ML20052A848

From kanterella
Jump to navigation Jump to search
Discusses Alameda County Citizens Against Vallecitos Re Request for Revocation of License SNM-960.Request Should Be Denied
ML20052A848
Person / Time
Site: 07000754
Issue date: 05/17/1977
From: Bernero R
NRC OFFICE OF NUCLEAR MATERIAL SAFETY & SAFEGUARDS (NMSS)
To: Cunningham R
NRC OFFICE OF NUCLEAR MATERIAL SAFETY & SAFEGUARDS (NMSS)
Shared Package
ML20052A734 List:
References
FOIA-81-483 NUDOCS 8204290267
Download: ML20052A848 (6)
v • d • e


Text

-

Distribution:

Docket File PDR LPDR JBMartin RMBernero RGPage WBurkhardt WGBrowne NMSS:R/F RTKratzke FCRR:R/F L'AY 17 37 DSwanson, ELD IE:HQ WJCooley,KIE-Reg.V JShafer HEMORNIDUM FOR:

R. E. Cunningham, Acting Director efj Division of Fuel Cycle and liaterial Safety y.

TriRU:

J. B. Martin, Assistant Director Fuel Cycle Safety and Licensing Division of Fuel Cycle and Material Safety FRON:

R. M. Bernem, Chief Fuel P,eprocessing and Recycle Branch Division of Fuel Cycle and Material Safety

SUBJECT:

REQUEST FOR REVOCATION OF LICE!!SE NO. Stim-960 (GENERAL ELECTRIC-VALLECITOS, CALIFORlIA)

By their letter of March 30, 1977, to Fred Burger of Nuclese Reactor Regulation, the Alameda Couhty Citizens Against Vallecitos requested that NRC revoke License No. SHM-900 for the General Electric Vallecitos Nuclear Center (VHC) because of "the extreme public health and safety hazard created by so much Suit existing so close to the Bay Area's nearly five million inhabitants." This license is now in renewal g;

review.

It is in force on timely renewal (10 CFR 2.10g) since July 1973. Preparation for the renewal review of this license included 3;

special considerations for natural phenomena and safeguards in light

,e of changing, more stringent requirements in these areas.

Because of

^

the licensing staff's interest in these areas, as well as the more

~

general aspc::ts of renewal consideration, we made a number of special visits to this facility. Table 1 presents a list of some of the recent special visits.

These are over and above the regular inspection visits by Region V of HRC Inspection and Enforcement which continue.

i The plutonium facilities at the VNC were built in the early 60's, at a time when such facilities were not required to be designed to resist the forces of natural phenomena.

In 1971 natural phenomena design became a requirement for such facilities. As you know, we are now engaged in a special review covering the VNC a older plutonium facilities with respect to tM,nd a number of other r adequacy in the face of natural phenomena.

Since the VHC is in a relatively active seismic area, we gave preliminary consideration to the acceptability of con-tinued SNM operations at the VNC while the renewal review was being complete,d.

A o O A 9 0 A W7 or rec e p-e v n es a se t >

.t 4,$

catr >

.. _..,. _. ~ ~ --~".===

  • ~

o

\\

  1. I7W n.

t.

t,unn ingiiani

-c-Dased on the results of regular ISE inspections, n:,r own visits to the site, and subsequent discussions, we have concluded that continued operations under timely renewal is acceptable while the renewal revies i

continues.

The seismic risk question for Sil!I-960 at this site is notably simplified by the unique nature of the facility. The Vi1C is located in a lightly settled region of rolling hills near Pleasanton, California.

(See Attachment I which is an excerpt from Environr. ental Information Report For Special fluelear liaterial, l.icense ?! umber: SilH-960, Docket flo.70-754, ~

j December 1975.)

In addition to the advantage of relative isolation, those portions of the facility which handle plutonium in unencapsulated form l

are for the most part underground. The plutonium processing laboratory is built in the basement of a laboratory used for other radioactive materials. -When above ground, the plutonium is contained or encapsulated and stored in vaults. Thus, even if one were to make the conservative l

assumption that a major seismic shock would strike the VilC in the near l

future and the radioactive materials loboratory would collapse, it does not appear that the plutonium in process is likely to escape the process l

apparatus and the buried location in the basement of the laboracory, and then reach the public in that remote area in any appreciable quantity.

We therefore concluded that the license could remain in force while we conducted an orderly renewal review.

Special safeguards assessment surveys were conducted during 1976 which

' established that all licensed nuclear fuel facilities, including the General Electric Vallecitos fluclear Center, were c(pable.of meeting the postulated threat defined in Federal Reoister notice of January 27, 1977 (42 FR 5150). This postulated threat consisted of "a determined violent attack of, at minicum, three well-armed, well-trained attackers, who might i

possess inside knowledge or assistance." Subsequent review of flRC sites

)

relating to protection programs in effect at the Vallecitos fluclear Center I

do not indicate any substantive deficiencies. Accordingly, there appears to be no justification for honoring a request to revoke License t{o. Sitt!-960 l

on the basis of physical protection deficiencies._

l In light of the examination of the interim acceptability of continued operations, we have identified no grounds upon which to revoke or suspend Stift-960 pending renewal review. The information presented by Alameda County Citizens Against Vallecitos regarding seismic risk does not change our conclusion. Thorofore we recommend the denial of their request for revocation of Sitti-960.

l Ro e ned by M ero p.obert li. Cornero, Chief Fuel Reprocessing and Recycle 3 ranch Division of Fuel Cycle and itaterial Safety _

  • '"Ttte osures :-l. -Ta ale 4

/CSE

- S FCRR CR L -h RQ <

=v~~*

RKrata!/

1 RMBernero.._.

))n.

