ML20197J838
Text
l }h' h
UNITED STATES NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSION
'o
~,,
WASHINGTON, D. C. 20555 n
E,
- %ec o 50-275 and 50-323 Docket Nos.:
George Knighton, Chief MEMORANDUM FOR: Licensing Branch #3 Division of Licensing Frank C. Cherny, Acting Chief FROM:
Mecahnical Engineering Branch Division of Engineering DIABLO CANYON UNIT 2 APPLICABILITY CODE ASS
SUBJECT:
UNIT 1 ALLEGATIONS i
to Unit 2 of The Mechanical Engineering Branch has reviewed the applicabil tyge E-6 61 allegations on piping and supports as listed in Table 5.
, paAll allegations except those listed below fall in Cate The following allegations fall in Category R:
26.
85 95 299 300 307 310 323 337 609 734 736 739 740 741 1020 1030 1043 1046 1056 1057 1063 1073 1087 1088 1092 1136 1137 1138 1154 1155 and have The following allegations fall outside the scope of MEB review area therefore not been categorized:
716 874 877 983 1031 1041 1047 1127 1128 1129 1332 1370 1375 1376 1378 1379 1398 lfL ilj Frank C. Cherny, Acting Chief /
g Mechanical Engineering Branch Division of Engineering R. J. Bosnak cc:
H. Schierling M. Ley pl h P/
- 8. Saffell M. Hartzman C & A w 2 9 d y ) xA 3-
~
,e
/
D UNITED STATES D
f 8
't.
NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSION b lf Id a
j wassincros, o. c. 20sss s.,*..../
JUN 1 1 1985 MEMORANDUM FOR:
George Knighton, Chief Licensing Branch No. 3, DL FROM:
Leon Reiter, Acting Chief Geosciences Branch, DE
SUBJECT:
SUMMARY
OF THE MAY 22, 1985 MEETING WITH PG&E CONCERNING NRC COMMENTS ON THE SEISMIC REEVALUATION PROGRAM PLAN Attached is a summary of the meeting held on May 22, among PG&E and its consultants and the NRC and its advisors. The purpose of the meeting was to allow PG&E the opportunity to respond to NRC coments on PG&E's Seismic Reevaluation Program. A list of attendees 1.5.,also attached.
V
~
Leon Reiter, Acti g Chief Geosciences Branch Division of Engineering
Attachment:
As stated cc: w/ attachment J. Knight R. Bosnak S. Brocoum G. Lear P. T. Kuo L. Heller L. Reiter H. Schierling R. Rothman R. McMullen D. Slemmons l
R. Brown, USGS l
d rm h..\\
we A r s-as o " Y W 1 0 y> '"- "
Q f.)
l nx l 1/
G
a s
.d May 22, 1985 MEETING REGARDING THE DIABLO CANYON SEISMIC REEVALUATION PROGRAM A meeting was held on May 22, 1985 among PG&E, its consultants and NRC and its advisors to discuss the NRC's comments on PG&E's Long Term Seismic Program. A list of attendees is attached.
Most of this meeting was involved with PG&E and its consultants orally addressing each NRC comment. PG&E agreed with all of the general comments and will factor them into the Program Plan. Most of the specific comments required clarifications or more detailed elaborations, which the licensee presented orally. These presentations will be documented formally.
The NRC and its advisors caucussed at the end of the meeting and presented the following comments:
1.
The schedule for the near future includes the following milestones:
(1) June 10, 1985 - PG&E formal response to NRC comments on the Program Plan; (2) June 24 and 25 - Diablo Canyon site field trip and geological reconnaissance; (3) June 28, 1985 - NRC's final report on the Program Plan; (4) July 10, 1985, 9:00 a.m. to 1:00 p.m. - ACRS Subcommittee meeting; (5) July 11, 1985 - ACRS meeting; and (6) November,1985 - Quarterly meeting among PG&E and NRC to discuss PG&E's program scoping analysis.
2.
PG&E should provide a written response to NRC's comments on the program plan for NRC and the ACRS. This formal response should include a summary of their presentations made at this meeting including viewgraphs with an explanation as to how this information supplements the program plan.
3.
The program plan should continue to be kept flexible.
4.
The ultimate goal of the seismic reevaluation program, to determine what the results mean to the seismic safety of the plant, should always be kept in mind. This was the intent of the seismic licensing condition.
?
5.
We request that PG&E summarize all of the major issues as it sees them, in the formal submission. The NRC and its advisors had difficulty in providing constructive comments because the issues were not clearly stated in the Program Plan and PG&E did not present significantly new information at the meeting.
6.
Clarification is needed as to who will replace TERA and Stewart Smith in performing the seismology and ground motion functions.
7.
PG&E should also provide a response to ACRS comments on the Level 2 PRA in its formal response to NRC comments.
8.
PG&E's formal documentation should be submitted to the staff by June 10, 1985. The staff will review these materials and submit its conclusions regarding the Program Plan to the ACRS by June 28.
__-.