ML20209D324
Text
y w.
o y
M nt:
o UNITED STATES g
8 NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSION o
7.
E WASHINGTON, D. C. 20555 i
k.,, * * * * *,o SEP 101984 Docket Nos.: 50-275 and 50-323 MEMORANDUM FOR: Robert M. Bernero, Director, Division of Systems Integration Thomas W. Bishop, Director, Division of Resident Reactor Projects & Engineering Programs, Region V Nelson J. Grace, Director, Division of Quality Assurance, Safeguards and Inspection Programs, IE i
Hugh L. Thompson, Director, Division of Human Factors Safety l
Richard H. Vollmer, Director, Division of Engineering i
I FROM:
Darrell G. Eisenhut, Director Division of Licensing
.i Office of Nuclear Reactor Regulation
SUBJECT:
DIABLO CANYON UNIT 2 - LICENSING AND REVIEW STATUS l
Construction and modifications at Diablo Canyon Unit 2 are nearing completion and the unit is expected to be ready for fuel load by late November, requiring a low power license. Prior to any licensing action on Unit 2 the Appeal Board j
must decide on the matter of design quality assurance (DQA) for that unit. The hearing last fall on this matter was largely based on the IDVP and -ITP for Unit 1 and the Appeal Board issued its decision in ALAB-763 for Unit 1 only.
Enclosed are three letters from PG&E dated October 6,1983, July 31,1984 (DCL-84-276) and July 31,1984 (DCL-84-278) describing the PG&E efforts and program for Unit 2, the significant differences between the units, and in particular the PG&E Internal Review Program (IRP) which determines the applicability and implements the results of the Unit 1 IDVP and ITP with respect to Unit 2.
We request that you review these letters in preparation for a meeting with PG8E on September 13, 1984. The purpose of the meeting is to discuss this matter with PG&E in further detail and to obtain the information necessary for bringing the DQA issue before the Appeal Board. At this time, we must detennine at a minimum, if the IRP is an acceptable program for applying the IDVP and ITP results to Unit 2 and to what extent the staff needs to audit the process and evaluate the results, in particular where a different approach has been taken for Unit 2 Any major concern should be identified promptly to the Project Manager, Hans Schierling, so that we can advise PG&E accordingly for their consideration of the concern at the meeting. At the completion of the IRP and of our evaluation we will prepare a supplement to the SER.
(d suome, g,
l s
In addition, any other issue that has been addressed previously in SSERs for Unit 1 only must likewise be addressed in an SSER for Unit 2.
This includes the matter of allegations (SSER 21, SSER 22, SSER 26) and of piping and support allegations and concerns (SSER 25). Other matters that must be evaluated prior to a staff recommendation to the Commission regarding a low power license include plant staffing, low power test program, technical specifications, applicability of Unit I license conditions, plant readiness, quality assurance program for Unit 2, TMI items, and matters before the Appeal Board and the Commission. We intend to also discuss these matters with PG&E at the forthcoming
.I meeting. A meeting notice will be issued separately.
1 After the meeting we will develop a list and schedule for the review of all matters that need to be resolved for Unit 2 and will advise you promptly.
I f
l-i arre se hu 1 rector Divisier. of Licensing Office of Nuclear Reactor Regulation
Enclosures:
As stated cc:
H. R. Denton w/o enclosure J. Knight i
L. Chandler i
P. T. Kuo R. Bosnak T. Sullivan H. Hartzman i
H. Polk l
J. Wermiel l
F. Witt w/o enclosure D. Kubicki w/o enclosure L. Crocker F. Anderson T. Marsh i
R. Heishman L. Reiter w/o enclosure S. Brocoum F. Coffman D. Kirsch l
l 4
6 f
f
'