ML20212K946
Text
mi a u u E
o JUL 31 1973 Earl R. Coller, Chief, IPressurized Water Reactors Branch-3, L ACCEFTANCE REVIEW OF DIABLO CANTON UNITS 1 & 2 (FSAR)
PMNT MAIEs Diablo Canyon Site Nuclear Units 1 & 2 LICENSING STAGE:
DOCERT NWSERS:
275 50-323 RESPONSIBLE
- 3, T. Mirons LPM REQUESTED DATE: July 24, 1973 ACCEPTANCE REVIEW: Site Analysis Branch Complete Preliminary review of the subject FSAR by this branch has identified deficiencies in information pertaining to the site safety areas of meteorology, foundation engineering, seismology, and hydrology.
Nowever, acceptance is recommended providing the requested infor-anation is submitted before or at the beginning of our formal review.
Unless the additional information is received in a timely manner, evaluation delays will be unavoidable.
The enc 1rsed review comments specify the additional information that will be needed and percentage of completeness according to FSAR sections.
W t
William P. Gammd11 Chief Site Analysis Branch I
Directorate of Licensing belosures As stated cca See attached page.
w nouc w.:m,
, e,,
i e-1 m,
g p-r
~
o
~
e
. ~..
I Marl R. Seller JUL 311973 ces w/o enclosure A. Ciambuseo W. Mcdonald ces w/ enclosure
- 3. Hanauer J. Hendrie R. Soyd R. DeYoung H. Denton SS Branch Chiefs A. Nonneke T. Hirona, LFN L. Hulman E. Markee A. Cardone J. Osloond DISTRIBUTION mtg LDocket File 50-275 & 50-323 L Rdg L AD/SS L SAB r
........LISML,40t.
...L I S AB....,
....L 8 8..
L88An L: SAD j,IR A,R,,,,,
omce >
';/
EllMarke LCllulma ATCardone Summam > Jilosloondijab. JEFa flHawkin CStcp
.WRf 111
_ oater _ J/30/73...,
. 7 4
/.7.1..........? /..../lL_.
..?/ / U 3
..W2O 3...
r. m.ii. in,...m mu.u.
=m,,..,m,,,,,,,,.o....
e
)
SITE ANALYSIS BRANClf - IlYDROLOGIC ENGIhEERING ACCEPTANCE REVIEW (SAFETY) - DIABLO CANYON REVIEWED BY - E. F. Hawkins & L. G. Itulman 2.1.4 Use of Adjacent Lands & Waters *- 80% Complete Discuss the uses of nearby surface and ground water.
2.2 Nearby Industrial, Transportation & Military Facilities *-
100% Complete 2.4.1 flydrologic Description - 1007. Complete 2.4.2 Floods - 1007. Complete 2.4.3 Probable Maximum Flood (PMO on Streams & Rivers - 607. Complete Substantiate that model parameters developed for Berros Creek are applicable to Diablo Canyon Creek.
The loss rates assumed are the same as computed for Berros Creek.
The loss rates should be reduced somewhat for PMF computations.
Describe the effects on the roofs of safety-related buildings and the site drainage system of a local PMP (probable maximum precipitation).
2.4.4 Potentfal Dam Failtires (Scismically-induced) - 100% Complete 2.4.5 Probable Maximum Surge & Sciche Flooding - 1007. Completc
- Secondary review responsibility.
I
.)
2-
+
2.4.6 Probable Maximum Tsunami Flooding - 507. Complete The estimate of the Probable Maximum Tsunami presented in this section deals with tsunami waves from distant generators only.
However, there appears to be evidence that tsunami waves at the site can also be caused by near-shore generators.
(See comments on Section 2.5.2.)
Provide analyses that show that potential tsunami waves generated near-shore would be less severe at the site than the Probable Maximum Tsunami caused by a distant generator.
If it cannot be shown conclusively that such is the case, provide appropriate analyses on the resultant effects to safety-related structures (refer to San Onofre 2 & 3 for typical y
analyses of tsunami waves caused by near-shore generators).
