ML20212M008
| ML20212M008 | |
| Person / Time | |
|---|---|
| Site: | 05000000, Diablo Canyon |
| Issue date: | 11/10/1977 |
| From: | Allison D Office of Nuclear Reactor Regulation |
| To: | Office of Nuclear Reactor Regulation |
| Shared Package | |
| ML20150F500 | List:
|
| References | |
| FOIA-86-391 NUDOCS 8608250332 | |
| Download: ML20212M008 (18) | |
Text
r_
+...
.~
\\
j
~
n
)
NOV 101977
~
DOCKET NOS. 50-275 nd 50-323 APPLICANT:
Pacific Gas and Electric Company (PG&E)
FACILITY:
Diablo Canyon Nuclear Power Station, Units 1 and 2 (Diablo w,
Canyon)
SupetARY OF MEETING HELD ON NOVEMBER 3,1977 TO DISCUSS SIATUS OF OPERATING LICENSE REVIEW We met with PG&E on November 3,1977 in Bethesda, Maryland to discuss the status of our myiew of the interim operating license request and the full-tem operating license application. A list of attendees is provided in Enclosum No.1.
Wi$MNW
Background
~
In accordance with the construction pemits, the plant had been originally designed to withstand an earthquake with a reference horizontal ground acceleration of 0.4g.
Construction of Unit I had been substantially l
complete since 1976.
As requested by the NRC staff in April 1976, PG&E was perfoming a re-analysis to detemine what modifications might be necessary in order to withstand an earthquake with a reference horizontal ground acceleration of 0.75g. The results from a substantial portion of the reanalysis had been submitted in Amendment 50 to the Final Safety Analysis Report (FSAR) in June 1975. PG&E was expected t'o submit the remainder of the results in the near future.
In addition, in August 1977, PG&E had requested an interim operating license to allow plant operation pending a decision on the nomal or full-term operating license. The technical infomation submitted in support of the interim operating license had included:
1.
Information concerning the need for an interim operating license (need for electric power).
2.
Probabilistic analyses of the likelihood of mefor earthquakes in the vicinity of the plant and the likelihood of the plant with-
/'/
standing such earthouakes without unacceptable releases of radio-y/
activity.
8608250332 860801
>.. e s
_ _ _ _. *, -: - - m.: - -
=
...:=:.-
. = m.
.-- = -- - -.=
y-
, to '
. NOV 101977 3.
Infbmation concerning the relative risk involved (risk associated with the interim operating period vs risk associated with a full-term operating period after plant modification).
4.
A consituent to complete the reanalysis and perform any modifications determined to be necessary.
i 5.
A cosmitment to perform prior to initial operation, any modifications that would involve substantial radiation doses to workers if they were deferred until after the plant had been operated.
Need for Power We had received a report from the California Energy Resources Conservation and Development Commission (ERCDC) indicating that it did not appear there would be a drastic shortage of electrical generating capacity in the State of California in the Summer of 1978, even assuming another dry year. We 3,y1 indicated to PEE that our tentative preliminary assessment was in sub-stantial agmement with that of ERCDC.
i PG&E disagreed strongly with this conclusion and provided a letter 4
responding to the ERCDC report. We indicated that we would review PG&E's response.
PG&E indicated that the disagreement seemed to be about the conclusions drawn rather than the basic data. They indicated that Federal Power Commission (FPC) data from the past 10 years suggests that any time the generating capacity margins are less than 15 percent on a system, the' system may be subject to aliability problems. We indicated that we had asked FPC for an opinion as well as ERCDC.
l I
Interim License Review We told PG&E that we would need additional information in order to complete our evaluation of the interim license request. The infoma-tion we needed fell into four categories:
1.
Questions on the earthquake probability studies (Enclosure 2).
2.
Questions on the Relative risk assessment (Enclosure 3).
3.
Questions on lona tem cooling during the interim operating period (Enclosure 4).
4 We had decided that, in order to include a definitive finding on the practicality of future modifications.ind the adequacy of the existing seismic design, i t would be necessary to resolve certain summans >
pats k NRC PORM 338 U.76D N (M9
- u. s. eovsamment emmviae orrecs. vere - eas.eae j
=.-
e 7
)
)-
NOV 101977
_ outstanding) generic questions prior to issuance of a Safety Evaluation Report (SER on the interim license request (rather than prior to licensing). These generic questions involved the effects of loads i
due to postulated pipe breaks at the reactor vessel nozzle in combina-1 tion with an assumed concurrent earthquake. PG8E had nearly completed the analysis of these effects and was planning to report the initial results at a meeting on November 10,. 1977.
We also discussed the prospective schedule for completing the interim license review (Enclosure 5).
It currently appeared that item (4) above would control the schedule. However, depending upon assumptions regarding submittal dates and review time, item (1) above might be controlling.
In any event, it appeared that the earliest a SER could be issued would be early January 1978 (two months past the existing schedule). As indicated on Enclosure 5, it could be later depending upon submittal dates and review times.
Full Tem License Review s** w We also discussed the prospective schedule for the full term license review (Enclosure 6). Again, the schedule depended upon assumptions regarding submittal dates and review times. PG&E was planning to submit the results cf the remaining reanalysis about December 1,1977 so the -
soonest.possible date to issue a SER on this subject would bo April 1, 1978.
@t.
could be later.
PG8E state'd that the reanalysis was substantially completed, design of modifications was proceeding on an expedited schedule, and that the plant modifications should be completed by July 1978.
General Review Status We said that the schedules did not seem to indicate that a decision could be reached on an interim license very much sooner than on a full term license.
In addition, if the two approaches were pursued in tandem both would be delayed somewhat in relation to the prospective schedules in Enclosure 5 and Enclosure 6 due to interference and other factors.
We indicated that, in these circumstances, a difficult decision faced pGSE on whether or not to continue vigorous prosecution of the interim l
license request.
l It was also noted that the Advisory Comittee on Reactor Safeguards had l
not yet provided a recommendation on the acceptability of the design basis f6r' the reanalysis (0.759). The ACRS Subcomittee had recomended probabilistic studies similar to the studies offered in suppnet of the mwrm iimme moen. mwnangiy, even ir une interim ocense negaest arrenot_prosecuied_. vigorously...the_ wor Lthat_had._hean_done.minht_ba a 1 fyortant element im the-Cenmitteekweconshendation on'the-adequacy of,the
- """'"Oss i gn-bash.
oats >
NRC FORM 318 (N6) NRCM 0240
- u. e. eovanmusut Paswtowe orrica sore -ese-ea4 7
.... ~...._.
.s
)
NOV 101977 It did not appear, at that time, that the resolution of other (non-seismic) issues would control either schedule. However, significant concern was.
expressed about this conclusion. We indicated that, in the near future, we would provide a complete punch list of all items to be resolved.
Original Signed By Dennis P. Allisen D. Allison, Project Manager Light Water Reactors Branch No. 1 Division of Project Management
Enclosures:
As Stated wM I
I
"c=>
DPM:LWRJ1__
DPM: LWR.11-5" a ""' =
- DPA111 son:cz JFStolz 11/ /77 11/ /77._
QD3 c52ammmzesrn.
h
..v = -- = =. n-.. ic =. i - - = = = _,
ENCLOSURE NO. 1 LIST OF ATTENDEES DIABLO CANYON MEETING NOVEMBER 3e 1977 4
NRC Staff PG&E D. Allison H. Gormly J. Stolz W. Lenfesty J. Tourtellotte R. Bettinger F. Schroeder J. Hoch L. D. Davis M. Furbush W. Gamill B. Shakelford R. Mattson P. Crane H. Denton E. Kaprielian E. Case B. J. Youngblood
- ^$2%
R. C. DeYoung J. Murphy PG&E Consultant J. C. Stepp J. Knight A. Cornell D. Vassallo Intervenor's Consultant & Attorney B. Rushforth R. Hubbard D. Fleischaker v.
o' rricEW owanaus h DAva >
g NRC FORM Hs (9 76) NRCM 0240 W u. s. sovsamuunt raianne arrecs, sore-eas.ea4
.a-up
)
)
MEETING
SUMMARY
Docket File NRC PDR Local PDR TIC NRR Reading LWR-#1 File E. Case R. Boyd R. DeYoung D. Vassallo J. Stolz K. Kniel
- 0. Parr S. Varga L. Crocker D. Crutchfield F. Williams R. Mattson H. Denton D. Muller gg Project Manager:
Attorney, ELD E. Hylton IE (3 )
ACRS (16)
L. Dreher NRC
Participants:
S. Rubenstein T. Hirons J. Wetmore L. Shac H. Levin
..?
.r g#
si,*g
.)
UNITE 3 STATES NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSION g*
WASHINGTON.'.C.20588 D
g g
e
.g
%,'*....*/
NOV 101??7 DOCKET NOS: 50-276 and 50-323 APPLICANT:
Pacific Gas and Electric Company (PG&E)
FACILITY:
Diablo Canyon Nuclear Power Station, Units 1 and 2 (Diablo Canyon)
SUMMARY
OF MEETING HELD ON NOVEMBER 3, 1977 TO DISCUSS STATUS OF OPERATING LICENSE REVIEW We met with PG&E on November 3,1977 in Bethesda, Maryland to discuss the status of our review of the interim operating license request and the full-term operating license application. A list of attendees is provided in Enclosure No. 1.
Background
M' In accordance with the construction pennits, the plant had been originally designed to withstand an earthquake with a reference horizontal ground acceleration of 0.4.
Construction of Unit 1 had been substantially 9
complete since 1976.
As requested by the NRC staff in April 1976, PG&E was performing a re-analysis to determine what modifications might be necessary in order to withstand an earthquake with a reference horizontal ground acceleration of 0.75g.
The results from a substantial portion of the reanalysis had been submitted in Amendment 50 to the Final Safety Analysis Report (FSAR) in Jdne 1975.
PG&E was expected to submit the remainder of the results in the near future.
In addition, in August 1977, PG&E had requested an interim operating license to allow plant operation pending a decision on the normal or full-term operating license. The technical infonnation submitted in support of the interim operating license had included:
1 l.
Information concerning the need for an interim operating license (need for electric power).
2.
Probabilistic analyses of the likelihood of maior earthquakes in the vicinity of the plant and the likelihood of the plant with-standing such earthquakes without unacceptable releases of radio-activi ty.
b5
)
)
NOV 101977
-2_
3.
Information concerning the relative risk involved (risk associated with the interim operating period vs risk associated with a full-tem operating period after plant modification).
4.
A commitment to complete the reanalysis and perform any modifications determined to be necessary.
5.
A commitment to perfonn prior to initial operation, any modifications that would involve substantial radiation doses to workers if they were deferred until after the plant had been operated.
Need for Power We had received a report from the California Energy Resources Conservation and Development Commission (ERCDC) indicating that it did not appear there would be a drastic shortage of electrical generating capacity in the State of California in the Summer of 1978, even assuming another dry year. We indicated to PG&E that our tentative preliminary assessment was in sub-stantial agreement with that of ERCDC.
PG&E disagreed strongly with this conclusion and provided a letter gn responding to the ERCDC report. We indicated that we would review PG&E's response.
PG&E indicated that the disagreement seemed to be about the conclusions drawn rather than the basic data.
They indicated that Federal Power Commission (FPC) data from the past 10 years suggests that any time the generating capacity margins are less than 15 percent on a system, the system may be subject to reliability problems. We indicated that we had asked FPC for an opinion as well as ERCDC.
Interim License Review
~
We told PG&E that we would need additional infonnation in order to The informa-complete our evaluation of the interim license request.
tion we needed fell into four categories:
1.
Questions on the earthquake probability studies (Enclosure 2).
2.
Questions on the Relative risk assessment (Enclosure 3).
3.
Questions on long term cooling during the interim operating period (Enclosure 4).
4.
We had decided that, in order to include a definitive finding on the practicality of future modifications and the adequacy of the existing seismic design, it would be necessary to resolve certain
=.
..e s
)
)
NOV 101977
-3_
outstanding generic questions prior to issuance of a Safety Evaluation Report (SER) on the interim license request (rather than prior to licensing). These generic questions involved the effects of loads due to postulated pipe breaks at the reactor vessel nozzle in combina-tion with an assumed concurrent earthquake. PG&E had nearly completed the analysis of these effects and was planning to report the initial results at a meeting on November 10, 1977.
We also discussed the prospective schedule for completing the interim license review (Enclosure 5).
It currently appeared that item (4) above would control the schedule. However, depending upon assumptions regarding submittal dates and review time, item (1) above might be controlling.
In any event, it appeared that the earliest a SER could be issued would be early January 1978 (two months past the existing schedule).
As indicated on Enclosure 5, it could be later depending upon submittal dates and review times.
Full Term License Review We also discussed the prospective schedule for the full-term license review (Enclosure 6). Again, the schedule depended upon assumptions gg regarding submittal dates and review times.
PG&E was planning to submit the results of the remaining reanalysis about December 1,1977 so the soonest possible date to issue a SER on this subject would be April 1, 1978.
It could be later.
PG&E stated that the reanalysis was substantially completed, d'esign of gP difications was proceeding on an expedited schedule, and that the I,-(lantmodificationsshouldbecompletedbyJuly19,78.
General Review Status We said that the schedules did not seem to indicate that a decision could be reached on an interim license very much sooner than on a full term license.
In addition, if the two approaches were pursued in tandem both would be delayed somewhat in relation to the prospective schedules in Enclosure 5 and Enclosure 6 due to interference and other factors.
We indicated that, in these circumstances, a difficult decision faced PG&E on whether or not to continue vigorous prosecution of the interim license request.
It was also noted that the Advisory Committee on Reactor Safeguards had not yet provided a recomerdation on the acceptability of the design basis for the re3nalysis (0.75g). The ACRS Subcommittee had recomended probabilistic studies similar to the studies offered in support of the interim license request. Accordingly, even if the interim license request
< 'were not prosecuted vigorously, the work that had been done might be an e Cnevnittee's rec =merdation on the adecuacy of the important element in n
. tiesign basis.
.u
..:..-..w.
- u...
...x _:m
==:...
..u...
.2
=, --:...
)
)
- fiOV 101977 It did not appear, at that time, that the resolution of other (non-seismic) issues would control either schedule. However, significant concern was expressed about this conclusion. We indicated that, in the near future, we would provide a complete punch list of all items to be resolved.
M D. Allison, Project Manager Light Water Reactors Branch No. 1 Division of Project Management
Enclosures:
As Stated
?.%i.W i
e l
4
.w
- c.
)
')
t OV 101577 Pacific Gas and Electric Company..
cc:
Philip A. Crane, Jr., Esq.
Mr. William P. Cornwell Pacific Gas ar.d Electric Company P. O. Box 453 77 Beale Street Morro Bay, California 93442 San Francisco, California 94106 Mr. James 0. Schuyler, Nuclear Janice E. Kerr, Esq.
Projects Engineer California Public Utilities Pacific Gas and Electric Company Commission 77 Beale Street 350 McAllister Street San Francisco, California 94106 San Francisco, California 94102 Mr. W. C. Gangloff Mr. Frederick Eissler, President Westinghouse Electric Corporation Scenic Shoreline Preservation P. O. Box 355 Conference, Inc.
