ML16342B069

Responds to Expressing Concern Re Issuance of Ol.Discusses OL Issuance,Emergency Plan,Hosgri Fault,Nrc Involvement W/Nuclear Industry & Environ Impact of Radiation

ML16342B069
Person / Time
Site:	Diablo Canyon
Issue date:	10/01/1979
From:	Vassallo D Office of Nuclear Reactor Regulation
To:	Taylor L AFFILIATION NOT ASSIGNED
References
NUDOCS 7910250362
Download: ML16342B069 (40)

Text

Distribution:

Docket, File G. Erttei (07269}

NRC PDR M. Groff OCT Local PDR E.

Hughes EDO Reading B. Moore

, NRR Reading J.

Yore LHR ¹1 File IE (3)

H.

R.

Denton SECY-.Mail (79-2480)

E.

G.

Case H.

N. Berkow Ms. LynnTaylor'.

B.

Vassallo D., Muller P. 0.

Box 488 S.'.

Varga R. J.

Mattson San Luis Obispo, California 93406 J.

F. Stolz F. Schroeder-B.

C. Buckley

Dear Ms. Taylor:

E.

G. Hy]ton OELD I am pleased to respond to your letter of August 23, 1979 to the Nuclear Regulatory Coranission, which was referred to me for reply.

In your letter you expressed the following concerns

( 1) the issuance of-an operating license for the Diab'lo Canyon Nuclear Power Plants; (2) thh lack of a evacuation plan for the areas surounding

'San Luis Obispo, California; (3 ) >>hy haven't the geolo-gists who located the Hosgri Fault been listened to?;

(4) why are veterans who were exposed to radiation in Nevada dying of cancer?;

(5) why are some of the members of the NRC so closely involved with the Nuclear Industry?;

and (6 ) what are we going to,do in this closed environment. when it is completely irradiated?

Each of these concerns are addressed below.

l.

Although a public hearing before an atomic safety and licensin'g board was completed on February 15, 1979, the Licensing Board has not yet issued a -decision.

In this regard, you may be interested to know that intervening parties in the Diablo Canyon proceeding have requested the Corvmission to stay the proceeding pending the outcome of the investiga-tion of the Three Mile Island accident.

These requests have not yet been acted upon by the Commission or the Licensing Board.

The NRC staff is presently engaged in an extensive evaluation of the

. Three Mile Island accident.

This evaluation will cover all aspects.

of the design and operation of that plant with the objective of the identifing improvements which should be applied to nuclear po>>er plants which are now operating or under construction, such as Diablo Canyon.

'As a result of'hese efforts, additional staff requirements may be developed.

In addition, several other, investigations, including the Presidential Commission and lIC 's Special Inquiry Group, can be expected to.lead to additional requirements.

If, as a result of these evaluations, it is determined that changes in the design and operation of the Diablo Canyon p)ant are required and those changes warrant reopening of the record, the NRC staff will take the initiative to do so.

Ho 2.

A public hearing was held in October 1977 on various matters including the adequacy of the applicant'- s Emergency Plans.

The NRC staff provided testimony on this issue at the October 1977 hearing and stated that the applicant' orrIcc~

OURNAMC~

DATC~,

The Atomic Sa is"stol"l"'pend ety and Licer ng.

ing Board'

~

~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~

~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~

~

~

~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~

ecision on th s matter, am ng others, HRC PORN 518 (9.76)

NRC2kL 0240 4 voo oovcRNMCNT PRINTINO OrtlccI I CT ~

Cc ~

10 ~

I

'f

Lynn Taylor 0CT>>g79 3.

As you mention in your letter, there is at present no evacuation plan for the areas surrou'nding San Luis Obispo County.

Under present Commission guidelines particular emphasis is placed on emergency planning within the low population zone-surrounding the plant, which for Diablo Canyon is six miles'.

The NRC's Office of State Programs has recently concurred in the State of California Nuclear Power Plant Emergency

Response

Plan.

The State plan lists assignments and responsibilities for the State Office-of Emergency Services and the State Department of Health, Radiological Health Section for assisting local county authorities in monitoring, assessment, and in recommendations for insuring the prote0tion of publ'ic health and safety in the wake -of a potentially contaminating event at a nuclear power facility.

In addition, Governor Brown of California has recently appointed a Nuclear Power Plant Emergency Review Panel to evaluate the adequacy of emergency pre'paredness measures to mitigate the consequences of a nuclear power plant accident.

The NRC staff plans to undertake an intensive effort over about the next year to improve licensee preparedness at all operating power reactors and those reactors scheduled for an operating license decision within the next year, such as Diablo Canyon, Unit 1.

One of th'e elements of the NRC staff. effort related to your concern is assurance by the staff that the capabi lity to take appropriate 'emergency actions, that may include evacuation, will be extended to a distance of 10 miles. as soon's practical; but pot later than january 1, 1981.

An NRC-EPA Task Force report NUREG-0396 dated December 1978 indicated that evacuation consideration beyond a distance of 10 miles would be extremely unlikely.

In 1971, two geologists with the Shell Oil Company, (Hoskins and Griffiths),

published previously proprietary data indicating the presence of a 90 mi le long fault (Hosgri Fault) about 3 1/2 miles offshore from the Diablo Canyon plant site.

In the operating license application submitted by the utility for Diablo Canyon in 1973, the utility cited the Hoskins and Griffiths reference and provided a map showing the location of the fault offshore of the plant site.

The work of Hoskins and Griffith was used in addition to the independent inten-sive investigations 'conducted by the Pacific Gas 5 Electric Company, the U. S..

Geological Survey (USGS) and the Nuclear Regulatory Commission.

As a principal geology advisor for the Commission, the VSGS in 1975 suggested that a magnitude of 7.5 be assigned a's a potential seismic value for the l{osgri Fault.

It is important to note that the USGS.did not say that the Hosgri Fault would experien a 7.5N earthquake but from a conservative standpoint that magnitude could not be ruled out. Comprehensive public hearings on this matter were held by the ORRICR~

~...

OURNAIIR~

OATR~

~ ~

~

~

HRC ~RM 318 (976) NRCbf 0240 0 4 4 OOVONNMONT OIIINTINOOPPICOI I ~ YO tO ~

TO ~

0 C

l

~

H r1 e

i

t<s.

4 ~

,5.

Lynn T@.'lor

'OCT

>FI'tomic Safety'-and-Licensing'Board over. about a two-month period.

Some of this

'ation's and the. world's leading authorities, subject to cross-examination, testified at.these hearings.

These hearings were completed on Feburary 15, 1979.

