ML20127G464
| ML20127G464 | |
| Person / Time | |
|---|---|
| Site: | 05000000, Diablo Canyon |
| Issue date: | 08/31/1984 |
| From: | NRC |
| To: | |
| Shared Package | |
| ML082310426 | List: |
| References | |
| FOIA-84-688 NUDOCS 8505210069 | |
| Download: ML20127G464 (6) | |
Text
.g w
LICENSING ACTIVITIES SCHEDULE FOR FULL-POWER AND FUEL-LOAD OF DIABLO CANYON NUCLEAR POWER PLANT UNIT NOS. 1 AND 2
~
~
~
8505210069 841019 PDR FOIA ADATO84-688 PDR Revision 1 August 31, 1984 lr;
e lil Atil 0 0Ai4Y0ri litalI 7 HIVit u PGSE final report M' linit ? SSER j develop s eview scq+-
pie [wne license screen ellegations-i screen 55EEs -
I detailed review Tian
" program" 55ER PG&E meeting o
i identify A5 TAB I556*5 denied begin hearing
, end hearing Consission I
PGLE petition
-Commission review granted prepa,re license i
readiness L
rr,utine inspectirns team inspection report scrcen allegations investigations
[
i i
t (g{ l g)h( h kkh l)t C.L fillt R l
,q INTRODUCTI0N
.O In ' November 1981, the Comission suspended the authorization for fuel loading of Diablo Canyon Nuclear Power Plant Unit 1 (DCNPP 1) and required an Independent ~ Design Verification Program (IDVP) be performed to resolve reported
[
seismic ' structural' design errors. On April 13, 1984, the' Commission reinstated the low-power-license for DCNPP 1; the plant achieved criticality on April 29, 1984, and completed low-power testing on May 23, 1984.
In mid-June, Pacific Gas and Electric (PG&E) declared the unit ready for power ascention.
A
'Consnission meeting to decide on authorization for full-power operation of Unit I was held on August 2,1984; the Consnission approved the full-power license by a vote of 3 to 1 with one abstension, to become effective on August 15.
' Subsequently, the U. S. Court of Appeals issued an injunction against full-power operation until the intervenors case could be heard.
Chief Justice Burger denied PG&E's. petition to lift the in' junction.
o Construc?. ion of.DCNPP 2 has continued throughout this period, including
-design changes from the Unit 1 inspection program (note:
during -
construction of Unit 1, Unit 2 was about eight months behind).
The application of the IDVP to DCNPP 2 is called the Internal Review Program (IRP).
PG&E expects to complete the IRP soon an'd has projected that the unit will.be ready for. fuel-load in November 1984 PG&E is currently assessing whether they can simultaneously support power ascension of Unit' I and fuel loading of Unit 2, depending on the schedule and outcome of the Court of Appeals hearing.
The. staff's review of the IDVP and ITP for Unit I has been exacerbated by voluminous allegations of design, construction and management deficiencies by
~ Joint Intervenors (JI), the Government Accountability Project (GAP) and l.
several. former employees; new data and data interpretation for the characterization of the' design-basis earthquake; and concerns raised by Isa Yin, a regional inspector detailed to the Unit I review of piping and supports.
.Moreover, the staff's review has been hampered by " interim evaluations" and presentations for the Commission, ACRS and Congress.
,W
i
. a LICENSING ACTIVITIES The technical staff has completed all of.the necessary evaluations for the full-power SSERs for Unit 1.
A significant fraction of the NRR and staff is working or has worked on the DCNPP review, particulary in the Division of Engineering..The significant issues are:
1.
Allegations 2.
IDVP Issues 3.
Piping and Support Issues 4
Shift Advisor and Operator Qualifications 5.
Seismic Design Reevalu,ation
~
~
6.
Design QA 7.
NSC Audit Concerns The licensing review for DCNPP 2 essentially starts in September 1984.
