ML16340B217

Forwards Response to Directed to President Carter Re Proximity of Hosgri Fault to Plant Location.License Application Is Subj of Contested Adjudicatory Proceeding During Which Concern Will Be Addressed

ML16340B217
Person / Time
Site:	Diablo Canyon
Issue date:	10/20/1980
From:	Miraglia F Office of Nuclear Reactor Regulation
To:	Nagy V AFFILIATION NOT ASSIGNED
References
NUDOCS 8011050562
Download: ML16340B217 (16)

Text

~i DISTRIBUTION:

Docket Files (50-275/323)

NRC PDR Local PDR NRR Reading DL:LB 5'3 Files HDenton ECase HBerkow'~".

DEisenhut RTedesco FNiraglia BBuckley KJabbour JL'ee SCavanaugh (NRR-4166)

EHughes tlFudge PPAS

'BSnyder BGrimes RVollmer DRoss SHanauer

."-".:~<Schra.der

0 I

iL, lt I'

p O )98O Hs. Verna liI. tlagy 1 63 Leeward Avenue Shell Beach, Ca'lffornfa 93449 Dear f~s.

)lao~I Your tune 'l8, 1980 letter to President Jfmap Carter has been referred to the t'/PC for reply.

I am pleased to make thfs response.

Your letter expressed concern over the proximity of the Hosgr f Fault to the

'Diablo Canyon site and the ability of the plant to withstand a severe earthquake.

This.concern is addressed f n Enclosure 1 to thfs 1 etter.

You also asked.if Diablo Canyon can be converted to another type of fuel.

He have addressed this question fn Enclosure 2 to this letter.

In additfon, you are no doubt aware that the Ofabl o Canyon appl fcation is the subject of a contested adjudf eatery proceedf ng.

In order to recei ve a 1 ow power testing license for Ofabl o Canyon, the Paci ffc Gas and Electric Company must com-plete all Three flfle Island accident related requirements and obtain favorable rulings from the Licensing and Appeal Boards on the issues related to such a

license, that have been properly brought befor e 4hem.

Before fssuance of such a

1 fcense by the tIPC, the Coamf ssf on wf 1 1 have the opportunity to review the decisions reached by these Boards.

I trust that thi s fnformatf on is responsive to your request.

Sincer ely,

Enclosures:

1 ~

Proximity of'he Hosgri Fault to Oiahl o Canyon 2.

Feasibf 1 fty of Converting Diablo Canyon to an Al-ternatf ve Fuel Source Frank J.

Nfragl fa, Acting Chief Licensing Branch Ho.

3 Division of Licensing OFFICE)

SURNAME DATE$

.... Pl,i[ B. Q.

Q)abbour.:me

..10/..4... /.80 NRC FORM 318 (9.76) NRCM 0240

. P3.

.F.

r g] i a.

.10/./$.. /80.

1 a/..I..../80 U'S GOVERNMENT PRINTING OFFICE: 1979 289-369

t l

/

lr "

I 6

I

p

~

~ ~

I ENCLOSURE 1

Concern:

Response

The proximity of the Hosgri Fault to the Diablo Canyon site and the ability of the plant to withstand a severe earthquake.

The Hosgri fault, which is located 3 1/2 miles from the Diablo

plants, was discovered in 1971 and has been the subject of intensive investigation by the Pacific Gas 8 Electric Company (PGBE), the U.S. Geological Survey (USGS) and the Nuclear Regulatory Commission.

As a principal geologic advisor for the Commission, the USGS in 1975 suggested that a magnitude of 7.5 be assigned as a

potential seismic value for the Hosgri Fault.

It is important to note that the USGS did not say that the Hosgri would experience a 7.5N earthquake but from a conservative standpoint that magnitude could not be ruled out.

Comprehensive public hearings on this matter were held by the Atomic Safety and Licensina Board (ASLB) over about a two-month period (from December f978 to early 1979).

Some of this nation's and the world's leading authorities testified and were subject to cross-'xamination.

