ML20052A764
| ML20052A764 | |
| Person / Time | |
|---|---|
| Site: | Vallecitos File:GEH Hitachi icon.png |
| Issue date: | 05/01/1978 |
| From: | Swanson D NRC OFFICE OF THE GENERAL COUNSEL (OGC) |
| To: | Atomic Safety and Licensing Board Panel |
| Shared Package | |
| ML20052A734 | List:
|
| References | |
| FOIA-81-483 NUDOCS 8204290141 | |
| Download: ML20052A764 (27) | |
Text
f~
05/01/78 c
d!avibV UNilED STATES OF AMERICA NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMISSION BEFORE THE ATOMIC SAFETY AND LICENSING BOARD In the Matter of GENERAL ELECTRIC COMPANY Docket Nos. 50-70 (Vallecitos Nuclear Center--
(ShowCause)
General Electric Test Reactor,
)
Operating License No. TR-1)
)
NRC STAFF RESPONSE TO CONGRESSMAN DELLUMS'
" DISCOVERY REQUEST FOR DOCUMENTS" On April 17, 1978, the Nuclear Regulatory Commission Staff (Staff) re-ceived a " Discovery Request for Documents" from Congressman Ronald V.
Dellums, an intervenor in this proceeding.
For the reasons advanced below, the Staff objects to the production of certain specified NRC records or documents on the grounds that they are beyond the bounds of, and irrelevant to, any of the issues specified by the Commission in its Memorandum and Order dated February 13, 1978.
Requests for production of NRC records or documents are governed by 10 CFR 5 2.744. E That section mandates that a request:
l
"... shall set forth the records or documents requested, i
either by individual item or by cat _egory, and shall describe each item or category with reasonable parti-cularity and shall state why that record or document is relevant to the proceeding." 10 CFR 5 2.744(a)
Assuming, without admitting, that the discovery request describes each item or category of documents sought with " reasonable particularity" as l
E Although 10 CFR 5 2.744 requires, inter alia, that a request for production of NRC records and documents must be served on the Executive Director for Operations, the referenced discovery request n
c. qr u,.
r
~
L k-
. V..
o.*.
't,
g 8204290 W
(
y per the requirement of 10 CFR 5 2.744(a), the request certainly contains t l j
no statement of how or why the records or documents sought are relevant The pro-to the proceeding as further required by this same regulation.
visions of 5 2.744(b) authorize the Staff to object to producing a requested record or document, in'ter_ alia_, on the ground that it is not relevant.
Congressman Dellums' discovery request contains five numbered requests, with subparts to two of the requests. With regard to request numbers 3A-3F, the Staff considers that the information requested, except to the extent that it is requested for the General Electric Test Reactor (GETR),
is irrelevant to this proceeding. The Staff's seismic criteria which are not currently applicable to GETR, as well as the Staff's review of proposed facilities at other sites, are outside of the scope of this Accordingly, the Staff objects to furnishing the information proceeding.
requested under numbers 30-3F, as well as that requested under numbers 3A-3C except for information regarding reactor siting criteria that are Due to the vagueness of the request, currently applicable to the GETR.
the Staff was unsure whether by " seismic criteria" Congressman Dellums might have been requesting a document describing the design of the l
Accordingly, the Staff is also enclosing a copy existing GETR facility.
of two hazards reports that the Staff issued when it first licensed the facility, as well as a safety evaluation prep'ared in 1966 in connectio For with the Staff's review of a proposed amendment to the GETR license.
more detailed information regarding the seismic design of GETR, one can Aralysis Report (ftED0-12622) dited June I
aha re 's
'n
'F= CETR Sa'c'-
1
c.
A copy of this document is available 1977, which was prepared by GE.
for inspection in the public document room at the NRC's regional head quarters located in Walnut Creek, California.
The current NRC seismic criteria for nuclear power plant siting may b found in the following portions of the Commission's regulations (Titl 10 of the Code of Federal Regulations): Appendix A to Part 50 (Ge
- However, and Appendix A to Part 100.
