ML16340B854
| ML16340B854 | |
| Person / Time | |
|---|---|
| Site: | Diablo Canyon  |
| Issue date: | 06/19/1981 |
| From: | Wolf J Atomic Safety and Licensing Board Panel |
| To: | JOINT INTERVENORS - DIABLO CANYON |
| References | |
| ISSUANCES-OL, NUDOCS 8106250243 | |
| Download: ML16340B854 (4) | |
Text
ad eQ UNITED STATES OF AMERICA
- rPf,
~
NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSION
~ ~ )98) m MIC SAFETY AND LICENSING BOARD JUH '2 ~
~g BEgyAKOX l
u.,~~,sees efore Administrative Judges:
John F. Wolf, Chairman Mr. Glenn 0. Bright Dr. Jerry R. Klinc k/~g ei
>oQ:fRgy Lgt
, 'U~>.-"a~98~.
~
Off(CQ 0ff)g Peg~
ggq(@br~~
CB 8 filIC I l~
)
In the Matter of:
)
)
PACIFIC GAS 5 ELECTRIC COMPANY
)
(Diabl o Canyon Nucl ear Power
)
Plant, Unit Nos.
1 and 2)
)
Docket Nos. 50-27 OL 50-
-OL (Low Power Test)
Proceeding q~c'gQ (u<f 1I! i"81 MEMORANDUM AND ORDER DENYING JOINT INTERVENORS MOTION TO REOPEN ENVIRONMENTAL RECORD FOR CONSIDERATION OF CLASS NINE ACCIDENT Following the occurrence of the Three Mile Island accident, Joint Interventors filed on May 9, 1979 a motion with the Board to,reopen the record for further consideration of "Class 9" accidents at Diablo Canyon.
On May 24,
- 1979, the Staff proposed that the Board defer ruling on the motion pending completion of the Staff report on TMI and its specific implications to this case.
On June 5, 1979, the Board agreed to the Staff's proposal.
The Boards now finds that it has sufficient information to rule on the motion.
In November
- 1980, the Commission published NUREG-0737, "Clarification of TMI Action Plan Requirements,"
which sets forth those items of the total TMI-related actions contained in the Staff 's TMI Action Plan, NUREG-0660, which have been approved by the Commission for implementation by licensees of operating reactors and App1icants for operating licenses.
The Board has yP'1 06250
4I~
~
also received guidance from the Commission laying out the procedures to be used in our application of NUREG-0737 in our licensing process (CLI-80-42, December 18, 1980, and CLI-81-5, dated April 1, 1981).
We have carefully reviewed these documents, and find that none of the requirements therein impact the Co'mmission's interim policy on accident considerations.
We therefore proceed with our analysis of the Diablo Canyon situation.
On May 16, 1980, the Commission issued a statement of interim policy which provided guidance on consideration of Class 9 accident analysis with respect to plants for which Final Environmental Statements had been issued.
This guidance stated that in these cases consideration of Class 9 accidents need not be addressed absent a showing of special circumstances.
The Commission noted that in the past the Staff has identified such special circumstances as falling within three categories:
(1) high population density around the site; (2) a novel reactor design; or (3) a combination of a unique design and a unique siting mode.
Diablo Canyon does not fall into I
any of these categories (cf. DD-80-22, 11 NRC 919 (1980)).
The Commission had earlier noted that in addition to these three criteria that proximity of a plant to a
"man-made or natural hazard" might also represent "the type of exceptional case that might warrant additional consideration" (Public Service Company of Oklahoma (Black Fox Station, Units 1 and 2), CLI-80-8, at 434-435 (March 21, 1980)).
In response to this
- guidance, the Board believed that the known seismicity of the State of California might constitute such a natural hazard.
The Board conducted exhaustive hearings on the effects of seismic forces on the Diablo Canyon plants from December, 1978 through February,
1979.
In our Partial Initial Decision issued September 27,
- 1979, we found that
"...the evidence demonstrates that all structures, systems and components of the Diablo plant necessary for continued operation without undue risk to the health and safety of the public will remain functional and within applicable stress and deformation limits when subjected to the effects of the operating basis earthquake in combination with normal operating loads."
In June, 1980 the Atomic Licensing and Appeal Board reopened the record to receive new evidence. not available to the Licensing Board at the time they issued their decision.
After conducting a thorough in-depth review of both the new evidence and the evidence before the Licensing Board, the Appeal Board affirmed the Licensing Board's findings (ALAB-644, June 16, 1981).
Me must, therefore, conclude that even though Diablo Canyon is located in a region of known seismicity, the probability of it sustaining a
"class nine" accident is no greater than for any other reactor.
Thus no special circumstances
- exist, and the motion to reopen the record for consideration of class nine accidents is denied.
On the/~day of June, 1981 it is ORDERED that the motion to reopen the record for consideration of class nine accidents is denied.
FOR THE ATOMIC SAFETY AND LICENSING BOARD oh
. o, hairman ADMINISTRATIVE JUDGE Is'sued at-.Bethesda, Maryl and y4.
this ~/day of June, 1981
c~
I