ML16340A298
| ML16340A298 | |
| Person / Time | |
|---|---|
| Site: | Diablo Canyon  |
| Issue date: | 11/30/1978 |
| From: | Ballard R Office of Nuclear Reactor Regulation |
| To: | Murphy E AFFILIATION NOT ASSIGNED |
| References | |
| NUDOCS 7812110040 | |
| Download: ML16340A298 (4) | |
Text
Docket Nos.'0-'27
. and GO-323 D
O Distribution:
Docket File (Environ)
EP-1 Rdg OELD SKirslis/RLBallard NSlater Ns. Ellyn Hurphy 5524 Murphy Notor May
- Nalibu, CA 90265 CO CO 00
Dear 'Ns. Hurphy:
This is in response to your letter of"October 30, 1978, in which you bring up several concerns about the Diablo Canyon and Sundesert nuclear reactors.
lilith regard to your question about the Hosgri fault, this feature has
'een reviewed extensively by the staff over the last five years.
The results are described in Supplements 1, 5, 6, 7 and 8 to the Safety Evaluation Report for Diablo Canyon.
These supplements are available for 'your inspection at the local Public Document Room at San Luis Obispo County Free Library, P.O.
Box X, San Luis Obispo, California.
As a result of these examinations, the plant has been extensively modified to upgrade the seismic design for a more severe earthquake.
The seismic considerations are summarized and the plant modifications described in Supplement 7, a copy of which is enclosed.
You next inquire about the effect of advances in solar and conservation technologies on electrical load projections.
The staff expects these
'dvances to result in some'owering of electrical
- demand, although factors such as the state of the economy and the price elasticity of electricity may have more important effects.
However, the decision whether to operate'he Diablo Canyon reactors after they are constructed, will be made on the basis of operating costs, compared to those of existing plants.
Fuel costs are a large component of operating costs,"
and nuclear fuel is cheaper than fossil fuel.
Therefore, operating
'costs would be smaller for a nuclear plant than for one fired by fossil fuel.
I I will attempt to respond to the gist of your coments on the NEPA.
There are, of course, sizable adverse environmental impacts associated with the construction and operation of any large power plant, whether nuclear or fossil-fired.
In the Final Environmental Statement, these impacts were identified and weighed against the benefit to be derived froe a large block of electrical energy.
- Further, the staff concluded that no alternative method for generating electricity would lead to orr<co&
CUIIHAM+W
~
~
~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~
~ ~
~ ~ ~ ~
~ ~ ~
~
OATEN'XC FORM 318 (9.76) NRI 0240 U e oovolIHMCHT PHIHTIHo orrlccI I eye aee yee
V
smaller environmental costs.
In recent environmental statements, the health effects of generating power from nuclear fuel and from coal are
- compared, taking into account the complete fuel cycle from mining to waste disposal.
The nuclear health effects including those on miners and plant workers were determined to be smaller than the effects of the coal fuel 'cycle.
The staff findings, therefore, do not support your concerns that the Diablo Canyon project "seems especially threatening to healthful life".
Enclosed is a notice of an evidentiary hearing on seismic issues to be
, held on December 4, 1978.
The hearing will be held before a three-member Atomic Safety and Licensing Board chaired by an administrative law judge, Mrs. Elizabeth Bowers.
The technical members are Dr.
Milliam E. Martin and Mr. Glenn 0. Bright.
The legal status of the NRC staff is as one of the parties presenting evidence to the Board.
I hope the remarks above have been responsive to your concerns.
Me appreciate your interest in nuclear issues and shall be pleased to answer any further questions you may have about the reactor licensing process.
Sincerely yours, 4ldoderf/. ~~ +>~
Ronald L. Ballard, Chief Environmental Projects Branch 1
Division of Site Safety and Environmental Analysis
Enclosures:
As stated Record Note:
This information was telephoned to Ms. Murphy 11/30/78.
S DS
, 1/
/78 1/g//<