~
2.4.7 Ice Flooding - 1007. Complete 2.4.8 Cooling Water Canals & Reservoirs - 1007. Complete 2.4.9 Channel niversions - 1007. Complete 2.4.10 Flooding Protection Requirements - 807. Complete Discuss the necessary flooding protection requirements for the roofs of safety-related buildings and the site drainage system to assure there will be no adverse effects from a local PHP.
2.4.11 Low Water Considerations - 1007. Complete
.)
.i 3
2.4.12 Environmental Acceptance of Effluents - 10% Complete The references to Chapter 11 of the FSAR do not appear to cover the subject of this section.
2.4.13 Croundwater - 100% Complete 2.4.14 Technical Specifications & Emergency Operation - 10% Complete Technical specifications and emergency operation during events such as a severe tsunami are not discussed, and do not appear to be discussed in Chapter 16 cither.
3.4 Water Level (Flood) Design Bases - 807. Complete The water level design criteria for local PMP is not discussed.
In particular, cri*ical water 1cvels in the plant area resulting from exceeding the runoff capability of the site and roof drainage r
systems should be discussed.
9.2 Unter Systems * (Ultimate heat sink design bases for floods-heat dissipation) - 1007. Complete 11.2.6 Estimated Releases * (under 11.2 f.iquid Waste System -
100% Completc
- Secondary review responsibility.
+
s
)
I I
SITE ANALYSIS BRANCH - METEOROLOGY ACCEPTANCE REVIEW (FSAR) - DIABLO CANYON l
REVIEWED BY - J. E. Fairobent & E. H. Markee s
2.3 METEOROLOGY 2.3.1 Regional Meteorology - 70% Complete Provide references to climatological summaries, technical studies, and reports that were used to develop a description of the regional climatology.
Verify the statement, " Severe weather conditions such as tornadoes, hurricanes, snow and ice storms have not been recorded in the area of the Diablo Canyon site," and identify the size of the area on M
which this statement is based.
Include the date of the recorded maximum 24 hour2.777778e-4 days <br />0.00667 hours <br />3.968254e-5 weeks <br />9.132e-6 months <br /> rainfall at San Luis Obispo, and identify under what meteorological conditions it occurred.
Provide the "ffstest mile" wind speed recorded in the region.
2.3.2 Local Hetcorotocy - 60% Complete Such a limited period of onsite data co11cetion as is available at the Diablo Canyon site cannot be a credible basis for identifying normal and extreme values of meteorological parameters. While nearby NWS stations may not be considered identical to the Diablo Canyon site, there are enough stations around Diablo Canyon that, when compared, can give a good indication of normal and extreme values 7tdPWe*3P/
A-t
3
of meteorological parameters to be expected in the area.
Provide climatological infornation from surrounding NWS stations to establish credibic values for normals and extremes.
Provide the rationale for classifying onsite wind data into only 3 stability categories defined by,the vertical temperature difference measured between the 250 and 25 ft. Icvels on the "E" tower.
Supply wind data (speed and direction) classified into 7 (A-C) stability categories defined by vertien1 temperature difference.
In Figure 2.3-1, provide vertical cross-sectio u with an expanded vertical scale.
In the tables of joint wind speed-direction-stability frequencies provided, explain how a wind speed less than the nominal g,gqwyg, starting speed (2.2 mph) of the instrument was arrived at, and, in all such tables, properly identify the units of wind speed and whether values in the tables refer to endpoints or midpoints of class intervals.
2.3.3 On-site Meteorotocient Mcasurtnent Program - 807. Complete Provide a large scale map indicating the locations of the six meteorological towers, existing and proposed buildings, and prominent topographical features.
Include the accuracy specifications of the instruments in this section, and identify accuracles in terms other than percent of full scale.
T
)
Discuss the status of the current meteorological program, how it will be modified for the operational program, and what parameters will be on display in the control room during plant operation.
Data is presented on pages 2.3C-21 through 2.3C-26 indicating stabilities categorized by vertical angic fluctuation for station E, 25 ft.
On page 2.3A-21, the sensor used for the wind measure-ments at station E, 25 ft. is an aerovane.
Explain how vertical angle fluctuation was determined.
2.3.4 Short Term (Accident) Diffusion Estimates - 75% Complete Discuss how the stability categories were defined for use in the N
calculation of X/Q values in this section, identify the period of record of the wind data used, and provide the rationale for the use of only 1 year of data when several years are availabic and would provide more representative information.
