ML16341A306
| ML16341A306 | |
| Person / Time | |
|---|---|
| Site: | Diablo Canyon  |
| Issue date: | 08/13/1984 |
| From: | Advisory Committee on Reactor Safeguards |
| To: | Advisory Committee on Reactor Safeguards |
| References | |
| ACRS-2226, NUDOCS 8410120113 | |
| Download: ML16341A306 (38) | |
Text
.0
/'
'I t gezs-m~4 7A? IdOI8$
CERTIFIED COPY DATE ISSUED:August 13, 1984 MEETING MINUTES ACRS SUBCOMMITTEE ON DIABLO CANYON REVIEW OF DRAFT REPORT FROM DIABLO CANYON PEER REVIEW GROUP WASHINGTON, D.C.
JULY 11, 1984 A meeting of the ACRS Subcommittee on Diablo Canyon Nuclear Power Plant was held on July 11, 1984, in Room 1046, 1717 H St.
NW., Washington, D.C.
The meeting was from approximately 8:30 a.m. until 4:30 p.m.
No portion was closed to the public.
No statements, either written or oral, were received from the public.
The purpose of the meeting was to review a draft report by the Diablo Canyon Peer Review Group (the Group).
The report contains the findings of the Group regarding the adequacy of Pacific Gas
& Electric (the Licensee) actions taken to address seven license conditions associated with the low-power license issued to Diablo Canyon Unit 1.
These conditions were included in the license by a Commission order on April 18, 1984 and were related to the piping and pipe supports.
The report also contains findings relating to two other issues:
the adequacy of the Independent Design Verification Program
( IDVP); and the effectiveness of Licensee actions to rectify previously identified problems associated with design control measures used by the Licensee's Onsite Project Engineering Group (OPEG).
The concerns relating to the OPEG are referred to in the Group's report as Programmatic Issues.
The Group concluded that within the scope of its review there are no substantial problems that should prevent the issuance of a full-power license to Diablo Canyon Unit 1.
Attachment A of these minutes provides an abbreviated agenda for the meeting.
Attachment B contains a list of the attendees.
Attachment C
has a list of handouts used during the meeting.
A complete set of the MSIGNATED ORIGINAL 84'10120113 840813 Comxnea Sg 2226
~SIWIVII
C
' f 4 g.
1
>+)
C 4~ o~~'~4 4 i~'
s7iVifXQIHO G~..".'~ID',~M vK i:cf.%2J sbO
MINUTES/DIABLO ClIN July ll, 1984 handouts are on file in the ACRS office.
Notice of the meeting was published in the Federal Register on July 10, 1984.
A copy of the notice is in Attachment D.
Ori in of License Conditions and Overview of Peer Grou Re ort R.H. Vollmer, Director, Division of Engineering, Office of Nuclear Reactor Regulation (DE/NRR), made a brief introduction in which he noted that the Diablo Canyon Peer Review Group was initially formed to address concerns raised by I. T. Yin, Region III inspector.
It was composed of senior leve'l NRC Staff, supplemented by experts in piping and structural analysis.
Mr. Yin had been assigned to investigate allegations related to construction of Diablo Canyon.
The Group subsequently recommended that the low power license for Diablo Canyon Unit 1 be conditioned on the Licensee addressing seven issues related to the adequacy of piping and pipe supports.
The Group was then charged with determining whether the license conditions had been met and what methods were used to meet the conditions.
The review was expanded to address additional concerns raised by Mr. Yin that related to the IDVP and to design controls used by an onsite engineering group, the OPEG.
The Group's report therefore contains conclusions regarding the seven license conditions, the
- IDVP, and the OPEG.
Mr. Vollmer went on to stress that it had been recognized very early that quality assurance (gA) deficiencies and inefficiencies existed at Diablo Canyon; however, the thrust of the Group's review had been to determine the adequacy of the end product, that is, the piping and pipe supports.
The bottom line of the report was that the Group found nothing that should prevent the issuance of a full-power license to Diablo.
Licensin Criteria For Determinin Ade uac of Pi in Responding to questions from the Subcommittee, members of the Group said that the criteria used in the design of piping at Diablo Canyon
~'
MINUTES/DIABLO CA N
July ll, 1984 reflected those contained in the Code for Pressure Piping (ASA B31.1).
