ML20209D999

From kanterella
Jump to navigation Jump to search
Forwards Auxiliary Sys Branch Sser Input Re Section 9.1.5, Overhead Heavy Load Handling Sys. Objective,Identified in NUREG-0612 for Providing Max Practical Defense in Depth, Satisfied W/O Further Action.License Condition Removed
ML20209D999
Person / Time
Site: 05000000, Diablo Canyon
Issue date: 02/25/1985
From: Rubenstein L
Office of Nuclear Reactor Regulation
To: Novak T
Office of Nuclear Reactor Regulation
Shared Package
ML082410749 List: ... further results
References
FOIA-86-197, REF-GTECI-A-36, REF-GTECI-SF, RTR-NUREG-0612, RTR-NUREG-612, TASK-A-36, TASK-OR NUDOCS 8503010180
Download: ML20209D999 (2)


Text

'

3

- pmy k

UNITED STATES

,,y g

NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSION 3

ij WASHINGTON, D. C. 20555

+.***

FEB 2 51985

,;dc

/

. -MEMORANDUM FOR: Thomas M. Novak, Assistant Director

}#

for Licensing, DL FROM:

L. S. Rubenstein, Assistant Director for Core and Plant Systems, DSI

SUBJECT:

SUPPLEMENTAL SAFETY EVALUATION REPORT INPUT -

DIABLO CANYON UNIT 1, AUXILIARY SYSTEMS BRANCH At the request of the Diablo Canyon project manager, H. Schierling, enclosed is the Auxiliary Systems Branch's supplemental safety evaluation report input regarding Section 9.1.5, " Overhead Heavy Load Handling System", for Diablo Canyon Unit 1.

This input supplements that previously provided to you by memorandum dated July 16, and December 20, 1984. The enclosure provides additional discussion regarding the elimination of condition 2.c.(8) from the Unit i license concerning compliance with NUREG-0612, Phase II. This input is based on a generic solution and did not require contact with the licensee. Therefore, no SALP input is being provided.

. 5-L. S. Ruben tein, Assistant Director for Core and Plant Systems, DSI

Enclosure:

As stated cc: w/ enclosure:

R. Bernero H. Thompson

0. Parr J. Wermiel J. Wilson G. Knighton H. Schierling

Contact:

A. Singh, ASB:DSI X-29492 JN.16/0/80-Y4 m 7..

SUPPLEMENTAL SAFETY EVALUATION REPORT INPUT DIABLO CANYON UNIT 1 AUXILIARY SYSTEMS BRANCH 9.1.5 Overhead Heavy Load Handling System In the Diablo Canyon Unit 1 SER, the staff imposed a condition (license condition No. 2.c.(8)) regarding compliance with the criteria of Phase II (Sections 5-1.2 through 5-1.6) of NUREG-0612 " Control of Heavy Loads at Nuclear Power Plants". The staff has subsequently eliminated the need for further effort regarding compliance with the criteria of Phase II of NUREG-0612 on the basis of Phase I (Section 5.1.1) compliance and Phase II reviews to date. These Phase II reviews consisted of an evaluation of the responses for 12 randomly selected operating plants which formed a pilot program. The staff determined from these reviews that the majority of risk associated with heavy loads handling has been resolved by im-plementation of Phase I, ind, in addition, no further heavy loads handling concerns were identified from the pilot program reviews.

It is, therefore, concluded that the objective identified in NUREG-0612 for providing " maximum practical defense in depth" is Satisfied without the need for further action regarding Phase II. Therefore, the above mentioned license condition can be removed.

i l

.l

- we p

2.1 f FEB 221555

_.g MEMORANDUM FOR:

H. L. Thompson, Jr., Director Sr.

Division of Licensing, NRR FROM:

D. F. Kirsch, Acting Director Division of Reactor Safety and Projects

SUBJECT:

OL REVIEW MANAGEMENT REPORT l

In response to your memorandum of February 4, 1985, the following information is being submitted.

9 Markup of Licensing Status of Palo Verde Unit 1 and Diablo Canyon Units 1 and 2.

The information provided is current as of February 14, 1985.

If you have any questions regarding the information being submitted, please contact me at FTS 463-3723.

drigInc! d--id E*y D. F. Kirsd.

