ML16341C928

Ack Receipt of 790425 & s Re Opposition to Operation of Facility Due to Proximity to Hosgri Fault. Facility Designed to Withstand Seismic Event of 7.5.ASLB Is Preparing Decision Re Licensing Based on 790215 Hearing

ML16341C928
Person / Time
Site:	Diablo Canyon
Issue date:	05/14/1979
From:	Harold Denton Office of Nuclear Reactor Regulation
To:	Waterhouse H AFFILIATION NOT ASSIGNED
Shared Package
ML16340A466	List: ML16341C928
References
790414, NUDOCS 7905300716
Download: ML16341C928 (8)

Text

k Docket fedos:

50-275 and 50-323 Mr. 8 t~s. Materhouse 778 kildomar Street Pacific Palisades, California

Dear tW. 8 f<s. l<aterhouse:

Distribution:

~ 4 1979 NRC.PDR Local PDR EDO Reading NRR Reading LNR bl File H. R.

Denton E.

G.

Case R.

S.

Boyd D.

F.

Ross D.

F.

Bunch R.

C.

DeYoung 90272 R

J; Mattson V. Stello D.

B. Vassallo J.

F-. Stolz B

C Buckley E.

G. Hylton ELD G. Ertter (06101.2 M. Groff E.

Hughes O

E.

Moore J. Yore, ASLB IE (3)

SECY Mail (3) (79-1217)

I am pleased to respond to your letters dated April 25 and 26,

1979, to the Chairman of the Nuclear Regulatory Commission.

Since it would not be appropriate under current-Coenission rules for the Chairman to comment en your concern, your letter was referred to me for reply.

You expressed your opposition to the operation of the Diablo Canyon Nuc'fear plants because of its proximity to the Hosgri Fault.

Yoreover, you said that government geologists admit that the Hosgri Fault is capable of an earthquake that is ten times greater than the Diablo Canyon plants are designed for.

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 investiga-tion by the Pacific Gas 5 Electric Company, the U. S. Geological Survey and the Nuclear Regulatory Cortmissfon.

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 Fau'ft.

It is important to note that the USGS did not say that the Hosgri Fault would experience a 7. 5M earthquake but from a conservative standpoint that magnitude could not be ruled out.

Certain modifications are being made to the plant so that the final plant structures and systems needed for safety will be able to withstand a 7. 5M earthquake on the Hosgri Fault.

Comprehensive public hearings on this matter

>>ere held by the Atomic Safety and Licensing Board.over about a two-month period.

Some of this nation' and the world' leading authorities in seismology and structural design testified and were subject to cross-examination.

The consensus among those experts was that a magnitude of 6.5 would be a more reasonable assessment of the capability of the Hosgri Fault.

f<evertheIess, the experts went on to say that the plant has been designed to withstand the greater seismic event of 7. 5.

These hearings were completed on February 15, 1979.

The Lic'ensing Board is in'the process of preparing its decision regarding the licensing of Diablo Canyon based on the record of these iroceedi

'obg+

CIINOIAOOI~

DATN~

ons ro

a. Bosgri..Fau government f..ahab; 7 434" VS05300

~ Mo ~ ~ ~ 0 ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ O ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~

lQ i

ologists of

>hieh gee greater cart to-in-your" quake Pttevlt

~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~

~ ~

~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~

RCÃ PCOM 510 (976) NRQhf 0240 4 U,~, 44VNIINMNNTPNINTIN4 4NNICCI IOOO OO ~

TO ~

\\

4t

). >f

Mr. 8 Ns. Waterhouse I trust that the above information has been responsive to your concerns.

Sincerely, Oitglnal Signed Sj Roger 8 Boy4 Harold R. Denton, Director Office of Nuclear Reactor Regulation D:DP NRR d

5 e

05 l 79 05 /

g g'IeFIOC~

OIIIWAIICW DATC~

DPN:L tR 0'1 EGHP

...:pram..

05/

/79

~

~

~ I

~

~ ~

~ I ~

~

1CLC PCR5f 5l8 (976) NRCOC 024O DPN:

l 1

BCBu e

05/ '

/79 DPN:

R gl JF$05/'79 DPN:LWR:

~ ~ ~

I ~

.P.P.A..a..........

05/ 3

/79 5 U,e OOVCIINMCNTFIIINTINOOFFICCI I ~ T ~

Gee T ~)

NR

~ 0

~ ~ ~ ~ ~

~ ~ ~ e ~ e

-HRD n

~ o ~ ~ ~ ~

~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ o ~ o ~ ~

05/ lg /79 EtD~

t5iÃIb.'.N:

05/ /II

/79

y8 bea88 fsatqhO 5ya9 8 lsgoA

~

~

1

\\

C~~

L a

Q(WQfC

Distributi on:

Docket File NRC.PDR Local PDR

.EDO Reading NRR Reading Ll]R 0'1 File H.

R. Dento E.

G.

Ca R.

S.

oyd D.

Ross ffr. 8 Ys. Haterho e-D. F.

Bunch 778 lildomar Street C.

DeYoung Pacific Palisades, Ca ifornia 902 V. Stello.

Dear fV. 8 f~s..lIaterhouse' D.

B. Vassal 1o J.

F. Stolz I am pleased to respond to y v letters dated April 25 and 26,

1979, to the Chairman, of the Nucl ar egulatory Corqaission.

Since it would

.not be appropriate under rrent Commission rules for the Chairman to comment on your conce, your tter was referred to me for reply.

B.

C. Buckley E.

G. Hylton ELD G. Ert

)

roff E.

Hughes E.

Noore J.

