ML20212M419

From kanterella
Jump to navigation Jump to search
Summary of 770602 Meeting W/Util,Westinghouse & Ctr for Law in Public Interest Re Plant Seismic Design.Attendee List Encl
ML20212M419
Person / Time
Site: Diablo Canyon, 05000000
Issue date: 06/29/1977
From: Allison D
Office of Nuclear Reactor Regulation
To:
Office of Nuclear Reactor Regulation
Shared Package
ML20150F500 List: ... further results
References
FOIA-86-391 NUDOCS 8608260009
Download: ML20212M419 (7)
v • d • e


Text

~

\\

(

s JUN 2 9 877 Docket Nos. 50-27. M,

and 50-323 APPLICANT: Pacific Gas & Electric Company (PG&E)

FACILITY:

Diablo Canyon Nuclear Power Station, Units 1 and 2 (DiabloCanyon)

SU M ARY OF MEETING HELD ON JUNE 2, 1977, TO DISCUSS DIABLO CANYON SEISMIC DESIGN We met with the applicant on June 2,1977, to discuss the seismic design of Diablo Canyon. A list of attendees is provided in the enclosure.

BACKGROUND Diablo Canyon had originally been designed to withstand an earthquake with a horizontal ground acceleration of 0.4g, based on the geological investigations that had been conducted in connection with the construction pemit review. During the operating license review, which was in pro-gress, we had requested that PG&E reevaluate the plant's seismic capabilities to determine what modifications might be necessary to ensure that the plant could withstand a more severe earthquake with a horizontal ground acceleration of 0.75g, based on newer geological information, PGAE was perfoming such a reanalysis.

PG&E had also expressed its intention to apply for an interim operating license for Diablo Canyon to allow plant operation while the seismic reevaluationwasjeffigcompleted. The material needed to justify such I

an interim lictfise application had previously been outlined by the NRC l

staff as follows:

' p# ~

(1) A demonstration of the need to consider such an action, and p

(2) Information and analyses to demonstrate that the requisite level of safety would be assured during the period of the interim license.

i i

This infonnation should include all available results of the seismic reassessment program, supported by:

g)lD1

/

8608260009 860801 l

EJOH9 91 PDR i

m.'

.unna.. >

. par. >.

Nac conwais o.m nacu o2e

  • u.

v.

.e 4m,.

m-a g g 4. g l

[

n-s4 14-g +

+

Pacific Gas & Electric Company 2-JUN 2 9 E77 (a) a realistic assessment of the orobability of large earthquakes in the site environs and the probability of the plant to with-stand such earthquakes without failures of structures and equip-ment sufficient to lead to unacceptable radiological consequences to the public; (b) a commitment to make any changes to tho design determined to be necessary on the basis of the continuing seismic reassessment program; and (c) an evaluation of the practicality of making the need changes j

to a plant which has been in operation during the term of the interim license.

l INTERIM LICENSE APPLICATION - RELATIONSHIP TO REGULATIONS At a previous meeting on May 3,1977, we had discussed the question of whether or not the interim license application would constitute a request for an exemption to the NRC Regulations, in particular to appendix A to 10 CFR Part 100 and to Criterion 2 of the General Design Criteria (Appendix A to 10 CFR Part 50).

At this meeting, June 2,1977, we infonned PG&E of our opinion on this i

subject as follows:

(1) Regardless of whether or not the interim license was to be considered an exemption from, an exemption to or a waives of the regulations, i

the information needed to support the application, outlined above, M

would be substantially the same. The fundamental criterion in any l

approach would be that the plant must be shown to have an acceptable level of safety before an operating license would belissued.

(2) We had considered three possible ways of stating the interim license application:

(a) the first possibility would be a petition for an exemption or waiver of a particular rule under 10 CFR Part 2,758 (b).

