ML17083A248
| ML17083A248 | |
| Person / Time | |
|---|---|
| Site: | Diablo Canyon  |
| Issue date: | 02/04/1980 |
| From: | Harold Denton Office of Nuclear Reactor Regulation |
| To: | Hess C AFFILIATION NOT ASSIGNED |
| References | |
| NUDOCS 8002150121 | |
| Download: ML17083A248 (10) | |
Text
,jfmLM358R(D'l f lltlPtt Distribution:
g~
F. J. Illill NRC PDR J.
F. Stolz FEB
~ t~80 Local PDR B.
C. Buckley EDO Reading E.
Ms. Carol Hess LWR Pl File ELD 2411 Graceland Avenue H.
R.
Denton G. Ertter (08224)
San Carlos, California 94070 E.
G.
Case M. Groff D.
F.
Ross
. E.
Hughes
Dear lls. Hess:
D.
B. Vassallo B. Moore S.
A. Varga J.
Yore I am p'leased to respond to your letter to the President which was referred to me for reply.
In your letter you express concerns regarding problems entailing nuclear energy.
You were specifically concerned whether the Diablo Canyon plant located 'in San Luis Obispo could withstand an earth-quake of up to 7.5 on the Richter scale.
IE (3)
H. Berkow W. Russell D. Muller D. Eisenhut R; Mattson The Diablo Canyon plant is desfgned to withstand an earthquake of'7.5 on the Rfchter scale assumed to occur on the offshore Hosgrf fault located 3 1/2 miles from the plant. 'ou were fncorrectly under the impression that the plant was made to withstand an earthquake of up to 6.5 on-the Richter-scale.
As a principal geology advisor for the Corrmfssfon, the USGS in 1975 'suggested that a magnitude of 7.5 be assfgned as a potentfal seismic value for the Hosgrf Fault, and the Cottmfssfon adopted this value.
Comprehensive public hearfngs on this matter were held by the Atomic Safety and Licensing Board over about a two-month period.
These hearings were completed on February 15, 1979.
The Atomic Safety and Licensing Board fssued a partial initial decision on September 27, 1979, which included a favorable finding on the seismic design adequacy of the Diablo Canyon Plants.
I trust that this information has been responsfve to your concerns.
Sincer ely, Qrlgla:.lSi~>89 by p.P.. Ot,"a(pa Haro'ld R. Denton, Director Office of Nuclear Reactor Regulation
- SEE PREVIOUS YELLOW FOR PREVIOUS CONCURRENCES DD:D~(
DP+
OCA DBVassallo DFR.
RR E
se 01/~
/80 01/
/80 Ol/
/80 01/
/80
'pC)c RC'S"cp(g.f OFFICE $
SURNAME DATEP DPM:LWR r'FIl E@g~pcrg 01/2Z
/80 Rg)
DPM.
1y...... II.FSCO3 Ol/,
/80 01/
DPM:LWR:AD
.'.SAVarga....'.
$ 80 01/ 28 /80 OELD 01 /ZAN../80.
NRR pg
.HRDeMon......
, iso, NRC FORM 318 (9 76) NRCM 0240 AU.S. GOVERNMENT FRINTING OFFICE: 1979'289'369
I lt
L Distributi'n:
Docket Fsl
~ F. J. Williams IE (3)
NRC PDR J.
F. Stol z H. Berkow Local PDR B.
C. Buckley W. Russell EDO Reading E.
G. Hylton D. Muller NRR Reading OCA (3)
~R. Nattson LWR k'1 File ELD
~-
D. Eisenhut raceland Avenue
~
H.
R. Denton G. Ertter= (08224)
San Carlos, California 94076,'.D.
F.
Ross E
Hughes D-., B. Vassallog-B. Moore S.
A. Varga,'.
Yore I am pleased to respond to'-your letter to<the President which was referred to me for reply.
In your letter you eXpress concerns regarding problems entailing nuclear energy.
You were sydcifica'1ly concerned whether the Diablo Canyon plant located in San tuis Obispo could withstand an earth-quake of up to 7.5 on the Richter Scale.
The Diablo Canyon plant is designed to withstand an earthquake of 7.5 on the Richter scale assumed tb,~occur on the offshore Hosgri fault located 3 1/2 miles from the plant~~
You were incorrectly under the impression that the plant was made,fo withstand an, earthquake of up to 6.5 on the Richter scale.
As a principal geology advisor for the Coomission, the USGS in 1975 suggests'that a magnitude of 7.5 be assigned as a potential seismic value for the Hosgri Fault, and the Coomission adopted this value.
Comprehensive publ)8 harings on this matter were held by the Atomic Safety and Licensing Board over about a two-month period.
These hearings were completed on Febuary 15, 1979.
The Atomic Safety and Licensing Board issued a partia) initial decision on September 27, 1979, which included a favorable figding on the seismic design adequacy of the Diablo Canyon Plants.