Pittsburgh, Pennsylvania 15230 4623 More Mesa Drive Santa Barbara, California 93105 Brent Rushforth, Esq.
Center for Law in the Public Ms. Elizabeth E. Apfelberg Interest 1415 Cazadero 10203 Santa Monica Boulevard San Luis Obispo, California 93401 Los Angeles, California 90067 Ms. Sandra A. Silver Arthur C. Gehr, Esq.
425 Luneta Drive Snell & Wilmer
@M$NhWL San Luis Obispo, California 93401 3100 Valley Center Phoenix, Arizona 85012 Mr. Gordon A. Silver 425 Luneta Drive Michael R. Klein, Esq.
San Luis Obispo, California 93401 Wilmer, Cutler & Pikering 1666 K Street, N. W.
Paul C. Valentine, Esq.
Washington, D. C.
20006 400 Channing Avenue Palo Alto, California 94301 David F. Fleischaker, Esq.
1025 15th Street, N. W.
Vale 1. Jones, Esq.
5th Floor 100 Van Ness Avenue Washington, D. C.
20005 19th Floor San Francisco, California 94102 Mr. Paul Morton California Division of Mines and Ms. Raye Fleming Geology 1746 Chorro Street 28 Civic Center Plaza San Luis Obispo, California 93401 Room 642 Santa Ana, California 92701 Pacific Gas and Electric Company ATTN:
Mr. John C. Morrissey Vice President and General Counsel -
77 Beale Street San Francisco, California 94106
~ -
)
)
ENCLOSURE NO. 1 LIST OF ATTENDEES DIABLO CANYON MEETING NOVEMBER 3, 1977 PG&E NRC Staff _
H. Gonnly U. Allison W. Lenfesty J. Stolz R. Bettinger J. Tourtellotte J. Hoch F. Schroeder M. Furbush L. D. Davis B. Shakelford W. Gamill P. Crane R. Mattson E. Kaprielian H. Denton E. Case WM*
B. J. Youngblood R. C. DeYoung PG&E Consultant J. Murphy J. C. Stepp A. Cornell J. Knight D. Vassallo Intervenor's Consultant & Attorney B. Rushforth R. Hubbard D. Fleischaker ForApggi
)
)
ENCLOSURE 2 Request for Additional Infomation:
Diablo Canyon While we find the assumptions and arguments used in report D-LL41 to be reasonable, a test of the results using more usual methodologies for computing earthquake probabilities has not been made. To accomplish this, the applicant should compute the probability of ground motion at the site using the usual method. The seismicity sample should be drawn from the San Andreas fault system sector of the Pacific / North America plate boundary. The occurrence of the predicted event in space should be detemined by the relative movements on various faults within the San Andreas system.
W The attenuation curves used in 0-LL41 give values that are low relative to those obtained using the competing curves of Trifunac and Brady. This difference should be explained.
f=or* h A -05 M
.l s'
h
)
ENCLOSURE 3 STRUCTURAL ENGINEERING BRANCH Division of Systems Safety REQUEST FOR ADDITIONAL INFORMATION REGARDING THE REPORT ENTITLED
" ANALYSIS OF RELATIVE RISK ASSOCIATED WITH OPERATION OF THE DIABLO CANYON N'JCLEAR POWER PLANT UNTIL FOR AN INTERIM LICENSING PERIOD" BY W. K. BR':NCT 1.
The s.tjer cenclusion of this study indicated on page 5 is that "for all cases analyzed, the ratio of risk during the interim license te the risk during the full term license is less than unity."
Elsborate en this conclusion and whether it is equally valid for plant damage ;r:ba':llity curves other than those assumed in Fig. II of S;ecifically, discuss various combinations of seismicity and the repert.
failure probability curves that will produce a risk ratio of greater than one, and provide the bases, if any, for concluding that such' cases are not significant. For example, discuss the combination of the Case C (for.4g nominal design) with Case A (for.75g nominal design). Since plant failure is treated conservatively for both 0.4g and 0.75g designs, tne risk computed for each case is likely the upper bound. However, taking the ratio of two upper bounds,
reveals little about the ratio of the true risks. Discuss possib\\e EF"!T5:t neans to allevirte tnis concern including specific proposals for conducting an adequate number of case-bounding studies with une:nservative assumptions for both the plant failure and seismicity hazard probability curves.
- .e 2 -: gary cf using a simple one-parameter (acceleration)
~.
Dis::::
- c defir.e ;.y.eisri: na:ard and the failure probability in the
+ val.1;i:r :f reiz ive risks, considering these are a function of nany fa.-are:ers (e.g., cround acceleration, frequency content of ground : tion, da= pin 6, variability of seismic capacity of various els:ents, etc.;.
Also, address simplistic means, if any, to account for taese para:eters in the relative risk analysis model.
J l
l W & %05 &
~
)
')
ENCLOSURE 4 Diablo Canyon Long-Term Cooling The applicant must submit procedures and identify equipment that would be available to provide an extended water source (such as the ultimate heat sink) that would be available following a 0.4G earthquake before the normal supply would be exhausted. The extended water source and its availability to the auxiliary feedwater pumps must meet single active failure requirements and be operable without offsite power.
MSWR!P
AL-
.4 4 gg n
6 8 x a. u#J
- i...'.-
3..
9 e.
i.
z w as n o s.che m a l
_ j..._.
,nus.s m.yu-r>st.spmwm_.._-
c aasures. Ismir ks--
i l
(
._.... cff._.._...AIJ4t...EEML
}
t l
l j
.... p r g e t w;wr co;usur I
ea. canatou
._x
_x. -... L iayuhrErnin ILbAb.k.... _
i i; q p.{.
4..
3 7_
l 1
t
.-srsen. eesusa._ sen
/2 21 Ii 3...
.8
_8. $2(($A
_. bu _
b=
.. - - = _
SA SL4ffM6*
N
_8._
. j.. -_7
.., _ _7 -._
l S Y'...yfsRf,G-.j. }...
E b_.__
.f,..__.
7 l
l hql/5/4A/
l I
..j. _.
g
.25._
/4_.
i.
_7 l
1 1
l-
._i
-..1.__
__ _. r....
i l
l
,i r
l g
j.>
.o_.i
..p.. e l
l.!.
l l
! gore.41 :...,
l 1..
... p.
! '.}
h ya.[.. l. i_.h.._
i i
}
emarztesparev A zt.
isiz
.r/ ass s.zo_..co b>:
i forgs u g d-m u.awa cadra mtk _., _... -.
l l
!se w ersis Vif rinunixe mosmums;-
.... _)_
,)
/JL.LRM&- 76WM
%,Jben
,?EE, /Y, /b./4...A, /$, A_AA
-...L.
i f
L i....
b
! !,;l
!.X;dly/
a 4..
_l i
i i
l
\\
ye i jth
.i.
.... -zh)_!_.q._.
m i
l l,
z _ *. 2L'Ay..i 4
. 2cAf4 Q W t k y [ p l L.lir[Qs iassi.4=rL4xsieh$._sseat r1raz L
i l7y Oakb ccA69tel.In aw;. ! ).
Le d s ewv e m s, o nes Mns uq T
!sy pace w n rn e sonwnv me,.
l.(d'qupnobs%Euid 0&c m
sr Wiik}?Lia-l p
i
'r+ua4 no %wa.- it.Ms-wr i \\ cuss w k.!d vexahudinsk nie.'c
?
l-rn Meaw)Wk1 I
\\
i Nea. p {.coNZi??
j.'
l I
l i
i i
i i
l
,., - ~,. -.. ~,..
n.-
_--.. -- -...~ _._--..-.....--. -..-......-. ~ - -- ~. -
7 i
C o,
A_,, _a p
[ J
- b. /(A 82 Meld /Ildd FNf..sk 'IRF K
mstmara.
cmcuut_
l
-._1. - l_.
. Z/MEh. (n-adf.
l M jpa mms rawwrro. wpwrri u
i J
3..
- l....
6.07 R246
_M.5 3 l l-
-r---
-e f
l
[.
JN[
/
dd
/d@dD' OJM id iwivaa powxnw x
_ y.
2.
'. I ! #skdsi,rs/t F
i i
I
.luECAMArleM. _
'i
.._., _. __.p 1fW 2Mdi/SM__ s2_W E
L
. ;.,..g J.
i
\\t,.
AcAst a mtA.
3 i cd sk_
i 4
... y.,
.SZARE b!E4_0!A(4.S.
-.t...
'?
8'$
/ok_
...I l
e H
._41_-
sfoe y m n L
,o
._.i_.
- i i
j QA.. DActs/0.
9 $
/BL Jk! s.
l ;
p y
7 p- _.-
l MOf/f/(Af/CN.T C$NAtLTD
?
?____
f_._
j l
l i
-l ll I
l werp, j l
l
.L
[
.J,_
l p
f j
i
.t J. i./7"lD OL $ f 9Z_ 4t{ AgbT4 Y 4NfAA l TEA 7' spergnbn_s epi s_. n_qup myrroes u__
.i.
_H j
nf
..ms sewau. -.aawqu
- i. 2 9 s w g M.M_sedwzrsa i-ru v em e
srks;
.wsp__
- . 1..
~n =_
n wa i.s cii-
_isma,an zah_-
t_.)____
l l
.l SCWifMELAwns.. taA FI&euwsrk AnW40_ss ece;e4v)<._
i i
2_
i
.1
.L
_.__.__L__..
6 i
l dl OW$. $_I
!&$4(f$J(M2E L.Af$MV A.
' esyoy _ m.. pen w.d..a.x,esL mz.eusme r a ~.
bl i
i
.ss
_utr rab-mem w
~n
~m i
..)
.3 s
i}
_76%Vhf%-39' i
}
j i
=.
.- A -9s
or
..o V
I, i
e
,3 Distribution Central files Ct; O 1 1977 TSS-reading JALong DCrutchfield
/
(p S7)
EGCase 2f2-3 HEMOPAtIDIRI FOR: Thomas J. McTiernan, Director Office of Inspector and Auditor FROM:
Edson G. Case, Acting Director Office of Nuclear Reactor Regulation
SUBJECT:
JUSTICE REQUEST REGARDING DIABLO CANYON As you requested, enclosed is a chronology of events and the associated documents from the NRR staff's review of the seismic concerns result-ing fmm faults in the vicinity of the Diablo Canyon site. Also enclosed is a chronology prepared by the Project !!anager which addresses the staff's overall review activities associated with the Diablo Canyon application.
'Ihe chronologies prepared by I6E and OELD are being provided separately by those offices as you suggested.
If further assistance or additional infomation is required, do not hesitate to call.
g h[N OrfginalSiped By E. G. Case Edson G. Case, Acting Director Office of Nuclear Reactor
.. Regulation
Enclosure:
As stated i
Q w'
~~
/
NRR h NRIJESBi1.
/
772930298 1
Dbab J
mmt h
Id W
=
.11-Se\\77
.J1-
.-77 It
-77 I
om >
inac samu su p.u). nam sua?
.
- vs =. [
-.m
.,== i= w i
Fdi A %-3'J/
6%
p-%
e.
t M
e 3
j PROJECT MANAGER'S CHRONOLOGY OF PRINCIPAL EVENTS FOR ALL LICENSING ACTIVITIES DIABLO CANYON SITE
' Units'I'and 2 g
e e
e
- 7.. _ _ _
e e
i 3
-)
PROJECT MANAGER'S CHRONOLOGY OF PRINCIPAL' EVENTS FOR'ALL LICENSING ACTIVITIES DIABLO CANYON' SITE
' Units *I'and 2 y
9 m.
N %-39/
A 96
} CHRONOLOGY OF PRINCIPAL EVENT ^')
. CONSTRUCTION PERMIT SAFETY REVIENS/ PACIFIC CAS AND ELECTRIC COMPANY
'DIABLO CANYON SITE (UNITS 1 AND 2)
?4y 23, 1 S
AEC-DRL staff mat to discuss Pacific na1,and Electric Conpany's orelir.inary plans for a nuclear plant at several proposed locations.
Septe-ber 30, 1966 Pacific 9as and Elcetric Conpany submits prelininary site report and reques:s AEC-D9L review, j;,,
p? January 16, 1957 Pacific Cas and Electric' Company sub.its an application for construction permit for one unit (License Application and Vols, I and II of PSAR).
WW February 6, 1957 AEC-DPL transeits application to Fish and Uildlife Service and requests their review.
(Anendnents No. 1, 2,'and 3 transnitted to Fish and Wildlife on July 31, 1967 and Aur,ust 11, 1967 respectively).
3..
n).
I'-
f// ;brch 21, 1967 AEC-DRL staff net to discuss s
seiscic characteristics of proposed site.
pr April 20 & 21,1967 AEC-?'
staff met to discuss seismic and structural design,
,qeology, instrunentation and control, turbine nissiles, reactor core and containment design and engineered safety features.
D/
May 5, 1967 AEC-DRL letter requests additional infornation en site and structural design.
s'
?:ay 16,1967 AEC-D7L and ACR5 staff net to discus.s seisric desten of Diablo Canyon reactor.
S h
.. ~.. - _ -
... _ _.. _ = _ _. _
f M
+:
(
T
- - 3 Par la, 19/!
AF.C-P:!L. letter re uests additions.1, informat'.on on instrumentation, control and power systers.
June 23,1967 U. S. Departeent o f the Interior, Fish and 'iildlife Service co=ments on radiolo:ical and non-radiological aspects of proposed plant.
1 June 30,1967 AEC-DTL 1ctter requests additional information on plant systens, enF neered i
safety features and accident analyses and a corparison of certain desig.n features for all large water-cooled reactors as referred to in the ACRS report (dated June 15, 1967) on Vermont Yankee.
July 10,1967 Pacific Cas and Electric Co=pany I
submits Arendnent No.1 responding to questions in DRL's Iby 5, 1967 letter and providinn supplemental inforr.ation on strenath criteria for pipin; and vessels, and desisn change relating to control rods.,
July 11,1967 AEC-DRL letter requests additional financial data.
July 19,1967 ACRS Subcormittee visit of proposed site.
July 24,1967 Pacific Gas and Electric Coopany subnits Anendment No. 2 responding-to questions in DRL's 'by 5,1967 and June 30, 1967 letters.
July 31, 1967 Pacific Cas and Electric Cocpany submits A:.mndm.ent No. 3 responding, to DRL's ':ay 5, 1967, ' fay 18, 1967 and June 30, 1967 letters and provides supplemental information on site neology, and the Safety Injection Syster..-
o V
An,,ust 15,1967 AEC-DRL staff nat to review seisric 1
desir,n bases.'
_o August 31, 1967 AEC-09L letter requests ndditional inforr.atin: on the reactor desi n in reintion to Cor-ission's
" General P.asinn Critoria" and certain researcit and devcicprant pro.rn-.n.
-.,3 T
. _ a x 1-.--..
c 1
l n....
t
(
s..
e' 3-
.}
l Sept. + v
,1 1967 Pacific 4 s and Electric Company subnits Arendnent th. 4 referencing sections of PSAF ar. they relat'e
,L to pro'osed " General Design Criteria."
q Scy tanber 15, 1967 AEC-D"L letter trnnanits Fish and
'fildli'c Service corrents to Pacific 7as and Electric Con 7any.