Design Criterion 2), 5 100.10, i
i since the subject of this proceeding is a test reactor with an ex st ng d
d operating license, the Staff recognizes that an argument could b 0 CFR S that none of the referenced regulations, with the exception of 1 Nonetheless, the 100.10, are legal requirements which must be adhered to.
dix Staff is currently planning to use General Design Criterion 2 and A to Part 100 as guidance in its review of the issues in this pro i
in and we are enclosing a copy of these portions of the regulat ons, addition to 5 100.10.
for With respect to request number 3C, we understand that to be d structural engineer-memoranda addressing Staff debates on its seismic an The undersigned has contacted the ing reviews for this proceeding.
his proceeding principal Staff reviewers and the project manager for t h t addresses regarding this request, and has found only one memorandum t a A copy of this document, which is a memorandum fro such a debate.'
l d
20, 1977, is also enc ose.
Kelleher to J. Carl Stepp dated October i
d by Request numbers 4 and 5, aside from lacking the specificit rot e :c passed t:. "
10 CF. s C.-
. :-i n --
_ - - : v:
. Order.
The Order limits the subject of this proceeding, and thereby limits the jurisdiction of this Board, to a consideration of the proper seismic and geologic design bases for GETR, whether the design of safety-related equipment at GETR must be modified in light of the scismic design bases and, if so, whether the modification can be made and still permit GETR to operate safely, and finally, whether GETR should be kept shut down pending the resolution of the above.
Absent an adequate showing of relevance to the above issues of the topics addressed in request numbers 4 and 5 the Staff submits that the requests are object-ionable pursuant to 10 CFR H 2.744(a).
In response to those requests for documents that are proper, the Staff is enclosing the following:
Request Document Number 1)
Pages 293-315 of the transcript of the ACRS meeting of February 10, 1978; 1
2)
Memorandum from R. Jackson to W. Gamill dated November 7,1977; 2
l 3)
Staff hazards analyses for GETR dated December 2, 1958 and August 13, 1958, and a Staff safety evalu-ation dated August 29, 1966; 3A 4) 10 CFR Part 50, App. A, GDC 2; 5100.10; and i
App. A to Part 100; and 3B l
5)
Memo from John Kelleher to J. Carl Stepp dated October 2D,1977 3C Respectfully submitted, Y
+
Daniel T. Swanson c.
w gg l
E:- 2 Enhesda, :tarylar.d this 1st day of May,1978
4
\\
\\
~.
i UNITED STATES OF AMERICA NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSION BEFORE THE ATOMIC SAFETY AND LICENSING BOARD In the Matter of
)
)
GENERAL ELECTRIC COMPANY
)
Docket No. 50-50
)
(Show Cause)
(Vallecitos Nuclear Center -
)
General Electric Test Reactor,
)
Operating License No. TR-1)
)
CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE I hereby certify that copies of "NRC STAFF RESPONSE TO CONGRESSMAN DELLUMS' " DISCOVERY REQUEST FOR DOCUMENTS"" in the above-captioned pro-ceeding have been served on the following by deposit in the United States mail, first class, or, as indicated by an asterisk, through deposit in the Nuclear Regulatory Commission's internal mail system, this 1st day of May, 1978:
Edward Luton, Esq., Chairman
- Andrew Baldwin, Esq.
Atomic Safety and Licensing Board Friends of the Earth U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission 124 Spear Street Washington, D. C. 20555 S an Francisco, California 94105 Mr. Gustave A. Linenberger*
George Edgar, Esq.
Atomic Safety and Licensing Boat d Morgan, Lewis & Bockius U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission 1800 M Street, N. W.
Washington, D. C. 20555 Washington, D. C.
20036 Dr. Harry Foreman Jed Somit, Esq.
Box 395, Mayo 100 Bush Street - Suite 304 University of Minnesota San Francisco, California 94104 Minneapolis, Minnesota 55455 Mr.' Ken Wade The Honorable Ronald V. Dellums 1735 New York Avenue, N. W.
2490 Channing Way Room 503 Suite 217 Washington, D. C.
20006 Berkely, California 94704
ids. Barbara Shockley Atomic Safety and Licensing 1890 Bockman Road Board Panel
- San Lorenzo, California 94580 U. S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission Washington, D. C.
20555 The lionorable Phillip Burton Attention: h!ary Atomic Safety and Licensing 2454 Rayburn llouse Office Building Appeal Pancl*
Washington, D. C. 20515 U. S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission Washington, D. C. 20555 The lionorable John L. Burton 1714 Longworth House Office Building Docketing and Service Section Washington, D. C. 20515 Office of the Secretary U. S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission b*ashington, D. C. 20555 YY c-n Daniel T. Swanson Counsel for NRC Staff i
l
[
e
U G:,::,w ANj llC iy
- .g o 293 automobile accident were killed in an and three people ice.
