ML20212L205
| ML20212L205 | |
| Person / Time | |
|---|---|
| Site: | 05000000, Diablo Canyon |
| Issue date: | 02/17/1976 |
| From: | Allison D Office of Nuclear Reactor Regulation |
| To: | Parr O Office of Nuclear Reactor Regulation |
| Shared Package | |
| ML20150F500 | List:
|
| References | |
| FOIA-86-391 NUDOCS 8608250246 | |
| Download: ML20212L205 (2) | |
Text
-
4
(
(
A i
FEB 17 576 r
Docket.
. 50-275 and 50-323 i
Olan D. Parr, Chief, Light Water Reactors Branch No. 3, Division of Project Management i
MEETING WITH ER. N. NEWARK AND W. HALL CONCERNING DIABLO CANYON We met with out consultants, Dr. N. Newmark and Dr. W. Hall on February 4 1976, in Urbana, Illinois, to discuss the seismic design of the Diablo Canyon facility. A list of attendees is enclosed. The agenda used to guide the course of the meeting is also enclosed.
We discussed the review of the Diablo Canyon seismic design which was being conducted by Newmark and Hall. Taking the USGS draft report as a starting point they were developing a ground response spectrum appro-i priate for design purposes at the Diablo Canyon site. They were also considering the capability of the plant to resist such an earthquake.
Further details concerning this review were provided in Dr. Newmark's
" Notes RE Diablo Canyon". A copy of these notes is enclosed.
I Dr. Nessark indicated that he should be able to inform us of the nature of his report in early March, prepara a draft report for discussion with us in mid-March, and issue ~a final report in~3 ate March. This wouldilead e c-i to an SER supplement about April 1, 1976 which is one month later than j
we had previously been discussing.
In parallel with these efforts, the geology-seismology group stated that it would try to derive a site specific ground response spectrum using the USGS draf t report as a starting point. If a justifiable approach to
- h.,.
4 do, this could be worked out the spectruma could be derived in about 3 weeks. This would then be provided to the engineering group for evalu-ation of the plant's capabilities to resist such an earthquake. This approach could lead independently to a conclusion on the adequacy of the l
plant's design by about mid-March.
It was noted that either Newmark and Hall?s approach or the staff approach discussed above may require some modifications to the plant design. The turbine building roof and components and systems mounted near the base mat l
were mentioned as likely candidates for structural modifications.
l e
l 860023ON6 860001 PDR FOIA w.
HOUCli96-?? 1 PDR
' ems >
e
.[
evename >
'h.
h
- s w *,,
^
-W u. e eevaammswv paewtone ofreces sen.see.see gg
,,g Pese ABC,388 (Re. bS)) ABCM 0240 s,
i
. tl M
..___.t.2_._..._._.__,-
x
_m.._
4
(
j
(
.. r E81 71976 The geology-seismology group alw stated that if it could not derive the site specific spectrum it would provide a recommsendation similar to the draf t USGS recosamendation for use by the engineering group.
i We agreed to inform the applicant of the essential points of our program l
and to indicate the merit of his independent pursuit of a parallel pro-gram since we would not espect to make a conclusion on the issues involved until he has provided his snalysis and conclusions. The appli-cant should be able to complete his work before we complete ours.
i.
Based on the above, it appeared that the earliest we could meet with the l
ACRS full coensittee would be May.
It was agreed that the original OBE (0.2g) would not need to be changed.
Original Signed By Dennis P. Allison i
Dennis P. Allison Light Water Reactors i
Branch No. 3 Division of Project Management Enclosuret m
Notes RE Diablo,C.anyo..n,
.s..
c cet E. Case B. Rusche R. Heineman i
R. Maccary I. Sihweil K. Kapur J. Knight l
P. Y. Chen l.
L. Shao l
R. Boyd R. C. DeYoung
[
i J. Tourte11otte I
l H. Denton' i
W. Gemmill i
J. C. Stepp l
R. Hofman R. McMullen l
l l
l DPM L]Gt f3 DPA11NoTsaj
.... m. e.
2/M/76 c -l~...
..f W woe. oovenmusav ementine orriess s.94.n.u.ee.. ;s
,pases Aac. pts (see.9 93) ABCM eade.
f F 'QG; y
g g
'