The. Licensing Board is in the process of preparing its decision'.regardin the licensing of'Diablo Canyon based on the record of these proceedings.~

'he. NRC -is neither directly nor indirectly involved on*the issue of radiation e'xposure,to individuals at the Nevada Weapon Testing Grounds.

You may wish to consider'orwarding your concern to,the Oepartment of Health, Education and Welfare and/or the Yeterans Adm'inistration.

I I

~'/

, We. are'ot sure whom you refer to in the NRC that work closely-with the Nuclear industry other than those who conduct reviews of various technical matters.

The Commission's regulations specifically, restrict its employees from fiaving-financial interests or engaging iq any financial transactions that. would even appear to conflict substanti'ally with the employees'overnment duties. and responsibilities.

Confidential statements of employment and financial interests are filed and updated annually by the affected employees.

Part 0 of Title 10 of the Cooeission's regulations addresses the elements of conduct an'd. ethics required by 'such NRC employees.

6.

In regard to your,concern over the effects-of radiation on the environttant, the.

Coomission has always subscribed to the principle that radiation exposure of the public should be kept as low as, is reasonably 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 radioact'lve effluents from the plants.

The term "as low as is reason-ably achievable" requires taking into account the state of technology, the economics of improvements in relation to benefits to the 'public healt(>

and safety', other societal and socioeconomic considerations, and the relationship of these,to the use"of nuclea'r 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 frorq radioactive.'elease from nuclear power plants during normal plant operation is'a. small fraction of that received from natural background act'ivity.

DrrlCRW DQRMAMRW DATRIL to ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~

~

SBC EORMS 318 (976) NRCM 0240 4'.o, oovonRMRRT roionRo orr<coc <err car rsr

4

~ J

Hs. Lynn Taylor 1 1979 r

I trust that the above information has been responsive to your concerns.

D Sincerely, pz anginal st&>4 >Y-D. B. Vassallo, Acting Director

~ Division of Project Management Office of Nuclear Reactor Regulation CQRNAIICW OATC~

~,DPM,'R,.III1 E

ton:pcm 09( I~....(79.

DPM BCBu ey 09J 4 %79 DPf 'L 1,DPt1:LW.J)

ELD JFStol SAVar a oui I Jve osI',/

Ijj opal iyits DP DBVassallo JOAN I

]79 V,S,OOVltAHMltNTI IIINTIHO OPPICISC 0 ~ 1 ~

'IOS 80

0 I

J I

0 H

~

v

Dear Ms. T+ or.

1.

Although a public hea ing before an atomic safe and licensing board was completed on Feb uary 15, 'l979, the Licensin Board has not yet, issued a decision.

n this regard, you may be inte ested to know that intervening parties in the Diablo Canyon proceeding ve requested the Commission to stay the proceeding pending the outcome the investiga-tion of the Three.iile Island accident.

These re uests ve not yet q

been acted upon b

the Coranission 'or the Licensing Board.

The NRC staff is presently engaged in an extensive evaluation of the Three Mile Isla accident.

This evaluation will cover all as cts of the design a

d operation of that plant with the objective of he identifing impr vements which should be applied to nuclear power plants which are'ow o crating or under construction, such as Diablo Canyon.

As a result of hese efforts, additional staff requirements may be develo ed.

In a dition several other investi p

gatsons, including the Presidential Commission and NRC's Special Inquiry Group, can be expected to lead to additional requirements.

I If, as a result of these ealuations, it is determined that changes in the design and operation of the Diablo Canyon plant are required and those changes warrant reopening of the record, the NRC staff will take the initiative to do so.

Qi Distribution:

Docket File G. Ertter (07269)

NRC PDR M. Groff Local PDR E.

Hughes, EDO Reading B. Moore NRR Reading J.

Yore LWR Pl File IE (3)

H.

R.

Denton SECY Mail (79-2480)

E.

G.

Case H.'.

Berkow D.

B. Vassall D. Muller San-Luis Obispo, California 934O6 S.

A. Varg R. J.

Mattson J.

F.

S z

. F. Schroeder B.

C.

uckley E.

. Hylton 1

am pleased tqres,pond t our letter o

August 23; 1979 to the tluclear Regulatory Commission, which as r ef red to me for reply.

In your. letter you expressed the following con r

(1) the issuance of an operating license for the Diablo Canyon Nuclear Pow Plants; (2) the lack of a evacuation plan for the areas surounding San Lui 0 'spo, California; (3) why have'n't the geolo-gists who located the Hosgri F lt bee listened to?;

4) why are veterans who were exposed to radiation 6 Nevada ing of cancer?;

(5) why are some of the members of the NRC so losely invol d with the Nuclear Industry?;

and (6) what are we going to do n this closed en ironment when it is completely-irradiated?

Each of these oncerns are address d below.

mergency Plans conformed to re uirements

(

2.'

public hearing was held in October 1977 on various matters including the adequacy of the applicant's Emergency Plans'.

The NRC staff provided testimony on this issue at the October 1977 hearing and stated that the appl,icant's, E

OfflCC+

DURNAMR~

DATII~

e

~tom>c Sa ety and Licen 18"Stl ll"pend Agv'ng Board's cision on th s matter, a

g others,

~ ~

NRC FORM 518 (976) NRCM 0240

• U4, OOVCNNMCNT ~RINTINO Off ICOI I ~ 4 ~

Se ~

444

I H~

C'

,l 1

P r

ion i h vada dying of cancer2; (5) why are some so osel involved with the Nuclear Industry2; and o i this c sed environment when it is completely co cerns are addressed below.

n before an at ic safety and licensing board 15, 1979, the icensing Board has not yet his regard, you m

be interested to know that he Diablo Canyon pr ceeding have requested-the proceeding pending th outcome of the investiga-

'sland accident.

These requests have not yet Commission or the Licenss

'g Board.

tly engaged in an extensive valuation of the ent.

This evaluation will co r all aspects tion of that. plant viith the ob cti ve of the which should be applied to nucl r power plants or under construction, such as D> bio Canyon.

forts, additional staff requirem'ents may be

, several other investigations, inclu 'ng the and NRC's Special Inquiry Group, can b

expected, equirements.

1 e ealuations, it is determined that changes in n of the Diablo Canyon plant are required and eopening of the record, the NRC staff will take viho viere exposed to radiat of the memrbers,of the NRC (6) what are we going to d irradiated2 Each of these l.

Although a public heari was completed on Februa issued a decision.

In intervening parties in Commission to stay the tion of the Three Mile been acted upon by th r

The NRC staff is pres n

Three Nile Island ac d

of the design and op a

identyfing improveme s

which are novi operat'ng As a result of thes ef Chveloped.

In addi on Presidential Coo@is ion to lead to'ddition 1 r If, as a result of hes the design and oper tio

. those changes warr n r

the initiative to o so Docket File G. Ertter (07269)

NRC PDR..

