ML20236B859
| ML20236B859 | |
| Person / Time | |
|---|---|
| Site: | Diablo Canyon, 05000000 |
| Issue date: | 09/07/1973 |
| From: | Hirons T US ATOMIC ENERGY COMMISSION (AEC) |
| To: | US ATOMIC ENERGY COMMISSION (AEC) |
| Shared Package | |
| ML20236A877 | List:
|
| References | |
| FOIA-87-214 NUDOCS 8707290261 | |
| Download: ML20236B859 (8) | |
Text
{{#Wiki_filter:.___ _
- .. ,. 1, I
Docket Nos. 50-2754 6 and 50-323 SEP 7 1973 APPLICANT: PACIFIC GAS & ELECTRIC C(MFANY (PGE) FACILITY: DIABLO CANYON UNITS 1 AND 2 , gUMMARY OF MEETING HELD ON AUGUST 21, 1973 TO DISCUSS DEFICIENCIES . IN ' HIE DIABIS CANYON FSAR 'i , Purpose A meeting was held between representatives of PGE, Westinghouse, and ( the Regulatory staff on August 21, 1973, in Bethesda. A list of parti + cipants is attached as Enclosure No. 1. Me meeting was requested by PG&R to discuss certain deficiencies in their Diablo Canyon FSAR submittal. As a result of the preliminary review conducted by the staff, the applica-tion for operating licenses for Diablo Canyon Unita 1 and 2 uns rejected on August 13, 1973. We principal reasons for rejection were the extensive nature of the deficiencies identified in the FSAR, and the fact that Revision 1 of the Standard Format and Content of Safety Analysis Reports for Nuclear Power Plants (October 1972) was not followed in the prepara-tion of the FSAR. PG&E plans to resubmit their application during the last week of September. Discur tion ae following technical areas in the FSAR were discussed at the meeting; : any decisions regarding action items are indicated below.
- 1. . Tornado Design Criteria Tornado design criteria were not discussed in the tendered FSAR.
PGE indicated that they had been working on this item, using the sechtel document (BC-Top-3) as a guide. $e staff noted that'a new regulatory guide on this subject would be issued soon, probably in November. 2 1s guide divides the country into three regions for purposes of design basis tornado characteristics (See Enclosure No. 2 for a draft summary of these characteristics for each region). . I Diablo Canyon is11e in Region II. PGE intends to supply a.euimmary of the tornado capability of all Category I structures and systems which could affect safe shutdown. M is &nalysis will include the diesels and the ecadensate water storage tank. However, the detailed
~
omcr > . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . N,h. u SURNAMr> . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . , , , , , _ , , , , , , , , , _ , , , _ , , _ , , , ,
, ~ w' " l ,
our> . _. .. . .. ... . . . . . ,,. { Forno arc-H 8 (Rev. AW
- opo .43. -no-a ma-: 44ms 8707290261 FOIA 870721"M g PDR PDR --
. ~ L/
CONNORB7-214 .
SEP 7 1973 analysis of tornade generated missiles will not be proridad uhen the application is resubmitted, but would be available within 60-90 days i after docketing. This procedure was agreed to by the Regulatory staf f. l
- 2. protection Assinet Dynamic Ef fects Associated with the- postulated Rupture of piping 4 l
With regard to pipe break outside santainment, p06E initially indicated I' that they would like to reply by correspondence, using the letter from . A. Giambusso dated 12/13/72 as a referense. pG&g bed retained Nuelear services Corporation to doaan analysis en this subject, and a draft ; c' tef their report is nearly ready for submittal. The staff said'that l I they would need more 43x tistive information in the FsAR en pipe . break both inside and outside containment. It was finally agreed that PG6E would provide t. ore information on pipe break in the pSAR, and that the report from Huclear services would be incorporated as an Appendix to the FSAR. i I
- 3. Desian of catesory I Structures ]
The staff agreed that Document (3) on structural design criteria (see Enclosure No. 3 of letter of rejection to PG&E dated 8/13/73) is new, but the information outlined in this document is not. If this document did not exist, the applicant would have to establish some appropri.ite criteria of his own for pipe break outside contain-ment. '1hase comments were made in reference to Item 3.8.1-b of Enclosure 1 of the letter of rejection to PG6E (referred to hereafter as Enclosure 1). Also, it was agreed that Item 3.8.2-b of Inclosure 1 (position with regard to ACI-359 on concrete sontaituments) should come under the category of additional infomation to be supplied, i.e., an asterisk item not required for docketing.
- 4. Auxiliary Systems l I
With regard to item 10.1 on page 22 of Enclosure 1, the staff clarified that the statement was poorly worded, and that two separate requests for information were being stated: 1) Plant heat balance, and 2) safety related design features of the steam and power conversion system. !
