ML16341G465
| ML16341G465 | |
| Person / Time | |
|---|---|
| Site: | Diablo Canyon  |
| Issue date: | 02/10/1992 |
| From: | Boger B Office of Nuclear Reactor Regulation |
| To: | Zamek J AFFILIATION NOT ASSIGNED |
| Shared Package | |
| ML16341G466 | List: |
| References | |
| NUDOCS 9202270100 | |
| Download: ML16341G465 (54) | |
Text
~y4 RECy
~
+4
~
0 Cy A.0
~o %.
++*++
UNITED STATES NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSION WASHINGTON, D. C. 20555 February 10, 1992 Ms. Jill ZamEk 1123 Flora Road Arroyo Grande, CA 93420 Dear 'Ms.
ZamEk:
At the meeting of the NRC's Advisory Committee on Reactor Safeguards (ACRS)
Subconmittee on Extreme External Phenomena held in San Luis Obispo on September 16, 1991, you presented a petition requesting that the NRC implement a complete and independent seismic study of the Diablo Canyon area by the U.S.
Geological Survey.
This letter is in response to your petition.
The seismic adequacy of nuclear power plants such as Diablo Canyon is a matter of continuing interest to the NRC.
For this reason, when the NRC issued the Operating License for Diablo Canyon Unit 1, the license included a condition requiring Pacific Gas and Electric Company (PG&E) to conduct a reevaluation of the seismic adequacy of the plant.
The license condition required a reevalua-tion of all aspects of the sei smic design of the plant, including geology, seismology, engineering, and probabi listic risk studies.
The PGSE reevaluation, called the Long-Term Seismic Program (LTSP), was com-pleted and a final report on the LTSP was issued by PGKE in July of 1988.
From the beginning of this reevaluation program the NRC staff has closely scrutinized PG&E's activities.
This included holding about 50 public meetings with PGSE to discuss seismic issues>
participating in geologic field trips, and independent studies by NRC consultants.
This NRC oversight frequently led to the NRC staff asking PGSE to expand the scope of its effort or perform additional studies to resolve technical issues.
Following the completion of the LTSP, the NRC staff and its consultants con-ducted a thorough, detailed, and independent review of the LTSP.
During the course of the staff review, several hundred written technical questions about the LTSP were originated by the NRC staff and its consultants, and responded to by PGSE.
The NRC staff's review was documented in Supplemental Safety Evalua-tion Report Number 34 (SSER 34), issued on June 6, 1991 (the sumary section of SSER 34 is enclosed).
Contrary to some descriptions in the local press about SSER 34, it did not "re-issue" the LTSP Final Report.
Rather, it is a critique of the LTSP, and includes appendices that present the opinions of some of the staff consultants, including the U.S. Geological Survey.
In SSER 34 the NRC staff concluded that, subject to the completion of a minor confirmatory item, PGRE has met the license condition that required a reevaluation of the Diablo Canyon seismic design.
The seismic safety of nuclear power plants is a complex subject, involving a number of scientific and engineering disciplines.
For this reason, the NRC review of the LTSP involved a wide variety of technical experts, including members of the NRC staff and consultants to the staff.
The staff selected its consultants for their expertise in each of the specific disciplines involved.
q202270100 9
027'DR~
ADQCK <<0 PDR P
~C RK CHEER CSPV g
0 4
't U
4I l
k
Vis. Jill ZamEk For example, the U.S. Geological Survey was used as a consultant in the areas of geology and seismology, and Brookhaven National Laboratory was used in the areas of systems analysis and probabilistic risk analysis.
In addition to spending over 11,500 person-hours of effort by NRC staff tech-nical experts to review the LTSP, the staff contracted with a number of tech-nical consultants to conduct independent studies related to the seismic safety of Diablo Canyon.
Specifically, in the geosciences area the NRC funded development by the U.S. Geological Survey of interpretations of seismic reflection profiles from the Santa Naria Basin, and the evaluation of a number of central California earthquakes.
Also, the NRC funded studies by the University of Nevada-Reno of the regional geology of central coastal California, and the geology of the San Luis-Pismo block, the San Simeon area, and the Casmalia-Orcutt area.
Finally, in the geosciences area the NRC funded regression analyses of strong motion data from large earthquakes.
In the area of seismic engineering the NRC funded an independent analysis of soil-structure interaction of the Diablo Canyon containment building by a consultant from Rice University.
In the area of probabili tic risk assessment the NRC funded a
number of independent studies by Brookhaven National Laboratory and Sandia National Laboratory, and by
- EOE, a private consulting firm.
On the basis of the independent studies conducted by NRC staff consultants including the U.S. Geologic Survey, as well as the independent review of the LTSP by the NRC staff and its consultants, the NRC staff concluded that (I) PGKE has met the license condition requiring a seismic reevaluation of Diablo Canyon, and (2) the Diablo Canyon seismic design has been validated and continues to be acceptable.
The LTSP, the NRC staff review of the LTSP, and the independent studies con-ducted by the staff have also been reviewed by the NRC's Advisory Comnittee on Reactor Safeguards (ACRS).
The ACRS is an independent advisory committee established by the Atomic Energy Act of 1954 that reports to and advises the Commission, and is separate from the NRC staff.
As may be seen from the ACRS letter on the LTSP
( see ), the ACRS concurs with the NRC staff conclusion that the license condition requiring PG&E to conduct the LTSP has been met.
The ACRS letter further concludes that
( I) the seismic margins for the plant are adequate and quite comparable to those for other plants in the United States, (2) the Probabi listic Risk Assessment (PRA) showed no signifi-cant seismic vulnerabilities, and (3) Diablo Canyon can be operated without undue risk to the health and safety of the public.
I
Ns. Jill ZamEk 3
In view of the studies conducted by PGKE, the review of the PGRE studies by the NRC staff and its consultants, the independent studies conducted by NRC consultants, and the independent review of the PG8E studies and the NRC staff studies conducted by-the ACRS, all of which are essentially in agreement, we conclude that yet another independent study of the seismic design of Diablo Canyon is not warranted.
Since rely,
Enclosures:
1.
SSER 34 Summary 2.
ACRS letter dated 10/18/91 Bruce A. Boger, Director Division of Reactor Projects III/IV/V Office of Nuclear Reactor Regulation CC:
Petitioners
f
Ms; Jill ZamEk In view of the studies conducted by PG&E, the review of the PG&E studies by the NRC staff and its consultants, the independent studies conducted by 'NRC consultants, and th'e independent review of the PG&E studies and the NRC staff s'tudies conducted by the ACRS, all of which are essentially in agreement, we conclude that yet another independent study of the seismic design of Diablo Canyon is not warranted.
Sincerely,
Enclosures:
1.
SSER 34 Summary 2.
ACRS letter dated 10/18/91 Bruce
. Boger, rector Division of Reactor Projects III/IV/V Office of Nuclear Reactor Regulation CC:
Petitioners
I Ms. Jill ZamEk In view of the studies conducted by PG&E, the review of the PG&E studies by the NRC staff and its consultants, the independent studies conducted by NRC consultants, and the independent review of the PG&E studies and the NRC staff studies conducted by the ACRS, all of which are essentially in agreement, we conclude that yet another independent study of the seismic design of Diablo Canyon is not warranted.
