ML20032E434
| ML20032E434 | |
| Person / Time | |
|---|---|
| Site: | Diablo Canyon  |
| Issue date: | 10/30/1981 |
| From: | Chisholm D, Chisholm M, Connors M AFFILIATION NOT ASSIGNED |
| To: | NRC |
| References | |
| NUDOCS 8111200554 | |
| Download: ML20032E434 (4) | |
Text
4-7
/
- ...N.
c$5b. A UNE.~. ::.8,M@/f4
- MI f
.s F
. /m g 77
'@,p J% Q 7 6l.bLA, EU 4
CJ 4 A A d 4 d.
sit /c'"
'#' 2 3 I
NOV19198I'
/C -d T-f/
Ru.s.qjbC#&
00 P1 :0A
' ~
h flxcjhav m.
hM.
J. C F f f 0FFIC
- .CEETARY A
DOCK J 1 segvicz
.ANCH
/a u ~ %. f A w d f t':
J-a w
d aan/'.A ce>A72m rf AlioNr 6y ~Au y p ksc~4 2 M s'
M 4 areJA 4 A W_a a ~ #. A u,
J an m A Jai /Af "A 4~,
9
-- yyct 6 5 a.crA
% A Jw
- saa y// 2% a A % ak u =dA 2
s m a >a ay q
fmA ejpyA Ja m y a a~ gax.s _- ~,,
77py %e 05%.
8111200554 811030 DR ADOCK 05000275 PDR
l---
DGc.:CT : "- ---
me.aUExe..egmree m3U5Pt /
~
)
~ '9 DUGALD D CHISHoLM. MD.
M iono a c^=o "^'
- /p-
%g USNRC 4tascaoena causowa s2422
! g 9 ggw-r m s,.....
2.
4; o,,
t
'81 00T3 P1 :06 gj$
(
October 15, 1981 C) p 0FFICE OF iECF.ETAR '
00CKETitiG & SERVICC
[ ear Regulatory Commission ERAT 4CH 4
3 1717 H Street N.W.
Washington, D.C. 20555
Dear Sirs:
We are uriting with a fervent request that licensing of the P.G. & E. Diablo Canyon nuclear power plant, some seventeen miles from our home, be delayed or cancelled. Our three year old and four year old children vould join us in this urgent. request, we are sure, if they were able to comprehend the potential consequences of opening this plant. It is primarily for them that we are writing this letter.
Enclosed is a copy of a local newspaper article regarding the latest faux pas committed by PG&E and the builders. You must realize that there have been revelations of design problems, construction execution problems, unanswered questions regarding biological consequences to our coastline, etc. appearing about every three months since we moved to this area five years ago.
All the way through, we have been reassured by PG&E that all problems have been corrected, that the plant is ready to go on line, that the new problem of the day is proof that the quality review / quality assurance procedure is working, etc. WHY ) WASN1T THAT PROCEDURE WOFXINC EACH TIME PG&E PROCLAIMED THE PLANT READY TO G07 We have read quite well documented evidence that PG&E knew of the existence of the Hosgri fault, some two to three miles from this plant, prior to the beginning of conetruction, but that that infomation was withheld from the public and our local board of supervisors until independent geolc gists " discovered" the fault after construction had begun. The error in the enclosed article was " discovered" just a few days after the well-publicized but ill-fated occupation of Diablo by protesters. Wouldn't a thinking person have to consider the possibility that this information was withheld for fear of fueling the protest movement instead of the reactor?
Finally, please look very closely at the article. While ve are not structural or mechanical engineers, it would appear that this is a mior error which was discovered after low power licensing had already been approved. This says plenty about the QR/QA pro cedure. As you read the article, please ask yourself the question, "Would I want to live within 20 miles of this plant?"
9 Very truly yours, h/
(t, (h C%
I L
Dugald D. Chisholm i ar Alice Chisholm
Diablo error z a
.a c :..
f PG&E getsImore time to st6dy flaw :
i N-
'V M
, By CarlNeiburger
'i J QNovember.1977, was' assumed byf more than three times the stress i
~ idesisers to be correct for Unit 1, calledforinthetable..
t
- f. '
' ' ~
StafI Writer
.:W
.'? ut it was actually based on the ' 'r Officials have told the Telegram-l b
Pacific Gas and Electric; Co.c locationof bracing forUnit2,
' Tribune that PG&E hope to mini-engineers continued poring over :). The calculations used in comput- }mize the changes required by ask-t
,3 :
?, ' ; computer calculations and plans.Fing bracing locations for both units q ing the Nuclear Regulatory.I
. Comn'ission to accept a " refined" today to resolve a design flaw that..were derived from a mirror image led to misplaced pipe supports in, c of thecorrectfigure.