- 5. Containment Functional Design and Heat Removal Systems j On page 14 of Enclosure 1 there are five deficiencies under. the heading of Containment Functional Design and Hast Resoval systems. After some discussion it was agreed that Items 1 (Containment pressure response analysis for a spectrum of hot ling breaks) and 4 (Containment and subsampertment pressure response analysis for a spectrum af snain steam line ruptures within containment) weeld not be required for ^^
soonestas, t.ej. , iney woula . s.. ^.i i- _. -. . . O - omcE > eMa .wgr11..be..providad..within .40.-M.. days..fros...b.o.. Aime...o f...d osketing. SURNAME > ... . . . . . . . . . . . . , , , . . . . . . , , , ,, ,, _ our> . .. . . .. .. .. . Forea AEC-318 (Rev,9-53) AECM 0240 e.o .u- to-a s ses- 444 wits
SEP 7 373
, 3,
- 6. Area Monitorina on page 25 of Ensleevre 1, the staff questioned the description of alarm set-points in terms of ei/se. PCs indicated that this was an error in the PSAR, and that the Tables containing these units would be corrected.
Also on page 25, PGE questioned the need for continuous particulate and gas monitors in the spent fuel handling compartment and in the radunste area. De staff indiasted that this was the reeammended procedure to insure against.the manual error of forgetting to turn on the monitor when entering those areas.
- 7. Diesel Generators on page 18 of Enclosure 1 (Section 8.3.2). PGE asked for clarification on the question concerning starting and loading of the shared diesel generator. We uaff amplained that information was required on the switching capability of the fif th diesel, and that PG&E should demonstrate that the provision of the fif th diesel does not impair the ability of the Emergency Power System to perform its safety function.
- 8. Physical separation Criteria of Electrical Equipment -
Again on page 18 of Enclosure 1 (Section 8.3.3), PG&E requested clarification on the question concerning physical separation criteria used for all redundant Class IE electrical power equipment, devices, circuits and raceways. We staff indicated that actual physical dimensions should be provided for distances between equipment, devices, redundant cables trays, etc. ,,
- 9. Systems Required for Safe Shutdown On page 17 of Enclosure 1 (Section 7.4.1), the staff agreed that modifications required for instrumentation and controls should refer to the cold shut down condition rather than hot shut down as stated in the Enclosure. It was further agreed that these modifications sould be delayed until the Technical Specifications stage.
- 10. Reacter Coolant System and Connected _. Systems With regard to the questions on chapter 5 of the FSAR (page 13 of Enclosure 1), the following items were discussed:
- s. 5.1-as it was agreed that appropriat& Piping and Instrumentation Diagrams were available in Otapter 3 of the PSAR. PG u will insert a creas reference to this effects omcE> . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . ...
SURNAME > . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . , . . . . . . . . . ... . . . . . . . . - DATE > .. . . . _ _ . . . . .. - Forrn AEC-318 (Rev.9-53) AECM 0240 oao sea-no-sises- 64s-c7s
N 4 SEP 7 1973
- b. 5.2-b: the statement with regard to overpressure protection j should be deleted 3
- e. 5.3-en the Wernal and Hydraulic Characteristics Seemary Table is sentained in Section 5.1 of the FSiR. PG&E will cross reference this .
- 11. desic Geoloaic and Seismic Information l With regard to Section 2.5.1 on page 4 of Enclosure 1. PG4E indiested that they had provided the reference document by R. R. Jahna in their FSAR submittal. De staff agreed that they did set have to provide it again.
- 12. Uses of Adjesent land and Waters Under section 2.1.4 of Enclaure 1, PG&E asked fc? a clarification of " nearby" in the statement, "... uses of nearby surface and ground water." %e staff indicated that a distance of 2-3 miles would be appropriate.
- 13. Stability of Subsurface Materials !
l On page 6 of Enclosura 1, the applicant is asked to provide assurance that oil and/or water will not be extracted fra beneath or adjacent to the plant such that it may pose a hasard to plant operation and safety. The staff is particularly concerned with adjacent offshore properties. PG&E indicated that there is currently no specific interest in of fshore properties, and asked if they could defer a detailed analysis of this item until such interest is expressed. De staff agreed that a statement in the PSAR to this effect would be astisfactory, l but that any availabic data on these properties should be provided at this time.
,I l 14. Slope stability )
\
Pages 6-7 of Enclosure 1 contain specific comments en the slope i stability analysis presented by the applicant ta the FSAR. PG6E l ~ asked for clarification as to what information une required for docketing and what could be provided later. %e staff indicated that the following information must be provided for docketing:
- 1) Details of the static stability analysis, including soil and rock properties and assumptions, 2) A description of the boring j program, including the proposed schedule for this program. We I deteripties of this boring program should inelods an acceptable l l mothed of sampling which produces undisturbed ears borings and samples l
l omct > _ . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . l
$URNAME> . . . . . . . . . , , ....
