ML17083B864
| ML17083B864 | |
| Person / Time | |
|---|---|
| Site: | Diablo Canyon  |
| Issue date: | 03/20/1987 |
| From: | Stello V NRC OFFICE OF THE EXECUTIVE DIRECTOR FOR OPERATIONS (EDO) |
| To: | Panetta L HOUSE OF REP. |
| Shared Package | |
| ML16341E132 | List: |
| References | |
| NUDOCS 8703310242 | |
| Download: ML17083B864 (20) | |
Text
The Honorable Leon E. Panetta United States House of Representatives Washington, D. C. 20515 Dear Congressman Panetta:
This,is in response to your letter to Chairman Zech, dated February 12,
- 1987, regarding the adequacy of the NRC staff's evaluati he proposed expansion, or reracking, of the two spent fuel pools at th iablo Canyo Nuclear Power Plant using high density spent fuel racks.
In par ou express concern that the staff, by declining to retain the services of Brookhaven National Laboratory (BNL), has subjected the proposed reracking by the Pacific Gas and Electric Company for the Diablo Canyon spent fuel pools to a less rigorous and less conservative review than that being performed for the similar reracking proposal for the Byron Station in which BNL is participating.
In addition, you suggest that the staff's efforts are not in accord with the opinion rendered by the U.S. Court of Appea&.
For purposes of clarification, the review of a reracking proposal (or, for that matter any license or amendment request) involves numerous technical disciplines of both a safety and environmental nature.
The staff, although possessing substantial expertise of its own in all relevant areas, does augment its capabilities from time to time in order to deal with particular issues in a timely and efficient manner.
For this reason, the staff retained consulting services in connection with its review of reracking requests for a number of nuclear power plants, in particular to assist in the area of structural analyses.
Expertise in this subject is not uniquely confined to any particular organization, such as BNL.'n the past, the staff has employed the Franklin Research Center (FRC), which'is well qualified in seismic-structural
- analyses, to provide consulting services in connection with spent fuel pool expansion requests by many other utilities.
The staff is satisfied that the FRC efforts have been objective an'd thorough, as I explained in my letter to you dated October 21, 1986.
BNL was selected to assist the staff in its review of the Byron reracking proposal primarily because of FRC schedular constraints and resource limitations resulting from its involvement in the Diablo Canyon review effort.
The scope of work assigned to BNL in connection with Byron is substantially the same as that assigned to FRC for Diablo Canyon, namely, assistance in the review of seismic-structural modelling and analyses.
The same review process, criteria and analytical procedures are being applied'to both cases.
The questions raised by BNL with respect to Byron are related to but one of the many aspects of the entire review, namely, the conservatism of a particular analysis of multi-rack impact forces.
The BNL approach will ultimately result
~7G~~iO~'~:
S7OS O
r oa moocah 'osaoon's
~
U PDR
~
J 4 )I 9
lt
~Wl 1 4 ll PV M,
'yfl 4
~,
Vl J l'W,'
P
'lM ll M
.')y ll
"'tl*yH I
t,h 4>>f) II yM)"
9 lh t'jt
, 'I Wt 9
'9 *',9' I
II 4
11, Pv hh
, tl W
') I, w
)
4, h
1 I'
I 1
Il M
4}f) I h,fl 4
~
P
- tj I
M Vr I,i I ),);,jj
'P f
'49<>
yhf tj 'V 4'I
"'9 Nt I I,"
hit Vg I tt '4 "Ij
" Mif 9) }H.'I M9 H
It MV,g t
t M
V
)
M 4
)
MM)h l~
}qn'),
h M'll
'f 9
I V
I IM I
.I)4 "'
'),P>>
jj 'f ll 9
"} 9 I I',9 j
II H h) Hfg lt 4
)al )l I
>> I I)
M 9
4
- 9 Il I
IVM I"4 4 I M
I P~
9 f, v ) ',
ll 4}',i'
'I P
4 f))
~ 4 9 Mf f M
', 'J Ut 4 I
I'l I
M'g>>
I t',
4 I '> ).} 'fM r I. fl
~,f 4 4
W 'I V-V f Jj Wy h}))t I')M h'h jj [ },Itf ty 11 V'M)
, )j>>
H
)
Wf l>>
M V It 9
f.hh>>
9,
in a more refined explanation of the physical phenomena being analyzed.
It should be emphasized that, with,respect to the Byron reracking proposal, neither the staff nor BNL has rejected as inadequate the analysis submitted in support of the licensee's amendment application.