Mhen postulating pipe breaks, the recently developed "leak-before-break" method which employs advanced fracture mechanics techniques was not used.
Pipe breaks at both intermediate and anchor points were assumed.
Mr. Ebersole asked whether the issues addressed by the Group's report are peculiar to Diablo Canyon or are more generic in nature.
Continuing, he asked if other nuclear power plants could withstand the scrutiny being given Diablo Canyon.
He went on to say that he thought the NRC Staff should be addressing the possibilities for common-mode failures of safety systems induced by piping or support failures.
J.
P.
Knight, NRR/DE, responded to Mr. Ebersole.
He noted that the changes that were made in the seismic design basis, and the large magnitude earthquake for which it is designed does make the pipe support system somewhat unusual.
Concerning the matter of analysis of common-mode
- failures, he said that the deterministic approach required by the NRC addresses that issue in the initial phases of design.
Dr. Siess asked if a probabi listic risk assessment (PRA) of the type done for the Indian Point nuclear power plant would consider errors in design of piping supports.
Messrs.
Vollmer and Knight said that the fragility curves would take into account that sort of error in design.
Mr. Vollmer went on to say that the Seismic gualification Utility Group (S(UG) has gathered data from non-nuclear facilities such as refineries and conventiona'i power plants that have undergone seismic events of various magnitudes and intensities.
The data indicate that piping and associated equipment is not very sensitive to seismic events.
Or anizational Structure of Diablo Can on Peer Review Grou As previously stated, the 5-percent license for Diablo Canyon Unit I was conditioned on the Licensee addressing seven issues re'lated to the piping and pipe supports.
The Diablo Canyon Peer Review Group, supple-mented by experts in piping analysis, was divided into subgroups or task groups which, to the extent possible, examined each license condition separately.
At the Subcommittee
- meeting, the conclusions of each
MINUTES/DIABLO C4lN July ll, 1984 subgroup was presented by its respective leader.
Because the Group had exercised a considerable amount of engineering judgment in its review, Dr. Siess asked that the area of expertise of each member be given.
Attachment E contains that information.
Concerns of NRC Ins ector I. T. Yin Nr. Yin, who was present at the. Subcommittee
- meeting, was given the opportunity to state any concerns he had about the adequacy of the Licensee's actions or how the Group's review was conducted.
In
- addition, he was allowed to question the NRC Staff and the Licensee.
Details of those exchanges are contained in the sections of minutes dealing with the individual presentations.
License Condition 2.C. (11), Item I:
Review of Small Bore Com uter Ca 1 cul ations Kamal Manoly, Region I, presented the Group's findings on this issue, Deficiencies due to lack of proper documentation and some calculational errors were found to have insignificant effects on the adequacy of the small bore piping (2" or less in diameter) supports.
All small bore, computer-analyzed supports were reanalyzed by the licensee.
Three out of 358 failed to meet licensing criteria because the length/thickness ratio for angle sections was exceeded.
In those cases the supports have been modified.
The Licensee's consideration of seismic loads on supports is yet to be completed, but will be done by October I, 1984.
Nr. Ebersole asked Mr. Nanoly if it was acceptable for redundant safety systems to be hung from the same support.
Mr. Manoly replied that it was not.
Nr. Michelson asked if the Group's review had included a consideration of'the adequacy of the concrete and the anchor bolts associated with the pipe supports.
Nr. Knight said that a separate review was addressing those concerns.
Preliminary findings indicated no significant problems.
(The findings of this review will be included in the same forthcoming
I
MINUTES/DIABLO CANN July 11, 1984 Supplemental Safety Evaluation Report that will contain the Group's final report on piping and supports.)
In response to another question by Mr. Michelson, Mr. Manoly said that the margin of safety designed into the anchors was 4 or 5, depending on the type.
The Licensee and Peer Review Group then addressed Mr. Yin's remaining concerns regarding this license condition.
The Licensee was asked what changes were made to the computer model if, after the first rerun, a
support did not meet licensing criteria.
It was explained that if a support was initia11y ana'lyzed as being overstressed, a closer look was given the assumptions made in the model.
A more realistic model was developed and the support was subsequently qua'lified.