l OATE > . . . . . . . . ... .. .. . .. Form AEC-Sis (Rev.9-53) AECM 0140 ..o .4bie-aises- 446-ers
1 w 5 SEP 7 W3 taken should be representative of all material in the slope above the plant which could pose a hasard in the event of failure. The dynamic stability analysis does not have to have been completed j for docketing, but the results of this work should be available i within 60-90 days from the date of dockating. l l Original Signed by Thomas J. Hirons FWR Branch No. 3 Directorate of Licensing
Enclosures:
- 1. Attendance List i
- 2. Design Lasta Tornado Characteristics cc w/encia:
AEC PDR Local PDR R. C. DeYoung j K. R. Coller R. W. Klecker R0 (3) l TR Assistant Directors TR aranch Chiefs R, Cushman V.11. Wilson i RP Assistant Directors RP branch Chiefs L. Chandler, OGC 1 ! R. Fraley, ACRS (16) Heating Attendees frca REG J. H. llendria l DI STRI BUTION : Docket (2) RP Rending ! PWR-3 Reading l l omct > P
.L..y:9$.RR...3.. L. :.T..R .. . . . . . . . . . . . ..
sum , TJHiro, , , , p, , ,,EHMarkee ,_ , _ , _ _ , om > 9/n#.3 . 9/.A/ 73 . .._ _ ._ . _. _ _ . . . . . .. . Forn AEC-St8 (Rev.453) AECM 0240 sao .4a-se-si4as.: 44s47s l
ENCLOSURE NO. 1 l 1 ATTENDANCE LIST l PACIFIC GAS & ELECTRIC COMPANY V. J. Ghio J. B. Hoch U. J. Lindblad E. P. Wollak WESTINGHOUSE I
'A. J. Abels j P. Blau j J. W. Dorrycott ]
4 AEC* l i 1 J. S. Boegli l S. Block l A. T. Cardone J. E. Fairobent l K. R. Goller T. J. Hirons R. E. Lipinski E. H. Markee W. C. Milstead J. E. Richardson G. W. Rivenbark I M. Srinivasan C. W. Sullivan i A. R. Ungaro ) l With the exception of J. S. Boegli and T. J. Hirons, all AEC attendance was on a part time basis. I
DRAFT ENCLOSURE NO. 2 TABLE 1 DESIGN BASIS TORNADO CHARACTERISTICS Rotational Transnational Pressure Rate of Speed Radius Drop Pressure Drop Region (mph) Speed Maximum (mph) Minimum 2_ / (feet) (psi) (psi /sec) I 300 60 20 275 3.0 1.0 II 250 50 15 275 2.25 0.6 III 200 40 10 275 1.5 0.3
-2/The minimum transnational speed, which allows maximum transit time of the tornado across exposed plant features, is to be used whenever low l l l
travel speeds (maximum transit time) is a limiting factor in design of the l ultimate heat sink. 1 i 1
' % s. .
../ - -
. h,.) \..~f ~
,/..-W
~
.2. :04f./ /
../ ,
j y %..,d:, :s ,..,,/,.y * (\. - O
~-
\*
x..
\' ,
\. .\.{_S
\$ - s -
.' . T 'u
./
t m\ .. :\.s t t
./
1y* r
. t..
~ ulA. \ ' .5'.{
) .
t-
} -
\
/ i '
~\ .
e ,,
\\ / .: / \
. " Q)) }
.. %, 1 \ '
Q,
\
( . / ~\.Q.<
* . < - . 1
\-
r . { f' 1 - e 7
. W
- J
-\
/,n~% '
\. . .
C# .
%n.X~- )
u( f :* ~~ 1 ,
; .. .s 1 . s 1
s
.\/ -. .y ) yl .
\. '
..f..\: \.*
. 2.
./ ~
- g. . g
- i. ..a H
8 ,
... 1 j -
\ . '~ . -
o. p . s cc .= . .
, _.}
. ,. .- }' .{ :.
%~n a
.v.s .
.. , -- . q p .,- .J.. I .*:, .. .
t' . s - . . . .
- is o
a) .
\ I.
.. t -
.t.
s e-m - i '1 - o
- 1. -
'ls~-'"~~~
. : : i, p
.c - !. i .. :
{ 1 e ..__; 1 i
. . M' .
! g .
o .-- .
- V*
-..-..j.--c.._..l..-{...
- *j- .
1 . , ,
\ 1 i.; .e l
/ .,;' ..
f .r/. g -
/. >
l ! 1 s /I . t . %/ , l' _ -
.e . . .*.__ . _l _- . . . . . \*Y L. ~.
I
) -
.J - .I )
)-
- rn w ,. -
ei .. .l l.'.,) I ; ( . .
. .. / ,j.
. ._._ . . ]_:
t _, .
..~.(- . c _,l t.'.. .l.-
^
4,j .. .._ ,,
.a
.I l
//
t : .
. / .
./ /
1
)' :L.~ ..' ..// /
- -. . .i .
,,. s / ..
(s
, j./
9.. . .
- _ . _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _}}