ML20212M201

From kanterella
Jump to navigation Jump to search
Ack Receipt of SA Silver Request for Info Re Structural Engineering Design Criteria of Seismic Category I & II Sys & Components
ML20212M201
Person / Time
Site: 05000000, Diablo Canyon
Issue date: 07/03/1975
From: Deyoung R
Office of Nuclear Reactor Regulation
To: Anthony Giambusso
Office of Nuclear Reactor Regulation
Shared Package
ML20150F500 List: ... further results
References
FOIA-86-391 NUDOCS 8608250411
Download: ML20212M201 (1)
v • d • e


Text

___

~~

'[

[

\\

h; <

.}

s.,

9 m

1 n

-W:

W.W m (Q-.:t m..?m ~,.... t...R:! 6

~

~-

9..,

~,

MMt'.4 ' k... t.M. :,R.;..,,,:.

,A,.M..s,.-

. ~ a. c m.

W c

e.

f. $'R.# ' ?i,Nf"

.. ~

Uh~

O' M~ %'C.M%%#$2hM E"Ib M bution*

,Miq#iudnWiM

',{#,.T Q f,1' My!@ Q.$,G lph s,?.3@ -.

gn g

h'.

YFil

.. iETBrarihii niefsYPfM ~'~ P

~

Of 4 [y$'M, $;. S.;.c t,, i MMdd.$N#8,^Je f.

P BSBoMS.$/pe,.$1?Z2MC'. N -

" @Wf3

-a.cn; y.

AG W d h.;?i h T "'i ' -

r am. ~ q' g-,. 91,rr.,.

2.? -+..p % e

..e r-N'?l:

Wfi.-%-!

L

. BCDeY,.,.,

.e v uvd % p.. u.n

.c e.,,.. n~ i -

% JUL.0 -

~ 7 "si, 3

W#We%'

. nnd_

,. f i-3.? 3 E Y '.c2 5 t.

~~

.u.,mg~. -.

-
:E.s?d?RN?%%RWKlic ~

.cW c

e

.$N. d?Wm i,

  • ;C.,nt.,,.,

.... t,,",. A,-J4 :

..~ c,- a.>.

4 :.: s n. MW5 W i b'A' 4,...:%'s A W,.., ~ -.. - S 'A L

..e y.+- w.

.,o ".,39QTJHif'o,,nsrfW'rW4.5,,d 9

J. K.i.p '...

' JAQ.M,gA' Ql$+ D ' ' ~

}.Q,clW.

1 z v.. ;, :R,.y

w. e.g.l, %. u;W,5

'u-

. ~...

~......

. E.n4amhiman,. Director, Diviaica oCEmaate,M*enniww;...-.MR C..

'.:G

- e,, -

- n.. m,,.,

Q' ArIABID CANTON I)EENOGaitRIES. 02.a t.e:.,w.p.

. a.....~..:,.., m

.,a

.....+,.

x..p n.,..m n

,w^

w

- :c D 7 F. M ;i hd:4EtW JO h M /.

~J

<.:. m..a; 4.QS A. W:~3@dfW n.5'.'<

M a.

.. c.. ~., :

c.~

9,,.- :.;.g L.

A x

~

a.

. c a mm..m n.:. -

,,. m m

b N

i' N..: ch

-h y.

3,,,

.n p q g3y.ygg.

Mc- ?Ma'*4 Py W title /, author,iitzves*4ad=[ 3.yp:g.7

~

agN3cypWminr

<i

,'.. 'date,' ani cingGaticerdate,f allistu11eskinves+45*4=aE..

'.:L. reportsAmenorsoda;14u "iise,iani. ether /a==**ae.9 L

, ?.,i.lf,$ertmirdry totthilfst:ructtzratengineerdigdaidgri,'ciritieria "&

-j w r 4 '

+5e -

y y4.i,4, g,.and

rzdM- - / s_,.za_

a g

. G ir e m -

ws Wwemm-mf

^'!-

- '*:^

which atop b'.?;&a,.5

[

^

Y

'A.