Octcher 1G, 1967 Pacific Gas and Electric Comoany i-sub=its Amendment No. 5 supplying supplerental inforration on seisric desirn and financial data.
October 4, 1967 ACRS subconmittee ret to discuss proposed reactor.
October 3, 1967 ACRS Committee met to discuss technical aspects of proposed reactor and site.
si Oc tober 26, 1967 AEC-D9L letter requests additional infomation on seismic design, EM instrunentation and control, c
emergency core' cooling system, and reacto,r core.
Novenber 1, 1967 AEC-D?1 letter requests additional inforration on thernal and hydraulic dssign aspects and other questions raised by the ACES.
nove.ber 6, 1967-Pacific Gas and Electric Company submits Ar.endment No. 6 responding to nRL's August 31,1967 and October 26, 1967 letters.
Xevenber ?,1957 Paci#ic Gas and Electric Conpany sus it= Amendrant Eo. 7 respondine to DIL's Octohar 26, 1?67 and HoverNr 1,1957 letter =.
. ve.her 21, 1967 AEC-II s ta f f at to discuss tsunar.1 pro tec t ion.
Mm y;her 1':, 1467'-
Pacific ins tad Electr!c Cor.rany subrfts Amendrent No S arendin:
and revinin; arrlication to include in.'or: at!cn on itenr.
J!.nc.-::ted in icve -ber ~!1 and ?.7. 1967 ren t in,~.
\\
l i
s s-
. -.-_ _ ; a._-_:
..-.-.u.-
u a
Dc:c:?er1,')S7 ACES S' )'-.'tteeret to diecus?
propo.=ed aacter.
- e..bar G,1967 Pacific in. and Electric Corphr r sehnit- * -= e.ac.en t :':n.
- av.cas'ir ".
and re.vt-'."
application to inclu.9:
in'or:- tion e,r itern fir. cusses' in loveF ar 3". ' Dece?;er 1, I'67 meett.'.s.
D2ce her 7,1967 ACES Connittaa pet to discuss proposed retetor.
December 20, 1957 ACRS Report issued.
January 3,1963 U. S. 9epartrent of the Interior, Fish an.! "ildlife Service concents on the radiological aspects of the proposed niant.
Januar,v 11, 1968 AEC P L Ictter transmits Fish and h'ildlife Service cornents (as revised 5: January 3,1963 letter).
'Eb January 23, 1963-AEC-97L sta*f issues Safety Evaluation.
i January 23, 1968 Safety Evaluation Report issued - Unit J.
Feb ruar,-- 20-21, 1953 An Atonic Safety and Licen' sing I
Board conducts a public hearing pi.g in San Luis Obispo, California.
41A,?
Initial ?ccision, dated April 23,
' S 1963, orders issuance 'of provisional construction permit.
. April 23, 1963 Provisional Construction Permit No. CPP3-39 issued hv the AEC.
April 23, 1968 Initial Decision issued by the ASLB.
June 23,196S Pacific Gas and Electric Company submits saplication Gir constretctioc.
perrit for second unit at Diablo Canyon site (License Application and l'elures I, II, and III PS \\R.
. July 11, 1968 ACC.'UI. tran.--its applica tion fo r.
second isn'.t.to U. S. Departrant of the Interior, Fish and 1;ildlife c.
Servic., and r 2 quests reviete (Ar em'renen ::n. 1, 2, l, 4, 5 and 6 trannnJ r.ted oa _%,y 3 6, 1969, J..ne 3,
1969,.Ti:ne 27,1969, July 1.".,1969, Septen5er 23,196?, and Octoi cr 2, 1969 res,cctt cely).
.m._....___.
...:. 2 __.. :. _.a
._.____a.m
.4_.m
(
(
5-
.).
n tober 22, 1968 ACC-DRL staff net to discuss e
containrent desi.?n, instrunentation, reactor systems and operation,' quality control and revjeu schedule. ~
Novenbar 4,1968 AEC-DRL sta'f net tn discuss instrunentation and control procedures.
Nova =bar 19, 1968 U. S. Departoent of the Interior, Tish and Wildlife Service transmits comnents on radiological and non-radiological aspects of proposed operation of Units 1 and 2 Novadber 26, 1953 AEC-DRL letter transmits Fish and Wildlife Service comments to Pacific Cas and Electric Comoany.
Decedber 11, 1963 AEC-DRL letter requests additional information on site and enyiron-ment, various reactor systems, q
radioactive waste and radiation protection and operation.
May 12,1969 Pacific Gas and Electric Company subr.its Arendrent No.1 transmitting answers to certain questions in AEC-DRL's December 11, 1968 letter (Reactor coolant system, electrical systecs, steam and power conversion systems, and operation).
Sky 28, 1969 Pacific Cis and Electrid Company submits Arendment No. 2 transmitting i'
ansvera to certain questions in AEC-DRL's December 11, 1968 letter (site and environment, engineared safety features, instrumentation and control and auxiliary and energency systems).
June 23,1969 Pacific Gas and Electric Company nine.its Arendment No. 3 answering questions in AEC-D"L's December 11,
~
~~~ ~
~ 1963 letter (containment, 'encineered sa fety featu'res, instrum.entation and control, auxiliary and emergency systens, steam and power conversion syste=,
radioactive vastes and radiation protection and sa raty evaluation).
~*
~
'.) )
July 10,1969 Pacific Cas and Electric Compan'y submits Anendment No. 4 answering questions on containeent an?
auxiliary snd emergency systems in AEC-D'l.'s December 11, 1963 letter.
July 10,1969 AEC-77L Ictter requests annual report for 1968 July 21,1969 Paci'ic Cas and Electric Cocpany advises 1968 annual report submitted in connection with Docket No. 50-133.
July 30-31,1969 AEC-DPL staff met to discuss instrumentation and control, contain-ment and structural design, environ--
rental and accident analyses, operations, and quality assurance.
Septenber 9,1969 Pacific.Ga.s and Electric Company requests exemption to pernit g,g construction of Unit 2 portion of auxiliary building at same tine Unit 1 portion is being constructed.
Septerher 10, 1969 Pacific Cas and Electric Conpany subnits Anandnent No. 5 transmitting.
revised information on financial data, sita and environnent, contain-nent, reactor systems and operation, and radioactive wastes and radiation pro tec tion.
Septenher 25, 1969 Pacific Gas and Electric Corpany submits Arendment No. 6 transmitting revised infornation on containment and su7plementary osteorolor.ical dpta.
October 1,1969 ACRS Subcomelttee net to discuss certsin safety related itens, includine c.nality assurance and enernency procedures.
October 10, 1969 ACP.1 Corrittee meets to discuss technical aspects of proposed second reactor and sit ^e.
(ACRS report to Chairman Seaborg, dated Oc tober 16, 1969.)
G
.)
1 October 16, 1959 ACRS Report issued - Unit 2.
Novembe r 7, 1969 AEC-DRL letter transmits approval of exemption reques t.
Hovember 7,-1959 letter PG&E granting an exemption pursuant to 10 CFR 50.12 as reauested by PG&E letter dated September 9,1969.
November 18, 1959 AEC-DRL staff issues Safety Evaluation of proposed Unit 2 at Diablo Canyon site.
January 13-11, 1970 An Atomic Safety & Licensing Board conducts a public hearing in San Luis Obispo, California.
April 7,1970 PGSE letter advising of excavation for containment structure, auxiliary and turbine building for d' ""2C 4
Unit 2 oortion of circulating water discharge conduit.
Sup61ement to Geologte Report for' gune 5,1970 Unit 2 transmitted by U.S.
ceological Survey letter.
"' June IT,1970 Letter fron Coast and Ceodetic Survey to AEC regulatory staff providing evaluation of certain seismic issues.
~
July 15, 1970 Atomic Safety & Licensing Board Reopening of Hearing.
August 7,1970 Eearing reconvenes in San Luis Obispo, California.
December 8, 1970 Initial Decision of ASLB orders issuance of a construction permit (Provisional Construction Permit No. CPPR-69 issued Dedember 9,1970).
12/9/70 Notice of Issuance of Provisional Constructinn Permit 12/9/70 Provisional Construction Permit No. CPPR-69
.. ~.
.....-._c q
lI 8
-l Meeting held between staff and applicant February 25, 1971 representatives for a presentation on testing of engineered safety feature circuits, which' is in reference to ACRS report dated October 16, 1969, for Unit 2.
February 26, 1971 PG&E letter submits Water Quality Certification.
June 14,1971 Decision by the Appeal Board which denies requests for exceptions and constitutes final Comission action.
August 13, 1971 Letter to PG&E transmitting interim acceptance criteria for ECCS perfonnance.
October 19, 1971 Letter from the State Water Resources Control Board transmitting Water Conformance Certifi-cation (No. 71-42) for Units 1 and 2.
December 28, 1971 PG&E letter requesting that the latest'com-pletion date of CPPR-39 be extended from December 31, 1971, to July 1,1974 - Unit 1.
December 30, 1971 Issued Order ext;endino the latest construction completion date for Unit 1.
"#ff PG3E letter transmitting water certification (No.
November 1,1971 71-42)
April 11,1972 Letter to PG5E transmitting Draft Criteria on Industrial Security.
May 17-20, 1972 Show Cause Proceedings pertaining to National Environmental Policy Act (NEPA) matters.
June 5,1972 Initial Decision which a'uthorized continued construction pending completion of the ongoing National Environmental Policy Act (NEPA) review, except that construction activities related to the removal of the cooling system discharge cofferdam was suspended.
July 20,1972 PG&E letter advising of valve wall thickness.
November 16, 1972 Letter to PG8E relating to their July 20, 1972 letter.
. November 20, 1972 PG&E letter notifying the staff of a design deficiency related to the intake structure.
November 20, 1972
'.etter to PG&E relating to fuel densification.
. +
.. ~.., -.. =.
...u..,
....i~..
.x.-....
9
)
November 29, 1972 Issued Anendment No.1 to CPPP.-69 for Unit 2 nertaining to environmental aspects of construction.
December 6, 1972 Letter to PG&E requesting information related to malfunction of electric type valve operators.
December 18, 1972 Letter to PG&E requesting information related to pipe failures outside of containment.
Cecember 23, 1972 PG&E letter pertaining to pipe breaks outside of containment.
January 3, 1973 PG&E letter concerning fuel densification.
May 31, 1973 PG&E letter reporting design deficiency involving the thermoplastic insulation jacket on 4.16 kV metal-clad switchgears.
June 1, 1973 Issued Final Environmental Statement - linits 1 and 2.
f b
B
(
e a
o o..,o
- o r u.n.,.
m.
}PERATINGLICENSESAFETYREVIEr~
PACIFIC CAS AND ELECTRIC CO?fPANY DIABLO CANYON SITE h
(UNITS 1 AND 2) l
/ 1.
J uly 10, 19 73 Application containing the FSAR tendered by Pacific Cas and Electric Company.
2.
August 13, 1973 Applicant notified that the FSAR portion of the application is not sufficiently complete for docketing.
3.
August 13, 1973 Initial site visit by LPM.
/ 4.
4.ugust 21, 1973 Neeting with applicant to discuss the deficiencies in the FSAR.
5.
September 26, 1973 Revised application tendered by PG&E.
6.
Iertenber 28, 1973 Applicant notified that application is sufficiently complete, and to file the appropriate docunents as required by Section 50.3G(c) of 10 CFR Part 50.
SUNNEE 7.
C tober 2, 1973 Application docketed.
8.
October 10, 1973 Letter to applicant disclosing staff position regarding ATWS.
9.
C:tober 19, 1973 No: ice of opportunity for hearing published in Federal Register (3S FR 29105).
r 10. October 25, 1973
' Site visit and meeting rela:ed to geology and g
seisnology.
- 11. November 5, 1973 Letter to applicant reminding him of his responsibility to maintain the local Public Document R'oom.
- 12. November 14, 1973 Site visit and meeting related to meteorology, hydrology, radiological assessment, and accident analysis.
- 13. November 19, 1973 Submittal of Amendment No. I consisting of miscellaneous revised and additional pages of the FSAR.
e M & A -9c, Y)/
n
~. - - - - -.
9 t
2
)
- 14. November 19, 1973 Staff notified by USGS of the discovery of possible of f shore f aults in the vicinity of Diablo Canyon.
- 15. December 11, 1973 Meeting with applicant to discuss electrical and-instrumentation an,d control systems.
h
- 16. December 13, 1973 Submittal of preliminary geological information related to slope stability.
- 17. December IS, 1973 Meeting with potential intervenors in San Luis Obispo, California.
- 18. December 21, 1973 Letter to applicant confirming the safety review schedule for Diablo Canyon.
- 19. December 2S, 1973 Request No. I to applicant for additional infor-nation concerning the site and certain radiolog-ical aspects of the plant.
- 20. January 4, 1974 Reqtiest No. 2 to applicant for additional inf ormation concerning the site and certain -
--~cm radiological aspects of the plant.
- 21. January 7, 1974 Response received from applicant to letter, request of October 10, 1973 regarding ATWS.
- 22. January S, 197' Meeting with applicant and USGS in Menlo Park y
regarding offshore faults.
- 23. Janeary 16, 1974 Request No. 3 to applicant for additional informa-tion concerning compliance with the Codes and Standards Rule, Section 50.55a of 10 CFR Part 50.
Submittal of Amendment No. 2 consisting of
- 24. January 17, 1974 revised and additional pages of the FSAR, and providing responses to several_ items contained in the staf f's acceptance review letter of August 13, 1973.
Site visit and meeting related to ECCS.
- 25. January 21, 1974
- 26. J$1nuary 22,1974 Letter informing applicant of the Commission's Memorandum and Order dated December 7,1973, con-cerning the LaSalle Cannty Nuclear Station, Units
~
1 and 2, and requesting, information regarding the Quall:y Assurance Program.
9
. _~. _ --
3, 3-4
- 27. January 25, 1974 ASLB order indicating that an Operatin~g License liearing will be held for Diablo Canyon Units 1 and 2.
- 23. February 7, 1974 Request No. 4 to applicant for additional infor-
~
mation concerning Radioactive Materials Safety.
23 February 12, 1974 Response received from applicant,to letter request of January 22, 1974 regarding authority and organizational freedom in-the Quality Assurance Program.
- 31. February 19, 1974 Submittal of Anendment':!a. 3 consisting of partial response to the staff's requests for additional infernation dated December 28, 1973 and January 4, 1974.
- 21. February 20-22, 1974 Site visit and meeting related to electrical and
~ instrenen:ation and control systems.
/
- 32. February 22, 1974 Site visit and coeting related to g ology and slope stability.
6
- 33. March 4, 1974 Sub ictal of Amendment No. 4 consisting of partial response to the staf f's requests for additional information dated De: ember. 28,1973, January 4, 1974 and January 16, 1974.
- 34. Ibrch 15, 1971 Lc::er to applicant requesting notification as to when information on outstanding items will be submitted.
- 35. March 18, 1974 Submittal of the Diablo Canyon Industrial Security Plan.