Sincerely,
Enclosures:
1.
SSER 34 Summary 2.
ACRS letter dated 10/18/91 CC:
Petitioners
~oi ical Signed by Bruce A. Boger, Director Division of Reactor Projects III/IV/V Office of Nuclear Reactor Regulation DISTRIBUTION 20'-275/323)
NRC PDR/LPDR(w/cy of incoming)
JSniezek THur 1 ey/FMirag 1 ia JPartlow BBoger MVirgilio PDV r/f TQuay rl, HRood BMcDermott DFoster GBagchi RRothman PSobel NChokshi RPichumani GCook,RV SShankman OGC(15B18)
GPA
'Gibbons JTaylor
, 'Zimmerman,RV t
EJordan ACRS(10) (P315)
KBrockman ETana,PMAS(w/cy of incoming)
'JBlaha HThompson SECY(Ref.DSB 91-148)
JMartin,RV
- NAME
- DFoster DATE
( /i</A-
- D P
~ W NAME
- BBoger&>
DATE:g,/L /gi I
E R
~
D
- HRood
- (/~ 9' D
D
- TQuay ~4(
~W 0 l n.ega ocument arne:
G D
4 D
- MVirgi R/6 /9l
af
~f
~ 1 I g I
~ ~
1 Ri 4>
~ f h
~
D
Hs. Jill ZamEk CC:
Christopher Constant 2609 Greenwood St.
Horro Bay, CA 93442 Kristina Garcia 1911 12th St.
't.
Los Osos, CA 93402 Sacha Polston 2005 10th St.
Los Osos, CA 93402 Isaac Morton 1911 12th St.
Los Osos, CA 93402 Pat Veesart 1570 Hansen Ln.
San Luis Obispo, CA 93401 Frank E. Garcia 1700 San Ramon Rd.
Atascadero, CA 93422 Elzbet Diazdehin 1135 San Anders St.,
ND California 93101 Carol Flash 850 Church San Luis Obispo, CA 93401 Kathy Combrink 1432 Toro St.
San Luis Obispo, CA 93401 Francesca Bolejain 2460 Ross Rd.
- Cambria, CA 93428 Erin Cupningham P.O.
Bok 2012 Atascadero, CA 93423 Louie A. Quade 546 Kings Ave.
Morro Bay, CA 93442 Suebob Davis 967 Broad St.
San Luis Obispo, CA 93401 Ramona Benson Rte 2, Box 440 San Luis Obispo, CA Paul Andrews 2005 10th Los Osos, CA 93402 Penny Paine 2715 Los Osos Valley Rd.,
NC Los Osos, CA 93402 Nan S. Kamilton 219 Le Point Arroyo Grande, CA 93420 Josh Doherty 828 Lake Sherwood Thousand
- Oaks, CA 91361 Linda Powell-HcMilian Gillis Canyon Road
- Cholame, CA 93431 R.
Mal pede 212 Olive St.
Santa
- Cruz, CA 95060 Dennis Combrink 1432 Toro St.
San Luis Obispo, CA 93401 John Beall 226 N. Murphy Ave.
Sunnyvale, CA 94086 Dan Roy 2460 Ross Rd.
- Cambria, CA 93428 Lenore Arntson 497 Orcas Horro Bay, CA 93442 Carolyn Pressley 5387 Capistrano Ave.
Atascadero, CA 93422 John Evan 1221 Sylvia Ct.
San Luis Obispo,'CA 93401
Hs. Jill ZanEk CC:
Hike Wegler 430 South St.
San Luis Obispo, CA 93401 Ray Clark P.O.
Box 15616 San Luis Obispo, CA 93406 Hike Graf 1071 Hentone Ave.,
Grover City, CA 93433 Sandra Sheets 3019 Bahia Ct.
San Luis Obispo, CA 93401 Resident 120 Hi Mountan Rd.
Arroyo Grande, CA Jean C. Gordon 1140 Iris San Luis Obispo, CA 93401 Kathy Hayes 1023 N. Thornburg Santa Maria, CA 93454
'loria 160 Graves San Luis Obispo, CA 93401 Michael A. Yoshimura 337 N. Tassajara Dr.
San Luis Obispo, CA 93401 Stephanie Paff 183 San Jose Ct.
San Luis Obispo, CA 93405 Laura Presley 644 Jeffrey Dr.
San Luis Obispo, CA 93405 Julie A. McGonagill 485 Arbutus Morro,Bay, CA 93442 Tanya Richardson 430 South St.
San Luis Obispo, CA 93401 Caren Callaway P.O.
Box 15616 San Luis Obispo, CA 93406 Dana Wright 752 Islay St.
San Luis Obispo, CA 93401 Caroline Sheets 3019 Bahia Ct.
San Luis Obispo, CA 93401 Elaine E. Holder 931 West St.
San Luis Obispo, CA 93405
'tephnie Wald 4034 Orcutt Rd.
Santa Maria, CA 93455 El izabeth Apfelberg 939 Noyes Rd.
Arroyo Grande, CA 93420 Mary Joyce Yoshimura 337 N. Tassajara Dr.
San Luis Obispo, CA 93401 Nancy Culver 192 Luneta San Luis Obispo, CA 93405 Katy Simer 1677 HcCollum St.
San Luis Obispo, CA 93405 Gordon Long 1356 San Luis Ave.
Los Osos, CA 93402 Ann Morgan 1570 Berwick Dr.
- Cambria, CA 93428
41 Hs. Jill ZanEk CC:
Colleen Hacklin Musial 536 Creston Rd.
Paso Robles, CA 93446 James Perry 633 Lawrence Dr., ¹B San Luis Obispo, CA 93401 Robin Frank 550 E. HcKellips Rd.
¹1081
- Mesa, AZ 85203 Patricia McCarron 227 Younglove Ave.
- Santa
- Cruz, CA 95060 Jaim Hanson 2005 10th St.
Los Osos, CA 93402 Kam E. Fierstine 335 La Canada Dr.
San Luis Obispo,-CA 93405 Elizabeth Snodgrass 472 Sandercock,
¹C San Luis Obispo, CA 93401 Hilary McQuie
~ 3605 23rd St.
San Francisco,
'CA 94110 Dawn Black-Fox 1516 E.
Rose Santa Maria, CA 93454 Patricia A. Hiller 1962 Hope St.
San Luis Obispo, CA 93405 Jim Simon 314 Higuera St.
San Luis Obispo, CA 93401 Al Hangan 2122 W.
Dean
- Spokane, WA 99201 Rosemary Donnell P.O.
Box 870 Horro Bay, CA 93443 Catherine Perry 633 Lawrence Dr., ¹B San Luis Obispo, CA 93401 Andrew Knauss 550 E. HcKellips Rd.
