ML16341A460
| ML16341A460 | |
| Person / Time | |
|---|---|
| Site: | Diablo Canyon  |
| Issue date: | 09/28/1973 |
| From: | Anthony Giambusso US ATOMIC ENERGY COMMISSION (AEC) |
| To: | Searls F PACIFIC GAS & ELECTRIC CO. |
| Shared Package | |
| ML16341A458 | List: |
| References | |
| NUDOCS 8501030379 | |
| Download: ML16341A460 (6) | |
Text
CrlCI gkt~
n I
l
~
t~rr '
g+
~I4III CI cket Nos. 50-275 and 50-323 UNITED STATES A
MIC ENERGY COMMISSION WASHINGTON, D.C.
20545 September 28, 1973 Pacific Gas and Electric Company ATTN:
Mr. Frederick T. Searls Vice President and General Counsel 77 Beale Street San Francisco, California 94106 yypllM+O Gentlemen:
l4e have conducted a re iew t e revised application-for o eratin licenses for Diab a
on U
1 and w xc you tendered to t e Comm ssion on September 26, 1973.
The Final'afety Analysis Report (FSAR) has been revised to reflect the comments from our completeness review of the application that you tendered on July 10, 1973.
On the basis of our review, we have concluded that the revised FSAR is adequately complete to permit us to docket your application and establish a review schedule.
Accordingly, you should file 25 copies of the general and financial information (including three signed and notarized originals) and 70 copies of the FSAR, as required by. Section 50.30(c) of 10 CFR Part 50.
As mentioned in our letter of August 13, 1973, incorporation into your application by reference of your Environmental Report, Supplements, and Appendices is acceptable, and no further information is required in this area at the present time.
Our conclusion that the revised FSAR is adequately complete is based on an overall evaluation of this document, with the realization that deficiencies <~till exist in several areas that will need to be corrected in the near future.'he most significant of these deficiencies are the detailed analysis of potential pi.pe breaks outside containment, analyses of the potential consequences of tornado generated missiles, and results of the boring program and the dynamic stability analysi,s in connection with the slope located east of the plant.
Additional information will also be required relative to regional tectonic and seismic setting, containment heat removal and containment air purification and cleanup systems.
All of these items were referred to in Enclosure 1 of our letter of August 13, 1973.
Information on these and any other outstanding items should be submitted by amendment to your application as soon as possible in order to facilitate the review process.
D IlypllcW @~3 850<0SOW9 84<all PDR ADOCK 05000275 H
PDR If~a!I I 'Il~f~'~,, ',! I:.I'I'IIIIIII' rk'rkl+h~g!I "4I+I'Xt'kir'I~II1rti'Ihf~g[I Eo El,',IIIIINI ~ ~ 4k,ttr4+~
Ih tffr'l'fIIIAM~I"'I'>ll'kkl'>rftr',Ihr fr I
i 'sf~
1f
')
pacific Gas and Elec
"" Company
,r
-I ~mber 28, 1973 I
1he request for additional financial information (see Enclosure 2 of our letter of August 13, 1973) has not yet, been addressed.
You are xeminded that we will require this information in order to complete our review.
Therefore, you should submit it as soon as possible.
If d ring the course of our review of your application, you believe there is a need to bring to the special attention of Licensing managemen t matters that involve a disagreement with a staff position relating to your application, you may have the opportunity to bring the matter to the attention of the Director of Licensing, the Deputy Director for Technical Review, or me.
This may be done either orally or in writing, but you should specify the matters to be discussed and indicate your reasons fox disagreement with the staff reviewers.
The matters to be di cussed will be the subject of a meeting held by the Director of Licensing.
Your company should be represented at the meeting y a scus e
b responsible corpoxate representative.
Staff representatives will include the Deputy~irectors of Reactor Projects and Technical Review or their Assistant Deputy Directors.
This procedure is an informal one designed to allow opportunityhfor applicants to discuss, with Licensing management, areas of disagreement in the case review.
Sincere ly, A. Giambusso, Deputy Dire~
for Reactor Projects Dixectorate of Licensing cc:
Mr. M. J. Lindblad, Project Engineer pacific Gas and Electric Company 77 Beale Street San Francisco, California 94106 P. A. Crane, Jr., Attorney of Record Pacific Gas and Electric Company 245 Market Street San Francisco, California 94106
~
~
APPENDIX A CHRONOLOGY OF THE RADIOLOGICAL REVIEW l.
July 10, 1973 Application containing the FSAR tendered by Pacific Gas and Electric Company.
2.
August 13, 1973 Applicant notified that the FSAR portion of the application is not sufficiently complete for docketing.
3.
August 15, 1973 4.
August 21, 1973 Initial site visit by LPM.
Meeting with applicant to discuss the deficiencies in the FSAR.
5.
September 26, 1973 6.
September 28, 1973 Revised application tendered by PG&E.
Applicant notified that application is sufficiently
- complete, and s as required by Section 5
0 of 1
CFR Part 7.
October 2,
1973 Application docketed.
8.
October 10, 1973 Letter to applicant disclosing staff position regarding ATNS.
9.
October 19, 1973 Notice of opportunity for hearing published in Federal Register (38 FR 29105).
- 10. October 25, 1973 Site visit and meeting related to geology and seismology.
11.
November 5, 1973 Letter to a licant remindin him of his 12.
November 14, 1973 Site visit and meeting related to meteorology, hydrology, radiological assessment, and accident analysis.
13.
November 19, 1973 Submittal of Amendment No.
1 consisting of miscellaneous revised and additional pages of the FSAR.
I 4
A 0
~
0