- 36. March 19, 1974 Submittal of A=endment No. 5 updating Chapters,4 and 15 of the FSAR concerning the 17x17 fuel design.
- 37. March 20, 1974 Letter to applicant. requesting information on Bergen-Patterson snubbers which may be installed on any safety related systems.
- 38. }brch 20, 1974 Letter to applicant confirning that the Industrial Security Plan vill be withheld from public dis-
, closure.in conforaance.with Section 2.790(d) of
. 10 CFR'Part 2.
w 1
- ~
.-l
'A
)
- 39. March 25, 1974 Submittal of the Diablo Canyon Site Emctgency Plan.
- 40. March 26-27, 1974 Beginning of the first OL Prehearing Conference.
- 41. March 29, 1974 Submittal of Arendment No. 6 consisting of miscellaneous revised and additional pages o f the FS AR.
Le,ter to applicant requesting additional infor- *
- 42. April 12,1974 t
nation on the Industrial Security Plan.
- 43. April 12, 197' Reques: No. 5 to applicant summarizing previously requested information for which acceptable responses have not been received.
- 44. April 15, 1974 Submittal of Amendment No. 7 consisting of miscellaneoos revised and additional pages of the FSAR.
- 45. April 15, 1974 Request No. 6 to applicant suramatizing previously requested information for which acceptable' pg responses have not been received.
- 46. April 15, 1974 Letter fro = applicant responding to the staff's letter of March 15, 1974 regarding outstanding iteOs.
~7.
.ipril 2'.
1974 Mee:ing with applicant to discuss electrical and instrumentation and control systems.
- 43. A.pril 25, 1974 Meeting with applicant to discuss the Quality Assurance Program, the Industrial Security Plan, and the Site Emergency Plan.
- 49. April 26, 1974 Iotter from applicant indicating uhan the infor-mation requested in our 1cteers of April 12 and April 15, 1974 will be provided.
/ 50. \\pril 26, 1974 Meeting with applicant to discuss off shore geology and seismology.
- 51. April 30->by 1,1974 Conclusion of the first OL Prehearing Conference.
- 52. May 7, 19/4 Letter.to applicant requesting additional finan-cial intornation.
~
M e
4 m
m m
a e+
~
5~
- 53. Hay 13, 1974 Submittal of Amendment No. 8 consisting of partial response to the staff's requests for additional information dated April 12 and April 15, 1974
- 54. May 17, 1974 Letter from applicant requesting extension of the completion dates shown in the construction permits for Units 1 and 2 (CPPR-39 and CPPR-69, respectively).
- 55. May 21, 1974 Site visit and neeting related to pipe break out-side containment.
_~
- 55. May 23, 1974 Sub::ittal of additional infomation on the Industrial Security Plan that was. requested on April 12, 1974.
- 57. :'ay 24, 1974 Letter to applicant requesting additional informa--
tion regarding the extension of the construction pemits for Units 1 and 2.
5S. May 28, 19 7!-
Submittal of additional electrical and instrumen-I5f5Ed@
tation drauings.
- 59..'iay 31, 1974 Submittal of Amendment ho.,9 consisting of partial respense to the staff's requests for additional info:: :stion dated April 12 and April 15, 1974.
.i
- 60. May 31, 1974 Let:er ta applicant confiming that th revised Securi~ty Plan which was received on 1-lay.,23,1974 will be withheld from public disclosure in con '
formance with Section'2.790(d) of 10 CFR Part 2.
- 61. June 4, 1974
!!eeting with applicant to discuss offshore geology and seiscology.
- 62. June 4, 197a Submittal of Amendment No.10 consisting of additional information requested by the staff in connection with its review of the 17x17 fuel design.
- 63. June 6, 19 74 Meeting with applicant regarding tsunami wave calculations.
e
(.
,...m__-_.
=.
r _ _.
8 e
6 s'
- 64. June 17, 1974 Letter from applicant providing additional justification for their request for extension of construction permits CPPR-39 and CPPR-69.
- 65. June 17, 1974 Letter from applicant providing the additional financia,1 information that.was requested on bby 7,1974.
- 66. June 37, 1974 Request No. 7 to applicant for additional information on the 17x17 fuel design.
- 67. June 1S.1974 Letter to applicant requesting additional lnforma-tion regarding the preoperational testing program for the emergency core cooling system.
6S. June 20, 1974 Submittal of Appendix 1 to the Site Emergency Plan consisting of the San Luis Obispo County. Sheriff's Depart = ant Interin Evacuation Plan.
- 69. June 25, 1974 Response fron applicant to our letter of March 20, 1974 concerning the use of Bergen-Patterson snubbers.
6
- 70. June 26, 1974 Letter to applicant concerning the scheduling of forthcoming operator and senior operator' cold exaninstions for Unit 1,of the Diablo C,anyon NucIccr Plant.
- 71. June 27, 1974 Submittal of Amendmen: No. 11 consisting of partial response to the staff's requests for additional information dated January 4, April 12, and npril 15,,
1974. Of particular importance in this amendment are the initial responses to questions on offshore geology and scismology.
12." June 28, 1974 Letter to applicant extending the latest dates for completion of construction for Units 1 and 9
- 73. July 1, 1974 Submittal of four appendices which supplement the applican:'s final report on the potenti'l effects a
of pipe break outside containment.
- 74. July 2, 1974 submittal of Amendmen: N$.12consistingprimarily of.the applicant's final report on the, potential ef fects of pipe break outside containtaent.
6 6
.... - -. - - ~ -
- 75. July 5, 1974 V Mesting with rpplicant t2 rsview thm prcgr:ra cf new geological field investigations related tu
)
offshore faults in the vis 'Ity of the Diablo Canyon site.
- 76. July 5,1974 Submittal of Amendment No. 13 consisting primarily of responses to the staff's request for additional information dated June 17, 1974 rega.rding the
~~
17x17 fuel design.
- 77. July 12, 1974 Letter to applicant requesting additional informa-tion on the Industrial Security Plan.
- 76. July 16,1974 Response from applicant to our letter of June.18, 1974 regarding preoperational testing of the ECCS.
78A. July 22, 1974 Application submitted for license to store unirradiated reactor fuel and associated nuclear e.aterial at Unit 2.
- 79. August 2, 1974 Submittal of Anendment No. 14 consisting of
=iscellaneous revised and additional pages of the FSAR.
- 80. August 5, 1974 Submit:21 of Anendnent No. 15 consisting pri-
=arily of the applicant's evaluation of com-pliance with the final ECCS acceptance criteria.
4,ggs de
- 81. August 13, 1974 Respense from applicant to cur Ictter of July 12, 1974 requesting additional changes in the Indus: rial Security Plan.
- 52. August 16, 1974 Submittal of Amendment No. 16 consisting pri-marily of a partial respcase to the staff's request for inforestion on tsunami waves caused by near-shore generators (see letter 'to appli-cant dated January 4, 1974).
Amendment 16 also provides additional info'rmation in response to our letter of June 18, 1974 regardi'ng pre-operational testing of the ECCS.
- 83. September 3, 1974 Submittal of Amendment No. 17 consistihg of
' miscellaneous revised and additional pages of the FSAR.
- 84. September 12, 1974 ACRS Subconnittee meeting emphasizing geology and seismology and ECCS - Appendix K evaluations.
' Initial meeting rena ding the W stinghouse
- 85. September'18, 1974 ~
r Standard Technical Specificatiuns.
L6. U,rp tes.Scr l'),
1974 Site visit esiiphasizing items sell 1 outs'tanding, in the safety rev'iew.
~
.I 6
}
T 87.
October 3, Iv/4 Response from applic.
.t to our letter o[
October 10, 1973, regarding ATWS.
E8.
October 10, 1974 Hequest No. 8 to applicant for additional information on the operator requalificati.;n program.
- 29. October 16, 1974 Safety Evaluation Report issued.
- 90. October 22, 1974 Submittal of Amendment No. 18 consisting primarily of a final response to the staff's request for, information on tsunami waves caused by near-shore generators.
- 91. November 1, 1974 Letter to applicant requesting additional,infor-mation on the emergency core cooling system.
- 92. Novemoer 1, 1974 Letter to applicant informing him of changes in
~
the safety review schedule.
- 93. November 1, 1974 Submittal of Amendment No. 19 consisting pr.imarily of the applicant's final report on the geology of the Southern Coast Ranges and the adjoining Offshore Continental Margin of California.-
94.
November 11, 1974 Submittal of Amendment No. 20 consisting pri-carily of revised catarial for Sectidn 2.5 of the FSAR (Geolo3y and Seismology).
/ 95.
November 20, 1974 Submittal of report on the analysis of off-shore seismicity in the vicinity of the Diablo Canyon site.
- 96. 'Navenber 21, 1974 Submittal of Amendment No. 21 consisting pri-marily of responses to the staff's requests for additional inforeation concerning the main' steam isolation valves and the operator requalification program.
97.
Dececber 5, 1974 Response from applicant to our letter of November 1, 1974, regarding ECCS.
98.
December 6, 1974 Request No. 9 to applicant for additional infor-mation on seismic design.
99.
December 10, 1974 Letter to applicant requesting information on quality ass'urance acti9ities for the nperations phase of the Diablo Canyon Units.
e T
R
D
.T q~
' ')
)
100. December 16, 1974 Submittal of Amendment No. 22 consisting of additional information required for the resolution of outstanding items in the SER.
101. December 16, 1974,
Letter from applicant giving schedule for sub-mittal of additional information on all outstanding items in the SER.
102. December 23, 1974 Submittal of Amendment No. 23 consisting of additional information on environmental qualifi-cation of electrical equipment.
103. Dece:Ser 30, 1974 Response'from applicant to our request for addi-tional information of December 6, 1974, regarding seismic design.
104. January 14, 1975 Letter to applicant informing'him of' changes in the safety review schedule.
105. January 16, 1975 Sub:ittal of Amendment No. 24 c'onsisting of addi-tional information required for the resolution of outstanding items in the SER.
- qqggg,
~
106. January 20, 1975 9abmittal of report en physical and electricni separation in the solid state protection and process analog systees.
107. January 24, 1975 Request No. 10 to applicant for additional informa-tion on tsunami vave calculations.
103. January 29, 1975 Letti: from applicant committing to supply addi-tional information regarding the consequences of postulated ruptures of high energy piping outside containment.
109. January 30, 1975 Submittal,of Amendment No. 25 consisting primarily of additional information on subcompartment pressure calculat' ions and the operational quality assurance program.
110. January 31, 1975
' Supplement No. 1 to the Safety Evaluation Report issued.
111. February 6, 1975 Hecting with applicant to discuss seismic
~
and environmental qualification of electrical
?"
equipment, and physical and" electrical
~
separation in the solid. state protection and process analog systems.
j 117. february /.'1975 Fieeting with applicant to discu,ss the geology and seismology of the Diablo Canyon site.
D
, - - - - -.,...~..
-.. ~ - -. - -..
o 10
]
- 3 r
113.
February 12, 1975 Request No. 11 to applicant for additional information on geology and seismology.
q 114.
February 18-19, 1975 ACRS Subcomittee Meeting in San Luis Obispo, California.
t 115.'
March 3, 1975 Heeting with PCLE m.anagement to discuss the geology and seismology of the Diablo Canyon site.
115.
March 26,1975 Submittal of Amendment No. 26 consisting primarily of additional information on subcompartment pressure calculations and.'
on recent guidance for quality assurance programs.
117.
April 3, 1975 Letter to applicant requesting additional information on,the Emergency Core Cooling System.
118.
April 4, 1975 Heeting with applicant to discuss items relative to the seismic design of Diablo Canyon.
119.
April 7, 1975 Lette.r from applicant providing supplementary pages to report entitled " Westinghouse Protection System Noise Tests" which is referenced in Section 7.2 of the FSAR.-
120.
April 7, 1973 Letter fro = applicant regarding participation in Westinghouse progen to evaluate corrosion resistance of possible alternate steam generator tube materials in.in operating plant.
April 10, 1975 Second OL Prehearing Conference.
121.
122.
April 15, 1975, Letter from applicant transmitting 1974 Annual Financial Report.
123.
April 23, 1975 Submittal of report concerning jet effects analysis for postulated pipe breaks outside containment.
124..l April 28-May 2, 1975 Review of the Diablo Canyon seismic design at PGSE offices in San Francisco.
125.
April 30, 1975 Submittal of Amendmer.t No. 27 consisting ~
~
of n'ditional information required for 'the d
reso'lution of outstanding items in the SER.
126.
Msy 1-2, 1975 Site visit and meeting related to electrical, instrumentation and centrol riy.=tene.
I
a e-e -
)-
11 127.
May 9, 1975 Supplement No. 2 to the Safety Evaluation Report issuad.
128.
May 16, 1975 Submittal of Amend:ent No. 28 consisting of additional information required for the resolution of outstanding items in the Safety Evaluation Report.
129.
Pay 19, 19 75 Letter to applicant transmitting the sched-ule for impletantation of the Westinghouse Standard Technical Specifications.
130.
May 23, 1975 ACRS Subco==ittee Meeting in Los Angeles, California.
g, 131.
June 2, 1975 Submittal of Amendment No. 20 consisting of additions 1 infor:ntion reatired for the resolution of outstcnding ice.:s in the Safety Evaluation Report.
.i 132.
June 5,19 75 ACRS Full Cc==itipp Meeting in Washington, n.C.
4.s 133.
June 12, 1975 ACRS letter which constitutes a partial revicu of the Diablo Canyon operating license application.
134.
June 13,1975 Letter to applicant requesting additional information on boron precipitation ef fects on long term cooling for the emergency core e
cooling system.
135.
June 13, 1975 Letter to applicant requesting additional infoccation on the effects of secondary system fluid flow instabilities.
136.
July.9, 1975 Letter 'to applicanc requesting additional information on the energency core cooling-system.
- 1..
.. - -.--~ - - -..
-..-.._..n o
12 3
137.
July 11,1975 Letter to applicant requesting additional
.information on tornado missile protection for the Diablo Canyon Units.
133.
July 16, 1975 Letter to applicant requesting additional information regarding the extension of the construction permits for Units 1 and 2.
139.
July 29, 1975 Submittal of report on the consequences of seismic-induced' actuation of protection systen relays on the Diablo Canyon Units.
140.
July 29, 1975 Submittal of Anandment No. 30 consisting of additional ir.for=ation required for the resolution of cutstanding items in the Safety
' Evaluation Report.
141.
July 31,19 75 Meeting with applicant to discuss geology and seis= ology.
142.
Augu.e t 5, 1975 Letter from applicant transmitting the information on the effects of seco,ndary g;p ;r system fluid fice instabili. ties that was requested in our letter of June 13, 1975, 143.
Au3 us t 7, 1975 Letter to applicant requesting additional infor:stion on electrical instrumentation and control systars, pipe break outside containment, and fire protection.
144.
August 15, 1975 Su'amittal of Amendment No. 31 consisting cf a partial response to the staff's re-quest for additional information on geology and seiscology dated February 12, 1975.
145.