The experts from the NRC staff and PGEE went on to say that the plant has been designed to withstand the greater seismic event of ?.5.

On September 26, 1979, the ASLB assigned to conduct the licensing hearings issued its partial initial decision which found that a 7.5 magnitude earthquake is reasonable and meets regulatory requirements.

On June 23, 1980 the Atomic Safety and Licensing Appeal Board for this matter issued a decision to reopen the hearing record to obtain testimony relate'd to.a major earthquake which occurred in California's Imperial Valley in October 1979 (shortly after the ASLB's favorable partial initial decision in September 1979).

The NRC staff testimony on this issue was submitted to the Appeal Board in August 1980.

Starting on October 20, 1980 the Appeal Board will hear this matter.

l

~

C

ENCLOSURE 2

Concern:

Feasibility of converting Diablo Canyon to an alternative fuel source.

Pesponse:

Prior to the construction permit proceeding, the NRC staff considered alternatives to this facility in its environmental impact statement, as no doubt did the utility.

Other alternative energy sources were considered in the environmental hearings which were held before issuing construction permits.

Furthermore, a partial initial decision has been issued by the present ASLB which consid-ered all remaining environmental issues which were properly brought before it at the operating license stage.

Thus, while these consid-erations are not inalterable, they do represent the product of several years collective experience on the subject.

Having weighed and balanced the alternatives in favor of constructing Diablo Canyon, construction of that facility was authorized and is now complete.

For that reason, essentially all costs related to that construction of approximately about

$ 1.7 billion dollars have now been incurred.

In that regard, a very major portion of that cost is associated with the nuclear steam supply system and special design features for other systems and structures that could not effectively or efficiently be converted for use in an alternative fuel cycle (such as coal, oil, gas or geothermal).

Examples of non-convertible items include the reactor, pressure

vessels, steam generators, special heat exchangers, protection and control instrumentation, reactor containment buildings and all safeguards features.

Further-more, there is no assurance that such alternate. fuel sources would be readily available for the affected ser'vice area over the expected operating life of Diablo Canyon.

In view of these matters we do not think conversion feasible at this time.

However, if a conversion plan showing feasibility is completed after criticality, the low fission product buildup from the low power (below.five percent) tests would not make conversion impossible.

l 4

I 1

~

I

~

~

6-18-80 P4~Menk ~vs, Cart'.ke4 1600 Pe~ipLmmuz. Auenue, n.N.

Naa&nrIkon, 9. C.

20002 Bea4 N4 Ca4ke4:

An. e~~uake ~tmh~ 4.9 ~ khe How~ gauLk ~ne arLich.~

cM ~~e cM khrc.ee n~ ko ~ PQK ELecMLc Co.'a 9<alrLo Cany,on nucLea4 power.

hook ~ area on. Nay. 28, 1980.

9 LQr~MLjn~ very. ahoM ~karate. /earn. ~ pLccnk ancL am

'ed ak khe khougLt og, ~'~ ~kance.

9 keg, you - pLeme - do nok aLLour~ pLank ko akack operux~

QT~ ~~94 poMC4 ~

9<abLo can he conuerc4ed ko ano~ ~pe og, guaC. khak ~ cage pe everyone anct. eve~ lou~

Rmpe~uLhp, dszrs~d~Prz~

V~ m. na~

153 Zeauarcct Au'h+U.

Beach, CR 93449

e 4

w

~

~

l

~

i

~

\\ 8

~

A

~

~

t t

0

~

g

'i 1

F II

.<L I

\\

R t

'H~,

k I

W1 h

l, l

I f'

"I g

p fl 1

l~

L V

C I

~"

I

/ ~~,pQ 4u u~

V I

4

~

I

1

~

~

)

~

~

~

r

1 0

0

~

~

~

r

~

~

4 f

/

~

~

~ ~

~

GP~c.~ J

/g &a

~c A,ru

'4 g

f kP cu.~

~

~ 5

~

~

~

I

~

~,l D

~ ~-h I

~

% ~

h