ML16341C272
| ML16341C272 | |
| Person / Time | |
|---|---|
| Site: | Diablo Canyon  |
| Issue date: | 03/06/1985 |
| From: | Knighton G Office of Nuclear Reactor Regulation |
| To: | Shiffer J PACIFIC GAS & ELECTRIC CO. |
| References | |
| NUDOCS 8503140244 | |
| Download: ML16341C272 (14) | |
Text
Docket No.:
50-323 WAR 6 1985 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
Dear Mr. Shiffer:
Subiect:
Summary of Meeting on January 10, 1985 Enclosed for your information is a summary of the fourth and final meeting among PGIIE and the NRC staff to discuss your seismic reevaluation program prior to your formal submittal.
Sincerely,
Enclosure:
As stated cc:
See next page DISTRIBUTION
=323%
NRC PDR Local PDR PRC System NSIC LB¹3 Reading LChandler CEarly HSchierling JLee RRothman LReiter SBrocoum GLear PTKuo AThadani RSavio JMcKinley JPKnight RMcMullen fz/
George W. Knighton, Chief Licensing Branch No.
3 Division of Licensing DL:LB¹3 DL:LB¹3 CEarly/yt HSchier g
/
/85 I /'I/8 I
3 G
K ighton JI /85 8503140244 850306 PDR ADOCK 050003a3 A
1 l't' I
t 1
~,
1l'I
~%
'l l'
~
'R
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 5 Electric Company Post Office Box 7442 San Francisco, California 94120 Mr. Malcolm H. Furbush Vice President - General Counsel Pacific Gas E 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 1760 Alisal Street San Luis Obispo, California 93401 Harry M. Willis, Esq.
Seymour 8 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 13 1 Johnson Avenue P. 0.
Box 112 San Luis Obispo, California 93406 Diablo Canyon Resident Inspector/Diablo Canyon NPS c/o US Nuclear Regulatory Commission P. 0.
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 5 Co-Publisher South County Publishing Company P. 0.
Box 460 Arroyo Grande, California 93420 Bruce Norton, Esq.
- Norton, Bur ke, Ber ry 8 French, P.C.
202 E. Osborn Road P. 0.
Box 10569 Phoenix, Arizona 85064 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
I
Arthur C. Gehr, Esq.
Snell 5 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 Mr. Thomas Devine Government Accountability Pro,iect Institute for Policy Studies 1901 gue Street, NW Washington, DC 20009 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 Commission 1516 9th Street, MS 18 Sacramento, California 95814 Lewis Shollenberqer, Esq.
US Nuclear Regulatory Commission Region V
1450 Maria Lane Suite 210 Walnut Creek, Cal ifornia 94596
4 I
r
Dr. 5:T Algermissen US Geological Survey P. 0.
Box 25046 Mail Stop 966 Denver Federal Center
- Denver, Colorado 80225 Mr.
Don Bernreuter Lawrence Livermore Laboratory P. 0.
Box 808 Livermore, California 94550 Dr. Morris Reich Structural Analysis Division Building 129 Brookhaven National Laboratory
- Upton, New York 11973 Dr.
James Davis State Geologist California Division of Mines and Geology Room 1341 1416 Ninth Street Sacramento, California 95814 Br.. David B. Sleranons 2955 Golden Valley, Road
- Reno, Nevada 89506
ti I
~
FOURTH MEETING WITH PG&E REGARDING THE OL LICENSE SEISMIC CONDITION FOR DIABLO CANYON The fourth and final meeting among PG&E, its consultants, and the NRC and its advisors prior to the submission by PG&E of its proposed investigation program to fulfillthe requirements of the Operating License seismic condition was held in Bethesda on January 10, 1985.
The purpose of this meeting was for PG&E to respond to NRC's comments that were generated at the three previous meetings, to discuss the schedule, to decide how to interact with the ACRS, and to discuss interaction procedure between the NRC and the PG&E geologic and seismic panels.
PG&E presented the status of the Diablo Canyon plants.
They have completed 50K power tests for Unit 1 and it is down for two weeks for maintenance.
Unit 2 is also shut down.
The Unit 2 hot test program is complete, but a few more tests are to be done.
The plant is on schedule and will be ready for fuel loading by the end of February.
D. Hamilton, Earth Science Associates, consultant to PG&E, began the discussion on geology and tectonics using the Jennings, 1975 fault map of California.
