ML16341A525

Forwards Executed Certificate Assuring That Certain Facilities at Plant Are Pollution Control Facilities, Per 850123 Request Re Util Supplemental Applications for Financing

ML16341A525
Person / Time
Site:	Diablo Canyon
Issue date:	03/19/1985
From:	Harold Denton Office of Nuclear Reactor Regulation
To:	Chandler D CALIFORNIA, STATE OF
References
NUDOCS 8504020386
Download: ML16341A525 (32)

Text

ma 35 Mr. Douglas E. Chandler Executive Secretary California Pollution Control Financing Authority 915 Capitol Mall Room 110 Sacramento, California 95814 PAR I 9 1985

Dear Mr. Chandler:

In the Matter of Pacific Gas and Electric Com an

( ia o

an on uc ear ower ant) nit an 0

0 ~d 50-323 In your letter of January 23, 1985, you requested that our office issue a

Certification of Pollution Control Facilities for Diablo Canyon Unit 1 and Unit 2 for certain facilities which are described in the Pacific Gas and Electric Company supplemental applications for financing.

We have reviewed your request.

We also have reviewed further information on this matter which was provided by Pacific Gas and Electric Company in a letter dated February 28, 1985.

Based on that review, we have determined that certain facilities of the Diablo Canyon Nuclear Power Plant are "pollution control facilities".

Accordingly, the enclosed certificate has been executed.

Copies of your request and this response will be available for inspection at the Local Public Document Room at the California Polytechnic State University Library, Documents and Maps Department, San Luis Obispo, California 93407 and at the Commission's Public Document Room at 1717 H Street, N. W., Washington, D.C.

Sincerely, Qriminal Sign< b$

H.R. Benton

Enclosure:

As stated cc:

See next page

• Previous concurred on b

DL'LB¹3*

DL:LB¹3*

CEarly/yt HSchierl 3/6/85 3/6/85 DL:LB¹3*

JLee RSamworth*

3/7/85 3/6/85 NRR NRRIA DGMerfhut HRI9hton 3/I,+85 3$ t /85 DS I/METB*

CNichols 3/6/85 RBallard*

3/6/85 Harold R. Denton, Director Office of Nuclear Reactor Regulation OELD*

DL:LB¹3*

EJakel GWKnighton FCongel*

3/7/85 3

/85 2 3/6/85 L

L:GIRQ)'Gammill*

T ovak LThompson 3/6/85 3/((/85 3////85 s50402osss s503<9 PDR ADOCK 05000275 P

PDR

~

v

)

lc' I ~

V I" V

)Ht A

~ )

c ff)>>N I

V)g) lc,,

~

Ht Qf P

H I'w Qlf

)

II I'>>

'lt I

N I (IC r

I

~

'I g)If, "rt f

Vf>>I' I

H

~ )

I I l f (

V I

~;Ffg'e ~"

't A

~I'c t) v I.

'.NE ~,

I"

~

~

fc g>>

"I 1

IN I

p

~

~

, r.l

+* fr' It

• , ")f'HC 1

I),)

VF),

~<<,,

c. il

~ f I

$ )

Q' I

E I

~

E'I

)

'Hc

'ct J

I( )

~It r-cf

~ III tf

')"

.EH)

I

~

C c

I HA Vgl I<< f

)

~

I

~ I ~

c IC IN <<,'I I" f

'Vv

~

I

~

h cg+I 1

k I

HH EH IN f EH)

H

Mr. J.

D. Shiffer, Vice President Nuclear Power Generation c/o Nuclear Power Generation, Licensing Pacific Gas and Electric Company 77 Beale Street, Room 1451 San Francisco, California 94106 Philip A. Crane, Jr.,

Esq.

Pacific Gas

& Electric Company Post Office Box 7442 San Francisco, Cali fornia 94120 Mr. Malcolm H. Furbush Vice President - General Counsel Pacific Gas

& Electric Company Post Office Box 7442 San Francisco, California 94120 Janice E. Kerr, Esq.

California Public Utilities Commission 350 McAllister Street San Francisco, California 94102 Mr. Frederick Eissler, President Scenic Shoreline Preservation Conference, Inc.

