ML20209D766
Text
b'
~~
o UNITED STATES g
.[
g NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSION wasmuovon, o.c.mosas
(
JAN 111985 Docket No.: 50-323 l
MEMORANDUM FOR: Dennis Kirsch, Acting Director, Division of Reactor Safety & Projects, Region V Richard H. Vollmer, Director Division of Engineering N21 son J. Grace, Director Division of Quality Assurance, Safeguards and Inspection Programs Themis P. Speis, Director Division of Safety Technology Hugh L. Thompson, Director Division of Human Factors Safety.
Robert M. Bernero, Director Division of Systems Integration
(
FROM:
Darrell G. Eisenhut, Director Division of Licensing
\\
t
SUBJECT:
DIABLO CANYON UNIT 2 REVIEW
/
This is a followup to my memo of October 3,1984. PG&E has projected a fuel load date for Unit 2 in mid-February 1985. Consequently, the following reviews should be completed before that time:
1 Design Verification Effort as applied to Unit 2 2.
Piping and Supports 3.
Open Items 4.
Allegations PG&E had made a number of submittals on these subjects. A brief summary of the staff's efforts and schedules for each of these issues is provided in the enclosures.
l l
An SSER on the design verification effort is of highest priority. As you know, l
the decision in ALAB-763 with regard to design quality assurance (the subject l
of the hearings in November 1983 on the design verification effort) applies only to Unit 1.
The Appeal Board has requested that they be advised regarding the issuance of the SSER for the design verification effort. The Appeal Board has not yet decided on the need for any further hearing on this matter for linit 2.
H. Schierling is preparing an introduction to accompany the table of contents i
presented as Enclosure 2 and to define the appropriate score fr-this SSER, G(
based en guidance from ELD. As a minimum, this SSER should n'c'ress the results i
Bro //402/FE N
t Q.
o of the IRP, IE's input on the QA program applicable to Unit 2 (identifying any differences from Unit 1), and Region V's. input on the implementation of the QA program for Unit 2.
It may also be appropriate to address allegations,'
piping and supports, and open items, insofar as they apply to the cuality issues of concern to the Board. Should there be any questions concerning this matter, contributing reviewers should contact H' Schierling or L. Chandler.
We recognize that the staff's evaluation of design verification may, in many i
cases, be directly tied to allegations and other matters still under active review; nevertheless, we believe it is important to forward this SSER to the Board as soon as practical. Consequently, we request that the SSER inputs for this issue be submitted by January 31, 1985.
If the. contributing review groups anticipate a problem meeting this schedule, they should promptly inform H. Schierling of.their expected completion schedule.
The Unit 1 full power license was issued on November 2,1984l including Technical Specifications for that unit. The current review status of the Unit 2 Technical Specifications was addressed in a separate memo bi D. Crutchfield.
Region V issued its first readiness report for Unit 2 on December 5,1984.
That report will be a major factor in any licensing decision for Unit 2 and should be reviewed by all branches.
In order to ensure overall coordination of the Diablo Canyon Unit 2 licensing review, please have each reviewer notify C. Grimes of the expected completion date for their reviews by January 15, 1985, where their reviews will not be completed by that date.
1 L
y e
sen1u, Director Division of Licensing
Enclosures:
As stated CC W/ enclosures:
J. Knight J. Wermiel B. Sheron C. Coffer R. W. Houston V. Noonan W. Jensen H. Conrad L. Rubenstein H. Walter C. Liang T. Alexion G. Lear J. Spraul B. Clayton N. Chokshi i
P. T. Kuo L. Phillips G. Hammer G. Vissing R. Bosnak T. Huang J. Joyce N. Thompson M. Hartzman V. Benaroya C. Thomas H. Schierling
- 0. Parr D. Kubicki A. Thadani L. Chandler C. Grimes e
3
~
..-n
,___.p 9
Enc 1csure 1 STATUS OF DIABLO CANYON UNIT 2'
-s 1.
Design Verification Effort on Unit 2 This review will address the Unit 2 application of the results of the design verification effort (IDVP and ITP), including NRC concerns (ReferenceSSERs 18, 19, 20, and 24). PG&E has performed its effort under the IRP (Internal Review Program) as described in submittals of October 19, November 2, and December 7,1984. Enclosure 2 is an outline ~
for the SSER with the suggested assignments. The resolution for ali'g items in each review area, as described in the tables of the PG&E submittals should be reviewed and addressed in this SSER.
In addition, we recomend that IRP packages for some selected Error A and B issues from Unit 1 be audited.
i N
It is our understanding that the civil / structural audits are complete except for some selected IRP packages.
If further inforniation is required in any areas listed, the Project Manager should be notified promptly.
To expedite this process, the information request will be identified to.
PG&E by phone with a followup letter.
2.