M. Groff Local PDR E.

Hughes EDO Reading

'B. Moore NRR Reading J.

Yore LWR Pl Fil IE (3)

H.

R.

Den on SECYI Mail (79-2480)

E.

G.

C e'.

N. Berkow D.

B.

assallo D. Muller S.

A jtarga R. J. Mattson

. Stolz F. Schroeder

Dear Ms. Taylor:

G Hylton ELD I am'pleased to respo to your lette of'ugust 23, 1979 to the Nuclear Regulatory Commission, icP was ref rred to me for reply.

In your letter you expressed the followin concer (1) the issuance of an operating license for the Diablo Canyon Nuclea Pow Plants; (2) the lack of a evacuation plan for the areas 'surounding San L i Obispo., California; (3) why haven't the geo'lo-gists.viho located the flosgri Fau t been listened to2;. (4) why are veterans 2.

A public hearing was he in October 1977 on various matters including the

. adequacy of the applicant's Emergency Plans; The NRC staff provided testimony

. on this issue ~t the October 197? 'hearing and stated that the applicant's Emergency Plans conformed t n

le tomic Saf orrios~i "st 1 1 1 "pen@i ty and Licens ng Board's de ision on this matter, aAen

others, OURNPLIIRW,, ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~

~ r>

~

r

~ ~

~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~

OATC~

WRC PORN 518 (976) NRCb1 0249 4 V 1 OOVONNMONT PNINTINO Orr<COI ITTO

'10%

TC ~

I,

/

I

///

Ji.

f

'I

4' Mc "Distribution:

.Docket File G. Ertter (07269)

NRCPDR '. Groff, Leal PDR E.

Hughes EDO Reading 'B. Moore

'NRR Reading'.

Vote LWR ¹1 File IE (3 H.

R.

Denton SE Nail (79-2480)

E.

G.

Case N.

Berkow Ns. Lynn,Taylo D.

B. Vassall D. Muller P. O. Box 488 S.

A. Varg R. J. Nattson San l.uis Obispo; C

ifornia.

93406 J.

F. Sto F. Schroeder B.

C.

B kley

. Dear Ns. Taylor.

E.

G.

ylton ELD I am pleased to respond t -your letter of August 23, 1979 to the Nuclear Regulatory Cow>ission, whi was ref red to me for reply.

In your letter you expressed the following oncern (1) the issuance of an operating license for the Diablo Canyon Nuclear'w Plants; (2) the lack of a evacuation plan for the areas surounding San Lu Obispo, California; (3) why haven't the=geolo-gists who located the Hosgri Fa been listened to?;

(4) why are veterans who were exposed to radiation n

Ne da dying of cancer?;

(5) why are some of the members of the NRC so osely volved with the Nuclear Industry?;

and (6) IIIat are we going'o do' this clo gd environment when it is completely irrhdiated?

Each of these oncerns are a

ressed 'below.

1.

Tt RC staff is pres ntly engaged in an tensive evaluation o ~feehree

. Nile nd accident This evaluation wil'l over all aspe~.

of the design and opera ns of t at plant with the objecti of id~ntffying improvements which should ap ied to nuclear power plants ht& are now under construc-.

tion or operatin Until that evaluation omp ted or until otherwise directed by the C mn ion, the staff o s not inter to issue any new licenses, for nuclear powe reacto even i -'-

thorized by' Li nsing'oard such as that presiding er the gia nyon proceedIng.

If, as a resul of the ~

uation, 's determined that ch nges in the design of the Diablo anyo

/Tant are require d those changes wa rang a reopening of the record t

<RC staff will tike the 'tiative to do s LIn this regard, you may be i ested to know that intervening ties in the iablo Canyon proceedin ve r equested the Commission to stay t roceeding ending the

~

outco f

>e investigation of the Three Mile Island a

dent.

Thes equests ha not ye been acted upon by the Commission or the Licen ard.

/

2.'

public he ring was held in October 1977 on various matters includ g the

'dequacy of he applicant's Emergency, Plans.

The NRC staff provided testimony on this issue at the October 1977 hearing and stated that the applicant's Emergency Plans conformed to requirements of Appendix E to 10 CFR Part 50.

The Atomic Safety and Licensing Hoard's decision on this matter,,among

others, I

is still pending.'URNAMIt&

OATC~

'~QB~4 I

~9.Tages WO ~ ~ ~ 0 ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~

I E

OOVIIIIIIIIIIIITPOIIITIIIOOPPICIII

~ ese see see

4 4

' I

'A 4

4 I

4 2

4 4

~

~ ~ p 4

44

~,

44 0

~

4 4

h

• C 4

4 I

PI

'4

• I.

4 ~

4 4

4 4

I 4

'4 4

4 II 4

'UE 4

I P

I

, Nr I

4 4

'P 4

t

'4

'll f~

4 I

~

I

'4 4

4 4

I ~,

4 I

4 '

4 h

~

I I

44

,. ~

Ns. Lynn Taylor 4iPc~i As you mention in your letter, there is at present no evacuation plan for the areas surrounding San Luis Obispo County.

nder present Cortmission g idelines particular emphasis is placed on'emergenc planning within the low pop lation e ond a d>stance that evac unlikely.

logists with the Shell Oi 1

Company, (Hosk>

s and Griffiths),

usly proprietary data indicating tl>e presenc of a 90 mile ri Fault) about 3 1/2 miles offshore from the ablo Canyon the operating l.icense application submitted by t e utility for 1973, the utility cited the Hoskins and Griffith reference and 3.

In 1971, two ge

'published prev'o long fault (Ho g plant site.

It Diablo Canyon provided a map showing the location of the fault offshore of the plant site.

The work of Hoskins and Griffith was used in addition to the independent inten-sive inve'stigations conducted by the Pacific Gas 8 Electric Company, the U. S'.

Geological Survey (USGS) and the Nuclear Regulatory Commission.

As a principal geology advisor for the Corrmission, 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 t'e Hosgri Fault would experien a 7.9) earthquake but from a conservative standpoint that magnitude could not be ruled out. Comprehensive public hearings on this matter were held by the zone surrounding the plant, which for D bio Canyon ss ssx maples.

The Office of State Programs has recently'oncurr d in the State of California Nuclear Power Plant Emergency

Response

Plan.

The State plan lists assignments and responsibilities for the State Off' of Emergency Services and the State

. Department of Health, Radiologica Health Section for assisting local county authorities in 'monitoring, asse 'ent, and in recommendations for insuring the prot tion of public healtt and safety in the wake of a potentially contaminat event at a nucl ar power facility.

