ML20209E070
Text
/i o,,
UNITED STATES 8
NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSION o
I wAsHWOTON, D. C 206SS
%,,.....,/
JAN 15 585
/
Docket No.: 50-323 MEMORANDUM FOR: Ed Butcher, Group Leader Technical Specifications Review Group Division of Licensing FROM:
Hans Schierling, Project Manager Licensing Branch No. 3 Division of Licensing
SUBJECT:
DIABLO CANYON UNIT 2 TECH SPECS By memo from D. Crutchfield to NRR Assistant Directors (December 17,1984) we have requested confirmation of Tech Specs for Unit 2.
This particular set is one single set of cocinon Tech Specs for Unit 1 and Unit 2 (Diablo Canyon Unit 1 and Unit 2 is printed on the bottom of each page) with separate Tech Specs for each unit appropriately included and identified as necessary due to differences between the units. For the reasons given below I recnnnend to delete all infor-mation and references to Unit 1 for this set and include the Tech Specs only for Unit 2 at the time the Unit 2 license is issued.' At a later date we will then appropriately revise the same Tech Specs to be Unit I specific and issue ther, after Sholly, as separate but identical Tech Specs for Unit 1 (except for Unit 1/ Unit 2 differences).
A substantial staff effort will be required for the Sholly process for Unit 1 and therefore, this effort could impact the licensing schedule for Unit 2.
The differences between the existing Unit 1 Tech Specs and the Unit 1/ Unit 2 Tech Specs currently under review are mainly in the areas of (1) radiological efflu-l ents where the 1/2 set reflects the newer standard Tech Specs and revised deft-I nitions, (2) administration, with the 1/2 set accounting for the current licensee organization, and (3) reporting requirements to be consistent with the regula-tions. In addition, there are a number of differences where the 1/2 set is more consistent within itself, 'more accurate, and current with respect to standard Tech Specs.
l An alternate approach would be to issue the current 1/2 set with the Unit 2 license as one coninon set for both units, but clearly limit its applicability to Unit 2 by stating so in the Tech Specs and in the transmittal letter to the licensee. The Sholly process could be initiated within a reasonable time after
{
issuance of the Unit 2 license (e.g., 2 months). The result would be one connon set for both units with individual Tech Specs for each unit, as
{
necessary, due to differences.
ffro 3tTbr%y 0
0
\\
3 l
1
- \\
y Ed Butcher For either approach (separate but identical hs. connon) the delay due to the Sholly process for Unit I would not impact the Unit 2 licensing schedule.
In addition.it might be possible to simplify the Sholly effort since the identical Tech Specs would already have been issued for Unit 2.
We have considered separate but identical Tech Specs instead of connon Tech Specs because it is expected that future amendments will be more frequent for a single unit than for both units; for example, amendments associated with the fuel cycle or emergency Tech Spec relief.
If the units have connon Tech Specs both licenses would have to be amended and the degree of connonality will eventually decrease.
In addition, separate Tech Specs have less potential for operator error since each set will have only the infonnation pertaining to the applicable unit.
.For example, misuse of different numerical information presented in connon Tech Specs would not be possible.
I recommend that DHFS look at these aspects from an overall human factors viewpoint.
We have discussed briefly this matter with L. Chandler who leans toward separate 4
Tech Specs. At this time, PGAE, has requested connon Tech Specs; however, we asked them to consider the various aspects as discussed above and inform us promptly. Therefore, the Resident Inspector should provide his opinion in this matter.
In sunnary, I recommend that the Tech Specs currently under review by NRR be issued for Unit 2 only (i.e. delete all information and reference to Unit 2) and that the same Tech Specs, appropriately revised for Unit I be issued, after Sholly, at a reasonable time later.
w-Hans Schierling, dect Manager Licensing Branch No. 3 Division of Licensing cc:
D. Eisenhut T. Novak G. Knighton D. Crutchfield C. Moon L. Chandler C. Grimes
~ _ _.
--