ML16340A570
| ML16340A570 | |
| Person / Time | |
|---|---|
| Site: | Diablo Canyon  |
| Issue date: | 08/20/1979 |
| From: | Gossick L NRC OFFICE OF THE EXECUTIVE DIRECTOR FOR OPERATIONS (EDO) |
| To: | Panetta L HOUSE OF REP. |
| Shared Package | |
| ML16340A571 | List: |
| References | |
| NUDOCS 7909280234 | |
| Download: ML16340A570 (10) | |
Text
c9O O
DISTRIBUTION CCENEE LC 1
MLL 2222-16-2666 NRR R/F,";,
zenith PDR pUG g p jg MAB R/f TRehm LPDR DSE:SA R/f RRyan Courtesy Copy LVGossick HShapar HDenton/ECase JCook HBerkow EDO R/F DVasallo 'Ertter (EDO 06859)
FSchroeder MGroff a
DEisenhut llEKreger OGC CPaul The Honorable Leon E. Panetta OCA AFerguson United States House of Representatives h
IIashtngton, 0.
C.
20515 ggIlIQ)itljtI(gg~~tIEg ~~
Dear Congressman Panetta:
l'III'1 Thank you for your letter of July 13, 1979 addressed to Chairman Hendrie in which you identified several -issues for our consideration regarding the Diablo Canyon nuclear power plant Unit l.
As you have noted in your letter, the licensing of that facility is now pending before the Commission.
Because of that fact, it was deemed inappropriate for the Chairman or a Commissioner to respond personall'y to your letter since the Commission will be reviewing the rulings and decisionsoof the ppesiding Atomic Safety and Licensing Board.
Such rulings and de'cisions will deal with the very matters you have raised in your letter.
Accordingly, the Chairman has requested me to respond to your letter.
It is my pleasure to do so.
In your letter you state your concern about the adequacy of emergency planning for the Diablo Canyon plant.
As a result of our ongoing review of the,~Three Mile Island accident, NRC has established a plan to review the emergency plans for all operating reactors and those operating license applications which are near completian.
This review will incorporate the recommendations of the joint EPA/NRC task 'force and the guidance of Regulatory Guide 1.101, Emergency Planning for Nuclear Power Plants, as well as the experience gained at Three Mile Island.
Although'the details of this review, including its schedule, are still in preparation, we expect that the Diablo Canyon plant will receive a high priority.in this review.
Mith regard to the earthquake resistance of. the Diablo Canyon Plant, compre-hensive public-hearings, on this matter were held by an Atomic Safety and Licensing Board over approximately a two month period.
These hearing's were completed on February.15, 1979.
Many of the nation's leading authorities in seismic design, including Drs. Trifunac and= Luco, testified at thege hearings and were subject to cross examination.
The Licensing Board is
=-
currently in the prot:ess of, ppeparing its decision regarding
.%he licensing of Diablo Canyon based on the record of these proceedings.
Subsequent to the issuance of the Licensing Board's decision all parties have the opportunity for appeal to an Atomic Safety and Licensing Appeal Board;"in any event the designated appeal board will conduct a'sua sponte review of the-record.
Should the record be found deficient the appeal board may,either 'remand the matter to the licensing board for further hearings, request additional testi-mony from the parties or required the parties to appear for further hearings by the 'a eal board.
The culmination of this nrocess should
.ield a thorou h
orrIcc~
OQRNAMCW DATCW ring o e
esepproceedi action.
umerous argum gs..and-shoul4 nts an count d4spR"any"Ull r arguments ffere t roug ertainty-as-o-the.carry out course"~ -;
- ----'((8' NRC PORN 518 (976) NRCM 0240 Q U,~, OOVCRNMCNT ~IIINTINOOrrICCI I ~ 7 ~
aaa 7 ~ 7
A V
I+\\ It
/
l.l~~
il I
P, A
)
I I
j C
I-kg tg
QI1y The Honorable Leon E. Panetta'2 Concerning the third issue you raised on Class 9 accidents, we BM;-ieve that there has been substantial progress made on better understanding Class 9
accidents and the general implications Class 9 accidents have on the safety of nuclear power.
The Reactor Safety Study stands at present as the most "comprehensive source of information on Class 9 accidents.
Although the Lewis Report (NUREG/CR-0400, September 1978) points to a number of
'ifficulties'n the Reactor Safety Study that pertain to the estimation of
'ccident probabilities, it also contains a detailed discussion oF both the achiejements and the limitations of, the RSS.
In recognition of the Lewis Report findings NRC did not repudiate the RSS, but indicate'd in its Statement on Risk Assessment dated January 18, 1979, that':
"MASH-1400 was largely successful in at least three ways; in making the study of reactor safety more rational, in 'establishing the topology of many accident sequences, and in delineating procedures
- through vihich quantitative <e'htimates of the risk can be derived for, those sequences for which a data base exists."