August 19, 1975 Submittal of Amendment No. 32 consisting of a partial response to the staff's re-quest for additional informaticn on geology and seismology dated February 12, 1975.
146.
August 20, 1975 Submittal of a marked-up copy of the Westinghouse Standard Technical Specifi,
cations for the Diablo Canyon Units.
t
- t
~
)
i 13 147.
Augus: 28, 1975 Meeting with applicant to discuss geology and seismology.
148.
August 29, 1975 Submittal of Amendment No. 33 consisting primarily of a revised emergency' core
~
cooling system analysis.
149.
Septe=ber 4,1975 Letter to applicant transmitting our review of the Westinghouse Protection System Noise Test Report, and requesting additional information on this item.
150.
September 16, 1975 Submittal of Amendment No. 34 consisting of a partial response to the staff's request for additional information on geology and seiscology dated February 12, 1975.
- 3C";
e e
0 e
9 4
A
s
~~
14 n
)
September 17, 1975 Lett'er fro:s applicant regarding schedule for providing information reosested September 4, 1976.
S:pteraber 18, 1975 Supple::ent No. 3 to the Safety Evaluation Report issued.
Septe.oer 25, 1975 Letter to'appih: ant regardirig outstanding issues and requesting schedule for subr.itting additional information.
C:::ber 6,1975 Letter feco acolicant pro'viding schedule requested September 26, 1975.
Oct:ter 6,1975 Su. iittal cf Are-ment 35 including (1) partial response to questions dated February 12,1975, and (2) riiscellar.cous changes.
October 17, 1975 Letter fro:, applicant ir.dicatin; that ECCS infomation was submitted in Ament. rent 35.
Oct:ber 21, 1975 Letter fr:M applicant providing additional information on protection against ter ado-generated r::issiles requested July 11,1976.
an er 21,1975 Submit:61 of A. ecent 36 inc1cting (1) partial responses to requests for infore.atien c.ated July 11,1975, Au;ust 7,1975 and September 26 1975,a. " ) ?.iscellaresas changes.
0: te :+- 33.
1.* 7 5 5;.tr.itta! :# kea: ent 37 incor;; rating (1) coraletion of responses
- o rey.est for infer.4 tion dated rebri,ary 12, 1975, and (2) reorgant-4 ration cf Secticn 15.4 of FSAR.
November 10, 1975 Safety evalt:ation report issued concerning application to store unirradiated reactor fuel and associated nuclear material at Unit 1.
' f.ovember.J1, 1975 Letter frem applicant sutwitting reports entitled '(1) "Teleseismic Location cf the 1927 Lompoc Earthquake," and (2) "Aftershocks of the 1927 Lompoc Earthquake." "
)
I:nvmber 12, 1975 p' Letter from applicant submitting report entitled, " Western Geophysical I
Corr.pa,ny and Shell Oil Company Proprietary Selsn!c Reflection Data from the Offshore Region between Point Estero and Point Arguello:
Basic Data, Interpretive Data, and Discuss.lon," and requesting that the repo. t te withheld fr' ors public disclosure as proprietary data.
.crber 14, 1975 Letter to applicant previding revised revicu schedule en.1 rea.nattlag-
~
additional information on geology, seistrology and scismic d.esign.
I
- - ~ - - - - _ _ _ _ _..
a
=
m.
\\tterfromappli: ant. providing sunplee*
- to report entitled,
. f;oveeber 24,1975
" Westinghouse Protec:fon Syste-s thise..
.s."
infar- *t !~
P.ceting with' applicant to disc.se remasa. t. n :n-.t f n f ovember 25,197!-
- g dated floyen.ber 14, 1975.
Letter froia applicant subnitting edettier.31 copics of reports pre.
December 1, 1975 '
viously sutanitted i;cverber 11, 1975.
l'eeting with applicant to discuss technical specifications.
December 4,1975 Letter from applicant sutx11tting adtiticut topies of propriet'ory Ce:erber 5. !i75 data sut-iltted Noverber 12,1975.
a:plicant submittinc caonrysical survey records in rirtiel Letter from 14, 1975.
Ce:e,r.ber 3. 1}75
. response to reauest for inferrati-n d*'.ed
- 1ve. ber Fublic Hearings concerning the storage of unirradiated Deceraber 9,1975 reactor fuel at Unit 1 inforste; bir c' 53'atj qsestion rer.arding rea t. r Decerter 10,1975
.,, Letter tn applicant
' info..ati r.
N press;re vessel suspart syster-as! e.wstin:
applicant sut-ittf cp rep:^-
.r. tit 1 d.
Selenic re'Irction.,
Cecember 11, 1?"5
'.etter fr:
- int Ist.cen.. a toin.*Arouello:
e Dets frcs the Off shore P.cgtan ret ~ een stitutes a non.nroprietary Ir.ter:re
.e Ona and Dis:..sst+ ' i,.u-e
. 1975.
"-~ -
versice of t%e -aterial s c i o-d 8
' r.!
'f!Sr,. e gec:.hysical siz.e> re-Letter fre: arplicant st;P itt -
cords ih parthi resconse to c",rnt fee in'or,ation dated !:ove iber 11, Deceiber 15, 1975 1975.
Suhriittal of Anendnnt.'; fi.cluding (1) Informtion on electrical, in.
) in partial December 22, }975 Strurentation and control systems fegairment qualification response to req eest for inforr.ation dated August 7,1975, and (2) miscellaneous chan7cs.
ASLB decision concerning the storage o December 23, 1975 Letter fron (!5f.5 to 1:RC staf f erovidino draf t rrpert en Dia'.ilo Canynn..
Decerber 24,1975 Letter from applicant sutriitting ic,catinn d>ta for ciectrical eq: sip.
December F1, 1975 sent related to pire breaks t.#tsWe ton'.ilnr"nt in partial respense to request for inforirstion 43 c4 A.:tsst ',
't*
?
~
Letter fro-s applicant trar.t,ittir., reports rr.entor centain+ent January 3,197f.
buildin.; integrated N43 rate i.es* ar.) *.tructurAl ir.tr *;rlty tgg($,
Letter frta tisG5 to FAC staf f providino etraf t renxt en Pla$1o Can,on.
January 12, 1976
n-
~,
AD y V,
' January 13,19: )
Letter from applicant reoarding
- jign of reactor pressure vessel support system in response to re. gest for informtion dated December 10, 1975.
Ileeting with applicant to diseass geology and seismology.
January 1*, 1975 Letter from applicant providing inforeation on pipe breaks oatside January la,1976 containeent in partial response to request for information dated, August 7, 1975.
Letter from apolicant submitting a report entitled, 'A Olscussion of January 17,1976 the Appilcation of the Migration process to Western Geophysical Coc-pany Seismic Peflection Line W74-12 in the Vicinity of the Hosgri Fault Zene, in the Area Offshore fren the Olablo Canyon power PIar.t Site," in partial response to a request for information dated hovemoer la,1976 and requesting tht.: the report be withheld from public disclosure as proprietary data.
Submittal of Arent ent 39 inclong miscellanecus changes and'Amerd-Febraary 2, 1976 ment 40 including partial rescense to reonest for infor.ation dated fcve*'ber 14, 1976.
N
!!aetinc with applicant and USGS to discuss geology and seistology.
Fecruary 1,1976 tetter to applicant transnittin;' draft Regulatory Guides 1.AA through February 23,1975 1 *T
- elated to radioactive *:Aste canagenent calenlations required by appencf x ! tc 10 *FR 59.
r Letter to applicant providir.g guidsnce en subnitting required radio-February 25,1975 active waste erana;ee.ent infor ation cer Appendix ! to 10 CF8t 50, and req;esting the app 11 cant's plans for compliance with Appendix f.
Latest completion dates in Construction l'ernits for Units 1 a'nd 2 were February 25, 1975 extended by the Cornission.
Letter freu applicant,sutuitting a report entitled, "A Olscussion o' Harch 2,1376 the Application of the fligration process to n!estern Geophysical Com-pany Seismic Reflection Line '474-12' in th'e Vicinity of the idosgri Fault Zone, in the Area Of fshore from the Diablo Canyon power Plant Site," which constitutes a non-proprietary veislon of the Information submitted January 19, 1976.
t Submittal of trenc.:nt 41 Intludicg biscellaneous chan';es.
Ilarch 2,1976 Latter from appilcant sutaitting ad:litional copies of r:ateria) *,ul'-
March 2,1976 mitted Werber 12, 1975 and Januar< 17. 1976.
r~-_-____.______
.f.
)
March 16, 1976 Letter from annlicant providine undate of information on secondary system flow instabiliev th.it was submitted August 5, 1975.
Letter fron anplicant subnittine errata for containment
- farch 23,1976 structural integrity test report submitted Januarv R, 1076.
!! arch 26,1976 Letter from annlicant subnittinr velocity data related to the Western Ceonhysical connanv of fshore survey records.
i submitted previousiv and rennestine nroprietarv treatment for the velocity data.
l Letter fron applicant statine that plans for connliance j
March 30,1976 with Annendix 1 to 10 CFR Part 59 would be submitted after a neeting of Anril 1, 1976 with the staff.
'feeting with the applicant (andother applicants) to provide Aoril 1, 1976 further guidance on connliance with Annendix I to 10 CTR 50.
i April 20, 1976 Meetint with annlicant to discuss seismic desinn.
Letter co annlicant statine that information submitted Anril 21, 197A Noverher 12, 1975 Decenher 8, 1075 and January 10, 1976 y0c C to uculd he withheld from nublic disclosure pursuant 10 CFR 2.790.
April 21,1975 f.etter froa anolicant nrovidine. schedule for subnittine infornation requested Tebruary 25, 1976 concernine Apnendix I to 10 CFR Part 50 Letter to arnlicant nrovidinr staff evaluation of renort April 22, 1976 entitled, "tfestinghouse Protection Svsten Noise Tests,"
suhnitted January 1A,1975 and revised Anril 7,1975 j
and Noverber 24, 1975.
Letter from USGS to NPC staff nrovidinn renort on Diablo Anril 29, 1976 Canyon.
q 4
e
['
t g
0
)
Letter to applicant pr icing draft technical F.,sy 6,1976 specifications for use in preparing proposed technical specifications with regard to Appendix 1 to 10 CFR Part 50.,
Supplement lio. 4 to the Safe y [ valuation Report t'sy 11, 1976 issued.
Sateittal of Ar.end. ent 42 ir.cluding (1) informa-r m j 12, 1976 tion on electrical, instrunentation and control equipment (equipment qualification) in partial '
response to request for information dated 17, 1976, and (2) miscellaneous changes.
August Lettar t: applicant requesting additional P.sy 15, 1975 information regarding containment structural ictegrity test.
ACRS Sattemittee reeting in San Luis Obisp'o, Fay 21, 1976 California.
Letter frco applicant requesting extension of ivMsj@i.
'uy 25, 1976 Unit 1 construction per-it.
Letter f-em applicant syx'itting document entitled J.,s *, 1975 "information Required for Cor.pliance with 10 CFR 50, Apsa.1 dix I, fer Gianto Canyon, Units 1 and 2."
Let.ter to applicant re:uesting a schedule for pro.
',are 10, 1975 wit;ing an evalt.ation of the adequacy of the reactor pressure vessel suppsets.
P.eeting with applicant to discuss seismic desijn June 10, 1976 reevaluation.
Letter to applicant requesting schedule for June 11, 1976 sutnittal of inforration concerning outstanding Items.
Letter to ACR$ fowardin; Dr. fleurark's draf t report-June 11; 1976 concerning Diablo Canjon selsinic design bases.
Letter from appilcant providing schedule requested tlune 21, 1976 June 11 for sutvrittiny inforration concerning out-
' standing items.
llecting,, th a. ' Kant te discuss sekaic design June 23,1976 reevaluation.
. -. _ _. -. - - ~. -.. -
~
~ ~ ~ '
~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~
~ ~ ~ ~ '
~~~ ~
~~
e a
1T
.June 24, 1976 Subinittal of Amendment 43 including (I) information on electrical. instra entation and control equip-sent (equipment qualification) in partial response to request for informaticn dated August 17, 1975 and (2) riiscellaneous changes.
June 25, 1976 and ACRS Subcomittee l'.eet.ing in San Luis Obispo, June 26, 1376 California.
J.1y 2, 1975 Letter to appifcant requesting schedule for submit-ting additional inforestion concerning ATWS.
J ly 6, 1975 Letter to applicar.t steting that velocity data sub-mitted March 26, 1975 w:ald be withheld from public disclosure pursi. ant to 10 CFR 2.790.
Ju*,y 6, 1976 Construction Pernit for Unit 2 extended until January 1. 1977.
July C 1976 ACTS Tull Ccenittee Mae:fn; in Washing
'n,'D. C.
nngg July 9, 1976 Application submitted for a license to store unirradiated nuclear fuel and associated nuclear material.
Joly 19, 1976,
Letter-to applicast re.esting additional informa-tion concerning the r.aterial sutwnitted Jane 4,1976 regarding Appendis I to 13 CrR Fart 50.
July 20,1976.
Letter frca applicant responding to a request for information concerning reactar vessel supports dated June 10, 1976.
July 21, 1976 Letter from applicant providing detailed infor: ation concerning desfgn codifications to satisfy the single failure criterion for electricall,y operated
[CCS valves.
July 29,1975
' Letter from applicant providing inforniation ecquested on liay 18, 1976 concernin; the tlnit I r.ontainment
. structural integrity test.
July 29,1976 Subnittal of Amnhent ** Including inforration related to Appendix ! to 10 CrR rart 50.
July 29,1976
, Subnittal of 4:en+ent.1$ fr.cluding information concerning reevaluation of seismic design capabilities.
- c.-
4 70 >
July 30, 1976 Letter from applicant submitting document related to Appendix I to 10 CFR Part 50 entitled " Draft Model Technical Specifications for Pressurized Hater Reactors, Docket Numbers 50-275, 50-323, Including Additions to Supply Requested Information."
August 11, 1976 Meeting with applicant concerning reevaluation of seismic design capabilities.
August 27, 1976 Meeting with applicant concerning reevaluation of seismic design capabilities.
September 7, 1976 Meeting with applicant concerning reevaluation of seismic design capabilities.
September 10, 1976 Supplement No. 5 to Safety Evaluation Report issued.
September 24, 1976 S2fety Evaluation Report issued concerning application for a license to store unirradiated reactor fu'el and associated nuclear caterials at Unit 2.
September 30, 1976 Letter from applicant furnishing information concerning ATUS.
Septer.ber 30, 1976 Letter to applicant transmitting Supplementary Guidance on Information for fire protection program evaluation.
Cetober 15, 1976
. License issued for storage of un' irradiated reactor fuel and asso:iated nuclear material at Unit 2.
October 18, 19!6 Letter from applicant regarding PG&E Dwg. No. 502078
" Cable Tray and Conduit Layout".
October 27, 1976 Letter from applicata regarding reevaluation of fire protection program.
November 11, 1976 Letter from applicant requesting extension of Construction Completion Date for Unit 1 from January 1, 1977 to July 1, 1977.
December 3, 1976 Letter to applicant requesting additional information regarding containment structural integrity test for Unit 1.
