ML20213D045
| ML20213D045 | |
| Person / Time | |
|---|---|
| Site: | Columbia  |
| Issue date: | 09/12/1979 |
| From: | Cleary D Office of Nuclear Reactor Regulation |
| To: | Sells D Office of Nuclear Reactor Regulation |
| References | |
| CON-WNP-0285, CON-WNP-285 NUDOCS 7910040474 | |
| Download: ML20213D045 (5) | |
Text
C o-A
- gia'.,..
.s
. ?W A
_,..p".-
SEP 121979 HEMORAtl0VH FOR: Donald Sells, Acting Branch Chief, Environmental Projects i
Branch 2, DSE FR0!1:
Donald P. Cleary, Section Leader, Regional Imoact Analysis Section, CBAB, DSE I
SUBJECT:
CBAB REVIEll 0F WPPSS-2 PDES f
PLANT ilAME: HPPSS-2 DOCKET i;UitDER: 50-397 LICE.tiSII;G STAGE: OL
- RESP 0ilSIBLE BRAtiCH: EPB2 PROJECT PAtlAGER:
S. Keblusek DESCRIPTI0ff 0F RESP 0ftSE: Review REVIEW STATUS: Complete i
The CBAB staff has completed its revicw of Sections 2.2. 2.7, 5.2, 7.2, 7.3, 7.4, 7.5, 7.6, 7.7, and 7.0; comments are listed on the attachment.
3ecause of ANL's role in future OL analyses I suggest that the CDAB technical staff accompany the EPit to Chicago for the " green cover review." Such a meeting would be useful in projecting ilRC's OL review philosonhy, nart.icularly in the socioeconomics (including cultural resources) area.
!!!ke Kaltman (x20595) coordinated the staff's review and war assisted by Sid Feld in the need for power analysis.
ORIGINAL SIGNED BY l
1 Donald P. Cleary. Section Leader Regional Impact Analysis Section Cost-Benefit Analysis Branch Division of Site Safety and Environmental Analysis
Attachment:
IBUTION:
-Genrral SFeld As stated TERA MXal tman NRR R/F DPCleary EPT R/F BJYoungblood 6
'd CBAB R/F t'ppu.9 n1e_enan
.h.2d.
d.11.79...... bR.79..
Nac roan sis (9 76) uncw o24o '
W,..
-==,.*.~..
e=>""an
>a h
m
~
~,
SEP 12 M9 COMMENTS ON WPPSS-2 PDES (1) Section 2.2.1.1 Demography:
The text states that the present population i
within 50 km is expected to change by 44%; however, no indication of the growth period is given.
(2) Section 2.2.1.2 Settlement Pattern: The statement that "The. settlement j
pattern. '.'. is characterized by the Columbia River which separates the two counties '..." is incorrect. The settlement patern may be characterized by suburban ~ prawl or small towns; the settlement patte 7 may be influenced s
or _ determined by the Columbia River. The juxtaposition of sentences in the first paragraph of the housing section gives the impression that the i
number of housing units in some way determines the projected average house-hold size. Also, I suggest reversing the order of the two paragraphs in the housing section. The discussion of traffic is too tentative: The predominant traffic flow in the bi-county and tri-city areas is generated by the Hanford Reservation, the area's largest employment location.
4 l
(3) Section 2.2.2 Land Use: State Route 240 cuts through the Reservation and l
is a major public road to Richland. The statement concerning public 1
access to the Reservation is misleading in this respect and should be j-omitted, particularly as it does not enhance our understanding of any land use issue.
1
~
(4) Section 2.2.3 Social Organization: Cha: acterizing the "socio-cultural
~'
i organization" as " homogeneous and closely interrelated" may be correct in some technical context. However, the meaning of these words is vague.
(5) Section 2.7.1 The Region: The discussion of cultural resources, while interesting, has little relevance to the problem at hand.and, therefore, i
does not deserve.the space given to the discussion.
