ML20010H565
| ML20010H565 | |
| Person / Time | |
|---|---|
| Site: | Diablo Canyon  |
| Issue date: | 07/29/1981 |
| From: | Panetta L HOUSE OF REP. |
| To: | Palladino N NRC COMMISSION (OCM) |
| Shared Package | |
| ML20010H564 | List: |
| References | |
| NUDOCS 8109250247 | |
| Download: ML20010H565 (1) | |
Text
_
w f # PAN M A
..S. o.,. n.. 5..,.M.. 3
- r. - -.
WMl 25 Congregg of tije Unittb 5tc.tts g; r Lg*isuftw save os,a.sar PO.CC.
- %T.L*,*
Douse of Represtutatibes Tir
- 2"2'17 ""
Eastingt:m,3a.C. 20515. $<TiTTTJ N 9C; r.-
. -g.
y sc-
./m-Y.
< w m.
. July 29,g1931 wc U+
e-;n i-w - o.c. m i
-te-uno is.=
.j
>;-.. ~,
a
'M r? 2 3 9M = C L
35 Honorable Nunzio palladino, Chairman..
Nuclear Regulatorv Commission
.J.9. ~
. h.
' ' [' [c.
'0555 2
Washington, D.C.
s.
~~
k db
Dear Chairman Palladino:
i-
^j &j Cn,+-
Q.
...s -
.n I am: writing.to follow-up on my lette_r;of-dly 10,~ 1981,. in which 3
I requested that the Commiss'en conduct :a5 comprehensive review of l
(
the Lic~ensing Board's low power dsdi E 6hfin~.the-case of the Diablo e
Canyon nuclear power plant, in accifraahesjith ~ the procedures it
instituted following the accident it'?ThteetMile Island.
.u.
d f,rr,j' ' '..
~
in the period since my,.1hst 1e'tter, the Licetsiv
' ~
~
As you know, Board has issued a decision which would antihorize low power t a sting /
In addition to my earlier request that the, Commission exerci:- full
~
review of the Licensing Board decis'i~on, I bElieve it is appropriate for the Commission sto: conduct; a thqrough, substantive and important review of the seismic issues by granting th'e. recently filed petition t
t'or review of ceismic issues.
I would urge the Commission to take briefs and hear ors '. arguments, 'if request-ed, by all af f ected parties.
to its regulations, the Commission is my understanding that pursuant I.t generslly grant review of its Appeals Board decisions unless does not u'estion appears to involve an important matter which could, the case in 3 significantly affect the environment, or public health and safety. In my view, and'that of many citi: ens.who reside in the communities to Diablo Canyon, there is no more important or.significant adjacent issue than the ability of the Diablo facility to withstand a 7.5 Since seismicity is the magnitude earthquake on the Hosgri. fault.
and the one with central safety issue in the licensing. proceedings, I urge saliency for the people directly affected by the plant, the most to allow you to review the seismic decision of the Appeals Board and not any low power testing until the seismic issue has been resolved.
The Diablo Canyon plant was constructed before the existence cf the Hosgri fault was documented and would not be sited there today given the present st' ate of knowledge.
I believe we owe it to the residents of the affected communities and the state of California to take every
~
the Diablo facility is capable of possible precaution to insure that withstanding a 7. 5 magnitude earthqtake.
appreciate your consideration of this issue and will look forward I
to hearing from you.
.n LE0.' )E. PANETTA
~ ~ ~
8109250247 810916
/
V PDR ADOCK 05000275 g
U PDR
\\e80er of Congress LEP:tod er-Compinioners