Caepleted RvI.,. g. ~ N - - ', l C 1

B.JIn y' ogress i

- C.

Pro,1ected fe the f\\rture." '

{

. e.,

r l

i The attaahd awmennha arx1 note frun me.to you may. fall within the d

cateEpry of irIrarweim requested. If released, they may cause slight charw-art to the staff.

}

t

,! ]q We have requested that CELD (Perry Seiffert); determine whether or not f

these notes fall within the scope of infamatieri requested and, if so, m

to Mmma it with you ani E. G. Case before listing thes in our response d< m-to the interrogatory. We expect that CEID will want to list than arx1 I

will be contacting you in the near ftzture.

Original signed byt B,.C, DeYoung R. C. DeYoung, Assistant Director fe Light Water Reactors Group 1 Division of Reactor Licensing nv-inmmes:

1 As Stated cc:

E. G. Case P. Seiffert vi -

p g

E.

M._

orric e >

.2... ;4

PS f.

g

- ~ -

ptg-ps:n :

pw 4 - y,. c =ar= *a. dy g_.__

a-36.

s ABCM0$M

  1. u. se sovannasswv rainvine orrscue s.74.sas.see Poenn ABC.)l3 (Rev. 9-53.)y

,.g,,w.pe h.3,.

,8 = - M'A m.nt_~._t

  • _ _

e

.a _

WM MUJ W

MR Vfygg N M I O U N M @ M'~NfM @ B N D , ; ijkbb@ NUCt. EAR. REG.ULATORY COMMISSION. d i -? 7, 'e ' Y.c p ' wAss NoT6N,6.' C. 305'55 .T. ' E!ik....1 a m.v w 6..wi.r y, + .i %%gp dad-%iw -~ 3f WJ;. L .. 4, q%yyy { February 11,1975 w Y# ' Docket Nos. 50-275 i. ',"f' _ gi and 50-323 .n A. Giambusso, Director, Division of Reactor Licensing a;.: DIABLO CANYON REVIEW .The following table pro'vides key dates associated.with the Diablo %h Canyon case: -i Unit 1 Unit 2 CP Application 1/16/67 6/28/68 CP Issued 4/23/68 12/9/70 . r7/10/735 WieyA7/10/73.hg;.ra b.. :c. c %ky.u so/ OL Application ~, ,g We and our consultants (U. S. Geological Survey and U. S. Coast and Geodetic Survey) concurred with the applicants' selected geological 3 and seismological bases for design. This included an SSE of 0.4g. We and our consultant (N. M. Newmark) concurred with the applicants' selected criteria for seismic design, including the design spectra and damping values and the methods to be used for the design. i At the current time Unit 1 construction is over 90% complete and the fuel load date is estimated to be about November of this year. The fuel' load date for Unit 2 is estimated to be about nine months later. ws., Our OL review is nearing completion. The SER with a few notable ~ [ omissions was issued on October 16, 1974. The principal omission I was our assessment of the geology and seismology for the site. New information had become available during the course of our OL review and our evalt.ation and that of the U. S. Geological Survey was not l complete at the time the SER was issued. An SER Supplement was prepared for issuance on January 31, 1975. The staff had tentatively concluded that, considering the new information available, an SSE value of 0.5g would be appropriate for the site. The staff had also ,OY L.D Z t N /**% ( m ~