¹1081
- Mesa, AZ 85203 Katie Franklin 206 Margarita,
¹21 San Luis Obispo, CA 93401 Jason Hanson 2005 10th St.
Los Osos, CA 93402 Jessica E. Nelligan 335 La Canada Dr.
San Luis Obispo, CA 93405 Richard J.
Krejsa 189 San Jose Ct.
San Luis Obispo, CA 93405 Robin Kosseff 3605 23rd St.
San Francisco, CA 94110 Bill Sorenson P.O.
Box 2448 Weavervi lie, CA 96093 Stephan Schoenfield 1820 Santa Barbara San Luis Obispo, CA 93401 Pete Evans 2040 Rachel San Luis Obispo, CA 93401 Tom August 138 Old Creek Rd.
- Cayucos, CA 93430
Hs. Jill ZanEk CC:
Rosalyn Clifton 302 Vista Del Har Shell
- Beach, CA 93449 John Beccia Star Rt.
Box 235 Santa Margarita, CA 93453 S.
T. Furth 1911 Aspen St.
Los Osos, CA 93402 Heather Pancoast 1911 Aspen St.
Los Osos, CA 93402 Terry Hinoli P.O.
Box 675 San Luis Obispo, CA Terry Robinson 27900 Skyview Wi 1 l its, CA Irv HcHilian 1000 Park St.
'Paso
- Robles, CA 93446 Pat Renshaw 1312 Aralia Ct.
San Luis Obispo, CA 93401 Kathy Teufel 6445 Corral de Piedra San Luis Obispo, CA 93401 Jim R. Bernardo 236 First St.
Avila Beach, CA 93424 Nanette, Nettles 1775 Doh Ave.
Los Osos, CA 93402 Jerry Windsor 8th St.
Los Osos, CA 93402 Mark Skinner 1566 9th St.
Los Osos, CA 93402 Sandy Booker 915 Bouganville St.
San Luis Obispo, CA 93401 Joel Pancoast 1911 Aspen St.
Los Osos, CA 93402 Hat Park P.O.
Box 305 Avila Beach, CA 93424 Bill W. Horales P.O.
Box 675 San Luis Obispo, CA
~
Jan Silberberg 21 Belvedere St.
San Francisco, CA 94119 Jim Merkel 392 Pismo St.
San Luis Obispo, CA 93401 Richard Teufel 6445 Corral de Piedra San Luis Obispo, CA 93401 Perris D. Bernardo 236 First St.
Avila Beach, CA 93424 Patricia Frank 3615 Ardilla Ave Atascadero, CA 93422 Noel Finn 1775 Don Ave.
Los Osos, CA 93402 Harvin Heskett 2174 Beebee St.
San Luis Obispo, CA 93401
I
Hs. Jill ZamEk CC Shawn Ecklund 2174 Beebee St.
San Luis Obispo, CA 93401 George Hennelq 1370 12th St.
Los Osos, CA 93402 Sheila Baker 1370 12th St.
Los Osos, CA 93402 Lissa Chavez 1391 Vista Del Lago San Luis Obispo, CA 93405 Bill Horril 1853 12th St.
Los Osos, CA 93402 Evelyn Madison 905 W. Las Flores Santa Maria, CA 93454 Steve Leeds 1205 5th Ave San Francisco, CA 94122 Jim Akers 1269 4th St.,
IIB Los Osos, CA 93402 Don Wilson 10810 San Harcos Rd.
Atascadero, CA 93422 R. Hichael Jenken P.O.
Box 1565 Atascadero, CA 93423 Patty Estrada 1996 9th St.
Los Osos, CA 93402 Heidi Lewin-Hiller 472 Mitchell Dr.
San Luis Obispo, CA 93401 Coralie HcHilian 1000 Park St.
Paso
- Robles, CA 93446 Gai 1 Comer 1370 12th St.
Los Osos, CA 93402 Craig Steffens P.O.
Box 15814 San Luis Obispo, CA 93406 Anna Schneider P.O.
Box 14853 San Luis Obispo, CA 93401 Will J. Teal 1665 12th St.
Los Osos, CA 93402 Gia Haeih P.O.
Box 8235
- Anaheim, CA 92812 Resident 5120 Bridge Creek Rd.
San Luis Obispo, CA 93401 Hike O'onnell 156 Broad St.
San Luis Obispo, CA 93405 Susan Bobo 1311 15th St.
Los Osos, CA 93402 Roberta L. Teubner P.O.
Box 1565 Atascadero, CA 93423 J.
D. Lortz 121 Shanna Pl Grover City, CA 93433 Alex Magan 1806 Huasna Dr.
San Luis Obispo, CA 93405
0 4
J
Hs. Jill ZamEk CC:
Mike Gillman 1874 HcCollum St.
San Luis Obispo, CA 93405 Herschel Apfelberg 939 Noyes Rd.
Arroyo Grande,.
CA
- 93421 Anne Cruikshanks 1792 Conejo Ave.
San Luis Obispo, CA 93401 Susan Nielsen 259 Harloe,
¹A Pismo Beach, CA 93449 Marcelle N. Hartin.
P.O.
Box 15347 San Luis Obispo, CA 93406 Richard Thomas 830 Wadsworth Pismo
- Beach, CA 93449 Eva Uran 4320 S. Higuera,
¹6 San Luis Obispo,'CA 93401 Sam Hednick 2329 Los Arboles Way Los Osos, CA 93402 Yern Ahrendes 1525 Ramona Grover City, CA 93433 Cary Yamashiro 314 Higuera St.
San Luis Obispo, CA 93401 Merb Leqtz P.O.
Box 7010
- Halcyon, CA 93421 Bob McAfee 1996 9th St.
Los Osos, CA 93402 Susan Foster 46 Prado Rd.
San Luis Obispo, CA 93401 Hike Apfelberg 939 Noyes Rd.
Arroyo Grande, CA 93421 Jesse Brossard P.O.
Box 36 Arroyo Grande, CA 93421 Wanda Hichalenko 7368 Hollister Ave., ¹1
- Goleta, CA 93117 Raymond K. MacKenzie 264 N. 8th St.
¹C Grover City, CA 93433 Rita Comp 1183 El Camino Real ¹D-5 Arroyo Grande, CA 93421 Kwee Eng Thomas 830 Wadsworth Pismo Beach, CA 93449 Shirley Mednick 2329 Los Arboles Way Los Osos, CA 93402 Bonnie Glendenning 1525 Ramona Grover City, CA 93433 R.
Compton 5330 Ensenada Atascadero, CA 93422 Bob Berry 1015 Charming Way
- Berkeley, CA 94710 Lisen Bonnier 6015 Los Osos Valley Rd.
San Luis Obispo, CA 93405 Camina Tripodi 521 E. Cherry Arroyo Grande, CA 93420 Dorene Garvin 321 E St.,
¹3
- Cayucos, CA 93430
Ms. Jill ZamEk CC:
Kathy DiPeri 46 Prado Rd.
San Luis Obispo, CA 93401 Jeff Scott 573 Winterhaven Arroyo Grande, CA 93420 Elmo Paige 8888 Toro Creek Rd.