I trust that this information has been responsive to your concerns.
Sincerely,
/
Harold R. Denton, Director Office of Nuclear Reactor Regulation
]
I DPM:DD DPM: D DBVassal 1 o DFRoss 01/
/80 01/
/80 01/
/80 OFFICE P SURNAME DATEP DPM:L9R 0'1 EG
- pcm oij+
goo DP 1
DPM1 DPM:LWR:
BCBucklep JFSto SA ga Ol/ $ b /80 01/
0 Ol
/80 OELD 01/
/80 NRR HRDenton 01/
/80 NRC FORM 318 (9 76) NRCM 0240 AU.S GOVERNMENT PRINTING OFFIC'E: l979.289-369
'I pl~
c;<
t
FROM:.-
[<<<j<<~
CQQ QAjOfA TO:f9+ Ff48$~4 ftetarr@4 iW i~;-'C by fK'L 3j)1t'QQ)
ACTION CONTROL'OMPL OEADLINF ACKNOWLEDGMENT INTERIMREPLY
~
FINALREPLY F ILE LOCATI N DA P/7 i.
08224 DATE OF DOCUMENT
<<~ ~~8 PREPARE FOR SIGNATURE OF:
Q CHAIRMAN Q EXECUTIVEDIRECTOR OTHER:
DESCRIPTION Q LETTER Q MEMO Q REPORT Q OTHER SPECIAL INSTRUCTIONS OR REMARKS M~C&fPi S~ 45/85'NOISE 9f'ALIQ@ CaZig'C~9 464"sxkg4 48 MF~>.MRQ CLASSIFIED DATA
/pP
~i /5'p DOCUMENT/COPY NO.
NUMBEROF PAGES POSTAL REGISTRY NO.
ASSIGNED TO:
DATE CLASSIF ICATI0 N CATEGORY Q NSI Q RD Q FRD INFORMATIONROUTING LEGALREVIEW Q
FINAL Q
COPY ASSIGNED TO:
DATE NO LEGAL OBJECTIONS NOTIFY:
Q EOO ADMIN4 COR RES BR EXT.
COMMENTS, NOTIFY:
EXT.
'CAE NO N RECOMMENDED:
TIF ICATIO YES Q
NO NhC FORM 232 (11-75)
EXECUTIVE DIRECTOR FOR OPERATIONS PRINCIPAL CO'RRESPONDENCE CONTROL-DO NOT REMOVE THIS COPY
r.
H F
4 I
'I t
4 h
p
't 0
r h
lf l
I
Department of Energy Washington, D.C.
20545 JAN 3. 6 ]98P Hs. Carol Hess 2411 Graceland Avenue San Carlos, CA 94070
Dear Hs. Hess:
Your letter to President Carter regarding nuclear power has been f'orwarded'c this office for consideration.
Me wish to point out that this Department has neither operationa1 nor regulatory control over commercial nuclear power reactors.
The Nuclear Regulatory Commission has jurisdiction over the protection and safe operation of those reactors.
'While we are not responsible for the cited activities, we wish to make the following points:
o In order for a nuclear power plant to be licensed for operation by Federal and State regulatory agencies, it must meet stringent criteria for resistance to damage from natural catastrophes.
Based on years of extensive research and experience, it has been deter-mined that the operation of a nuclear power plant conforming to these criteria does not entail unacceptable risks to the public.
o Where considerations of safety indicate, the Government requires utility companies to shut down nuclear power plants for investiga-tion.
A recent example is the shutdown of five nuclear plants by order of. the U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission on March 13, 1979 for an investigation of the integrity of their piping systems during earthquakes.
In some cases, utilities voluntarily shut down nuclear units f'r safety checks or modifications.
Inasmuch as matters pertaining to the licensing, construction, and operation of commercial nuclear power plants are under the cognizance of:
the Nuclear Regulatory Commission, we are forwarding your letter to them for appropriate action by copy of this letter.
Sincerely, ohn P. Thereault, Deputy Director Plans and Analysis Division Nuclear Reactor Programs cc:
Lee Gossick
W
~ '>
~
~
1
~r l
-Carol Hess 2413. Braceland Ave.
San Carlos, Ca.
94O7O
Dear Hr. President,
Z urge'you to please stand back and. take a look
,at the many problems entailing 'nuclear..energy.
I agree that they are the most. positive outlook for the istmegiate yuture oi'ur energy obese nation~ yet the planning and construction of some of these sites seem blindly catastrophic.
The site I am referring to is the Mablo Canyon plant located in San Luis:.bispo.
The plant, itself is made to withstand an eaxth-quake of up to 6.5 on the B.chter Scale yet'o-': cz..
this
~~"- comforti~ when.the fault l'=~e, situated only 3 miles away is capable of trig'gering off a 7.5 quaker'lease take considerations like this into hand when declaring your support fox nucleax energy.
Thank-you,
P
'l I
J g
- ~
e Ir'"~
e e+
I l