- Rather, the staff has requested that the licensee provide additional information in support of its
- proposal, as routinely occurs in conjunction with staff review efforts when questions arise.
The staff is continuing its review of the Byron reracking application as additional information is provided.
Very promptly after learning of BNI 's questions regarding Byron, the staff requested that Pacific Gas and Electric Company address'he same questions and has aggressively sought to resolve them for the Diablo Canyon proposal.
In order to assure consistency of the respective
- reviews, and in recognition of the sensitivity of this issue at Diablo Canyon because of the greater seismic hazard potential, BNL is being kept abreast of all actions being taken on Diablo Canyon and is participating with the staff and FRC in resolving the issue.
In fact, to avoid any question of the adequacy. of the record in the Diablo Canyon proceeding, the staff will present the principal BNL structural reviewer for the Byron review as a witness at the Diablo Canyon hearing as a
member of the panel which will include the staff and FRC reviewers.
Consistent with the direction of the U.S. Court of Appeals, this hearing will be held prior to any approval being given to rerack the spent fuel pools.
In light of the foregoing actions, which should allay any concerns you might have regarding the comprehensiveness and integrity of the review of the Diablo Canyon reracking proposal, I do not believe it is necessary to have yet additional review efforts undertaken.
I am confident, given the vigor with which the matter is being pursued by the staff and its consultants, by the licensee and by the intervenor in the Diablo Canyon proceeding, that upon conclusion of the licensing process, including the hearing at which this issue will be addressed, the matter will be resolved in such a manner as to assure the health and safety of the public.
Sincerely, Crigimal signed by i75.otor St e1lo, Victor Stello, Jr.
Executive Director for Operations ce~P~
PD¹3
- CVogan 3/13/87 ard
- ERossi 87 3/13/87 lh I
NR@0 OCA HDQton
, 'lo 3//87
/87 3'87 ActgD:PMR-A
- TNovak 3/13/87 N
'DD Sniezek 3/I 87 cc:
Rep. Morris K. Udall O6~
Rep.
John D. Dingell i7+~,
Rep. Philip Sharp Diablo Canyon Service List
- See previous concu PD¹3 OGC PD¹3
- HSch ing b~+~
- SVarga 1
3/13/87 3/)Io/87 3/13/87 3/
'll M
,I n ll,i,fit*)ig
,I r~
>frj 'fiick H
If I
IV 1
ii n
Htr v~
Il jj il' j
5 ) nfl "I,j ii 'l) j( -in(
i-h
<<) i/t 1 l "H>>n V
g, f jn) '>>rl
,ntt f <I'fff.
HH>>
w Il 1
'I I
, 'I 3
<<,I I
Inn I
I)
I'<<>>I Htl Mrtj'n i
Ht i <<K "vjjlC'f 1
Vtii P Hr "li I
't~ I I
j, r I
t 'I
~
il )
}
'ji nl,,rll.
f fr 4
C>>
'll' Mnf
.i 1
I V
Inf H
Hli
~ r 1
I i
M
~'
I l',
!C H'n
~+')9 '),I ii>>
ff-,
I)C H
yf) tj lif dl C>>
)M)
. ffy
- ) gA H
'i nl, M
it iin N n ~
)
) >>)
ll' C
~
%1
)
H
, r
"~ )
,")I j Z->>Vy
~
~ i (tir IP ~ jrM ji tedI I >> l Htg A
<<j(
n
but seeks further explanation of the physical phenomena being analyzed.
It should be emphasized that, with respect to the Byron reracking proposal, neither the staff nor BNL has rejected as inadequate the analysis submitted~in support of the licensee's amendment application.
- Rather, the staff has s mply requested that the licensee provide additional information in support of ts
- proposal, as routinely occurs in conjunction with staff review efforts>chen questions arise.
The staff is continuing its review of the Byron reracking application as additional information is provided.
Very promptly after learning of BNL's questions regarding Byron
,the staff requested that Pacific Gas and Electric Company address the same questions and has aggressively sought to resolve them for the Diablo Cyfiyon prop'osal.
'n order to assure consistency of the respective reviews, and,in recognition of the sensitivity of this issue at Diablo Canyon because os'the greater seismic hazard potential, BNL is being kept abreast of all actions being taken on Diablo Canyon and is panticipating with the staff andPRC in resolving the issue.
