ML20205F607
| ML20205F607 | |
| Person / Time | |
|---|---|
| Site: | Diablo Canyon  |
| Issue date: | 08/18/1986 |
| From: | Ferguson R Sierra Club |
| To: | |
| Shared Package | |
| ML20205F611 | List: |
| References | |
| CON-#386-355 OLA, NUDOCS 8608190264 | |
| Download: ML20205F607 (10) | |
Text
-
0h DOCK g
UNITED STATES.0F AMERICA U$
o NUCLEAP REGULATORY COMMISSION
$l$ Q g,
BEFORE THE ATOMIC SAFETY AND LICENSING BOARD k7,,g(La,q ;jj y I
In the Matter of:
)
Docket Nos. 50-275-
)
and 50-323-OLA Byf,g,"gSc h VI(;(
PACIFIC GAS AND ELECTRIC COMPANY
)
)
ASLBP No. 86-523-03-LA (Diablo Canyon Nuclear Power' Plant,
)
Units 1 and 2)
)
REPORT ON EFFORTS TO RESOLVE SIERRA CLUB CONTENTION (I)(A)
During the prehearing conference of May 13, 1986,- concerning the proposed reracking of the Diablo Canyon Nuclear Power Plant spent fuel pools, the Atomic Safety and Licensing Board Panel (ASLBP) directed PG&E to meet with representatives of the Sierra Club to furnish certain information as requested in Sierra Club Contention IA. The ASLBP's order of June 27, 1986, further directed the parties to meet and attempt to resolve Contention IA, to prepare a joint report on this effort and submit this report to the Board by August 18, 1986.
On August 6, Richard Locke of PG&E sent a letter to me with copies to the ASLB panel members suggesting a basis for the required report. The letter included certain language regarding the accuracy, applicability, and suitability of the data which has been provided to be by PG&E. I am unable at this time to agree with the claims made by PG&E in the August 6 letter regarding their data. Consequently we have not yet been able to arrive at language for a joint report agreeable to all parties.
I would like to take this opportunity to comment on the data given to me by PG&E in response to the.ASLB order regarding the Sierra Club Contention IA.
SIERRA CLUB CONTENTION IA "It is the contention of the Sierra Club, Santa Lucia Chapter. (Sierra Club) that the report " submitted to the Nuclear Regulatory Commission (NRC) entitled Reracking of Spent Fuel Pools Diablo Canyon Units 1 and 2 and other communications between Pacific Cas and Electric Compant (PG&E) and the NRC which are available to the public on thelsame subject (the Reports) fail to contain certain relevant' data necessary ' for independent verification of the claims make in the Reports regarding consistency of the proposed reracking with the protection of the public health and safety, and the environment.
"In particular, the Reports fail to contain data regarding:
- 1) the mass of a spent fuel' assembly and masses of the loaded spentffuel rack (racks);"
Response
PGAE was able to find a reference to the mass of a spent fuel assembly in the Reracking Report, at the end of Chapter 6. Together with the data of Table 2.2, the masses of loaded racks can now be calculated. I consider Contention (I)(A)(1) to be resolved.
1 8608190264 860818 Q
PDR ADOCK 0500 5
g
)
- )
e
Contention IA' continues:
"2) the spring constants used for the nonlinear springs (gap elements) to model the~beavior of the racks (see e.g. p. 6-10ff of the Report);"
Response
PG&E now claims that the values of the spring constants used in the rack analysis and identified symbolically on Figure 6.3.1 of the Reracking Report Kg
= 0.515 x 10 lbs/ inch 1 x 10 lbs/ inch Kg
=
g 74,400 lbs/ inch & 260,000 lbs/ inch (6 x 11 rack)
K
=
g 127,000 lbs/ inch & 154,000 lbs/ inch (10 x 11 rack) 9 lbs/ inch.
The value for K,/ had*been originally reported to me as 1 x 10 "After I pointed out that this value was probably in error, PG&E agreed to check and subsequently reported an amended value of 1 x 10* lbs/ inch (above).
Inasmuch as the above values can now be assumed to accurately represent the spent fuel racks, I consider contention (1)(A)(2) resolved.
Contention IA continues:
"3) The expected velocity and displacement of the spent fuel pools (pools)
[ sic) as a function of time in three dimensions during the postulated Hosgri earthquake (PHE)."
l
Response
On June 9, 1986, I received a floppy diskette and a printout of digitized acceleration time-histories which PG&E claims was used to model the spent fuel pool and rack response to the PHE. Only acceleration time histories were provided since, as we had discussed at a joint meeting on May 22, 1986 in San Francisco, velocities and displacements are easily obtained from acceleration data by straightforward mathematical procedures.
