ML20215N127
| ML20215N127 | |
| Person / Time | |
|---|---|
| Site: | 05000000, Diablo Canyon |
| Issue date: | 02/14/1977 |
| From: | Allison D Office of Nuclear Reactor Regulation |
| To: | Office of Nuclear Reactor Regulation |
| Shared Package | |
| ML20197J003 | List: |
| References | |
| FOIA-86-371 NUDOCS 8611040323 | |
| Download: ML20215N127 (2) | |
Text
.
(
(-
<,. n.
' Distribution Ibcket -File I
LWR-1 J. Stolz FEB l
14 Jg77 D. Allison E. Hylton Docket Nos. 50-275/323 k
N0'IE 10 FILE:
f CONVERSATION WI'IH CDIGESSIGIE S'DUT
}
I talked with Mr. Iowell Do@en frun the s.taff of the House Subocanittee l
on Oversight and Investigation (House Cuau=re) on January 31 and Febnary 1,1977. Mr. Dodges indicated that the subcomitte would be i
actively interested in maximizing reactor safety. He had called to find out what is happening in the Diablo Canyon review.
We talked for about 1 1/2 hours. I described the basic NRC licensing process arid the status of the Diablo Canyon review in that process.
The following were anong' the principal points made:
(1) A description of the staff sition on tM seismic design basis.
Its relationship to the recanendation.
p (2) The current status of the ACRS review. The reason we had asked for partial review (to minimhe potential dalays). The ACRS request for answers to consultant ccarents, same of which were critical.
(3) PG4E's plans to go back.to ACRS (hopefully in May) after stcff review of the' first part of the reanalysis as well as.responees j
to crnsultant ws =uts.
i (4) The ACRS role of making a rewmendation. Decision making i
authority lies in the ASIB. As a practical matter, however, ASIB appreval would be very difficult to obtain without staff and ACRS erkhewent. The ACRS recomendation would carry a lot of weight.
\\
(5) 'Ihe staff's decisions to date, which had been maA= with the participation of new people, including management, frun the t
three divisions involved. The people involved (including me) would support their adequacy from a safety standpoint.
-gfp
~
HOUCH96-371 PDR
(
2 orrics >
ounnaus k
- 4
. NRC PORM 518 (976) NRChi 0240 W us s. eovsawuswv rnsunne orreces sove-eas ead
s..
.,,m, q, - w
--_ __.~.--~&:
e,-mem we.wwwwss:% us C
~
(4 t
~
l 4 1977 (6) '1he answers wxil&'t be known until the reanalysis and the licensing process waru completed. Ebwever, I thought it i
i would turn out to be practical for PGSE to upgrade the plant to a level satisfactory to the staff, the ACRS and the ASLB. 'Ihis was the meaning of the statement that an operating license probab1'y would be obtained.
4 (7) PGEE's attitude.
'1 hey didn't agree with the severityMf sihe l
staff's design basis. Reserving the right to d% gree on this they had proceeded to perfann the work. 'Ibey had never to my krowledge, said anything critical of the NRC'or the i,'
staff position in this regarti.
x, At.the conalusion.of our discussions Mr. Dodge.a indicated that the NRC appr6ach seemed to be objective and, probably, the StLWittee would send a letter. to the Ossnission asking to be kept informed.
Original Signed By Dennis P. Allisen.
i D. P. A114mem l
Project Manager i
Light Water' Reactors Brunch No. a Division of Project Management i
oc:
B. Rusche E. Case p~y.,
R. Boyd l
R. DeYoung i
D. B. Vassallo J. Stolz l
C. Kannerer S. Kant J. Foucharti t
l orries >
DPM:IMR,11 oUnNAus h M
O ab nave >
?/
/77 NRC PORM 31s (9 76) NRCM 0240 W u.s.eove'amuswv painvine orries,i,. _,,
. _ _. _.,.....