ML20197J925
Text
- p...,'o,,
UNITED STATES
~
s NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSION o
h Y
WASHINGTON, D. C. 20555 June 28, 1985 Docket Nos. 50-275/323 MEMORANDUM FOR: Thames M."Nevak, Assistant-Director for 1.icensing, DL FROM:
Dennis M. Crutchfield, Assistant Director for Safety Assessment, DL SURJECT:
DIABLO CANYON UNITS 1 AND 2 FINAL DRAFT TECHNICAL SPECIFICATIONS The enclosed combined Technical Specifications for Diablo Canyon Units I and 2 should be transmitted to the licensee for review and certification as being consistent with the FSAR, SER and the Unit 2 as-built plant. The licensee should be requested to document in some detail the resources and process used to review and certify the Technical Specifications.
This certification is necessary because several changes have been made since the Technical Specifications certifiec by the licensee were incor-porated in the operating license for Unit 2/ These changes included those necessary to convert the Unit 2 Technical Specifications into combined Technical Specifications for Units 1 and ?, and those necessary to resolve those Unit ? full power issues identified in our letter of May 15, 1985, to the applicant.
It should be noted that there are five full power issues tMt have been resolved by proposed Technical Specification changes that are not reflected in the enmbined Technical Specifications for Units 1 and ?.
Resolution involved changes to the Technical Specifications for both Units and was obtained subsequent to the issuance of the notice for public comment for Unit 1.
Rather than either issuing Technical Specifications that would include.substantially different requirements for Units 1 and 2 in these areas with a follow up amendment for Unit 1, or delay of the license for another notice period, the staff determined that for the interim the low power Unit 2 Technical Specification requirements as reflected in the combined Technical Specifications provide a sufficiently conservative set of requirements. Further, if procedural requirements prevent or delay applicability of the combined Technical Specifications to Unit 1, the existing Unit 1 Technical Specifications are likewise sufficiently CONTACT:
C. Moon 49-?9786 l
Y}/
N s
Thomas M. Novak June 28, 1985 conservative for the interim. By letter dated June 20, 1985, the licensee committed to provide a License Amendment Request (LAR) within 90 days following issuance of the Unit 2 full power license and combined Technical Specification to close out these items. The five Technical Specifications are as follows:
(1) Section 6.9, " Reporting Requirements"; (2) Specifi-cations 3/4.3.3.11. " Loose-Part Detection System"; (3) Specification 3.8.P.1, "0nsite Power Distribution"; (4) Specifications 3/4.4.4, " Relief Valves";
and (5) Figures 3.4-2 and 3.4-3, " Reactor Coolant System Heatup/Cooldown Limitations".
As an Enclosure I an providing a summary of the correspondence related to these Technical Specifications which includes the disposition of certain specific items proposed by the licensee.
It should be noted that the Unit 1 Technical Specifications were not certified by the applicant in accordance with our present practice. Prior to the issuance of combined Technical Specifications for Units 1 and 2 such certification should be requested.
A
%Mlt1 b
'.</
Dennis M. Crutchfleid, [s stant Director for Safety Assessment Division of Licensing
Enclosures:
1.
Sunnary of Correspondence 2.
Technical Specifications for Diablo Canyon Unit 1 and 2 cc:
H. Schierling
'I t
Thomas M. Novak June 28, 1985 conservative for the interim. By letter dated June 20, 1985, the licensee committed to provide a License Amendment Request (LAR) within 90 days following issuance of the Unit 2 full power license and combined Technical Specification to close out these items. The five Technical Specifications are as follows:
(1) Section 6.9 " Reporting Requirements"; (2) Specifi-cations 3/4.3.3.11. " Loose-Part Detection System"; (3) Specification 3.8.2.1, "Onsite Power Distribution"; (4) Specifications 3/4.4.4, " Relief Valves";
and (5) Figures 3.A-? ard 3.d-3, " Reactor Coolant System Heatup/Cooldown Limitations".
As an Enclosure, I am providing a summary of the correspondence related to these Technical Specifications which includes the disposition of certain specific items proposed by the licensee.
It should be noted that the Unit 1 Technical Specifications were not certified by the applicant in accordance with our present practice. Prior to the issuance of combined Technical Specifications for Units 1 and 2 such certification should be requested.
Original signed by Dennis M. Crutchfield, Assistant Director for Safety Assessment Division of Licensing
Enclosures:
1.
Sunnary of Correspondence 2.
Technical Specifications for Diablo Canyon Unit 1 and 2 cc:
H. Schierling DISTRIBUTION Docket File TSRG File MVirgilio CMoon TDunning DL:TSRG DL:TSRG D
MVirgilioh CMoon#*4 0
field 6/At/85 6bti/85 6/7 85
7; Enclosure t
Summary of Correspondence and Disposition of Requests By letter dated May 14, 1985, the licensee submitted LAR 85-02, Unit 2 Full Power Technical Specifications that included a copy of the Unit 2 low power license Technical Specifications marked-up to show the changes proposed to be incorporated in the combined Technical Specifications for Units 1 and 9 By letter dated May 14, 1985, the licensee submitted LAR 85-03, which proposed a revision to Units 1 and 2 Technical Specification 3.1.3.3,
" Movable Control Assemblies". Since this requested change is not necessary for operation at full power, it was agreed in the May 15, 1985 schedule meeting to complete the review of this proposal subsequent to issuance of the Unit 2 full power license.
By letter dated May P0, 1985, the licensee submitted an LAR change to Technical Specification 3/4.3.1, " Reactor Trip System Instrumentation,"
consistent with the NRC staff's position provided in Safety Evaluation Report dated February 21, 1985 on the generic proposal in WCAP 10271.
These proposed changes, modified to reflect an acceptable format and scope consistent with the staff's February 71, 1985 SER, have been incorporated in the combined Technical Specifications for Units 1 and 2.
By letters dated May 21 and May 30, 1985, the licensee provided LARs proposing Technical Specification chances and responses to the 15 issues in our letter of May 15, 1985. Acceptable responses to issues were in-corporated into the combined Unit 1. Unit 2 Technical Specifications.
In it's May 15, 1985 letter the staff had agreed that the provisions for a quorum of the Plant Safety Review Connittee (PSRC) (Chairnan and two members) for Unit 1 is acceptable for Unit ?.
However, the staff recommended that further consideration be given to whether this quorum can ensure continuity of the PSRC. 9y letter of May 21, 1985, the licensee documented the measures that will be used to ensure the reouisite continuity.
By letter dated May 30, 1985, the licensee submitted LAR 85-06 that proposed an administrative change to the Technical Specifications to reflect an on-site organizational change. These changes have been incorporated into the combined Technical Specifications for Units ! and 2.
By letter dated May 31, 1985, the licensee submitted LAR P5-07 that proposed changes to specifications that address battery charger out-of-service times and battery charger electrical alignment. The proposed changes are currently under review. These changes were not included in the notice for public comment for Unit 1.
~4 b
_p_
By letter dated June 20, 1985 the licensee committed to submit specific Technical Specification changes to resolve five open items (Relief Valve Action Statements; loose part detection instrumentation Technical Specifi-cations; Rases for battery charger Action Statements; heatup and cooldown curves; and Administrative Controls, Startup Report's) within 00 days following issuance of the Unit 2 full power license. This commitment is acceptable to the staff.
From additional review we found that some requirements and guidance in Supplement 1 to NUREG-0737 replace corresponding requirements in NUREG-0737. Therefore, the reference to Supplement 1. to NUREG-0737 cannot be deleted as was proposed in our May 15, 1985 letter.
.