7 g i ii,b.lNisiciLiai . 3.M!%.. ~ u , J _b ,s 2 p f ,.i... u. , m..- k.x. m c J .. j; .?MQ b /. g.2.g...gpgy.t.hfk.g.,mFebruary' 11,:1975 -%. x. @.s.@g r..jp.A..,,Gi. ambusso. m g 3a.y ..,y 3 . t..,. g.,j, g. ~ i t-JI-p 7 N y;, l "Yde,termined ' that the 'as'-built $a'cility vould be able to withstand i .. 2M(91 N ^y$ Tsuch an, acceler' cion but with little'or nola'rgin fde'many elements a 'of the design. The staff expected that its. consultant's (U.~ 5. _[ l Geological Survey) report would not conflict with its tentative A conclusion on the 0.5g value. The Survey's -report was received on -w e ~ January 28, 1975, and staff representatives met with representatives .4 of the Survey on January 31, 1975, to discuss the Survey's position. WTF; The significant aspect of that position is that the Survey,.on the tim basis of now available information, believes that an acceleration . %:Q! $.- M$ A..in. excess of 0.5g is more appropriate for the Diablo' Canyon site. /M .. g.. t, ; .y . ~.9 We have met internally on this problem.several times in the recent

'E past up to the Assistant Director level. On the basis of these discussions, my opinion of the situation and steps that need to be considered is as follows

1. The applicant is aware of the current status and is attempting .y@p %g,cquire addit'ionaliinformatio'n? 'o al'enr# iisnSENey.' drop' inion F ' " W N4 Y V t t It expects to submit additional information about March 1,1975. The assessment of that information by the Survey and the staff p will result in an SER Supplement about May 1,1975. The ACRS 'g has scheduled a two-day Subcommittee meeting at the site for February 18 and 19. However, the Committee will probably not consider the Diablo Canyon application until its June meeting. v l Because of the nature of the problem and the "hard" decision that must be made, I would anticipate a second meeting might j be necessary two months after the first meeting unless the staff can propose a strong policy-type decision at the first meeting. In any event, the application is strongly contested and I would anticipate that the PDD will be later than the date .M g at which Unit 1 will be ready to load fuel. - 2. The current "best guess" of our geology-seismology staff is that l the final Survey position may well relax from its present state (the present position would result in an SSE value of about 0.7g) but will not likely result in an SSE value less than about 0.6g. The current "best guess" of our structural-mechanical staff is that the current design will not be able to be demonstrated to be acceptable for a seismic loading in excess of 0.5g. An extensive reanalysis could be undertaken by the applicant but will probably sho'w that some parts of the plant are capable of 4 l 1 [ $_.: 9'f,d 'Qe,:,;[, y 7:4 ; M ; Q M ;;;;,N [, ,,v

WWW f~~"7 T* ~~ . 4p% lll M T " M i I.! as i I, ., c l WMOMBB,.1C;,,2 4'% a f.q,"We ,m Mim 3 "'"m g M.".. l y. . w .., m. m.' 11,' 1975?.~ Q y.) l 4,M;. n, .w ..m .M. iambusso' j

  • p p February o j py_<w.,

1!!!h@T.1

  • $;W; y y ~ s..

< : a. l.7 \\d$ N N$ivithstanding various loadings in excess ~of 0.4g, 0.5g,.0.6g, W. C ' '.:Mid yh s ( and 0.7g, but that other vital parts. vill not have such ' capability. ,y(3 @ 'e Some increase in capability is possible 'from design changes that 9 might be undertaken but changes sufficient to bring the design y 9' up to a 0.6-0.7g capability are impractical. The design c reanalysis could take up to a year or two to complete. ' W - 3.; The staff is faced with a horrendous backfit decision. The

