ML20212L125
| ML20212L125 | |
| Person / Time | |
|---|---|
| Site: | 05000000, Diablo Canyon |
| Issue date: | 02/02/1976 |
| From: | Deyoung R Office of Nuclear Reactor Regulation |
| To: | Boyd R Office of Nuclear Reactor Regulation |
| Shared Package | |
| ML20150F500 | List:
|
| References | |
| FOIA-86-391 NUDOCS 8608250216 | |
| Download: ML20212L125 (3) | |
Text
{{#Wiki_filter:-._ 1 l l l February 2, 1976__ I Docket Nos 50-275 and 5 R. S. Boyd, Director, Division of Project Management, NRR SUFFLEMENT TO THE MINUTES OF THE MEETING WITH NTWMARK, HALL, A?M USGS CONCERNING DIABLO CANYON SEISMIC DESIGN My memorandum of January 28, 1976, provided a discuasion of the high-l lights, as I saw them, of the January 22, 1976 meeting held with the USGS and Dr. Novaark and Dr. Hall. I. Sihweil and K. Kapur have I since indicated that, in their opinion, the following changes in that memorandum would more accurately represent the statements made by then at the meeting: (1) The last two paragraphs on page 3 and the first paragraph on page 4 should be revised to read as follows: Sihveil voiced several concerns regarding: I l 1. The inadvisability of referring to Circular 672 in the USGS report since it recommends modifying the ground motion to account for non-linear energy adsorption mechanisms and it is felt that structural design is out-side the scope of USGS, =.m.,. s ; py.ws. - =% < :.. e. # y* 2. The inconsistency of the SSE recurrence intergi, with j the normal practice of the SEB, e" l Large reduction from the==v4==== acceleration 'va' lues 3. given in Tabla 2 of circular 672 to the value used for ( design without sound and rational technical basis. Dr. Newmark could not yet explain how he would derive values to be used in the design from the values given in Table 2. Both Mr. Sibweil and Dr. Kapur stated that they will review the solution to the problem that will be suggested by Dr. Newmark. I. Sibweil emphasized that the Geology and Seismology Branch are responsible for specifying the appro-priate response spectra for the site. So long as the response spectra selected are based upon industry-wide practice, generally accepted rational procedures, or established pro-cedures out1ined in the Standard Review Plans, the Structural oresce >. (. 860e;230216 860GM .u aa a = = *. Sav'a> PDR FOIA POR ~ VCHD I .. #.,q.w *. .' ~.. y."m., ~~ -,1. ~.,,,m..HO 4,.. : :..' ; "... l ^
- ......:..,...,%. 4 1....,
J -1s
... -. ~.. ( ( R. S. Boyd February 2, 1976 Engineering Branch will have no problers defending these spectri in public hearings or other foruras. However, any arbitrarily determined response spectra based upon judgment alone will have to be closely examined before any decision regarding its acceptability or non-acceptability can be made. Mr. R. DeYoung pointed out that established procedures were in significant measure selected on the basis of convenience and practicality. Acceptance of a conservative procedure lessened the review and design effort and time since smaller margins, while not necessarily any less safe, required a great deal more analysis to use and justify. Mr. I. Sihueil suggested a revised page 12 that would essentially include the first paragraph and the next sentence. This was 1 discussed at some length. Mr. Devine said he strongly pre-ferred the prior suggested version and would insist on the reference to the USGS Circular being retained. Dr. Kapur l suggested a compromise which would include reference