D. F. Kirsch, Acting Director Division of Re, actor Safety and Projects cc:

H. Denton T. Novak Licensing Branches #1-4 bec:

RSB/ Document Control Desk (RIDS)

Mr. Martin pink / green / docket file copies State l

g DODDS/ dot K

2/p /85 2g/85 SN88a

- go l g

/

w-n-

w.

r

.. - - -.w r

e-=t'^-*-

_ u. _

1 2,-

REGION V

.I

^

Plants Included:

[

  • Diablo Canyon 2 Palo Verde 1 e

a e

e e.=

b I

M S

.r.-..

_-.,m.,

m,,, _ q m-

.. _ ~..

j p. 2.-

..a -

l LICENSING STATUS OF DIABLO CANYON UNIT 2

.i Diablo Canyon Unit 2 is in the final stages of the OL review.

Pacific Gas and i

Electric Company (PG&E) tnformed the NRC on January 29, 1985 that Unit 2 will be ready for fuel loading by March 31, 1985.

Initial criticality is scheduled for early June and power ascension (above 5%) is expected to commence mid-June.

This is a delay of one month from the previous schedule.

It is attributed to delays in the turnover of the unit from construction to startup/ operations l

and in the completion of modifications.

FSAR REVIEW The FSAR review has been completed.

The PG&E safety analysis for Diablo Canyon Unit 1 and 2 are included:in a single FSAR, which was completely updated in September 1984. The staff Safety Evaluation Report was issued in October 1974 for both units and has since been supplemented with SSCR 1 through 17 for both units. SSER 18 through 27 address a number of subjects and issues, as described below, with respect to Unit 1 only.

LICENSING The following matters previously evaluated with regard to Unit 1 are now being evaluated for Unit 2.

1.

Design Verification The Unit 1 issues that resulted from the Independent Design Verifi' cation Program (IDVP), the PG&E Internal Technical Program (ITP), the NRC evaluation and other related design verification efforts are being evaluated with respect to Unit 2 applicability, implementation and completion. This.

I includes an evaluation of the PG&E Unit 2 Internal Review 1

Program (IRP) which tracks this effort.

The staff has.

conducted extensive audits and inspections, in particular 1

with respect to matters of seismic design and analysis.

An SER Supplement on this matter is in preparation which will also be provided to Atomic Safety and Licensing Appeal i

Board for its consideration regarding a decision on the j

need for further hearings on design QA for Unit 2.

~ !

2.

Allegations Since 1982 approximately 1650 allegations have been received by the NRC regarding the design, construction and operation of the Diablo Canyon Nuclear Power Plant. Many of them were submitted in support of various petitions pursuant to 10 CFR 2.206 by the Government Accountability Project (GAP).

They have been evaluated primarily by Region V, NRR and OI as appropriate with respect to Unit 1 and a final SER Supplement for Unit 1 is in preparation. The allegations are currently being evaluated with respect to applicability and safety significance-for Unit 2.

An evaluation will be l

issued prior to a licensing decision for Unit 2.

m

=m,p. map,%

.p wm=

-,hg, e-u.,*++

-weg w g

- mm ses as..+-i.-.

gpe,.i-

-~

wr

'4.-'

e

~

+ - - - -

w-wmm-w

-e w- - -me.--

+- * -

g e

-e.e

-ie e -

-v e t y-n

?-mWM-wT-'

7~

.. a.a l h*

t j

LICENSING STATUS OF DIABLO CANYON 2 i i

3.

Pfoina and Supports Many of the allegations under Item 2 above pertain to piping and pipe supports. The staff evaluated this entire matter for Unit 1, including extensive audits and inspections at the PG&E offices and at the site (SSER-25). This resultad in several specific license conditions in the Unit 1 low power license. The staff is conducting a similar effort for Unit 2 and an evaluation will be issued prior to a license decision.

4.

Resolution of Licensing Matters SSER 27 (July 1084) presented the ' staff evaluation of a number of issues in support of the issuance of a full power license for Unit 1.

They include the following items:

l Fire Protection i

Staffing for Unit I and 2 combined operation r

Post Accident Sampling System Regulatory Guide 1.97 NUREG-0737 comitments and open items Applicability of Unit I license conditions l

A Safety Evaluation will be issued prior'to a license decision and license ennditions will be included in the Unit 2 license as appropriate.

j g

5.

Technical Specifications PGAE has revised the current Technical Specifications for Unit 1 i

to (1) include specifications for Uni.t ?, as appropriate, due to differences between the two units and to account #nr shared systems and operations, and (2) correct the specifications

~

feditorial corrections, additional clarification, improved l

~~

consistency and nomenclature), update the specifications fradiological effluents, reporting requirements and administration 1 The staff intends to issue these revised i

Technical Specifications for Unit 2 only at the time of issuance of the Unit 2 license and reissue them for Unit 1 and 2 as combined Technical Specifications at a later time 1

after appropriate Sholly notifications.

