ML20237F794

From kanterella
Jump to navigation Jump to search
Summary of 750828 Meeting W/Util in Bethesda,Md Re Forthcoming Geology & Seismology Submital for Facilities. Attendees List Encl
ML20237F794
Person / Time
Site: Diablo Canyon  Pacific Gas & Electric icon.png
Issue date: 10/30/1975
From: Allison D
Office of Nuclear Reactor Regulation
To:
Office of Nuclear Reactor Regulation
Shared Package
ML20236J368 List: ... further results
References
FOIA-87-214 NUDOCS 8708130162
Download: ML20237F794 (3)
v • d • e


Text

.. , 's

  • e >

. - L.'

007 3 0 W 5 l

DOCKET NOS. 50-275 and SQ-32 APPLICANT: PACIFIC CAS AND ELECTRIC COMPANY i

FACILITY: DIALLO CA'iYON NUCLEAR POWER STATION, UNITS 1 & 2

,i

( SU19fARY OF MhETING WITH PACIFIC GAS AND ELECTRIC COMPANY TO DISCUJS FORTHCOMING GEOLOGY / SEISMOLOGY SUDMITTAL FOR DIABLO CANYON 1RICLFAR POWER STATION, UNITS 1 & 2 (OL) l Mambers of the NRC staf f met with a representative of Pacific Gas and Electric Company (PG&E) in Bethesda, Maryland'on August 28, 1975 to discusa a forthcoming g: ology and ceismology submittal for Diablo Canyon.

A list of participants is presented in the enclosure.

PG&E was preparing a submittal to address (1) The earthquake to be aosociated with the Hosgri Fault.

(2) The calculated acceleration (g-value) at the site resulting from such an earthq 2ake.

(3) The ground response spectrum to be associated with that g-value, and _

(4) The effect of the earthquake, with its associated g-value and groun3 response spectrum at the site, on the plant structures, equipment and syste:2a.

In connection with the forthcoming subnittal, PCLE had been discussing the shape of the ground response spectrum (item (3) above) with its t

I consulte.ut, John Blume. Acceptability of the spectral shape to the staf f would be among the considerations in celecting a spectral shape. Previous staff questions to PG&E had implied that a narrow spectrum, such as a Parkfield-5 of Cast alc earthquake spectrum, would be appropriate for the Hosgri Fault. Uowever, PG&C and John Elune were also considering a broad spectrum einilar to the spectrum given in Regulatory Guide 1.60. Such j

a broad spectrun could be obtained by enveloping or averaginn appropriate specific narrow spectra from the Parkfield-5, Castaic and several other earthquakes. It would have a more severe effect on structures, equipment and systems than a narrow spectrum. PG&E wished to learn as much as possible about the staff's attitude on this matter.

-s .

  1. 1 i

OF FIC E > _ ,,, ,.

I euRNau a > u .

cats > l ,,

Wa= a Fr*At A (Rev. 9 5 3) AECM 0240 W u. s. noVERNMENT PR6NTING OFFICEB 9974 8241,8 8708130162 070729 PDR F01A 7 CONNORB7-214 PDR;

e i

i 007 ^ 01975 j The staff technical personnel responsible for reviewing the adequacy of the ground response spectra (Site Analysis Branch) did not participate in the meeting. However, staff personnel from Reactor Licensing and fron the Structural Engineering Branch discussed the matter with the PG&E representative. The staff personnel did not give a firm recommendation on which spectrum to use. The staff did state that when PG&E selected a spectrum, the staff would review its adequacy for assessing the affects of an earthquke on the Hosgri Fault and that this did not necessarily mean that a broad spectrum such as the one in Regulatory Guide 1.60 would be required.

g.. ..

,... . a gy

[......... D*

Dennis P. Allison Light Unter Reactors Project Eranch 1-3 Division of Reactor Licensing

Enclosure:

Attendance List i

l i '4 j

'or nc =

  • RL.: LWR..1--3.. . . _

. . . . . , . DPA111 son:mjf ure >- 10l .-l1.5 l

Form AP.C 318 (Rev. 9.$3) AECM 0240 W u. s. oovsnumswr FneNT6NG OFFICrt 1974 326 184 L______.____________._______________________________. _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _

.. .~ l K \

4 I

t

! l EncLosent OCT ~' O 1275 )

ATTDIDANCE LIST IIELTING WIT 11 PACIFIC CAS AND ELFCTRIC CO:IPANY CONCERNING DIAELO CANY0li NUCLFAR POWER STATION AUGUST 28, 1975 PG&E W. J. Lindblad l

1 NRC STAFF R. C. De Young D. P. Allison L. C. Shao K. Kapur l

I I

l l

1 1

l i

ovesca y sunwams > ,

DATE b Form AFC318 (Rev. 9 53) AECM 0240 W v. s. oovannusNT PRINTING OFPtCEa 3974 824 166 i

i r

t ,. ,

Distribution:

l Docket Fil DPAllison  !