. 4623 More Mesa Drive Santa Barbara, California 93105 Ms. Elizabeth Apfelberg 1415 Cozadero San Luis Obispo, California 93401 Mr. Gordon A. Silver Ms. Sandra A. Silver 1?60 Alisal Street San Luis Obispo, California 93401 Harry M. Willis, Esq.

Seymour

& Willis 601 California Street, Suite 2100 San Francisco, California 94108 Mr. Richard Hubbard MHB Technical Associates Suite K

1725 Hamilton Avenue San Jose, California 95125 Mr. John Marrs, Managing Editor San Luis Obis o Count Tele ram Tribune o nson venue P. 0.

Box 112 San Luis Obispo, California 93406 Diablo Canyon Resident Inspector/Diablo Canyon NPS c/o US Nuclear Regulatory Commission P.

O.

Box 369 Avila Beach, California 93424 Ms.

Raye Fleming 1920 Mattie Road Shell Beach, California 93440 Joel

Reynolds, Esq.

John R. Phillips, Esq.

Center for Law in the Public Interest 10951 West Pico Boulevard Third Floor Los Angeles, California 90064 Mr. Dick Blankenburg Editor

& Co-Publisher South County Publishing Company P. 0.

Box 460 Arroyo Grande, California 93420 Bruce Norton, Esq.

Norton, Burke, Berry

& French, P.C.

202 E. Osborn Road P.

Q.

Box 10569 Phoenix, Arizona 85064 l

Mr. W. C. Gangloff Westinghouse Electric Corporation P. 0.

Box 355 Pittsburgh, Pennsylvania 15230 David F. Fleischaker, Esq.

P. 0.

Box 1178 Oklahoma City, Oklahoma 73101

0

~'

Arthur C. Gehr, Esq.

Snell 8 Wilmer 3100 Valley Center

Phoenix, Arizona 85073 Mr.

Lee M. Gustafson, Director Federal Agency Relations Pacific Gas 5 Electric Company 1050 17th Street, N.W.

Suite 1180 Washington, DC 20036 Regional Administrator - Region V

US Nuclear Regulatory Commission 1450 Maria Lane Suite 210 Walnut Creek, California 94596 Michael J. Strumwasser, Esq.

Special Counsel to the Attorney General State of California 3580 Wilshire Boulevard, Suite 800 Los Angeles, California 90010 Mr. Tom Harris Sacremanto Bee 21st and 0 Streets Sacramento, California 95814 Mr. H. Daniel Nix California Energy Comoission 1516 9th Street, MS 18 Sacramento, California 95814 Lewis Shollenberger, Esq.

US Nuclear Regulatory Commission Region V

1450 Maria Lane Suite 210 Walnut Creek, California 94596 Mr. Thomas Devine Government Accountability Proiect Institute for Policy Studies 1901 gue Street, NW Washington, DC 20009

'itREMI C

ssO sla O

I 4~

~0

+st *++

UNITED STATES NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSION WASHINGTON, D. C. 20555 Certificate Diablo Canyon Nuclear Power Plant Unit 1 and Unit 2 POLLUTION CONTROL FACILITIES The Nuclear Regulatory Commission (the NRC) hereby certifies as follows:

(a) that it has examined the following documents pertaining to the Diablo Canyon Nuclear Power Plant, a nuclear electric power generating plant located on the Pacific Coast approximately 8 miles northwest of Avila Beach, Californ'a, an undivided interest in which plant is owned hy Pacific Gas and Electric Company:

I) Part 3.2 of Amendment No.

1 to Pacific Gas and Electric Company's application to the California Pollution Control Financing Authority for inancing, dated December 2, 1983, which is entitled "The Pollution Control Facilities:

Functional and Engineering Description" and which describes certain facilities which have been constructed, are under construction or are to e constructed, including Appendix 3.8.2 of said Amendment which fur ther describes some of these facilities, 2) Part 3.2 of Amendment No.

2 to the same application dated August 30, 1984, which describes additional facilities which have been constructed, are under construction or are to be constructed, including attachments which further describe these facilities, 3) Attachment 7 of said Amendment No.