I suggest that the i
discussion be compressed. A total of 12 local properties is noted but i
no indication is given of the area within which they are located. The last sentence of the second paragraph 2, page 493432 should be corrected as follows: "The district closest to WPPSS-2, the Wooded Island Archeo-logical District, is located approximately two miles south of the intake structure; the station's pumphouse will be visible from the north end
{
of the district. The statement that "an intensive survey for all of the Hanford property and WPPSS-2 site has not been made" casts doubt on statements made in the proceeding paragraph regarding the adequacy of archeological surveys and statements by the applicant's archeological consul tants. The staff should also provide documentation that state officials have reviewed archeological and historic preservation i
activities and concur in their adequacy.
j (6) Section 5.2 Impacts on Land Use: My previous ccmment on public access to the Reservation should be referred to again.
(7) General Comment on Section 5.6: The amount of space that has been devoted i
to the analyses of socioeconomic impacts at the comunity level is not justified when we consider the data and analytical requirements of the OL review and the significance of the issues under consideration. The OL j(
reivew considers the same list of items as the CP review and discusses them only to the extent that they differ from those previously discussed or that they reflect new information. These conditions imply two proce-dures to be used by the staff. The first requirement is a review of the 4
operating phase analysis in the FES-CP and a comparison between that i
L
m analysis and the data uncovered by staff during the OL review. The cecond requirement is that the staff exercise judgment in determining
- ther such differences a priori could cause an impact which would a significantly different from that anticipated during the CP review.
Only those impacts which have the potential for causing significantly different impacts should be carried forward analytically. After evaluating the quantitative dimensions of impact, the staff should apply a significance test to both the OL issues which were reviewed during the CP level process and those which may have not been eval uated.
It is impossible for NRC to describe those criteria which determine significance, although two sources of evaluation should be used: professional experience and community perception.
The OL text should reflect only those issues which have significance and the space accorhd those issues should further reflect the fact that' socioeconomic 1mpacts at the OL stage are considered to be less significant than those encountered at the CP stage.
In this regard, the staff should consider what benefit the public derives from a detaiied discussion of non-significant issues. However, this should not be interpreted to imply that an extensive analysis should not be performed, rather only the most salient points of the analysis should be presented in the FES. The more extensive documentation underlying the analysis should be retained in the files.
(8) Section 5.6.1 Demography and Settlement Pattern: It is highly probable that some portion of the 130 permanent operation staff will originate from'the local area.
I suggest that the second sentence of the paragraph be modified to indicate this probability.
(9) Section 5.6.1.1 Housing: The discussion does not provide a basis for concluding that housing need; will be met. Considering population growth, what vacancy rate can be expected at the time when operating staff demand housing? Also, the statement that "the estimated housing vacancies in the Tri-City area are being minimally met by single-family and mobile home residences" is not clear.
(10) Section 5.6.1.2 Traffic: The discussion avoids a bottom line conclusion on the impact of operating staff on traffic conditions.
(11) Section 5.5.'. social Organization. The discussion in this section may be relevant to the organization of society; however, the discussion is more directly related to prevailing attitudes toward growth and i
development.
I suggest retitling the section, positioning the paragraph after police and fire protection, and drawing a distinction between all development on the reservation and WPPSS-2.
N.B.: the conclusion on housing in 5.6.1.1 appears to differ from perceptions of the problem in this seciton.
(12) Section 5.6.3.2 Water and Sewage Treatment: What is the staff's bottom.
line with respect to the impact of WPPSS-2 on the services discussed?
Table 5.1 indicated should be changed to Table 5.2.
(13) Section 5.6.3.3 Police and Fire Protection: What is the staff's bottom line conclusion on the impact of WPPSS-2 on the provision of police services?
c (14) Section 5.6.4.1 Contract Construction: Change "are expected to be on the site" to "were on the site."
(15) Section 5.6.4.3 Taxes: Change " site" to " plant" in the last line of the paragraph.
(16) Aesthetics: Section 5.3.1.2 contains the following sentence: "The primary offsite effects will be the aesthetic impact of visible plumes above the ground." The staff should address this issues in Section 5.6 as it is given prominence in the earlier sectien.
(17) Section 5.7 Cultural Resource Impacts: The applicant's comitment on archeological resources (FES-CP, pp. II-9 and V-4/5) appears to protect the public interest. I suggest that, as the archeological / cultural resource preservation issue has been dealt with, this section be eliminated.