Identify the distances corresponding to the X/Q values presented on o
page 2.3-14.
Clarify the term cnclosed in brackets in Equation 1, page 2.3-15, and specify the pages in Reference 12 pertaining to this equation and Equation 2 on page 2.3-16.
Provide a separate distribution of light winds (41 mph) by atmospheric stability class as defined by vertical temperature gradient and exclude these light wind cases from the current distributions.
s
~
)
)
4 Interval and were assigned to angular sectors on the basis of the wind-direction distribution for the 1 mph cases."
2.3.5 Long Term (Routine) Diffusion Estimates - 907. Complete Explain the last 2 exponential terms in Equation 1, page 2.3-18, and provide specific page numbers in Reference 12 pertaining to Equation 1 and Equation 2 (page 2.3-19).
3.3 Wind Criteria & Tornado Design 3.3.1 Wind Criteria - 607 Complete Present the design basis wind velocity, and its recurrence interval, corresponding to the vertical distribution on page 3.3-1.
Also VMn?MW include the gust factor employed for the selected design vind velocity.
3.3.2 Tornado Criteria - 07. Complete See the Standard Format regarding the tornado design criteria to be included in thf's section.
11.3 Cascous Waste System 11.3.6 nelease Points - 607. Complete Provide the height above grade of all release points for gaseous effluents plus any pertinent release parameters.
11.3.7 Dilution Factors - 1007. Complete
~
)
T 11.6 off-site Radiological Monitoring Program 11.6.3 Sampling Media, Location, and Frequency - 80% Complete Provide Figures 11.6-1 and 11.6-2 with appropriate topographical features included.
15.0 Accident Analyses Regulatory Guide 1.4 was not written for a steam-line break accident, and there are no guides for considering " puff" releases.
Present appropriate diffusion models for calculating X/Q values for these accidents if the type of release referred to on page 15.1-14 is being considered.
93iW66ili Just1fy the meteorological conditions assumed for the design basis cases referred to on page 15.1-15.
Y OFy 16.0 Technical Specifications fe, s
Include provisions for the monitoring of appropriate meteorological parametersinthiccontrolroom.
f.
SITE ANALYSIS BRANCll GEOLOGY, SEISMOLOGY & FOUNDATION ENGINEERING ACCEPTANCE REVIEW - DIABLO CANYON FSAR REVIEWED BY - A.
T.
Cardone and J.
C.
Stepp 2.5.1 Basic Geologic and Seismic Information - 80% Complete 1.
Provide the referenced unpublished report by R.
H.
Jahns, which forms the basis for geologic interpretation of the Diablo Canyon area, entitled " Geology of the Diablo Canyon Power Plant Site, San Luis Obispo County, California," including the supplementary reports I,
II, and III.
2.
Provide discussion of the basic data and rationale W M-used to determine the range of effective earthquake stress used in the seismic analysis.
What source model was used in the computation?
2.5.2 Vibratory Ground Motion - 75% Complete 1.
Regional Tectonic and Seismic Setting Present a detailed discussion of the source region of the Novembe r 4, 1927, earthquake centered off the coast of Santa Barbara.
In particular provide:
a) dimensions of the source area, b) source mechanism and sense of movement, and c) dimensions of the tectonic structure with which this event was associated.
Provid.
u eport.
.ited as references 3, 4 & 5.
)
i 2-2.
Tectonic Features Significant. tectonic and geologic structural features are not adequately illustrated.
Illustrate:
a)
The regions of contrasting basement geology separated by the Sur-Naciminento fault zone, b)
The distribution of " core complexes."
c)
Faults indicating history of displacenent, in geological time units.
d)
Santa Maria basin and associated faults.
w++99 3.
Summary and conclusions On page 2.5-11 you discuss an offshore fault that places Tertiary to Recent sediments against Franciscan rocks.
Thus, one would have to view this as a significant fault.
Since 4t has experienced movement in Recent geological time, it must be considered as the potential site of the Safe Shutdown Earthquake.
Discuss this feature in detail in view of recent studies that have been conducted by the USGS and indicate the properties of the maximum probable carthquake that may be postulated on it.