You j
1 during that evacuation, it wouldn't be very non a f i
2 could argue be tter', three ld get you anywhere 3
evacuation, but I don't think it wou 4
wi th the numbers.
Thank you, Karl.
5 CHAIRMAN LAWROSKI I
is a discussion of seisr61c reevaluations 6
Next l
t 7
relative to the Vallecitos Nuclear P an.
Mr. Schwen ce r 8
That is correct.
MR. CROCKER:
9 wi]1 be hardling that, Mr. Chairman.is Al Schwencer, Chief of 10 MR. SCHWENCER:
My name in the Division of ill I
Operating Reactors', branch No. Agenda item I am g 12 Operating Reactors.
ith the General Electric 13 to seismic concerns, associated wVa llecitos Nuclea 14 Test Reactor Plant at I wi ]1 r ef er to the plant as 15 near Pleasanton, Cellfornia.
16 m this point.
over the GETR f ro concern resulted, these concerns 17 As you know.
19Ti, sh'ow cause order, 18 h,
se ismic, resulted in o'ur Ocitober 24t GETR plant.
19 which suspended operations at the 20 (Slide.)
I have copies of the order, as well as a 21 rt, 1977, preliminary safety eva 3uation repo 22 November 7th, tor facilities at 23 which addressed the other three reac 24
e b
4.4 294 I
one operating reac tor, that is the nuclear test reactor, 2
or the NTR, wa s ac ceptable, and that no ac tion was r eq ui re d 3
with respect to the other two reactor facili. ties, which 4
are shut down, defueled, and partially dismantled.
5 These shut down reactors are the Vallecitos 6
boiling wa ter reactors, and the Va 31ecitos experimen tal 7
superheat reac tor.
They have been. shut down for some 8
ye ars.
9 Nith respect to the GETR which is presently down JO under terms of the show cause order, some background 11 information may be useful.
The GETR is a Jow temperature, 12 low pressure, 50 megawa tt, thermal light water test reactor.
13 It is principally used to irradiate target material, which, 14 in turn, is processed at the Vallecitos nuclear site to 15 provide a supply of medical and industrial isotopes.
16 The GETR is also used in GE's fuel development 17 pr ogram.
As this next slide shows, the GElR is 18 loca ted --
19 (Sli de. )
20
-- a t the San Francisco Bay.
It is about 20 miles 21 frcm San Jose.to the scuth, it is about 30 miles from 22 Da k land, 15 miles from San Francisco', and it is about 7 23 miles from Live rm cre, which is north, and east.
Since the 24 GETR is an older f acility, which was designed and built in
', ^ ^, a o ri r.
ch:: - ' -
':-- ' -~
e b
- .5 2 95 I
events --
2 (Slide.')
3
-- f rom the issuance of a construction permi t up 4
through the show cause order, may be useful infonnation, also.
5 As this slide, and the next one, will show, we issued a 6
construc 'clon permit in 1958.
The operating license was 7
issued in early '59 and la te 1966, tha t' license wa s extended 8
10 years to 1976.
9 Following the timely application for license 10 renewal, GE submitted last summer, seismic and geologic il l in formation which the staf f, at that time subjected to 12 a preliminary review.
In early August', a few weeks la ter, 13 we called GE in, and informed them that the geological data 14 that they had supplied was inadequete to conduct our review.
15 Later ~that same month, we learned from the U.S.
16 geological survey Unat they had prepared a geologic map of 17 that area which included the GETR site and that this map 18 relocated the Verona fault, and we will se talking more about 19 the Verona fault, within 200 f eet of the GE3R reactor 20 co nt ai nmen t.
l 21 (Slide.)
22 dn August 31st, following the briefing arranged 23 for the NRC and GE by the USGS, at Mineral Park, Calif ornia, 24 to learn more about the relocation of this \\erona fault, 25 GE presnnt ed to us their phase 1 geological. investigation i
6' y9g
- ~
I plan.
2 La ter, on Octobe r 20, during the course of 3
performing this phase 1 investigation, GE informed us of 4
evidence of faulting in trenches that had been ' dug near 5
GETR.
h'e. will have a slide la ter, that shcws you where 6
these two trenches are.