  1. g.h decision will likely be based on both technical and policy

-h% j.M P 5 g 2 ;,.,q,._ considerations. Uhile the technical considerations may be altered by additional information that may develop during the next month ..?$$ ' or so, the degree of alteration 'is not expected to be signifi-s cant. Therefore, the basic problems that will exist and the basic decisions that will need to be made are known at this time. Those who will be involved in the policy decisions (the Commission cannot be involved according to T. Englehardt) should become 3.j.gg n.,. g';knowledgeablejith; the. situation =as soon as pract,icable.wsince.s:wt%;w%@ the policy decisions will be influenced by the technical facts and practicalities involved, early involvement in the on-going technical review may be prudent. The earliest and most direct means of understanding the technical issues is prob' bly through a attendance at the February 18-19, 1975 Subcommittee meeting at the site. The Subcommittee will consist of Dr. Okrent and Dr.' Bush (and perhaps L. Fox). In addition, up to eight ACRS l consultants will participate. A copy of our meeting notice and the agenda for the meeting is attached. The proposed attendance by Dr. Coulter of the Geological Survey is indicative of the seriousness of the Survey's concern in the matter. 4:3 4. Consideration might also well be given to: a. Strengthening the legal contingent assigned to the case. In addition, a review might be made of the assigned ASLB to assure the level of credentials and experience is con-sistent. with the task that is to be faced. 1 I b. Strengthening the engineering staff by providing for special consulting advice from groups and individuals such as Newmark Associates, Franklin Institute. Dr. J. Hendrie, etc. e% .-.7 l 0 8

., s

_ [ \\ 'a ? =-*3m Im2 'b- .%h - 2 m. s.

  • CC

_hwd Lm_5"._'ss_'. u.i g q ggh 'g Q g* g-gg3g {%. t 'p. 4 %gi}

= e wel,-

  • $ 'g e. 'f '

O g ~ a.c. ;v... ~., 2 :.......W... ..y c-. n:,... m .. y.......,1,s,...... c' y u..xm g:, :c. gm.gTi cw.s,. .. -;,.. n,.- .u. ~ ..w u.

.g., 99 _

m.~. m mtyy :< g,:,:... v..s g...,, ,,.. w~ :. y. g wyy p; .. 4 I- 'f,Miambusso' l ' j., ,.4.; -.,S,, :,;4 ..%.dtpir@%;$$&ig;; Feb'6 ary 11,il9756. wet,WN! $11 z c';,p;p ng ^ . ~, ;u,y'.qw: : 2 'd ' M :.Mq. r;'.G ".':'. ~ ? d .w y.; :e. 2,.>.5. us. ' a -9. 4 1. c ' '. '. <r - 'c W.f .j'i,M[Qh]W"k* h;; c.. Establishment of a special polEcy[ advisory. group to'. aid

w. h~

^ I )k e the decision-making proces's. This might'inciuda individuals c ~ }!@ Yl]0!s@M such as Dr. Kouts, D. Knuth, R. Minogue, etc.

M

~ I believe the above outlines the present situation as we in LWR-1 ', - V@@ view it. I strongly recommend your immediate attention to this problem. ig:fii ~ ag w:' ; s

  • +

9 .:n Y [ , N.MU. t' ,s $! $c.: 1 3 :x.> > m..s s ' r '.F"594N.* R.' C. D'eYoung, Ass stant' Director 7; e i" '.' '~ for Lip,ht Water Reactors Group 1 k,.M Division of Reactor Licens.ing EN

Enclosure:

~ Meeting Notice .qlNG5'ec?RE St'Boyd' OW "'# M W^2"5MN M86MMMWGhMikWW#WR3.FJ!RJ5% l

0. D. Parr 6-Df Allison l

M T. Ilirono 3..f k

5 l

l l h^.h. T.^NMd3M: e i 1 O e ,. y' ? O e e,..re, e.qoss o n.,.,,, <,..sy,y.,w,,..n,..,..s.s.. s ... ~. d- = e + :i% gbE imbbNbs s.si;Si; s_gf p pt,'yf[y a., Ndg dsppcy di NN_chppd=Spisdb. E f 3 p s

l. ihj :hij ihi !i*h! N E' A . L.. f:t. nwgheUNITED

  • STATES,,G, Lp s

- >:..g.: 7,c, f m , M.,,,,.,hy pw w 3 Nf..Q y g,.g* "'""%*. UKIM p -. 3,, 4, $ NUCLEAR REGULATO.RY.COMMISSiONN ~, O4]Ms A #O4ffUj?k;g} < ( -i--P p ! gir ,1 4.q q i w +, fd . 3. m, ' f %$,, .,.. i '. Y..q ASHI'N GTON. Dj, C.l. 2055S yg' "ggspp } + 4- ...:.~ s c.. };. ' y.5 ,.y Q'W ^ '.+ ' ' ~* ' W M dyji? - ' V h;.7%@.y-Q 2db MN ; February 20, 1975 4 YGl k N N'A} .:. i:,A.,. 9g .i i g;.a3.w$r; g 1 = am ..gyn yig; ..-l;4NoteTo:.A'. Giambusso.