December 13, 1976 Public hearings concerning environmenta). aspects of operating license review.
December 17, 1976 Letter to applicant regarding fire protection evaluation.
D$cember 20, 1976 Letter from ACRS regarding comments and recommendations from consultants.
January 5, 1977 Meeting with applicant to discuss seismic design reevaluation.
t
)
)
21 January 7, 1977 Submittal of Amendment 46 to the FSAR from the applicant,
[
, consisting of changes in the quality assurance program.
Jcnuary 10, 1977 Letter to applicant regarding reactor vessel overpressuri-zation.
Jcnuary 19, 1977 Letter from applicant providing a consultant's report on naar field ground motion simulation for a vertical fault with dip-slip.
l 1
i e
D e
b er e*
G e,,
e==
G f
9
_g__
~
CHRONOLOGY OF PRINCIPAL EVENTS FAULT ASSESSMENTS DIABLO CANYON SITE (UNITS 1~and 2)
The attached chronology and associated documents are intended to pro-vide a summary of the NRR staff's review of seismic concerns resulting from faults in the vicinity of the' Diablo Canyon site.
In preparing this chronology and selecting those documents to be provided, the following guidelines were used:
All documents which address faulting in the plant environs or the magnitude of the earthquake that forms the basis for deriving an effective acceleration for input into the process leading.to seismic design analysis are included.
I?ff:l?
Documents which address the' acceptability of the various components to meet this seismic design are not included.
~
Correspondence of a routine administrative nature such as forwarding of PSAR/FSAR amendments to staff consultants is not included.
All PSAR/FSAR amendment receipts are indicated but those which addressed fault related information are called out.
Copies of each amendment do not exist at Central Files but are available on microfiche at the' NRC Public Document Room.
Excerpts from the referenced documents are provided in some cases to indicate the state of~ review which existed at that time. The excerpt is not intended to be a complete summary of the material addressed in the documents.
l Weekly reports prepared by the staff on the status of the Diablo Canyon fault review are not listed in the chronology but are included with the documents provided.
m Fora tro-39/
t
^
A-A
4
)
CHRONOLOGY OF PRINCIPAL EVENTS FAULT ASSESSMENTS DIABLO CANYON SITE jurets 1 and 2)~
.s.
Construction Permit Review May 23,1966 AEC-DRL staff met to discuss Pacific Gas and Electric Company's preliminary plans for a nuclear plant at several proposed loca-tions.
(May 25, 1966 meeting summary attached.)
"The major safety problem for either site would be associated with the earthquake potential and the possibility of faults g;gggg passing through the site.
In this respect the Diablo Canyon site would appear to be more favorably situated since it is further removed from the known active earthquake faults in the region."
September 26, 1966 Pacific Gas and Electric Company letter describing trenching explo-ration at the site (attached).
September 30, 1966 Pacific Gas and Electric Company submits preliminary site report and requests AEC-DRL review (attached).
"No large or active fault is known to exist within the site area. The site is forty or fifty miles west of the San Andreas Faul t. The Nacimiento Fault is about twenty to thirty miles away, but it is not considered active. There are other mappable faults with a northwest-southeast trend at varying places in the Coast Range; however, no major faults have been. mapped near the Diablo Canyon site."
l October 7,1965 AEC-DRL letter to Coast and Geodetic l
Survey requesting seismological review of site (attached).
l l
A v
.... -... c..
a 2-January 16,1967 Pacific Gas and Electric Company submits an application for con-struction permit for one unit (License Application and Volumes I and II of PSAR).
February 6, 1967 AEC-DRL letter to Coast and Geodetic Survey requesting seismological review of the proposed site (attached).
March 21,1967 AEC-DRL staff met to discuss seismic characteristics of proposed site.
(April 6,1967 meeting, summaryattached.)
"Dr. S. Smith, seismic consultant to PG&E, made a presentation concerning the magnitudes of credible earthquakes which could affect the site. He stated that since there are good records of past earthquakes and since active faults are readily identifiable
- cmaw in California, ascertaining the magnitude of ground motion which could occur is simplified as compared to other parts of the country. All evidence indicates that there are no active faults in the immediate area of the site."
March 30,1967 Letter from N. Newmark forwarding M
comments on PSAR, Volumes I and II k.,
(attached).
March 30,1967 Telecon concerning earthquake design of Diablo Canyon site between representative of USGS, USC and GS, Newmark, Hall, etc.,
(attached).
" Based upon Mr. Murphy's evaluations of these earthquakes he feels that the design earthquake should have an acceleration of 0.2g regardless of the spectra. The maximum credible earthquake should be 0.40g across the board regardless of the spectra.
Dr. Hall and Dr. Newmark agree with this position."
April 17, 1967 Memo to files regarding upcoming April 20-21 meeting with PG&E (attached).
April 20 and 21,1967 AEC-DRL staff met to discuss f-seismic and structural design,
.r n
o
) '
geology, instrumentation and control, turbine missiles, reactor core and containment design and engineered safety features.
(May 18, 1967 meeting summary attached.)
"The applicant was requested to present a plot of the plant layout, locating the trenches and the known faults in relation to plant structures."
April 28, 1967 Memo summarizing phone call from PG&E concerning establishment of a new design spectrum (attached).
2 May 5, 1967 AEC-DRL letter requests additional information on site and structural design (attached).
May 16, 1967 AEC-DRL and ACRS staff met to discuss seismic design of Diablo
- p4pgg, Canyon reactor.
(May 25, 1967 meeting summary attached.)
July 10, 196/
Pacific Gas and Electric Company submits Amendment No. I responding to questions in DRL's May 5, 1967 letter.
July 19, 1967 ACRS Subcommittee visit of proposed site.
l July 24, 1967 Pacific Gas and Electric Company I
submits Amendment No. 2 responding to questions in DRL's May 5, 1967 letter.
l l
July 31, 1967 Pacific Gas and Electric Company submits Amendment No. 3 responding to DRL's May 5,1967 letter and provides supplemental information on site geology.
1 August 15, 1967 AEC-DRL staff met to review seismic design bases.
(August 17, 1967 meeting summary attached.)
l n
a
o e __
August 21, 1967 Letter from H. Newmark regarding acceptable response spectra (attached).
September 7,1967 Letter from N. Newmark forwarding report of the Adequacy of the Structural Criteria For The Diablo Canyon Site Nuclear Plant (attached).
September 8,1967 Pacific Gas and Electric Company submits Amendment No. 4.
September 13, 1967 Letter from N. Newmark fo'rwarding a revised draft of the report provided on September 7, 1967 (attached).
September 21,1967 Coast and Geodetic Survey letter
~""TO forwarding their report on the seismicity of Diablo Canyon site (attached).
" Based upon the review of the seismic history and related earth-quake frequency spectrum data and the related geologic considera-tions, the Coast and Geodetic Survey agrees with the applicant's statement of 0.20g at the site and on rock for the predicted maximum ground accelerations of the design earthquake and twice this value, 0.40g, on rock for safe shutdown conditions. We believe this value (0.40g) would provide an adequate basis for designing protection against the loss of functions of components important to safety."
September 21,1967 U.S. Geological Survey letter forwarding their report on the geology aspects of the Diablo Canyon site (attached).
"There are no identifiable geologic structures which could be expected to localize earthquakes in the immediate vicinity of the site."
October 4, 1967' AEC-DRL memorandum discussing Diablo Canyon earthquake design (attached).
._7_._..
y
)
]
.c
.)
3 1 s October 5, 1967 ACRS Committee met to discuss technical aspects of proposed reactor and site.
(No meeting summary located.)
N October 18, 1967 Pacific Gas a'nd -Electric Company submits Amendment No. 5 supplying supplemental information on seismic design.
November 6,1967 Pacific Gas and Electric Company submits Amendment No. 6.
November 9,1967 Pacific Gas and Electric ' Company submits Amendment No. 7.
November 29, 1967 Pacific Gas and Electric Company submits Amendment No. 8.
Et9iliit December 1,1967 ACRS Subcommittee met to discuss proposed reactor.
(No meeting summary located.)
December 6,1967 Pacific Gas and Electric Company submits Amendment No. 9.
December 7,1967 ACRS Committee met to discuss
(-(
proposed reactor.
(No meeting summarylocated.)
December 20, 1967 ACRS Report issued (attached).
January 16, 1968 AEC-DRL letter to N. Newmark regarding his input to the staff's SER (attached).
January 22, 1968 Letter from N. Newmark forwarding modifications to his SER input (attached).
January 23, 1968 AEC-DRL staff issues Safety Evalua-tion for Unit 1 (attached).
c
.~
x ~., z -....- : a u.w c.:- = =.. :::.. :. c u-. :
..=.: *w'.:
)
i
, 4 Februa ry 20-21,1968 An Atomic Safety and Licensing Board conducts a public hearing in San Luis Obispo, California, Initial Decision, dated April 23, 1968, orders issuance of provi-sional construction permit.
April 23,1968 Provisional Construction Permit No. CPPR-39 issued by the AEC.
4 April 23, 1968 Initial Decision issued by the ASLB.
June 28, 1968 Pacific Gas and Electric' Company submits application for construc-tion permit for second unit at Diablo Canyon site (License Appli-cation and Volumes I, II and III, PSAR).
g May 12, 1969 Pacific Gas and Electric Company
~
submits Amendment No. 1.
May 28, 1969 Pacific Gas and Electric Company j
submits Amendment No. 2.
June 23, 1969 Pacific Gas and Electric Company submits Amendment No. 3.
July 10, 1969 Pacific Gas and Electric Company submits Amendment No. 4.
i September 10, 1969 Pacific Gas and Electric Company submits Amendment No. 5.
September 25, 1969 Pacific Gas and Electric Company submits Amendment No. 6.
October 1,1969 ACRS Subcommittee met to discuss certain safety-related items, including quality assurance and emergency procedures.
October 10, 1969 ACRS Committee meets to discuss technical aspects of proposed second reactor and site.
(ACRS report to Chairman Seaboro, dated October 16,1969.)
...-=:
..a.-.----
--.;--------=;------
)
)
. October 16, 1959 ACRS Report issued for Unit i (attached).
November 18, 1969 AEC-DRL staff issues Safety Evalu-ation of proposed Unit 2 at Diablo Canyon site (attached).
Janua ry 13-14, 1970 An Atomic Safety and Licensing Board conducts a public hearing in San Luis Obispo, California.
June 12,1970 Letter from Coast and Geodetic Survey to AEC regulatory staff providing evaluation of.certain seismic issues (attached).
"It is the conclusion of the' Coast and Geodetic Survey that the offshore earthquake activity and Edna Fault Zone do not have a significant bearing on the earthquake potential for this site because-they present a hazard much less than than already con-ENA50"'
sidered in the evaluation of the site."
July 15,1970 Atomic Safety and Licensing Board reopening of hearing.
August 7,1970 Hearing reconvenes in San Luis Obispo, California.
December 8,1970 Initial Decision of ASLB orders issuance of a construction permit.
Decision discusses considerations of geology and seismology, intervenors' contentions andrationale for accept-ing proposed design basis (attached).
December 9, 1970 Notice of Issuance of Provisional Construction Permit.
December 9,1970 Provisional Construction Permit No. CPPR-69 issued.
June 1,1973 Issued Final Environmental State-ment for Units 1 and 2 (attached).
. -. ~ ~.... ~.
w-c...
-)
)
. Operating License Review July 10,1973 Application containing the FSAR tendered by Pacific Gas and Elec-tric Company.
July 31, 1973 Staff memorandum identifying deficiencies in geologic informa-tion (attached).
August 13, 1973 Applicant notified that the FSAR portion of the application is not sufficiently complete fo.r docketing and requested to provide additional information (attached).
"On page 2.5-11 you discuss an offshore fault that places Tertiary to Recent sediments against Franciscan rocks.
Thus, one would have to view this as a significant fault.
Since it has experi-
- T;L-enced movement in recent geological time, it must be considered as a potential site for the safe shutdown earthquake.
Discuss this feature in detail'in view of recent studies that have been conducted by the USGS and indicate the properties of the maximum probable earthquake that may be postulated on it.
(Refer to USGS, lig11y Wagner, open file reports.)"
August 15,Ik Initial site visit by LPM..
August 21, 1973 Meeting with applicant to discuss the deficiencies in the FSAR.
(September 7, 1973 meeting summary attached.)
September 26, 1973 Revised application tendered by PG&E.
September 28. 1973 Applicant notified that application l
is sufficiently complete, and to file the appropriate documents as required by Section 50.30(c) of 10 CFR Part 50.
i October 2, 1973 Application docketed.
c-e o
)
)
. October 25, 1973 Site visit and meeting related to geology and seismology.
(October 31, 1973 meeting summary attached.)
"The staff has requested additional information on offshore faults.
PG&E indicated that this subject is discussed to some extent in a report by Hoskins and Griffith, Reference 17, page 2.5-83 of the FSAR, but that more recent information is expected from the USGS work being funded by the AEC.
The results of this work should be available about the middle of November 1973."
November 19, 1973 Submittal of Amendment No. 1 consisting of miscellaneous revised and additional pages of the FSAR.
November 19, 1973 Staff notified by USGS of the discovery of possible offshore
-- yze faults in the vicinity of Diablo Canyon.
November 21, 1973 Staff memorandum discussing the newly reported fault (attached).
"On November 19, 1973 I was informed by Dr. E. H. Baltz, Jr.,
USGS, that he had just received a telephone call from Mr. Holly Wagner of their Menlo Park office concerning a fault which has recently been discovered about two miles offshore of Diablo Canyon.
Mr. Wagner reported that an offset was noted on the ocean floor on three crossings and, although the records have not yet been analyzed, he feels that there is little doubt that the offset is a fault scarp."
December 13, 1973 Submittal of preliminary geological information related to slope stability (cover letter attached).
December 21, 1973 Letter to applicant confirming the safety review schedule for Diablo Canyon (attached).
" Presently, there are several important items on which we require significant additional information, e.g., possible effects of riewly discovered geologic faults, effects of tsunamis caused by potential nearshore generators, and slope stability field work and analysis.
Your failure to orovide the required information
n
..... ~. -
)
, on these subjects or any other items identified in the future within the timetable to the schedule could result in significant schedule delays."
January 4, 1974 Request to applicant for additional information concerning the site and certain radiological aspects of the plant (attached).
January 8, 1974 Meeting with applicant and USGS in Menlo Park regarding offshore faults.
(January 11, 1974 meeting summary attached.)
"The purpose of the meeting was to discuss faulting near Diablo Canyon that was discovered during recent offshore geologic mapping performed by both USGS and PG&E in the vicinity of the Diablo Canyon site."
iWWi%i January 17, 1974 Submittal of Amendment No. 2 consisting of revised and additional pages of the FSAR, and providing responses to several items contained in the staff's acceptance review letter of August 13, 1973.
February 19, 1974 Submittal of Amendment No. 3 consisting of partial response to the staff's requests for additional information.
February 22, 1974 Site visit and meeting related to l
geology and slope stability.
l (March 1, 1974 meeting summary l
attached.)
