ML20211D628
Text
t{
' UNITED STATES
,j g
gy NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSION
.,4 g WASHIN ATcN, 0. C. 20$55
.~%~ w
?
j)g.ls November 10, 1981 M
CHAmMAN.
- 'W WO p
MEMORANDUM F.0R:
Commiss.ioner Gilinsky Commissioner Bradford Commissioner Ahearne Commissioner Roberts FROM:
.__ Nunzio J. Palladino
SUBJECT:
DIABLO CANYON I have. read Comm'issioner Gilinsky's November 9 memo suggesting a brief mee. ting to discuss Diablo Canyon reverification.
I strongly.believe that we must find a credibl.e solution to the reverification problem.
While it i probably not practical to affect aspects 'of' the reverification-work already completed at this time,.I do think that for any subsequent arrangement where NRC would exercise its right to approve a reverification ac.tivity, we should give due consideration to the points raised by Governor Brown and others.
I'think we must not lose sight of the fact that we have to convince not only Governor Brown, -but many others who have written to us, as well as ourselves, that the reverifi-cation effort undertaken at Diablo Canyon wil.1 be truly credible.
To give us some time to get o.ur thoughts in order before we meet, I would suggest that the Commission adjust next week's schedule to meet on Monday af ternoon to consider my views, as well as P
those of tha other Commissioners'., Further, immediately after this meeting, I think we'sho'uld hear from the staff on the Diablo Canyon enforcement matter.
cc:
SECY OGC OPE
/ EDO
\\
_g 762was4s-
wf.,fL.
, +. :.
, 4. g m m., e..w,
y _..
.-m._.
7 Af,d Cf
??.
'f
- yngs
.v I..l h
~
NOV 17 topo. ';'~
<t;;;y '; ' GS1h C.
- 77_l,
... %N D ** )
Docket Mos. 50-275/323 5
t, 8
MDERMDIA1 FOR: George Lear. Chief
/f,
(' '
Hydrologic and Geotechnical Engineerino Cranch-F
/.?
Divtston of Engineering FRIM:
'Myron F11egel. Leader Hydrologic Engineering Section Hydrologic and Geotechnical Engineering Branch Ofvision of Engineering
$!TE VISIT TO PHYSICAL MODEl' 0F DIMLO CANYON CRTAKWATER SI5 JECT:
y,
~
Plant Mene: Otablo Canyon Nuclear Power Station. Units 1 and 2
-Licensing Stage: CL r
On Novaber g and 10. 1981 I visited the physical model of the Diablo Canynn breakwater and surrounding coastal area.
I was accompanied by Dr. Robert Serensen of the U.S. Arwy Corps of Engineers Coastal Enoineering Research Center (CEE). our consultant. The physical model is located in Escondido.
Calffernia. It was constructed and is operated by offshore Technolony Corporation for the applicant. Pacific Gas & Flectric (PCSC).
- i.
The model was constructed for the purpose of evaluating the performance of the breetester that protects the intake covo.
In particular, its effectiveness in protecting the pesar plaat intake in the event of severe wave runup was to be evolunted. The pitysical model is heilt on a 1 to 45 scale. This scale is also used for the ares, both shoreward (to the +40 foot level) and seaward (to the i
-100 ft level) of the Diablo Canyon intake covo. Actual bathymetric and topographic features are accurately represented in the model.
At the time I observed it. the breakwater was represented in the model in an l
ase med. omtreme degraded condition. The model is capable of representing verfeus stf11 ester twels from below Meen Lower Low Water (MLLW) to above tlw
'lesel of high tide plus an assumed tsunami.. In addition, wave mkking machines
~
-are used to produce short period waves approaching from various seaward directices. On the tuo days I observed the model, the wave reking machines more set up to predece genres approaching the shore from the south.
Previous teste showed that this tes the most writical direction fnr inc ming waves. On November 9. I observed severs) test runs of the model with the stillwater level representing Mese Higher High 4 ster (MlHW) with inctwing surface short period moves. the Neveiber lo the tests I observed were those representing incominq short perted Weves superimposed on water level representing 79ffR. nlus a tsun.wf.
The tests were perfomed as demonstrations primarily for nyself and the consultant.
l
- 0r. Serenson, as recorded tests had previously been rim.
- ~
- s3 It h m $ 'i A-
,\\ (I
/
i 7
\\
- emrep N
O!
h3 f
+$
.. p i
.... a......
-M ML n~
t m e.--.- ~.
=
~
.,m,_.w r
m.w------
= --
g:j
- -y w -
N
.. Y '-
.J b5 gs rm Lcer.
In additica to chscrying the cedal and its tests. on !!cymber 9.1961 I participated, with qy consultant Dr. Sorenson, in a meeting with repre-sentatives of FG3E cod their consultants. They presented s ee prelimi ary results and conclusiens based on the tests. We discussed these results and conclusiens and how Fr4E tculd present tre to us in a submittal.