(Refer to USGS, ilolly Wagne r, open file reports.)
4.
Ground Acceleration and Response Spectra
" Frequency distributiun" ns used in thia section is confusing.
" Spectrum" would be better.
d
~
)
i 3-2.5.3 Surface Faulting - 100% Complete 2.5.4 Stability of Subsurface Materials - 50% Complete Page 2.5 In the paragraph that begins with "The rocks that constitute...," explain what is meant by "significant" solution effects.
What is the basis for this statement.
Also, in the sentence beginning with
" Voids encountered during excavation...," explain:
a)
What were the dimensions of these voids?
b)
Where were they located, where else may they WJM be found, and c) were they considered in the foundation engineering and slope stability analyses?
In the sentence N o sea caves of significant extent exist in the immediate vicinity of the site."
What is e
the basis for this statement?
Explain what is meant by the term "significant" ir the sentence beginning with:
"No sea caves of significant extent."
Page 2.5-71 and 2.5-72.
You state that several exploratory wells have been drilled for oil but no "significant" pro-duction has been recorded and the area is not "now" active in terms of either production or exploration.
Provide assurance that oil (and water) either cannot or will not be extracted from beneath or adjacent to the plant such
'a
~
~.
that it may pose a hazard to plant operation and safety.
Page 2.5-72 a)
Describe and discuss what is meant by the
" internally sheared beds of claystone."
What is the significance of the internal shearing?
b) llow much swelling of newly exposed claystone occurred?
Was this factor considered in computing settlement of structures?
What amount of settlement will occur as a result of reconsolidation of the expanded claystone?
EMENEE 2.5.5 Slope Stability - 25% Complete Page 2.5-73.
The applicant has not presented adequate assurance and information nor appropriate substantiation concerning the stability of the slope east of the plant buildings shodn in Figure 2.5-19, the failure of which could adversely affect the nuclear power plant.
The applicant should describe and discuss in detail:
a) the static and dynamic engineering properties of the soil and rocks underlying the slope, substantiated with complete field and laboratory test data, including those properties itemized in I
paragraph 2.5.4.2 on page 2.5-9 of the AEC Standard Format and Content of Safety Analysis Reports for Nuc1 car Power Plants;
.o
.o
)
')
l b) the properties and assumptions for the soil and rock used in.the stability analyses performed; c) evidence which demonstrates that the soil and rock properties assumed in the analyses are representative of in situ conditions and that the soil and weathered rock samples obtained from the field were not disturbed by the drilling and sampling techniques; d) the kinds of laboratory tests performed and
'r u
the testing procedures used; e) the drilling equipment and procedures used to advance the drill holes and to sample the soll and rock penetrated.
Was the drilling, sa6pling, and soil identification performed under the supervision of a competent soils engineer?
o f) a detailed description and discussion of the stability analysis, including soil and rock propurtles and assumptions used, discussed on page 2.5-73 of the FSAR.
In order to provide adequate assurance of slope stability:
a)
Perform a dynamic stability analysis, using an acceptable method of analysis, and describe in detail the assumptions and procedures used.
Vertical accelerations upward and downward should be assumed together with the horizontal acceleration.
~
e.
6-r b)
Provide and discuss the failure criteria, the failure modes, and the range of computed factors of safety.
c)
Provide the factor of safety for a 5% strain criteria used in a finite element analysis, and provide the factor of safety for the Bishop's modified method of slices stability analysis.
M8889illi 9
FC.TA Th*39l 4-/
.a.......
n 4
-~t
- s..
e a
e
)
OCT 311973 Docket Noe. 50-27,r f
and 50-323 APPLICANT: PACIFIC CAS AND ELECTEIC COMPANT (PCteE)
FACILITY:
DIABIA CANTON UNITS 1 AND 2 SIDetART OF SITE VISIT AND MEETING HELD ON OCTOBER 25, 1973 TO DISCUSS 4
QUESTIONS BrLATED TO THE GEOLOGT AND SITEMnLOGY OF THE AREA h site visit and meeting w re held to discuss certain aspects of the geology and mai==atasy of the site and the surrounding areas. In addition to their own people, PG&E was represented by two of their esmoultants.