Piping and Supports This review will present the staff evaluation of the PG&E effort regarding piping and supports as it applies to Unit 2.
It will be based on the PG&E submittals (November 2, 1984) and staff audits. The evaluation is being conducted by a team, including consultants, under the direction of MEB.
This review should address the PG&E effort on Unit 2 with respect to the requirements that had been included in the Unit 1 low power license (Order of 4/14/84) and must provide the basis for any similar license condition for Unit 2.
This review should inclu' recognition of appropriate piping and support allegations by subject area whenever possible and in particular should address the concerns raised by an individual in a recent meeting.
The SSER should include an evaluation of programatic aspects, as discussed in the report by R. Heishman (IE) dated September 10, 1984, for Unit 1.
A meeting was held with PG&E and Westinghouse on December 20, 1984, to discuss issues related to the base-plant analysis. We understand that audits at the PG8E offices will be completed by January 18, 1985. MEB has prepared a draft of this SSER. The Project Manager will coordinate the SSER input on the programatic aspects from IE.
l 1
\\
~V
- ,1 3.
Open Items
,D The items listed in Enclosure 3 are currently under active review by
]
the staff.
4.
Allegations NRR, Region V, and OI met on December 18-19, 1984,to discuss the status of all allegations. As a result of that meeting we have identified all remaining allegation assignments. Region V input to the allegations SSER will be submitted by January 17, 1985.
The SSER inputs for Diablo C'anyon allegations should address (1) the s
resolution of all Unit 1 allegations required prior to full-power plant operation, (2) the resolution or disposition of all new Unit 1 allega-tions (post-August 1984), (3) applicability of all Unit I allegations to Unit 2, and (4) the resolution or disposition of all Unit 2 allega-tions. Each allegation should be identified individually; however, their resolution or disposition may be addressed in, subject groups.
We understand that certain new allegations assigned to NRR may need to be reassigned.
In such cases, the transfer.should be discussed and coordi-nated with the appropriate review group promptly and followup documenta-tion should be submitted to Region V shortly thereafter by the current assignee with a copy to the Project Manager and R. Stark.
6 D
- m w me-a +
e -
-*3-,p-
--w-..~-
'.t ;
Enclesure 2 i,
DESIGN VERIFICATION PROGRAM SSER OUTLINE i
1.
INTRODUCTION H. Schierling Unit 1 SSERS for IDVP/ITP ALA8 763 issues Description of IRP for Unit 2 Scope of staff review PG&E submittals
\\
Reference to SSER on Allegations, Piping and Supports 2.
SEISMIC - CIVIL / STRUCTURAL P. T. Kuo, /
H. Polk Annulus Structure h
Turbine Building
\\
Raceway Supports uried Conduits fReferencetoUnitIreview xE0I Audits 3.
MECHANICAL EQUIPMENT M. Hartzman Reference to Unit I review on IDVP Sumary of Piping and Supports SSER to Unit 2 as it relates to design verification Jet Impingement (ALAB 763)
E0I Audits I. Wermiel 4.
SYSTEMS J
Reference to Unit I review CCW E0I Audits EOUIPMENT QUALIFICATION H.' Wa er 5.
Reference to Unit I review E0I Audits 6.
QA/QC J. Spraul (IE)
Verification of Unit 1 conclusions for Unit 2 in SSER 18 Implementation of QA program for Unit 2 Region V 7.
CONCLUSIONS H. Schierling
l
,j %
1(g, OPEN ITEMS g,,
y
.,; 9 Reviewer s
1.
ICCS (II.F.2) c[i
, T. Huang RVLIS
,e Subcooled Margin Monitor.
b
'l V,
(Allegations) 2.
Appendix R
(
. t/<
D. Kubicki 3".
RHR System (y.Liang
'W. Jensen Autoclosure Interlock C
, Low Flow Alann 2
t' i
4.
Low Power Tests (I.G.1)
B. Clayton & RV 5.
Natural Circulation / Boron Mix Test
\\
C. Liing 6.
Valve Testing (II.D.1)
G. Hammer s
e
'R. Bosnak 7.
Pump & Valve IST 8.
Regulatory Guide 1.97 J.? Joyce t
9.
PASS (II.B.3)
- 10. Security Update C. Thomas g
i
- 11. Systems Interaction Program C. Coffer & RV l
- 12. Heavy Loads J. Wermiel
- 13. Steam Generator Tube Plugging H. Conrad
- 14. Reactor Trip System T. Alexion j
, 15. Masonry Walls N. Chokshi
- 16. Thermal / Mechanical Effects (II.K.2.13)
G. Vissing
- 17. CRDR(I.D.1)
N. Thompsor)
- 18. SPDS g
i t.
e s'
/
[.
t ' ' -
)
.s
- o e
j-k
/
r 3
._,y,.y,.1-,