"Despite its shortcomings, MASH-1400 provides at this time the most complete single picture of accident probabilities associhMd
'ith nuclear reactors.
The fault-tree/event-tree approach coupled with an adequate daty base is the best available tool with which to quantify these probabilities,"
".MASH<<1400 made clear the importance to reactor safety discussions
. of accident consequences other than early. fatalities."
Mith regard to.a study of Class 9 accidents at Diablo Canyon: Pacific Gas and Electric conducted an indepth: evaluation of the increas'ed risk to the public from seismically induced Class 9 accidents.
This study was submitted to the NRC as Amendment 52, "Hosgri Seismic Evaluation," to the Diablo Canyon Safety Apalysis Report.
')he NRC Office of Nuclear Regulatory Research, Proba-bi$istic Analysis Staff, qeviewed the applicant's analysis and wrote the attached memoranda dated December 30, 1977, and April 26, 1978.
In summary, the Research staff found that "because of, the low population, density around the Diablo Canyon site {in comparison to other existing reactor sites in the country),
we concluded that the risk to the public from a seismically induced reactor accident"at Diablo Canyon is lower than the overall risk.associated
, with licensed nuclear power plants similar to those analyzed in the Reactor Safety Study."
Each of the above answers describes our current view or status regarding the concerns you have expressed.
Before Diablo Canyon is licensed to operate, I
can assure you that 'all 'of the safety criteria that-are currently impqsed or th)t are developed from'the Three tlile Island studies will have been applied to the Diablo Canyon plant.
The Commission will have reviewed every appro-ndorsed the analyses OrI )Ca~
DATNW
~ 0
~ ~ I ~
~ ~ ~ ~ OI
~
m'RM SI8 (9.76) RRcbC 0240
~
~
- UoOa OOVOIINMNNTNIIINZINOONNICOI ~ ~ 1 ~
$4$ Tll
~ ~ ~ ~ ~
re ~
~ ~ ~
~ ~ ~
I t ~ ~ ~
~ ~ ~ 0
~ ~ ~
~
~
0 I
/
II I
F b
I' f
l t
I I
l I
A
'E
\\
f
.0$ ~
o I
The Honorab'le Leon E. Panetta 00 3
0 xl that are being. or wi11 be made, to fully establish the safety of the Diablo Canyon'~ggcl ar Plant.
Io' Sincerely,
%~oned) Lee V,Qossicg
'I Lee V; Gossick Executive Director for Operations En closures:
1.
limo fm I.B~ Wall to J.F. Stolz
, td 12/30/7),
2.--
t$ote fm A," Buhl to,S. Levine dtd 4/26/
Input for the WASH-1400 parts was from RES.
RNattson 8/10/79 Iol orrIou~
QURIIADIhW DSE:SA l!EKpeger csp
~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~
~
7/27/79
~ ~ ~ o ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~
0 ~ ~ ~ ~
~ 000 ~ ~ 00 ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~
~
$0/79
~ 0I ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~
~
0 ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~
ran
~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~
~ ~ ~
7/
/79
~ ~ ~ ~ ~
~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~
~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~
~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ oooo Ego ~ ~
~ ~ ~ oooo ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~
D er
~ EDQo ~ ~ ~
~ ~
~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~
~
LVG s ck
~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ 0 ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~
~
$/i /79 oooo's
~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ 0 ~ ~ ~
~ ~ ~ ~ ~
~ 0 ~ ~
~ ~
~
~ ~
~ ~ ~
H\\ ~
~ ~ ~ ~
~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~
~
A/79
~ ~
Mo
~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~
l.
~ ~
~ ~ ~
~ ~
~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~
~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~
~
~ ~ 0 ~
~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~
2e +f
~ ~
~ ~ ~
o ro ~ ~
o ro~ 0 ~ ~ ~
NEC IORM 510 (976) NRCSX 0240 4 Uolo OOVICRNIICNVIoRINTINO OrtICNI I ~ D ~
DD ~ ~ 1 ~ D
's I
~ II 1
> 1 1, r
1 I,
~ p,
~
~
I
~
I I
I
DISTRIBUTION
. ull<<SErY 79-2068
~CL FILE Rsmith pnR NRR R/F TRehm LpDR MAB R/F RRyan Courtesy Copy DSE:SA R/F HShapar LVGossick
'Cook HDenton/ECase EDO R/F HBerkow GErtter (EDO 06859)
DVasallo MGroff FSchroeder WEKreger The Honorable Leon.E. Panetta DEisenhut CPaul United States House of Representatives OGC AFerguson Washington, D. C.
20515 OCA Dear Congressman Panetta'.
I appreci te your further concerns, as expre'ssed in your letter of July 13, 1979 to Cha rman Hendr ie.