I reported the displacements derived from the seismic data cupplied to me by PG&E in an affidavit to the U. S. Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit (Attachment A). The reported values have since caused considerable controversy. Also attached are portions of several other documents which illustrate the extent of the current debate over the meaning and interpreta-tion of the seismic data.
It should b'e recalled that'the seismic' data had been requested l
specifically to calculate pool displacements and was freely given with no disclaimers of any kind. As can be seen from the affidavit of Mr. Niles, the displacements originally reported by me were correctly obtained from the data supplied by PG&E (Attachment B). The procedure by which these values are obtained 'is extremely straightforward, so that there is no doubt that the PG&E acceleration data are indeed associated with the displacement v'alues I reported.
The NRC document merely claims that the displacement values are f alse,
~-
without indicating why the data fail to predict correct values (Attachment C).
An NRC consultant, Mr. Herrick, indicates that the seismic data should be altered by an " offset acceleration" ( Attachment D). Although Mr. Herrick 2,
4 L
e.
, e
~
does not claim to be a seismologist,. he seems to believe that the seismic data used by PG&E are faulty in some way. He does not, however, say what corrections should be made, what the basis for such corrections would be, nor what he believes the correct displacement time histories should be.
Mr. Herrick also claims that errors were made in calculations performed.
to obtain displacement values. As we can see from the Niles affidavit, such claims are false.
PC&E, on the other hand, now claims that the data given to me was not intended to be used to calculate displacements, nor, as they put it, "to represent any actual physical situation..." (Attachment E). They claim, without documentation, that the large displacements are proof of the conservatism of their analysis.
f A summary of the current opinion surrounding the seismic data is to be found in my supplemental affidavit to the Ninth Circuit Court of. Appeals (Attachment F).
Clearly, the controversy surrounding the seismic data must be resolved before any reasonable analysis of the spent fuel pool reracking proposal can be made. The NRC and PG&E seem to be attacking the integrity of the data on which they based their own analyses. Under the circumstances, contention (I)(A)(3) cannot be considered resolved.
Contention IA continues:
"4) the expected maximum velocity and displacement of the racks obtained from the computer modeling of rack behavior during the PHE;"
Response
PG&E maintains this information is not available. Therefore, we cannot.
consider this contention resolved.
Contention IA continues:
"5) the kinetic coefficients of friction appropriate for estimating the frictional forces between the pool floor liner and the racks when sliding of the racks occurs; and".
Response
on July 14, 1986, I received from PG&E a copy of the document entitled
" Friction Coefficients of Water Lubricated Stainless Steels for a Spent Fuel Rack Facility", by E. Rabinowicz.' This document has been referenced in support of the friction coefficients used by PG&E in their analysis of rack behavior.
Although questions remain about the way in which the information in l
Rabinowicz's article has been used by PG&E, I consider contention (I)(A)(5) resolved.
Contention IA concludes:
"6) the dimensions and configuration of rack "H"."
Response
PG&E has supplied me with a diagram showning the dimensions and configuration of rack "H". I consider content *on (I)(A)(6) resolved.
3 B
P
-+
r e
v -.
n--
Summary In my opinion, those sections of Contention IA dealing with the seismic model, sections (3) and (4), remain unresolved, while sections (1), (2), (5) and (6) have been resolved to my satisfaction.
The NRC has not been asked to provide any information to resolve contention IA. I have assured Mr. McGurren of the NRC staff that I do not consider him responsible for the lack of resolution of sections (3) and (4),
nor the inability of the parties to reach agreement on a joint report.
PG&E and I will continue to negotiate language acceptable to both parties. If we are unable to file a timely joint report, I request that the ASLB panel accept this communication as the report of the Sierra Club, Santa Lucia Chapter, d
Re ctfully submitted, ym Richard B. Fergusor Vice-Chairman l
e
ATTACHMENTS The following attachments are excerpts of documents relating to the estimate of seismic displacements of the spent fuel pools at Diablo Canyon during the PHE.