(18) Section 7.2 Applicant's Service Area: The first paragraph is confusing.
I do not understand how WPPSS can " sell electricity" but cannot " distribute power to customers." The last sentence of the fourth paragraph should be rewritten.
(19) Section 7.3 Scope of This Assessment: The text under point 1 is not reflective of the title and is of questionable value to the analysis (20) Section 7.4 Demand For Energy: This discussion is needlessly confusing
~
because some of the data in the first paragraph do not correspond to data in the table and because consideration is given to growth rates with and without the effect of interruptible load.
I suggest that this section be s impl ified. The discussion of accuracy (second paragraph) should provide the time span for each of three periods on the list. The last two paragraphs in the section attempt to establish supply constraints rather than demand et peak as the criterion for determining the need for WPPSS-2.
Although tne argument may be valid it is not presented in a clear manner.
In fact, WPPSS-2 is being added to the system as a means of stretching water resources during periods of high sustained usage and low water availabil ity.
The investmenc in WPPSS-2 should be understood against the backdrop of the applicant's economic objectives (which must distinguish between the use of hydro to meet baseload and peaking requirements) and the physical problem of water availability; neither factor is clearly discussed as the context for WPPSS-2.
The initial sentences in the paragraph on testing the reasonableness of Wast Group forecasts should be rewritten as follows: "The PNUCC West Group tests the reasonableness of the forecasts produced by the individual utilities; the test is based on an independent econometric model o' the major consuming sectors.
Economic and demographic variables drive the econometric model.
Input values for these explanatory variables are developed using "Delphi" method whereby..."
(21) Table 1: The staff mintains that peak usage is not relevant to a consideration of the need for WPPSS-2. Why then is peak load subjected to a staff revision?
Where is the discussion of the staff's revision? The two star notation is used for two different items in the table.
(22) Table 2: Whf is the Chern model not included for consideration?
)
(23) Table 3: A note in the table should inoicate whether the values for income, earnings, and prices are in real or nominal terms. Also, a note should indicate if prices are aggregate values for all classes of customers.
(24) Section 7.6 Use of Forecasts: The choice of 4.2% and 2.6% rates should be be explained:' The 2.6 rate should be noted as a lower bound forecast; the present wording is unclear. The first sentence of the sixth paragraph on page 248505 should be reworded as follows: "Although these small thermal plants nay be capable of generating more energy (i.e., operate at a higher capacity factor) during a critical water period..."
7.
(25) Section 7.6.2 Reserve Margins During Median Water Cor.ditions: I suggest that the following wor.ing be used: "During periods of adverse water r
conditions, such exchanges result ir, a net export to California of less than 100 MW."
(26) Section 7.6.3 Cost of Operat'ng WPPSS-2: The annual operating costs referred to in the last paragraph should be levelized to indicate a representative cost.
(27) Section 7.7 National Energy Policy Affecting the Pacific Northwest: The six items listed, which are designed to shift loads, are viewed as possibly having " great impact"; however, the emphasis in the need for power argument has been that meeting energy requirements and not peak loads is the appropriate criterion. How does the staff rationalize the incongruity?
The second sentence of the last paragra;h on oage 95E910 should be rewrition as follows: "These staalards must be tested in sete1 rate... "
(28) Section 7.8 Summary and conclusien: The costs cited in the last sentence of the first paragraph should be variable costs.
e+
w em 4e emo..- e e
if rN 3
g o
MEETIHr SIPiMARY DISTRIBUTION i
Docket File
- H. Bassett, MPA NRC POR S. Kari, MPA Local PDR A. Abell, MPA TIC H. Berkow, DPri NRR Reading G..'4athews, I&E LWR #3 File L. Schaub, CON D. Bunch W. Lovelace, MPA E. Case R. Boyd D. Vassallo 1l. rianinill J. Stolz R. Baer
- 0. Parr S. Varga C. Heltemes L. Crocker D. Crutchfield F. Williams R. J. tiattson R. DeYoung Project Manager S. Miner Attorney, OELD M. Rushbrook IE (3)
NRC Particioants:
ACRS (16)
R. Denise L. Rubenstein BCC: Applicant & Service List i
S s.
