ML20210U619
| ML20210U619 | |
| Person / Time | |
|---|---|
| Site: | Diablo Canyon  |
| Issue date: | 01/03/1985 |
| From: | Butcher E Office of Nuclear Reactor Regulation |
| To: | Office of Nuclear Reactor Regulation |
| Shared Package | |
| ML20210U520 | List:
|
| References | |
| FOIA-86-197 NUDOCS 8610100125 | |
| Download: ML20210U619 (2) | |
Text
jf. % i o
'o,,
UNITED STATES NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSION n
d y,
j WASHINGTON, D. C. 20555 January 3, 1985 NOTE T0: File FROM:
Ed Butcher, Group Leader Technical Specification Review Group, DL
SUBJECT:
TELECON WITH PG&E REF. DIABLO CANYON UNITS 1 AND 2 TECHNICAL SPECIFICATIONS On December 28, 1984 I received a telephone call from Tom Libb, Ed Murphy and Rich Lucket of PG&E seeking clarification on NRC staff concerns related to Diablo Canyon Units 1 and 2 combined technical specifications (TS) in the following two subject areas.
~
Desirability of Combinino the Unit 1 and 2 TSs In a Single Document PG&E expressed concern that the NRC might be changing its position on the acceptability of combined TSs.
I informed them that this was not the case but that we had been suggesting that the individual utilities consider the long term implications of combined TSs from a human factors point of view and consider the fact that forces such as offset fuel cycles and individual plant design changes could require numerous separate entries in the combined i
TSs for each Unit as the plants age. PG&E stated they still desire combined TSs, but that they are reviewing the long term considerations we identified.
They also expressed concern that the administrative considerations of the Sholly process for amending the Unit I license to include the combined TSs could cause delays that would make it impossible to issue a combined TS under the current Unit 2 licensing schedule.
I informed them that I was not aware that a license amendment request for Unit 1 had been filed yet and suggested that they should contact their NRC Project Manage ASAP and get an amendment request filed if they want combiaed TSs.
Differences Between the Combined Units 1/2 TS and the Existing Unit 1 TS.
PG&E expressed concern that recent NRC staff reviewer questions about the l
differences between the Unit 1 TS and the combined Units 1/2 TS could cause l
a delay in Unit 2 licensing.
I told them that I did not believe these questions would cause a delay but that all the differences would have to be l
understood and approved by NRC management before a license for Unit 2 could be issued. To facilitate the NRC management review process PG&E offered to provide a management sumary of the differences. This sumary would be l
861010o123 860930 g
FOIA peg g
l PDR HOLlyS86-197
1
- January 3, 1985 based on a draft Sholly package for Unit 1 PG&E said they provided to the NRC in November 1984.
I agreed that such a suntiary would be helpful and encouraged them to provide it.
Ed Butcher, Group Leader Technical Specification Review Group Division of Licensing cc:
D. Crutchfield T. Novak G. Knighton C. Moon H. Scherling H. Rood TSRG Staff 1
i
- - - - - - - - - - - - -