7 On October 24th, a f ter weighing all available 8
information, including possible impact on medical and
~
9 industrial users of isotopes of the kind available from 10 GETR, we concluded that continued operation on GETR was 11 not warranted unless additional infor.T.ation was developed 12 to show that GETR is capable of sa fely withstanding the 13 seismic loads, that may be associated with such a fault.
14 Be fore I show the slides that locate the GETR 15 with respect to Verona, and the other faults, I would like 16 to pause here, and note there has been a high level of 17 public and Congressional interest in GE's application for -
18 renewal of the GETR license.
19 (Slide.)
20 And also, our order, which suspended opera tions 21 of GETR, an ASLB, Atomic Safety and Licensing Board, had been 22 appointed, tha.t was October of last year, to rule on petitions for inte vention on the renewal applications for the license.
22 r
24 These are 'the parties that have asked for a 25 hearing.
7he same board will aslo be asked to rule on 9
.7 297 I
pe ti tions for a hearing on the show cause crder.
The 2
commissi cn has had --
3 (Slide.)
4
-- petitions f or a hearing, before the GETR is 5
allowed to restart from its present shutdown.
These are 6
the petitioners in.this case.
With this background, I would 7
like now to describe briefly, and in general terms', the 8
relationship to the GETR site, the geoJogical faults that
~
9 ha ve been mapped in the area.
10 This slide, which covers a f airly large area,
11 shows the loca tion of the GETR whi ch --
12 (Slide.)
13
-- which with re spec t to the San Andreas f ault,
14 the Hayward fault, Cala veras f ault, las Positas fault, and 15 this littic arc in here is what is referred to as the 16 Ve rona f au lt.
17 By way of orientation Livermore sits over here.
18 GETR, Live rmore, the Bay area is over that way.
Okay.
This 19 next slide 20 (Slide.)
21
-- is an enlargment of that same area, up near P
22 where the Calavera s and Ve rona f aults peel cff there.
The 23 nearest the -- the area at the top shows where the Verona l
24 fault had been mapped, back in 1958, cy Hajl.
Dr. Herd, 25 of the USGS, last summer we became aw=re, had mapped that
- .8 298 1
fault to the south, and at the base of the f oothills just 2
above the GETR rea ctor containment.
3 The distance, looking e t a very Jerg e geological-4 map, a ccompanied Dr. Herd's report, indi cates that ; within 5
about 200 feet of the reactor containment.
I mentioned 6
earlier that they had dug some trenches, and had evidence 7
wh i ch, a t that time, they thought was t'hus the f aulting 8
ev.id en ce, in two trenches.
Those two trenches were dug 9
across the fault line as mapped by Dr. Herd.
One to the 10 north and west of the GETR site, and one tc the south of all the GElR site.
12 This map also shows a third trench, and an 13 additional geological field investigation.
14 DR. MARK :
When were those trenches dug?
Wh en ?
15 MR. SCHW ENCER:
This would have been prior to 16 October.
It would have been between the time frame of 17 our August 31 st meeting --
18 DR. MARK :
Las t year, ra ther tha n in '68 ?
19 MR. SCHWENCE'R:
Yes.
This trenching, this field 20 in vestigation work is all rela ted to GE's phase 1 program 21
'they agreed to' pursue, following our discussion with them in 22 August of '77.
This is all new information coming from the 23 trenches.
Oka y.
24 DR. MUELLER:
hhy was the Maguire Peaks fault not ir-
. r 7,
~r l
l l
5.9 299 i
MR. SCHd ENCER:'
I don't have an answer f or that,
~
2 Dr. Moeller.
'3 DR. MUELLER:
It's not that he said it didn't 4
crist?
5 MR. SCHWENCER:
My understanding is that Dr.
6 Herd was mapping a large area.
The Verona f ault was not 7
his key interest.
The Los Positas f auft, I'believe, the 8
area of, in this direction, was more his area of interest 9
in the investigation he was conducting.
This, of course.
10 is of acute intere st to us, on the GETR site.
Okay.
This 11 la st s lide --
12 (Slide.)
13
-- is a plot plan of the Valle ci to's nuclear
-14 center, the containment building is this small round circle 15 here, and the Verona fault, we superimposed it about the 16 direction that it comes through here.
