ML20212K980
Text
-... ~...
-....u..
%M Vi@
Docket Hos.
50-275 and 50-323 2 1974 i
Note to:
R. C. DeYoung, Assistant Director for Light Water Reactors Group 1, L THRU:
- 0. D. Parr, Chief, Light ' dater Reactors Project Branch 1-3, L L
i OUTSTANDING ITEMS IN THE DIABLO CANYON SAFETY REVIEW l
According to the present safety review schedule for Diablo Canyon, all
}
responses to questions and any other required information from the appli-cant are due by May 10, 1974 in order that TR can submit safety evaluation input to the LPM by June 7,1974.
Below is a summary of significant items I
which have still not been resolved i
1.
Tsunamis Caused by Near-Shore Generators This item was transmitted to PG&E on 1/4/74 as part of the first round I
questions (see Item 2.10 of the Enclosure to the 1/4/74 letter).
The l
~
r.esponse from the applicant, which was scheduled for 2/15/74, is now i
estimated to be received on 5/10/74.
TR has indicated that they will l
need 3 or 4 weeks to perform an analysis on the information contained
~
in the response. This analysis may indicate the need for further i
i M
questions by the staff, or a staff position which may require modifi-cations in the design of the inta'ke structure.
- 2.
Offshore Faults The request for additional information on this matter was also trans-mitted to PG&E on 1/4/74 (see Items 2.11 and 2.12 of the Enclosure to theletter). The failure of USGS to make "Open-File" their data on j
work in this area has caused some delay in PG&E's response. At a meeting with PG&E and USGS on 4/26/74, USGS indicated that much of i
their data has recently been made "Open-File". PG&E indicated at the meeting that their written report on this subject will now probably be submitted to the staff on 6/1/74.
However, based on the information contained in the applicant's presentation at the 4/26 meeting (much of l
which will be in the written report), both USGS and the staff feel that f
they are far from being convinced that the offshore faults do not present a potential safety problem with regard to operation of the plant.
e,"yA
- 4. \\'
I i
860e'D0153 060G01 i
I HOUcH36-391 PDP i
I l
.1 ford n-31/
M gp(7
d.'beYaung a.
-2 3.
Pipe Break Outside Containment i
Final report from PG&E on Unit 1, which was scheduled to be submitted i
on 5/1/74, is now estimated to be received on 6/15/74.
4.
Emergency Plan The Sheriff's Disaster Plan, an important part of the overall Emargency Plan, has still not been submitted.
PG&E is still having problems with San Luis Obispo County on this item.
PG&E hopes to be able to submit this Disaster Plan by 6/1/74.
{
5.
17 x 17 Fuel Design l
Initial information on the 17 x 17 fuel design was submitted by PG&E i
in their Amendment No. 5 which was received on 3/19/74.
Final staff comments on the generic review of 17 x 17 (WCAP-8185) are expected to be transmitted to Westinghouse by 5/15/74. PG&E is expected to submit an amendment on Diablo Canyon reflecting these comments by 5/22/74.
However, the final staff review of WCAP-8185 leaves a number of items unresolved.
Several of these can be classified as major, and it is TR's intent that each applicant should resolve these items with the staff on an individual basis. Aside from the questionatle way to conclude a generic review, point that this is a I would estimate that I
the earliest date when reasonably complete safety evaluation input on g
the 17 x 17 fuel design could be available would be approximately 8/1/74.
6.
Second Round Questions Completely adequate responses from PG&E are due on 5/10/74. Letter from PG&E dated 4/23/74 indicates that the responses will not be complete by 5/10/74.
Furthermore, their letter does not state when this milestone will be completed. Based on recent communications and meetings with the applicant, I would estimate that approximately 65-757, of the responses will be submitted by 5/10/74.
In addition, I should add that a number of these second round items involve staff positions on certain issues, and that if PG&E chooses not to accept i
one or more of these positions, additional delays in the review could be incurred.
In summary, on the basis of the information presented above regarding out-standing items in the Diablo Canyon safety review, I submit that the present schedule dates of 7/19/74 for issuance of the SER and 8/9/74 for the full
. ACRS meeting are totally unrealistic. This conclusion is reinforced by the fact that the Dres 2nt schedule does not call for ismanen of an SFR sunnle-l l
l t
~l
e
)
)
- e..
R. C. DeYoung ment, i.e., the staff should issue a" clean" SER. My initial recommenda-tions with regard to the schedule are that the issuance of the SER be slipped eight weeks to 9/13/74, and that the full ACRS meeting be scheduled for 10/11/74. These proposed dates.are still compatible with the applicant's presently estimated Unit 1 fuel load date of late January 1975 (I personally feel that this date will slip again before all is said and dor.e). This proposed schedule slip would also allow sufficient time for the operating license hearing to be held, assuming that this hearing would start sometime in the Fall.
Thomas J. Hirons, Project Manager Light Water Reactors Project Branch 1-3 Directorate of Licensing i.'
s t-LWR 1-3 LWR l-3 THironsk OD.P_a r co......
ggj gg, 3yf 5/1/74 5/L/74 A C.
Foran AEC.)l4 (Rev,9 93) AECM O200
- O C*a se e s ses.e sao.see
.