ML20212L085
Text
_ _ - -
}
).
DISTRIBUTION Docket Files' LWR-#1 File DAllison EHylton SEP 2 31977 Docket Nos. 50-275 and 50-323' MEMORANDUM FOR:
J. Stolz, Chief, Light Water Reactors Branch No.1 DPM FROM:
D. Allison, Project Manager, Light Water Reactors Branch No. 1, DPM
SUBJECT:
INTERIM LICENSE REVIEW - DIABL0 CANYON UNIT 1 At our meeting of September 15, 1977 with Edson Case Saul Levine and other personnel involved, it was decided that the staff review of the Diablo Canyon Unit 1 interim license application would proceed along the following general lines.
W The review will proceed with a high' priority. Draft SER inputs and recommendations to management will be due about October 15,1977. This would support SER issuance November 1,1977 and a December ACRS full committee meeting.
We will evaluate the applicant's submittal in support of an interim operating license as well as assess the relative risk as was described by Mr. Case at the meeting.
SEB will take the overall lead in assessing relative risk. GSB will evaluate the earthquake probabilities involved. We will also request a USGS review of the earthquake probabilities.
Dr. Newmark will be asked to review these matters and provide his j
opinion.
Since our meeting on September 15, I have discussed specific tasks with the appropriate personnel. The items lit,Md in the enclosure have been identified as necessary to complete the review on schedule.
Original Signed By 8608250196 860001 Dennis P. Allison PDR FOIA HOUGH 96-391 PDR Dennis P. Allison, Project Manager Light Water Reactors Branch No.1 Division of Project Management Enclosure & cc:
See Page 2
' I'0" J a,
Q LWR-#1 Ddl'ison:klj I
772200179 9/ N/77 4g C'9&E~39 Nac ronw us (9.m uncu o24o
__ ____._ _ G a o> omocamm ctnar)anm eax'a23
)
John F. Stolz, Chief 2-SEP 2 31977
Enclosure:
Specific Tasks for Diablo Canyon Interim License Review cc:
F. Schroeder R. Mattson J. Knight I. Sihweil R. Bosnak D. Jeng P. Kuo P. Chen E. Sullivan S. Levine J. Murphy W. Vessely D. Ross T. Novak R. Tedesco V.' Benaroya T. Ippolito J. Tourtellotte L. Davis R. Goddard R. Boyd R. DeYoung H. Denton D.' Muller W. Gamill J. Stepp
-G. Hulman R. Vollmer D. Bunch l
W. Kreger I
R. Hofmann l
E. Markee l
J. Fairobent l
E. Hawkins i
J. Nehemias L. Soffer M. Ernst l
B. Youngblood E. Case l
orrece >
Eumeeansa h navs >
, NRC PORM 518 09 76) N 0240 W u.e.eovsm.a u w m - cove -, sas es4 i
l-9 ENCLOSURE SPECIFIC TASKS FOR DIABLO CANYON INTERIM LICENSE REVIEW I.
Assessment of Relative Risk SEB will take the lead in this assessment. GSB will evaluate the carthquake probabilities used.
PC6E will be requested to submit appropriate calculations and/or parametric studies. Our own calculations will be used as a check.
Dr. Newmark will provide his accessment as well.
II.
Review of PC&E's Probability Study PAB will review fault trees, accident sequences, and mathematics.
PAB will also review NASH-1400 type consequence calculations.
AAB will review 10 CFR 100 type consequence calculations.
..m,__
mm
~
CSB will review carthquake probabilities. USGS uill also ba requested te review this aspect.
Dr. Newmark will review the probability etudy and provide his recoamendation. (In addition, although not needed for our safety evaluat ion, Dr. Neunark will revisc his draft probability study.
Uc cr.pects to submit the final report during November 1977.)
SEB and MEB will revicw assumptions on strecs levels, cquipacnt qualification, and failure probabilitics.
ICin uill review considerations of metcarology and hydrology.
III.
Review of 'Other Aspects of PCLE's Interi:a 1.icense Application CBB uill review the nerd for power, obtaining information fren state agencies and FPC.
RAD will revieu the general commitncnt to complete, prier to
~
operation, all modifications that would otherwisc result in high dosen to workers after the plant han been eperated. Thia <tces to the practicality of future modifications in terms of nain-taining reasonnbly low dones to workers.
MEB, SED, and LPM will review the question of whether or not it appears that future nodifications are practical in terms of cost and feasibility.
11D trill ruiew the iervl :Nor e: oronos J bv t.5 : a m.
.' c a u ei r
the comnit.icnt to complete the ucuffication progr:re..
(ihe vague tine linit proposed is of special interest in assessing relative risk.)
f w A-src s7/
A-90
}
' IV.