'/N-id
,, m.
- ivuyu / /v gy,p,,,
'If5079 I
\\
M SEP 2 41979 t
Docket flo. 50-397 I
(
APPLICANT:
Washington Public Power Supply System i
i FACILITY:
Washington Nuclear Project flo 2
?
}
SUBJECT:
SUMMARY
OF MEETIflG HELD ON JULY 16, 1979 TO DISCUSS THE i
CHUGGING LOADS - IMPROVEMENT DEFINITION AND APPLICATION METHODOLOGY TO MARK II C0flTAIfil!ENTS t
On March 16, 1979, a meeting was held between representatives of the l
Washington Public Power Supply System (WPPSS), Burns and Roe, Ir.c. (B&R) and the flRC s.aff.
The purpose of the meeting was to discuss the chugging loads improved definition and application methodology to be utilized by B&R to establish the chugging loads' for the Washington Nuclear Project flo. 2 i
i Containment. The attendees list is enclosed as Enclosure 1.
Prior to the meeting, a set of discussion topics (Enclosure 2) were sent to
{
the applicant and the discussion in general centered around these topics.
/
B&R used about 137 4T test boundary pressure traces to develop a single vent design load specification. Tbs load is impulsive and random in nature.
The applicant claims that the load specification is independent of,the 4T facility and is applicable to the vent exits in the Mark II Containment.
The applicant %dicatcd that when its derived design load is applied at the f
vent exit in the 4T test tank, the load simulates the impact and trends observed in the 4T tests. The applicant further indicated that its load definition and the associated methodology address the staff concerns related i
to fluid structure interaction (FSI) effects and extrapolating 4T test j
results to the Mark 11 containments (Enclosure 4).
l Staff Comments.
1.
The applicant should coordinate additional studies on the high frequency response (>30 Hz) observed in the 4T facility.
+
! '; [,
.l. ~', 7 ~W 7 n rj.,
u
~
I 2-
,str. < d!=
2.
The design amplified response spectra used to establish a design source specification was based on a library of'137 chugs selected from 600 chugs observed in the 4T test. The remaining 4T chugs should be analyzed to determine if they would substantially modify the design load response spectra.
3.
The applicant's proposed chug load model should be confirmed by applying the model to. other related steam chugging tests.
i 4.
The applicant should provide reasons which are more persuasive than those presented to date to justify the statistical analysis of the 4T l
data which was used to arrive at its proposed load specification, i
}
5.
The available multivent test data should be analyzed to verify the i
applicant's statistical averaging of the 4T data.
6.
Questions related to the WMP-2 improved chug load specification will be submitted to WPPSS during the 4th quarter of 1979.
I S. Miner, Project Manager Light Water Reactors, Branch No. 3 Division of Project Management
Enclosures:
As Stated cc: See Next Page i
t
....D P,M,;,LW R,,,Q,,
,,DP J p,G,
.b 00 Y I,?O
.,0,, P y,,
eunesame >
. 9L..;.'d.D.?..
9f...M.09 IGC 50R48 318 (9 74) NIK38 0244 8 u. a. * * = = = m a t ** *
- em * * ' " " * ' " * ' "
Mr. N. O. Strand
. Managing Director Washington Public Pome Supply System P. O. Box 968 3000 George Washington Way Richland, Washington 99352 yp..
cc:
Nicholas S. Reynolds, Esq.
- n.t DeBevoise & Liberman 1200 Seventeenth St., N. W.
Washington, D. C.
20036 Richard Q. Quigley, Esq.
Washington Public Power Supply System 3000 George Washington Way Q._
Richland, Washington 99352 56 Nicholas D. Lewis, Chairman Energy facility Site Evaluation Council 820 East Fifth Avenue Olympia, Washington 98504
'is
.Y w
.g
- m
m n.
C
.g h'
b.
~
.P..
I pi
. u-
- h. ~
y;-
m s-Ms
.w:;-
L 4#
W Y
I L
M..