Harding and Lausen and Earth Sciences. h staff had,also requested the Corps of Engineers to participate in the meeting. A list of pertfeipeats is atemehad as Esclosure No. 1.
@4 The tour of the site concentrated on the slope east of the pleet where questions of slope stability have been raised by the staff ( see pesos 5-6 of unelaeare 1 of the letter to PG&E dated 8-13-73). As requested by the staff, the applicant has rae==ely begue further field testing en the slope to obtain additional borings at several locations. This work is being performed by Harding and Lawson. The drilling program wee in progress during the site tour, and several borings were inspected at this time.
l During the meeting following the site tour, the following particularly l
significant items were discussed:
f 1.
Slope Stability Harding and Lawson indicated that their final report on the additional borings and associated laboratory tearing would not be sent to PG&E i
until 12-31-73.
The staff indicated that this date was late, considering that first round questions would be due around this time, and that we glanned to ask the Corps of Engineers to review this material before then. After some discussion, Harding and Lawson agreed with PG&E to supply complete boring logs by 11-12-73, and preliminary results of the laboratory testing by 12-3-73.
This will allow some review of l
i..-
b th1d*4 s
~*
j~OEk 86-3}/
g.g DATE >,,,,,,,,,,,,
g j
Form AEC-Ste (Rev.9-53) AECM 02!O eme_ _.:$a -ae-egess-a _ses-eys__
)
~
. OCT 311973
/
the slope stability material to be performed before the final report is submitted.
2.
seismolony A.
With regard to the 1927 earthquake centered off gasta Barbara ( see page 4 of Inclosure 1 of the 8-13-73 letter), the staff indicated that this event is likely to' beuusad'astarmodel'forvevaluating potential local tsunmaic generation, and that any information available on the tectonic structure of this area should be provided soon. PG&E and Earth Sciences replied that sone information on this is available from the USGS work of Silver and Wagner, but that the results are not currently available in the open literature.
The Staff will check with USGS as to the availability of this work.
B.
The staff has requested additional information on offshora faults.
PG&E indicated that this subject is discussed to some uxtent in a report by Ionkins and Griffith, Beforence 17. page 2. M 3 of the E W 9A@
FSAR, but that more recent information is expected from the USGS work being funded by the AEC. The results of this work should be available about the saiddle of 7.ovember,1973.
PG4E was not able to have Dr. Stewart W. Smith, their Chief scise.clogical consultant, present for the meeting. It was agreed that another nesting will be necessary when Dr. Smith is available to discuss the earthquaka design criteria for Diablo Canyon.
C.:It! Signed bj A,
~#
Thomas J. Hirons PWR Branch No. 3 Directorate of Licensing Enclosura:
Attendance List DISTRIBUTION:
R0 (3)
RFFraley (16)
AEC PDR TR Assistant Directors JMHendrie Local PDR TR Branch Chiefs TJRirons RP Reading VHWilson Meeting Attendees from RH; L Reading LChandler Docket File (2M-.f3.(
PWR-3 Reading RCushman RCDeYoung RP Assistant Directors RWKlecker RP Branch Chiefs CFFSCE > _ 4,g.pWR.3 sun *Aus >..TJHirette:shr
~
DATE>
.10/..../1.3...
Fone AEC-Sis (Rev.9 53) AECM 0240
.en-to-si4as-a.e,-ars
)
)
ENCLOSURE NO. 1 OCT 31 1973 ATTENDANCE LIST PACIFIC GAS & ELECTRIC COMPANY V. J. Ghio J. B. Hoch W. J. Lindblad J. McLaughlin HARDING & LAWSON F. Rollo H. Taylor
~
EARTH SCIENCES D. Hamilton AEC - LICENSING
++ m A. ~. Cardone
~
T. J. Hirons J. C. Stepp U.S. ARMY CORPS OF ENGINEERS (LOS ANGELES DISTRICT) h!
G. A. Fuquay L. J. Lauro V. F. Minor L-
.e
- - - - -. - - --A alt etW
s
?