In fact, to avoid any question of the adequaoy of the record in the Diablo Canyon proceeding, the staff will present tIle'rincipal BNL structural reviewer for the Byron review as a witness at the Diablo Canyon hearing as a
member of the panel which will include the staff and FRC reviewers.
Consistent with the direction of the U.S. Court of Appeal
, this hearing will be held prior to any approval being given to rerack t e spent fuel pools.
In light of the foregoing actions, which s ould allay any concerns you miqht have regarding the comprehensiveness and ntegrity of the review of the Diablo Canyon reracking proposal, I do ot believe it is necessary to have yet additional review efforts undertaken.
I am confident, given the vigor with which the matter is being pursued by he staff and its consultants, by the licensee and by the intervenor in the Diablo Canyon proceeding, that upon conclusion of the licensing process, including the hearing at which this issue will be addressed, the matter we'll be resolved in such a manner as to assure the health and safety of the p blic.
Sincerely, cc:
Honorable orris K. Udal:1 Honorable John D. Dingell
- Honorabl, Philip Sharp Diablo Canyon Service List
'Victor Stello, Jr.
Executive Director for Operations PD¹3 CVo 7/'87 PD¹3 HSchi ing:pds 3Q /87 NRR RYollmer 3/
/87 OGC 3/
/87 NRR HDenton 3/
/87 p
EB A:E a
RBallard E ossa
/
7 3/
/87 3//3/87 EDO VStello 3/
/87
M
' "4 H
Hfj l it
'E r 4>>)
EN NI $ vi il H
HH
~
f I li
(
HJ
. (
'4
~ 'I 4
N If r) H f
1
,",',1>>t I'4
<< 'll t
~
'in <<I H
'll'
'I (fl pn)p'f,(
)in H E<<
nr H
I tf 4
I I
H I fr Q<<E H
l I
F 1
I/
)
C)HN
,(
'4
~
H,
-,N ft" '(g, F,H
,'- ~ 4 Hn-rq)n f
I"f
(
j I
N,
, i)
Hlf, I' n,<<E
)I )IE
(
i f
Itn ',,(>>
Hlf,j 'Hf' f
~.-'N fF, H,(
<<4 H
H Ni(HH<<
tt h
)4, IN>>
<<4 4
4 '"I'N f
>>1
'I j f 'lii4
'Hll'I'4'>>)'E=N HM ll f "g
Nf ln <<>>
H F) r,'I I
IH I
4'I (fi g I
4(
Hgf F
I' 14>>>>f 4
f
,HN $,4
. 4j
>>HI 1<<n>>,
F) f<<nn
'K' n '<<
H H)fN'4 I
H H
4
DISTRIBUTION Docket (50-275/323) w/
NRC PDR Local PDR EDO¹002576 EDO Reading H. Denton/R.
Vollmer T. Novak S.
Varga C.
Vogan H. Schierling OPA D. Mossburg (EDO¹00257 PAD¹3 r/f PAD¹3 GT File L. Harmon V. Stello SECY OGC ASLAB ASLBP ACRS (16)
J.
Resner (2) (ll-501)
J.
Roe T.
Rehm J. Sniezek J. Martin J.
Murray J. Taylor T. Novak L. Olshan H. Ashar R. Ballard D. Jeng E. Rossi L. Chandler H. McGurren G. 0. Bright J.
Harbour B.
P. Cotter OCA incoming 6)
3,
~h
E, N '
gU tI 1
0 I'
II g
Sg 9
I k f -p H i' II
The Honorable Leon E. Panetta United States House of Representatives Mashington, D. C. 20515 Ilear Congressman Panetta:
This is in response to your letter to Chairman 7ech, dated February 17,
- 1987, regarding the adequacy of the NRC staff's evaluation of the proposed exp'ansion, or reracking, of the two spent fuel pools at the Diablo Canyon Nuclear Power Plant using high density spent fuel racks.
In particular, you express concern that the staff, by declining to retain the services of Brookhaven National Laboratory (BNL), has subjected the proposed reracking by the Pacific Gas and Electric Company for the Diablo Canyon spent fuel pools to a less rigorous and less conservative review than that being performed for the similar reracking proposal for the Byron Station in which BNL is participating.
In addition, you suggest that the staff's efforts are not in accord with the opinion rendered by the U.S. Court of Appea&.
For purposes of clarification, the review of a reracking proposal (or, for that matter any license or amendment request) involves numerous technical disciplines of both a safety and environmental nature.
