98 scrams per 1000 critical
hours.
It is indicative of effective corrective action to avoid repetitive scrams.
~
~
~
~ Unit 2 experienced 23 reactor scrams during the assessment period.
Four were due to personnel error; six were caused by design, manufacturing, or installa-tion errors; one was due to a defective procedures; there were eight component failures which caused scrams; and four scrams were casued by other events.
This rate of 8.3 scrams per 1000 critical hours is much higher than any other Westinghouse plant experienced during 1985.
It is also much higher than the rates for the Waterford 3 and Palo Verde I plants, both of which achieved initial criticality in 1985 as Diablo Canyon Unit 2.
However, the fact that 17 of the scrams occured prior to the start of commercial operation indicates that corrective actions are becoming effective.
The six scrams in the first five months of commerical operation is comparable to the Westinghouse plant experience of 16 scrams in the first year of operation.
Both units achieved availability factors well above the national average (68.5%):
Unit I was available 93.3X of the time during the first eleven months of this evaluation period (data for July are not yet available) while Unit 2 experienced a 94. 1% availability factor since it began commerical operation in March 1986.
It is concluded that the licensee's performance regarding reporting and analysis of reportable events in the functional area of Plant Operations was at the Category 2 level..
- 10. Radiolo ical Controls - Re ortin and Anal sis of Re ortable Events Preliminary data for 1985 show that 1062 workers received measurable exposure at the Diablo Canyon Plant, for a total exposure of 69 man-rem.
One worker received between 50 and 100 millirem whole body dose and the remainder received less than 50 millirem.
While this is a good record (second only to Beaver Valley I in total exposure) it is largely due to Unit I not entering commerical operation until May of 1985 and Unit 2 until March 1986.
Also, no major maintenance work took place during this evaluation period.
It is concluded that the per-formance was at the Category 2 level.
VI.
CONCLUSITONS AND RECOMMENDATIONS The licensee's management continued its high level of involvement in licensing activities.
The licensee has developed and implemented an effective system to track the resolution of licensing actions.
Apparent departmental interfacing was of IRC staff concerns during its evaluation of raiological aspects associated with the spent fuel pool expansion amendment.
The approach to the resolution of issues was technically sound, reflected conservative methodology, and showed awareness and understanding of regulatory requirements.
The response to NRC initiative was thorough and met schedules.
The Long Term Seismic Program (LTSP) is well thought out and can be expected to greatly enhance the basis for the seismic design of the Diablo Canyon Plant.
Documentation of all activities associated with licensing was thorough and prompt with the exception of the LTSP and some aspects of the spent fuel pool expansion amendment.
Licensing activities were conducted and supported by a highly qualified professional staff that interacted with the NRR staff in a prompt and responsible manger.
The reporting of events is generally timely.
Based on evaluations, observations and interactions with the licensee's manage-ment and staff, including consultants and contractors, it is concluded that the licensee's overall performance regarding the functional area of Licensing Activities was at the Category 1 level.
Details of the Long Term Seimic Program and its progress should be documented; detailed background information should be submitted and documented whenever ne-cessary for NRC review; attention should be given to performing surveillances within specified time limits; management should re-emphasize the need for de-partment interfacing with respect to licensing activities.
C
NRR MEETING AND OFFICIAL DOCUMENTS Enclosure 1
4.
Long Term Seismic Progr am:
Tour of Plant Structures and Site re:
Structural/Seismic Design
- Features, Instrumentation, Geological Features; Meeting on Soil Structure Interaction and Ground Motion 5.
Spent Fuel Pool Expansion - Visit of Facilities I.
NRR Meetin with Licensee 1.
Long Term Seismic Program - Siol Structure Interaction 2.
Inservice Testing and Inspection Review 3.
Masonry Wall Analysis 4.
Detailed Control Room Design Review 5.
Spent Fuel Pool Expansion 6.
Long Term Seismic Program - Ground Motion Modelling 7.
Detailed Control Room Design Review, Spent Fuel Pool Expansion, and Snubber Optimization 8.
Spent Fuel Pool Expansion 9.
Long Term Seismic Program 10.
Appendix R - Resolution of Issues 11.
Long Term Seismic Program - Geology/Seismology/
Geophysics II.
NRR Plant Visits and Meetin s
1.
Appendix R - Participation in Region V
Inspection at Diablo Canyon Plant 2.
Spent Fuel Racks for Pool Expansion:
Meeting With Licensee and Rack Manufacturer and Tour of Facilities in Camden, New Jersey 3.
Spent Fuel Racks for'ool Expansion,
- Camden, New Jersey 10/21/85 11/04/85 11/05/85 11/06/85 12/05/85 12/12/85 01/09/86 02/20/86 03/11-12/86 03/20/86 05/28-29/86 11/18-22/86 01/27/86 03/24-25/86 04/14-16/86 04/14/86
0
~
III.
Commission Meetin l.
Unit 2'Full Power License Meeting 08/01/85 IV.
Schedular Extensions None V.
Reliefs Hone Vl.
~Eti 1.
Temporary Waiver from 10 CFR 50.46, Peak Cladding Temperature Criteri on, for Unit 2 02/21/86 2.
Exemption from 10 CFR 50.46, Peak Cladding Temperature 03/03/86 Criterion, for Unit 2 (August 20, 1986 time limit) 3.
Exemption from 10 CFR 20, Protection Factor for Canisters; request dated 07/15/86 (NRR review ongoing)
VII.
Licenses and License Amendments Issued License Amendment Units 1/2 Amd. 2/n.
Amd. 3/Amd.
1 Amd. 4/Amd.
2
~Sub 'ect Unit 2 Full Power License Unit 1 and Unit 2 Combined Tech Specs, including Unit 1
Changes on Movable Control Rod Assemblies, RTS Instrumentation, Review Committee,
- RETS, AFW Systems Diesel Fuel Oil Surveillance, Rod Bowling Relaxed Axial Offset Control for Unit 1, Axial Flux Difference for Unit 2 Reactor Coolant Pump Breaker Position Trip Date 08/26/85 08/26/86 11/29/85 12/23/85
~
Q
~
~
Amd. 5/Amd.
3 Amd. 6/Amd.
4 Snubber Surveillance Requirements Battery Sets and Associated Chargers Amd. 7/Amd.
5 Reload Fuel Maximum Enrichment Amd. 8/Amd.
6 Spent Fuel Pool Expansion Amd. 9/Amd.
7 Diesel Generator Outage Time (10 other License Amendment Requests submitted by the Licensee during the SALP Period are still being evaluated by NRR) 01/07/86 04/18/86 05/13/86 05/30/86 06/28/86 VIII.
Emer enc Technical S ecification Issued None IX.
Orders Issued 1.
Memorandum and Order, CLI-85-14, on Unit 2 Full Power License Authorization 2.
Memorandum and Order, CLI-86-12 on Spent Fuel Pool Expansion Limitations 08/01/85 07/22/86