ML20054C956
| ML20054C956 | |
| Person / Time | |
|---|---|
| Site: | 05000000, Diablo Canyon |
| Issue date: | 11/12/1975 |
| From: | Anthony Giambusso US ATOMIC ENERGY COMMISSION (AEC) |
| To: | Muntzing L US ATOMIC ENERGY COMMISSION (AEC) |
| Shared Package | |
| ML20054C939 | List: |
| References | |
| FOIA-81-437 NUDOCS 8204220170 | |
| Download: ML20054C956 (1) | |
Text
..yn;r
. [" ,,s UNITED STATES
~
eb ATOMIC ENERGY COMMISSION c: 1 b l*
5^ tii wAs oscrow, o.c. zes4s i= c=
%ne Docket Ncs. 50-275
.fi and 50-323 if i!!!!!:.
L. Manning Huntring, Director of Regulation
!E[ lip E U: John F. O' Leary, Director of Licensing 2%W DIA3LO CAh'l0N 1 AND 2 OPERATING LICINSE REVIW SCEIDULE
[.y {j The detailed (Level D) schedule for the radiological safety portion of E;f de' Diablo Ca= yon 1 and 2 operating license review is enclosed for your 91 approval (see Enclosure 2).
Target schedules for level "C" cilestones agis are provided in Enclosure 1.
ji@
De construe:1on permits for Units 1 and 2 vere issued on April 3,1968, 23 !.f.
and December 9,1970, respectively.
Co=pletion of construction is currently
- m estimated for August 1,1974 for Unit 1, and August 1,1975 for Unit 2.
3 ;,
ne applicant has indicated that he vill be ready to lead fuel in Unit 1 i
on November 1, 1974. S e Diablo Canyon OL application was initially h
- tendered on July 10, 1973, and was subsequently rejected on August 13, L;j 1973.
De rejection was due primarily to the extensive nature of the
- M deficiencies identified in the FSAR.
Pacific Gas and Electric tendered e!!d a revised application on September 26, 1973, and the application was
~
- n.a 2'
docketed on October 2, 1973.
m:u 2e proposed radiological safety review period for Diablo Canyon 1 and 2 is approximately ten (10) months.
21s time period begins with the
~
docketing of the application and concludes with the full ACRS Cc=mittee Meeting. A supplement to the Safety Evaluation Report is not planned at this time; theraiore, the usual milestones leading to this document h_
are not reflected in the proposed schedule.
D e proposed schedule is p
extremely optimistic, and is designed to meet the applicant's estimated jii fuel leading date f or Unit 1.
C rc.
l h! h l
De proposed prospective decision date is two months earlier than the E:;
l applicant's proposed fuel loading date for Unit 1.
However, in the event
[h.
that a prolonged OL hearing is required, the applicant is hopeful that l}.~~
he can arrange a stipulation with the intervenors such that fuel loading and low power physics testing can proceed while the hearing is in progress.
A. Giambusso, Deput'/ Directo.
i for Reactor projects d.
Directorate of Licensing
Enclosures:
1.
Level C Milestones
~
2.
Level D Schedule
-f ff
(,
i l
8204220170 811112 l
~
.7
s
..'.m.
tih.
Oi::. ".'
ENCLOSURE 1
'" ~ ' " '
- 9..
- i
- : :.u' TARGET SCEE ULE FOR LEVEL "C" MILESTONES fl.[!,(((.'}
sa::.v::
b;;:rc y.:,;a:
Milestone Date
{..i..-
i.!: at:p Aoplication and FSAR docketed 10/2/73 g.iii.?
3 Questions from TR to LPM 12/21/73 Ei! 'E t':di:i Questions to Applicant 1/4/74 i+'"-
.n;"c...
Respecse from Applicant 2/15/74
'*5i W::n;;.
Positions from TR to LPM 3/29/74
';c.I t.s=
"" w; Positions to Applicant 4/12/74 f
..1::
Responses from Applicant 5/10/74
..d"".
h Safety Evaluation I=put from TR 6/7/74 c.
d" Safety Evaluation Issued 7/19/74
.. 37::
- ACRS Meeting 8/9/74
- ^
Prospective Decision Date 9/1/74
.:+..