~

g

, =.

e=e-Ceimp a -

w m--mw--

,'"*--4 e+

,7y,,,

-,m.

a y aym-.

, w m -g-

<--9~-pq f q-y---

~ p ww w

_;.m._,.,.,.

.,,,.n.u.a

' ' ', O LICENSING STATUS OF DIABLO CANYON 2 v';

HEARINGS The initial decision by the Atomic Safety and Licensing Board of August 1982 authorizing issuance of a full-power license also applies to Unit 2.

f.

However, the favorable decision of March 1984 of the Appeal Board regarding d

design quality assurance (ALAB-763) and its decision affirming the Initial Decision (ALAB-781) expressly stay the effectiveness of the authorization to issue a full power license for Unit 2.

Further Appeal Board action is necessary.

I NRC INSPECTION ITEMS l

l 1.

Construction Inspections of modifications resulting from the design verifications program is in progress. These inspections have resulted in approximately 11 items of noncompliance from January 1, 1983 to January 31, 1984.

There are currently about 3 open items resulting from this inspection. effort.

2.

Preoperational Testing The majority of the Unit 2 preoperational testing inspection program activities have been completed. There are currently no open items in this functional area that would adversely impact low power testing.

3.

Radiation and Protection and Radwaste The' radiation protection inspection program has been completed with no adverse findings. The radwaste and effluent monitoring system j

inspections remain incomplete pending completion of several preoperational tests and monitor calibrations. These tests and calibrations are not scheduled to be complete until the last week of March.

Recent testing of the post accident sampling system performed by the licensee vas found to be unacceptable by them. These tests will be repeated.

At this time, no substantive issues have been identified in this area which would impact the schedule for licensing.

4.

Emergency Preparedness i

The emergency preparedness preoperational inspection program is planned by FY-85.

e 9

e-**%=~-

    • -w"*"*"

1

?

i

/

UNifED STATES

[

g NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSION r,

j suAsNessGTON. D. C. 20005

\\*.../

4

'JAN 2 2.1985 MEMORANDUM FOR:

D. Crutchfield Assistant Director for Safety Assessment Division of Licensing

6. Lainas, Assistant Director for Operating Reactors Division of Licensing T. Novak, Assistant Director for Licensing Division of Licensing j

FROM:

R. Wayne Houston, Assistant Director for Reactor Safety Division of Systems Integration

SUBJECT:

RESULTS OF PRELIMINARY ASSESSMENT OF APPLICANT / LICENSEE RESPONSES TO GENERIC LETTER 83-28 ITEMS 2.1, 2.2, 3.1.3, 3.2.3, 4.4 AND 4.5 AND REQUEST FOR ADDITIONAL INFORMATION The ICSB has completed a preliminary review to assess the completeness and adequacy of applicant / licensee responses to the indicated Generic Letter 83-28 items. The results indicate that for many applicants and licensees the responses were incomplete or inadequate for actual review to begin.

]

'herefore, ICSB has used the results of their review to prepare the enclosure which should be considered as a request for additional information.

The enclosure is organized on a per plant basis and shows only those G.L. 83-28 items for which the respo'.se was found to be either incomplete or inadeq; ate.

For each such item, a briaf description of the deficiency is given as a guide for corrective action by the applicant or licensee.

Project Managers should note in their letters to individual licensees or

--~

applicants that efforts by Owner's Groups. IMPO, and NSSS Vendors have been or are being made to produce generic responses that may be useful in meeting the requirements of Generic Letter 83-28 Items 2.1, 2.2, 4.4, 4.5.2, and 4.5.3.

Licensees and applicants may wish to contact their Owner's Group or INPO re-garding the applicability of such generic responses to their plant.

i

Contact:

D. Lasher, ICSB X24204 i

w1msw g

e 2jp.

g6

(

(*

r Var. Addressees In order to preserve the contractual review schedule, we need to have the corrected or supplementary response from all applicants and licensees in our hands no later than March 15, 1985. We request your cooperation in meeting this date.

(MAS.

