ML16341C468
| ML16341C468 | |
| Person / Time | |
|---|---|
| Site: | Diablo Canyon  |
| Issue date: | 01/19/1982 |
| From: | Eisenhut D Office of Nuclear Reactor Regulation |
| To: | Sprague B AFFILIATION NOT ASSIGNED |
| References | |
| NUDOCS 8202100147 | |
| Download: ML16341C468 (12) | |
Text
JPN
< 9 'l982 cq~
Ms. Brenda SpraQge 1501 Cass Avenue Cayucos, California 95430
Dear Ms. Sprauge:
Your August 1981 letter to the President urging the denial of an operating license. for the Diablo Canyon Facility has been referred to me for response.
In your'letter, you expressed concerns about the proximity of the Diablo Canyon Fac'ility to the Hosgri Fault and moreover, you stated your view that in light of the current rate of price-induced conservation of energy that there is no energy need to license the Diablo Canyon nuclear power plants.
I trust that our responses provided in enclosures 1 and 2 adequately address your concerns.
Sincerely,
Enclosures:
1.
The Proximity of the Hosgri Fault to the Diablo Canyon 2.
Role of the Federal Government in Energy Production 8202100i47 820ii9 PDR ADOCK 05000275 H
PDR a>eageoK+5%
p~x eu:G.-@&Wit'arre'll G. Eiseohut, Director Division of Licensing Office of Nuclear Reactor Regulation DISTRIBUTION:
Docket Files81-501 NRC PDR Murley Local PDR Vollmer NRR Reading Snyder Branch File H. Denton E. Casg D. G. Eisenhut R. L. Tedesco F. J. Miraglia B. Buckley J.
Lee (incoming)
S.
Cavanagh
~gQ(i<q~hfagges (incoming)
L. Blurry PPAS Hanaupr Mattson
~ ~
AMEJjj BBu~]~e oavsD I II/.J )/@g D
3 M
agl ia
~! lk!GII."
..D.'
Te esco DL DE n ut
/'l1j/8+
~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~
~ ~ ~
NRC FORM 318110/80) NRCM 0240 OFFICIAL R ECOR D COPY
- USGPO." 1980-329.824
44 I I 4
I)
I 14 I
II
~
I 4
8 II
ENCLOSURE (1)
Concer'espon n:
The proximity of the Hosgri Fault to the Diablo Canyon. site se:,
The Hosgri.Fault, which is located 2 1/2 miles from the Diablo
~
- plants, which was discovered in 1971 and has been the subject of intensive investigation by the Pacific Gas 8 Electric Company (PG&E), the U. 'S. Geological Survey (USGS) and the Nuclear
'Regulatory Comnission (NRC ).
As a principal geologic advisor for the Coranission, 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. 95 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 arid Licensing Board (ASLB) over about a two-month period (from December 1978 to early 1979 ).
Some of this nation' and the world' leading authorities testified'nd'were subject to cross-examination.
The experts from the NRC staff and PG8E.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'earings 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 Imperial Vali.ey 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 and a public hearing was held before the Appeal Board in Ocotober, 1980 in San Luis Obispo, California.
On June 16, 1981 the Appeal Board issued a faVorable finding on this issue and concluded that the seismic design criteria used. for constructing the Diablo Canyon facility was acceptable.
On September 28, 1981'he Pacific Gas 8 Electric Company.
'otified the NRC staff that incorrect vertical response spectra was used in the design of seismic restraints for certain piping and components.
The Conmission suspended the low power'perating'icense on November 19, 1981 and requested that additional information be submitted to assure that the
~
piping and components restraints have been properly designed prior to a decision on re-instating the low power license.
aL
ENCLOSURE (2)
Concern:
Need for Operation of the Diablo Canyon Nuclear Power'Plants
Response
The Pacific Gas 8 Electric Company (PG8E) filed with the Atomic Energy Comn'ission applications dated January 16, 1967 and June 28, 1968 for licenses to construct and operate the Diablo Canyon nuclear power plants,.Units 1
8 2.