Review Schedule In general, any questions or comments should be raised as quickly as possible. They will usually be handled by telephone or meeting as appropriate. A few questions and meetings are listed below.
Others will be scheduled as the questions arice. Documentation vill follow.these telephone discussions or meetings to keep all parties informed.
9/16/77 CBB and IIMB questions on need for power to PG&E.
9/16/77 SEB request for calculations on relative risk to PcsE.
9/23/77 PG&E respond to CBB and IIMB questions on need for power.
9/23/77 PG&E respond to SEB request for calculations oa relative risk.
gyggggg 9/28/77 P.AD tour of plant to check applicant's commitnent.
ou modificaticas pliar to operation.
9/30/77 PGLE subt.:it revised certhqunt e probah11ity stujies.
9/30/77 SEE, MEB, llMS co::plete review of assumptions ou stress levcic, co.uipment qualificction, and failure probabilities ac well as considerations of hydrolery and meteorology.
Identify any significant prob 1 cms or questions.
(PAB and AAD revieve continue through this point.
Any signific.:nr ' problems or questions will be handled as they arise.)
10/4/77 Deadline for applicant responses to questions that may arise during the review.
10/10/77 GbB provides reccmendation on carthquake probauliities after review of PGGE's revised study.
10/10/77 Dr. Newiark provides reco:rnendation on relative rick and PG&E's probahi]!:y stwiy (letten ).
~.
)
, 10/14/77 USGS provides recommendation (if available - not yet scheduled).
10/14/77 Recommendations to management and draf t SER inputs from all branches.
11/1/77 Complete management review and publish SER.
V.
Outline of SER on Intcrim License In general, this should be a separate staff report, standing on its own, rather than Supplement 7 to the existing SER.
1.0
_ Introduction LPM llhat the report deals with.
History of review.
Status of reevaluation.
Staff 16trer outlining interim license criteria.
"E8000 Application submitted.
Summarize PG5E's motion and reasons.
Sunciarize findings staff believen 1:ust be ecdc.
2.0 Need for Power CEB r
Staff evaluation and conclusion.
Cite FPC and State as appropriate.
Input from HMB to CBB on rain and runoff. will be needed.
-3.0 Deterministic Design Considerations 3.1 Review for 0.4g SEB Summtrize for Ittn, SED, ICSB 3.2 Review for 0.5g LPM Sunirarize for itEB, SEB. ICSB 3.3 Review for 0.75g SEB Summarize applicant's findinar to date for MEB, SEB, TChD.
Sur:rarize work that remains to be donc for ME!i, SEE, ICS3.
Findings attributed to PG&E since staff review not yet done.
)
~!
_4-3.4 Future Modifications Commitment to complete.
LPM Practicality in terms of doses.
RAB Practicality in terms of cost and feasibility. LPM /MEB/SEB/ICS3 4.0 Risk Assessments 4.1 Applicant's overall risk assessment.
4.1.1 Earthquake probabilitics.
GSB Staff evaluation and conclusion.
Discuss uncertainties.
Discuss USGS review.
Compare to Trifunac and Newmav:k.
4.1.2 Assumptions LPM Stress level vs. failure probabilities, teteorology, hydrology, etc.
Inputs from MEB, SED,llMB, PAB, and AAB will be needed.
54NRear Conclusion as to whether or not the assuttptione are reasonable at.d/or unaningful for this purpose.
Discuss uncertaintics.
4.3.3 Plant Resistance Calculaticas P/.B Feult trees, accident scouences, awl ria thema ti c s.
Discuss uncertaintics.
Compare results to Newmark. Ckrent. etc.
Conclusion and/or position.
4.1.4 Consequence (Dose) Calculations UASl!-1400 type dose ' calculations.
PAD Relationship to UASil-1400 and/or Ccamission Policy on VASC-1400 Dr. certainties.
ConcJusiens and/or posit ion.
10 CFR 100 type dcsc calculations.
AAD Uncertaintics.
Concluuion and/or position.
4.2 Eclative Rick Assessment SE3 Interim vs. full tcrn licenne.
Citn applicant's work.
Ciro 's trP's reenrncndation.
Discut varicus assonntions/r rar etrie :tudies.
Ccr.clur icn and/or position.
t-
_C,
I
)
5.0 conclusion on Interim License LPM Depends on, sections above.
List conclusions made above.
Mention other issues in regular SER, etc.
Appendices, Dr. Newmark's reconnendation.
In the form of a letter. To be based on (1) review of PG&E's probability studies, and (2) assessment of relative risk.
Dr. Newmark's revised probability study will be provided later (in November 1977).
Need for Power (if needcd).
Lengthy tchles. Backup data. Information from State or FPC.
USGS recommendation (if available).
- weeld
?.!
hNs C-mr.A-at. - 39 /
A -90