.. _ _ ~ _ _
e.
Y,f%.~ _
..-.t.,
/
c',
E
.osure i WNP-2 CHUGGING
_ JULY 15,1979 WPPSS B&R P. Hedgecock B. Bedrosian T. Chakravorty D. Baker BNL NRC R. Scanlan D. Norris, Jr.
G. Bienkowski J. Kudrick C. Economos C. Anderson C. Brenner S. Miner J. Libner C. Tan E. Dowell A. Sonin m
1 J
t t
O sEnclosure 2 DISCUSSION TOPICS FOR THE JULY 16, 1979, NRC/WPPSS-2 MEETING REGARDING THE B&R REPORT
" CHUGGING LOADS - IMPROVED DEFINITION AND APPLICATION METHODOLOGY TO MARK II CONTAINMENTS 1.
The B&R single vent design load specification was developed for chugging loads using the 4T data base including a library of 137 chugs selected by General Electric and eight additional representa-1 tive chug events (See Page 5 of the B&R* report) out of a total of 600 4T chugs. What was the basis for the selection of the 137 + 8 chugs included in the library? What consideration was given to include or exclude condensation oscillation events in the library?
2.
The B&R single vent design load specification consists of a triangular pulse at the vent source with a 50 ms duration. Have results been obtained for the other pulse shapes? If so, qualita-tively compare the results obtained with the different pulses. What considerations went into the selection of a pulse with a duration of 50 ms?
3.
The B&R design level response spectra (See Figure 14) exhibits significant high frequency (i.e., > 30 Hz) content. We are skeptical of this high frequency content. We believe it may be a result of the
- Page and Figure references are to the April 13, 1979 Burns and Roe report.
methodology used to calculate the response spectra. Discuss your understanding of the presence of the large high frequency content.
4.
A statistical study was conducted of the 4T chug traces as a part of the development,of a design load at the source. The peak amplitude of recorded pressure traces and the Fourier spectrum of recorded pres-sure traces were considered and rejected as the random parameter for statistical evaluation. The response spectrum of recorded pressure traces was used. We believe further consideration should be given to the use of the Fourier spectrum of recorded pressure traces for the statistical evaluation. Discuss in more detail your reason for rejecting the Fourier spectrum approach.
In addition, compare vent source specifications derived by a statistical evaluation of the response spectrum versus the Fourier spectrum approach. Does the response spectrum approach bound the Fourier spectrum approach?
5.
Describe how the response spectrum plateaus shown in the Design Load Envelope of Figure 15 were obtained.
6.
It is our understanding that the B&P. approach utilizes 3 distinct analytical models to evaluate the WNP-2 containment for steam loads.
These models include:
- 1) a model of the 4T facility; 2) a 3D model t
of the WNP-2 pool (this model was used to obtain the appropriate stiff wall response and mass matrix); and 3) an axisymmetric model of the reactor building ud soil foundation.
Information has been supplied on the 4T and the axisymmetric model (i.e., models 1 and 3),
D n
but not on the second model. Describe in der. ail this second 30 model which was used to derive the WNP-2 stiff wall response.
7.
The B&R computer program that was used to model the 4T facility and the WNP-2 plant is an important element in the B&R improved steam chugging load definition and application methodology. Benchmark cal-culations serve an important role in the qualification of complex programs of this type. Describe benchmark comparisons you have per-formed to check out this computer program.
In addition describe your plans to confirm your methodology by utilizing the results of the extended 4T tests (i.e., tests with short downcomer) or other appli-cable tests (i.e., JAERI full scale, DXSS and CREARE).
8.
Provide the rigid wall pressure trace used as input to the asymmetric model of the WHP-2 facility. Compare this pressure trace to the corresponding WHP-2 flexible wall pressure trace.
9.
Provide the basis for the selection of the.005 damping factor utilized in the comparative studies shown in Figures 25 through 28.
10.
We are attempting to understand the relative role of the source
' specification versus the role of structural natural frequencies on the response of the structures shown in Figures 25 through 28. Pro-vide the natural frequencies and the mode shapes associated with these structures.
11.