In addition, Governor Brown of California s recently' pointed a Nuclear Power Plant Emergency Review Panel to evaluate he adeq cy of emergency preparedness measures to mitigate the consequences of ucl ar power plant accident.

The NRC staff plans to d

ake an intensive effort over about the next year to improve licens prepa dness at all operating power reactors and those reactors scheduled fo an opetat license decision ~vithin the next year, such as Diablo Canyo

, Unit l.

One f the elements of the NRC staff. effort related t'o your con rn is assurance b

the staff that the capability "to take appropriate emergen y actions, that may s

lude evacuation, will be extended to a distance of 1

miles as soon as practic

but not later than January 1, 1981.

An NRC-EPA ask Force report NUREG-0396 ted December 1978 indicated uation nsideration b y 10 "1

ld b t

1 O/PICC~

OVAHA44CW OATC+

~

~ ~

~

0

~ ~ ~

~ ~ ~

~

~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~

~

~

II 4 OOVOIIIIMICIItPllllltIIIOOt'PICOI 1414 44 ~

t4 ~

~ ~ ~

~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ t ~ ~

~

I

~ ~

~

~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~

4 4

4

~

I I

4 1

1 I

~

4 4

~

~

1" I

4

~

4 4

~

~

4 4

I 4

~ =I

~

4 4

I 8

~,

'I 4

4 1

4

~ ~

Ns. Lynn Taylor w 3

'Pvtd td, '4r<A:s~

Atomic Safe y and Licensing Board over about a two-mon period.

Some of this nation's a

d the world's leading authorities, subje to cross-examination, test 1 d

he-pL'u~~een-desi gned--to-wit tand-a-seismic-eve~ f

'-.5.

Th hearings were comipleted on Feburar 5, 1979.

The Licensi'ng Board is in the p

cess of. preparing its decision r garding the licensing of Diablo Canyon based o

the record of these procee ngs.

4.

5.

6.

The NRC is neither 'ctly nor indjre ly involved on the issue of radiation exposu're to individual t the Hevad

'capon Testing Grounds.

You may wish to consider forwarding yo "concern' the Department of,. Health, Education and Rel fare a'nd/or the Vete ns A iinistratjon.

In regard to your oncern over the effects of adiation 'on the environment, the Cooeission haC al says subscribed to the princip e that radiation exposure of the public shoul be kept as low as is reasonabl achievable.

This principle has been a cen al one in the field of radiation p otection for. many years.

Operating lic ses of nuclear power plants include ovisions to limit and control radio ctive effluents from the plants.

The t rm "as low as is reason-ably achieva economics o

safety, oth of these t has adopte for operat o

le" requires taking into account the-stat of technology, the improvements in relation to benefits to th public health and r societal and socioeconomic considerations, nd the relationship the use of nuclear energy in the public intere t.

The Coamission numerical guidelines for design objectives and imiting conditions n of nuclear power plants to meet the criterion of "as low as reasonably a

ievableD for radioactive material in effluents from nuclear power plants.

Using these guidelines, the radiation resulting from radioactive release from nuclear po>>er plants during normal plant operation is a small fraction of that received from natural background activity.

Me are not sure whom you refer in the NRC that work closely with the Nuclear.

Industry other than those uh con ct revieus of variogtechnical matters.

The Comoission' regulation speci 'cally restrict Mbr *employees from having financial interests or eng ging in ar financial transactions that would even appear to conflict subst tially with he employees'overnment duties and responsibilities.

Conf ential stateme s of employment and financial interests are filed and updated nnually by the af cted employees.

Part 0 of Title 10 of the Comoission' r gulations addresses he elements of conduct and ethics required by such HRC employees.,

0Ivtv ICE DVIIIIASSdW DATdnR'VvtIC'vf4~0 'lIt'1~~2 4

OOVRRNMRNT tRINTINO Ottlcds

~ ev ~

se ~

24 ~

3 7

~ I

, 3 I

~ r 7

4 I

3 4

7 7

I I

~

I

'I 3

, ~

3 r

~

7 I

~

7

~I

~

, ~

~ I

~

~

1 I

I I

I'

~

~

I 41 3

3 7

~I

~

1 I

1 I I0II I

1

Yis. Lynn Taylor

~0 2 oo 3 ~

o sly proprietary data indicat ng the presence of a 90 mile g i Fault) about 3 1/2 miles of hore from the Diablo Canyon the operating license applicati submitted by the utility for 1973, the utility cited the floskfns and Griffiths reference and showing the location of the fault fshore of the plant site.

kins and Griffith was used in addit n to the independent inten-i ions conducted by the Pacific Gas 8

lectrfc Company, the U. S.

ey (USGS) and the Nuclear Regulatory ommfssfon.

As a principal I

for the Commission, the USGS in 1975 suggested that a magnitude I

ned as a potential seismic value for the Hosgri Fault. It is te that the USGS did not say that the Hosgr i Fault would experien ke but from a conservative standpoint that magnitude could not published previ long fault (Hos plant site.

In Diablo Canyon i pl ov'tded a map The work of Ko si ve investi ga Geological Su v

geology advis r of 7.5 be ass g

important to o

a 7.5H earthqu be ruled out.

mprehensive public hearings on this matter were held by the As yo mention in your letter, there is at present no vacuation plan for the areas 'roundfng San Luis Obispo County.

Under pr ent Commission guidelfnes particula emphasis is placed on emergency planni g within the'low population zon6 surrou ing the plant,.which for Diablo C yon is six miles.

The Offfce of,State Progr s has recently concurred in e State of California Huclear PoAer Plant Emer ncy Response Plan.

The ate plan lists assignments and responsibilities f the State Office of mergency Services and the State Department of Health, Radiological Heal Section for assisting local county

. authorities. in monito ng, assessment and in recommendations f'r insuring.

the protection of publi health and afety in the wake of a potentially contaminati'ng event at a, uclear p

>er facility.

In addition, Governor Brown of Qalffornia has recently ppoi ed a Huclear Power Plant Emergency Review Panel to evaluate the adequa y emergency preparedness measures to mitigate the consequences of a nuclear ower plant accident.

The NRC staff p'lans to under ak an intensive effort over about the next year to improve license pr ardn s at all operating power reactors and those reactors scheduled for an operatin license decision within the next year, such as Diablo Canyon, U it l.

One of the elements of the HRC staff effort related to your concern is assurance y the staff that the capability to take appropriate emergency ctions, that m v inc'lude evacuation, i)f11 be extended to a distance of 10 m's as soon as p ctical; but not later than January 1,

1981.

An HRC-EPA Ta

, Force report NURE -0396 dated December 1978 indicated that evacuation con deration.beyond a di tance of 10 miles.would be extremely unlikely.