It was noted that the as-built dimensions, as opposed to design dimensions, were used in the reanalysis of all 358 of the supports.
Mr. Manoly said that only a small percentage of the engineering de-cisions used in designing the supports were undocumented, and it was the Group's opinion that those judgements had little effect on the adequacy of support design.
The lack of guidance that had allowed some judgements to go undocumented was remedied by the Licensee prior to the reanalysis done to meet the license condition.
Dr. Siess asked Mr.
Manoly how many erroneous inputs for the computer code (STRUDL) had not been discovered by the checker and reviewer and had subsequently resulted in support inadequacies.
Mr. Manoly replied that no significant inadequacies had resulted.
License Condition 2.C (11) Item 2:
Load Sharin b
Closel S aced Su orts; and Item 3: Snubbers Located in Close Proximit to Ri id Su orts and Anchors The same subgroup dealt with these two, closely related items.
B. F.
Saffell, Battelle Columbus, presented the findings.
Because the seismic design basis for Diablo was changed after discovery of the Hosgri fault, rigid supports and snubbers were in some cases placed in close proximity to other rigid supports,
- snubbers, or equipment nozzles.
If the gap between piping and support was significantly different for adjacent
MINUTES/DIABLO CAION July 1 1, 1984 supports, the resu 1t could be overl oadi ng of the support with the sma I'ler gap, before the adjacent support took up its share of the 1 oad.
Design basis for the gaps was I/16" on each side of the pipe, with a combined tolerance of + I/16".
This would result in, at most,
a. 3/ 16" clearance on one side and zero c 1 earance on the other side. If the gap between piping and support, adj acent to a snubber, did not a 1 1 ow enough movement for the snubber to 1 oc k-u p, i. e, function as a rigid support,
the snubber wou ld not support its share of the 1 oad during a seismic event.
The 1 icensee was required to inspect the ga ps between pipi ng and supports and add shi ms where necessary or reana lyze the 1 oad ings to ensure no supports or s nubbe rs wou 1 d be overstressed After reviewing the Licensee proposed program to address these 1 icense conditions, the rev iewer s required the criteri on for defi ni ng "close proximity" to be changed.
This res ul ted in more snubbers a nd supports being included in the Licensee program.
In cases where the gap between pipe and support was not within design tolerances, the Licensee added shims.
In cases where a snubber was not provided adequate freedom of movement, the Licensee reanalyzed the loadings to determine if the snubber was really needed.
In the instances where on reanalysis the snubber was required, the Licensee was able to qualify the snubber by using the manufacturer's performance specifications rather than those originally imposed.
Mr. Saffell said that the Licensee's request for an exemption from the proximity criterion in the case of snubber-anchor pairs on decoupled branch connections designed by the span rule was granted because the piping involved was 2" or less in diameter and the operating temperatures were low which would result in small seismic and thermal movements.
Mr. Yin's letter to R.H. Vollmer, that transmitted comments on the Group
- report, paraphrased a statement made by Dr. R.L. Cloud of R. L. Cloud Associates, which conducted the IDVP for piping and supports.
The paraphase suggested that there was a concern that a seismic event could
MINUTES/DIABLO CAN July 1 1, 1984 overstress small bore piping at the point where it connected to large bore piping.
Or. Cloud denied that he had ever made such a statement.
Mr. Saffel 1 agreed to provide Mr. Yin with the numbers and types of snubbers in particular categories.
ACRS consultants, Mr. Mysinger and Mr. Bender, both noted that the ductility of piping and supports should be adequate to prevent any problems from gaps of the size specified by design.
Mr. Knight, NRR, pointed out that the Licensee's decision to shim rather than reanalyze the loadings for supports where the gaps exceeded design specifications was one that took into account the limited availability of resources.
License Conditon 2.C. (11),
Item 4: Thermal Ga s
E. J. Sullivan, NRR/OE, discussed the findings regarding this item.
Normally the stress analysis of a piping system is done using the assumption that there is no gap between pipe and support.
The analysis then determines the stresses that would arise from thermal expansion of the system.
In 37 cases, all involving piping that was 2" or smaller in
- diameter, gaps were specifically included in the analyses.