R. Wayne Houston Assistant Director for Reactor Safety Division of Systems Integration

Enclosure:

As stated cc:

R. Bernero G. Holahan J. Hannon T. Alexion R. Haroldsen 1

e b

E E

t DISTRIBUTION FEB 2 51985 Docket File 50-275/323 PRC System LB3 Reading JLee MLey j

LChandler Docket Nos.:

50-275/323 MEMORANDUM FOR:

Dennis F. Kirsch, Acting Director Division of Reactor Safety and Projects Region V FROM:

George W. Knighton, Chief Licensing Branch No. 3 Division of Licensing

SUBJECT:

TRANSFER OF ALLEGATION RESOLUTION RESPONSIBILITY The six Diablo Canyon allegations listed below were assigned to NRR for review responsibility.

1009, 1021, 1270, 1381, 1397, 1399 However, after further review, we believe that there is sufficient Region V input needed to warrant the transfer of these allegations Dack to Region V for final closure responsibility.

NRR will pro-vide any additional technical assistance, if needed, to close these allegations.

George W. Knighton, Chief Licensing Branch No. 3 Division of Licensing cc:

C. Grimes E. Sullivan b \\% A utsis P Q V J V

,) ' 'J V v v ; ~ 5,.

Y0

->.c.'s.y I.u4v.Sch.is.r.n@ ass.dp.n.ts.n.

~~> o.tg4 B s.t.;.t.u..

p.u.u.a........

==> 2 m../.a 5....

2./. tit.u...'.7. a.d./.u........

.ac ronu aia no eomacu eno OFFICIAL RECORD COPY

  • "* * ""-*",'j

3 f

o, UNITED STATES y

v : y,g NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSION s

/'j WASHINGTON D. C. 20655

\\.... /

REB 25 E

'pl.,~

,/

' h,

. -MEMORANDUM FOR: Thomas M. Novak, Assistant Director

!/

for Licensing, DL

~

FROM:

L. S. Rubenstein, Assistant Director for Core and Plant Systems, DSI

SUBJECT:

SUPPLEMENTAL SAFETY EVALUATION REPORT INPUT -

DIABLO CANYON UNIT 1, AUXILIARY SYSTEMS BRANCH At the request of the Diablo Canyon project manager, H. Schierling, enclosed is the Auxiliary Systems Branch's supplemental safety evaluation report input regarding Section 9.1.5, " Overhead Heavy Load Handling System", for Diablo Canyon Unit 1.

This input supplements that previously provided to you by memorandum dated July 16, and December 20, 1984. The enclosure provides additional discussion regarding the elimination of condition 2.c.(8) from the Unit I license concerning compliance with NUREG-0612, Phase II. This input is bcsed on a generic solution and did not require contact with the licensee. Therefore, no SALP input is being provided.

S-L. S. Ruben tein, Assistant Director for Core and Plant Systems, DSI

Enclosure:

As stated cc: w/ enclosure:

R. Bernero H. Thompson

0. Parr J. Wermiel J. Wilson G. Knighton H. Schierling

Contact:

A. Singh, ASB:DSI X-29492 l

l DG?A e'^-

y s.v a v ( V lQ U '

\\/ L m

SUPPLEMENTAL SAFETY EVALUATION REPORT INPUT DIABLO CANYON UNIT 1 AUXILIARY SYSTEMS BRANCH 9.1.5 Overhead Heavy Load Handling System In the Diablo Canyon Unit 1 SER, the staff imposed a condition (license condition No. 2.c.(8)) regarding compliance with the criteria of Phase II (Sections 5-1.2 through 5-1.6) of NUREG-0612. " Control of Heavy Loads at Nuclear Power Plants". The staff has subsequently eliminated the need I

for further effort regarding compliance with the criteria of Phase II of NUREG-0612 on the basis of Phase I (Section 5.1.1) compliance and Phase II reviews to date. These Phase II reviews consisted of an evaluation of the responses for 12 randomly selected operating plants which fomed a pilot program. The staff determined from these reviews that the majority of risk associated with heavy loads handling has been resolved by im-plementation of Phase I, and, in addition, no further heavy loads handling concerns were identified from the pilot program reviews. It is, therefore, concluded that the objective identified in NUREG-0612 for providing " maximum j

practical defense in depth" is Satisfied without the need for further action j

regarding Phase II. Therefore, the above mentioned license condition can be removed.

.~

5'g s15

-u.

1 FE8 22 ii55 MEMORANDUM FOR:

H. L. Thompson, Jr., Director I

3 Division of Licensing, NRR FROM:

D. F. Eirsch, Acting Director Div1sion of Reactor Safety and Projects

SUBJECT:

OL REVIEW MANAGEMENT REPORT In response to your memorandum of February 4, 1985, the following information is being submitted.