The scope of the review for Unit 2 will be developed by screening:
1.
PG&E's description of the IRP and Unit 2 design differences (DE and DSI).
2.
Allegations, both Unit 1 conclusions and Unit 2 specific, including piping and support issues (DE, DSI and RV).
3.
Unit 1 license conditions and SSERs (DL).
4.
ASLAB rulings and transcripts (ELD).
To enhance this screening review, the staff intends to meet with PG&E in mid-September to discuss and understand their approach to the resolution of Unit 1 issues for Unit 2.
Following that meeting, the staff will establish a detailed review plan for Unit 2 and will conduct a site visit to audit the progransnatic aspects and confirm that the scope is adequate.
~
The Unit 2 evaluation will consist of two elements:
(1) an evaluation of sufficient depth to address the ASLB issues [ note to Schierling from Chandler dated August 31,.1984], and (2) a final report on the Unit 2 design for Comission action on fuel loading.
This approach is discussed further under hearing activities.
2
-Although the licensing activities for Unit I have been completed, the full power license.(Amendment 10) has not been issued yet and activities associated with the pending U.S. Court of Appeals hearing will require the PM's attention.
-In order to ensure timely completion of the Unit 2 review, a backup PM or i
technical assistant should be assigned full-time to support the PM.
HEARING ACTIVITIES The hearings for DNCPP 1 are complete (LRP 82-70 and ALAB-763); as a result of I
the Connission's. review of ALAB-763, they directed the staff to initiate rule-makin'g with regard to the effects of earthquakes on emergency planning (CLI
~-84-12).
All:of the conditions required by the Board have been included into the Unit I license by amendment.
The Board's decision specifically excludes Unit 2 with regard to design QA issues. Special litigation counsel (Chandler) has prepared a list of issues 4
admitted by the Appeal Board which are applicable to Unit 2 and has reconnended that PG&E file a motion for sunnary) disposition.
If such a motion were granted, there would be no hraring. On the other han,d, if the motion is denied, a staff evaluation would be necessary as early as late September.
Therefore, the review approach is directed at an initial evaluation of the IRP progrannatic approach to resolving Unit 1 issues on Unit 2.
Subsequently, i
PG&E would be required to submit a final report explaining how the program was
, implemented so that the staff could confirm the resolution of issues before licensing is complete.
This approach will only work if the staff concludes, in the development of the review plan, that the ALAB issues can be addressed progrannatically and the licensee concludes that Unit 2 fuel loading can be conducted in parallel i..
with Unit 1 power. ascension.
,-,,,.~_-..._.....__..,_.,.--,.__,v-,_,,
__,,._.___-,,-___.-,--,,,._,,,y..,,,,.,_,w_,
.___~_y-
+ INSPECTION ACTIVITIES In.a memorandum dated June 19, 1984, a Region V review panel concluded that the status of inspection, testing, enforcement, and construction of DCNPP 1 is adequate and recommende'd issuance of the full-power license.
The Region's reviews of specific unresolved allegations from SSER 22 are
- complete and'their resolution was documented by in the SSER #26.
The total number of allegations is approximately 1400.
Additional petitions continue to be received; they are added to the tracking system and evaluated as 'promptly as possible.
The status of inspection activities for DCNPP 2 is current, except for the IRP (IDVP). The scope of inspection-for seismic upgrades should be defined early in the IRP review. The regional inspectors will take advantage of common,
DNCPP 1 inspections t'o ensure completion of a readiness report for Unit 2.
Similarly, allegations will be sorted for Unit C to ensure that they are addressed in a timely manner.
INVESTIGATION ACTIVITIES At present, there are active investigations related to DCNPP.
There are no issues outstanding at this time which would prohibit licensing of Unit 2;
.however, as th.ese investigations proceed additional evidence may develop which could change that judgment. Moreover, as the allegation sorting proceeds, additional allegations may be referred to 01 which could change the nature of the investigations, t
.