1here is the hill 17 fr ont, when it comes dawn, this sicping region coming down 18 this way.
Okay.
19 I think that, is all the slides that l' had prepared.
20 GETR has done considerable work since October, since our 21
. shutdown order, and they are of the opinion that the Verona 22 fa ul t is really a Jandslide feature and not of tectonic 23 or ig in.
24 It is the staf f's position that suf ficient
,,y,3,y g n t, -.7....
..,qt,..
I
- .10 300 I
the existence of the Verona f a ul t.
The stef f is in the 2
process of reviewing geologic, seismic, and structural 3
da ta, which ha s been, and is, continuing to be provided.
4 by the Gen eral Ele ctric Company, a nd its consultan ts.
5 lie have also requested advice frca the U.S.
6 Ge ologi cal Survey, the California Department of Mines and 7
Geology, a nd Newmark and Hall, in conducting our review 8
effort.
At the present time, our e f fo/ts en the G ETR 9
renewal application itself, have been focused on resolving 10 the issues concerning the ability of the GETR to withstand 11 these seismic forces.
12 The items to be resolved are the magnitude and 13 the frequency of ground accelerations, the magnitude of 14 surf ace di spla cement, the ma nner of combining forces, due 15 to the ground vibratory motion, and surface displacement, and 16 the accept' ability of the consequences of pcrtions on the 17 GETR struc tures and compon ents importa nt to safety.
18 We have had several meetings with GE on this 19 ma tter, and, as we obt'ain the advice and a ssistance from 20 our consultants, we expect that there will be a need for 21
'several more discussions, and obta ining of inf ormation from 22 GE, before resolutions can be reached.
23 Now, since a hearing prior to restart of GETR is 24 a de finite possi bi li ty, th e staf f's sa f ety evaluat ion report,-
- 5
- 1l.
,. n." :. '. : will c: :- n
~-
- c
4.11 301 I
conclusions as to the a cce ptability of restarting the 2
GETR, may serve as testimony, staf f testimony, at a 3
hearing, and a board discussion may be a prerequisite to 4
the restart of GETR.
5 I think et this point. I would c omment tha t it 6
is not the sta ff's intent to ask f or your review, or letter, 7
on this ma tter.
We do, however, intend to keep you fully r
8 informed a s our re view proceeds.
9 10 el l 12 13 14 15 le 17
^
18 19 20 21 22 23 pa
i l
Al, n 2'ew things conf uning to me nn.EbMD3n:
a whether
[
}
i g to deterna
.e l,
the situation, is the Staf f try n i
6Iabout l
1 his reactor is on a f ault? Let me, if I can, clarify.
li t
i 3
l MR. SC11KENCER:
l ctric, is of 7,
The GE, as I mentioned, General E e 4
fault is nonexistent and 3t's not 5
the opinion that the Verona ii 6
tectonic, but of landslide or g n.
tion to that effect.
/
They have made some representa ia Department of 7
f One of the menbers of the Cali orn h t position, and Geology tends to support t a that there is 9
Fines The Staff still does not believe 10 t -- there apparently are gg sufficient information to rule ou 12 l
\\ other lines.
I am not a qualified geologist.
13 I am trying to find out --
j 14 i
l MR. BENDER:
I am going a long way to try to g ve 15 MR. SCHWLNCER:
16 you your answer.
g "EE"" "
what we normally have' d to historically on this site, compare 18 are having a that we 39 tor sites,
\\\\.available for,other reac h.information to reach dif ficult time in deciding we have enoug 20 s
21 sensing that I.
a conclusion.
y I think the General Electric Compan,
22 l
23 J i
- r.-
n:.:e r e.r.-
l
.3-l l
a m ws.sm.q another tack.
25 il
~
~
I t
t
' cm2 1
i They have taken the tack of anster.ing, al t hout;h no ;
I s
,l agreeing, that the Verona fault may indeed be a f ault and they 2
3 have proceeded to provide arguments to us as to what the magni-l 4
tude of such a fault might be and what the surfac'e displacement 5
of _such a fault might be, in the hopes that on the basis of l
6 those, as given inputs, they could then convince us that the l.
7 structures and systems are designed or can be modified, which 8
would be required 3m a few instances.
t 9
MR. BENDER:
The other part of the question I vantef 10 to ask you was, how are you going to measure acceptable i
11 consequences in that case?
i l
12 A small reactor, with not much af terheat associated,'
i 13 with it.
