ML20212M650
| ML20212M650 | |
| Person / Time | |
|---|---|
| Site: | 05000000, Diablo Canyon |
| Issue date: | 01/22/1978 |
| From: | White M WHITE, M.P. |
| To: | Mckinley J Advisory Committee on Reactor Safeguards |
| Shared Package | |
| ML20150F500 | List:
|
| References | |
| FOIA-86-391 NUDOCS 8608260429 | |
| Download: ML20212M650 (2) | |
Text
.
(
t MERIT P. WHITE CoNsutilNo ENGINff t wwAmy. uAssacHusetts 01093 p i'.7,g No 5 3845
. C~
January 22, 1978 Mr. John C. McKinley, Chief Project F.eviev 3 ranch :io. 1 Advisory Co Jaittee en ?.eactor 3afeguards
- iuclear ?.egulatory Cora.iss:.on Washington, D.C. 20335 Sear John:
Ihis is a short reper of v participation in the Staff audit of the seisnic design of the Diablo Canyon :iuclear Plant last week. I was there frca Monday norning (16th) to Thursday noen (19th). I was encouraged by Sena.silison an'd Jin Knight to participate fully in all parts of the operaticn, including Staff caucuses.
The first T.crnin; was occupied by a fairly la ge grcup nesting with ?G-Z staff and :cnsultants with several presentations and questien perieds.
Ihe audit, folicwin-the outline of the audit forns produced by the :?.C Staff, began that afternoon with the Turbine Euilding and took place at the offices of John 31une, the seismic consultant. Progress on that first day was slew and disa: pointing to nost of us, with cnly abcut 20 percent of the Turbine Suildinr cutline be-ing finished. In retrospect, it appea s that this was not only due to working in a new nede cut to the cc':nlexity of the struct:ral resisting cc penents of that building and to the fact that originally it had not been a Class I struc-tu e, but had had to be rein" creed with an assortnent of added strength co nc-nents located here and there throughout the st teture.
Cn the fellcw'ng days pregress was nere rapid in ipite of there being a gcod deal of one-to-one in-depth discussion while the rest of the grcup listened. Cn the other hs.nd there vas plenty of in-depth discussien involving all er nest of the poup.
Incident-ally, the working group was never large - i to 10 usually - with changes en the
?C+I side according to which building was under consideration.
It wa= covious that both sides had done their hcnexcrk... cst of the coints of the 3taff could be answered irrisdiately and some requir?c getting rat'erial er per:cns to the r.eeting. There were a nu::ber of inco plete analyses reported.
There were also not few situaticas where revisicns wou'.d be required.
A couple of fundar: ental problens were unearthed. One inJolves the.-ethod used for analysin piping. Fren the verbal and written descriction of the precess we were unable to decide te what e:cten it.vas equivalent to the'cne raed fcr structures, or even if i:
s tech.ically acceptable. This questien --ill at further attention during the fi:st day of the second week of -J.e auriit (23d)
Then nenbers of both,he Stru tures and the Mechanical $quirnen 3rrnches will be en head.
8608260429 860801 PDR FOIA PDR HOUGH 86-391 l
Pbr A %-29/
l A -Ice
2
(
(
l
~
o# -
Another probl:n that will require exploration is the use of s;nthetic ground notions for analyzin; equipment which has gaps in it, so that internal irracts occur during a disturbance, as f, thn aase fa" certair ; aacter int- -. For s;rsta.u whose equatiens of notion are effectively linear (nost structures.
machinery, piping without gaps, etc.) synthetic inputs give the sar.e.cdal re-sponses as actual grour.d notions having the same spectra, so. hat it nakes no difference what s.'nthetic input is used.
.ith non-li.nea systens, such as
~
ones ha7ing gaps so that 'rgacts CCour durin;" a r9sponse, it Can -:h diff-e erence.
The question is: hc*r ; raat is the difference, and has ~.lesti cheuse
'vhich is anal;-.1-- the reactor) considered the question.
This Mll be dis-cussed during the audit sessions with destinghouse eng.Meers cheduled for January 31 and Ie'eraary 1.
I have an excellent in.uression of the entire overttion. It uas well conceived and vent well. It brought together the vorkine level n. eon.le of both sides with the opportunit.r for infornals in-depth exploration of what had be been done and also what had to be done. l'here was no trace of cen'rentation as happens sone-times at hearings with a sizable audience of high-level af.i.is+~ ters.
It appe red to ne that no one remnbered whether he ::as ucrki.g for 70-3 or for
' :C.
7cr one thing, this nesting vent far to ans'rer the criticisn I cnce heard fron an intervenor, to the effect that while the California Zepartnent of 3nild-
- .3..:.c. 2."e ',- (-
=_
_4 vo.h..r.' ) c'.e ck.s t'.a.
d a. ta_d '.a. d de.e. _d.. c' m ~ ^' ' c '.*.._' 1d.'.es
.m r
c._.
in Califo nia, the '.3.0 does not do the same for nuclear reactors.
(Cf course, the '.3.0 dcas not have the personnel for this, but these audits alicu the 3taff to de considerable checking and to get an excellent idea of the quality and thorcupness cf the analysis and design of a reactor.)
For I /self, this was an interesting and re?a-ding assignnent and I hope that 1.C7.3 will continue to.ca-ticin. ate in such crerations :.-ith.vself and other con-sultants.
r da I telephened ycur effice en Friday and lea ned f'ren ?. ort that ; cu had the Flu.
I hope ver.r.-cch that this finds.v. ou batter. I plan to le in.icur office en e*cc ang e 7 o.anuar7 and lcCk forWarG..to see r.g you.
c o
'. lith best regards, n
"N
.. erit ?. %ite a.