Estimated Fuel Loading Date for Unit i 11/1/74
..'jj:=I 6.
Estimated Fuel Loading Date for Unit 2 11/1/75 O
e i
b-i O
j.*:
i l
'1 i
A.'I O '
l L
..r.-
- n'c.
.. ~..,. _
r 1
h.
- x > # ' c,+.
- 3 UNITED STATES b:.:
a d
ra..~
ly
\\.
ATOMIC ENERGY COMMISSICN
$.2; I
- f.
.w.
he
.F'l 8
W ASHINGTON. D.C. 20145
'ile"!!I
,v s '\\
- c 4.h,. ' ' ;
ic,
%8 inuc.
tuc::
!=
Decket Nos. 50-275 and'50-323 NOV
'5 mes racc:;
..1. :t r...
D.bi. t zrc filii:i
..c *g-.,y 7,,yIu.y j,;/.:M L. Mannins Muntting, Director of Regulation THRU:
John F. O' Leary, Director of Licensing
.;:33
[p
.ir DIABLO CANYON 1 AND 2 "E3ATING LICENSE REVIEL' SCHEDULE
~ ;;j i s. :.
.t....g u
The detailed (Level A schedule for the radiole.i:al n L :y porcion o"
$$$5, g
the Diable Canyon 1 and 2 opera:ing license revi e is encic. sed for your 5
etpprovai 6:se Enclosure 2).
Target schedulas for levei "c" milestones
[h;#
are provi::ed in Eticlosure 1.
f?
!s.
he censtruction perr.its for Units 1 and 2 teere issued en April 3,1965, and December 9,1970, respectively.
Cc=pletica of cu.s truction is currently
,.s esti=ated for August 1, 1974 for init 1, and Ausust 1, 1975 for U.it 2.
t.;iti.]
The applicent has indicated that he will be ready to load fuel in Unit 1 fi', '
on Hover'aar 1, 1970.
The Diablo Canren OL applic: tics was initially 3::
ti:ndered c: July 10, 1973, and t.cs subsequc tiy rejected er August la, 3:.:.
1973.
The rejection was due pritr.ari ty to the er.t en r.t ve nacare of the deficiencies identificd in the FSAR.
Pacific Oss a.d Electric tendered s.i..
"~"
a revised application en Sepet:bcr 26, 1973, and the applicatica was doe!:ned on Octcher 2,1973.
4".."
.c.:p Initially, a 12 cenih. radiological saf ety review schedule was established
].'i for the Diablo Canyon CL review.
However, you directed that this schedule
- c. L.,
^2 "
be shortened to 10 months, and the enciesed revised schedule reflects this instruction.
Since the previcusly propcsed 12 conth schedule tras an already very tight, this further acceleratica will be quite difficult; however, Te:hnical Review has 1..di:ated that they will rske every reasonable p![""
effort to meet it, provided the applicant r: eats his =tlestene dates.
i
{!~
It should be recognir.ed that if the applictnt brer.ches any of his du r dates this schedule cannot be =et.
The irpact of this revis.-d schedule t
en ethar prefect s %dules is presently being revic eed bv T)..
Schedule j.
chany.
- x. e: hor c:.e:. ss nece.% :),
111 'ec..repared t ' 4:.:: meds:c p;
th t-Di:.c '..,
.nyoa : ch::'u 1 e.
k.n The l'i.anth.i e peried begins tith tne c:d m iny cf t'.o < -lication
..nd c..01. Gr. tith @c :ull AG...'
- mi t t ee ' s '-i S. / !up!'-
4*'
to
$ci:.
.-h e s a f e t:, r /nluat!.... '.e.por t is ::. planned at this tirm :: = c^. f ore,
e..
C - ! Le s to.u inJin3 c cri.s docu-tn-.re w r;f1< n'd !n 0 propeted
"'edule
.G;.
?*i
-.t a, on-g - a,;.'
r,
- iu a
tr c'e:..
e
-:.9;-
- .ae at'rli
- .:
-Lir2*ad e c l ' o!.'i -
W (Cr 4
..-m a
- s N--
( < k
w.-
w,,
.1
- a-9 r*
.. ~..