The license conditon required the Licensee to monitor these gaps to assure they were, in fact, present.
The Licensee initially proposed to monitor the gaps in the cold condition, however, this was unacceptable to the Staff.
A final Licensee.proposal, accepted by the Staff, involved reanalysis of the piping assuming no gaps.
Any piping, supports, or nozzles will then be requalified if necessary.
This is to be completed by the end of the first refueling outage.
Mr. Yin expressed no concerns with this resolution.
~
I
MINUTES/DIABLO CA N
July ll, 1984 License Condition 3.C (ll), Item 5: Pi in S stem Walkdowns Mr. Sullivan presented the finding on this item also.
The license condition required the Licensee to walkdown the piping systems once they were hot, to ensure expansion had caused no interferences with surrounding structures.
The Group reviewed the Licensee's procedures for the walkdowns and did its own walkdowns of the residual heat removal (RHR) and main steam systems.
No discrepancies were found on the RHR system.
On the main steam
- system, two deflections were greater than the Licensee's acceptance criterion.
The licensee reanalyzed the loadings using the as-measured deflections and found no overstresses.
One unintended restraint was discovered,
- analyzed, and found to be no problem, but was eventually removed anyway.
Mr. Yin was concerned that unpredicted thermal movements would reduce the clearances allowed for seismic movements to unacceptable levels.
Licensee representatives and Mr. Sullivan argued that the thermal movements, on the order of 3/16", would not significantly affect the seismic clearances.
Mr. Yin also suggested that "stress" walkdowns, done with piping systems in a cold condition, had overlooked potential interferences.
He referred the Subcommittee to his draft inspection report of March 29, 1984, in which he enumerated instances of this, that he had discovered during his own walkdowns.
License Condition 2.C.
(11) Item 6: " uick Fix" Pro ram Robert J.
Bosnak, Chief, Mechanical Engineering
- Branch, NRR, presented the Group's findings on this item.
This item addresses two onsite
- programs, the Pipe Support Design Tolerance Clarification (TC or PSDTC)
Program and the Diablo Problem (DP) System, that provided the means for resolving problems encountered during construction.
The licensee was required to identify:
support changes that deviated from the defined scope of the TC program; significant deviations between as-built and design configurations that stemmed from TC or DP activities; and unresolved matters identified by the DP system.
~.
MINUTES/DIABLO CA
>ON July ll, 1984 The Group concluded that, because the TC program had initially used a
guide rather than approved procedures, problems arose that Mr. Yin identified.
Some activities did not comply with the intent of the program;
- however, no significant deviations exist between as-built structures and current approved design configurations.
The program was terminated in June 1984 and replaced by a more conventional field-change system.
The Group concluded with regard to the DP System that, although design information was transmitted to a degree greater than intended, the information had eventually been included in gA controlled as-built drawings and design calculations.
Additionally, no unresolved DPs were discovered.
Mr. Yin had concerns only with the TC review.
He thought the TC program had caused a breakdown in the gA program;
- however, he admitted that the design changes were eventually reviewed by the right people to ensure quality.
He was concerned that some changes were not included in the as-built packages; but, the Licensee representatives at the meeting insisted that they had been.
In response to Mr. Yin's concern regarding the qualifications of the Group members who performed the review of support installations, Mr. Bosnak said that the four members had a
combined total of approximately 100-years of engineering experience, including hands-on in various types of facilities.
License Condition 2.C.
Il), Item 7: Small Bore and Lar e Bore Technical Issues These were discussed by Dr. Mark Hartzman, NRR/DE.
The licensee was required to show that several technical issues had been'adequately addressed in the design of piping supports.
These issues related to the inclusion of warping normal and shear stresses; consideration of lateral and torsional buckling; consideration of load eccentricities; correct use of Rayleigh's method to calculate fundamental frequencies; resolution of differences between the AISC. code and Bechtel criteria for unbraced lengths of angle; and consideration of effective weld throat
MINUTES/OIABLO CAN>ON July ll, 1984 10 thickness on structural steel tubing.
All but three small bore
- supports, previously noted as exceeding the length/thickness ratio, and one large bore support were found to meet licensing criteria.
The licensee has modified those four supports.
The Group had discussed some additional technical issues with the Licensee.