Af fidavit of Dr. Richard B. Ferguson Exhibit in Support of Emergency Motion for Stay Pending Review A)
SLO Mothers for Peace and Sierra Club vs NRC 9th Circuit Court of Appeals June 18, 1986
[page 6 and figures 1 and 2]
B) Affidavit of Mr. {hilip W. B. Niles Submitted for the'present report
[ complete]
Affidavit of R. Clyde Herrick NRC Staf f Response to Request for a Stoy by Sierra Club and Mothers f or C)
In the Matter of Pacific Gas and Electric, Docket Nos 50-275 OLA and 50-Peace 323 OLA June 25, 1986
[page 6)
D) Respondents' Brief et al. vs NRC SLO Mothers for Peace, W a W 9th Circuit Court of Ap July 30, 1986
)
[pp 32, 33]
E) Affidavit of S. Bhattacharya Respondent-Intervenor's Brief SLO Mothers for Peace, ejt al. vs NRC 9th Circuit Court of Appeals July 30, 1986
[pp 2, 31 F) Supplemental Af fidavit of Dr. Richard B. Ferguson Petitioners'. Reply Brief SLO Mothers for Peace, et al. vs NRC 9th Circuit Court of Appeals August 4.1986
[pp 1-4]
=,e.,.m,e e =* se % - es
.i ATTACHMENT A AfIijavit' of Dr. Richard B. Ferguson Exhibit in Support of Emergency Motion for Stay Pending Review SLO bithers for Peace and Sierra Club vs NRC 9th Circuit' Court of Appeals June i1, 1986
[page 6 and figures 1 and 2]
?
f n4 l
l i
i a
4 3
m L.
i l
.-u.-.,
---,-.,,,--n.,._.,
-_,,-.,,,,.,n
_,,_n, n--,,,,.
m problem.
- Secolnd, the're is the potential for i::olli sion of one rack with another rack.
The NRC has not assessed this impact properly.
Third, there is the potential for multi-rack colli-i.e.,
more than one rack colliding with the wall or with sions another rack.
The NRC has ignored this potential.
Fourth, the NRC has overemphasized the cushioning effect of water in colli-sions involving fuel racks.
Fifth, one rack in particular (fuel rack "H")
has a different configuration from the other racks.
Although collisions involving this rack could cause damage to the system more easily than from other racks, the NRC reports contain no reference to this special problem.
13.
It is undisputed that the proposed fuel storage racks expected 5to slide on the floor of the spent fuel pool during are an earthquake similar to the Postulated Hosgri Earthquake
("PHE").
[7]
During the PHE, the spent fuel pools (and indeed the entire power plant) are expected to undergo displacements of up to three feet in the north-south direction and eight feet in the east-west direction.
(See Figures 1 and 2.)
My analysis shows that the fuel racks, located inches from the walls of the i
- pool, would collide with these walls as a result of seismic motion of the magnitude postulated to occur at Diablo Canyon.
14.
From fundamental physical principles, it is possible to i
derive an expression relating the expected force exerted on the fuel racks as a result of,a collision with the walls of the pool.
(See Appendix 1.)
Using data supplied by PG&E, the magnitude of these forces can be predicted by means of this expression.
My 6
s t
o
~
i 9
1 0
2
)
c t
s.
(
C M
/
/
E M
I T
FO d
n e
N i6 O
l8 I
p9 T
d p1 C
eu N
ns U
i 8
i F
aa 0
E tte
/
TQI sf
~
NHNeoE ETRu G
MROl nG EAFaoP CEI vi N
A L
ty LIAmab PRCor SG rgn IS
,f eo DON ts HOnnu H
Ywig TDNa r
UEArte O
2OTCdcF SA e
R E
LOsr RHULhir U T T B pd D GRSAa IOOI ryo FNPDGbt
~
^
/-
/
T
~.
6
(,
l o
(,
0 b
Y 2
L 5
(a g
2 7
/
I
/
/
/
l f
/
/
O 1
- n N T o1 v
'1*E vvT4L%s9
1 TL FIGURE 1 l
EAST-WEST DISPLACEMENT AS FUNCTION OF TIME POSTULATED'HOSGRI EARTHQUAKE D1Asto canyon, CAL 1roRsIA l
7o-Graphs drawn fross values obtained by direct integration of data supplied to Dr. Ferguson by PG&E June 8, 1986
)
p-l m
W A
m J
)
i V
YO L
1 w
{)0' i
d T
a 10-I k
M s
/3 l
l0-
~
2 84 i
nJ%
-, o.
z
.yv
'r io ia eV (6
fr is il 2Y-Tier r f<r<)
1 m
I ATTACHMENT B Af fidavit of Mr. Philip W. B. Niles Submitted for the present report
[ complete) e
/
A e
0 9