Markup of Licensing Status of Palo Verda Unit I and Diablo Canyon Units 1 and 2.

The information provided is current as of February 14, 1985.

If you have any questions regarding the information being submitted, please contact me at FTS 463-3723.

~

Orbir.cl 4'--i:! E*y 4

D. F. Kirsch D. F. Kirsch, Acting Director 1

Division of Reactor Safety and Projects 1

cc:

H. Denton T. Novak Licensing Branches #1-4 bec:

RSB/ Document Control Desk (RIDS)

Mr. Martin pink / green / docket file copies State N

DODDS/ dot 2/2/ /85 2g/85

$EOl P

O Oasi5

, s

-r-n

-,,,_.y-7.-y.,-y-

--.m, n

..yg

,_e m

--,w_


_e_-

y y

i

=

REGION V Plants Included:

Diablo Canyon 2 Palo Verde 1 o

9 m

=

M O

_..m-

m _..

LICENSING STATUS OF DIABLO CANYON UNIT 2 Diablo Canyon Unit 2 is in the final stages of the OL review. Pacific Gas and Electric Company (PG&E) infereed the NRC on January 29, 1985 that Unit 2 will be ready for fuel loading by March 31, 1985. Initial criticality is scheduled for early June and power ascension (above SY.) is expected to commence mid-June.

This is a delay of one month from the previous schedule. It is attributed to delays in the turnover of the unit from construction to startup/ operations and in the completion of modifications.

FSAR REVIEW The FSAR review has been completed. The PG&E safety analysis for Diablo Canyon Unit 1 and 2 are included in a single FSAR, which was completely updated in September 1984. The staff Safety Evaluation Report was issued in October 1974 for both units and has since been supplemented with SSER 1 through 17 for both units. SSER 18 through 27 address a number of subjects and issues, as described below, with respect to Unit 1 only.

LICENSING The following matters previously evaluated with regard to Unit 1 are now being evaluated for Unit 2.

1.

Desian Verification The Unit 1 issues that resulted from the Independent Design Verifi' cation Program (IDVP), the PG&E -Internal Technical Program (ITP), the NRC evaluation and other related design verification efforts are being evaluated with respect to Unit 2 applicability, implementation and completion. This.

includes an evaluation of the PG&E Unit 2 Internal Review Program (IRP) which tracks this effort. The staff has-condutted extensive audits and inspections, in particular with respect to matters of seismic design and analysis.

An SER Supplement on this matter is in preparation which will also be provided to Atomic Safety and Licensing Appeal Board for its consideration regarding a decision on the need for further hearings on design QA for Unit 2.

2.

A11ecations Since 1982 approximately 1650 allegations have been received by the NRC regarding the design, construction and operation of the Diablo Canyon Nuclear Power Plant. Many of them were submitted in support of various petitions pursuant to 10 CFR 2.206 by the Government Accountability Project (GAP).

They have been evaluated primarily by Region V, NRR and OI as appropriate with respect to Unit 1 and a final SER Supplement for Unit 1 is in preparation. The allegations are currently being evaluated with respect to applicability and safety significance for Unit 2.

An evaluation will be issued prior to a licensing decision for Unit 2.

y 5

LICENSING STATUS OF DIABLO CANYON 2 i 3.

Pipino and Supports Many of the allegations under Item 2 above pertain to piping and pipe supports. The staff evaluated this entire matter for Unit 1, including extensive audits and inspections at the PG&E nffices and at the site (SSER-25). This resulted in several specific license conditions in the Unit I low power license. The staff is conducting a similar effort for Unit 2 and an evaluation will be issued prior to a license decision.

4.

Resolution of Licensing Matters

]

SSER 27 (July 1884) presented the staff evaluation of a l

number of issues in support of the issuance of a full power ifcense for Unit 1.

They include the following i

items:

[i Fire Protection I

Staffing for Unit I and 2 combined operation l'

Post Accident Sampling System Regulatory Guide 1.97 j

NUREG-0737 comitments and open items Applicability of Unit I license conditions j

l A Safety Evaluation will be issued prior 'to a license decision f

and li ense conditions will be included in the Unit 2 license as appropriate.

l g

5.

Technical Specifications I

PGAE has revised the current Technical Specifications for Unit 1 i

to (1) include specifications for Uni.t 7, as appropriate, due to differences between the two units and to account for shared

^

s,vstems and noerations, and (2) correct the specifications i

feditorial corrections, additional clarification, improved j

~ 'ennsistency and nemenclature), update the specifications (radiological effluents, reporting requirements and administration). The staff intends to issue these revised Technical Specifications for Unit 7 only at the time of issuance of the Unit 2 license and reissue them for Unit 1 and 2 as combined Technical Specifications at a later tire after appropriate Sholly notifications.

b 4

. m.v.m.