In the model of the 4T system used in the report an increase of the sonic velocity in water by 58% resulted in a negligible increase in
. fundamental system frequency. What would be the effect of a com-parable decrease in sonic velocity?
12.
Why does the effect of pile support flexibility on 4T response depend on the location of application of the chugging load?
13.
What is the physical justification for specifying a chug pulse load at the steam-water interface and in the water pool simultaneously to simulate the damped chugs?
14.
Elaborate on the statement that the damped pressure traces simulated 4
were found not to govern the Mark II containment design.
Is this the reason why the chugging load applied to bound the design level response spectra is applied only at the vent and has no sinusoidal content?
15.
Justify why a design level load corresponding to a 50% probability of non-exceedence is used as a design condition for WNP-27 16.
The non-symmetric loading specified for WNP-2 facility, using a forcing function at a level of 84.1% probability of non-exceedence at 3 radially located downcomer, seems nominally non-symmetric. Why is this considered a bounding non-symmetric case?
i
ENCLOSURE 3 b
s Step I.
Analysis of 4T boundary pressure traces identify chugging lead character-isticar identify main components of 4T systemi affected by chugging load.
$r Step II.
Develop =ent of analytical model of the 4T syste:s Y
Step III.
Development of a bounding chugging load at " source" 1.e.,
at vent exit)
- N N N suryLr sTs=M DEVEICPME:.*? CF IMPROVED CHU".,GI:.t sat: cut ynn.;t::: mo. 2 IDAD - FICW CE.1Ut?
1-2 b, X e
EflCLOSURE 4
SUMMARY
~
THELOADDEFINITiONANDAPPLICATIONMETHODOLOGY c.
TO MARK II CONTAINMENTS ADDRESSES CONCERNS IDENTIFIED WITH CHUGGING LOADS:
FSI EFFECTS ARE ACCOUNTED FOR IN REDUCING 4T DATA; CONSERVATISM IS USED WHEN INTERPRETING 4T
. DATA AND DEVELOPING THE DESIGN LOAD
~
.SPECJFICATION; CHUGGING LOAD IS DEFINED AT " SOURCE" (I.E.,
AT STEAM-WATER INTERFACE) THUS MAKING POSSIBLE EXTRAPOLATION TO MARK II GE0 METRY AND ADEQUATE DETERMINATION OF RELATIVE VENT AND POOL PARTICIPATION IN THE INCIDENT PRESSURE WAVE IN MARK II GE0 METRY; g
A'D - <
1
-~
7, s
e
SUMMARY
THE LOAD DEFINITION AND APPLICATION METHODOLOGY
- c, TO MARK II CONTAINMENTS ADDRESSES CONCERNS IDENTIFIED WITH CHUGGING LOADS:
(CONTINUED)
CONSERVATISM IS USED IN DEFINING LOADING l
CONDITION FOR MARK II GEOMETRY; FSI EFFECTS ARE ACCOUNTED FOR WHEN ANALYZING.
MARK II CONTAINMENTS.
p p
4 h
e 6
g 8
g 4
e I
4
Y$
OCT 1 1979 Docket tio.:
11El10RANDut1 FOR:
L. S. Rubenstein, Acting Chief, Light Water Reactors Dranch tio. 4, DP:1 FR0il:
i1. D. Lynch, Project Managar. Light 'later Reactors Branch lio. 4, DPit
SUBJECT:
FORTHC0!!IflG llEETIllG UITH llPPSS REGARDIlG P00L DYiWIIC LOADS Date S Tice:
Mednesday, October 3.1979 9:00 a.m. - 11:30 a.m.
Location:
Roon P-ll4, Phillips Guilding, Octhesda, ftd.
Purposa:
Applicant discussion of the results of recent tests related to safety / relief valve pool dynanic loads
Participants:
flRC
- UPPSS,
!!. D. Lynch, et.al.