The sole basis that would be allowed here was that due to special circumstances application of the particular rule would not serve 4the purpose for which the rule was intended.

l In this case;~the regulations explicitly spelled out the subsequent procedures to be followed by the Licensing Board.

j l'

U iorr.ce >

summame >

' k

  • M " '

5s 1

_ y.

s

=c wm w., mmom

.w.

w v

a

I Pacific Gas & Electric Company M 2 C B7r (b) The second possibility would be request for an exemption from the requirements of the regulations under 10 CFR Part 50.12.

Here the regulations indicated that the requested exemption would have to be shown to:

(1) be authorized by law, (ii) not endanger life or property or the comon defense and security, and; (iii) be otherwise in the public interest.

In this case, the subsequent procedures to be followed by the Licensing Board were not explicitly spelled out in the regulations.

(c) The third possibility would be a showing that the requested action would not constitute a deviation from the regulations in that the pertinent regulations already contemplated and allowed for an applicant to propose and justify alternate approaches.

Language to this effect was contained in Appendix A to 10 CFR Part 50,10 CFR Fart 100 and Appendix A to 10 CFR Part 100.

(3) In any of these methods the oversiding and fundamental consideration would be whether or not an acceptable level of safety had been shown.

(4) In any of these methods we would went any specific passage or section -

N of the regulations that might not be met to be clearly identified and the reasons and justifications to be clearly stated.

(5) We indicated that 10 CFR Part 50.57, " Issuance of operating license",

would be cited in connection with any of the three methods discussed above.

(6) The staff would not specify which method of stating the application should be used. This decision would be left to PG&E.

l INTERIM LICENSE APPLICATION - STATUS OF SYSTEMS REANALYSIS i

At a previous meeting, on April 29,1977 PG4E had described to us those systems and portions of systems for which they intended to complete the reanalysis prior to applying for an interim license.

In general, these consisted of the systems that PG8E considered necessary to ensure that the plant could be safely shutdown following a major earthquake. At this orries e evanaus >

naes >

W ve s. eeveneenseser esseerrime' crescas seve essene

+ m m He @M) NRW O240 e

t Pacific Gas & Electric Company

-4 JUN 2 9 f977 meeting, on June 2, 1977, we informed PG&E that we considered the pro-bability study to be the primary tool that would be used in judging whether or not the plant would have an acceptable level of safety for an interim operating license. Accordingly, we did not consider that the interim license would be contingent upon whether or not the reanalysis had been completed for any particular system or part of a system at the new earthquake level of 0.759 SEISMIC REEVALUATION - COMBINATION OF LOADS In order to justify a full term operating license, PG&E would need to complete the seismic reevaluation at 0.75g. We informed PG&E that in performing this reevaluation they should combine the calculated loads resulting from a postulated loss-of-coolant accident with the calculated loads resulting from the postulated earthquake at 0.75g. These loads should be combined by direct addition, as is the usual practice in nuclear plant design, rather than by using the square root of the sum of the squares. PG8E would then be expected to demonstrate to us that structures, systems and components important to safety can perform their required safety functions under the combined losiing conditions.

If, for any particular item, functional capability cc. eld not be demonstrated and PG&E should believe that modifications to demonstrate functional capability would be impractical or unwarranted, then PG&E would be expected to describe the situation fully and to justify its acceptability.

Original Signed By Dennis P. Allison Dennis P. Allison, Project Manager Light Water Reactors Branch No. 1 Division of Project Management t

Enclosure:

Attendance List l

cc w/ enclosure:

See Page 5 l

i P

t f

I LSSg,1 LXRgj,1

.,~.,

j DAITfson:k1j dWolfC '

.6/Af/77 6/,y/77.

y.

l t

sc== si. o.m =cw 6m

  • s. -,

- n.

~

Facific Gas & Cloctric Ccopany _

cc: Philip A. Crane, Jr., Esq.

idr. Jonn Forster Pacific Gas and Electric Compsny 935 Palm Street 7713eale Street San Luis Obispo, Californic 93401 San Francisco, California 94106 Hr. William P. Cornwell Andrew J. Skaff. Esq.