Atascadero, CA 93422 Margaret Evans 1673 9th St.
Los Osos, CA 93402 Raye Fleming 1920 Mattie Rd.
Shell
- Beach, CA 93449
.Meg Simonds P.O.
Box 249
- Bolinas, CA 94924 Rachel Richardson P.O.
Box 6345 Los Osos, CA 93412 Elden T. Boothe P.O.
Box 464 Los Olivos, CA 93441 Bob Lavelle 370 Islay St.
San Luis Obispo, CA 93401 Kieth 8888 Toro Creek Rd.
Atascadero, CA 93422 K. Huggins Star Rt:
Box 238 Santa Margarita, CA 93453 Joshua Hadley 1250 Tiffany Rd.
San Luis Obispo, CA 93405 Carol Loomis 3660 Jatta Rd.
Arroyo Grande, CA 93420 Judy Neuhauser 531 Highland Los Osos, CA 93402 Katie Wheeler 285 Hacienda Dr.
- Cayucos, CA 93430 Jack Artusio 1604 Morro, ¹1R San Luis Obispo, CA 93401 Marilyn Rossa-Quade 546 Kings Ave.
Morro Bay, CA 93442 D. Boatwright 1405 Sacramento
- Berkeley, CA Vivian E.
Engel 1490 Primavera La.
- Nipomo, CA 93444 Lianne E. Hutton 1490 Primavera La.
- Nipomo, CA 93444 Dorothy Bagley Booth 2604 Gold Cove Port Hueneme, CA 93041 Susan Biesek 2829 See Canyon Rd.
San Luis Obispo, CA 93405 Sally Craig 8888 Toro Creek Rd.
Atascadero, CA 93422 Mary P.
Cooper Star Rt.
Box 238 Santa Margarita, CA 93453 Joan E. Carter 1071 Islay St.
San Luis Obispo, CA 93401 Nancy Norwood 467 Luneta Dr.
San Luis Obispo, CA 93405
II lc lf
Ms. Jill ZamEk CC:
Herchel L. Jeffrey 939 Noyes Rd.
Arroyo Grande, CA 93420 Jane Swanson 475 Squire Canyon Rd.
San Luis Obispo, CA 93401 Gordon Carscaden 1214 Fernwood Dr.
San Luis Obispo, CA 93401 Jati ana Michal enko 7368 Hollister Ave., ¹1 San Luis Obispo, CA 93401 Diane Waddell 1068 Pacific St.
San Luis Obispo, CA 93401 Elaine L. Richards 8585 O'Donovan
- Creston, CA 93432 Hai 1 a Haf1ey 2145 Cypress Rd.
San Luis Obispo, CA 93401 Jennifer Nellis 2409 Greenwood Ave.
Morro Bay, CA 93442 Vivian Lane 405 Hacienda Dr.
- Cayucos, CA 93430 John H. Culver 192 Luneta San Luis Obispo, CA 93405 Perry Pqderson P.O.
Bok 7163
- Halcyon, CA 93421 Marty Milery 385 Hacienda Dr.
- Cayucos, CA 93430 Theodore Calender 270 Quail Hill Ave.
Arroyo Grande, CA 93420 Judi Carscaden 1214 Fernwood Dr.
San Luis Obispo, CA 93401 Jessica Strong 1184 Islay St.
San Luis Obispo, CA 93401 Lauri Elliott 1147 Kit Way Santa Maria, CA 93455 Mary Stallard 239 Piney Way Morro Bay, CA 93442 Jacquelyn Wheeler 3303 Ramona Ct.
San Luis Obispo, CA 93401 Mark E.
Hagen 2400 Greenwood Ave.
Morro Bay, CA 93442 Wally Stahle P.O.
Box 1024 San Luis Obispo, CA 93406 Franklin Frank 3615 Ardilla Dr.
Atascadero, CA 93422 June A. von Ruden 921 Longview Ave.
Pismo Beach, CA 93449 Larry Batcheldor 1874 McCollum St.
San Luis Obispo, CA 93405 Janet Klugiewkj 2014 N.W. Glisan ¹305 Portland OR 97209
yl
Hs. Jill ZamEk cc:
Luis Kemnitzer 3638 Anza St.
San Francisco, CA 94121 Tony Hetcalf 26410 Ironwood Moreno Valley, CA 92360 Julia H. Krejsa 189 San Jose Ct.
San Luis Obispo, CA 93405 Kathie Hoon 3912 Hollyhock San Luis Obispo, CA 93401 Judson Bell P.O.
Box 7092
- Halcyon, CA 93421 Jon Rider 1118 Flora Rd.
Arroyo Grande, CA 93420 Resident 1111 Flora Rd.
Arroyo Grande, CA 93420 Ann Sawyer 427 Tanner Ln.
Arroyo Grande, CA 93420 David Rockwell 695 Pismo St.
San Luis Obispo, CA 93401 Jack Biesek 2829 See Canyon Rd.
San Luis Obispo, CA 93405 Sara West 1420 Palm San Luis Obispo, CA 93401 Diana Bistagne 8360 San Clemente Atascadero, CA 93422 Deb Bennett 26410 Ironwood Horeno Valley, CA 92555 Roger A. Henied 2940 16th St.,¹310 San Francisco, CA 94103 Lois H. Barber 728 Ocean Blvd.
Shell
- Beach, CA 93449 E.K. Alex 1123 Flora Rd.
Arroyo Grande, CA 93420 Julie Rider 1118 Flora Rd.
Arroyo Grande, CA 93420 Jim Richards 428 Tanner Ln.
Arroyo Grande, CA 93420 John Walton 477 Tanner Ln.
Arroyo Grande, CA 93420 Kristen Haliber 868 Vista Arroyo San Luis Obispo, CA 93405 Neal Sister 2512 Lawton San Luis Obispo, CA 93401
0 5
Enclosure 1
1 INTRODUCTION AND
SUMMARY
1.1
~Bk d
The two nuclear units at the Diablo Canyon Nuclear Power Plant (Diablo Canyon) are substantially identical pressurized-water reactors.
Each unit consists of a Westinghouse-designed nuclear steam supply system (NSSS) in a four-loop reactor coolant system, with a turbine generator, auxiliary equipment, and associated controls and instrumentation.
The NSSS for each unit is contained within a steel-lined, reinforced-concrete structure that is capable of with-standing the pressure that might be developed as a result of the most severe design-basis loss-of-coolant accident.
Units 1 and 2 are licensed to produce 3338 and 3411 thermal megawatts, respectively.
These power levels result in net electrical outputs of 1084 and 1106 MWe, respectively.
The units are owned and operated by the Pacific Gas and Electric Company (PGEE).
The Diablo Canyon plant is located on a 750-acre site on the central California coast in San Luis Obispo County, approximately 12 miles west-southwest of the city of San Luis Obispo, California.
The site is roughly equidistant from San Francisco and Los Angeles, California.