7 5/1/77

.,m

-4 r.- 4Mi/RL.,5$6anf-lb51p_ /77 w... -

...I.,. I

. l.

.I D

' k$

~

3 TABLE I - VNC SITE VISITS s

Date Personnel

\\

Type of Licensing Position Review Responsibility September 29, 1976 M. Burkhardt Senior Chemical Engineer Health, Safety, and

~~

Environmental October 20-21,1976 R. T. Kratzke Licensing Project Manager Health, Safety, and Environmental W. G. Browne Chemical Engineer Health, Safety, and Environmental

0. F. Smi th Physical Security Assessment Safeguards Team Leader R. B. Manili Physical Security Analyst Safeguards E. Richard Physical Security Analyst Safeguards March 9,1977 R. M. Bei'nero Chief, Fuel Processing & Recycle Health, Safety, and Branch Environmental April 11-12,1977 G. W. McCorkle Chief, Physical Security Licensing Safeguards Branch D. B. Matthews Physical Security Analyst Safeguards April 11-15, 1977 R. T. Kratzke Licensing Project Manager Health, Safety, and Environmental O

2.2 REGICilAL DEMOGRAPHY, LAND AtID VATER USE 2.2.1 Summary of Population Data One contributing factor in the selection of the VNC site was its remoteness from large population centers.

In addition, the residential population in the immediate vicinity of the site is very low.

There are 14 houses within approximately one mile from the laboratory facilities. The known number of residents in these nearby houses Tz Is approximately 50. The population estimate for a 2-mile radius from the site is less than 150. A summary of population data, as estimated from Alameda County Planning Comission Information and the 1970 U.S. Bureau of Census figures, is shown in Table 2.2-1.

Beyond the 2-mile distance, the nearest large town is 1.ivermore, located approximately 7 miles northeast from the site. The

^

population of Livermore is 51,200, based on a, special census taken In flovember 1974.

Other nearby towns are Picasanton, 5 mil'es north with a 1975 estimated population of 32,300, and Sunol, 3 miles west with approximately 900 residents, as of 1975.

J

=

,0 e

e

.b

  • e Table 2.2-1

SUMMARY

OF OPULATION NEAR VNC 8

b April 1, 1970 January 1, 1975 Livermore-Amador Valley Planning Unit 77,655 106,400 Total Incorporated 56,031 83,500

'#'3 Totai Unincorporated 21,624 22,900 Livermore Planning Area 39,589 53,200C

, Livermore (city) 37,703 Si,200 Livermore Unincorporated 1,886 2,000 Pleasanton Planning Area 20,049 34,200 Pleasanton (city) 18,328 32,300 Pleasanton Unincorporated 1,721 1,850 Upper Amador Valley 15,041 15,900 Rural Recreation Area - 4 959 1,050 Rural Recreation Area - 5 2,c17 2,100

.s 20$

a.

Based on U.S. Census as revised August 1973 b.

Based on estimates by Alameda County Planning Department, April l'975.

c.

Based on special census, November 1974.

D g

8

.#~

.... + + + -

=.

h.

,1 a jf, 3

.m s

c.:gpgi.,-;.

J.. C.v.:.,_.-) h!

. t.,

c

. FZ~. ~ ~

i~

?

w.i.

c,. 6 i

g 0:~

So roncisio a Oo lon 1

v-.=:=._

:

- :==

s fo g

'--si...J.

2

...n a

= =. = = _

y,i.

} -

.a ad,.

. a. p -

f.

j,2=

4,.,::-:

j g -- - - -

5: ::== /

.-i:d:j5!Ed.E*5.Y_5 i

r

  • ~

~

'~

.E'*

'EE 55555E-5555555/iis.l M

"****d

=

. a....

V

=~

4'"***^^^

5, f.y--

n.s.

1o a.

=_...,

u.......

1 5 "d*

==.==c

\\ x

n. den r i........

i [I

! '"*' go,c, G EN E R A L h E LE CTRI C 5

C___D

\\

- ~'

'I VALLECITOS NUCLEAR CENTER 8

q a.d.

cny

,s.

y...a.

4

p

,0...

f

.c

=?

., a m..

-~

J s..

..t.

2,o e a.

5

  • d

y 2

E s n iose

/

GENERAL ELECTRIC s

so ma-3L m

/j NUCLEAR ENERGY a a...

~'

g DIVISION f

I

---A

/

Figure 2.1-1 BAY AREA MAP

/M

Retrieved from "https://kanterella.com/w/index.php?title=ML20052A848&oldid=4512333"