2 which is entitled "Diablo Canyon Nuclear Power Plant Estimated Pollution Control Equipment Costs" and lists certain facilities which have been constructed, are under construction or are to be constructed, and 4) further information supplied by the Pacific Gas and Electric Company to the Nuclear Regulatory Commission, in a letter dated February 28, 1985; and (b) that the following radiological pollution control facilities, as designed and described in the documents above are in furtherance of the purpose of abating or controlling atmospheric pollutants or contaminants or water pollutants or the purpose of disposing of solid wastes resulting from the generation of electricity at the Diablo Canyon Nuclear Power Plant:

1) the liquid radwaste

system,

2) the gaseous radwaste

system,

3) the solid waste handling system, including modification of the solid radwaste storage building, and portions of the following:

4) the chemical and volume control system, 5) the nuclear plant sampling system,

6) the steam generator blowdown svstem, 7) the radiation monitoring system,

8) the fuel handling building and 9) the auxiliary building.

FOR THE NUCLEAR REGULA RY COMMISSION Dated at Bethesda, Maryland this /)Nay of March 1985 Harold R. Denton, Director Office of Nuclear Reactor Regulation

4,

~ '

March 19, 1985 DISTRIBUTION

~Docket Fi.le 50=275/323~

NRC PDR LPDR NSIC PRC System LB¹3 Reading JLee CEar.ly:;

HSchierling CNichols EJakel GlJKnighton FCongel JLee RSamworth RBallard NGammill TMNovak HLThompson DGEisenhut HRDenton LChandler FMiraglia JGray JPartlow BGrimes EJordan ACRS (16)

J 4

t ys.s R<cu+

P0

~y n0 C

O r+

o~

++*++

UNITED STATES UCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISS WASHINGTON, D.C. 20555 Narch 1, 1985 DOCKET No.

MEMORANDUMFOR:

Docketing and Service Branch Office of the Secretary of the Commission FROM:

SUBJECT:

Office of Nuclear Reactor Regulation PACIFIC GAS AND ELECTRIC CO?PANY DIABLO CANYON NUCLEAR POWER PLANT, UNIT 1 One signed original of the Federal Register Notice identified below is enclosed for your transmittal to the Office of the Federal Register for publication. Additional conformed copies

(

6

) of tlie Notice are enclosed for your use.

PLEASE ANGE FOR PUBLICATION ON MARCH 7 1985.

Notice of Receipt of Application for Construction Permit(s) and Operating License(s),

Notice of Receipt of Partial Application for Construction Permit(s) and Facility License(s):

Time for Submission of Views on Antitrust Matters.

5{'3 Notice of Consideration of Issuance of Amendment to Facility Operating License.

Notice of Receipt of Application for Facility License(s); Notice of Availabilityof Applicant's Environmental Report; and Notice of Consideration of Issuance of Facility License(s) and Notice of Opportunity for Hearing.

Cl Notice of Availabilityof NRC Draft/Final Environmental Statement.

Notice of Limited Work Authorization.

Notice of Availabilityof Safety Evaluation Report, C3 Notice of Issuance of Construction Permit(s).

C3 Notice of Issuance of Facility Operating License(s) or Amendment(s).

Order.

C3 Exemption.

O Notice of Granting of Relief.

'ther:

Office of Nuclear Reactor Regulation arricc f sum@Ms: P DATC

Enclosure:

As stated

/I3..

..J

...3....N.........

OFFICIAL RECORD COPY

\\

0

\\

I ff I

f II

,If f

7590-01 UNITED STATES NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSION PACIFIC GAS AND ELECTRIC COMPANY DOCKET NO. 50-275 NOTICE OF CONSIDERATION OF ISSUANCE OF AMENDMENT TO FACILITY OPERATING LICENSE AND PROPOSED NO SIGNIFICANT HAZARDS CONSIDERATION DETERMINATION AND OPPORTUNITY FOR HEARING The U. S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission (the Commission) is considering issuance of amendment to Facility Operating License No. DPR-76 issued to the Pacific Gas and Electric Company for the operation of the Diablo Canyon Nuclear Power Plant, Unit 1 located in San Luis Obispo, California.