P. O. Box 453 California Public utilit ie: Ccemission Morro aay, California 93442 350 I*c.Allister Strc+t San Francisco, California 94102 Mr. Jaws 0. Schuyler, Nuclear Project Engineer Mr. Frederick Eisoler, President.

Pacific Gas f4 Electric Company Scenic Shoreline Presarvation 77 Beale Street Conference, Inc.

San Francisco, Galifornia 94106 4623 acre Mesa Drive Santa aarcara, California 93105 Mrs. Thelra Hirdler 011 Fair Oaks Avenue Pts. Sandra A. Silver Arroyo Grande, California 944'20 5055 Radford Avenue North Hollywod, California 91607 Mr. W. C. Gangloff Westinghouse Electric Corporation dr. Gordon A. Silver P. O. Box 355 5055 Badford Avenue Pittsburgh, Pennsylvania 15230 North nellywod, California 91607 Yale I. Jones, Esq.

Paul C. Valentine, Esq.

100 Van Ness Avenue 400 Channing Avenue 19th Floor Palto Alto, California 94301 San Francisco, California 94102 mm*W Ms. Raye Fleming David P. Fleischaker, Esq.

1746 Charro Street 102515th Street, ii. W.

San Luis Obispo, California 93401 Washington, D. C.

20005 Neil Goldberg, Esq.

Ms. Elizabeth E. Apfelberg Wilmer, Cutler & Pickering 1415 Cazadero j

1666 K Street, N. W.

San Inis Obispo, California 93401 I

Washington, D. C.

20006 N. H. We mark Consulting Engincering Services 1211 Civil Engineering Building University of Illinois Urbana, Illinois 61801 l

O OF FIC. >

i l-NRC PORM' 318 (9 74) NRCM 0240 -

  1. u. s. oovannasaw paesmaa orrices sore -ese.eed

ENCLOSURE ATTENDANCE LIST PACIFIC GAS 3 ELECTRIC COMPANY (PG/2E)

JUNE 2, 1977 PACIFIC GAS & ELECTRIC C0'9ANY M. Furbush P. Crane J. Hoch J. Gomly WESTINGHOUSE W. Gangloff T. Esselman NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSION E. Case I. Sihweil R. DeYoung D.. Jeng D. Vassallo P. Kuo J. Stolz J. O'Brien D. Allison A. Fratoni J. Knight W. Gamill i

R. Bosnak M. Grossman P. Chen J. Tourtellotte T. Sullivan L. Davis l

l l

CENTER FOR LAW IN THE PUBLIC TNTEREST (Intervenors Counsel) i D. Fleishaker l

I l

1 i

l o,,,e s,.

I eusseness >

'O-pata >

A

'Mac $0RM Sie IM6) NRod 0244 '

  • 'u. e. eovean eswv en.wrime orpses. s to %

Pt-84

s ~- 'i f.

MEETING SuttMARY Docket F1-le 4 NRC PDR Local PDR TIC NRR Reading LWR 1 File E. G. Case R. S. Boyd R. C. DeYoung J. Stolz K. Kniel

0. Parr S. Varga L. Crocker D. Crutchfield F. Williams R. Heineman H. Denton D. Muller Project Manager D. Allison Attorney, ELD E. Hylton IE ( 3)

ACRS (16)

L. Dreher NRC Participants E. Case R. DeYoung D. Vassallo J Stolz Allison J Knight R'. Bosnak P. Chen T. Sullivan I. Sihweil D. Jeng P. Kuo J. O'Brien A. Fratoni W. Gamill M. Grossman J. Tourtellottee L. Davis

t. -

s.

b i

N M W wl ki+

.

Retrieved from "https://kanterella.com/w/index.php?title=ML20212M419&oldid=3996020"