,;;A
~
, s.e.;
1 I
L.
e L..
[.
NOV 8 1973 i::
L. Manning Muntzing ':J 0-c i;:.
'Ihe proposed prospective decision date is two cenths earlier than tha
..,..;;;n applicant's proposed fuel loading date for I! sit 1.
Ecwever, in tha crent that a prolonged OL hearing is required, the applicant is hcpeful that iac.
he can arrange a stipulation with the intervenors such that fuel loading 3.y' and Icu power physics testing can proceed while the heari.ng is in progress.
Epal d;.5dfa Est: 3. Ud
$'!i!!U-tI A. Giambusso, Daputy Director for Reactor Projects
~
Directorata of Licensing V.:.:.
Enclosures:
2 4.?.
1.
. Level C 1111estones 2.
Level D Schedule t,..:.:
DISTRIBUTION:
Docket (2)
RP Reading
!" IYi.
L Reading r"....
FWR-3 Reading F' ~
JFO' Leary AGianbusso
- H!-
RSBoyd RCDeYoung S.33 KRGoller
'=
TJHirons 32-Vn~Jils on I
JMHendrie I,
^
f )'E s,m RSBoyd WMc Donald
~
'g
- g. '
gg RCushesn E
PWR Branch Chiefs
\\y RWKlecker L
2 s
.s b
GDicker EGCase f
LVGossick
\\..'
a
~
v f
\\' <., s, j\\
'\\ t b,'
( t.,
i y
j,3b
... 3..
se k
ht' N(.t
.f\\
,y urier >
L v..'i..g - 3.. = - - - -.. l..L...:.p*?.R... 3 L..:. 3. 3../ II v.7!- 15 p* ll i P?G-.
..L..:..Ac/ eWRs. L:D
,n.
L:DIR N
f-
/
.1.[G
\\"
s 3 wr i., ~~. ' W..m... e.. f..a..j....* - ': : 1..*. r. -
.. T...~M..e..n..d..r. i e...... 3.C. '.a.7 -. Yeun;.
.. Circ busso J7D * !.e ary
- i,,. f
- 3....... I ' 1. '.I/ 7..:.....!..i..l..i....../. 7 3........ :.11/ ?../_7 3.
..../11 b 73 l!/ /73 t
o., :.,.,. n........o
....-r...
.. w....
.u
'..a..
o g;
tm.:.]9 f..[u ENCLOSURE 1 9pxt:-
TARGET SCHEDULE FOR LEVEL "C" MILESTONES 5
i ci:A
- nneui
- y Milestone Date
.e wy.
?B Application and FSAR docketed 10/2/73
.u...
Questions from TR to LPM 12/21/73 Questions to Applicant 1/4/74 kbilB w c--
2.x,.
Response from Applicant 2/15/74 p$;
Positions from TR to LPM 3/29/74
.:d Positions to Applicant 4/12/74 4 =f
~
- .:.a:
Responses from Applicant 5/10/74
- h...
. 2?:.
7.:=
lll
Safety Evaluation Input from TR 6/7/74 gll.=
Safety Evaluation Issued 7/19/74 L. p!.;w Ei b:=;u_.f ACRS Meeting 8/9/74 E!. ?!:
p.MT Prospective Decision Date 9/1/74 rpy,,,,,
w.e
.t.
Esti=ated Fuel Loading Date for Unit 1 11/1/74 E....-
s Esti=ated Fuel Leading Date for Unit 2 11/1/75 h.?!..
i...<
7 d
si;.-.
1::. ::
a..
as.E l
=..;
[
Ihl 3!
t..
l
-... =
t
)(
[
UNITED STATES 9
5 ATOMIC ENERGY COMMISSION N d l
WASHINGTON. D.C. 20545
%Y)!
,,.:.a
%n e NOV 21 ti73 E$
.M: -
L:::..
Joseph M.
Hendrie, Deputy Director for Technical Review, L THRU:
Harold Rs Denton, Assistant Director for Site Safety, L s
g 4G y-
[DIABLO CANYO NEW FAULT REPORTED BY USGS TWO MILES L O m M THE VICINITY OF THE SITE
~
On November 19, 1973, I was infortied by Dr.
