ML20209D537
Text
~,
,..c
- e,,. 3..,;,
=
a -.
-1..
~
,, m
+
o UNITED STATES g
,f p,
NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSION s.
Ti ?
.. E WASHINGTON. D. C. 20555
/
~l' NOV 0 61984 1
MEMORANDUM FOR: Thomas M. Novak, Assistant Director g
for Licensing Division of Licensing FROM:
William T. Russell, Deputy Director R
Division of Human Factors Safety
SUBJECT:
SSER. INPUT FOR DIABLO CANYON, UNIT 2 Plant Name:.Diablo Canyon Power Plant, Unit 2 1
Docket No.: 50-323:.
i Licensing Stage: OL Responsible Branch and Project Manager:
LB-3, H. Schier11ng i
Review Status: Complete l
In a memorandum dated October 3,1984, DL requested review of a. number of matters related to Diablo Canyon, Unit 2, in preparation for issuance of an operating license. Among these, Item 5(h) requested an evaluation of the qualifications'and training of the shift advisors and reactor operators.
Diablo Canyon, Units l'and 2, share a common control room. The operators previously licensed for Unit I will be licensed on Unit 2 on the basis of an y
examination on the differences between the two units. Thus, the same
.i individuals will be responsible for Unit 2 who already have been evaluated
'j for Unit 1, and no further evaluation of these individuals is necessary other i
than for them to successfully pass the differences examination and obtain j
their Unit 2 licenses. The same philosophy also holds true for the shift 1
advisors. A brief SSER. input to this effect is provided in Enclosure 1.
Because the Unit 2 licenses were requested in accordance with 10 CFR 55.24(a), the Unit 2 operator licenses will be limited to no more than 1
i I
i 5% power until these individuals have acquired experience at power on Unit 1.
Of equal concern, however,'from the standpoint of start-up of Unit 2, is the 4
fact that Unit I has not completed start-up activities. Under more normal circumstances, the operating crews would have become experienced on Unit 1 l
l prior to facing a Unit 2 start-up. This has not occurred at Diablo Canyon as.
a result of various delays. Therefore, the possibility exists that the relatively inexperienced shift crews could be attempting to start up' two
,i units simultaneously. Under the best of conditions, plant start-up of one unit demands the undivided attention of operators, plant staff and corporate support elements. httempting a simultaneous or near simultaneous start-up of i
two units would need to be evaluated in more detail than presently available to the staff in order to have reasonable assurance that the proposed plan poses no undue risk to pubite health and safety. Accordingly, we recommend that a license condition be imposed on Unit 2 that would require the unit to' j
i
-g eam 9
4(
,g.
y
w l-
/
/(
Thomas M. Novak >
)
i normally be in a steady state condition at not more than 5% power whenever start-up activities are underway at Unit 1.
The converse would also be acceptable, i.e., hold Unit 1 in a steady state condition at not more than 5%
power whenever start-up activities are underway at Unit 2.
Operations or testing of both units simultaneously should be allowed only with prior staff approval until such time as either unit has completed start-up activities and is ready for commercial operations. Enclosure 2 contains proposed words for j
such a license condition.
I We have not provided a SALP input with this SSER since we have had no contact with the licensee that would provide a basis for a SALP rating.
This review was performed by F. Allenspach and L. Crocker, Licensee
-r Qualifications Branch. There are no known dissenting opinions.
f
^
11,11 m T. Russe Director Di ion of Huma Fac Safety
Enclosures:
As stated I
cc:
H. Schierling I
I 4
1
'l
-~ '-
= - - - - -
, ~....- n.
~
.3
\\
ul
.h t
2 ENCLOSURE 1.
SAFETY EVALUATION REPORT DIABLO CANYON NUCLEAR PLANT, UNIT 2 j
DOCKET NO. 50-323 Chapter 13 Diablo Canyon Units 1 and 2 share a common control room. For such a configuration, 10 CFR 50.54(m)(2) requires a shift complement consisting of not less than two senior operators and three operators. Operators at Diablo
,]
Canyon are to be dually-licensed on both units. The operators for Unit 2 1
thus will be the same operators who have previously been evaluated for
]
Unit 1 operation. Provided they successfully pass an examination on the
-l-differences between the two units, we consider them adequately trained and qualified to operate Unit 2.
Diablo Canyon uses advisors to the operating-shifts.to assure.that each shift has available an individual who has had substantial previous operating experience on a similar plant in accordance with Generic Letter 84-16. The i
advisors that will serve Unit 2 are the same-advisors who previously were
{
evaluated and found acceptable to provide advice to Unit 1.
On this oasis, l
we find them qualified to provide advice to Unit 2.
?
l i
I e
x -- m- -
_ y-s...
,.,.m,--
-,-~-~----~r---
(,,
[r
,,_v e-e 1
.~..
/
")/
/{ -
ENCLOSURE 2 PROPOSED LICENSE CONDITION DIABLO CANYON NUCLEAR PLANT, UNIT 2 DOCKET NO. 50-323
)
At any time start-up testing is underway at Unit 1 Unit 2 shall normally be
.a]
held in a steady stote condition at not more than 5% full power. Conversely, j
start-up activities at Unit 2 are allowed provided Unit 1 is held in a j
steady state condition at not more than 5% power.
Exceptions to this Li requirement are allowed only with prior NRC approval. This restriction shall I
remain in effect until such time as either unit has completed start-up i
testing and is ready for commercial operation.
i 4
i 4
f t
1
.. _. ~ _ _ _.... _ _
- i-
'e-95, e
i