I 14 What is the basis for judging the consequences?
l 15 MR. SCHWENCER:
I think the basic answer on this, we 16 judge it on the basis of the expected doses that might happen I
17 to the public.
l i
18 MR. BENDER:
At the site boundazy?
l 19 MR. SCHWENCER:
This would be site boundary, t.s well 20
.as any dis,tange beyond site boundary.
21 If my memory serves ne correctly, the problem is I
i 22 greatest at the site boundary region.
j 23 MR. BENDER:
10 CPR 100 limits?
7*
1:n. S*!:WI.::02T :
/
is..
25 sider that, yes.
l 1
i
l.
j l DR. SIESS.
i.i.
tr. ra.spon e to a quen cion, you
.c;;43.
2,
, tal):cd a' lot about uhether the Verona f ault is capabic or existed.
3 4
I. read on page 5 of the show-cause order the 5
f llowing words : based on these considerations, either the 6
Calaveras or the the Verona fault would be capable of producing ground motions at the site with accelerations of sustained 7
duration in excess of.75G, if the carthquake were to be 8
centered along the sector of the fault nearest the site.
9 10 If the Calaveras, which is cicarly known to be ji
. active, can produce.75G, why do we care at all whether the 12 Verona is active or not*/
13 The plant is not designed for.75G, obviously.
ja MR. SCHWENCER:
I think perhaps I need to make 15 another clarification.
16 The Verona fault which, or the so-called Verona 37 fault which comes within 200 feet of the reactor containment, 18 there is the concern that there could actually be surface dis-39 placement under the containment itself.
l 20 That's a force in addition to the G force.
~
21 DR. SIESS:
You can pile three levels of catastrophe 22 n top of the first one.
23
% Position is, if Calaveras can produce.75G at
.. : desig::. 2 der..'. 1,
r.,..
25 Verona coulo produce otner.75G or ground breaking maxe.any
30h cmw4 1
difference.
E a
2 You can only fail the plant once.
3 MR. BENDER:
But there's a IcVel of consequences I
4 you have to deal with.
5 DR. SIESS:
.75G, whether it comes from Calaveras 6
or Verona ---
7 MR. BENDER:
It's the degree,of structural damage.
8 MR. SCHWENCER:
Tne GETR is a fairly simply system j
i 9
in terms of safety-related systens.
10 DR. SIESS:
You are telling me they can take SG?
11 I
MR. SCHNENCER:
They have made the point they can 12 take up to.8 G in their submittal, and they have identified 13 a number of items that they would plant to correct.
14 In response to your show-cause orders they have 15 identified 75 areas, a number of areas using their analogies.
16 DR. SIESS:
The ability to take.8 G independent 17 of whether it's produced by Calaveras which is a couple of miles 1
18 away, or Verona, which' is a couple of hundred f.eet away, the 19 spectral content considered is the same?
20
}iR. ' SCHWENCER:
My understanding is, the big concern 21 is, it's 'additng both the vibratory strong motion rela,ted to 22 a shock, with the displacement.
4 23 Th e a c tu n1 di r r ' - - --~-'
' - - ' ' ' - t * - ' -
I"
.'...a li ty.
i n m on m.inc.
25 If one were to combine these loads simultaneously,
- Ju l
o i
I '!
that's a very dif ficult indeed problem, ut.ructurally.
emw5 2
DR. SIESS:
So in your mind the basic issue is.
3 the ground surface movement?
. n...._.
- -..~.
4 MR. SCHWENCER: It becomes a much simpler problem, h.f the ground surface we to go away, if the Verona f ault ucre 5
6 to go away entirely.
7 Let me make one comment.
8 Remember back earlier in the developing of the 9
history we indicated for licensing renewal we still have 10 concern that GE has not supplied us sufficient information and j II we will be looking in the long run for -- if the Verona fault 12 were to go away, we 'still do have to contend with any seismic I3 activity on the nearby f aults, including the Calaveras.
Id MR. ARNOLD:
If it's concluded in the long run that 15 the facility shoWLd shut down, is it clear the benefit to the 16 public would be greater to shut it down immediately than to 17 keep it running, and developing information that might reduce 18 the risk of an operating p.lant?
II MR. SCHWENCER:
That's a hard question to answer.