These were related to the issues contained in the license condition.
They were:
inputs and computer calculations related to angle members; baseplate and anchor bolt design calculations; piping tributary masses; conservatism of buckling criteria; qualification of
- lugs, and lug induced local stresses; and, qualification of U-bolts.
Dr. Hartzman concluded by saying the verification of the Licensee's activities are not complete, but after a preliminary examination they appear to be satisfactory.
Inde endent Desi n Verification Pro ram (IDVP)
Mr. Bosnak discussed the review of the IDVP.
Because of several allegations regarding the portion of the IDVP that addressed piping and
- supports, the NRC established a special task force that reviewed the work done by R. L. Cloud Associates.
The concerns dealt with the sample sizes used to review the original design and with a large number of deficiencies identified by the independent reviewers and reviewed in interim technical, reports (ITRs) that would have normally resulted in expansion of the scope of the IDVP.
The task force determined that the sample sizes were indeed adequate.
Because the ITRs were interim
- reports, they referred to problems that on initial examination could have been significant but that were later put to rest.
Someone reading only the interim report would get the wrong impression of the severity of the problems.
The ultimate resolution was reported in the Final Report of the Independent Design Verification Program.
Mr. Yin stated that his attempts to review the IDVP and the gA program had been hampered by NRC management.
He also said that he had resigned from further involvement in the Diablo Canyon licensing activities.
C
MINUTES/DIABLO CAIN July 1 1, 1984 Subcommittee Caucus A brief caucus followed the presentations.
It was determined that the Subcommittee members agreed with the Staff's finding that the license conditions have been met.
Because it was thought that ACRS Members not on the Subcommittee might want to have the benefit of speaking directly to Mr. Yin, it was decided that an attempt should be made to have Mr.
Yin present when the ACRS considered the Group's report.
Mr. Mysinger stated that it was reassuring that the NRC had the time to thoroughly investigate the concerns raised by Mr. Yin.
He added that he thought he understood all the concerns but felt there was no substance in them.
NOTE:
A comp)ete transcript of the meeting is on file at the NRC Public Document Room at 1717 H St.
NW., Washington, D.C. or can be obtained from Free State Reporting Inc. Court Reporting Depositions D.C. Area 261-1902 Balt.
5 Annap.
269-6236.
ATTACHVENT A TENTATIVE SCHEDULE ACRS DIABLO CANYON SUBCOt'jMITTEE REVIEW OF DRAFT REPORT BY THE DIABLO CANYON PEER REVIEW GROUP July ll, 1984 Opening Statement (Dr. Siess)
NRC Staff Summary of "Diablo Canyon Peer Review Group" report (R. Vollmer, NRR)
Concurrence/nonconcurrence of ter. Isa Yin (I. Yin ISE)
General Discussion Lunch Pesume Discussion Adjourn
~
0.C.
HCKINLEY ggr..all ltt nc,r.~ii~u; DIABLO CAN ON
&Awe~y~r-~ < ~i.~r.~rc-a~ca!e ~~~a w~~ie~ ~
0LAT10N:
Room 1046, 1717 H St.~M. 14asfiino~tg, D.C.
ATTACH)!ENT 8 LEASE C. P,'i~ssc~~~~aAa Wi~~r~s~~
/j-+rgrP'cre C'. E8zrsala
/k.'zvv/$
Ww&cps~
Ar; EV,Oy~CC l.1ST
%WHOA\\~ e Nl+I h iilie Cp</A'WHp'usuc, r+e r lmn
'..4 ~
L%'a ~~~CcV~eCSWSV Cj'de Soa cour frrEz 8 cg.5' vgconn/ rc z
'P5t C~~w
~Scylla~~~ J%7%
Jl p ~
I 2/O'Sdg J<,
~ WzEr lE-C
. 1-$ <l(=.
C./ ~ C~>r<
Ac.~l,,
+cga ~rz~r r:e 1 Q..
( ~~z t<~D AWAC ~w<G ~
- s. E.X SOLD-lYAAf 7..f.
godc
/2 0m' N.CC/.
ketch 6
n
'oti~
'I. 4f Wnllc//T g Q Af+P(
C a7 WEC./ >~./~e6 JgE
@Itch'g lA8d /WP/~F g asj l 2)+7 P) iug.c. Ac gc D8 g/Zd 8 C 8/C gg/W Nt2c' 6
~Rc.