The Nuclear Regulatory Commission's predecessor
- agency, the Atomic Energy Commission (AEC}, issued a construction permit (CP) for Diablo Canyon Unit 1 on April 23, 1968, and for Unit 2 on December 9, 1970.
In 1975, the regulatory functions of the AEC were assumed by the Nuclear Regulatory Commission (the Commission, or the NRC).
After construction was complete, the NRC issued operating licenses (OLs) for the Diablo Canyon units.
The NRC issued a full-power OL for Unit 1 on November 2, 1984, and for Unit 2 on August 25, 1985.
The two units have been in operation since their OLs were issued.
Unit 1 recently completed its fourth refueling outage and is back on line.
Unit 2 is scheduled to be shut down for its fourth refueling outage in September 1991.
Because California is an area of relatively high seismic activity, geological and seismic issues have played a major role in the design and licensing of Diablo Canyon.
Before NRC issued the Diablo Canyon construction permits, PG8E conducted geological and seismic investigations to validate the acceptability of the site.
These investigations included region"-'tudies and detailed onshore site investigations consisting of trenching, core drilling, and geological mapping in the vicinity of the site.
During the time of the Diablo Canyon CP review, the NRC regulation that currently governs seismic design (Appendik A to 10 CFR Part 100) was in the early stages of development, and the concepts of the safe shutdown earthquake (SSE} and operating basis earthquake (OBE) were still being developed.
At the time the CP was issued, PGEE concluded, and the AEC concurred, that the earthquake design bases for Diablo Canyon would be a peak horizontal ground acceleration (PGA) of 0.4g for safety-related structures and a
PGA of 0.2g for operational-related structures.
These seismic design criteria were based on consideration of two design-basis earthquakes:
a magnitude 7-1/4 earthquake on DIABLO CANYON SSER 34
i k
f, t
the Nacimiento fault 20 miles from the site, and a magnitude 6-3/4 aftershock at the site associated with a large earthquake on the San Andreas fault. It was also concluded at that time that there was no surface displacement hazard (capable fault) in the site vicinity.
This conclusion was based on the absence of any displacement of the 80,000-year-old and 105,000-year-old marine terraces underlying the site area.
Later, while geological investigations in support of the Diablo Canyon OL applications were under way, oil company geoscientists discovered that a major zone of faulting existed a few miles off shore from the plant site.
This proprietary offshore geophysical information was made public in 1971 (Hoskins and Griffith, 1971).
When the Diablo Canyon Final Safety Analysis Report (FSAR) was initially submitted for NRC review in 1973, it briefly described the offshore fault zone, calling it the East Boundary Fault Zone.
During the next few years, in response to NRC staff requests for additional information, PG8E investigated this fault zone.
In addition, the U.S.
Geological Survey (USGS), with NRC funding, conducted numerous offshore investigations of the fault zone.
The zone was later re-named the Hosgri fault after its discoverers, Hoskins and Griffith (Wagner, 1974).
Based on the results of these
- studies, recommendatsons by the
- USGS, and the issuance of Appendix A to Part 100 (1973), the NRC required that the SSE for Diablo Canyon be established as a horizontal PGA of 0.75g based on a postulated magnitude 7.5 earthquake on the Hosgri fault 5 km (3 mi) from the Diablo Canyon site
[Supplemental Safety Evaluation Report (SSER) 4, Hay 1976].
This is usually called the Hosgri ground motion.
Subsequently, PGEE reanalyzed and upgraded the plant to accommodate the new (Hosgri) seismic design basis.
The seismic design basis for Diablo Canyon was reviewed and approved by the Commission's Advisory Committee on Reactor Safeguards (ACRS).
The ACRS letter approving the seismic design of the plant was issued on July 14, 1978, and included the statement that ultimately resulted in the Long-Term Seismic Program (LTSP):
"The Committee recommends that the seismic design of Diablo Canyon be reevaluated in about ten years taking into account applicable new information."
After public hearings before the Commission's Atomic Safety and Licensing Board (ASLB} and Atomic Safety and Licensing Appeal Board (ASLAB), and meetings with the Commission, OLs were issued for both Diablo Canyon units.
As stated
- above, full-power Facility Operating License DPR-80 for Unit 1 was issued on November 2, 1984, and full-power Facility Operating License DPR 82 for Unit 2 was issued on August 25, 1985.
The Unit 1 full-power OL was conditioned to require that PGEE update the geqlogical, seismological, and ground-motion information, reevaluate the magnitude of the earthquake used to determine the Diablo Canyon seismic design basis, reevaluate ground motion expected at the
- site, reassess engineering and equipment
- response, and perform a seismic probabilistic risk assessment (PRA) and deterministic studies, as necessary.
The license condition was imposed because of (1) the substantial amount of offshore exploration for hydrocarbons, (2) significant advances in geology, seismology, and geophysics that had occurred since the beginning of the site
- review, and (3) the ACRS recommendation quoted above.
DIABLO CANYON SSER 34 1-2
K
)
1.2 The License Condition The license condition that led to the LTSP and the submittal of the LTSP Final Report was included in the Diablo Canyon Unit 1 full-power license, DPR-80, as License Condition 2 AC.(7), which reads as follows:
(7)
Seismic Desi n Bases Reevaluation Pro ram SSER 27 Section IV.5}
PG8E shall develop and implement a program to reevaluate the seismic design bases used for the Diablo Canyon Nuclear Power Plant.
The program shall include the following Elements:
(1)
PGKE shall identify, examine, and evaluate all relevant geologic and seismic data, information, and interpretations that have become available since the 1979 ASLB hearing in order to update the geology, seismology and tectonics in the region of the Diablo Canyon Nuclear Power Plant.
If needed to define the earthquake potential of the region as it affects the Diablo Canyon Plant, PG&E will also reevaluate the ear lier information and acquire additional new data.
(2}
PG8E shall reevaluate the magnitude of the earthquake used to determine the seismic basis of the Diablo Canyon Nuclear Plant using the information from Element 1.
(3)
PGKE shall reevaluate the ground motion at the site based on the results obtained from Element 2 with full consideration of site and other relevant effects.
(4)
PGEE shall assess the significance of conclusions drawn from the seismic reevaluation studies in Elements 1,
2 and 3, utilizing a probabilistic risk analysis and deterministic studies, as necessary, to assure adequacy of seismic margins.
PGEE shall submit for NRC staff review and approval a
proposed program plan and proposed schedule for implementation by January 30, 1985.
The program shall be completed and a final report submitted to the NRC three years following the approvaf of the program by the NRC staff.
PGKE shall keep the staff informed on the progress of the reevaluation program as necessary, but as a minimum will submit quarterly progress reports and arrange for semi-annual meetings with the staff.
PGhE will also keep the ACRS informed on the progress of the reevaluation program as necessary, but not less frequently than once a year.
PG&E responded to the license condition by submitting a program plan for the seismic design-basis reevaluation (the Long-Term Seismic Program, or LTSP) on DIABLO CANYON SSER 34 1-3
J 1<
f
January 30, 1985.