ggmg

..% A. .A " DIABLO CANYON - SEISMIC ISSUES 'iggg pWisp g.p. ;. m - , g AnfACRS Subcommittee meeting to review the Diablo Canyon OL application , gjiM-4, g g, as conducted in San Luis Obispo on February 18 and 19, 1975. w The y gubcommitteeconsisted*ofDr.Okrent (Chairman) and.Dr.' Bush.- In .c ' J/W. (g;,cy; addition,- seven ACRS consultants were in attendance the. first day b y ,, of' the meeting which was devoted almost in its entirety to the seismic $ KF issue. 'Ihc specific matters discussed included geology, seismology, 3$ seismic design, scismic testing, and scismic scram. On the basis .ofimy attendance at the meeting and side discussions with other staff 4g e members, USGS representatives, and applicant and Westinghouse partici- . fi@ . M.g4ssenp'ags,,rf. came away, with, the : following impressionsi:4WWE"87 6 Ehe^Myyg 1. The two main c6ncerns which will det' ermine the SSE "g" value ~ 'are (a) the geological definition (extent) of the Hosgri fault .m. zone, and (b) the seismic event that must be assumed to occur ' q on the offshore fault. I believe that the USGS geologists (lead reviewer - F. McKeown) will maintain their currently indicated position. The "new" information described by the applicant and to be formally documented in the near future is not likely to convince the USGS to alter its current finding. I believe that the "new" information will convince the USGS s that the 1927 Magnitude 7.3 earthquake occurred on a transverse fault and, therefore, need not be considered as capable of pj.g occurring on the Hosgri fault. I believe that the USGS seismologists (J. Devine - Icad reviewer) would conclude that the appropriate "g" value for -the site would be 0.5g if they could assume that the fault length were limited as the appli-cant contends and the 1927 event occurred on a transverse fault. However, if the fault length is determined on the basis of the current USGS geological interpretation, then the seismic event that must be assumed by the USGS seismologists, in order to be consistent with the methodology used for the San Onofre 2/3 evaluation, will result in a site "g" value similar to that determined for the San Onofre site (0.67g). It is my opinion % D ,, M,, +1 ,n r UTro4 y ( k,h'I&' z.# N:./_ _ _ 4 - 36 ? Y v fora- %-391 . ~ m . hdd4 $ $dkP' u s NP a '#aW 4.SS*w s s r?N

  • *Mi M$r ' ' *-

'!'#h C zb l. ss s s

j l N k.$ M O M1) M @ h _ D > 7 ' ) [ ~ ~~ ) ~ E '3 ,., J. f$$[7 & )V?k Q M f k,2 -g g g M g & y.% 'g.;;Februaryg0,; 197 f Y"V&b I4 G g buss'o g y& g g)/..i. & %g.. e, - %j *

  1. pf. ??.g.':r' < e.

. g;ggi}}Qg, q'..pg g'!.g.' p i: .. My)i," ^ ~ .,y,.p,_ ^ ; ~ " lllS y ? .4$N&p[Dpthat ? I % unless specific guidance appropriate to.this; unique._. . O ';.}y"l 4 Np.:.

,/, J : r u.