D/=
/C CQ rOv'H
~
~
V ~ V ~
o
~ oyoov
~
vi) 1 ltt Ptttl ll)uv DIA8LO CA oooo ~<<~~
CATjOH'-
Room 1046 1717 H St, NW. Mashinqtnn p r kNoooo~+'+ ~p~~w~4~%
f o C v LEASe
~9 e <<~c.~yyvaca~
'tTENDANCE L1ST
,~4%CSwggy~
~
~
l'PY'7:
WP
[ Cf) QgYs 7,
LocRE
~//o w~
fg qcp 5
$ C4 0
-.30 a.m.
~
~ k' c1 NFETINOOM DATE Ju1y 11, 1984 ADVISORY CONNltTEE ON REACTOR SAFEGUARDS tiEETING DIABLO CANYON 1717 H St.
N.M. Mashington, D.C.
(PLEASE PRINT)
NANE ATTENDEES PLEASE SIGN BELOM BADGE NO AFFILIATION
~F. C, 8c d cia(~~
Ecdirac!ah~.
a)f f Eo/
pg~
0
j IgP 8; 30 a.m.
DATE July ll, 1984 NEET(8+I00 ADVISORY COYit(IITEE ON REACTOR SAFEGUARDS Y(EETING DIABLO CANYON 1717 H St.
N.M. Mashington, O.C.
(PLEASE PRINT)
NANE ATTENDEES PLEASE SIGN BELOH BAD6E NO AFFILIATION AueM PS
ATTACHMENT C t tL'ETING HANDOUTS ACRS SU Co,",t',1TTEE ON D;ABLO CANYON REVIEW OF DRAFT REPORT BY DIABLO CANYON PEFR REVIEW GROUP JULY ll, 1984 1.
Slides to support presentation by: R.H. Vollmer,
- NRC, 2 pages.
2.
3.
5.
6.
K. Yanoly, NRC, 4 pages.
B.
F. Saffell, Battelle
- Columbus, 5 pages.
E. J. Sullivan,
- NRC, 3 pages R. J.
- Bosnak, NRC, 7 pages.
M. Hartzman,
- NRC, 6 pages.
7.
Memorandum for R.H. Vollmer, from I.T. Yin.
Subject:
Comments on SSER License Condition 2.C. (11), Items 1, 4, 5>6 and 7.
Undated.
5 pages and cover memo.
8.
Draft memorandum for R.H. Vollmer, from I.T. Yin.
Subject:
Comments on SSER License Condition 2.C. (11), Items 2 and 3.
- Undated, 5 paoes.
~ ~
e I C(>CInl R<..ri".ter O'I fACHYICNT,.D
/ stol, 49, gp,
$ 33 / fuest)ay, July pp, 1984 / Yoticcs Q<pP'8129
~glyJ g
~e j "ee~zeeeJvw~~cee JALI+Atc The following Ei iti:"ir;I!ew;Is iss;,nd under the appa:rl irdurt'y Ie:eriier
'egulations (20 CFR 522.1 to 527.9, as amended and 577.20 to 522.25, as amended)..
~
Flushing Shirt! Ifg. Co., Inc.,
Waynesbug. PA;04-18-84 to 04-17-05; 101carners for n<IIIIIallabor turnover purposes. (Work SI!'rts)
'Hie learneis cvtltfiule h:Is b.en issued upon tIIe rcpreseniatio:Is of the employer whirh, among oilier things were that emplukment of learners at special minilnBD1 lu es I 'cessary in order to prevent cur!Dilmrnt of opportunities fur einployirmit, and that
~
experienced wo: kers for tlic learner occupations aie not avril;Ible.
The certificate Inay be annulled or withdrawn as ipdicated theieiu. in the manner proviui:II in 29 Cl'R P Irt 5?8.
Any person aggrieved by the is:;iance of this certificate uiay seek a review or reconsideratiqn thereof on or before )uly 24, 1984.
Signed at Wnshingion. DC, this 2nd day of July 1983.