Yore, ASLB IE (3)

SECY Nail (3) (79-1217)

~Docket Kos:

50-275 and

-323 You expressed your opp sition to the peration of the Diablo Canyon=

Nuclear plants becaus of its proximi to the Hosgri Fault.

Yereover, you said that govern ent geologists adm t that the Hosgri Fault is capable of an earth uake that is ten tim greater than the Diablo Canyon plants are esigned for.

Comprehen ve public hearings on this matter were he'id b the Atomic Safety an Licensing Board over about a two-month period.

Some of this nat on' and the world' leading authorities in seism 'logy'nd structu al design testified and were subject to cross-exami ation.

The co sensus among those experts was that a magnitude of 6.

would be a

ore reasonable assessment of the capability of the Hos i Fault.

Neve

heless, the experts went* on to say that the plant has b

n delhi ned to withstand the greater seismic event of 7. 5.

These earings wer completed on February 15; 1979.

The Licensing Board is in 'he pro ess of preparing its decision regarding the licensing of Diab o Ca yon'based on the record of these proceedings.

1]e are not aware of the greater earthquake forces which you refer to in your letters The Hosgri Fault which is located 3 1/2 miI~

from the Diablo plants, was discovered i 1971 and has been the subjec of intensive investi.ga-tion by the Pac'fic Gas ff Electric Company, the U. S. Geological Survey and the f<uclea Beg'ulatory Coamission.

Rs a pri> ipal geologic advisor for the Commis ion, the USGS in 1975 suggested tha a magnitude of 7. 5 be assigned a

a potential seismic value for the'o gri Fau'1t.

-It is important to ote that the USGS did not say that the Hosgri would experience

7. 5N earthquake but from a conservative tandpoint that-maginitude ould not be ruled out.

orrIORW CRIRNAME~

DATR~

RRC FORM 318 (9-76) NRCM 0249 l

V 4, OOVOIINMONTPIIINTINO OrrIOOI I ~ 1 ~

~ I~I 1 ~ O

'I

/

~ <<=

I CC h

JJ/

\\

c

~t / ~

HC'I4 I

I h

/ f J li h

h

~

~

J

, ~

I

<< ~

C r

~ J/fff

Docket Nos:

50-275 and 50-323 The Hosgri Fault, which is ocated 3 1/2 miles rom the Diablo plants, was discovered in 1971. and has been the subject intensive investiga-tidn by the Pacific Cas 5 Electric Company, the U. S. Geological Survey and the Nuclear Regulator Comnission.

As 'a princi 1 geologic advisor for the Corrmission, the SGS in 1975 suggested that a magnitude of 7.5 be assigned as a potent'al se'ismic value for the Hosgr Fault.

It is important to note that he USGS did not say that the Hos ri would experience a 7. 5M cart quake but from a conservative stan oint that magnitude could not b

ruled out.. Certain modifications a

being Distribution:

Docket File D. B. Vassallo NRC PDR J.

F. Stolz Local PDR B.

C.

Buc EDO Reading E.

G.

ton NRR Reading ELD LWR gl File

. Ertter (06101)

H.

R. Denton M. Groff E.

G.

Case E.

Hughes Mr,. 5 ys. Water se R.

S.

Boy E.

Moore 778 Wildomar Stree D.

F.

Ro J. Yore, ASLB D.

F.

nch-IE (3)

Pacific Palisades, Ca fornia 90272 R.

C.

eYoung SECY Mail,(3) (79-1217)

Dear yr. y ys.

Waterhouse.

R.

I. Mattson...

V. Stello I am pleased to respond to yo r lett s dated April 25 and 26, 1979,'o the Chairman of the Nuclear egu tory Comission.

Since it would not be appropriate under current ission rules for the Chairman to cotment on your concern, your ter was referred to me for reply.

You expressed your opposition t the eration of the Diablo Canyon Nuclear plants because of its oximity to the Hosgri Fault.

yoreover, you said that government geol ists admi that the Hosgri Fault is capable of. an earthquake that is ten times reater than the Diablo Canyon plants are designed f r.

made to the plant s for safety will be Fault.

o, hat the final plant structures and sys ems needed a

e to withstand a 7.5M earthquake from t e Hosgri Comprehensive publi Safety and Licensin this nation' and structural design The consensus amo be a more reasona 1

Nevertheless, the e designed to withs a

were completed o

F process of prep in hearings on this matter were held by the At mic

'oard over about a two-month period.

Some o

he world' leading authorities in seismology an estified and were subject to cross-examination.

those experts was that a magnitude of 6. 5 would e assessment of the capability of the Hosgri Fault xperts went,on to say that the plant has been nd the greater seismic event of 7. 5.

'These hearing ebruary 15, 1979.

The Licensing Board is in the g its decision regarding the licensing of Diablo r

er o in you e

ers.

Canyon based on e record of these proceedings.

We are not aware of any predictions from govern'ment geolo'gists of a greater earthquake orrlcc~

QQRHAllCW DATC~

@BC PORK 818 (9 76) NECK 0240

~

~ ~ ~ ~

~ ~ I

~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~

+ U,O, OOVCRRMORT RRIRTINO OROICOI ITTO 101 TOT

C,

~

n P.

~ >

If ~

~

I

~ ~

'I k rP-f 1

'I k

~

~

r

~

r k

I 1 1, k.~

p k' 1

~ 'I I,

k.

P I

~,

h

-k h.

C.

I 1

1

~

/ I h

k If-

'1 1

~

I

'h 1

~ I hh

\\

1 ~

~

~

hf P

1 I

~

~ V

'h 1

- 1'