The staff reviewed the plan, and, after the plan was reviewed by the ACRS, the staff approved a modified version of the plan by letter dated July 31, 1985.
PG&E then conducted the program as described in the program plan, issuing progress reports to the NRC staff in accordance with the requirements of the license condition, On July 31, 1988, PG&E submitted its final report on the Diablo Canyon LTSP (Brand, 1988).
Since then, the NRC staff has met a number of times with PG&E, has made a number of requests for additional information, and has received submittals from PG&E in response (see Appendix A of this SSER, "Chronology of LTSP Review" ).
As a result of its review, conducted with the assistance of a number of expert consultants, the NRC staff has concluded that, subject to satisfactory analytical substantiation of the confirmatory item discussed
I 1.3 Summar of NRC Staff Review of the LTSP 1.3.1 Element 1 of the License Condition With regard to element 1 of the license condition, the NRC staff has reviewed submittals by PG&E and concludes that PG&E has identified, examined, and evaluated all relevant geologic and seismic data and interpretations since the 1979 ASLB hearing.
- Further, PG&E has updated the geology, seismology, and tectonic characteristics of the Diablo Canyon region.
In addition, PG&E has reevaluated selected earlier information and acquired new data relating to the earthquake potential in the region as it affects the Diablo Canyon plant.
Specifically, PG&E has conducted a program over several
- years, including the following:
(1) acquisition and reprocessing of numerous oil industry seismic reflection profiles, including proprietary data (2) acquisition of new seismic reflection data, principally off shore, but also on shore, to fill in the gaps between existing data (3) analysis of deep-crust-penetrating seismic reflection and refraction lines (4) analysis and interpretation of well-drilling logs (5) investigations-of onshore faults and their offshore extensions, including the San
- Simeon, Los Osos, Wilmar Avenue,
- Edna, San Higuelito, San Luis Bay, Olson, and Rattlesnake faults (these faults were investigated by geological mapping, trenching, borings, geomorphic studies, age dating, and,mapping of marine and fluvial terraces) analysis of bathymetry, sea-floor sampling, and diver exploration (7) installation of seismic and strong-motion networks and seismicity analysis (8) tsunami and seismic analyses to relocate the 1927 Lompoc earthquake and reevaluate its magnitude (9) empirical attenuation studies and numerical modeling to develop ground-motion estimates for the site DIABLO CANYON SSER 34 1-4
I f
'h I
(10) probabilistic seismic hazards analysis In summary, the NRC staff finds that the geological, seismological, and geophysical investigations and analyses conducted by PG&E and its consultants for the LTSP are the most extensive,
- thorough, and complete ever conducted for a nuclear facility in the United States, and have advanced the state of know-ledge in these disciplines significantly.
On this basis, the NRC staff finds that PG&E has complied with element 1 of the license condition in an acceptable manner.
1.3.2 Element 2 of the License Condition Element 2 of the license condition requires that PG&E reevaluate the magnitude of the earthquake used to determine the seismic design basis at Diablo Canyon using the information developed for element 1.
The NRC staff has reviewed the information submitted by PG&E and finds that the conclusion reached during the staff's review of the Diablo Canyon OL application, that the Hosgri fault is the seismic source that could cause the maximum vibratory ground motion at the Diablo Canyon site, is still valid.
The maximum credible earthquakes that could occur on any other fault or fault zone in the site vicinity would produce smaller ground motions at the site.
PG&E concludes that the maximum earthquake associated with the Hosgri fault zone has a magnitude of 7.2 and could be located on the strand of the Hosgri that is nearest the site (the closest epicentral distance from the Diablo Canyon site is 4.5 km).
The NRC staff has reviewed the PG&E conclusion and finds it acceptable.
On this basis, the staff finds that PG&E has met element 2 of the license condition.
1.3.3 Element 3 of the License Condition Element 3 of the license condition requires that PG&E reevaluate the ground motion at the site with full consideration of site and other relevant effects.
In order to determine the ground motion at the site, one necessary piece of data is an estimate of the style of faulting on the controlling fault.
This is important because regression analyses of the empirical ground-motion database show that reverse-slip motion on the Hosgri fault would produce higher ground motion at the site than strike-slip motion, for the same earthquake magnitude.
In the LTSP Final Report, PG&E concluded that earthquake motion on the Hosgri fault is best characterized as 65-percent strike-slip, 30-percent oblique-slip (midway between strike-slip and reverse-slip),
and 5-percent thrust-slip (reverse-slip with a low dip angle).
On the basis of its review and the advice of its consultants, the staff finds that the style of faulting on the Hosgri fault is predominantly right-lateral strike-slip, with a subordinate but substantial reverse (vertical) component.
Specifically, the staff concludes that ground motion at the site should be evaluated for an earthquake on the Hosgri Sault that is 2/3 strike-slip and 1/3 reverse-slip.
Thus, the staff conclusion gives greater weight to the reverse-slip component of motion.
To determine ground motion at the plant site, it is also necessary to determine the attenuation of ground motion as it propagates from the earthquake hypocenter to the site.
The staff has reviewed PG&E's empirical ground-motion attenuation model and numerical modeling studies and has performed an independent attenuation study to estimate ground motion at the Diablo Canyon DIABLO CANYON SSER 34 1-5
k 8
IP I 4
site.
The staff's analysis was based on the staff's estimate (described above) of the ratio of strike-slip to reverse-slip motion expected from an earthquake on the Hosgri fault.
The resulting independently estimated ground-motion spectra at the plant site have been compared to the spectra developed by PME for the LTSP.
As is discussed in Section 2.5.2.3 of this SSER, the results show that the staff's estimates of both the 50th and 84th percentile horizontal ground-motion spectra at the site is equal to or less than the PME spectra at frequencies above 1 Hz, but exceeds the PG&E spectra at frequencies at and below 1 Hz.
For vertical ground motion, the staff's 84th percentile vertical spectra exceed the PME vertical spectra over the frequency range from 1 to 10 Hz (Figures 2.4 and
- 2. 5).
While PG&E has met the requirements of element 3 of the license con-dition by its reevaluation of ground motion at the site, to fully satisfy element 4 of the license condition, PG&E must demonstrate that the plant structures can withstand these exceedances.
1.3.4 Element 4 of the License Condition Element 4 of the license condition requires PME to assess the significance of the conclusions drawn from elements 1, 2, and 3 using probabilistic and deter-ministic methods, as necessary, to assess seismic margin adequacy.
PME has performed a deterministic analysis as well as a
PRA and has concluded that the plant seismic margins are adequate.
PG&E performed detailed soil-structure interaction (SSI) analyses to determine the effects of dynamic interaction between the plant structures and the founda-tion rock under lying the plant on the seismic response of plant structures.
The analyses showed that the effects of ground-motion incoherence and embedment of structures (lumped into the "tau effect" in previous studies) reduce the seismic response of some plant structures, but not others.
Specifically, incoherence reduces response about 15 percent for the auxiliary building and about 20 percent for the turbine building, but is minimal for the containment shell and internal structures.