AIthurH. Koin, Authorized Repro'.seiitoti ve ofthe Admi nisti77tor.
tIQIXC,ee I~'eeB!ed W~ SISerel OIILlNODDDE esis-27 Ie NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMktlSSION IDDd.et HD. 50-70-0'A LL'."- HD. tt3-4g t&1 OLRI Oetserat Electric Co. (GETR Yallecitos);
Prohsattrrg Conference July gt 19a4.
Please take DD!ice that a prehearing oonference in this proceeding willtake pla Ds on August 9, )984. from 9:30 A!Vfto MO PM, at the U.S. District CourL
.Foderal Building, 19th Floor, Courtroom No./,450 Golden Cate Avenue. San Francisco, Caiifoinia 94102. The purpose of the conference is'to hear argument on Mr. Jack Turk's proposed contentions end the California Public Interest Group's request to be readmitted to this proceeding as 1vell as its proposed
'contentionL.",'ral limited appearance statements from the public willnot be entertained at this conference but willbe scheduled for a later time in the event a hearing is ordered. Written limBed appearance statements maybe made at any time.
It is so ordered.
For the hiornic Safety and Licensing BoariL John K Fiye, llL.
Chairman, hdministr77tive fudge.
Bethesda. Maryland.
trR Doc ss l~srded 7~.s& eiei MLJHO CODE 7SSDCIW Adv!3OIy COtnmittee On ReaCIOr
'a'iiuat ds SubcommBtee on Diablo Canyon t<uc'fear Power Plant, Units 4...
and 2, I'eating..>= '-".'.--- '-
C m
~ '
The ACRS Subcommittee on Diablo Canyon Nuclear Power Plant, Units 1 gi 2 wiiihpld a meeting on July 11, 1984, in Room 1130, at 1717 H Street, NYV, Washington, DC.
The entire meeting willbe open to p9blic attendance.
Tl.e agenda for subject meeting shell.
be 'es foilows: Wednesday, fuly11,.
1,
'034-8730 tt.m., untilthe conclusion of busines's.
'l e Siibcommittee wiIIdiscuss matters relating to the issuance of an operating license amendment to permit operation at power levels above 5% of rated power up to fullpower.:
OrIIIstatements may be presented by members of the public with concurrence of the Subcommittee Chairman; written statements willbe accepted and mode" available to the Committee. Recordings willbe permitted only during those '
portions of the meeting when a transcript Is being kept, and questions'ay be asked only by members of the Subcommittee. its consultants. and Staff.
Persons desiring to make oral statements should notify the ACRS staff member named below as far in advance as practicable so that appropriate arrangements can be made.
During the initial portion of the meeting, the Subcommittee, along with any of its consultants who may be
'resent, willexchange preliminary...
views regarding matters to be considered during the balance ofthe.-".
~
e
/
The Subcommittee willthen hear presentations by and hold discussions
~
with representativ'es of the NRC Staff,.;.
their consultants, and ooier interested per'son's regarding this review.
fourth'er information regarding topics to be discussed. whether the meeting, has been cancelled or rescheduled. the CIIairman's ruling on requests for the opportunity to present oral statements and the time allotted therefor can be obtained by a prepaid telephone call to the cognizant ACRS staff member. Mr.
John C. McKinley(telephone 202/634-1413) between 8:15 am:, and 5:00 p.m.
edt.
Dated: July 3,198L Morton W. Uberkta, hssistont &ecutive DirectnrforProject. 7 Revitrsv.
t7R Doc. Se-IS2IS Bled7~ CiS sidt SILLIND CODE 7S~IW
~ e Advisory Conimlttee on Reactor Safenuaids; Revised Notice of fheetlnil 1
In accordance with the purposes ot. e.-
sections 29 and 182b. of the.Atomic.
-'-,'...nergy Act (42 U.S.C. 2039, 2232b.), the Advisory Comtnittee on Reactor Sa feguards willhold a meeting on July 12-14, $ 984. in Room 1046, 1717 14 Street.
NW., Washington, DC. Notice of this ntceting was published in the Federal Register on June 28, 1984.'"'>-;
TIIe agenda for the subject meeting
.'as b'en ievised as noted bcIow7".;".[;" e"..
,77iur"day,)uly 12 1084., ~~ L;f~gg 1;
~ ~-
~: 8:30a.tn;8:45 a.m.: Chairman's Report,;..