K. Earle, et.al.
Origir.nl signed by r
- 11. D. Lynch, Projcet itan192r Light Uator Reactors Branch f:o. 4 Division of Project Fianagenent cc: Sco next page
,,x
.. An f
[
OPMfLWR4 OPJgLWR-4 Y
e,,,c MDLynch/jl LRdben,tein s
10/of/79 10/
/79 Forin AEC Sla t Rev. 9 SH AEO! 0240
- u. s. eevammweme eme= fine opricas so,4.ese.tes
s MEETING NOTICE DISTRIBUTION Docket File J. Knight NRC POR S. Hanauer Local POR R. Tedesco TIC S. Pawlicki LWRf4 File F. Schauer NRR Reading K. Kniel H. Denton T. Novak E. Case Z. Rosztoc:y H. Berkow R. Bosnak T. Murphy R. Satterfield TERA W. Butler R. Mattson F. Rosa R. DeYoung V. Moore D. Muller W. Kreger D. Ross M. Ernst D. Vassallo R. Denise D. Skovholt R. Ballard B. Youngblood F. Williams W. Regan J. Stolz G. Chipman R. Baer R. Houston
- 0. Parr J. Collins S. Varga G. Lear P. Collins M. Spangler T. Speis V. Benaroya W. Haass R. Jackson C. Heltemes L. Hulman ACRS (16)
H. Ornstein L. Crocker J. LeDoux. IE B. Kirschner IE Region V Project Manager D. Lynch Principal IIaff
Participants:
Attorney, ELD IE (3) 50(7)
Licensing Assistant M. Service Receptionist L. Rubenstein L. Soffer 4
s d',f Uhr,$o, UNITED STATES y
['
i NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSION L
,a WASHING TON, D. C. 20S55 l
/
October 1,1979 y...j Docket No.: 50-397 HEMORANDUM FOR:
L. S. Rubenstein, Acting Chief, Light Water Reactors Branch No. 4, OPM FROM:
M. D. Lynch, Project Manager, Light Water Reactors Branch No. 4. DPM
SUBJECT:
FORTHCOMING MEETING WITH WPPSS REGARDING POOL OYNAMIC LOADS Date & Time:
Wednesday, October 3, 1979 9:00 a.m. - 11:30 a.m.
Location:
Room P-114, Phillips Building, Bethesda, Md.
Purpose:
Applicant discussion of the results of recent tests related to safety / relief valve pool dynamic loads
Participants:
NRC WPPSS M. D. Lynch, et.al.
K. e la t.al.
~
U w
M. D. Lynch,
ect Manager Light Water Reactors Branch No. 4 Division of Project Management ec: See next page O
e G
9
- ~
..T
.
- Washington Public Power Supply System cc:
Joseph B. Knotts, Jr., Esq.
Mr. Neil 0. Strand Debevoise & Liberman Washington Public Power Supply System l, 1200 Seventeenth Street, N. W.
3000 George Washington Way Washington, D. C. 20036 P. O. Box 968
- 3 Richland, Washington 99352 Richard Q. Quigley, Esq.
~
Washington Public Power Supply System 3000 George Washington Way l
P. O. Box 968 Richland, Washington 99352 Nicholas Lewis, Chairman Energy Facility Site Evaluation Council 820 East Fifth Avenue Olynpia, Washington 98504 Mr. O. K. Earle Licensing Engineer P. O. Box 968 Richland, Washington 99352 i
l l-4 l
i l
= - _ - _ _ -
007 S 1979 Docket N 7, 50-460 MEMORANDUM FOR: Lester S. Rubenstein, Acting Chief Light Water Reactors Branch No. 4, Division of Project Management FROM:
M. D. Lynch, Proj ect Manager, Light Water Reactors Branch No. 4, Division of Pmject Managenent
SUBJECT:
FORTHCOMING MEETING WITH WPPSS TO DISC.USS THE RECENT GEOLOGICAL AND; SEISMOLOGICAL INVESTIGATIONS ON ThE HANFORD RESERVATION DATE & TIME:
Thursday, October 11,1979 at 8:30 a.m.
LOCATION:
Conference Room E, first floor Landow Building, Bethesda, Maryland PURPOSE:
WPPSS will present a sumary of its most recent geological and seismological investigations on the Hanford reservation.
