ML20209D903
| ML20209D903 | |
| Person / Time | |
|---|---|
| Site: | Diablo Canyon  |
| Issue date: | 02/06/1985 |
| From: | Houston R Office of Nuclear Reactor Regulation |
| To: | Novak T Office of Nuclear Reactor Regulation |
| Shared Package | |
| ML17083B484 | List:
|
| References | |
| FOIA-86-197, TASK-2.K.3.30, TASK-2.K.3.31, TASK-TM NUDOCS 8502110720 | |
| Download: ML20209D903 (3) | |
Text
_.
./
i
- o UNITED STATES g
g NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSION 3
o c
y wAsmNGTON, D. C. 20555
' l',
1.,*****/
FEB 0 61985
~ /
MEMORANDUM FOR:
Thomas M. Novak, Assistant Director for Licensing, DL FROM:
R. Wayne Houston, Assistant Director for Reactor Safety, DSI
SUBJECT:
DIABLO CANYON NUCLEAR POWER PLANT, UNITS 1 AND 2 - ADDITIONAL INPUT TO SER SUPPLEMENT NO. 29 Plant Name:
Diablo Canyon, Units 1 and 2 Docket Number:
50/275/323 Licensing Stage:
Responsible Branch: Licensing Branch No. 3 Project Manager:
H. Schierling DSI Review Brangh:
Reactor Systems Branch The enclosure to this memo provides, additional Reactor Systems Branch input to Diablo Canyon Units 1 and 2 SSER No. 29.
This input includes the staff evalua-tion of Allegation No. 1229.
Our evaluation reflects information attached to a letter from G. Knighton to B. Sheron dated January 23, 1985.
R. Wayne Houston, Assistant Direc' tor for Reactor Safety Division of Systems Integration
Enclosure:
As stated cc:
H. Schierling RSB Section Leaders S. Diab
(
J. Guttmann CONTACT:
C. Liang, RSB X24754
s ENCLOSURE 1 DIABLO CANYON UNITS NO. 1 AND 2 SSER NO. 29 (RSB)
Task:
Allegation 1229 ATS No.:
BN No:
Characterization The alleger asserts that his review of publicly available documents leads him I
to believe that Pacific Gas and Electric (PG&E) has received preferential treatment from the NRC which has granted dispensation from or in some instances ignored the requirement and recommendations contained in NUREG-0737.
This specific allegation relates to Item II.K.3.30/31 of NUREG-0737. The allegation states that " relief" from this requirement was granted by NRC letter (D. G.
Eisenhut to J. O. Schuyler, dated November 15, 1983) which states:
...the NRC
/
staff is treating this on a generic basis.
The staff is currently reviewing the Westinghouse corporation generic submittal (II.K.3.30)...We require that the PG&E Company submit it's plant specific analysis (II.K.3.31) which must be approved by the NRC staff within one year from the date of NRC approval of the Westinghouse generic models."
Implied Significance to Plant Design, Construction, or Operation Lack of compliance with TMI related requirements of NUREG-0737 could affect the plant capability to minimize the chances of or mitigate the consequences of an accident similar to the one that occurred at THI-2.
l l
w Assessment of Safety Sionificance The Westinghouse generic submittal of SBLOCA models is currently under staff review.
The staff anticipates issuing an SER for TMI Action Item II.K.3.30 by April 30, 1985.
Our review to date indicates that the WFLASH model used in the Diablo Canyon FSAR will be more conservative than the new Westinghouse proposed model, NOTRUMP.
We anticipate this to be confirmed in the licensee's response to TMI Action Item II.K.3.31.
Based on the above, the staff conc 19 des that the final resolution of this review would not affect the safety of any Westinghouse designed plant.
This staff review is generic and applicable to all Westinghouse designed plants.
Staff Position During the process of the staff review of the Westinghouse generic submittal of SBLOCA models, we are confident that reasonable assurance exists that the
/
results of our review of the Westinghouse generic submittal would not significantly affect the safety of any Westinghouse designed plant. This j
formed the basis of the action that was taken by the NRC letter to PG&E dated November 15, 1984.
The PG&E has not been treated differently than any other Westinghouse plants on this issue.
Action Required None 2
. - -. -. - -