In accordance with the licensee's application dated January 30, 1985, the proposed change would (i) revise Diablo Canyon, Unit 1 Technical Specifications, Table 6.2-1, "Minimum Shift Crew Composition," to provide for two unit operation with a common control room to comply with the staffing requirement of 10 CFR 50.54(m)(2)(l),

and (ii) revise the Diablo Canyon, Unit 1 Technical Specification 4.8.1.1.2, "Electrical Powe~ Systems, Surveillance Requirements" to add a footnote regarding the testing of Diesel Generato~

No.

3 which is common to both Units 1 and 2 to avoid unnecessary diesel generator testing and to be in conformance with the guidelines contained in NRC Generic Letter 84-15, "Proposed Staff Actions to Improve and Maintain Diesel Generator Rel.iability."

Before issuance of the proposed license amendment, the Commission will have made findings required by the Atomic Energy Act of 1954, as amended (the Act) and the Commission's regulations.

Jg

The Commission has made a proposed determination that the amendment request involves no significant hazards consideration.

Under the Commission s

regulations in 10 CFR 50.92, this means that operation of the facilities in accordance with the proposed amendment would not (1) involve a significant increase in the probability or consequences of an accident previously evaluated; or (2) create the possibility of a new or diff'erent kind of accident from any accident previously evaluated; or (3) involve a significant reduction in a margin of safety.

The NRC staff proposes to determine that the proposed changes do not involve significant hazards considerations.

In this regard, the Cooeission has provided guidance concerning the application of'tandards for determining whether or not a significant hazards consideration exists by, providing certain examples (48 FR 14870) of amendments considered not likely to involve significant hazards considerations.

Example (vi) relates to a change which eithe~

may result in some increase to the probability or consequences of a previously analyzed accident or may in some way ~educe a margin of safety, but where the results of the change are clearly within all acceptable criteria with respect to the system or component specified in the Standard Review Plan:

for example,.

a change resulting from the application of a small refinement of a previously used calculational model or design method.

Example (i') relates to a purely administrative change to technical specifications:

for.example, a change to achieve consistency throughout the technical specifications, co~rection of an error, or a change in nomenclature.

Each of the proposed changes is similar to one of.these examples.'n this basis, it is proposed that these changes

do not involve significant hazards considerations.

The following is a

description of each of the proposed changes and how each is similar to one of the, examples of 48 FR 14870.

1.

Pro osed Chan e-Minimum Shift Crew Com osition The proposed change would revise the Diablo Canyon, Unit 1 Technical Specifications, Table 6.2-1, "Minimum Shift Crew Composition" to provide for two-unit operation with a common control room.

The current Diablo Canyon, Unit 1 Technical Specifications specify the minimum number of operators of various levels (e..g, Shift Supervisor, Senior Operator License) to be present in the control room at all times during operating or shutdown modes.

These minimums, which comply with the requirements of'0 CFR 50.54(m), are based on a single unit being operated from the control room.

Upon issuance of an operating license f'r Diablo Canyon, Unit 2,. the licensee has requested to revise the minimum shift crew composition requirements of Diablo Canyon, Unit 1

Technical Specifications to reflect operation of a two-unit facility with a common control room while continuing to comply with the staffing requirements of 10 CFR 50.54(m)(2)(1) and NUREG-0452, Revision 4, "Standard Technical Specifications'or Westinghouse Pressured Water Reactors."

The current Diablo Canyon, Unit 1 Technical Specifications require the following minimum shift crew composition while in operational-modes 1, 2, 3, and 4:

. one Shift Supervisor (SS),

one. individual with a Senior Operating License (SOL), one individual with an Operating License (OL), one Auxiliary Operator (AO), and one Shift Technical Advisor (STA).

For modes 5 and 6, the current Technical Specifications require the following minimum crew size:

one Shift Supervisor (SS),

one individual with an Operating License (OL), and one Auxiliary Operator (AO).

Thus, a minimum crew size of seven is required for modes 1, 2,

'l

3, and 4 and three for modes 5 and 6.

The proposed change for two-unit operation requires the following minimum crew size:

one SS, one SOL, three OLs (at least one of these individuals must be assigned to the designated position for each unit and the third individual being a floater for either unit), and one STA.

With both units in modes 5 or 6, the minimum crew size would be one SS, two OLs (one for each unit), and three AOs (one for each unit, with the third individual being a floater for either unit).