(Open)-The ACRS Chaiiman will-report to the Committee rega'rding items of current intere t.
~ 8:45am;10:1$ a.m.': Sngirieetsing "":".
Zxpertt'se On-Shift (Open)The '. '
members willconsider ayroposed NRC
~, policy statement regar'ding an alternate
.'rrangement for meeting the staffing '
requirements of 10 CFR Part 50.54(m)(2).
10:15 a.m.-l2:30p,m. attd 2..30p.m;,
3:30p.m, Rive Bend Nuclear Power Station (Open)-The members will consider the request for an operating
icense for this nuclear station.
I Portions of this session wiIIbe dosed as necessary to discuss Proprietmy Information applicable to this project-and information related fo the security arrangements for this station..
3:30 p.m.-8730 p.m, NRC Sevate Accident Policy Statement(Open)
The
~
members willdiscuss the proposed NRC policy statement regarding -: ~.....':.
~
consideration ofsevere accidents Ia the regulation ofnuclear po'wer plants.. ','..
.. 5Mp.m;6&7p.m 'Futute ACRS: ~
Activities(Open)
The Committee wgl discuss anticipated ACRS activities anB proposed items for fullCommittee
~
'onsideration..
~g tI'Id c!.~>'D;~'1.'riday, JvJy 13, 18ef 8 30 a.m.-11730 a.m 'iabia Canyari+i,'uclear Power Station (OpenJ The 's
Committee willconsider matters'relate'd to the request for fullpower operation of.
this nuclear power plant. Portions ofthis ession willbe closed as necessasy to, I, :..
.~--.=.-,-'.:..
~.
'scuss Proprietary hd5'?m ation~~.kr, '
applicable to this project. ~4I~MM 11:30 a.m.-12:30 pm.t Rev'iesv of%. f".';.
Westinghouse APWR (Open)
The-.'
Committee willhear presenttitions anII discuss a proposed modular reviesstl1't" process for the Westinghouse'Advanced PW1L '.." ~~:,<< '1 e
11.-Iet'st.s~~ae xi.
1Mp.m.&730p.m NRCSevetrs ~'."~
Accident PolicyStatement (Open)
The members willcontinue discussion of the
. proposed NRC policy statement regarding consideration of severe
<1
- ~
ATTACHMENT E PARTICIPANTS IN DIABLO CANYON PEER REVIEW( GROUP ACTIVITIES ORGANIZATION D. ALLISON, O'QRuv/ A.Ss~;:-:;.u~
IE R.
BOSNAK, CeaF PIE SPA l~'H NRR T. BURR, APPlta& PIPGNAWLS EGIN G P.
CHEN ENa.P. Xe%8elCS H.
FLECK. "
M.
HAR ZNP,N. SVR~>~vafz,-L E'V-hlRf-.]fd-5 Co,":;f0/'~
R.
HEISHNANigol.atv Qo>c=S ETEC ETEC NRR IE J.
KNIGHT~ N<<~ <<<<~
NRR K. NANOLY, P(PWC,B<,<WS IIAI-REGION I Aivse s K.
NORTON AA'~-lM Pfaeeaeicg EGIN G E.
RODABAUGH,Mv <<ueQ ECR B.
SAFFELL~ PIPIT,~ ><I'P0P-~S
. BCL+
E.
SULLIVAN APIMB~@ ~TQKSy NRR A4Aa,Vy~g J.
TAYLOR~PlR. >~~.0F QR~ &FE-IE 6MHM5 + N~pecno R-VOLLNER p~g, br', oF ~Cg,.
NRR 1
SPECIFIC ISSUES LC2,3, 6; IDVP LC2,3,6 Lcl,4,5 LCl,4,5 LC l, 2, 3, 7; IDVP LC 1, 2, 3, 7; IDVP LC2,3,6 LC4,5 LC 2, 3, 6; IDVP LC 4,. 5; IDVP I ~ YIN INVOLVED IN GROUP ACTIVITIES TO EXTENT POSSIBLE Etc." BNEQ4g 7&c8Mo~c y'Wc,Q, ccR7~
BCL-QAVTELLCCO~r'gpss.g