ML16340B299
| ML16340B299 | |
| Person / Time | |
|---|---|
| Site: | Diablo Canyon  |
| Issue date: | 12/16/1980 |
| From: | Miraglia F Office of Nuclear Reactor Regulation |
| To: | Amend A AFFILIATION NOT ASSIGNED |
| References | |
| NUDOCS 8101060030 | |
| Download: ML16340B299 (12) | |
Text
Amanda Amend 2>>
GEO <6 19SO l/ith regard to vour concern over the environment and life, The National Environmental Policy Act (NEPA) of 1969 requires the Nuclear Regulatory Cotpmission to prepare a
detailed statement on each of the following environmental issues associated with the construction and operation of the Diablo Canyon facility:
(f)
The environmental impact of the proposed action, (ii) any adverse environmental effects which cannot be avoided should the proposal be implemented, (iii) alteknatives to the proposed action, (iv) the relationship between local short-term uses of man's environment and the maintenance and enhancement of long-term productivity, and (v) any irreversible and irretrievable commitments of resources which would be involved in the proposed action should it be implemented.
We did this.
Your concerns mentioned above were addressed in our Final Environ-mental Statement (FES) for Diablo Canyon.
In particular, Chapter 7 addressed the environmental impact of potential accidents.
Furthermore, hearings were held on these environmental issues before construction permits were issued to construct this facility, and a favorable partial initial decision was issued on September 26, 1979 by the present Atomic Safety and Licensing Board.
That Board considered all issues (including environmental issues) that were brought before it for operating licenses for the Diablo Canyon facility.
A copy of the FES as well as other licensing documents, correspondence and Board proceedings can be found in the Local Public Document Room (LPDR) main-tained for Diablo Canyon.
This LPDR is located at the California Polytechnic State University Library, Documents and traps Department, San Luis Obispo, California 93407.
I trust that this information. is responsive to your request.
Sincerely,
Enclosures:
As stated Frank J. Hiraglia, Acting Chief Licensing Branch -Ho.
3 Division of Licensing DISTRIBUTION;.t See next page.
p5 DL:LBg3 KNJabbour.:
b F
1.ia 12/rl /80 NRC.FORM 318 {9.76) NRCM 0240 12/~0 12I/ i80 a GOVERNMENT PRINTING OFFICE: 1979.289'369
<<4 Qadi
6 of+ f 6 (5'5 DISTRIBUTION:
Docket File 50-275/323 LPDR PDR LB83.r/f NRR r/f KJabbour FMirag 1 i a JLee (w/incoming)
DGEisenhut RAPurple HRDenton EGCase
- BSnyder, BGrimes RVollmer DRoss SHanauer FSchroeder TtItur 1 ey RTedesco HBerkow/HRussell SCavanaugh.
EHughes MFudge OELD OFFICE
-'SURNAME DATEP..
NRC FORM 318 {9 76) NRCM 0240
, AU.S. GOVERNMENT PRINTING OFFICE: 1979.289 369
~>> '
t;~<'
i, k'"
t C
R 4t
ENCLOSURE I Concern:
Response
Low Level Radioactivity Effects.
In the matter of low level radiation hazards, the Commission has always subscribed. to the principle that radiation exposure
'f the public should be kept as low as is reasonabIe achievable.
This principle has been a central one in the field of radiation protection for many years.
Operating licenses of nuclear power plants include provisions to limit and control radioactive effluents from the plants.
The term "as low as is reasonably achievable" requires taking into account the state of technology, the economics of improvements in relation to benefits to the public health and safety, other societal and socioeconomic considerations, and the relationship of these to the use of nuclear energy in the public interest.
The Commission has adopted numerical guidelines for design objectives and limiting conditions for operation of nuclear power plants to meet the criterion of "as low as reasonably achievable" for radioactive material in effluents from nuclear power plants.
Using these guidelines, the radiation resulting from radioactive release from nuclear power plants during normal plant operation is a small fraction of that received from natural background activity.