20
.Let me tell you what we considered at the time we 21 issued the show-cause order.
22 The Staff, which included elements of the divisica 23 of the Office of-Nuclear Reactor Regula ion and Nuclear MateriEI
- ~!
-..., p. n g h.,,..y.. - f...
"6 3,
25 We contacted, or we are contacting a combination of I
I 4 :-
i
- l I
cera7 3
MR. SCI!WENCER:
I think the conce::n is the disp-4: n ;-
- I 2
f the energy after a seismic event.
o 3
That's the large concern.
4 The possibility of not being able to cool the f.uel 5
on a long-term basis.
6 That was the basic concern that we would have.
7 Some of the scenarious would have had a fuel melt, 8
and loss of water over the fuel.
9 This in our judgment in the preliminary scoping 10 calculations we did, prior to October 24th, would have been II unacceptably high, quite out of proportion to what you would 12 expect.
13 MR. EBERSOLE:
You feel you would get the rods in?
I4 MR. SCHWENCER:
Yes.
The reason for this is that 15 the General Electric Company has on this plant a seismic 16 scram, and they have --
17 DR. SIESS:
What is it set at?
18 MR. SCHWEN.CER:
I don' t know if anybody can help 19 on that.
20 MR. BURGER:
It will scram at.OlG.
.OlG.
2I CHAIRMAN LAWROSKI:
Where is the decimal?
22 MR. BURGER:
.OlG.
23 MR. SCHWENCER:
The indication is, the earlier th'e U
pl r
ca.dd be at t'. a t '..
c i R a on m.anc.
25 in time to scram and get the rods in.
309 cvw8 1
There's a consensus on the Staff that that is it.
I 2
PROF. KCRR:
Does it really make a lot of dif ferenct 3
if you don't get the rods in or not?
4 If you don't get them in you just blow thu water 5
out of the core, don ' t you?
6 MR. SCIIWE11CER:
This is a unique reactor, Dr. Kerr.
7 They have valves which open.
B In a sense, it's a pool reactor slightly pressurized 9
and they open to the pool when the reactor scrams.
l 10 There are valves that must open.
II They do rely on the seismic scram as one means of 12 doing that quickly.
13 Those valves are not seismically designed, so the 14 argument is, the valves would open with this precursor signal 5
15 prior to having the steam forces that would perhaps bind them.
16 17 18 19 20 l
21 22 23 8
f i
I' b Ie'QIIf fI, $ M.
25 l
t I-
.I 310 1
PRO.:. KERR:
But if the ve]ves opened and you didn't 2
gct rods in, it wouldn't be as serious a situation as you might 3
think?
4 MR. SUR3ER:
Fred Burger, project manager, Chief 5
Operating Reactor Branch Number one.
6 Your questjon was, vould the rods inscri.before 7
the large shock comes.
8 PROF. KERR My question really was, does it matter 9
a lot whether the rods insert?
It.would matter, because the G
.11
. heat.that would -- the heat that would have to be removed 12 by the collec. tion coolant..would be much larger than if the 13 reactor were to scram.
14 But the rods.would go in in less than one second.
15 At that time, if a measured earthquake were to occur, the
~16 val ue.would be.1 9 17 MR. BENDER:
Have you determined the integrated 18 energy release if you didn't insert the rods, the time the 19 water.was expelled?
20 MR. BURGER:
To my knowledge, no.
l 21
'MR. BENDER:
I think that.would be a.useful piece 22 of information to find out what the action was.
23 CHAIRMAN LWROSKI Along the same line. Chet?
24 DR. SIESS:
Along the same line.
Vi
- : '.. '.' l.N 1.l. :'.. L :..' :
- a n. ' d t.'v...
s l
.3 312 1
SCH\\iEH 3R:
No.
I am sorry.
2 Fred, can we have that slide again or maybe we 3
can just have you refer to your handouts.
4 DR. SIESS:
Los Vallecitos goes right up to 5
Livermore.
6 MR. SCHrlENCER:
That is Les Vallecitos, but the 7
Verona stcps short of that.
8 DR. SIESS:
Las Va.11e:Itos is not capable?
It 9
connects to a capable system, that is defined as capable in 10 Appendix A.
.11 MR. JACKSON:
Bob Jackson of the Geology Staff.