From PG&E's perspective of the NRC comments, the principal issues regarding this subject are:
(1)
What is the seismic capability of the Hosgri based on its characteristics, and how are the ground motions so determined translated to the site?
(2)
What is the true form of the Hosgri and related faults (strike-slip, thrust, listric)?
PG&E favors an oblique (strike-slip and reverse) sense of motion based primarily on the focal mechanisms of Lynd and Eaton; (3)
What is the real tectonic setting, or tectonic model?
The Hosgr i has to be viewed in a regional context.
The area being considered extends from the Transverse Ranges to the south, to the northern part of the Southern Coastal Ranges to the north, and from the San Andreas fault in the east to the Continental Slope to the west.
(4)
What is the dominant seismic source?
Does the Hosgri mask out all others or are there other potential maximum earthquake sources offshore or onshore within this region?
The program to answer these questions is essentially the same as the one presented during the October 4, 1984 meeting, with certain refinements.
PG&E was cautioned not to be too single-hypothesis directed as this is unrealistic, but to use the multi-hypothesis approach.
They were also advised to use the elements of the seismic condition as presented on the Operating License as their basic guidance document rather than earlier versions.
The PG&E geologic and seismic program consists of three parts:
(1)
Define the geology by means of data identification, data processing, and data interpretation; (2) define the tectonic model; and (3) characterize the significant seismic sources and provide the seismic parameters.
Task (1) is considered by PG&E to be responsive to NRC comments 4 through 12 made at the October 4 meeting.
Task (2) is responsive to NRC comments 4, 5, and 7 of that meeting.
Task (3) is responsive to NRC comments 9 and 11 of the November meeting and comments 2 and 4 of the December meeting.
Each of these three tasks were then discussed in greater detail.
The installation of a seismic network has been discussed at several of the past meetings.
PG8E plans to evaluate the existing capability of the local USGS net-work to see what additional sites may be needed including offshore instruments.
It will present its. findings and plans in a future addendum to the investigation program.
PG8E plans to hire a seismologist to act as the seismology counterpart to geologist D. Hamilton.
PG8E will formally provide, though not as part of the investigation program, a
list of all of its consultants,
- advisors, panel
- members, and principal inves-tigators and some statement as to the level of involvement of each by the end of January.
In regard to magnitude scale, PG8E prefers to use M.
The staff recommended calculating both M
and M
because of significant differences between the two results that have keen documented recently.
The NRC staff and its advisors caucussed and presented the following technical comments:
(1)
The program is well thought out, comprehensive, responsive to our concerns, and has alleviated them to a great extent; (2)
PG8E should formally submit a complete list of principal investigators along with their time (percent) of involvement.
This does not need to be a part of the program; (3)
PG8E should leave open the possibility of more than one tectonic model.
In the probability assessment all models are included, but in the deter-ministic analysis all models reasonably supported by the data should be considered; (4)
PG8E should not rule out the need to obtain new data; (5)
While collecting and analyzing data, PG8E should keep all reasonable tectonic models in mind.
The two studies should be conducted more or less in parallel.
The multiple-working hypothesis approach should be utilized.
Procedural comments were also presented by the NRC as follows:
I
,r
(1)
The four meetings that we have had during this stage of the license seismic condition activity have been very beneficial and will in the long run save much time and effort; (2)
The program must be flexible and have the capability of being expanded, cut back, or changed as the need arises while it is underway; (3) It must be kept in mind that the basis of the program is the Licensing Condition; (4)
The ACRS must be kept informed.
After much discussion it was decided that adequate copies of all materials and reports from the investigation will be sent directly from PGLE to the
- ACRS, and also to NRC advisors.
(5)
The NRC staff would like to meet with the program advisory board about one month after receiving the program.
ACRS and the State of California may also want to be involved.
This meeting will likely take place in March or April, 1985.
PGRE described its quality control and quality assurance program.
In response to an NRC inquiry, PG8E stated that those portions of the seismic reevaluation program not addressed in today's meeting would also be part of the January 30, 1985 submission.
Considerable discussion centered around the subject of periodic reporting.
The NRC preferred formal, written quarterly status reports as a means of keeping informed of the progress of the program, but PG&E preferred to keep the staff up to date by less formal means, such as meetings.
The final course of action on this matter was left until the parties met in-house to formulate their positions.
A decision will be reached in the near future.
'I l
'I p