The staff, although possessing substantial expertise of its own in all relevant areas, does augment its capabilities from time to time in order to deal with particular issues in a timely and efficient manner.
For this reason, the staff'etained consulting services in connection with its review of reracking requests for a number of nuclear power plants, in particular to assist in the area of structural analyses.
Expertise in this subject is not uniquely confined to any particular organization, such as BNL.
In the past, the staff has employed the Franklin Research Center (FRC), which is well qualified in seismic-structural
- analyses, to provide consulting services in connection with spent fuel pool expansion requests by many other utilities.
The staff is satisfied that the FRC efforts have been objective and thorough, as I explained in my letter to you dated October 21, 1986.
BNL was selected to assist the staff in its review of the Byron reracking proposal primarily because of FRC schedular constraints and resource limitations resulting from its involvement in the Diablo Canyon review effort.
The scope of work assigned to BNL in connection with Byron is substantially the same as that assigned to FRC for Diablo Canyon, namely, assistance in the review of seismic-structural modelling and analyses.
The same review process, criteria and analytical procedures are being applied to both cases.
The questions raised by BNL with respect to Byron are related to but one of the many aspects of the entire review, namely, the conservatism of a particular analysis of multi-rack impact forces.
The BNL approach will ultimately result
2 in a more refined explanation of the physical phenomena being analyzed.
It should be emphasized that, with respect to the Byron reracking proposal, neither the staff nor BNL has reiected as inadequate the analysis submitted in support of the licensee's amendment application.
- Rather, the staff has requested that the licensee provide additional information in support of its
- proposal, as routinely occurs in conjunction with staff review efforts when questions arise.
The staff is continuing its review of the Byron reracking application as additional information is provided.
Verv promptly after learning of BNL's questions regarding Byron, the staff requested that Pacific Gas and Electric Company address the same questions and has aggressively sought to resolve them for the Diablo Canyon proposal.
In order to assure consistency of the respective
- reviews, and in recognition of the sensitivity of this issue at Diablo Canyon because of the greater seismic hazard potential, BNL is being kept abreast of all actions being taken on Diablo Canyon and is participating with the staff and FRC in resolving the issue.
In fact, to avoid any question of the adequacy of the record in the Diablo Canyon proceeding, the staff will present the principal BNL structural reviewer for the Byron review as a witness at the Diablo Canyon hearing as a
member of the panel which will include the staff and FRC reviewers.
Consistent with the direction of the U.S. Court of Appeals, this hearing will be held prior to any approval being given to rerack the spent fuel pools.
In light of the foregoing actions, which should allay any concerns you might have regarding the comprehensiveness and integrity of the review of the Diablo Canyon reracking proposal, I do not believe it is necessary to have yet additional review efforts undertaken.
I am confident, given the vigor with which the matter is being pursued by the staff and its consultants, by the licensee and by the intervenor in the Diablo Canyon proceeding, that upon conclusion of the licensing process, including the hearing at which this issue will be addressed, the matter will be resolved in such a manner as to assure the health and safety of the public.
Sincerely, 6rigi~l sXgneg b>
iY~Ot ox'crog,7p Victor Stello, Jr.
Executive Director for Operations cc:
Rep. Morris K. Udall O6~
Rep.
John D. Dingell
~o q Rep. Philip Sharp Diablo Canyon Service List
- See previous concu e~
PD¹3 PD¹3 OGC PD¹3 pA A5. 8 PL/t
- CYogan
- HSch ing b~Q~
- SVarga 1 1 ard
- ERoss i 3/13/87 3/13/87 3/) lo/87 3/13/87 3/j 87 3/13/87 ActgD:PMR-A
'r N
- TNovak Sni eze k HDHrton VStello 3/13/87 3/
87 3/
/87 3/
/87 3/
/87
/
Mr. J.
D. Shiffer Pacific Gas and Electric Company Diablo Canyon CC:
Richard F. Locke, Esq.
Pacific Gas 8 Electric Company Post Office Box 7442 San Francisco, California 94120 Janice E. Kerr, Esq.
California Public Uti1ities Commission 350 McAllister Street San Francisco, Cali fornia 94102 Ms. Sandra A. Silver 660 Granite Creek Road Santa Cruz, California 95065 Mr. W. C. Gangloff Westinghouse Electric Corporation P. 0.
Box 355 Pittsburgh, Pennsylvania 15230 Managing Editor San Luis Obispo County Telegram Tribune 1321 Johnson Avenue 1726 M Street, N.W.