In 1971, two geol gists with the Shell Ofl C mpany, (floskins and Griffiths),

CQ RNAIIRW,

~

~ ~ ~

~ ~ ~

DATC~

~,q,

~

F 0'

~ ~

~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~

~ ~ ~ ~

~ ~ ~

KPjf RttttIIV Rta la 't<I tIta~ atsA

+ a.a. nnunns ~F1~ esleA~NO neeleaa 1att tIa tat

n I

Hs. Lynn Taylor As you mention in your letter, there is at pr ent no evacuation plan for the

, areas surrounding Sari. Luis'Obispo County.

der present Comoission guidelines

, particular emphasis is placed on emergenc planning within the low population

. zone. surrounding the plant, which for Di lo Canyon is six mileg.

The Office of State Programs has recently concurr in the State of California Nuclear Power Plant Emergency

Response

Plan-.

The State plan lists assignments and res sibilities for the-State Offi e of Emet gency Services and the State Depart'me f Health, Radiologica

.Health Section for assisting local county authorities s

onitoring", asses ent; and in recommendations fop insuring'he protection o

ublic healt and safety in the wake of a Potentially contaminating even at a nucl ar power facility.

In addition, Governor Bro<e of California hps rec itly pointed a Nuclear Power Plant Emergency Review Panel to evaluate the a

eq cy of emergency preparedhess measures to mitigate the consequences of a nu ear power plant accident; The NRC staff plans to nder ke an intensive effort over about the next year to improve licen prepay ress at all op'crating power reactors and these reactors scheduled f an operat' license decision within the next year, such as Diablo Cany

, Unit l.

0 of the elements of the NRC staff effort related to your cor em is.assuranc by the staff that the capability to take appropriate emerg cy actions, that tt~

include evacuation, will be extended to a.distance of 0 miles as soon as pr.t'ical; but not later than January I, 1981.

An NRC-EP

'Task Force report NUREG 396 dated December 1978 indicated

'that evacuatio consideration beyond a dist ce of 10 miles would be extremely unl ikely.

3. 'In 1971, two geologists with the Shell Oil Compan (Hoskins and Griffiths),

published p eviously proprietary data indicating th presence of a 90 mile long fault Hosgri Fault) about 3 I/2 miles offshorey om the Diablo Canyon plant. site In the operating license applicatio'n subib ted bp the'tility for Diablo Ca yon in 1973, the utility cited the Hoskins an riffiths reference and provided map showing the locattun of the fault offshor f the plant site.

The>>ork of Hoskins and Griffith was used in addition to independent. inten-sive inv stigations conducted by the Pacific Gas 8 Electri Company, the U. S.

Geologi al Survey (USGS) and the Nuclear Regulatory Commisss n.

As a principal geology dvisor for the Cottmission, the USGS in 1975 suggest that a magnitude of 7.5 be assigned as a,potential seismic value for the Hosgr Fault.. lt is important to note that the USGS did not say that the Hosgri Fault would experien(

a 7.5H earthquake but from a conservative standpoint that magnitude could not be ruled out. Comprehensive public hearings on tPis matter were held by the OFPICC~

OlJAHAI4N~

DATE~

~P. %!&0M %10 lo 14% ~~ Asl&

~

~

~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~

l%hMI 444%11 OP441I4O. 0 P1CRI 0 ~ %4 NS

$ 44

>0 ~

~

'I Lll I

t I

4 J

VJ J

I 0

~

~r P

I I

~ LP I

J P,

• 'j r>>'

JVP f,j PPj*/

fP

~

4 I

\\

I jJJ g'5 t

g

~

0 I

P

~

4

~

I

~

/

~

l~.

4

'\\

4 I

L P

0 I

I P

'I

Hs. Lynn Taylor that evacuation considera unlikely.

k h the Shell Oil Company, (Hoskins and Griffiths),

ietary data indicating the resence of a 90 mile about 3 1/2 miles offshore om the Diablo Canyon ing 'license application submi ed by the utility for utility cited the Hoskins and riffiths reference and location of the fault offshore the plant site.

iffith was used in addition to the independent inten-ted by. the Pacific Gas 8 Electric Company, the U. S.

nd the Nuclear Regulatory Coomission.

As a prigcipal mmission, the USGS in 1975 suggested that a magnitude tential seismic value for the Hos ri Fault.

It is 3.

In 1971, two geologists wi published previously prop long fault (Hosgri Fault) plant site.

In the oper Diablo Canyon, in 1973, t e provided a map showing t e The work of Hoskins and r

sive investigations con uc Geological'urvey (USGS a

geology advisor for the Co of 7;5 be assigned as a po g

important to note that the USGS did not say that the Hosgri would experience a 7.5fi earthquake but from a conservative standpoint that magnitude could note be ruled out. Comprehensive public hearings on this matter were held by the Atomic Safety As you mention in your letter, there is at present no evacuation p

r the areas s rrounding San Luis Obispo County.

Under present Commi on guidelines particul r emphasis is placed on emergency planning within e lop population zone surr nding the plant, which for Diablo Canyon is s'iles.'he Office of State P

grams has recently concurs'ed in the State California Nuclear Power Plant mergency

Response

Plan.

The State pla lists assi gnments and responsibilit

.s for the State Office of Emergenc Services and the State Department of k alth, Radiological Health Secti for assisting

'local county authorities in m nitoring, assessment, an'd in ecommendations for insuring the protection'f ublic heal'th and safety the wake of a potentially

~contaminating event at a nuclear power fa 'lity..In addition,,Governor Brown

'of California has re ntly appointed a

N lear, Power Plant Emergency Review Panel, to evaluate the equacy of emer~

ncy preparedness measures to mitigate the consequences of a nu ear power p ant accident.

The NRC staff 'plans to undert e an intensive effort over about the next year to improve license prepardn at al1 operating power reactors and these reactors scheduled for an operati license decision within the next year, such as Diablo Canyon, Unit 1 ~

n'e f the elements of'he NRC staff effort related to your concern is ass ance 'he staff. that the capability to take appropriate emergency actions, that m

include evacuation, will be extended to a distance of 10 miles as oon as pra ical; but not later than January 1,

1981..

An NRC-EPA Task Force report NUREG-96 dated December 1978 indicated ti beyond a dist e of 10 miles would be extremely OFPICC~

OUAHANKW OATC~

I ~ I ~ ~

~

~

~ 0 ~ ~ 0

~ I

~

~ ~ ~ ~

~ON Jlo /n TCW ~rag pq/h i<<w<<n <<<<<<r<<<<

~ eave

~ t

• P /

/

I' P

PI 4

~

~

I

~ 1>>

~ I t t

~ '

I I

P~r

~ ~

p P' t

tIt't.