We have addressed those concerns and our answers follow.
'I'n your letter qu state your concern about the adequacy of emergency planning for the Diablo Canyon plant.
As a result of our ongoing revi~w of the Three Mile Island accidehg, NRC has established a plan to review the emergency plans for all operating rehctors and those operating license applications which are near completion.
This review. will incorporate the recommendations of the joint EPA/NRC task fore and the guidance of Regulatory Guide 1.101, Emer-gency Planning for Ruclea Power Plants, as well as the experience gained at Three Nie Island.
Althou the details of this review, including its sched-ule, are still in preparatio we expect that the Oiablo Canyon plant will receive a high priority in th review.
With regard to the earthquake res tance of the Diablo Canyon Plant, compre-hensive public hearings on this ma er were held by an Atomic Safety and Licensing Board over approximately a
wo month period.
These hearings were completed on February 15, 1979.
Many f the nation's leading authorities in seismic design, including Drs. Trifu c and Luco, testified at these hearings and were subject to cross examin ion.
The Licensing Board is currently in the process of preparing its ision regyrding the licensing of Diablo Canyon based on the record of these roceedings.
Subsequent to the issuance of the Licensing Board's decision all arties have the opportunity for appeal to an Atomic Safety and Licensing App q1 Board; in any event the designated appeal board will-conduct a sua sponte review of the record.
Should the record be found deficient the appeal board<may either remand the matter to the licensing board for further hearings, request additional testi-mony from the parties'or require the parties to appear for further hearings by the appeal board.
The culmination of this process should yield a thorough airing of the numerous ar guments and counter arguments offered throughout these proceedings and should dispel any uncertainty as to the correct course of action.
Concerning the third issue you raised on Class 9 accidents, we believe that there has been substantial progress made on better understanding Class 9
accidents and the general implications Class 9 accidents have on the safety OFPIOI~
OVRNAtdlg&
DATE~
r a e y u
s an s a pr sen as ne i os
~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~
~ 0 ~ ~ ~
~
~
~t
~
~
WQC POREK 310 (976) HRm 0240 4 UeS4 OOVSSNNMICNT PISINTIN4 OvvavlCSSS SOSa Sae S ~)
li 4
C N
s t
'h
The Honorable Leon E. Panetta 2
comprehensive source of information on Class 9 accidents.
Although the Lewis Report (NUREG/CR-0400, September 1978) points to a number of difficulties in the Reactor Safety Study that pertain to the estimation of accident probabil-ities, it -also contains a detailed discussion of both the achievements and the limitations of the.RSS.
In recognition of the Lewis Report findings NRC did not repudiate the RSS, but indicated in its Statement on Risk Assessm nt dated January 18, 1979, that:
"WASH-1400 was largely successful in at least three ways; in making the study of rea tor safety more rational, in establishing the topology of many acciden sequences, and in delineating procedures through which quantitative stimates of the. risk can be derived for those sequences for which a da a base exists.
J "Despite its sho
- comings, WASH-1400 provides at this time the most complete single ps ture of accident probabilities associated with nuclear reactors.
e fault-tree/event-tree approach coupled with an adequate data bas is the best available tool with which to quantify these probabilities.
"WASH-1400 made clear the importqnce to reactor safety discussions of accident consequences othe than early fatalities."
With regard to a study of Class 9
qcidents at Diablo Canyon:
Pacific Ga'q and Electric conducted an indepth eu luation of the increased risk to the "
public from seismically induced Class accidehts.
This study was submitte'd to the NRC as Amendment 62, "Hosgri Se ic Evaluation," to the Diablo Canyon Safety Analysis Report.
The NRC Office Nuclear Regulatory Research, Proba-bilistic Analysis Staff, reviewed the appl'nt's analysis and wrote the attached memoranda dated December 30, 1977, nd April 26, 1978.
In summary, the Research staff found that "because of the ow population density around the Diablo Canyon site (in comparison to other isting reactor sites
$ n the country),
we concluded that the risk to the publi from a seismically induced reactor accident at Diablo Canyon is 1'ower than-the veral<1 risk associated with licensed nuclear power plants similar to those analyzed in the Reactor Safety Study."
.Each of the above answers describes our current view or status regarding the concerns you have expressed.
8efore Diablo Canyon is licensed, to operate, I
can assure you that a11 of the safety criteria that are currently imposed or that are developed from the Three tlile Island studies will have been applied to the Diablo Canyon plant.
The Commission will have reviewed every appro-priate element of safety and will have justified and endorsed the analyses OPI'ICE~
OVAHANC~
OATC~
NRC POEM 518 (9 76) NRCM 0240
~ ~
0 I
V,S.LOOVCAHMCHIIIIN2INOOIIIIPICCj 101 ~
10$.
14)
gk 8 h
'