ML19323F443
| ML19323F443 | |
| Person / Time | |
|---|---|
| Site: | Sequoyah  |
| Issue date: | 05/01/1980 |
| From: | Rolonda Jackson Office of Nuclear Reactor Regulation |
| To: | Knight J Office of Nuclear Reactor Regulation |
| References | |
| NUDOCS 8005290030 | |
| Download: ML19323F443 (3) | |
Text
3 f[
I'o,,
UNITED STATES NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSION i
l y
g i
r,,
.c wash:NGTON, D. C. 20555 k..v l 980 1
MAY MEMORANDUM FOR:
James P. Knight, Assistant Director for Components and Structural Engineering, DE FROM:
Robert E. Jackson, Chief Geosciences Branch, DE
SUBJECT:
ACRS - EXTREME EXTERNAL PHENOMENA MEETING IN LOS ANGELES IwouldliketonotemyobjecticatosendingonlyoneindiYidualtoa meeting which discusses so many important. seismic question of significance to the way we will do business in the future. This meeting shculd have the best representation possible including NRC BC's, AD's, and Division Directors. We have sought the noted Sequoyah meeting for a year and I believe that this topic, the SSSP topic,.and the minimum "g" value topic absolutely require management attendance.
In my view it is totally unreason-able that such a meeting be held without attendance by cognizant responsible NRC staff. In addition, the rest of the staff should be able to at least hear the discussions.
LeonReiteris',oeoftwoseismologistscurrentlyahailableforallprol%t work..His preparation and. travel for this meeting will severely impact his review of SEP sites, Humboldt Bay,.and. SONGS 1, 2 & 3 as well as recruiting. I request that the necessary actions be taken to either m.ve the meeting to D.C. or postpone it indefinitely until travel restrictions are lifted. At the cresent time, I will not plan 'ca send Dr. Reiter ta thir meeting.
4 Robert E. J on, Chief Geoscience anch Division ngineering cc:
L. Reiter Vollmer 8005290 03 0
2n ysu Fkk 0
OPOSED SCHEDULE FOR THE
[ [ 7 _ f_f [ M Y 28-29, 1980 EXTREME EXT NAL PHENOMENA SUBCOM!i!TTEE w A s~
~
- u..
- i lP 1.
Summary of FY 81 Budget 1 hour1.157407e-5 days <br />2.777778e-4 hours <br />1.653439e-6 weeks <br />3.805e-7 months <br /> 30 min I
Summary of FY 80 and 81 budgets and proposed I6( r FY 82 and beyond budgets with the emphasis on
- f--
the Site Safety Research and SSMRP work.
,e i
/ /N 2.
Update on SSMRP work with the emphasis on hew
[2 I L developments and changes in program direction and response to ACRS Subcommittee comments since November EEP Subcommittee meeting.
2 hours2.314815e-5 days <br />5.555556e-4 hours <br />3.306878e-6 weeks <br />7.61e-7 months <br /> 3.
Discussions on Task Action Plan A-40 " Seismic Design Criteria - Short Term Program" 4 hours4.62963e-5 days <br />0.00111 hours <br />6.613757e-6 weeks <br />1.522e-6 months <br /> j
(1) Summary of program and proposed changes 3 /~ F [
in NRC design criteria (45 min)
,f.
(2) Discussion of program elements (3 hr 15 min) a.
Response spectrum b.
Soil-structure interaction c.
Structural Response d.
Structural damping e.
Structural and Mechanical Resistance 4.
Discussion of the methods used to establish the site specific response spectrum and relative seismic hazard '--
at the Sequoyah site'- Discussions are expected to emphasis the basis for and general applicability of the methods.
2 hours2.314815e-5 days <br />5.555556e-4 hours <br />3.306878e-6 weeks <br />7.61e-7 months <br /> V
N 5.
Seismic criteria for safe shutdown and decay heat removal systems and possible changes in the criteria for a minimum of-value for sites in areas of low to moderate seismic hazard 2 hours2.314815e-5 days <br />5.555556e-4 hours <br />3.306878e-6 weeks <br />7.61e-7 months <br /> /
Questions on the criteria for safe shutdown and decay heat removal been raised by the ACRS in the cor. sideration of North Anna.
Davis Besse, and Sequoyah.
ghdh i
w) Ap A~91 A~*~"~ W nA WM d *
[E T$ TW
t EEP Schedule May 28-29,1980 6.
Interaction of Seismic Catagory 1 structures with non-Seismic Category 1 structures 1 hours1.157407e-5 days <br />2.777778e-4 hours <br />1.653439e-6 weeks <br />3.805e-7 months <br /> 30 min The current design / review practices will be discussed as to scope and the consideration of the challenge that the failure of non-Seismic Categoery 1 systems could impose on Seismic Category 1 system.
7.
Discussions on the use of Seismic Scram 1 hour1.157407e-5 days <br />2.777778e-4 hours <br />1.653439e-6 weeks <br />3.805e-7 months <br /> 30 min v-(1) Summary of current practice in the US and foreign countries and status of current US studies (30 min)
(2) General Discussion (30 min) 8.
Discussion on specific topics dealing with current seismic design practices 1 hour1.157407e-5 days <br />2.777778e-4 hours <br />1.653439e-6 weeks <br />3.805e-7 months <br /> 30 min v (1) Lessons Learned from the SEP review of the seismic design of operating plants (30 min)
(2) I&E Information Notice /R. Major and Garry Young letters (30 min)
(3) Raymond Perey letter on Seismic Qualification testing of Control Panels (30 min)
(4) Mr. Bender letter on unifomity of seismic design criteria for multiple unit at a site (30 min)
>