I FI

~

t I ~

P I

+I P

Ns. Lynn Tay 1or 3

6 ~

and Licensing Board over about a two-month peri o

~

Some of thi s nation '

and the world '

1 eadi ng authorities, subject t cross-exami nat ion, testified that the plant h'as been designed to withstan a seismic event of 7.5 ~

These hearings wer e comp'leted on F eburary 1 5, 1 9 The Licensing Board is ih the process of preparing its decision regard

>g the licensing of Diablo Canyon based on the record of these proceedi n The NRC is n

er direct 1y, nor ind'ctly 1 nvol ved on the,1>s'ue of radiation exposure to" indi v>

al s,at the Nev da Weapon Testing Grounds.

You may wish to consider fowardin our conc n 'to the Department of Hea 1th, Educqti on and Melfar'e and/or the rans dministrat ion.

of the Ceani ssi on '

r required by such NRC eg 1ations addresses the el em ts of conduct and ethics, e p 1 oyees.

ll em over the effects of radi at ion the envi ronment, the subscribed to the principle that ra at ion exposure of ept 's 1 ow as is reasonably 'chi evabl e Thi s princi'pl e in the field of radiation pr otection f many years.

nuclear power p 1ants include provisions t limit and f1 uents from the pl ants.

~ The term "as 1 ow s i s reason-res tak ing into account the state of technol gy, the nts in relation to benefits to the public hea th and and soci oeconomic considerations, and the rel, ionshi p nUclear energy i n the publ ic interest.

The Coi issi on In, regard to your con Commi ssi on has always the publ ic shou 1 d be has been a central o e Operat ing 1 icenses o

control radioactive f ably-achievabl e" re i

economics of improv me safety, other socie al of these to the use of has adopted n~meri c 1

for operation of.. nu 1

reasonably achievabl power plants.

Using release from nuclear fr acti on of that rece guldel i nes for des'n. objecti ves and 1 imiting co itions ear power plants to meet the criteri on of "as 1 ow s

for radi oacti ve mater ial in 'eff1 uents from nucl e r these gui del ines, the radiation resulting from 'rad> oacti ve ower p 1 ants during norma 1 plant operation i s a sma 1 1 ved from natural background acti vity.

4 Me are not sure whom you refe in the ibRC that 'work cl osely with the Hucl ear Industry other than those wh cond reviews of various techniea 1 matters.

The Commi ss ion '

regul at) on speci fica restri ct their employees from having financial interests or eng ging in any fi ncial transactions that would even appear to conf 1 ict substa ia 1 ly with the e 1 oyees 'overnment dut ies and responsibilities.

Confi ntial statements of ployment and financial interests, are filed and up'dated a

ual ly by the affected e, 1 oyees.

Part 0 of Title 1 0 orr>can OQIINAI4CW z+

~

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

DASC+

\\8

~ 4At$ %1 4 ~ 4 l4 tC'\\ 4ltlAl1 h%lh All 1 44ttttg IIII'lltltl44tttltII ~ ii%1 11 ~

%41

7 Je

~ /I I

1 I

~

~

1 I

e 7

/

7 W

I /

~

"f I

Ns. Lynn Taylor W

As you mention in your letter, there is at present no evac n plan for the areas surrounding San Luis Obispo County.

Under prese ormission guide'lines particul.ar emphasis is placed on emergency planning thin the low population

$ zone surrounding the plant, >shich for Diablo Cany

'is six miles.

The Office g

ut not later than Janua 1, 1981.

An.NRC-EPA Task Force ated December 1978 indica d that evacuation consideration f 10 mi'les would be extrem y unlikely.

ogists with the Shell Oil Compai

, (Hoskins and Griffith),

sly proprietary data indicating t e presence of a 90 mile i Fault) abuout 3 1/2 miles offsho e from the Diablo Canyon he operating license application su mitted by the utility for 1973, the utility cited the Hoskins nd Griffith reference and owing their location of the fault off hore of the plant site.

ns and Griffith was used.in addition t the independent inten-ns conducted by the Pacific Gas 8 Elect ic Company, the U. S.

soon as practical report NUREG-0396 beyond a distance H

3.

In 1971, two geo published previo long fault (Hosr plant site.

In t Diablo Canyon i provided a map h

The work of'os i sive investigat>

Geological Surve and the Nuclear Regulatory Cormission.

s a principal geologi advisor for the oranission, the USGS in 1975 suggested tha a magnitude of 7.5 be assigned as a potential seismic value for the Hosgri Fau

. It is important

'o note that the USGS did not say that the'Hosgri would experience a 7.5M earth-quake but from a conservative standpoint that magnitude could not be ruled out.

Comprehensive public hearings on this matter were held by the AtomiC Safety of State Programs has recently concurred in th tate of California Nuclear Power Plant mergency

Response

Plan.

The St e plan lists assignments and responsibilit for the State Office of E rgency Services and the State Department of He th, Radiological Healt Section for assisting local county authorities in mon oring,'ssessment; nd in recommendations for insur in>

. the protection of pub ic health and fety,in the wake of a potentially contaminating event at nuclear p

er facility.'In addition, Governor Brow of lifornia has recently appointed a Nuclear Power Plant Emergency Review Panel evaluate the adequacy of emergency preparedness measures Co mitigate the con ences of a nuclear power plant accident.

The NRC staff plans to un rtake a

intensive effort over about the prepardness;;

of all operating power r actors and hese reactors scheduled for an operating license decision within the next yea such as Diablo Canyon, Unit 1.

One "

of the elements of the NRC staff effor related to.your concern is that the staff will assure th the capability to take appropriate emergency actions, that may include eva uation will be exte ed to a distance of 10 miles as OrriCC~

oQRssAMc&

tsATc~

I

'Mgtf ssrsssme mern las.'sea mssswe Ileuh-

+r ~.~. m~w~~~wieasemsaars~msmea ease see see 0 ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~

p I ~

~t I

I I

4 fl

~

4

~ 4

~

'I

~

~

4 p

I

'I'I PP

'r

~

P/ ~

~tl p

/

r "I

4:

p I

p

~ I i

I ll I

p

'I

~

~

~

tg ~

~ tg 4

I

ably achl evabl e" economics of impr safety, other-soc of these to the.

has adopted nume r quires taking into account the st e of technology, the vements in relation to benefits to t e public health and etal and socioeconomic considerations, and the relationship se of nuclear energy in the public inte st.

The.Coranission ical guidelines for. design objectives an ylimiting conditions uclear power plants to meet the criterion of "as low as ble", for r adioactive material in effluents from nuclear ive for operation of n reasonably achie a

power plants.