E.
H.
Baltz, Jr.,
USGS, that he had just received a telephone call from Mr. Holly Wagner of their Menlo Park office concerning a fault which has recently been discovered about two miles offshore of Diablo Canyon.
Mr. Wagner reported that an offset was noted on the ocean floor on 3 crossings and, although the records have not yet been analyzed, he feels l37 that there is little doubt that the offset is a fault 6=
scarp.
The trend is generally northwest roughly parallel to the shore.
kr. Wagner expects to complete a written report to the Geological Survey on the results of the
"~[
survey within about 2 weeks.
a;555 The applicant's FSAR for Diablo Canyon 1 and 2 contains a
[,;..,
discussion of an offshore fault.
In our acceptance review, b a::t i
we identified this as an area requiring additional infor-E....
l macion.
The applicant was requested to discuss this
[{.f~
l subject in detail in view of recent studies that had been l-l conducted by the USGS, and to indicate the properties of p
the maximum p rob ab le earthquake that may be postulated on it.
A reference to USGS open file reports by Holly Wagner was included.
These comments were transmitted to th e r
applicant by Mr. Giambusso on Aug'ust 13, 1973.
~
At the site visit held on October 25, 1973, this matter i.
was discussed with the applicant.
PG&E indicated th a t I-the subjec.t was discussed to some-extent in the report by Hoskins and Griffith which was referenced in the FSAR, but that more recent information was expected from the USGS offshore work being funded by the AEC.
(This is one l
task in the USGS program being funded by the General Manager in suppert of the Regulatory program.)
The
[.,
I
) 9:j
- u g/
I
~.:.:...
e w-,
m
,$ sill
- fhE F
2-Jcseph M. Hendrie NOV 21 1973
~~'-
c:
applicant noted that the results of this work should
!$[.5 be available about the middle of November 1973.
f*
k),,
6L,s ~ ~,,u William P.
Gammill, Chief ug Site Analysis Branch
~
Directorate of Licensing 9W.
':g]
cc:
S.
Hanauer A.
Giambusso d
W. Mcdonald R.
C.
DeYoung G
K.
Goller T.
Hirons L.
Chandler W.
P.
Gammill A.
Cardone g;;;,
E.
H.
- Baltz, Jr.,
USGS 7.7.~
,,,j']
s
. :)
(.
Ii s
[.'.
V:
(
y.:
g..
- !h'*
E 6:
C.:
,.t a u S
e,%,
UNITED STATES s
... f D
ATOMIC ENERGY COMMISSION
$.ma
.,i fiH
.[
WASHINGTON. O.c. 20543 L
I:: 7'iii g\\, -
g i!,( h e.,n e 5,:
Docket Nos. 50-275 6 ~.. 2 1 EU i
and 50-323 Ne.ma g':
-g',
n.....'.
Pacific Cas and Electric Company
....u.a Ya ATTN:
Mr. Frederick T. Searls Vice President & General Counsel 77 Beale Street y;
.rf.,
'lln..
San Francisco, California 94106 p*
- 2....
Gentlemen:
_:. u..
This letter will confir= the schedule for our saf w of your E3 application for operating licenses for yo(iscussea wa tTTepresDiablo~',an bl C
Plant, Units 1 and 2.
This schedule was d enta-tives of your company at a meeting in Bethesda on Nove=ber 2, 1973.
The proposed radiological saf ety review period for Diablo Canyon 1 EE "
and 2 is approximately ten (10) months.
This time period begins with
'22.;;;;;;;;,
the docketing of the application and concludes with the full ACRS
,,ff Co=mittee Meeting. A si-a y of the more important schedule milestones is given in Enclosure 1.
g;;M
. :.'11.
y".y;;;i..
It should be emphasized at this point that the proposed ten conth review EP 7; s...
schedule is exceptionally short, and that this schedule has been formu-
.5 n laced in an attempt to comply with your esti=ated fuel loading date for f,7 Unit 1.
Your application for operating licenses should have been sub-En mitted at least six to eight months earlier than it was in order to allow F'
for a normal operating license review.