' cGy,;y 4 4;'%y aituation is provided to the USGS geologists and scissaologists,m T >4X' they will proceed.with their' review basing it upon. their ]g'jg J <;pstandard methods and arrive at a site SSE "g" value,well in - Qg s ' ' M excess of the 0.4g value approved for the CP and used for the g " design of the almost completed plant. ,,Q{ y up s 2. 'The as-built plant has significant margins in its design and , 4.g .it is capable of resisting scismic loads well in excess of l g; . those associated with the 0.4g seismic event assumed. for design. F4 ~ " v. ii h.t.PThe: staf f is presentJy convinced that the design'is? " good" for 9.jj'((' [ a 0.5g event. However, to convince the ACRS and others of this will require 3-6 months of applicant and staff effort.. If an -,j event in the order of 0.6g need be considered, it will be possible gg to show that many parts of the plant can safely resist such 4g loads; however, many parts will need to be modified and very ,g likely for some of these the modifications will not be practical. 1 ' "WFThD6aluations to'hecomplish such ~aissk;i withtthcWigorWthatW a;,wngg g will be required, ill entail years of applicant and staf f effort. s 3. The " tone" of the questions and connents from the ACRS Subcommittec members and the consultants indicated to me that they would find e 0.5g value acceptable and could be convinced that the as-built ?g plant could adequately resist the increased loads associated ~ with the event. However, they are not likely to be convinced unless a rather complete analysis is performed for a 0.5g event and the use-of our currently approved seismic design criteria. To date no such analysis is availabic; the present positions 'of the applicant and the staff as to the ability of the plant to adequately resist a 0.5g event are based on qualitative "g;* a.ssessments supported by a few typical calculations. In summary, as a result of developments during the past week, I continue to believe that, unless specific guidance, support and direction is provided promptly by the upper management levels at MRC and USGS to the " working" 1cvels in the two organizations, positions that do not necessarily reflect.the judgment of upper-level management will be formulated and documented to the extent that later modification will O ? 0 '"(*

  • N

...,,,,,.,.,,y,, m wd u x,.., mm ..u s , a s wma4%g g,

i t !n } s-. , m si .. ~...... 1 c.- .:. m,.... <..,u,x.....m. .a m ..:+n.:<w v.w &613~ - /. .-a.. -:.n + O @m....,:y hm!. cr m. ;.;;.5 y:...e,,.,. x.:. u s; a.*q.,i&y.%c.,, - n. ::r-%.. u; m . ye, :. *.- ..e y :. <.. y.. ' '. - 1;.

s. -
s :

b MYi:$Td . > '.. t, 1 - w h,iambussoff, k/dQ T2INI.D.'/3' ? 8U?*.5'N-h8[1pMW4W A W,% IIDI.TlN bM 8$ E l-Jkik% f, ' E.',I2 I ' February ~ i 7, 3.9.. 3,.,, 4.%.. R ^k -- 3.;-y,aW,:

d. j "tg, s.s.. G

<c .r a 5 kl.l:.. ,...i!... . / i 4, h,. yII5',[','..' I.,, i.#. ', ' '2.y,' ' j 1.- ..,o j. '3$[Ih) E ' d !c,s,Q.h d'.] (,2. x - ?$7~'%.. .. people intended to have further - 3. 1 (:;MQ@Dd 'y p -O.ha 1.- " nh be: difficult. " Harold Denton and his ...w i..

g. s F#

5 '. discussions with their. USGS counterparts.during the evening 'of ',7.dij.iO M$! 3 Feb'ruary.18 and perhaps on February 19..- I suggest that upon his ci40!)!h7lli; return,.RL and TR meet at the appropriate Icvel to discuss this critical n,.wegs ' situation and agree on a course of action to be followed. - , :1p.,, .%is ?!i!@ h!!!!! :h. /b '!![t+ -m

  • ks!!p j-

/ 60:+ R. C.'DeYoung'/ [/, f 'I v3..*. .4-f$ a' cc: R. Boyd - m y@i O. Parr T. lirons . Allison, s p o u r.q,s,.+ e. w q.3. u p e m ..~ a .c. . v..;. re.,.,,:,. ca.,,y y.,,m g.g g g

  1. '.b ae w

NdB I l l l i + iroIA 8t,-39/ p,y m ,,}}

Retrieved from "https://kanterella.com/w/index.php?title=ML20212M201&oldid=3996166"