ML16340B220

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

ML16340B220
Person / Time
Site:	Diablo Canyon
Issue date:	10/20/1980
From:	Miraglia F Office of Nuclear Reactor Regulation
To:	Gray L AFFILIATION NOT ASSIGNED
References
NUDOCS 8011060097
Download: ML16340B220 (14)

Text

OCT ZO f980 Y.r. L. A. Gray 1131 16th Street Los Osos, California 93402

Dear Hr. Gray:

Your letter dated. June 10, 1980 to President Carter has been referred to the NRC for reply.

I am pleased to make this response.

Your letter expressed concern over the proximity of the Hosgri Fault to the Diablo Canyon plant and the ability of the plant to withstand a severe earth-quake.

This concern is addressed in Enclosure 1 to this letter.

You also

'suggested that a study be made to see if Diablo Canyon could be converted to use another type of fuel.

Our response to this suggestion is addressed in Enclosure 2 to this letter.

In addition, you are no doubt aware that the Diablo Canyon application is the subject of a contested adjudicatory proceeding.

In order to receive a 'lo>>I power testing license for Diablo Canyon, the Pacific Gas and Electric-Company must com-plete all Three Nile Island related requirements and obtain favorable rulings from the Licensing and Appeal Boards on the issues related to such a license that have been properly brouqht before them.

Before issuance of'uch a license by the HPC, the Commission will have the opportunity to review the decisions reached by these Boards.

I trust that this information is responsive to your request.

Sincerely,

Enclosures:

Proximity of the Hosgri Faljlt to Diablo Canyon 2.

Feasibility of converting Diablo Canyon to an alter-nate fuel source Frank J. ttiraglia, Acting Chief Licensing Branch No.

3 Division of Licensing 80110NQ Q~~i OFFICE P SURNAME DATE)

,....oj.;LB.N..

..0 Jabbour.;me

..1.0/../.../.ao.

..3.a/J...../8.a

.FJ 'i.a...

1.0/..~~/80...

NRC FORM 318 (9-76) NRCM 0240 OV.S. GOVERNMENT PRINTING OFFICE: 1979.289-369

r 089.~;

u0 4

t

'I LI h

W ll k,

I 4

P II

'I C

Ei'iCLOSURE 1

Concern:

Response

The proximity of the Hosgri Fault to the Diablo Canyon site and the ability of the plant'o 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

& Electric Company (PG&E), the U.S. Geological Survey (USGS) and the kluclear Regulatory Corrmission.

As a principal geologic adviso~ 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

7.5M 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-Licensing Board (ASLB) over about a two-month period (from Oecember 1978 to early 1979).

Some of this nation's and the world's leading authorities testi ied and were subject to cross-examination.

The experts from the NRC staff and PG&E went on to say that the plant has been designed to withstand the greater seismic event of 7.5.

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 related to a major earthquake which occurred in California's Imperi'al Ualley=in October 1979 (shortly after the ASLB's favorable partial initial decision in September 1979).

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

Starting on October 20, 1980 the Appeal Board will h'ear this matter.

4

/p

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 cons'idered 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'elated 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 service 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.

0

, ~

~ ~; ~

~a ~v4

silat cia

~

~

g

~

~ l

~

giYC.

AA. ~~

, (>~~

~ eo

~ b4. ~ ~

4

'oh ~

e ~

(~

o shrouds ohtspe DlA5LO CAN (AM PAC,IF IC

~ ~

OC1 I

4 v'

'4 C ~ 0'4 ~ ~

tl

o 4 a e 0 4 'o o e o ~

%t 4 0 4 0 ~O 4 0 0 PL wa>

~

7.5 u..s.

C 6 l'l75 )

~

%~ r-w.~

yi3i o S oSoS C4

>34og.

4% ~ 1 4 eW e 4 0 S 4VCi~ eC 4 4 il ~ 4 C o ~

KMN Ks) lM5Fii AQ SN DISTRIBUTIDN:

Docket Files (50-275/323)

NRC PDR Local PDR NRR Reading DL':LB k'3 Files HDenton ECase HBerkow~

DEisenhut RTedesco FMirag 1 i a BBuckley KJabbour JLee SCavanaugh (NRR84165)

EHughes MFudge PPAS BSnyder BGrimes RVol lmer DRoss SHanauer

.:,~ok~&

0 E

w'

'r 1~