Us these gu>delines, the rad~at>on resulti ng from radioact release from nuclear'poser plants during normal. plant operation is a sma11 fraction of that received from natural background activity.

Ns. Lynn Taylor 3

and Licensing Board over about'a two-month 'period.

S ie Of this nation's and the worl'd's leading author)ties, subject to cro

-examination, testified that the plant has been designed to withstand th greater seismic event of 7.5.

These hear ings were complet'ed on Feburary 5, 1979.

The Licensing Board.,

is in the process of preparing its decision r arding tge.licensing of'iablo Canyon based on the record of these proceed gs.

The NRC is neither directly nor indirect y involved on the.issue. of radiation exposure to individuals at the Nevada l'pon Testing Grounds.

You may wish to consider forwarding your concern t the Department of Health, Education and Rel are or the Department of Yeterans Administreation.

'I 5.

l<e are not sure whom y refer to in the NRC that work closely with the Nuclear

,'h other than those o co duct reviews of various technical matters.

The Coranission' regulations cifically restrict their employees from having financial interests or engagi n any financial transactions that would even appear to conflict substanti ly 'th the employees Government duties and responsibilities.

Confiden al stat ents of employnent and financial interests.

are filed,and updated annu ly by the ffected employees.

Part 0 of Title 10 of the Corrmission' regula ions address the elements of conduct and ethics

'required by such NRC empl yees.

6.

In regard to your conce n over the effects o

'radiation on the environment, the

'om has always ubscribed to the princ> le that radiation exposure of the public should be ept as low-as is reasonab achievable.

This principle has been a central o e in the field of radiation rotection for many years.

Operating licenses nuclear power plants include rovisions to limit and

'control radioactiv effluents from the plants.

The term "as low as is reason-OffICC~

~...,.....

CVltNAI4CW OAT%~

~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ at

~ ~ ~ ~

~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~

~ ~ ~ ~ o ~ ~ ~ ~ ~

~ ~ ~ ~ ~ I ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~

~ ~ ~

000

~ ~

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

~ 0 ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~

~ I

~

~

~

P

~ 0 ~

~

~ ~ ~

~ ~ ~ ~

~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~

HI O

a lt

~

I

'I I

~

r

~

(

h D

I I ~

I

'I I

~

a

~

~

C I'

~

I f

II, I

~

r

'I

, k

/

/]

= ~

C

(

C ~

~

< ~

C

.I ~ "'

~

~

. Groff E.

Hughes B. Moore J.

Yore IE (3)

SECY Mail (79-2480)

(6) what are we going to do in this closed environment when it is completely irradi ated?

The NRC staff is Mile Island acci and operations o

which should be tion or operatin directed by the for nuclear powe that presiding o

prese tly engag in an extensive evaluation of the Three dent.

This evalua ion will cover all aspects of the design f tha plant with t object'ive of identifying improvements appli d to nuclear p

er plants which are now under construc-g.

~ ntil that evaluat'on's completed or until otherwise Co ssion, the staff d s not intend to issue any new licenses r r actors even if autho

'zed by a Licensing Board such as ve the Diablo Canyon pro eding.

f he evaluation, it is det rmined that changes in the design -'

plant are required and t ose changes warrant a reopening NRC staff will take the ini iati ve to do so.

In this regard, ted to know that intervening arties in the Diablo Canyon quested the Comoission to stay the proceeding pending the vestigation of the Three Mile Is and 'accident.

These requests cted upon by the Commission or he Licensing Board.

If, as a result o

of the Diablo Ca of the record, tt you may be intere proceeding have r outcome of. the i have not yet bee A public hearing adequacy of the on this issue at Emergency P lans The Atomic Safet is still pending i as held in October 1977 on variou matters including the plicant's Emergency Plans.

The NR staff provided testimony he October 1977 hearing and stated hat the applicant's c nformed t'o requirements of Appendix E to 10 CFR Part 50.

y and Licensing Board-,,'s decision on th s matter, among others, Cl Distributi on:

NRC PDR Local PDR NRR Readi g

LWR ¹1.

ale H.

R.

enton E.

Case DE

. Vassallo Ms. Ly Taylor

. A. Varga P. 0.

B 488 J.

F. Stolz San Luis bispo, California 93406 B

C Buckley E.

G. Hylton

Dear Ms. T lor:

ELD G. Ertter (07269.)

I am pleased t respond to your etter of August.23, 1979 to the Nuclear Regulatory Comm sion, which w referred to me for reply.

In your letter you expressed the following c cerns (1) the issuance of an operating license for the Diablo Can n Nuclea Power Plants; (2) the lack of a,evacuation plan for the.areas suroun

'ng Sa Luis Obispo, California; (3) why haven't the geo'lo-gists who located the osgr Fault been listended to?; (4) why are veterans who were exposed to rad> t on in Nevada dying of cancer?;

(5) why are some of the members of the NRC o closely involved with the Nuclear Industry?;

and OP'I'IOC~

OIIAMAMa~

OATIC~

PORbf 518 (9-76) hiRCbf 0240

~

to

~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~

~

~

~

4 U O OOVOOIIMOIII'llllltlIIOOl PICO I I ~ 1 ~

RI ~

10 ~

Ca

% ~

-f.. Ilss bl ~

'J l

h Ns. Lynn Taylor As you mention in your letter, there is at present no ev uation plan for the areas surrounding San Luis Obispo County.

Under pres Commission guidelines particu'lar emphasis is placed on emergency plannin within the low population zone surrounding the plant, which for Diablo Ca on is six miles.

The Office of State Programs has recently concurred in tt State of California Nuclear

,Po>>er Plant Emergency Response Plan.

The S

te p)an lists assignments and responsibilities for the State Office of ergency Services and the State Department of alth, Radiological Healt Section for assisting local county authorities in mo 'toring, assessment.,

nd in recommendations for insuring the protection of p lic )Iealth and fety in the wake of a potentially contaminating event a

a nuclear po er facility.

However, the NRC Co~missio ers have de ided that a rulemaking proceeding is needed on emer gency planni g.

A full-ti e task force has been established to study and prepare for a c mprehensive plan n emergency preparedness.

In.

addition, Governor Brown of California has r ently appointed a nuclear Power Plant Emergency Revi ew P nel to evaluate the a equacy of emergency preparedness th consequences of a nuc ar power plant accident.

loafe t

Governor Brown to reviel any recommendations contained O

measures to mitigate agreed in our letter

. in the Panel' report The Hosgri Fault, wh discovered in 1971 a

the Pacific Gas 5 El, nuclear Regulatory C

Commission, the USG as a potential sei that the USGS did n but -.r~N. a conserv Comprehensiv" Our','c and Licensing Boar l

and the world' le d examination.