.s...-

,-c -

LICENSING STATUS OF DIABLO CANYON 2 4

3 HEARINGS The initial decision by the Atomic Safety and Licensing Board of August 1982 authorizing issuance of a full-power license also applies to Unit 2.

4 However, the favorable decision of March 1984 of the Appeal Board regarding 4

design quality assurance (ALAB-763) and its decision affirming the Initial Decision (ALAB-781) expressly stay the effectiveness of the authorization to issue a full power license for Unit 2.

Further Appeal Board action is necessary.

NRC INSPECTION ITEMS 1.

Construction Inspections of modifications resulting from the design verifications program is in progress. These inspections have resulted in approximately 11 items of noncompliance from January 1, 1983 to January 31, 1984. There are currently about 3 open items resulting from this inspection effort.

2.

Preoperational Testing The majority of the Unit 2 preoperational testing inspection program activities have been -6mpleted. There are currently no open items in this functional area that would adversely impact low power testing.

3.

Radiation and Protection and Radwaste The' radiation protection inspection program has been completed with no adverse findings. The radwaste and effluent monitoring system inspections remain incomplete pending completion of several preoperational tests and monitor calibrations. These tests and calibrations are not scheduled to be complete until the last week of March.

Recent testing of the post accident sampling system performed by the licensee was found to be unacceptable by them. These tests will be repeated.

At this time, no substantive issues have been identified in this area which would impact the schedule for licensing.

4.

Emergency Preparedness The emergency preparedness preoperat1 nal inspection program is planned 1

9 by FY-85.

J f

1

g.

' i

~

~,

o nco d

'o UNITED STATES 0,

NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSION

{

i WASHINGTON, D. C. 20SSS

%,...../

e Docket No. 50-323 M 21 E MEMORANDUM FOR: Dennis Kirsch, Acting Director Division of Reactors Safety and Projects, Region V FROM:

Darrell G. Eisenhut, Director Division of Licensing 1

SUBJECT:

REQUEST FOR SELECTED INSPECTIONS / AUDITS AND SSER INPUT DIABLO CANYON UNIT 2 We request that you conduct the specific inspections / audits listed in the enclosure and provide us with the results. Some of the matters have been -

previously, identified to you or your staff by Hans Schierling.

The information is needed to close out certain activities in a safety evaluation in preparation for issuance of a license for Unit 2.

We request you provide the information by January 31, 1985 (draft is acceptable).

If you have any questions please call Hans Schierling.

Darrell G. Eisenhut, Director Division of Licensing

Enclosure:

As stated s

' i i

y$7vsieioa&0 Yt>-

^

\\o) s

o

o

.(..

Enclosure Request for Selected Inspections / Audits 1.

Design Verification and Modification

+

^

Reference:

1.

PG&E letter November 2, 1984 DCL-84-344 2.

PG&E letter December 7, 1984 DCL-84-378 Audit the following IRP packages as described in the reference and inspect the associated modifications:

1.

2-0034: CCW System Reference 1 and 2 2.

2-1088: CCW System Reference 1 3.

2-8010: AFW Turbine Reference 1 2.

RHR System Low Flow Alarm

Reference:

SSER 26 Allegation 39 and 45 PG&E letter September 5,1984 DLC 84-301 PG&E letter January 11, 1985 DLC 85-012 Jerify the installation of the RHR low flow alarm for Unit 2 as you did for Unit 1.

3.

Seismically Induced Systems Interaction Program (SISIP)

Reference:

SSER 26 Allegation 48 Region V Inspection Report 50-275/84-09 Telecon H. Schierling/T. Corwiey January 15, 1985 Determine the status of the four issues identified in the reference inspection report. Audit selected SISIP packages at the DCP offices and determine the status of modifications.

4.

Quality Assurance Program and Implementation i

Reference:

Telecon H. Schierling/D. Kirsch January 14, 1985 Transcript of Hearing November 18, 1983 SSER 18 Section 2 and 5.2 Memo D. G. Eisenhut/ Division Directors, January 11, 1985 Review referoces, in particul' r Region V related matters.

Identify any a

audits / inspections on design and construction QA program and implementation for Diablo Canyon, particularly Unit 2.

Provide input on QA for SSER on design verification as appropriate for Region V.

.