The NRC has expended substantial effort in studying the potential health effects of low-level radiation on humans.
Funding has been allocated for research on the effects of specific radioactive isotopes and of epidemiology studies, the analyses of current research in the field of radiobiology and epidemiology and the drawing up of preliminary plans to study the feasibility of a large-scale epidemiology investi gation on low level radiation effects.
The NRC staff's also participating with international agencies on the control of long-lived radionuclide emissions from the nuclear fuel cycle.
In regard to Diablo Canyon, environmental matters including low level radiation effluents from the Diablo Canyon Nuclear Power Plants were the subject of proceedings in a public hearing.
After extensive consideration, the Atomic Safety and Licensing Board issued a Partial Initial Decision on June 12, 1978 and concluded that the effects of low level radiation from plant operation will be negligible and will result in no significant risk or increase of genetic defect incidence in the population of the. San Luis Obispo area during the projected thirty years of operation.
I
ENCLOcURE 8 Concern:
Response
Storage of High Level Radioactive Waste.
-A principal source of high level radioactive waste is in spent fuels The Pacific Gas 5 Electric Company may elect to subm-:t, in the future, a proposal to increase the storage capacity of the spent fuel storage pool.
Increased spent fuel storage capacity, proposals have been previously reviewed and app. oied for other licensed operating reactors.
The generic problem of interim spent fuel storage has been addressed in a report titled "Final Generic Environmental Impact Statement on Handling 8 Storage of Spent LWR Fuel,"
NUREG-0575 issued by the NRC staff in August 1979.
The staff found that coarnerciaI spent fuel generated through the year 2000 can be accommodated in a safe and environmen-tally sound manner either by modification of storage pools at the reactor sites or by providing independent spent fuel storage facilities located on the site of a parent facility such as a nuclear power station.
The Cooeission has licensing and regulatory authority with regard to the disposal of commercial spent fuel.
While the Department of Energy has primary responsibility for developing, constructing and operating waste disposal facilities, the NRC has the responsibility to assure that these activities, create no unreasonable risk to the health and safety of the public.
On December 6, 1979 the NRC published proposed procedures for the disposal of high-level waste, including spent fuel, in geologic repositories.
On May 13, 1980 the NRC published an advance notice of rulemaking on the technical criteria that would be applied in making the licensing findings prescribed in those procedures.
The NRC has established the Division of Waste Yanagement to deal exclusively with nuclear waste issues.
In addition, the NRC has taken part in the activities of such organizations as the Interagency Review Group on Nuclear Waste Management, the Radiation Policy Council,
.and the State Planning Council on Radioactive Waste Management.
I Furthermore, the NRC is presently conducting a generic proceeding to reassess its degree of confidence that, radioactive wastes produced by nuclear facilities will be safely disposed of, to determine when any such disposal will be available, and whether such wastes can be safely stored until they are safely disposed. of.
At. this time, the NRC has received statements of position from the Department of Energy and other interested parties.
These activities are indicative of the attention being given to'the nuclear waste disposal problem at the'RC.
ENCLOSURE 3
Concern:
Response
The proximity of the Kosgri 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
& Electric Company (PG&E), the U.S. Geological Survey (USGS) and the Nuclear Regulatory Commission.
As a principal geologic advisor for the Cormission, 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 7.5H earthquake but from a conserva-tive standpoint that magnitude could not be ruled out.
Compre-hensive public hearings on this matter were held by the Atomic Safety and Licensing Board (ASLB) over about a two-month period (from December 1978 to early 1979).
Some of this nation's and the world's leading authorities testified 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 a reasonable basis for the design reana'lysis of the Diablo Canyon facility.
On June 23, 1980 the Atomic Safety and Licensing Appeal Board issued a decision reopening the hearing record to obtain testimony related 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).
Hearings on this matter were completed on October 25, 1980.
A decision will be issued following the submission of briefs by the parties.
e y
~~
~ CW FaPKC' 7Z
~~wg~, ~.~. ~o~~-
)
r p'
P C
ca
0 k
, ~
'1