PARTICIPANTS:
NRC WPPSS M. D. Lynch J. Sorenson, et al R. Jackson S. Wachspress R. Morris USGS J. DeVine, USGS Original signed by M. D. Lynch, Project Manager Light Water Reactors Branch No. 4 Division of Project Management cc:
See next page
...,. G.t b.. g h
-M1-024 0 7 3 3
)_
/m{
,~
,DP,M,: LWR L,,
o,,1Cc k
. s i,0,
suRNwcMtDLynch:pcm.
.LS}u st.in ouc>.10/e C/.79.
.1,0?r.6..n9.
NIC FOIM He (9 74) NRCM 0240 1'lu.S. GOVERNMENT PRINT 4NG OFFICEe 1979 3s9469
~
iTETING NOTICE DISTRIBUTION OCT S 1979 Docket File J. Knight NRC PDR S. Hanauer i
local POR R. Tedesco TIC S. Pawlicki LWR #4 File LWR #3 File F. Schauer NRR Reading K. Kniel H. Denton T. Novak E. Case Z. Rosztoczy H. Berkow R. Bosnak T. Murphy R. Satterfield l
TERA W. Butler l
R. Mattson F. Rosa l
R. DeYoung V. Moore D. Muller W. Kreger D. Ross M. Ernst D. Vassallo R. Denise D. Skovholt R. Ballard B. Youngblood l
F. Williams W. Regan J. Stolz G. Chipman R. Baer R. Houston
- 0. Parr J. Collins S. Varga G. Lear P. Collins M. Spangler T. Spels V. Benaroya W. Haass R. Jackson C. Heltemes L. Hulman ACRS (16)
H. Ornstein l
L. Crocker J. LeDoux. IE l
B. Kirschner IE Region V l
Project Manager M. D. Lynch, A. Bournia Principal Staff
Participants:
Attorney, ELD S. Wachspress l
IE(3)
SD (7) l Licensing Assistant M. Service, M. Rushbrook Receptionist L. Rubenstein L. Soffer I
l i
t i
in aire,
/
'o UNITED STATES l'
NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSION o
h
.g WASHINGTON, D. C. 20656
\\,*****/
~
OCT 5 1979 Docket Nos: 50-397, 50-460 and 50-513 MEMORANDUM FOR: Lester S. Rubenstein, Acting Chief, Light Water Reactors Branch No. 4, Division of Project Management FROM:
M. D. Lynch, Project Manager, Light Water Reactors Branch No. 4, Division of Project Management
SUBJECT:
FORTHCOMING MEETING WITH WPPSS TO DISCUSS THE RECENT GEOLOGICAL AND SEISM 0 LOGICAL INVESTIGATIONS ON THE HANFORD RESERVATION DATE & TIME:
Thursday, October 11, 1979 at 8:30 a.m.
LOCATION:
Conference Room E, first floor, Landow Building, Bethesda, Maryland PURPOSE:
WPPSS will present a sumary of its most recent geological and seismological investigations on the Hanford reservation.
PARTICIPANTS:
NRC WPPSS M. D. Lynch J. Sorenson, et al R. Jackson S. Wachspress R. Morris USGS J. DeVine USGS M. D. Lync oject Manager Light Water Reactors Branch No. 4 Division of Project Management cc:
See next page
t hasn'ington Public Pow;r Supply System cc:
Joseph B. Knotts, Jr., Esq.
Mr. Neil 0. Strand Debevoise & Liberman Washington Public Power Supply System 5 "
i 1200 Seventeenth Street, N. W.
3000 George Washington Way Washington, D. C. 20036 P. O. Box 968 Richland, Washington 99352 7FW
'11 l
Richard Q. Quigley, Esq.
Washington Public Power Supply System 3000 George Washington Way P. O. Box 968 Richland, Washington 99352 j
i Nicholas Lewis, Chairman Energy Facility Site Evaluation Council 820 East Fifth Avenue Olympia, Washington 98504 i
W. O. K. Earle Licensing Engineer P. O. Box 968 r
Richland, Washington 99352 as
)
w 6
a h
i s[ n' 47:
1 i
+
.~
j 1
4 i
f l
4 i
I i
j