March 4, 1974 Submittal of Amendment No. 4 consisting of partial response to the staff's requests for additional information.
l March 19, 1974 Submittal of Amendment No. 5.
l March 26-27, 1974 Beginning of the first Operating License Prehearing Conference.
~
l
.:,u.:.
z.2 ::.a.....u a a.:.a=== : w w -
=-
a :. :.=-..=.
r = -.i. -
2-o e
i
)
')
~
3 11 -
N March 28, 1974 U.S. Geological Survey letter forwarding the results of their review of.the FSAR (attached).
"One feature, however, for which adequate ~information is not t
provided is an offshore fault or structural' zone which has been recognized since presentation and review of the Preliminary Safety Analysis Report (PSAR)."
"Because of the apparent length and proximity of the offshore zone to the site, consideration of the zone as another possible source of a maximum earthquake in addition to the four proposed by the applicant may be necessary.
Until definitive information is presented to demonstrate otherwise, prudence requires that the zone be considered capable."
March 29, 1974 Submittal of Amendment No. 6 consisting of miscellaneous revised and additional pages of the FSAR.
>~
April 15, 1974 Submittal of Amendment No. 7 consisting of miscellaneous revised and additional pages of the FSAR.
April 26, 1974 Heeting with applicant to discuss offshore geology and seismology.
(May 15, 1974 meeting summary attached.)
"The staff asked PG&E and their consultants to summarize how they plan to respond to our concerns regarding offshore faults.
Doug Hamilton indicated that they will utilize all existing offshore data, including the work of Hoskins~-Griffith, in the preparation of their report.
In addition, PG&E is contemplating some additional offshore survey work in areas fairly close to the plant site."
April 30-May 1, 1974 Conclusion of the first Operating Licensing Prehearing Conference.
May 2, 1974 Staff memorandum identifying outstanding items in the Diablo Canyon safety review (attached).
May 13, 1974 Submittal of Amendment No. 8 consisting of partial response to the staff's requests for additional information.
- ~ _
- y May 31, 1974 Submittal of Amendment No. 9 consisting of partial response to the staff's requests for additional information.
June 4, 1974 Meeting with applicant to discuss offshore geology'and seismology (no meeting summary located).
June 4, 1974 Submittal of Amendment No. 10.
June 27, 1974 Submittal of Amendment No. 11 consisting of partial response to the staff's requests for additional information.
Of particular impor-tance in this amendment are the initial responses to questions on offshore geology and seismology.
6 July 2, 1974 Submittal of Amendment No. 12.
July 5, 1974 Meeting with applicant to review the progress of new geological field investigations related to offshore faults in the vicinity of the Diablo Canyon site.
(July 11, 1974 meeting summary attached.)
"PG&E indicated that all field work, both on land and offshore, would hopefully be completed by the end of July, and that their final report would be submitted to the staff by September 1, 1974.
Allowing appropriate time for staff and USGS review of this report, our Safety Evaluation of geology and seismology would probably be published around mid-October of 1974."
July 5, 1974 Submittal of Amendment No. 13.
July 22, 1974 U.S. Geological Survey letter forwarding seismic reflection O
b m-n
~.
3 3
. surveys requested by the staff (cover letter attached).
August 2, 1974 Submittal of Amendment No. 14.
August 5, 1974 Submittal of Amendment No. 15.
August 16, 1974 Submittal of Amendment No.16.
September 3, 1974 Submittal of Amendment No. 17.
September 6, 1974 Staff memorandum providing a status of the geology and seismology portion of Diablo Canyon review (attached).
"With regard to evaluation of the siesmic potential of the offshore faults in the vicinity of Diablo Canyon, the staff and USGS will need to review PG&E's report before a final determina-gg tion can be made.
The staff did conclude after the July 5, 1974 meeting that PG&E had undertaken a very comprehensive offshore field program. However, the feeling still prevails that it will be extremely difficult to establish the capability of these faults using conventional dating methods."
September 12, 1974 ACRS Subcommittee meeting emphasiz-ing geology and seismology and ECCS--Appendix K evaluations.
(September 27, 1974 meeting summary attached.)
"The majority of the remaining portion of the meeting was devoted to a detailed presentation by PG&E's consultants on the geology and seismology of the central California coastal region, including both onshore and offshore areas. The presentation was handled chiefly by D. H. Hamilton of Earth Sciences Associates."
October 16, 1974 Safety Evaluation Report issued (attached).
October 22, 1974 Submittal of Amendment No.18.
November 1,1974 Letter to applicant informing him of changes in the safety review schedule (attached).
.. =
.=.. -..
.. :.. :a.. a _... =..
- =. = -.
=. = -
.._.:-_.=.
i.
i..
November 1,1974 Submittal of Amendment No. 19 consisting primarily of the appli-cant's final report on the geology of the Southern Coast Ranges and the adjoining Offshore Continental Margin of California, including a history of pertinent geological in-vestigations performed (history sectionattached).
November 4,1974 Staff memorandum regarding the schedule for review of PG&E's geology-seismology repor,t (attached).
November 11, 1974 Submittal of Amendment No. 20 consisting primarily of revised material for Section 2.5 of the FSAR (Geology and Seismology).
""?I!?
November 16, 1974 Staff memorandum regarding the search for strong motion records (attached)'.
November 20, 1974 Submittal of report by PG&E consult-ant on the analysis of offshore seismicity in the vicinity of the Diablo Canyon site (attached).
November 21,1974 Submittal of Amendment No. 21.
December 6, 1974 Letter to applicant requesting additional information (attached).
December 16, 1974 Submittal of Amendment No. 22.
December 23, 1974 Submittal of Amendment No. 23.
December 23, 1974 Staff memorandum regarding prepara-tions for upcoming ACRS meeting (attached).
December 27, 1974 Applicant response to December 6, 1974 request for additional infor-mation (attached).
= -= :. :.. :
=..a
= -.
a
= -.
l
')
, January 16, 1975 Submittal of Amendment No. 24.
January 28, 1975 U.S. Geological Survey letter forwarding their report of geologic and seismologic data (attached).
"However, in conclusion, we believe that with the limit of the present information as to the interpretation of the relationship of the East Boundary fault to the Santa Lucia Bank fault, an earthquake similar to the November 4,1927 event but occurring along the East Boundary Zone or the Santa Lucia Bank fault zone represents the maximum earthquake that is likely to occur near to the site. This event is in addition to the maximum earthquakes considered in the construction permit evaluation and subsequent hearings and reviews. As long as this interpretation remains valid, it is our opinion that the design value of 0.5g used as a zero period acceleration in the development of the appropriate response spectra is inadequate."
January 30,'1975-Staff memorandum forwarding proposed geology and seismology section for
~
SER supplement (attached).
January 30, 1975 Submittal of Amendment No. 25.
January 31, 1975 Supplement No.1 to the Safety Evaluation Report issued (attached).
"The earlier conclusions regarding the geologic structure of the region and its relationship to earthquake occurrence have been altered by the subsequent detailed offshore investigations discussed previously. Our evaluation of the earthquake potential of the Hosgri fault zone is continuing; we will provide our conclusions on this matter in a future supplement to the SER."
January 31,1975 Staff met with USGS to discuss Diablo Canyon geology and seismol-ogy.
(February 24, 1975 meeting summary attached.)
February 4,1975 Staff memorandum regarding USGS seismic evaluation (attached).
"The USGS letter of January 28,1975 implies that significantly higher accelerations are appropriate. On January 31,1975 we met with the USGS to discuss their concerns, some of which were
.-- _ -.... _ -.a
. ~..
]
.)
i new to us. As a result we were unable to complete our evaluation of this subject for inclusion in the SER supplement published on January 31, 1975."
February 7,1975 Meeting with applicant to discuss the geology and seismology of the Diablo Canyon site.
(February 24, 1975 meeting sumary attached).
February 8,1975 Staff memorandum announcing forth-coming ACRS meeting (attached).
February 11, 1975 Staff memorandum regarding Diablo CanyonReview(attached.).
February 12, 1975 Request to PG&E for additional information on geology and seismol-ogy (attached).
February 18-19, 1975 ACRS Subcommittee meeting in San Luis Obispo, California.
(March 18,1975 meeting summary attached.)
February 20, 1975 Staff memorandum regarding Diablo Canyon seismic is, sues (attached).
March 3,1975 Meeting with PG&E management to discuss the geology and seismology of the Diablo Canyon site.
(March 5, 1975 meeting sumary attached.)
"The meeting concluded with PG&E stating that they will supply responses to all outstanding geology and seismology questions as soon as possible. The staff indicated that the review schedule will depend upon the timing and content of these responses."
ifarch 3,1975 Staff letter to Shell Oil Company requesting access to their geo-physical data on area offshore of Diablo Canyon (attached).
March 3, 1975 '
concern in seismic analysis and design Staff memorandum regarding area of on Diablo Canyon (attached).
1
.'x.
u, w..... =.. :
.a
. =
a.. u -
- z.:
u=-
.a =-.. -
- =.-
)
-)
March 10, 1975 Staff memorandum regsrding Diablo Canyon and other seismic issues (attached).
March 26,1975 Submittal of Amendment No. 26.
March 31,1975 Staff memorandum regarding progress of Diablo Canyon review (attached).
April 4,1975 Meeting with applicant to discuss items relative to the seismic i
design of Diablo Canyon.
(May 8, 1975 meeting summary attached.)
"The staff stated that it intended to perform a review in depth of the Diablo Canyon seismic design. This would include a visit of about one week to PG&E headquarters to review detailed infor-mation and meet with individuals responsible for various design aspects. "~
W l
April 10,1975 Second Operating License Prehearing Conference.
April 28-May 2,1975 Review of the Diablo Canyon seismic design at PG&E offices in San Francisco.
(May 19,1975 staff summary of highlights attached.)
"At the closing of the audit meeting, NRC audit staff concluded that based upon the above described results of the seismic design audit, the seismic design methodology, procedures and design controls implemented for the plant were in general found j
satisfactory and acceptable."
April 30,1975 Submittal of Amendment No. 27.
i May 8,1975 Staff memorandum of SER (attached)providing status May 9,1975 Supplement No. 2 to the Safety l
Evaluation Report issued (attached).
May 16,1975 Submittal of Amendment No. 28.
l May 23,1975 ACRS Subcommittee meeting (June 17, in Los Angeles, California, 1975 meetin*; summary attached).
i l
-._,.-,.,_,,---._,,..-_--.-.,,_.---.n,,
,-.,n.,
,79,.
a.
}
.}
June 2,1975 Submittal of Amendment No. 29.
June 5,1975 ACRS Full Committee meeting in Washington, D.C.
(July 24, 1975 meeting summary attached.)
June 12,1975 ACRS letter which constitutes a partial review of the Diablo Canyon operating license application (attached).
July 29,1975 Submittal of Amendment No. 30.
July 31,1975 Meeting with applicant to discuss geology and seismology (no meeting summary located).
August 15, 1975 Submittal of Amendment No. 31 consisting of a partial response e.--
to the staff's request for addi-tional information on geology and seismology dated February 12, 1975.
August 19, 1975 Submittal of Amendment No. 32 consisting of a par al response to the staff's reque. _ for addi-tional information
' geology and seismology dated February 12, 1975.
August 28, 1975 Meeting with applicant to discuss geology and seismology.
(October 30, 1975 meeting summary attached.)
"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 effects of an earthquake 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."
August 29, 1975 Submittal of Amendment No. 33.
September 16, 1975 Submittal of Amendment No. 34 consisting of a partial response h
n
~.
.~...... - -.
n -..
L t.
)
i 1
- 19 s
to the staff's request for addi-tional information on geology and seismology dated Feb uary 12, 1975.
September 18, 1975 Supplement No. 3 to the Safety Evaluation Repor,t issued (attached).
September 26, 1975 Letter to applicant regarding outstanding issues and requesting schedule for submitting additional information (attached).
October 6, 1975 Submittal of Amendment No. 35 including partial response to questions dated February 12, 1975.
October 21, 1975 Submittal of Amendment No. 36.
October 24, 1975 Staff memorandum regarding seismic stability of cut slope (attached).
Egmgeur
~
October 30, 1975 Submittal of Amendment No. 37 incorporating completion of responses to request for informa-tion dated February 12, 1975.
November 11, 1975 Letter from applicant submitting reports entitled "Teleseismic Location of the 1927 Lompoc Earth-quake" and "Aftershocks of the 1927 Lompoc Earthquake" (cover letter attached).
November 12, 1975 Letter from applicant submitting report entitled, " Western Geo-physical C'mpany and Shell Oil o
Company Proprietary Seismic Reflec-tion Data from the Offshore Region between Point Estero and Point Arguello: Basic Data, Interpre-tive Data and Discussion," and requesting that the report be withheld from public disclosure as proprietary data (cover letter attached).
L t
~
..... =...
=..
.=2
- - - - - - - - - - - -- z. : =
~
)
November 14, 1975 Letter to applicant providing revised review schedule and request-ing additional information on geology, seismology and seismic design (attached).
"Although you responded to some of the questions in August and September, your responses were not completed until October 31, 1975 and our preliminary review indicates that these responses are not adequate. Additional information will be required."
November 17, 1975 Staff document providing a brief-ing prepared for Director, NRR, (attached).
November 25, 1975 Meeting with applicant to discuss responses to request for informa-tion dated November 14, 1975.
(January 7, 1976 meeting summary MM attached.)
December 8,1975 Letter from applicant submitting geophysical survey records in partial response to request for information dated November 14, 1975 (cover letter attached).
December 11, 1975 Letter from applicant subnitting report entitled, " Seismic Reflec-tion Data from the Offshore Region Between Point Estero and Point Arguello:
Interpretive Data and Discussion," which constitutes a nonproprietary version of the material submitted November 22, 1975 (cover letter attached).
December 16, 1975 Letter from applicant submitting USGS offshore geophysical survey records in partial response to request for information dated November 14,1975 (cover letter attached).
December 22, 1975 Submittal of Amendment No. 38.
')
)
, December 24, 1975 Staff memorandum regarding USGS
~
report (attached).
"The draft USGS report is due to us today. Preliminary indica-tions are that the USGS will, once again, recommend rejecting the proposed design basis earthquake for this plant."
December 24, 1975 Letter from USGS to NRC staff providing draft report on Diablo Canyon (attached).
"For reasons stated in subsequent parts of this review, how-ever, the magnitude of the design basis earthquake for the Diablo Canyon nuclear reactor site should be in the range of 7.0 to 7.5 and located on the Hosgri fault zone.
This is based principally on the fact that the November 4,1927 earthquake had a magnitude of 7.3 and that the best estimates of its location indicate that it could have occurred on the Hosgri fault."
January 5, 1976 Staff memorandum recommending y
upper management meetings on Diablo Canyon review (attached).
~
'" Clearly we can benefit from further discussions with USGS at a lower level before they send their formal recommendation. How-ever, in light of the serious nature of the decision we must make, the unknown quality of the USGS recommendation and the g
et-extra difficulty involved in reversing a USGS opinion after it is published, we recommend contracting top management at the
.e*
Department of Interior and expressing our need for an immediate accelerated reevaluation of the geologic situation, including:
1.
The independent opinions of several top USGS geologists not heretofore directly involved in the Diablo Canyon review.