The NRC staff found, based on its review of PG&E analyses and on analyses conducted by staff consultants, that the PG&E SSI analyses were comprehensive,
- thorough, and acceptable.
The Diablo Canyon PRA analysis conducted by PG&E included both internal and external events.
The objectives of the PRA were to (1) assess the importance of various structures and items of equipment to seismic risk and (2) put the seismic risk in perspective by comparing it to the risk from other external and internal initiators.
Risk in this context refer s primarily to the estimated core damage frequency (CDF).
The PME PRA results indicate that the mean overall CDF for Diablo Canyon is estimated to be 2.0E-4/yr (the staff estimate is 4.0E-4/yr), which is similar to that of other nuclear plants.
The PG&E PRA shows that internal events contribute 63 percent of the total CDF, with seismic events contributing 18 percent and other external events contributing 19 percent.
The NRC staff estimates of these values are:
- internal, 70 percent;
- seismic, 10 percent; and other external
- events, 20 percent.
A component importance study indicated that the single greatest contributor to seismic risk is failure of the turbine building shear wall (30'f the total seismic CDF), followed by DIABLO CANYON SSER 34 1-6
J U
V
'J loss of 230-kV offsite power (24K of the seismic CDF), and failure of the diesel generator control panel (lOX of the seismic CDF).
PG&E performed deterministic comparisons using its LTSP ground-motion estimates and showed that the major plant structures at Diablo Canyon have adequate seismic margins.
As a result of a separate reevaluation by the NRC staff of the adequacy of the seismic resistance of masonry walls, PG&E plans to modify all the safety-related masonry walls.
The modifications will be determined on the basis of analysis using the Hosgri ground-motion.
Selected walls will be evaluated against the LTSP spectra to ensure acceptable margins.
The staff has reviewed and approved the modification criteria and the results of PG&E's evaluation of the deterministic margins of selected masonry walls.
As is discussed under element 3, above, the staff's estimates of the horizontal and vertical ground-motion spectra exceed PG&E's estimates by about 15 percent or less over part of the frequency range.
PG&E has concluded (Shiffer, 199li and k) that the plant seismic margins are adequate to accommodate the horizontal and vertical spectral exceedances that result from use of the staff's estimates of horizontal and vertical spectra.
The staff has reviewed PG&E's evaluation of the vertical and horizontal exceedances and finds it acceptable, but will require PG&E to perform analyses to confirm its conclusion.
Subject to satisfactory completion of analyses confirming that the seismic margins are adequate to accommodate the staff's spectral estimates, the staff concludes that PG&E has met element 4 of the license condition.
In summary, the staff has reviewed PG&E's PRA and deterministic analyses of selected structures and equipment and finds them acceptable.
Therefore, sub-ject to satisfactory completion of the analyses necessary to confirm that the spectral exceedances discussed above can be accommodated by plant seismic
- margins, the staff concludes that PG&E has met element 4 of the license condition.
1.4 Summar of Staff Conclusions In summary, the staff has reviewed the PG&E submittals relating to the LTSP
- and, subject to confirmation by PG&E that the plant seismic margins are adequate to accommodate the spectral exceedances discussed under element 4
- above, the staff finds that License Condition 2.C.(7) of DPR-80 has been met.
The staff notes that the seismic qualification basis for Diablo Canyon'will continue to be the original design basis plus the Hosgri evaluation basis, along with the associated analytical methods, initial conditions, etc.
The LTSP has served as a useful check on the adequacy of the seismic margins and has generally confirmed that the margins are acceptable.
For future plant design mbdifications, the staff concludes that LTSP spectra, increased to envelope the exceedances in the vertical and horizontal spectra discussed in Section 2.5.2.3 of this
- SSER, should be used to verify that the plant high confidence of low probability of failure (HCLPF) values remain acceptable (Section 3.8 of this SSER).
PG&E has agreed (Shiffer, 19911) to review future plant modifications in the light of the findings of the
- LTSP, and is currently developing an implementation procedure for that purpose.
DIABLO CANYON SSER 34 1-7
)ltI
1.5 NRC Staff Consultants In conducting its review of the LTSP, the NRC staff engaged a number of con-sultants.
In several instances, the consultants performed independent investi-gations and analyses.
The following is a list of the consultants, their organizational affiliations, the areas they reviewed, and the independent work they performed.
(1)
Keiiti Aki, University of Southern California, reviewed the numerical modeling ground-motion studies.
(2)
Ralph J. Archuleta, University of California, Santa Barbara, reviewed the numerical modeling ground motion studies.
(3)
Michael Bohn, Sandia National Laboratory, reviewed the PRA.
(4)
Robert Brown, Thomas Brocher, Jerry Eaton, Steve Lewis, David HcCulloch, and David Schwartz, U.S. Geologic Survey (USGS),
reviewed geology, geophysics, and tectonics studies (see Appendix C of this SSER) and conducted independent interpretations of the seismic reflection data covering the offshore Santa Maria Basin.
(5)
Kenneth M. Campbell, Dames 8 Moore (formerly with USGS),
reviewed PGEE's empirical ground-motion attenuation studies and conducted independent empirical ground-motion studies.
(6}
Carl J. Costantino, College of the City of New York, reviewed the soil-structure'interaction analyses.
(7)
Steven M. Day, San Diego State University, reviewed numerical modeling ground-motion studies.
(8)
George Bozoki, Robert Fitzpatrick, P.
Kohut, and H. Sabek, Brookhaven National Laboratory, reviewed the PRA analyses, did independent studies of several
- systems, and performed importance and sensitivity studies using a reduced plant model.
(9)
James Johnson and M. K. Ravindra, E(E, Inc., reviewed the PRA.
(10) David B.
- Slemmons, Douglas Clark, Steve
- Nitchman, Katheryn Killeen, Barbara Hatz, Xiaoyi Ehang, Eutizio Vittori, Richard Schweickert, and Kirk
- Swanson, University of Nevada,
- Reno, reviewed PGKE's geology, geophysics, and tectonics characterization studies (see Appendix D of this SSER).
These consultants also conducted independent
- studies, including (1)'eological field reconnaissance of the San Simeon area, (2) geological mapping of the Morro Bay, Los Osos, and Edna fault areas, (3) mapping of marine and fluvial terraces of the San Luis-Pismo structural block, (4) mapping, determination of capability, and determination of sense and magnitude of displacement on the Los Osos and Milmar Avenue faults, (5) mapping and determination of the nature of displacement on the Foxen Canyon fault, (6} determination of the nature of regional tectonic stresses in the Diablo Canyon region, (7) conducting a remote sensing analysis of the Diablo Canyon region, and (8) determination of the cause DIABLO CANYON SSER 34 1"8
and amount of late quaternary uplift on the Casmalia-Orcutt structural bl ock.
(11) Anestis S. Veletsos, Rice University, reviewed soil-structure interaction analyses and conducted an independent soil-structure interaction study using a simplified analytical model of the Diablo Canyon power-block structures.