IRR l-3 file TJHirons l RSBoyd VHWilson i RCDeYoung WRButler I RWKlecker DBVassallo l MAY O 81975 MWilliams ODParr Dmket 16s. 50-275 i ard 50-323  !

l ,

1 A. Gianbusso, Directw , Division of Reactor Licensing, NRR STA'IUS OF ' HIE SATE 1Y EVAWATION REPORT MR DIABID CANYON, UNITS 1 AND 2 (OL)

Tnis memarardum is to advise you of the status bf the Safety Evaluation l Report (SER) ard its supplements fx Diablo Canyon Units 1 and 2 ard to l surmarize the outstanding ites. The cutstarding iterne are categorized accordirr, to tle metlxd poposed in your memorandum of Decemter 5,1974 to Mr. H. K. Shapar. 1 1

Tne SER ms issued on October 16, 1974 and Supplement No. I was issued on l January 31, 1975. The ACRS did rot poceed with the review because we had l rot Insolved the geology /seisaology issues. Following E. G. Case % request, i ACRS has agreed to consider the application in two parts. The first part, )

which excludes geology, seisnology ard seisntic design is scheduled fm consideration by the full ACRS in June 1975, with a subsequent meeting in September 1975. This split approach will etable us to minimize the length of our review ard its impact on fuel loadiry; fx Dialdo Canyon Urit 1. We are row prepared to issue Supplement Mo. 2 to support the ACRS consideration l

at its June r?etire. l' li. Supplement No. 2, we have idertified certain issues categorized as outstanding issues in our review which require the applicant to provide  :

confinatory infon:ution in onder that we may cmplete our review, x  ;

which requiry our evaluation of infortatim already provided by the applicant ard which is currently urder review. These issues involve infarrntion that require our evaluation prix to issuance of an operating license fx this application. The issues in this category are surmerized in i.ttachaent A and further discussed in the sections of the SER ard/or its supplo:ents, as irdicated in the attachnent. We anticipate that rat, if rot all, of these issues (other than those related to geology, seistology ard seis: tic design) can be satisfactorily cmpleted prix to our scheduled date fx issuance of the supplement to the SER follcwring the June ACRS meeting.

. c W' Y

,x y

otw c t o - )

Mr

MAy 081875-A. Giamtusso  !

We have also identifjed certain issues categorized as resolved issues on which we hwe completal our review and hwe estahlfahed a position to which the apn14aant han m t yet agreed in the FSAR. The issues in this catagery are sumerized in Attactinent B and arv rHarumsed in the sections of the SIR and/w the supplements as indicated in the attac h ant. We anticipate that these immum will be entisfactorily a:idrwssed in the supplanant to the SER following the June ACRS meetirg.

(k1 the basis of our assessnant that the issues identified in' Attachants A and B, which are not related to geology, seiselogy or m.4 m4* design, can be satisfactorily concluded prim' to our scheduled date fw issur,yne

. of the supplement to the SER followirs the June ACRS meeting, we r*W i that Supplement No. 2 be issued and that we meet with the ACRS in June j as. scheduled.

i orldW. sigy.a bv n c. Meung ,

I i

R. C. DcYoung, Assistant Dirm: tor  !

fx Light Water Reactors Group 1 Division of Reactor Licensing Attachracnts:

As stated above I

i i

l o r ric s , RL: LWR 3

\

RL g 1-3 RL: R1 I DA111 son:pga ODParr g _,,, l

. . . . . , _ R ._ . _'

DATE F 5/$/75 5/f/75 5/f75 g -

! Forni ATC 318 (Rev. 9 53) AECM 0240 W u. a. oovannusnt eninvine orrics to74.sas.tes

MAY 081975 A'ITACEENT A OUTSWODG ISS'JES A*O CO.'EENS DIABID CANYCN UNITS 1 A'D 2

(

4 Outstanding issues which require the applicant to provide additional {

info:ratien in oMer that we may cccplete our review, or Weh require (

our evaluation of info: ration already pnavided by the applicant and which is currently under review. {

(1) We require additional infomaticn regarding geology and seistology (Sections 2.5.1 ard 2.5.2 of Supplement Ib.1).