With one unit in modes 1, 2, 3, or 4 and the other unit in modes 5 or 6, the following m1n1mum crew size composition is required:

one SS, one SOL, three OLs (one for each unit with the third individual being a floater between both units),

three AOs (one for each unit with the third being a floater between both units),

and one STA.

Thus, when both units are in modes 1, 2, 3, or 4, the minimum crew size is nine individuals compared to seven individuals currently required for one-unit operation.

With both units in modes 5 or 6, the minimum crew size would be six personnel compared to three for the current one-unit operation.

= It should be noted that the requirements of 10 CFR P

50.54(m) do not require that for a two-unit plant the staffing be twice that of a one-unit plant since the change conforms to and satisH.es the Commission's regulations and the Standard Review Plan by being con-sistent with the regulatory guidance provided in NUREG-0452, Revision 4,

it is similar to example (vi) of 48 FR 14870.

On this basis, the NRC proposes to determine that the change does not involve a significant hazards consideration.

2.

Pro osed Chan e-Diesel Generator Testin

/

/

Diablo Canyon, Units'.and 2 are provided with;-: 'five emergency diesel generators.

There are three diesel generators currently serving Diablo Canyon, Unit 1 and two which will serve Diablo Canyon, Unit 2.

Diesel Generator No.

3 in Diablo Canyon, Unit 1 is designed to be connected in such a manner that it can serve either Diablo Canyon, Unit 1 or Unit 2.

The current Diablo Canyon, Unit 1 Technical Specifications requires the same. testing of Diesel Generator No.

3 as is required for Diesel Generators Nos.

1

& 2.

Upon

issuance, a Unit 2 license will require that Diesel Generator No. 3 be tested on a =testing schedule consistent with Diablo Canyon, Unit 2.

This double requirement will result in unnecessary and potentially harmful testing.

To preclude unnecessary testing of Diesel Generator No. 3, a footnote will be added to Surveillance Requirement 4.8.1.1.2 recognizing that the Diesel Generator 3 is common to both units and need not be surveillance tested more fre'quently than required to satisfy the operability requirement for the most limiting unit.

The change is consistent with the guidance in the NRC Generic Letter 84-15, "Proposed Staff Actions.=to Improve and Maintain Diesel Generatpr Reliabil.ity" to reduce unnecessary diesel generator testing.

This proposed change i:s similar to example (i) of 48 FR 14870 in that the proposed change is administrative in nature and maintains the existing substantive requirement for testing Diesel Generator No. 3.

On this basis, the NRC proposes to determine that the change does not involve a significant hazards consideration.

The above proposed changes to the Technical Specifications are contingent upon issuance of an operating license for Unit 2.

The Commission'is seeking public comments on this proposed determination.

Any comments received within 30 days after the date of publication of this notice will be considered in making any final determination.

The Commission will not normally make a final determination unless it receives a request for a hearing.

Comments should be addressed to the Secretary of the Commission, U.S.

Nuclear Regulatory Commission, Washington, D.C.

20555, Attention:

Docketing and Service Branch.

By ppzf$

8

$985

., the licensee may file a request for a hearing with respect to issuance of the amendment to the subject facility operating license and any person whose interest may be affected by this proceeding and who wishes to participate as a party in the proceeding must file a written petition for leave to intervene.

Request for a hearing and petitions for leave to intervene shall be filed in accordance with the Commission's Rules of Practice

+or Domestic Licensing Proceedings" in 10 CFR Part 2. If a request for a hearing or petition for leave to intervene is filed by the above date, the Cooeission or an Atomic Safety and Licensing Board, designated by the Commission or by the Chairman of the Atomic Safety and Licensing Boa'rd Panel, will rule -on the request and/or petition and the Secretary',or the designated Atomic Safety and Licensing Board will issue a notice of hearing or an appropriate order.'

As required by 10 CFR 52.714, a petition for leave to intervene shall set forth with particularity the interest of the petitioner in the proceeding, and how that interest may be affected by the results of the proceeding.

The petition, should specifically explain the reasons why intervention should be permitted with particular reference to the following factors:

(1) the nature of the petitioner's right under the Act to be made a party to the proceeding; (2) the nature and extent of the petitioner's property, financial, or other interest in the proceedings; and (3) the possible effect of any order which may be entered in the proceeding on the petitioner's interest.

