ML16342A131
| ML16342A131 | |
| Person / Time | |
|---|---|
| Site: | Diablo Canyon  |
| Issue date: | 06/10/1993 |
| From: | Murley T Office of Nuclear Reactor Regulation |
| To: | Moore G, Sher B CALIFORNIA, STATE OF |
| References | |
| NUDOCS 9306170093 | |
| Download: ML16342A131 (12) | |
Text
~pP REGNALWp
\\ 'Q 4'0
+*~y4 UNITED STATES NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSION WASHINGTON, D.C. 20555.0001 June 10, 1993 The Honorable Byron Il. Sher Chair, Natural Resources Committee State Capitol Sacramento, California 95814 The Honorable Gwen Moore Chair, Utilities & Commerce Committee State Capitol Sacramento, California 95814 Dear Mr. Sher and Ms. Moore:
I am responding to your Committees'etter of March 15, 1993, to Chairman Selin concerning Pacific Gas and Electric Company's (PG&E's) July 9,
- 1992, application to recapture the period spent constructing the Diablo Canyon Nuclear Power Plant so as to allow for forty years of operation, as permitted by the Commission's regulations in Section 50.51 of Title 10 of the Code of Federal Re ulations.
The major points addressed below are cost effectiveness, the need to reassess environmental
- impacts, and earthquakes.
Regarding your request that the staff of the U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission (NRC) prepare an environmental impact statement (EIS) to consider cost effectiveness and the need for the generating capacity provided by the Diablo Canyon units, the Commission's regulations do not require the staff to consider the need for power.
In 1982, the NRC changed its rules to eliminate any consideration of need for power and alternative energy sources for purposes of meeting the National Environmental Policy Act of 1969 (NEPA) in operating license proceedings.
The Commission reasoned that questions concerning need for power and alternative energy sources are resolved in construction permit proceedings and that revisiting the issue at the operating license stage was not likely to result in tipping the NEPA cost benefit balance against issuance of the operating license.
The NRC does not require that an EIS be prepared in connection with an application to recapture the period spent in constructing the plant.
It continues to believe the statement contained in the NRC's Environmental Assessment that the extension of the Diablo Canyon operating licenses will not create any new or unreviewed environmental impacts is factually correct.
This is true because the impacts of forty years of o'peration were considered in the final environmental statement (FES) on the operation of Diablo Canyon and again in the addendum to the FES in 1976.
Subsequent to the FES, plant modifications that involve an unreviewed safety question or require a change to the technical specifications are submitted to the NRC for review, a review that includes a determination of the environmental effects of the proposed
- change, before the modification is authorized.
Thus, the EIS for the plant is consistent with the Commission's regulations implementing
- NEPA, and is supplemented to reflect changes in the plant and in the plant's environment.
9306170093 930610., W>;,
ÃIICPK CEZKITiCSPV
~
4
\\ ~
t
Hr. Sher and Hs. Hoore Regarding your concern about recent seismicity in California, it is important you know that the operating license for Diablo Canyon Unit 1 included a
condition requiring PGRE to reevaluate the adequacy of the plant in relation to seismic concerns.
The license condition required a reevaluation of all aspects of the seismic design of the plant, including'geology, seismology, engineering, and probabilistic risk studies.
The PGLE reevaluation, called the Long Term Seismic Program (LTSP),
was completed in July 1988.
The NRC staff's review of the LTSP was documented in Supplemental Safety Evaluation Report Number 34 (SSER 34), issued June 6,
1991.
SSER 34, in which the staff concluded that PGKE had met the above stated license condition, involved 11,500 person-hours of effort by NRC staff technical experts in reviewing the LTSP.
On the basis of independent studies conducted by NRC staff consultants including the U.S. Geologic Survey, as well as the independent review of the LTSP by the NRC Staff and its consultants, the NRC staff concluded that PG&E had met the license condition and that the Diablo Canyon seismic design continued to be acceptable.
The NRC's Advisory Committee on Reactor Safeguards (ACRS),
an independent advisory committee established by the Atomic Energy Act of 1954 that reports to and advises the Commission and that is entirely separate from the NRC staff, concurred in the conclusion that the license condition had been met.
The ACRS further concluded that the seismic margins for the plant are adequate and quite comparable to those for other plants in the United States, that the probabilistic risk assessment showed no significant vulnerabilities, and that Diablo Canyon can be operated without undue risk to the health and safety of the public.
The actions the NRC has taken to date with regard to the Diablo Canyon units have been consistent with applicable statutes of this agency, that is, the Atomic Energy Act of 1954 and the National Environmental Policy Act of 1969, and the Commission's regulations implementing those statutes.
If you have further questions regarding this matter, please contact me.
Sincerely, omas E. Hurley, Director fice of Nuclear Reactor Regulation
P 4
l Ct
~
~
Hr. Sher and Hs.
Hoorim June 10, 1993 Regarding your concern about recent seismicity in California, it is important you know that the operating license for Diablo Canyon Unit 1 included a
condition requiring PG&E to reevaluate the adequacy of the plant in relation to seismic concerns.
The license condition required a reevaluation of all aspects of the seismic design of the plant, including geology, seismology, engineering, and probabilistic risk studies.
The PG&E reevaluation, called the Long Term Seismic Program (LTSP),
was completed in July 1988.
The NRC staff's review of the LTSP was documented in Supplemental Safety Evaluation Report Number 34 (SSER 34),
issued June 6,
1991.
SSER 34, in which the staff concluded that PG&E had met the above stated license condition, involved 11,500 person-hours of effort by NRC staff technical experts in reviewing the LTSP.