(2) We are evaluating the applicant's submittal on Tsunani's generated by nearshcre faults. Possibly this item can be separated from l

the geology /seiscology issues (Sections 2.4. 2, 2.4.3 and 2.4.5 of Supplement 16. 1). 3

)

(3) i We are evaluating the applicant's sulnittal regarding pipe breaks outside contaiment (Section 3.6 of the SE).

(4) We require additieral infomation regardi g seismic gaalification i

I of electrical instnznentation ard equiptr.t (Sections 3.7 -and 3.10 l.

of the SER).

(5) We regaire additioral inferiration regarding envirorcental qualification of electrical equi; cent and instrumentation (Section 7.8 of the SD).

(6) We regaire irfc: ration to justi#y using the results of 7-gr d fuel i

asse-bly tests to prove the acceptability of 8-grid #uel assembly design (Section 4.2.1 of Supplement Ib. 2).

1 (7) We re7 tire infomation to verify that the design model adequately i predic s the effects of fuel rod bawing beycnd the first fuel cycle (Sectica 4.4 of Supplement Ib. 2). l (8) We require test results which adegaately de onstrate t'at the effect of non-unifcm heating on departure frun nucleate boiling is properly accounted for, or, alternately, we will impose an .

l additional 5 percent margin on the departure from nucleate boiling ratio in the technical specifications (Section 4.4 of Supplement

16. 2).

MAY 081975 ,

Attachment A A-2 (9) We require test results which adecuately verify certain aspects of the THDC code or, alternately, we will include appropriate -

rest-ictions in the technical ' specifications to naintain required {

margins.to fuel rod damage (Section 4.4 of Supplement No. 2). 1 1 (10) We require sulraittal of a revised ECCS aralysis in accordance with the firal acceptance criteria (Sections 6.3.3 and 6.3.5 of Supplement No. 2).

(11) We are evaluating the infonnation regarding Anticipated Transients Without Scram (Section 7.2.5 of the SER).

(12) We require infonnation substantiating the building heat loads which the applicant assumed in calculating the humidity of air l entering the auxiliary luilding charecal filters in the event of an RHR leak following a IDCA (Section 15.1 of Supplement }b. 2).

(13) We regaire that the applicant provide a comnitment to certain Mditioral restrictions on fuel storage and cask handling if he is to store spent fuel in a location where it could be damaged by a dropped fuel cask (Sections 9.2.3 and 15.2.2 of Supplement

?b. 2). l (14) We regaire information justifying the assumed. limited break size 1 used in the subcompartment pressure aralysis for the reactor t

vessel cavity (Section 6.2.1 of Supple ent !b. 2).

(15) We reqaire re-analysis of the subcompartment pressure for a pipe beak in the reactor coolant pipe penetration of the bio-logical shield,'or, alternately, verification that the stress levels ard usage factors are icw so that the break need not be assumed (Section 6.2.1 of Supplement Ib. 2).

(16) We are evaluating the applicant's sulraittal regarding physical separation in the process analog system (Section 7.2.3 of Supplement No. 2).

(17) We are evaluating the applicant's subnittal regarding the recent guida.ce in certain WASH documents pertainirs to the operational quality assurance program (Section 22.0 of Supplement 16. 2).

l

1 I

MAY 081975 ATTACHOff B ISSUES MD CONCERNS PISOLVED BY STAIT POSITION TO BE IMPOSED ON THE APPLICA?Tf DIABID CANYON UNITS 1 MD 2 l

Issues ard Conce.rns that will be resolved by a staff position imposed I on the applicant where we do not accept the applicant's design. Ib further infomation is required far these items.

(1) We req 2 ire the applicant to utilize the standard equations far  !

deterng plume parameters ard relative concentration values in hic contml room meteorological r.cnitoring pmgram for post accident coxlitions (Sections 2.3.3 ard 2.3.S of Supplement 16. 2).

l l . l I

l i

1 1

- -

Retrieved from "https://kanterella.com/w/index.php?title=ML20237F794&oldid=3273524"