Among the importt.at test results and conclusions are the following:
- 1. Have heights cbserrsd in fPcnt of the intake structure were linited by the wetor depthLis,_the.wsve hefeht--.in front of the intake did not increase
-with increasing offshers wave height.
Instead the waves approached a scafzuz height that was dependent upon the wave period.
2.
The s:est' critical directicn of wave approach is frem the south.
3.
For both the casa of the extrem wave height at high tide and the case of mean annusi unra at high tida plus ties tsunami. the air intake at elevation
+30 ft M uould be subject to wave cetion and possible inundation if the becakwater were in an assumd degraded state of being slumped to m lovel.
4.
Dynamic save forc s on the intake structure and ths air intake towers culd to balcw dosign levals during these ovents and with the breakwater
, - degraded ts W.
'Is view of the at: rte. especially it:s re.ber 3. PGaE is considering raising relat:d -n wts cre ep:n to the air)pe:;rs (the level at which the safety the d:stCn 1sval of the air intake for
. frca +30 ft M to approxinately
+52 fest W. -This will be acc::=plished by sealing the air vents in the two towers and constructing cylindrical extensions up to approximately +52 ft M.
PSEE will tuhait a report of their analysis, conclusions, and proposals for fac revie:r. Thay hope to have a draft of this report before Thanksgiving.
Original S!gned by Myron H. Fl * - '
ttyron F11egal. Leader l
Hydrologic Engineering Section Hydrologic and Geotechnical i
Engineering Branch Division of Engineering cc:
R. Yo11mer J. Knight
- 8. Buckley N. F11e7:1
/
I e
egai/AK:
e
=
.. UL]B.1 -... -. ~.. :.
u,n sw anow se rnwacw ese OFFICIAL RECOR D COPY w.
l
~....
e3>=.uu
JN' "'og'o,%
r UNITED STATES
/
l'34 NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSION 3
'"'t HEoloN V bI
,E o,
1480 MARIA LANL SVITE 260 D
WALNUT CAf tX. CALFORN1A 94538
%
- s...,o NOV 251991 MEMORANDUM FOR:
Frank J. Miraglia, Chief, licensing Branch No. 3 Division of Licensing, NRR FROM:
J. L. Crews, Director, Division of Resident, Reactor Projects and Engineering Inspection
SUBJECT:
DIABLO CANYON DESIGN VERIFICATION PROGRAM s
This is in response to your memorandtm of November 20, 1981, to it. H. Engelken, et. al., subject as above. Attached is a breakdown of the vario.is tasks, as we see them, for the staff's response to the Ctmission's ort'.er of November 19, 1981 to PG&E suspending fuel loading and low powe test operations for Diablo Canyon, Unit No.1.
The attachment also includes those tasks associated with the additional information needs outlined in H. R. Denton's letter to PG&E dated November 19, 1981.
Recommended assignment of responsibilities, resource estimates (for Region V only) and schedule infonnation are also included in the attachnent.
Our resource estimates and schedules are based upon the assunption, that Robert L. Cloud Associates wi.11 be found acceptable for the performance of the actions specified in Attachment 1 to the Commission's Order, or that selection / approval of an alternative cunpany(tes) will not delay significantly the actions specified. The latter is not likely to be the case, and the schedule will need to be reassessed when the NRC decision is made regarding company (ies) proposed by PG&E.
Should you have questions, please/ al,m r Bobby Faulkenberry.
l a
or Divi ton of Resident, Reactor Projects and kngineering Inspection
Contact:
B. H. Faulkenberry 463-3738 Enclosure s/s cc:
E. Case, NRR
)N R. H. Engelken, RV E. L. Jordan, IE:FQ F
J. P. Knight, NRR 3 &
W. P. Haas, NRR
/
yIf]11[
\\
c
...e.,..
.---.%w-.e.
- -we
~w-em-w - -
' ~ '
7
~
,v.-.-
.y
..k ENCLOSURE _
g, omed
_NRC TASKS AS RELATED
.~TO DIABLO CANYON ACTIVITIES Recion V Effort To Be'
, Performed Task
' Responsibility Required
'iew draft report by Cloud on
- NRR-IE Joint Effort 2 mn-wks Wk of Nov'30,1981 ch 1982 ~
iew work he has already "leted on URS/Blume (Benefit
~
~
review is to inform cloud 1982 additional work needed to plete pre-fuel load uirements) few coments received from NRR-IE Joint Effort 1 mn-wk End Dec, 1981~
lic =on qualifications of tractor to do pre _-fuel load.
erification activities.
jiew of program plan for NRR,IE Joint Effort 2 mn-wks Mid-Jan 1982 herification activities uired for pre-fuel load.
jiewfinalreport'ofreveri-NRR-IE Joint Effort 3 mn-wks End of March 1982
<ation work activities fuiredpriortofuelload.
c
.Dec 81 - Marc'h 82-Spect and prepare reports on IE only 6 mn-wks fDiabloCanyonUnit1.
f.4 ta11ation of modifications,
.,.s
(. '.
