ML19281A609
| ML19281A609 | |
| Person / Time | |
|---|---|
| Site: | 05000584 |
| Issue date: | 03/08/1979 |
| From: | Boyd R Office of Nuclear Reactor Regulation |
| To: | Gogolick C GIBBS & HILL, INC. (SUBS. OF DRAVO CORP.) |
| References | |
| NUDOCS 7903230281 | |
| Download: ML19281A609 (3) | |
Text
/W, 0
I N i g:!T;0CTATES
- i. % L 2,ui i, 3D L.4iOriY cc.,
ao x v..
2 j
}
"C iM.0 7C,. D. C. F3:5 c-* - - * *
- /2 81M2 Docket No. STN 50-594 Mr. Charles Gogolick GIBBSSAR Project Manager Gibbs & Hill, Inc.
393 Seventh Avenue iiew York, liew York 10001
Dear Mr. Gogolick:
SUBJECT:
REQUEST FOR CLARIFICATI0t1 This is in response to the letter dated January 8,1979 from Mr. Prieto of your staff to Mr. Harold Denton, Director, NPo.,
which requested guidance or clarification in the following areas:
(a) Question - A utility references GIBBSSAR which is currently designed for 0.30g horizontal ground acceleration and plans to locate the plant at a preapproved site with a maximum horizontal ground acceleration of 0.15g.
In determining the cc patibility of plant and site, one of the parameters to be verified would be the maximum bearing pressure. When the bearing pressure of the plant is calculated using a dynamic load associated with 0.30g, the results are not compatible with tne bearing strength of the site. However, when the dynamic load is calculated using the actual site information, the results are satisfactory.
Which approach would be utilized by the !!RC in their ccnfirmatory analyses?
Response - The staff's approach would be as in the review of the SNUPPS application, which involved a cc=cn power block design utilized at several specific site locations (i.e., one design "g" value, but several site-specific "g" values varying from one plant location to another).
Specifically, in the example cited above, the 0.30g value would be used by the staff, as required in verifying the design of the proposed facility as described in the SSAR; and the facility would be constructed in accordance with the design specifications corresponding to the 0.30g value.
The site-specific "g" value (0.15), derived from and supported by evaluation of geologic and seismic data associated with the proposed s
7903230%
"r. Charles Gogolick ":
c d3 i
site, would be used by the staff as required in performing or verifying analyses of site-related aspects, such as soil / structure interactions, and in checking plant responses to specific site characteris tics.
(0) Question - What potential licensing proolems mignt be associated with amending the current GIBBSSAR apolication to include an option for design at a somewhat lower "g" value, e.g., 0.15g or 0.20g? Such an option would minimize change to the plant design and would primarily be accomplished by changes to reinforcenient size and spacing. These details are currently not available in the GIOCSSAR and prasantly are trcated as final d sign infor:ation.
No significant changes to the arrangement drawings are anticipated i
beyond those normally associated with proceeding from preliminary to final design.
Response - Our current policy is to discourage inclusion of options, such as the one proposed here,. ithin a singlc PDA.
'le.::u!d intend, therefore, to issue a seoarate PDA covering a GIBBSSAR design based on a lower design "g" value, as proposed above. Whether such an cption should be :chmitted fcr revie. by MRC as an amendment to the current GIBBSSAR application or as a separate application, and how the matter of associated fees would be handled in this case, involves major policy questions baing considered currently.iithin the staff. Our comolete resoonse in this regard must, therefore, be deferred until these policy matters are resolved.
A separate policy question is raised in connection with your pro-posal for a design "g" value of 0.159 in the context of a standard plant application, viz., "Could a balance-of-plant design with a design "g" value of 0.15g or even 0.209 be applied to a sufficiant number of available or potential plant sites within the U. S. to warrant consideration and approval as a " standard" design?" This is another aspect of your question which cannot be definitively answered at this time, although the preliminary feelings are that a design "g" value of 0.15g would limit site applicability to such an extent that a reference design application would not be accepted on that basis.
(c) Question - What problems might be created in the review of a PSAR application utilizing the reference plant option, because of excep-tions taken by the utility / applicant? An example would be a case where the utility / applicant takes an exception to the current (0.30g) GIBBSSAR design and submits an application referencing GIBBSSAR, but with a lower design "g" value.
--*-me.
C
...c:
... ~....
12s7:.nse - The ost cbvious cad direct effect as:ccicted '..ith the piGpc52d exC3ptiGA is tI.Gt it i.Ould "OpCS u p " O n C'.. fo r II. i C'.. U}
the staff those sections of tne GISBSSAR SSAR affected by the proposad exception... (but oniv those sections).
The applicability of regulatory criteria, gulaes, etc., usea in reviewing enose
-octinne i..n ni d. t ho ro fn ro. ho datorminod nn the basis of the t
' f tho PsaR annlica tion. rather than the original qqck 9 inn dato 9 GIBBSSAR application.
In general, we discour age speci fic plant excapticos to standard designs; but l' cia is a p. acidCat fac OG CppliCant takiG~ 0%CCP-tion in this manner, and the staff has reviewed such exceotions in the past.
In the specific example cited, it does not appear th:t cignificant delay theuld be ince--ed beycnd the normal CP review intervai in reviewing a PSAR application referencing the current Gle6SSAR design witn the single exception nocea (i.e.,
a loner ucaign "9" valbe'.
A t J.c sa.c.a ti;.2, it.T~s0 bc c;;Iiz;d that. dna to considerations such as those mentioned briefiv above, the potential for unanticipated delays in the review process cannat ba ruled cut.
I hope you find this responsive to your questions and concerns in this area.
if you nave any furcuer ques cions regat ui ig ciicsc inocusis, picose do not hacitato tn nursue them with us.
Sincerely,
/
l;, &bl W
f Roger S. Doyd, Direcc,ur Division of Dreject Management Office of Nuclear Reactor Regulation cc:
Mr. Fredrick W. Gettler, Vice President Power Engineering Gibbs & Hill, Inc.
393 Seventh Avenue New York, New York 10001 Mr. Robert Prieto Asst. Project anager, GISSSSAR Gibbs & Hill, Inc.
393 Seventh Avenue New York, New York 10001
.