Suite 1100 Washington, DC 20036-4502 Yr. Leland M. Gustafson, Manager Federal Relations Pacific Gas and Electric Company 1726 M Street, N.
W.
Washington, DC 20036-4502 Dian M. Grueneich, Esq.
Edwin F. Lowry, Esq.
Grueneich 5 Lowry 345 Franklin Street San Francisco, California 94102 NRC Resident Inspector Diablo Canyon Nuclear Power Plant c/o U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission P. 0.
Box 369 Avila Beach, California 93424 Mr. Dick Blakenburg Editor A Co-Publisher South County Publishing Company P. 0.
Box 460 Arroyo Grande, California 93420 Bruce Norton, Esq.
c/o Richard F. Locke, Esq.
Pacific Gas and Electric Company Post Office Box 7442 San Francisco, California 94120 Dr.
R.
B. Ferguson Siera Club - Santa Lucia Chapter Rocky Canyon Star Route Creston, California 93432 Chairman San Luis Obispo County Board of Supervisors Room 220 County Courthouse Annex San Luis Obispo, California 93401 Director Energy Facilities Siting Division Energy Resources Conservation and Development Commission 1516 9th Street Sacramento, California 95814 Ms. Jacquel.yn Whee1er 2455 Leona Street San Luis Obispo, California 93400
C
Pacific Gas 5 Electric Company Diablo Canyon CC:
Hs. Laurie NcDermott, Coordinator Consumers Organized for Defense of Environmental Safety 731 Pacific Street, Suite 42 San Luis Obispo, California 93401 Hr. Joseph
- 0. Ward, Chief Radiological Health Branch State Department of Health Services 71,4 P Street, Office Building 88 Sacramento, California 95814 Regional Administrator, Region Y
U.S. Nuclear Regulatorv Commission 1450 Maria Lane Suite 210 Walnut Creek, Cali fornia 94596 B. Paul Cotter, Jr.,
Chairman Administrative Judge Atomic Safety and Licensing Board U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission Washington, DC 20555 Hs.
Nancy Culver 192 Luneta Street San Luis Obispo, California 93401 President California Public Utilities Commission California State Building 350 McAllister Street San Francisco, California 94102 Glenn 0. Bright Administrative Judge Atomic Safety and Licensing Board U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission Washington, DC 20555 Dr. Jerry Harbour Administrative Judge Atomic Safety and Licensing Board U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission Washington, DC 20555
0
~
<R,R Rf0~
I
>Re 4 y*y4
, UNITED STATES NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSION WASHINGTON, D. C. 20555 EDG PRINCIPAL CORRESPONDFNC:E CONTROL FROM:
REP.
LEON E.
PANETTA DI.IF.: 0=/16/87 EDO CONTROL: 002576 DOC DT: 02/12/87 F 3.NAl.
RF.PI Y:
TO:
CHAIRMAN ZECH LR DATE: 03/0~/87 ASSIGNED TG:
NRR CONTACT:
DFNTCIN SPECIAL lNSTRI.ICT1ONS OR RENARKS:
EDC FGR SIGNATLIRE OF:
- PRIORITY **
~
~
EXECUTIVE DIRECTOR DESI"
'OLLGM UP TO 9/
~ 0/-.6 l.TR RE PROPOSFII RFRACYINC'F SPENT FUEL POOLS AT DIABLO CANYON SFCY NO:
RCIUT3NG:
STFLLO ROE REHM SNI EZEY~
JMARTIN MURRAY TAYLOR HTHOMPSON NRR RECEIVED:
3/4/87 ACTION:
+l)P33L~VAE NRR ROUTING:
DENTON/VOLLHER PPAS MOSSBURG
DISTRIBUTION Docket (50-275/323) w/inco~ing- =
NRC PDR Local PDR EDOF002576 EDO Reading M. Denton/R.
Vollmer T. Novak S.
Varga C.
Vogan H. Schierling OPA D. -Mossburg (EDOF002576)
PROF3 r/f PAD83 GT Fi le L. Harmon V. Stello SECY OGC ASLAB ASLBP ACRS (16)
J.
Resner (2) (W-501)
J.
Roe T.
Rehm J.
Sniezek J. Martin J. Murray J. Taylor T. Novak L. Olshan H. Ashar R. Ballard D. Jeng E. Rossi L. Chandler H. HcGurren G. 0. Bright J.
Harbour B.
P. Cotter