- t. -
e
<g
.I OCT 3 i B73 Docket Nos. 50-27,#
and 50-323 APPLICANT: PACIFIC CAS AND ELECTRIC COMPANY (PC&E)
FACILITY:
DIABTA CANYON UNITS 1 AND 2 SIDelART OF SITE VISIT AND MEETING BELD ON OCTOBER 25, 1973 TO DISCUSS QUESTIONS urt.ATED TO THE GEOLOGT AND SET!tunLOGT OF THE AREA The site visit and meeting were held to discuss certain aspects of the geology and sai==alogy of the site and the surrounding areas. In addition to their own people, PG&E was represented by two of their eemsultants.
Harding and Lawson and Earth Sciane==.
The staff had,also requested the Corps of Engineers to participate in the meeting. A list of participeats is attached as Enclosure No. 3.
%iGifYKe The tour of the site concentrated on the slope east cf the plant where questions of slope stability have been raised by the staff ( see pages 5-6 of Enclosure 1 of the letter to PC&E dated 8-13-73). As requested by the staff, the appliemmt has recently begun further field testing en the slope to obtain additional borings at several locations. This work is being performed by Harding and Lawson. The drilling program was in progress during the site tour, and several borings were inspected at this time.
During the meeting following the site tour, the following perticularly significant items were discussed:
1.
Slope Stability Harding and Lawson indicated that their final report on the additional borings and associated laboratory testing would not be sent to PC&E until 12-31-73.
The staff indicated that this date was late, considering that first round questions would be due around this time, and that we alanned to ask the Corps of Engineers to review this material before the n.
After some' discussion, Harding and Lawson agreed with PC&E to supply complete boring logs by 11-12-73, and preliminary results of the laboratory testing by 12-3-73.
This will allow some review of
..l.
s.!
oma>
sumas >
50En Ko@f p
om>
g Foren AEC-Ste (Rev.9-53) AECM 0240 ene
.o ie_eim a
')
, OCT 311973 the slope stability material to be performed before the final report is submitted.
2.
SeismoloEF A.
With regard to the 1927 earthenske centered off Santa Barbara ( see page 4 of Enclosura 1 of the 6-13-73 letter), the staff indicated that this event is likely to:-beuusadaast.armode1~forvevhluating potential local tsunaaic generation, and that any information available on the tectonic structure of this area should be provided soon. PG&E and Earth Sciences replied that some information on this is available from the USGS work of Silver and Wagner, but that the results are not currently available in the open literature.
The Staff will check with USGS as to the availability of this work.
B.
The Staff has requested additional information on offshora faults.
PG&E indicated that this subject is discussed to some uxtent in a report by Roskins and Griffith. Reference 17r page 2.5-83 of the ifdCZ 75AR, but that more recent information is expected from the USGS work being funded by the AF.C.
The results of this work should be available about the middle of Xovember,1973.
PG4E was not able to have Dr. Stewart W. Smith, their Chief scise.ological consultant, present for the meeting. It was agreed that another meeting will be necessary when Dr. Smith is available to discuss the earthquake design criteria for Diablo Canyon.
Crfn~ Signed kj ThomasJl. Y w
~#
. Hirona PWR Branch No. 3 Directorate of Licensing Enelnsura:
Attendance List DISTRIBUTION:
RO (3)
RFFraley (16)
AEC PDR TR Assistant Directors JMHendrie Local PDR TR Branch Chiefs 1JHirons RP Reading VHWilson Meeting Attendees from REC L Reading LChandler Docket File (2N->W' '".T PWR-3 Reading RCushman RCDeYoung RP Assistant Directors RWKlecker RP Branch Chiefs l
omc> w pwg 3....
suuAur >...TJHirone e oArt >
.1D/..../13.....
Form AIC-Sl8 (Rev.9-53) AECM 0240
- e no-to-suu-a us47s
s 6
b ENCLOSURE NO. 1 OCT 31 1973 ATTENDANCE LIST PACIFIC GAS & ELECTRIC COMPANY V. J. Ghio J. B. Hoch W. J. Lindblad J. McLaughlin HARDING & LAWSON F. Rollo
- 11. Taylor EARTli SCIENCES D. llamilton AEC - LICENSING A. T. Cardone T. J. Ilirons J. C. Stepp U.S. ARMY CORPS OF ENGINEERS (LOS ANGELES DISTRICT)
G. A. Fuquay L. J. Lauro V. F. Minor l
l As'3 FQiWDML t