12 Darrell Herd believes the Las Vallecitos is a 13 capable f ault.
In f act he terms it is active, much more 14 c1carly so than the Verona actually, but we have concentrated 15 on the Verona as it relates to the GE site and not on the Las 16 Vallecitos.
17 DR. SIESS:
So you don't know whether there are 18 any operating reactors at Livermore next to the Las Vallecitos 19 fault which is capable?
20 MR. GOLLER:
I believe that there is'an unlicensed 21 r'esearch rea~ctor under the jurisdiction --
22 DR. SlESS:
That wouldn't hurt anybody if it is 23 not licensed.
24 MR. GOLLER:
They are aware of these proceedings.
'.*ngs re.'...
- u ::>e Verant. :*al
4 313 I
believe are ' conducting their own,investJgation in this regard.
2 DR. MARK:
Two questions.
3 The Verone f ault
.if it could be found and was 4
proved to exist,.would by. definition be capable?
5 Because it is connected with Calaveras?
6 MR. JACKSON:
That is our interpretation, because of 7
its. orientation and the stress regime that it sits within, 8
it.would be considered capable.
9 DR. MARK If you rould only find it to be sure'it 10 was there.
.11 MR. JACKSON:
There is lines of evidence that 12 indicates its presence.
There is lines of evidence that in-13 dicate it is not there.
Its being a mile and a half from the 14 Calaveras makes us lean in that direction for the moment.
15 DR. SIESS:
1sn't that one of the definitions of 16 capable in Appendix A?
17 MR. JACKSON:
Structural relationship to a capable 18 fault.
19 DR. SIESS:
Structural relationship to a capable 20 fault.
21 dR. MARK:
I was going to ask a different question.
22 The GETR provided isotopes for medical use.
23 MR..SCHWENCER:
Yes.
24 DR. MARK:
You say, of course, you can find
.- l :. r..
N: 7.- ::.c:
.::D.? -il,' dir ec *.nd.
314 5
they distributed San Francisco and Oakland, Berkeley, or were 1
across the country?
2 You mean the GEIR supp1'ies?
MR. SCHWENCER:
3 DR. MARK:
Yes.
4 My understand GETR supplies the MR. SCHWENCER:
5 not just restricted to the locale around the plant.
6 broad base, So citernate sources.will not. result DR. MARK:
7 then in a great deal more transportation of isotopes on 8
passenger planes between cities?
9 really can't answer that question MR. SCHWENCER:
I 10 in terms of magnitude.
Ji application here, part of the MR. GOLLER:
The 12 supply f rom GETR was international in scope so there was 13 considerable distribution.
14 I would A fundamental thesis here.
MR. EBERSOLE:
15 like to ask the Staff lf they believe a precursor earthquake 36 i ht be occurs seconds in front of a major earthquake which m g 17 valuable in the generic sense?
18 The logic that is being used here is that is 19 Is there always a precursor shock-universally applicable?
20 d trip the which would be adequate to pick up the signal an 21 reactor, take the second or fraction of an earthquake in 22 front of an earthquake.
23 Rerner Hofmann of the Staff.
MR. HOFMANN:
24
- "~ -"- r ^r e r t h-"
- m No, you camot +""cc 25
315 What about P xave?
DR. SIESS:
If the origin of the carthquake xere l
I MR. HOFMANN:.
This origin being ld.
2 at' a suf ficient distance, then you cou 3
it is a little questionable.
4 so close,
Thank you.
CHAIRMAN LAWROSKI:
t est in It seems like there is always a lot of in er 5
6 uirements things seismic.
The next topic is the discussion of the req 7
8 of the key card security system.We have Mr. Pasedag fr 9
MR. CROCKER:
30 Mr. Chairman that.will addre ss that.
long is your presen-About how
.11 CHAIRMAN LAWROSKI:
i
?
12 tation if you don't get any quest onsWalter Paseda 13 MR. PASEDAG:
and had intended to, 14 Mr. Miller who was scheduled to be heretionality, and can't IS but had a flu virus of unspecified na 16 be here today.
My understanding is, I 17 I am filling f or him.
I am f amiliar n here, don't know the background of, your concer 18 19 with the situation.
is, your concern is with the fail-20 My understanding is that correct?
d locks; 21 ure mode cf electrically operate That I should address that problem?
22 I don't think that was the thrus 23 MR. BENDER:
l era What it res])y xas, given that peop e 24 the opestfon.
25 l
.