ML20039A600
| ML20039A600 | |
| Person / Time | |
|---|---|
| Site: | San Onofre  |
| Issue date: | 12/10/1981 |
| From: | COMMUNITY ENERGY ACTION NETWORK |
| To: | Bradford P, Gilinsky V, Palladino N NRC COMMISSION (OCM) |
| References | |
| LSO5-81-11-022, LSO5-81-11-22, NUDOCS 8112180499 | |
| Download: ML20039A600 (1) | |
Text
A >
~
s f- ~ " - ~ =
D OCI'IT 1:U'Ea g
sP'.C ". a* U ~. ll Fn' C...... -.-.,,
u s
1 m,i; o l. =
[
..c
/ n+\\
/
L L
/-
__. Community Energy Action Network L
m
,nm 4 p 4 *-
a
<m> 2 75-1162 GJ
.~;t-recember 10, 1981
..-J.6v.
- 2 To: ICCI. EAR REGU'J. TORY CC.W.ISSIONERS PA*.I.ADINO, GILINSKY, SRAD" C @Hth RO:!ERTS M /g {'
O 9)
Re: Director Of Nuclear Reactor Regulation Decision under 1
- 2.206 (Os SAN ONCFRE NUCLIAR GENERATING STATICN, UNIT 1 g
(Q n,y.
'WGD I
Docket No. 50-206
. N OEC}.a ~7 7
-2 LS05-El-11-022 B c:q 19 81 x :
c L
NRC Commissioners:
gg y A
The undersigned hereby request that the NRC SET ASIDE t a hector lear Reactor Regulation decision of Noverier 16, 1981 denying the r Sh a. k jocation er suspension of the operating license of San Onofre Unit 1.
We further request that you review this decision in light cf evidence presented at the ASI3 hearings on the seismic risk at San Onofre in the matter of licensing Units 2& 3.
The request fer action was filed by 1560 California residents beginning November, 1979 through 1980. The timing cf the Director's decision was not issued until a full 2 years af ter the requests were filed but was filed one week tefore the originally scheduled decision of the ASI3 on the seismic hazards at San Oncf re.
It would appear that the Director was not concerned about issuing his decision in a reasonably tirely manner but saw te it that the decision was issued before the action by the ASL3.
We submit that the Director's discussion of the seismic hazards is perfunctory and sisplistic and evidences a lack of understanding of the seismic issue. He is relying on old info. ation and f ails to address the seismic risks testified to at the surter licensing hearings on units 2 & 3 issues its Any decision regarding Unit 1 shculd not he final until af ter the ASL3 decision on SGNGS Units 2 & 3, which will set forth specific findings of fact re-garding seismic risk.
Additicnally, we request that puhlic hearings be scheduled after the ASla's The public shculd be included in the review and seismic upgrading that decisi.,n.
- s currently underway f or Unit 1.
It is clear in Mr. Denten's decision on Unit 1 that
-he plant does not currently reet the sa.c seismic requirerents as Units 2 & 3.
The decirion also points cut that the emerp ncy planning process is not cc plete. The public should not be locked cut cf this ongoing process of review, upgrading and improvement in the emergency planning. Hearings are especially in crder for the 1560 Californians who individually filed petitions on this matter!
1 is additionally called for due to An in depth investigation of San Onofre, Unit 1.) e hrittlement/" thermal shcck" prcblem with the the following serious problems:
reactor vessel; 2.) f aulty valves in the Incrgency Core Cooling System; 3.) questionable proximity of the site repairs to steam 9enerators considered a :.emporary solution; 4.)
to half the population of Calif ornia (10-12 million people within a 100 mile radius).3 p 9 'l# >
8112180499 011210 PDR ADOCK 05000206 (H
,PDR Box 336&S San Diego, CMifornia 92103
__