In order to complete this review
.:ET within the ten conth period, we have eliminated the usual provision for a supplement to our safety evaluation report and reduced the nor=al time
~
j intervals for issuance of and responses to questions.
In order to actually accomplish this, we will need your full cooperation throughout the review.
You will note that several of the ailestones in this schedule require specific input, preparation, or porticipation by you. Most important of these will be your responses to our requests for additional infor=ation.
Presently, there are several i=portant items on which we require significant additional infor=ation, e.g., possible effects of newly discovered geologic i
faults, effects of tsuna=is caused by potential near-shore generators, and slope stability field work and analysis.
Your failure to provide the required infor=ation on these subjects or any other ite=s identified in the future within the ci=etable of the schedule could result in significant l
schedule delays.
I.I i
i..
- N o m g a t ' 7 t-O i
.e -
.m aM Pacific Cas and Electric Co=pany a::
{j. y b.i 1:: '
It should be realized that the scheduled dates are tar;;ets, which mayj?l, require some changes as the review process proceeds.
- n.:. li infor:: you of cinor changes to the schedule, we will confirmWhile we :::ay not
. 533 any significant eh w ges.
, in writing 4
3 If you have any questions regarding this review schedule, we will be happy to ceet and discuss these questions with you or your representative E'
..nv ;
Sincerely, lf.!!
0:qns Wis Spr 1. SqjQ /
7'"i
- nd A. Cla=busso, Deputy Director
\\
x for Reactor Projects
'/:..
Directorate of Licensing I
Enclosure:
- ?
Review Schedule Milestones DIST?.IBUTION:
ec w/ encl:
AEC PDR Local PDR Mr. U. J. I.izidblad,. Proj ect'. Engineer Dockets (2)
Pacific Gas and Electric Co::pany LWR 1-3 Reading 77 Beale Street RCDeYoung San Francisco, California 94106 AGiambusso
- .:f)
~"
JMHendrie P. A. Crane, Jr., Esq.
AKenneke Pacific Gas and P.lectric Co=pany RWKlecker 245 Market Street OGC San Francisco, Califor::ia 94106 R0 (3)
~^
TJHirons
~
KRGoller VHWilson
)
~~~
ACRS (16)
JPanzarella RCush=an F -:
LChandler l
DMuller GKDicker rf k
an GKD e d D.
eh e
J 12/ N /73 12//4r/73 12//e /73 12%-M / 73 Kd
- a t
- :.
- emu, M.L n.. Ara.....L.0,wa.2.-2 l.2.:.:m/..
.. L..:Ev.....
p jfj?Q f f/ >...Mi..:}.c u s.s o..,
l x7243:tsb rm4 r >..U.Mr.9.ns.. e....MGs. Ale.r RC.D.ig o.sg..
x
.11/.14-/.7.3... 32/.M/.n._..12/de..nl.....lub.n3....
s._.uc.,,. ~,.,u cum
... I eart.
r 9
,2,[j t....
a ENCLOSURE NO. 1
[:1 '"""
2 t::. ::::
p.--
Ilar.:w
.z" REVIEW SCHEDULE MILESTONES L'g* * !.
EVE!."I DATES TIME ELAPSED (Weeks)
[._..
Lv:t :;;p i
Application & FSAR docketed 10-2-73 0
~
(:-
Review Schedule approved 11-9-73 5
(+
- +
N..:n:
t :
Questions to applicant (first round) 1-4-74 13 hs;nn; ici:.:s!!!
Responses from applicant 2-15-74 19 e
Staff positions to applicant 4-12-74 27 h:E c:: :::::q
- n.cu Respenses fro = applicant 5-10-74 31 L
- ., ' ~
lu; zu Safety Evaluation Issued 7-19-74 41 a-.
!f.3:#
ACRS Full Co==ittee Meeting 8-9-74 44
. us.
Start Safety Hearing (unknown)
- Gara Prospective Decision Date 9-1-74 47
):::r Esti~ated Fuel Loading for Unit 1 11-1-74 56 "l.........
..+ :-
f". 'J.;;C.
[.2..ar n.
, }.;;
ca.;
- .2
...r:-
O
JWrua - (0&y-P- wi@/9-9 *' "':
e.