The petition should also identify the specific aspect(s) nf the subject matter of the proceeding as to which petitioner wishes to intervene.

Any person who has filed a petition for leave to intervene or who has been admitted as a party may amend the petition without requesting leave of the Board up to fifteen (15) days prior to the first prehearing conference scheduled in the proceeding, but such an amended petition must satisfy the specificity requirements described above.

Not later than fifteen (15) days prior to the first prehearing conference scheduled in the proceeding, a petitioner shall file a supplement to the petition to intervene which must include a list of the contentions which are sought to be litigated in the matter, and the bases for each contention set forth with reasonable specificity.

Contentions shall be limited to matters.

within the scope of the amendment under consideration.

A petitioner who fails to file such a supplement which satisfies these requirements with respect to at least one contention will not be permitted to participate as a party.

Those permitted to intervene become parties to the proceeding, subject to any limitations in the order granting leave to intervene, and have the opportunity to participate fully in the conduct of the hearing, including the opportunity to present evidence and cross-examine witnesses.

If a hearing is requested, the Coranission will make a final determination on the issue of.no significant hazards consideration.

The final determination will serve to decide when the hearing is held.

If the final determination is that the amendment request involves no significant hazards consideration, the Comnission may issue the amendment and make it effective, notwithstanding the request for a hearing.

Any hearing held would take place afte~ issuance of the amendment.

If the final determination is that the amendment involves a significant hazards consideration, any hearing held would take place before the issuance of any amendment.

Normally, the Commission will not issue the amendment until the expiration of the 30-day notice period.

However, should circumstances change during the notice period such that failure to act in a timely way would result, for

example, in derating or shutdown of the facility, the Commission may issue the license amendment before the expiration of the 30-day notice period, provided that its final determination is that the amendment involves no significant-hazards consideration.-

The final determination will consider all public and State comments received; Should the Comnission take this action, it will publish a notice of issuance and provide for opportunity for a hearing after issuance.

The Commission expects that the need to take this action will occur very infrequently.

C

A request for a hearing or a petition for leave to intervene must be filed with the Secretary of the Commission, U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission, Washington, D.C.

20555, Attention:

Docketing and Service Branch, or may be delivered to the Commission's Public Document

Room, 1717 H Street, N.W.,

Washington, D.C.

by the above date.

Where petitions are filed during.the last ten (10) days of the'otice period, it is requested that the petitioner promptly so inform the Commission by a toll-free telephone call to Western Union at (800) 325-6000 (in Missouri (800) 342-6700).

The Western Union operator should be given Datagram Identification. Number 3737 and the following message addressed to G. Knighton:

petitioner's name and telephone number; date petition was mailed; plant name; and publication date and page number 1

of this FEDERAL REGISTER Notice.

A copy of the petition should also be sent to the Executive Legal Director, U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Comnission, Washington, D.C.

20555, to Phillip A. Crane, Esq.,

Richard F. Locke, Esq., Pacific Gas 8

Electric Company, P. 0.

Box 7442, San Francisco, California 94120 and to Bruce Norton, Esq.,

Norton, Burke, Berry and French, P. 0.

Box 10569,

Phoenix, Arizona 85064.

Nontimely filings of petitions for leave to intervene, amended petitions, supple'mental petitions and/or requests for hearing will not be entertained absent a determination by the Commission, the presiding officer or-the Atomic Safety and Licensing. Board designated to rule on the petition and/or request, that the petitioner has-made a substantial showing of good cause for the granting of a late petition and/or request.

The determination will"be based upon a balancing of the factors specified in 10 CFR 2.714(a)(1)(i)-(v) and 2.714(d).

C For further details with respect to this action, see the application for amendment which is available for public inspection at the Commission's Public Document

Room, 1717 H Street, N.W., Washington, D.C., and at the California Polytechnic State University Library, Documents and Maps Department, San Luis Obi s po, Ca 1 iforni a 93407.

Dated at Bethesda, Maryland, this 26 day of February 1985.

FOR TH NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSION Geor W. Knigh

, Chief Licensing Branch 83 Division of Licensing

~

~ v