The x

wir,'i,."tand the gre e

on Feburary lo, 1'

decision r egarding i h is located 3 1/2 miles fro the Diablo plants, was d has been the subject of int sive investigation by.

ctric Company, the U. S. Geolo ical Survey and the mnission.

As a principal geolo ic advisor for the in 1975 suggested that a magnit de of 7.5 be assigned ic value for the Hosgri Fault.

is important to note t say that the Hosgri would exper ence a,?.5N earthquake ive standpoint that magnitude could not be ruled out.

hearings on.this matter were, held by the Atomic Safety over aL ~ut a two-month period.

Sos of this nation's ing autI.or ities v~stified and were ubject to cross-perts went on to say that the plant has been deisgned to r seismic event of 7. 5.

These hearings were completed The Licensing Board is in the process of preI,aring its licen~ir, of Diablo Canyon based on.the record of these rrroceedings.

Ho<ever, an,NRC-EPA Task F

ce h s completed a two-year study on the planning basis for radiological respor e plans for local and state governments.

Their report WREG-0396, EPA 520/1-7 016, dated December

1978, recoranends an Emergency Planning Zone for p ot tive measures

.for the plume exposure pathway of 10 miles, beyond which ev cuati considerations would be extreme'ly unlikely.

Orl ICII~

OVRIIAt4NW,~~

~ ~ ~

~ ~ ~ ~

~ ~ ~ ~ ~

~ ~ ~ ~

MC PORK 516 (9 'r6) NECM 0240 U,S, OOVICNNMCNI'NINTINOOPNICOI I01I 0 ~I O ~ D

f~

Ms. Lynn Taylor 3

The NRC is neither directly nor indirectly involved on the issue of radiation exposure to individuals at the Nevada Weapon Testing Grounds.:

You may wish to consider forwarding your concern to the Department of Health, Education and Wel fare and/or the Department of Veterans Administreation.

We are not sure whom you refer to in the NRC that work closely u 'he Nuclear Industry other than those who conduct reviews of various te ical matters.

The NRC was established by the Energy Reorganization Act

1974, as

amended, and charged it with the responsibility for all licensi and related regulatory functions previously assigned to the Atcmic Energy C mission.

Consequently, the NRC technic staff conducts reviews of variou technical submittals from utlities or nuclea earn system suppliers an'd, en necessary, convene meetings to resolve technical is s.

It is our view th this involvement is necessary to, ensure that nuclear powe lants designed d operated in a safe manner.

I In regard to your concern over th effects f radiation on the environment, the Cormission has always subscribed to he p inciple that radiation exposure e of the public should be kept as low as is asonably ach'ievable.

This principle has been a central one in the field of iation protection for many years..

Operating licenses of nuclear power p

nts nclude provisions to limit and control radioactive effluents from t e plant The term "as low as is reason-ably achievable" requires taking in o account e state of technology, the economics of improvements in relat on to benefit to the public health and safety, other societal and socioe onomic considera

ions, and the relationship of these to the use of nuclear e ergy in the pub'fic nterest The Corrmission has adopted numerical guideline for design objective and limiting conditions for operation of nuclear power lants to meet the crit ion of "as low as reasonably achievable" for ra oactive material in effl nts from nuclear power plants.

Using these gu delines, the radiation resu ting from radioactive release from nuclear po>>er p ants during normal plant oper tion is a small fraction of that received f om natural background activity.

I trust that the above inf rmation has been responsive to you conc Sincerely, erns.

D. B. Vassallo, Acting Dir Division of Project Manage Office of Nuclear Reactor R

ctor nt gulation ll orricu~

CVRNAMNW OATL~

DPM:LWR ¹1, F,QHy.U.On:.p.nn

.99J..........i'.

DPM:LWR ¹1 BCBqgl.l,y......

AP/........../79..

DPM:LAIR (1

,DPM:LWR:AD

.QFRto.lz.............SP.Vox as........

,09L........./79.....09J..........f79 OELD DPM DBVassallo,

, O9/ '79 lCEC HHUK 110 (9 76) NRCM 0240

• U'I OOVCI'NT ~IIINTINOOrrlCCI I ~ 7 ~ NI 100

1L d

FROM:

/~~M f~~')0P 5GR L%4$3 ~a-')Spkp ACTION CONTROL COMPL DEADLINE ACKNOWLEDGMENT INTERIM REPLY

'DATES 57269 DATE OF DOCUMENT TO:

FINALREPLY FILE LOCATION

/ /

PREPARE FOR SIGNATURE OF; Q CHAIRMAN Q EXECUTIVEDIRECTOR DESCRIPTION Q LE[TER Q MEMO Q REPORT Q OTHER SPECIAL INSTRUCTIONS OR REMARKS g4M"$0).S CN:w=F4)P~g )$C~~&ffRg [Pi ai$5~~lQ Ca".:jaw DOCUMENT/COPY NO.

CLASSIFIED DATA CLASSIFICATION NUMBER OF PAGES POSTAL REGISTRY NO.

ASSIGNED TO:

DATE CATEGORY Q

NSI Q RD Q FRD INFORMATIONROUTING G~Cf 7~~@~i~d LEGALREVIEW Q

FINAL Q

COPY 7

8k+>

Vy ASSIGNED TO:

DATE NO LEGAL OBJECTIONS NOTIFY:

Q EDO ADMINS CORRES BR EXT.

COMMENTS, NOTIFY:

EXT.

"NRC FORM 232

[11-75)

JCAE NOTIFICATIONRECOMMENDED:

Q YES Q

NO EXECUTIVEDIRECTOR FOR OPERATIONS DO DIVOT'REDO[/E TH)S COPY PRINCIPAL CORRESPONDENCE CONTROL

('

J t

't l(

t lt (t

(

lt

79-.24;80 Leggieg ggeee~a

- NRC SECRETARIAT

. Q Commissioner X@KExec. DirjOper.

0 Cong. Liaison O Public Affairs Date 0

Gen: Counsel Q Solicitor O Secretary incoming; From:

Chair

Subject:

R Date 0

Prepare reply for signature of:

0 Chairman 0 Commissioner,

~ 0 EDO, GC, CL;SOL, Pgag, SECY 0

Signature block omitted

~ G Return, original of incoming with response XQIK For direct reply' C3 ~ For appropriate action O

For information 0

For recommendation Suspense:

Sept.

12 Remarks:

NRC42 For the Commission:

Send three (3) copies of reply toSecy Mail Facility Rec'd Off.EDO + q 0GtB g FQe ~ e'jo g ge ~ '

~ e) ~ lgsSSIIL6 TlmB Agx zs:22 s ager 2 Ke+t<arg A~ '-."

ACTION SLIP

E 1

I 3