UNITED STATES
+
i i
? I '. i ~r '-
ENERGY COMMISSION I.l'M' f.
u au t
wasmucTos. o.c. 2osas
/
(.*.,wlh /
J
~:=
... E
/
h.
.O
,' ;l[ u '%
i==z
/
g/ y MAY 3 01974
.. pw y.==>
- o a.ed y
b' ;a.
h";
l Note to: -0_istribution NAdEMENT MEETIrlG W TH PACI.:IC GAS & ELECTRIC COMPANY REGARDING kk..
sg. 3 r.u r -. v.,....e g""
(.
(ii..,
Date:
Tuesday, June 4, 1974
, jg h.b T> M b k b
~h-Time:
9:30 a.m.
- hid$ ; 4 A 4 % k i.f4 g, Location:
Room P-130A h. w o d % G.R 4;. l A Q
.,.,g (y -m.ed L '6 k, w J. p '
a j
PGLE participants will be:
L Scoq
---24 J. D. Worthington, Senior Vice President j.E R. Bettinger, Chief Civil Engineer
". ',c
'l. J. Lindblad, Project Engineer 7:]:
O
,/
4
/
l
' kn:~'
l%f
-n y
Thomas J. Hirons, Project Manager Light' Ilater Reactars
- .H l
Project Branch 1-3
'T Directorate of Licensing
".2::
. - %i Distribution:
b Q.p g f g e.J m.
4 Qgg, __ M';,.((
7,-
f.h.
g} g3,u 99 ne wwgy,g 4,,g g ; l,yg,j,y, _
..p, e ry g_:
m e
G A. Giambusso y
,,,,, g g
J.M.Hendrie/(gk +$ C Q 16 %
.,,j,,
R. S. ooyd s
- ' ' 'M O6u M b'4 b Mc M.
E.
R. C. DeYoung
- v. 5
'a n G A i t. M.~
"-[j,'%"
?) Nt d-4 e. 4-6 4. fi. c~w<- mt-C'M-h I
'.;lP.Gammill SNe 4* w;dat (yq. 2 < 'T
.blen 3 N c f*IV.
^Ek
'Y^
%e 2- &.
T. J. Hirons
.L
]
g\\ r N.:.
U.64 A tu a % } ? C.,._,
IV.
\\~
=~=t.~
..a
"'"TO M d.C.'id e 't'a
,1.%% %
~.&w U.
l
%. 4 aAc,p A 'r.Oo q ~
b a e M G t'
, I."
dI mL,. d %d:, +, d 4.f., e 4.,s 4e tm.,
eI ~
'\\ he
'q.u.
?.d e, c. & '.a *m a ! ~
'.:.s....t n
l
.~s. +
.x.s v.c a 5'.&C %',.t: s -'a C $ m.ME.
(.~.: '.0% s.
l
..q::l,f,6 ' ar.[ h Qt..[ !
'e =
3h'
~_
f
,.y
...,..a..w..
.s
..u..
. i..
i;.:...:.....
~;;;;-
,e TYPED BELOW ARE DR. HENDRIE'S NANDWRITTEN NOTES:
Problem:
Since CP, H-G has been identified; question now is whether HG has moved in last 1/2 million yrs (no movement in 35k, no mult, move's in 500k)
? Griffin
~
(1) Nev " fault" from " expansion" of Hoskins Griffin ~
(2-) We asked about H-G in accept. rev. - Aug '73 - they are still trying to answer (3) New "USGS" faults have gone away - but USGS work has indicated H-G is much bigger than expected (4) Problem for PG&E is to show H-G extension is not fault (5) Need relation of H-G to other existing structures - need to date last movement, (if possible).
-(6)
If it is judged capable - at apparent size ~ ~ 2/3 g at site (7) They have report - we've met twice - they don't seem to understand we already think it ain't enough.
Problem is to make adequate showing s
& we don't think they got it.
(8) They need:
- 1) work sought to show H-G connection to transverse ranpes(?) there.
- 2) to produce or redo oil Co survey work on seismic profiles in whole area
- 3) repeat USGS profiles to get improved resolution on subsurface interfaces 4) l