ML20209E370
Text
_
g.
- n.. \\
ff, b
UNITED 5TATES E
g NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSION -
r.
wAsmMGTON, D. C. 20555 9,
/
b.**8 APR 19 1985 s
MEMORANDUM FOR: Dennis M. Crutchfield, Assistant Director for Safety Assessment, DL
~
FROM:
Daniel R. Muller, Assistant Director for Radiation Protection, DSI
)
SUBJECT:
REVIEW OF FINAL DRAFT TECHNICAL SPECIFICATIONS l
7 FOR DIABLO CANYON, UNIT NO. 2 We have been working with Calvin Moon, Robert Perch and representatives of the Pacific Gas and Electric Company (PG&E) to review and upgrade the RETS pages of the Final Draft Technical Specifications for Diablo Canyon, Unit No. 2.
We have reviewed LCO and Bases for 3/4 11, 3/4 12, 3/4 3.3.9 and 3/4 3.3.10 plus the portions of Sections 1.0, 5.0 and 6.0 within the purview of the Radiological Effluent Technical Specifications (RETS). We find that these T/S as presently modified follow NRC guidance and therefore are acceptable, except for the following item. The diagram of Figure 5.1-3 in the present master copy is partially illegible and should be replaced with a master copy of the quality of those for Figs. 5.1-1 and 5.1-2.
The RETS portion of the Diablo Canyon-2 T/S commits the licensee to three reference documents: the Process Control Program (PCP), the Offsite Dose Calculaticn Procedure (ODCP), and the Environmental Radiological Monitoring Procedure (ERMP). The licensee's original PCP was approved i
prior to licensing of Unit No.l.
In accordance with Unit-1 T/S 6.13 the licensee notified >RC of changes to their PCP in their Semiannual Effluent Release Report dated August 29, 1984 for the first half of 1984.
In this report the licensee presented a complete Revision 1 to their PCP (dated 5/8/84), incorporating the licensee's response to the changes in 10 CFR 61 i
requirements. We have reviewed the PCP/Rev.1 dated 5/8/84 and find that it generally complies with current NRC criteria and therefore is acceptable on an interim basis for use with Diablo Canyon Technical Speci-1 i
fication 6.13.
The acceptability of this PCP is based on currently available guidelines, but a future revision should address in more detail compliance with 10 CFR 61 requirements when revised guidelines become available from NRC.
\\
l
&ma L -. -
x 2
- i., -
=
APR 19 1985 D. Crutchfield.
The licensee's original 0DCP and ERMP were approved by NRC prior to L
licensing of Unit No. 1.
During discussions with the licensee on the Unit No. 2 RETS, it was stated that both the ODCP and the ERMP of the Diablo Canyon Plant were undergoing revision concurrent with the up-grading of the PETS for Units 1 and 2.
With resolution of RETS issues for Unit 2 the licensee planned to freeze the current revisions to these documents and, after approval of the revisions by their PSRC, would submit the revisions to NRC in accordance with the Unit-1 T/S 6.14.
According to the licensee's commitments we would expect to receive re-visions of both the ODCP and the ERMP no later than 2-3 months after technical approval of the RETS.
We request that the status of the licensee's PCP, ODCP and ERMP summarized above be transmitted to the licensee prior to publication of the Diablo Canyon Unit-2 T/S.
Wayne Meinke has completed this review for both RAB and METB, and questions should be addressed to him (x29430).
$J,. d~(l
[@t s
Daniel R. Muller, Assistant Director for Radiation Protection Division of Systems Integration cc:
R. Bernero E. Butcher l
C. Moon l
R. Perch l
H. Schierling i
B. Buckley i
---=.w---
.-m.-%,m
.e.-
._,,,g,,
._