to USGS Circular but will omit any reference to Table 2 in that. reference, as that Table gives excessively high acceleration values for a 7 or 7.5 magnitude earthquake, which cannot be justified. (2) The concluding paragraph on page 5 should also be reworded as ~! follows: It was generally agreed, that. progress.had been made ati the e o g ,.,3 meeting. The staff and Dr. Neumark were of the opinion that a lower acceleration value will be appropriate for the Diablo Canyon power plant site. Thus, there continues to be a difference of opinion between the staff,' their consultant, and the USGS. Dr. Newmark will suggest alternate solutions to the problest which will be reviewed by NRC before a final L., ...,,,g '. Judgment regarding the position to be adopted by NRC for the j. Diablo Canyon plant is nada, t l' Please append this memorandus to my memorandum of January 28, 1976, in order that their views of their statements and those of others present are given dus weight and recognition. Original signed by R. C. DeYoung l R. C. DnYoung, Assistant Director for Light Water Reactors Division of Project Management ec: See page 3 e, rec s > .unseassa k ' haveh 'I [ pen mc4pqs.pm ascusem .g.,g g g g.g ....L . ::.p. :.q:. :..- = b ll
[ [ ,e R. S. Boyd 3. Febenary 2, 19N i ec: B. Rusche E. Casa H. Denton W. nn--f11 C. Stepp R. Hofmann O. Farr l D. Allison R. Hefnaman F. Schroeder R. Maccary I. Sihveil K. Kapur L. Shao J. Tourte11otte M. Malmroe, IE Region V Distribution Docket Files R. C. DeYoung ,.......u..R.9 C. DeYotsag's-Randing 5 e y- / e h ".y \\r / l f 2 )- l 3 J 4 ) i ~ DPM: LWR evemame > 3CDaTotittgfEjit
- M -86 39f
~~1 . h== ABC-{le; Mi AJiGE em, a;. .::= y.- . k u. o;eovaan=ans munne ornca een-ame eee
- ~,.m.....:.y m.y..y,g..s;.,e..; 7
. -..,- --s <---vm q.g;f I I .,b-Q t
-...-._,.._..4.. a. ( ( r ~ (Etf 3 W6 .[ NOTE TO: Harold Denton, Director, SSEA THRU: William Gammill, Assistant Director for Site TechnoloSy, ? SEA CURRENT USGS CASE REVIEW STATUS NiD PROBLEMS \\ Skagit Status - SER due 11/21. Staff completed draft SER. LUA hearing l 1/13 now postponsed to May. Problems - USGS submitted questions on applicant geology interpreta-tions and on the SSE in early December after SER was due. These questions were based on the input of two USGS reviewers on December 3. These reviewers, though local experts, had not previcusly been consulted so far as we know. Impact - Estimated 60 days for applicant to respond to USGS questions. Options - Applicant response to USGS questions. P_alo Verde Status - SER due September 5, 1975. Staff issued SER on sch'edule. Problems - USGS continues to submit questions raisins concern about faulting in the plant site area and about subsidence. . Questions were submitted to applicant in October. A new set of questions covering much the same ground were received from USGS during past week. Staff considers applicant's investigation to date adequate to assure safe design of site. Inpact - Probable two conth, delay in resolving USGS questiona. Safety hearings scheduled for February will.likely be delayed. Options - Uithhold USGS questions and,csk for USGS final report. Ask applicant to respond to USGS questions. Final note - USGS has not to this date asked any questions relating to seisuology of the Palo Verde site. S^* p/ .y, t.r Vp61 [ b -/ I 6 .g
- O#NE summams p
~ - - - Ensus ABC.)le (Bew. 9 53) ABCM 0240 W u. e, eovaesseesser casemene eepeses so,s.ame see gg g- [ r .? f (O. A . -...a.