1.6 NRC Staff Contributors The following members of the NRC staff contributed to the staff review discussed in this SSER:
G. Bagchi A. Buslik N. Chokshi A.
Lee R. HcNullen R. Pichumani H.
Rood R.
Rothman T.
Ryan P,
Sobel DIABLO CANYON SSER 34 1-9
0 tq I
,C s'C yl II
~ y h hfg
+~
~0
+see~
UNITEDSTATES NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSION ADVISORYCOMMITTEEON REACTOR SAFEGUARDS
'WASHINGTON, O. C. 20555 Enclosure 2
October 18, 1991 The Honorable Ivan Selin Chairman U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission Washington, D.C.
20555
Dear Chairman Selin:
SUBJECT:
DIABLO CANYON NUCLEAR POWER PLANT LONG TERM SEISMIC PROGRAM During the 378th meeting of the Advisory Committee on Reactor Safeguards, October 10-12,
- 1991, we reviewed the NRC staff's evaluation of the Long Term Seismic Program (LTSP) carried out b the Pacific Gas and Electric Company (licensee) in connection with ou y
its Diablo Canyon Nuclear Power
- Plant, Units 1
and 2.
This evaluation is included in Supplement No.
34 to NUREG-0675, the staff's Safety Evaluation Report for the operation of these plants.
The background for the LTSP is described below.
The ACRS provided reports on construction permit applications for Diablo Canyon, Unit 1, in December
- 1967, and for Unit 2 in October 1969.
Xn both instances, no particular concern was expressed about the seismic design basis, which was 0.2g for the Design Earthquake and 0.4g for what was called the Double Design Earthquake.
In 1971, the Hosgri Fault was discovered and the seismic design bases were reviewed and revised over the next few years.
During this period, the ACRS and its consultants in the areas of geology, seismology, and earthquake engineering were involved to a sig<<
nificant extent in the efforts of the staff and the licensee to arrive at new seismic design bases.
During this period, the ACRS held ten subcom >,Itee meetings, seven of which related to seismic matters.
Three of these seven meetings were held in San Luis Obispo, California, near the siteg two in Los Angeles, California; and twGI in Washington, D.C.
~4 The ACRS review of the operating license application for Diablo Canyon was completed with two subcommittee meetings and a meeting of the full ACRS in June and July 1978.
The ACRS report endorsing an operating license was issued on July 14, 1978.
This report included extensive discussion of the revised seismic design bases for the plant and reasons for finding them acceptable, and concluded with the following statement:
KDO
- 007112 j)
C g gg~ P-t'0
4 It I\\
I
)I II
The Honorable Zvan Selin October 18, 1991 "The ACRS notes that, for distances less than 10 km from the earthquake
- source, there are currently no strong motion data for shocks larger than magnitude 6 and few reliable data for shocks of magnitude 5 and 6.
Also, the theory and analyses of earthquake and seismic wave generation, of seismic wave transmission and attenuationf and of soil-structure interaction are in a state of active development.
The Committee recommends that the seismic design of Diablo Canyon be reevaluated in about ten years taking into account applicable new informa-tion."
As a result of this recommendation by the ACRS, the NRC included in the operating license for Diablo Canyon a license condition requiring what became known as the Long Term Seismic Program.
The Committee reviewed this license condition at subcommittee and full committee meetings in May and June
- 1984, and indicated its agree-ment in a report dated June 20, 1984.
The operating license was issued in November of that same year.
The licensee and the NRC staff spent the next year developing and reviewing a plan for the conduct of the LTSP.
The ACRS reviewed the proposed plan and indicated its agreement in a report dated July 17, 1985.
The LTSP was begun in July 1985 and completed in July 1988 three years as required by the license condition.
During that period, the Committee reviewed progress on the program at subcommittee meetings in November 1986 and February 1988.
Zn addition, the Committee's consultants in the areas of geology and seismology attended numerous meetings at which the results from the program were presented and discussed by the licensee, the NRC
- staff, and other interested and knowledgeable persons.
The staff's Safety Evaluation Report covering the LTSP was issued in June 1991, after a substantial period of review of the li-censee's report and requests
- for, and submittal of, additional information.
Our final review involved a subcommittee meeting in San Luis Obispo on September 16-17,
- 1991, and review by the full ACRS during its 378th meeting.
At our subcommittee meeting on September 16, 1991, several members of the, public expressed the view that the United States Geological Survey'USGS) should be retained by the NRC to perform an inde-pendent seismic study of the Diablo Canyon area.
We see no need for such a study.
The USGS was retained by the staff as a consul-tant on geologic and seismologic matters, as were other competent consultants.
During progress in the program and in our review of the final report and safety evaluation, we", with the help of our consultants in these
- areas, have given special attention to the activities of the licensee and the staff relating'to geology and seismology.
We are satisfied that these programs have been carried out in a competent and professional manner.
Those geologic and
~l I
E.
V f
'N 1
p
~
~
The Honorable Ivan Selin October 18, 1991 seismologic characteristics of the area that are significant to the seismic safety of the plant are not at issue among the large number of experts and consultants associated with the licensee, the staff, and the ACRS.
We agree with the staff's conclusion that, subject to resolution of some minor confirmatory items, the License Condition has been met.
We believe further that the seismic margins for the plant are adequate and quite comparable to those for other plants in the United States.
The results of the probabilistic risk assessment show no significant seismic vulnerabilities.
We continue to believe that the Diablo Canyon Nuclear Power Plant can be operated without undue risk to the health and safety of the public.
Mr.
James C.
Carroll did not participate in the Committee's deliberations regarding this matter.
Sincerely, David A. Ward Chairman 8
1.
U,S.
Nuclear Regulatory Commission, NUREG-0675, "Safety Evaluation Report Related to the Operation of Diablo Canyon Nuclear Power Plant, Units 1 and 2, Supplement 34," June 1991 2.
Pacific Gas and Electric Company, "Final Report of the Diablo Canyon Long Term Seismic Program," July
- 1988, and addenda through May 29, 1991
~
~
OFFICE OF THE SECRETARY DOCKETING AND SERVICE BRANCH CONTROL TICKET TICKET NUMBER:
DSB-91-148 UTILITY/
DIABLO FACILITY:
CANYON DOCKET NUMBER:
DOCUMENT TYPE:
ADJUDICATORY DOCUMENT TITLE:
PETITION AND PUBLIC COMMENT AUTHOR:
REPRESENTING:
RECE IP IENT:
SUBJECT:
ZAMEK &BECCIC AFFILIATION:
COMMISSION DOCUMENT DATE:
CROSS-
REFERENCE:
09/15/91 DOCKET DATE:
/
/
ACTION OFFICE:
EDO ACTION: APPROPRIATE ACTION DUE:
COMMISSION ACTION EXPIRATION DATE:
/
/
DISTRI BUT ION:
COMM.
CH ILK. OGC, CAA, (E~DO NOTES:
TMTL MEMO FRALEY TO CHILK DTD 9/1'9:
RECD 9/23 SPECIAL HANDLING:
DSB NUMBER:
l g
~
l
~
y-'., <c g(-