.~
Lutred prior to fuel load.
hicwofsemi-monthlystatus NRR-IE Joint Effort 6 mn-wks Dec 81 April 82 ports and on going work at EE and contractor's offices.
3 Includes 2daysevery2wks l for on-going work review.)
few coments received from NRR-IE Joint Effort 1 mn-wk lic on qualifications of tractor to do p,o,t, fuel s
d reverification activities.
ter This may be done in
[
conjunction with item 2 and may not require any additional effort.
1 t
e...
e
__.,%p_
3
',c '
UNITED STATES f
.g:
NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSION.
y
- p wAsamoTom. o. c. 2osss
...../
NOV 3 01981
<+
.1
' MEMORANDUM FOR:. Frank J. Miraglia, Chief, Licensing-Branch _ f3,p
~
Division of Licensing-FRON:.
- Walter P. Haass, Chief, Quality Assurance Branch, Division of Engineering
SUBJECT:
QAB EFFORTS REGARDING THE DIABLO CANYON DESIGN VERIFICATION PROGRAM As requested in 'your note of November 20,1981,.the following-describes efforts
' QAB would expect to perform to detennine acceptability of the results of the PG&E design verification program for Diablo Canyon:
For each of the four areas of concern, (1) All seismic service-related contracts prior to 6/78,
.(2) All non-seismic service-related contracts prior to 6/78, (3) PG&E internal design activities, and (4) All service-related contracts post 1/78, QAB would review the results of the PG&E program to determine the QA controls
-and procedures that were established and the extent to which they were imple-
~
mented during the conduct of the original design work.
The specific QA con-trols of interest are design control; procurement' document control; instruc-tions,' procedures, and drawings; document control; and audits.
The QA controls would be reviewed for-PG&E activities as well as for the activities of the
~
service-related contractors.
-QAB'would review the adequacy of the QA controls established to conduct the
~ design verification program both by PG&E and its contractors / consultants.
Criteria for determining acceptability of the QA controls and procedures would consist of the applicant's SAR commitments at the CP stage and upgraded staff guidance that was adopted by PG&E (generally Rev. O of the SRP Section 17.1)
- during subsequent stages of the design effort.
QAB would review the QA aspects included as part of PG&E's submitted plans and procedures for the conduct of the design verification program as well as the bimonthly reports and final reports.
Assessment of the adequacy of PG&E's efforts in conducting the design veriff-cation program should not await receipt of information from PG&E, but rather should be performed on a continuing basis.
In this regard, staff audits of g
PG&E progress on this program should be made through meetings and periodic \\
- ww e
r
./
I Frank J. Miraglia ~
- NOV 3 01981
- visits :to PG&E facilities.
Such an approach will pemit. identification of mid-course' program corrections, if needed, and-timely completion of the staff as' essment of the program results.
s 4
,s e
Walter P. Haass, Chief LQuality Assurance Branch Division of Engineering cc:
R..Vollmer W. Johnston J. Spraul S
4
- WD 1
i 9
P
{_
C/
~ REFER TO: M811119
^
-IN RESPONSE, PLEASE
- ypg,
'. ae%q#o N 5 I
NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSIOF[/
UNITED STATES
'A.-
WASHINGTON, D.C. 20556
)
. /
[/
ACTION - Denton g% * * * * * #
December 1,191 Cys:
Dircks-Cornell OFFCs OF THs -
Rebn.
sacasmv
.,t, LIMITED DISTRIBUTION Stello Shapar DeYoung-
' MEMORANDUM FORs William J. Dircks, Executfe Director for Operations LEisenhut-FROM:
Samuel J..Chilk, Secret S JECT:'
STAFF REQUIREMENTS - C0 (TI IU ION OF DISCUSSION OF DIABLO-y CANYON ORDER, 2:00 P.M.j T)
SDAY, NOVEMBER 19, 1981, COMMISSIONERS' CONFEREN E ROOM, D.C. OFFICE E
(CLOSED MEETING; FINAL PORTION OPEN TO PUBLIC ATTENDANCE)
The Comission continued its discussion of-a proposed order relating to the Diablo Canyon seismic design errors.
The Comission was unanimous in their view that fuel loading should not take place until a specified seismic reverification program is completed to their satisfaction.
4 The Comission, by a vote of 4-1 (Comissioner Roberts dissenting),
approved an order suspending the Diablo Canyon license and an accompanying letter. from the staff to the licensee, (Subsequently, the Order containing Comissioner Roberts dissenting
, opinion was signed by the Secretary.)
The Comission directed the EDO to solicit informally coments from the Governor of California and Joint Intervenors on the selection of the consultant who will perform the reverification and on the development of the program. The Governor of California and the Joint Intervenors will also be provided an opportunity to submit formal coments on the record (see page 5, Attachment 1 to the November 19'Comission Order suspendinglicense).
(ED0)
The Comission held a short public session during which the Chairman announced the decision.
cc: Chainnan Palladino Comissioner Gilinsky Comissioner Bradford Comissioner Ahearne Comissioner Roberts Comission Staff Offices r
G Y
-_.