'4 system for calculating the eartht d
,y - ' the Diablo C,anyon nuclear power As a result, piping nearest frame ' quake stresses..
j
} plant.
'1,' for example, which ~.t one eleva,
The 1977' diagram assumes.that ',
?
The Nuclear Regulatory Commis-. tion has to withstand fibrations of, the framework supporting the fan !
coolers is concentrated at the cool ~ f sion initially ordered the utility to _five times the acceleration of gravi. ~ ers' centers of gravity and thus report todty on the problem but * 'ty,-was reinforced as if it were
. later, at. the request of PG&E near frame 4, where vibrations of exaggerates the vibration levels..
officials, agreed to postpone the only-1.5 times gravity were postu-
.The refinement will assume a more ' t
., i meeting until Friday.
lated.
. realistic distribution of the frame-PG&E engineer John R. Sumner Piping near frame 4, on the other work below the coolers,' producing said engineers at PG&E headquar-hand, was reinforced to handle lower calculated vibrations.
9 ters in San Francisco and at the.
(
Diablo plant near Port San Luis i
. s. ' were running revised calculations
-l through ecmputers, comparing the una a-lo. we.
sno a:
'results with plans used in building the nuclear plant and examining For the H
.,,,, g53 oct,,,,,, sert ana,,lys t s, the,enaul us s,tructure,,i,s eiv,ie.d,,,inte the actualp'pm' g within the plan *s.
,i,,,,,, i c,,, i i,,,,,,,,,
,, i,,
i s k e ttii.
For peittsons nere pipe supports are attac*ee to elevations en4 The problem was discovered
. Sept. 25 by a PG&E engineer re-
"c,tg"*;g,tyg 5g g,y,i5dg. Haar iat"P'1"iaa "" v5"
{
viewing plans to install setsmic bracing on pipes in Unit 2 of the twin-reactor plant.
The bracing had 11 ready been ins *alled in Unit 1, and fuel loading.
for that unit had been scheduled to
' start Sept. 2* but was halted af ter r** a e the error was found.
I' The engi:.eer discovered a flaw in x 5' -
.,, the use of a diagram accompanying 4
a chart showing what kind of shocks equipment in the nuclear Ig p
~
'. plant should be designed to with-stand in case of a major earth-nse 3
d' pre e :
. quake on the offshore Hosgrifault.
In the the annulus or outer por-
,, t 3 tion of the reactor containments different shock levels were given g
for each of five framework sup-hienosient 56 ports that underlay each umt's five (nove.cer isn) fan coolers.
s But the two containments were built as mirror images of each,
other, with the fan coolers and -
Review of this 1977 diagram promptcd
~
e their framework in opposite posj-tions along the containment walls.
new studies of earthquake safety of Diablo Thus, observed PG&E engineer plant. It shows how stress loads were to be John Hoch, frame 5 is in the 5 '
distributed in each reactor containment o clock position in Unit 2 but in the annulus. Diagram was one page of six-7 0'cl' ck position in Unit 1.
Volume analysis.
o The' schematic diagram, dated t
I
~
Y
'y f
- g..]k
- e..s j o ' '
fr% '
- 4
' ^%.%1. m >
s4 1%,, c',c gi i R.4 ; y,I,[i.y j, g pg m
gf;,. ~.
>$x }:. e x.,.,
t t
4 1
3. c m..w.
s
- ,C 's t l,1 9
. :r g
g S1.
.g.3
- g. py 3.,
('
' fM' g 1
>J 'a 1
\\ *' M*~2
.n a
.2
- e3.E
[l
..L w~
' ~ ~ - =.* "~':~t,.
kk II In 4-Reactor Unit 1 Reactor Unit 2 (vurw from top)
(wew frorn top)
Fan coolers Reference 4..,
il lines
- ' Reactor Reactor s.
- 3%%::.;y _,
j
.M b,:;,,,
~
g l#'
Auxdiary Bldg.
a Controf room Annulus Annulus 4
Turbine BIdg.
M8 C4-M filHWI4 fal_:ilF:tElX4: GdSjlde !IC.tgyTfg7f3pf Q
Reactor Unit 1 Reactor Unit 2 Fan cooters D
~
-Reference -
N lInes
- g
" V j.:
I w.9 i
s.3:.:...:.p.},' d,.
~
'# l'!
l
'..s, Auxiliary Bldg.
j-l Reactor Reactor ~
Annulus Annufus
}-
i
! [
Turtane Bldg.
s.a e r.a=. e....e.'
Dotted lines match diagram at lef t, showing how i elates to power plant.
\\-
4
\\
~
me es.
.n a
,.