On the basis of independent studies conducted by NRC staff consultants including the U.S. Geologic Survey, as well as the independent review of the LTSP by the NRC Staff and its consultants, the NRC staff concluded that PG&E had met the license condition and that the Diablo Canyon seismic design continued to be acceptable.
The NRC's Advisory Committee on Reactor Safeguards (ACRS),
an independent advisory committee established by the Atomic Energy Act of 1954 that reports to and advises the Commission and that is entirely separate from the NRC staff, concurred in the conclusion that the license condition had been met.
The ACRS further concluded that the seismic margins for the plant are adequate and quite comparable to those for other plants in the United States, that the probabilistic risk assessment showed no significant vulnerabilities, and that Diablo Canyon can be operated without undue risk to the health and safety of the public.
The actions the NRC has taken to date with regard to the Diablo Canyon units have been consistent with applicable statutes of this agency, that is, the Atomic Energy Act of 1954 and the National Environmental Policy Act of 1969, and the Commission's regulations implementing those statutes.
If you have further questions regarding this matter, please contact me.
Sincerely, Original signed by:
James G. Partlow for Thomas E. Hurley, Director Office of Nuclear Reactor Regulation DISTRIBUTION
'ee next page
- See revious concurrence OFC NAME D
LA PDV Foster PH PDQ S Pet&son TECH ED*
MMejac OGC*
AHod en DD SP*
D PDV SSchwartz TQuay DATE 3
9 4593 05 26 93 05 27 93 05 28 93
~ I 93 OFC A
5,DRPW D
~
93 OFFICIAL R CORD COPY t
93 FMira 1
a 6
o 93 JPartlow i0 93 DOCUMENT NAME'GT8747 TMurl y
(~
l
(
I
DISTRIBUTION:
.Docket Files (50-275 and 50-323)
- JTaylor, 17G21
- JSniezek, 17G21 HThompson, 17G21
- JBlaha, 17G21
- THurley, 12G18 FMiraglia, 12G18
- JPartlow, 12G18
- WRussell, 12G18
- TGody, 12G18 PDV Reading File PDV Action File ¹8747 JRoe EAdensam DCrutchfield, 11H20 CKammerer, 3D23 BFaulkenberry, RV Tguay
- OGC, 15B18
- OPA, 2GS
- TGibbons,
¹8747
- CHawes,
¹8747 SPeterson w/incoming DFoster
- KPerkins, RV SECY (93-0276)
4
~
II, I
J f j
DISTRIBUTION
,cgockee-Fi-1 es~
,;" PDY Reading DFoster f
Harch 23, 1993 DOCKET No(s).50 275 and 50 323 50-206, 50-362 and 50-362, 50-528, 50-529 and 50-530 50-397 TO THE ATTACHED ADDRESSEES DIABLO CANYON, SAN ONOFRE, 'HNP-2; PALO VERDE The following documents concerning our review of the subject facility are transmitted for your information.
DESCRIPTION'OF DOCUMENT DATED Notice of Receipt of Application Draft/Final Environmental Statement Notice of Availabilityof Draft/Final Environmental Statement, Safety Evaluation Report, or Supplement No Environmental Assessment and Finding of No Significant Impact Notice of Issuance of Environmental Assessment Biweekly Notice; Applications and Amendments to Operating Licenses S
p Involvin No Si nificant'Hazards Conditions See Pagefs)
Exemption Constr'uction Permit No. CPPR-
,'mendment No.',Amendment No.
~
Facility Operating License No.
'I ~
~
Order Monthly Operating Report for transmitted by Letter Annual/Semi-AnnuakpIIPIIg:
Annttal Stmmar R
D XX 2/25/93 transmitted by Letter Other Office of Nucjear Reactor Regulation Ddris D. Foskeb, PDY
'I
Enclosures:
As Stated
"'ee next a e OFFICE>
SURNAME>
OATEN
~
P OFFICIAL RECORD COPY DIRC'FORM'31e (10/aoI NRCM 0240 Notice of Consideration of Issuance of Facility Operating License or Amendment'to Facility Operating License
' /ll n
I)arch 23, 1993 ISTR I BUTION OCKET F ILES'DV READING DFOSTER
~ DocKET No(s). 50-275.and '50-.323, 50-361 and 50-362, 50-397, 50-528, 50-529 and 50-530
~
~
'ri'O THE ATTACHED ADDRESSEES
SUBJECT:
DIABLO CANYON,SAN ONOFRE, IIPPSS NUCLEAR PROSPECT NO. 2, PALO VERDE
-.. The following documents concerning our review of the subject facility are transmitted for your infofmation.
DESCRIPTION OF DOCUMENT Notice of Receipt of Application Draft/Final Environmental Statement Notice of Availability of Draft/Final Environmental Statement Safety Evaluation Report, or Supplement No.
Environmental Assessment and Finding of No Significant Impact Notice of Issuance of Environmental Assessment Notice of Consideration of Issuance of Facility Operating License or Amendment to Facility Operating License Biweekly Notice; Applications and Amendments to Operating Licenses S
p
( j Involvin No Si nifrcant 8azards Conditions
. See Page(s)
DATED
~
~
Exemption Construction Permit No. CPPR-Facility Operating License No.
Order Monthly Operating Report for
.. Annual/Semi-Annual Report:
XX.,Other I
ii r.r r.in ai
., Amendment No..
Amendment No.
transmitted by Letter, transmitted by Letter 12 -93.
Enclosures:
As Stated Office of Nuclear Reactor Regulation Doris 3. Foster, PDV OFFICES SURNAMEt DATE>
See next page NRC FORM 318 (10/ao) NRCM 0240
~ r ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~
OFFICIAL RECORD COPY
F e
I