( (~ Harold Denton 2 FEB 3 576 Pebble Springs _ Status - SER due 12/15. Staff completed SER. Late questions from USGS on geology, primarily volcanism, received in December. Additional questions relating to seismicity and determination of the SSE received February 2, 1976. Problems - USGS continues to raise concern about volcanic ash at plant site. Although staff has taken the conservative position recommended by USGS, USGS takes posture that it reviews only what is submitted by the applicant and cannot write a final evaluation for the site until the applicant has recommended a conservative design for volennic ash. USG3 now appears to be questioning the seismic design, which is now.25g. Staff has agreed with applicant that.2g is an appropriate SSE consistent with the seismicity and tectonism of the region. Staff has taken conservativa (USGS) position on volcanism and feels seismic design is satisfactory. Impact - Probable two conth delay for utility to respond to GS questions and additional 60 days for the GS to review applicant's response. ACRS meeting scheduled for February 7 r.ay be canceled because of no USGS report, EBBMhg Options - 1. Applicant respond to USGS questions. 2. Ask USGS for final report and withhold questions. Diablo Canyon Status - Hearings waiting completion of seismology geology review. Problem - Differences between staff USGS reviewers conce'ning the r position that NRC should take on Diablo Canyon seismic j design have not been resolved. Meeting with applicant has not been held. t l Impact - Possible delay of hearing. Options - Resolved differences. i .,,ic a,- .aw e-Se=== 49#*,899 iWas GA t t A W A144 k U. S. eOWSnestASNT PRE 8FTSMG OFFIC.B 8974*S860GS,,,, i 7 c
..... -.~ ~.. ~... +. 3-(. (, Harold Denton 3 Pilgrim Status - Awaiting completion of geology seismology review. Problems - Staff has been unable to accept applicant's determination of tectonic province for the site. Independent review was requested of USGS in June 1975. Agreed upon completion date for USGS was six months, now two months past. Impact - Continued delay of completing Safety Evaluation Report. Options - Complete USGS review. Marble 11111 Status - Round 1 questions due November 13. Staff completed round 1 questions and staff and USGS made site visit on November 17. Problems - No USGS questions on geology at this tir.e. USGS questions on seist.nology received 1/30. USGS was requested to review generic report en northern extent of New Madrid =one. Request was made in April 1975. CS indicated 60 days to respond. To g date, CS has not completed its review of the generic report. Impact - Estimate five nonth delay in co apicting safety review, as USGS ~ questions will not be available until at least mid March. Options - 1. Withdraw USGS from review. 2. Accept delay. Sundesert St.atus - Round 1 questions duc December 20. Staff completed round 1 questions on schedule. -ESCS round 1 questions on geolo;;y received' January 30. No USGS questions on seismology as yet. I Problems - none Impact - Late USGS questions will delay revyew by 30 to 60 days. Options - We sh'ould accept delay since utility asked for GS review.- l orrece > somwame > oave > g Pese AsC SIS (see. 9 55) m 02m. W v. wan..,,,asserine ecrises ser4. t s . ?- ~.~f. s l
( ( DIST. gm, W Earold Denton 4 FE3 3 1976 "UENTRAL FILES gy NRR Reading ggf g-GSB Reading gyg North Coast JCStepp g.gg Hulman WGammill COT 7 '/ Status - Regular review scheduled suspended. No forming a reviev schedule for early site review.
- NM MSM Problemo - USGS round 2 questions delayed since October. Now estimate 56'5 7'l USGS response in mid March.
8-458 50-57$ Impact - Uncertain since new review schedule is being formed. (_yg Options - Form new review schedule for Early Site Revicv. 3 San Joaquin Status - Review is conplete. Staff and USGS vriting Safety Evaluation Report. Projected completion date March 15. Problems - Fxcellent and timely response from USGS throughout the reviev'on geology matters. As yet, GS hs.s reiced no seismology questions relating to this site though site conditions are somewhat similar to those of Diablo Canyon. Wlggggete! Lnpact - If USGS accepts applicant's determination of the SSE, we anticipate no impact. If GS tahos position that they have taken on_ Diablo, at least two months delay will be encountered while resolution is sought. Options - Wait for USGS SER. Humboldt Status - Staff has complete review of applicants reports. Problems - USGS has not yet begun its review; therefore, we estimate a delay until mid Ifarch. Impact - Delay of our projected schedule for completing our review from mid March until at least April 1. Options - Wait for USGS to complete its review. OikrinsI mgn.re h;, J. C. Step; SS p J. C.-S t* ppy-Chief ..JC EP_,, rv_ Geology ad Scissology _Blach,.. SSEA -.. .u====>
- * ' ' * - /3/76 r.n. Asc.ne im. p.sn Ascu oua
- w.
..===v m .,m im. gmyy/ . ;. sjf A 46'. s 1 .}}