2.
A clear expression of the tuchnical reasoning which can be discussed meaningfully with the staff.
In addition, we should immediately retain additional top geologists i
directly as consultants and initiate further independent review on Depending on how quickly we take action, the results may our own.
or may not be completed in time to support the schedule for licen-sing."
i L-i l
~
~'
o v
i 22 -
January 12,1976 Letter from USGS to NRC staff
~
providing revised draft report on Diablo Canyon (attached).
January 12, 1976 Staff memodndum regarding a pro-posed program for the Diablo Canyon discussed at an internal meeting (attached).
January 13, 1976 Meeting with applicant to discuss geology and seismology.
(February 11, 1976 meeting summary atitached.)
"Newmark and Hall had, at our request, initiated a review of the Diablo Canyon seismic design in December 1975 and had visited the plant during the week of January 5,1976. Their review was still in its initial stages. We agreed to provide the results of our evaluation and the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers' evalua-F7 tion of slope stability for their review. Although our tsunami evaluation had been completed we agreed to review the earthquake motion used as an input to the tsunami calculations in the light of recent developments in the geology-s'eismology review."
i January 14, 1976 Meeting with applicant to discuss geology and seismology.
(February 11, 1976 meeting summary attached.)
"We informed the applicant that the draft USGS reports recom-mended assuming that an earthquake of magnitude 7.0 or above could occur on the Hosgri fault.
(The applicant had proposed assuming that a magnitude 6.25 earthquake could occur on this faul t. ) We also informed the applicant that the bases for the USGS draft recommendation were primarily:
(1) that the location data on the 1927 earthquake indicate that it might have occurred on the Hosgri fault, and (2) that the information on the length of the Hosgri fault warranted assuming such an earthquake."
January 19, 1976 Letter from applicant submitting a report entitled, "A Discussion of the Application of the Migration Process to Western Geophysical i
~
Company Seismic Reflection Line W74-12 in the Vicinity of the Hosgri Fault Zone, in the Area Offshore from the Diablo Canyon Power Plant Si_te," in partial
-c
-,. ~ *
,,,e.--
. - - - - n
.n v
o..
.n
=..
.o
~
<l
)
)
23 -
response to a request for informa-tion dated November 14, 1976 and requesting that the report be withheld from public disclosure as proprietary data (cover letter attached).
January 21, 1976 Staff memorandum regarding upcoming meeting with PG&E on USGS geologic review (attached).
January 28, 1976 Staff memorandum summarizing meeting with Newmark, Hall and USGS (attached, plus February 2, 1976 supplement).
"It was generally agreed that progress had been made at the meeting.
The staff's engineering concerns, while more fully expressed, were not apparently alleviated to any significant degree. They now constitute the major barrier to timely and favorable resolution of the matter."
pq February 2, 1976 Submittal of Amendment No. 39.
February 4, 1976 Meeting with Newmark and Hall to discuss geology and seismology.
(February 17, 1976 meeting summary attached.)
"We agreed to inform the applicant of the essential points of our program and to indicate the merit of his independent pursuit of a parallel program since we would not expect to make a conclu-sion on the issues involved until he has provided his analysis and conclusions.
The applicant should be able to complete his work before we complete ours."
February 5,1976 Meeting with applicant and USGS to discuss geology and seismology.
(March 4, 1976 meeting summary attached.)
"The purpose of the meeting was to discuss the differences of opinion which had arisen regarding geology and seismology at this site, to hear PG&E's views regarding such differences and to give PG&E our views and those of the USGS."
March 2, 1976 1.etter from applicant submitting a report entitled, "A Discussion of the Application of the Migration Process to Western Geophysical
o~
6
.5e.
1 1
. Company Seismic Reflection Line W74-12 in the Vicinity of the Hosgri Fault Zone, in the Area Offshore from the Diablo Canyon Power Plant Site," which consti-tutes a nonproprietary version of the information submitted January 19,1976 (attached).
March 2,1976 Submittal of Amendment No. 41.
March 23,1976 Meeting with Newmark and USGS to discuss seismic design., (March 26, 1976 meeting summary attached.)
"Dr. Newmark had looked at several approaches for arriving at an effective engineering acceleration to be used in evaluating the Diablo Canyon design. He briefly described the approaches and ground response spectrum that they would lead to using the USGS N
recommendation as an input."
March 26,1976 Letter from applicant submitting velocity ifata related to the Western Geophysical Company offshore survey records submitted previously and requesting proprietary treat-ment for the velocity data (cover letter attached).
April 1,1976 Staff memorandum reviewing progress regarding site specific design spectra for Diablo Canyon (attached).
April 12,1976 Meeting with Newmark to discuss seismic design considerations.
(April 16,1976 meeting summary attached.)
April 16,1976 Staff memorandum summarizing the review of PG&E request for proprie-tary treatment (attached).
April 20,1976 Meeting with applicant to discuss seismic design.
(May 18,1976 meeting summary attached.)
.... ~ -.
o
)
)
' "PG&E representatives stated that, although they did not agree that the earthquake magnitude should be 7.5, they would proceed with the analysis as quickly as possible."
April 20, 1976 Staff memorandum regarding Bernreuter's progress (attached).
April 21, 1976 Staff memorandum summarizing conversation with San Luis Obispo newspaper reporter (attached).
April 21, 1976 Staff letter forwarding USGS reports to California Energy Commission (attached).
April 22, 1976 Staff memorandum regarding conflict of interest question associated with Newmark (attached).
April 29, 1976 Letter from USGS to NRC staff 0%EUWR providing report on Diablo Canyon (attached).
"For reasons stated in subsequent parts 6f this review, however, the magnitude of the design basis earthquake for the Diablo Canyon nuclear reactor site should be about 7.5 and located on the Hosgri fault zone.
This is based principally on the fact that the November 4, 1927 earthquake had a magnitude of 7.3 and that the best estimates of its location indicate that it could have occurred on the Hosgri fault.
Furthermore, the range in magnitude is compatible with the largest recorded or estimated magnitudes of earthquakes that have occurred on subsidiary faults in the San Andreas system."
May 11, 1976 Supplement No. 4 to the Safety Evaluation Report issued (attached).
"The U.S. Geological Survey concluded that a magnitude 7.5 earthquake could occur on the Hosgri fault. As stated in Appen-dix C to this supplement, the Survey's report is intended to form a basis for deriving an effective acceleration for input into the process leading to seismic design analysis (which in this case ~will be a reevaluation of the seismic capabilities of the Diablo Canyon Nuclear Power Station)."
L-.
- -. w..x a :..
.w..:
=a 2-:
- .= = ~
- ;. =-
e 4
)
)
"We have adopted the U.S. Geological Survey's assessment as a conservative = representation on the earthquake potential of the Hosgri fault."
May 12, 1976 Submittal of Amendment No. 42.
May 21, 1976 ACRS Subcommittee meeting in San Luis Obispo, California.
(June 7,1976 meeting sumary attached.)
June 10, 1976 Meeting with applicant to discuss seismic design reevaluation.
(June 30, 1976 meeting sumary 4
attached.)
"Dr. Newmark and the staff agreed to transmit Dr. Newmark's draft report to the ACRS to form a basis for discussion at the ACRS Subcomittee meeting on June 25 and June 26, 1976.
Before transmitting the report some modifications would be made by t.g Dr. Newmark. The report would remain in draft form.
In partic-ular, the exact form of the design response spectra would be considered tentative pending further discussion and a review of PG&E's proposals (which had not yet been. received)."
June 23, 1976 Meeting with applicant to discuss seismic design reevaluation.
(July 6, 1976 meeting summary attached.)
"The applicant intended to document the spectra, along with a i
l description of their derivation, in an FSAR amendment.
We told the applicant that we would need to review the FSAR amendment before we could reach a staff conclusion concerning the spectra."
June 24, 1976 Submittal of Amendment No. 43.
June 25-26, 1976 ACRS Subcommittee meeting in San Luis Obispo, California.
(July 30, 1976 meeting summary attached.)
July 6, 1976 Letter to applicant stating that velocity data submitted March 26, 1976 would be withheld from public disclosure pursuant to 10 CFR Part 2.790 (attached).
a-
~ ~..... -.. -.
s
)
July 8,1976 ACRS Full Committee meeting in Washington,D.C.,(July 30, 1976 meeting summary attached).
July 29,1976 Submittal of Amendment No. 44.
July 29,1976 Submittal of Amendment No. 45 including information concerning reevaluation of seismic design capabilities.
August 5, 1976 Staff memorandum regarding com-parisons of design spectra (attached).
August 11, 1976 Heeting with applicant concerning reevaluation of seismic design capabilities.
(August 25, 1976 meeting summary attached.)
m August 27, 1976 Meeting with applicant concerning
~
reevaluation of seismic design capabilities,(September 14, 1976 meeting summary attached).
August 27, 1976 Staff memorandum discussing use of
)
p(attached). roper design response spectra-(
September 7,1976 Meeting with applicant concerning reevaluation of seismic design capabilities (attached).
September 9, 1976 Staff memorandum regarding compar-ison of de'irt spectra (attached).
September 10, 1976 Supp'dn' c F 5 to Safety Evalua-i tion Rfpost u sued (attached).
"Dr. Newmark's report, which is presented in Appendix C to this supplement, discusses the effective horizontal ground accelera-tion (0.75g) and presents the rationale that it is based upon.
As stated in Supplement No. 4 to the Safety Evaluation Report, we have accepted Dr. Newmark's recommendation."
l l
l
-..n
- u -,
a. =,..z:4. e _.w
. -.z =
=.:.=-...
- =.=..:=.. a e
c 4
/
l
.' )
t' October 11. 1976 ACRS Subcommittee meeting.
(October 19, 1976 meeting summary attached.)
November 13, 1976 ACRS Committee meeting.
(December 30, 1976meetingsummaryattached.)
November 23, 1976 Staff memorandum regarding Diablo
~
Canyon seismic reevaluation (attached).
November 24, 1976 Staff memorandum including the staff report provided the ACRS on November 13 1976 (attached).
November 24, 1976 Staff memorandum proposing approaches for clarifying ACRS issues (attached).
November 29, 1976
~
Staff memorandum regarding concerns 888885 of Dr. J. Brune of Scripps Institute (attached).
December 10, 1976 Staff memorandum regarding inter-venor questions on earthquake magnitude (attached).
"The intervenor's attorney has written to the ACRS and the staff questioning whether the Jmagnitude 7.5 earthquake on the Hosgri fault is a sufficient design basis for Diablo Canyon in light of the possible connections of this fault with other faults to the north.
The ACRS has requested that we provide response from USGS."
December 13, 1976 Staff memorandum regarding assign-ment of additional reviewers to Diablo Canyon reevaluation (attached).
December 20, 1976 Letter from ACRS regarding comments and recommendations from consult-ants (attached).
December 27, 1976
,e Staff letter responding to FOIA 7
request regarding Diablo Canyon (attached).
December 29, 1976 Staff memorandum regarding responses to ACRS consultant comments and recommendations (attached).
.,_i....-.._,,,
'T 1
.r.
P 1
I
, s January 5,1977 Meeting with applicant to discuss seismic design reevaluation.
(January 32, 1977 meeting summary attached 4 "PG8E indicated its intention to respond as' fully as possible to all of the concerns raised in the comments.
PG&E had not yet developed specific information concerning the nature of its responses or the schedule for providing them.
PG&E indicated that this specific information would be available in the near future."
January 7,1977 Submittal of Amendment No. 46.
January 10, 1977 Staff memorandum summarizing review of Bernreuter and Hight report on parameters influencing response spectra (attached).
pp January 26, 1977 Staff memorandum summarizing conversation with San Luis Obispo reporter (attached).
February 4,1977 Heeting with applicant to discuss seismic design reevaluation.
(May 18, 1977 meeting summary (attached).
"PG&E presented a specification that describ'ed the methods and criteria proposed for use in reevaluating the major structures.
These proposals were discussed and various changes were made to the specification during the meeting. At the conclusion of the meeting we indicated to PG&E that the proposed methods and criteria, as changed during the meeting, would be acceptable to the NRC staff."
February 14, 1977 Staff memorandum summarizing conversation with Congressional staff (attached).
February 18, 1977 Staff letter to House Subcommittee on Oversight and Investigations pro-viding summaries of reviews conducted by and for the Commission regarding the Diablo Canyon site (attached).
l
~
,e J
}
a
, February 28,.1977 Staff memorandum regarding options for Diablo Canyon review (attached).
tiarch 8,1977 Staff memorandum regarding proposed interim license (attached).
r March 9,1977 Staff memorandum regarding Diablo Canyon licensing options (attached).
!! arch 14,1977 Staff memorandum regarding earth-quake occurrence probability data (attached).
March 24,1977 Staff memorandum regarding ability tions requested (attached).
March 24,1977 Staff memorandum providing a status report on Diablo Canyon (attached).
WIAiiil86 March 25, 1977 Staff letter in response to an F0IA request regarding Diablo Canyon (attached).
March 31, 1977 Staff letter to House Subcommittee Mlpn Energy and the Environment re-jdsp inanner in which the regulatory process has handled the seismic problem," at the Diablo Canyon site (attached).
April 7, 1977 Staff letter in response to an F0IA request regarding Diablo Canyon (attache.
April 29,1977 Meeting with applicant on siesmic design.
(June 14,1977 meeting summary attached.)
"PG&E had also expressed its intention to apply for an interim operating license for Diablo Canyon to allow plant operation while the seismic reevaluation was being completed. The material needed to justify such an int.erim license application had previ-ously been outlined by the NRC."
"PG&E described the systems which they had selected for reanal-ysis prior to applying for en interim license, and we discussed the rationale behind their selections."
~. ~ - -
./
+
f 1 May 3,1977 Meeting with applicant on seismic design.
(June 29,1977 meeting summary attached.)
"In a letter dated March 13, 1977 to the Chairman of the Califor-nia Energy Resources Conservation and Development Commission, the NRC staff had outlined the material that the staff believed would be necessary to justify an interim operating license that would allow plant operation while the seismic reevaluation was being completed."
"The purpose of the meeting was to discuss further details concerning this material."
June 2,1977 Meeting with applicant on seismic design.
(June 29,1977 meeting summary attached.)
"In order to justify a full term operating license, PG&E would ggy'l 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."
June 3, 1977 Staff letter to House Subconmittee on Oversight and Investigations pro-viding additional information con-cerning Diablo Canyon review (attached).
June 21-23,1977 ACRS Subcommittee meeting.
(July 15, 1977 meeting summary attached.)
June 30,1977 Staff testifies before Subcommittee on Energy and the Environment of the House Interior and Insular Affairs Committee (transcript attached).
July 14, 1977 Supplement No. 6 to the Safety Evalu-ation Report issued (attached).
July 18,1977~
Staff memorandum regarding release of internal documents requested by Repre-sentative Udall (attached).
July 28,1977 Staff memorandum including)ACRS con-sultant comments (attached.
- -Nl. t
(
(
f 3
.l
~ m October 14, 1977 Staff letter to PG&E regarding schedule for review of interim operating license request (attached).
t I
fr r & tr.- 3 9/
o A-%
..