ML20154A263

Preliminary Aspects of PG&E Application for CP for Nuclear Power Plant at Proposed Diablo Canyon Site

ML20154A263
Person / Time
Site:	Diablo Canyon
Issue date:	04/14/1967
From:	US ATOMIC ENERGY COMMISSION (AEC)
To:
Shared Package
ML20153H616	List: ML20153H612 ML20153H637 ML20153H656 ML20153H668 ML20154A263
References
FOIA-88-156 NUDOCS 8809120128
Download: ML20154A263 (3)

Text

_ ____ _-__ -

M s ~.o7"2ovu

""*'I.^u"o "ww- I "l" 1M. w; w" "a"

, w

.. APR 141967 l

l I

U. S. ATCMIC ENERCY CCDMISSION DIVISION OF REACTOR LICENSINC REPORT TO ADVIS0tY COPMITTtt ON REACTOR SAFECUARDS IN THE MATTER OF PRELIMINARY ASPECTS OF PACIFIC GAS AND EI.ECTRIC COMPANY'S APPLICATION FOR A CONSTRUCTION PERMIT FOR A WUClJAt POWER FIAlff AT ITS PROPOSED DIABLO CANYOW SITE _

f1 e

~ $

):

d.

I l

l l

s 8809120120 000010 IL 00-156 PDR Note by the Director. Division of Rosetor Licensinn The attached report has been prepared by the Division of' Reactor Licensing for use by the Advisory Committee on Reactor Safeguards.

,O .T.T.P -

P U.A 7 Y IST ^h!P Y

! $) p

l

.. , emmnmn p n n mT y 3 vyh, j

- , . ~ - - ~ ~ wu a s PRE 1.1MIMARY ASPECTS OF PACIFIC CAS AND ELECTRIC COMPANY'S APPLICATION FOR l

A CONSTRUCTION FERM1T FOR A WUCLEAR POWER PLANT l AT ITS PROPOSED DIABLO CANYOM SITg <

i>

4 Introduction  ;

e '

i The Pacific Cas and 31ectric Company (PG63)' submitted an application on 1 ]

M January 18, 1967, for a construction permit and facility license for its Diablo b

.d Canyon nuclear power plant. The proposed site borders on the Pacific Ocean. The d

'4 nearest population center is San Luis Obispo, California (approximately 10 miles wsw

,I of the site) which has a population of some 26,000 people. l

,' 'v,h.

. D(seussion

, The location of the site in California will necessitate a thorough review of l l

the site's reisted design criteria. We have already initiated our review of the

.:f.

y site features at a meeting (March 21,1967) . :h the applicant and our consultanta.

I l

f) We understand that the elevation of the site (approximately 70 feet above sea level) 1 7

. ' t.l jj l should preclude the adverse effects of taunamis. Seismic design criteria, however, I

will warrant further evaluation as our consultants believe that the seismic criteria

,..;g.

3; -

proposed by FC62 are low with regard to the earthquake magnitude in the site area.

~

The Diablo Canyon plant will be a Westinghouse Indian Point 11 type FV1. The

.)D design thermal rating is for 3250 Mvt with an ultimate capability of 3391 Mwt.

l-.l I

!f a The most significant difference between the Diablo Canyon reactor design and i l "4 that of Indian Point 11 lies in the core design. Fuel enrichments have been fi ^

l changed and a three region configuration will be used with the central regions arranged in a checkerboard fashion. This configuration is predicted to reduce l

1 l the nuclear peaking factor, and along with the increased linear haat generation I l rate, will enable a thermal output 181, higher than that of Indian Foint 11 for u,  !

l mm-n-,s, ,mm m.,. I M T .T N .J u - Vii.,4 Vib 'J

s.

s j wm c yu nc=

, a u u s.au u.a www us m u m ~ ,: .

. . 2 the same site core. The engineering hot channel factors and DNBR correlation 1

and other core parameters will be essentially identical to those of Indian

{

Point II. Nr review will include an investigation of clad damage limits in terus of temperature, pressure, and specific power for normal, transient, and accident

. condition.

This plant will be provided with an emergency core cooling system similar to that of other PWR's consisting of accumuistors and core deluge pumps. The i

containment cooling systems are also similar in that fan coolers and containment spray systems will be used. The containment design incorporates reinforced concrete '

and a atest liner. It is similar in sise, design pressure and design concept to that of Indian Point II. The containment will be founded on bedrock.

We will place particular importance in our analysis on loss-of-coolant accidents in view of the proposed increase in power denalty. The effects of any positive moderator temperature coefficient and pipe break location will be appro-priately evaluated.

Conclusion In summary, the most significant differences between the Diablo Canyon plant design and other Westinghouse PWR's are apparent in the increased core power denalty and the site characteristics. These dif ferernes will be thoroughly '

evaluated for assurance of plant safety under all normat operating and credible accident conditions. We do not foresee any major problem with the proposed 4

design other than the ef fects of ette characteristics unique with California. An 1 August 1967 meeting with the Committee is anticipated.

1. ONNNN b. N NYD O. D. I N S. I w u e uNur e L.auss Vaur a.# e w a v as u 9 e q

. _ , _ _ , _ , _ . . _ _ _ , , _ _ _ . , _ _ . _ _ . _ . , _ , _ _ _ _ _ , - . . , _ . . _ , _ . _ _ _ _ __,_,_,__,,__.,___y

,