The NRC staff review
- included, among other things, PG&E's statements of the need for power that would be generated by Diablo Canyon units and our findings issued in the NRC. Final Environmental Statement.
Comprehensive public hearings were held in this License Application.
The NRC mission is.to review the design of the plant for compliance with our. requirements including environmental considerations, and in our view,.we have confirmed PG8E.'s statements on the need for power that would be generated by
.operation of Diablo Canyon, Units 1
8 2.
/-
PLEASE REUIEIY IT'HE DDE DATE IEMEDIATELY the due datb does not,allow adequate time to respond to this ticket, you may request a revised due date.
The request must include a valid justification and'.be
'submitted through your correspondence coordinator to the NRR mail room.
Such request for green tickets must be made within 3 days after after reassignment..
Request.for revision of yellow ticket due dates may be made, with justification, through the weekly NITS update.
The revised due date,if approved by PPAS, will be used to track 'di'vision correspondence completion schedules
0 P
Ns. Brenda Sprague i50i <ass Ave.
- Cayucos, CA 95430
'Ms. Brenda Sprague I
i50i Cass Ave.
- Cayucos, CA
- 93430, August 5, i98i President Ronald Reagan The White House
%600 Pennsylvania Avenue washington, D.C.
20500 Dear President Reagan:
I am a resident of San Xuis Obispo County in California.
I am right around the corner from Diablo Canyon, on which there is a nuclear power plant which has been constructed.
I feel very strongly that the Diablo'Canyon plant is very dangerous. 't was dangerouly sited only 2 1/2 miles from an active earthquake fault. I feel that this plant is not needed and should not be allowed to-be 1icensed.
Over the past X'ew years Pacific Gas and Electric Co.
ads have suggested that Diablo Canyon is expected to save the equivalent of 20 million 'barrels of oil a year, i.e.
one assumes that means 10 million barrels for each reactor units No.
- 3. and No. '2.
But if, as reported in July 2i Telegram-Tribune, PG88 is now using only i2-i4 million barrels 'of oil, how can opening Diab3.o eliminate the "need" for 20 million?
- Now, we are told that PG&E faces and "oil, glut" if Diablo goes on line.
Oil glut?
No.
Nuclear glut?
Yes)
Xn the July 2i article, PG&E admits that the utility's oil comsumption has been reduced by 50'~~ since 1979, i.e. from 26 million barrels in i979 to i6 million in i980, to a projected 'l2-i@ million in i98i.
Through these figures one can assume that through conservation, PQM's customers saved iO million barrels of oil in i980.
This eliminates the need for one Diablo unit.
Purthermore, in i98i, again according,~to PQAE's figures, we'e well on our way to,saving 3.2-iA million barrels, or the equivalent of one and one-third Diablo <units.
j
1 I
I R
l Nh 4
4 4 4
I.,
a tl I
I I
tl 4
4 I
I If I 1 k.'
I
~.
N I
1 l
,i tl It I
l,r.
I I
4/ I l
r II Mh I
'I
'I I \\
I i
'Ik'I Iy I
Having already saved almost 2W million barrels in the past two years agb given our current rate Of price-induced conservation, i,e. E~l. Energy Commission indicates that Cal, iq fast approach-ing sero energy growth, primarily thx'ough conservation, I have no doubt that California electrical consumers should easi1y be able to save yet another 7 million baxrels of'i1 and,thus.
eliminate 'the "need" for the remaining,two-thirds of a nuclear unit at Diablo Canyon.
If, as has already been demonstrated, conservation can do the
- job, why do we need to expose this community to the risk of radiation posed by operating Diab1o Canyon'-
You, Nr. President, axe responsible for the safety of our families and oux community.
How 'can we put our trust in youx decisions when you so casually put aside our safety?
Sincerely, 6t~Mu 4-'gw ~p Brenda Sprague
Kh ILK