ML20209C847
Text
,.---
/pe nue,o, v
UNITED STATES
[i NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSION
, j WASHINGTON, D. C. 20555
(
/
as 5 W Docket Nos. 50-275/50-323 MEMORANDUM FOR:
. <. -.. r p a ri..w ep con
,e FROM:
Ronald L. Ballard, Chief Environmental & Hydrologic '
Engineering Branch, DE l
SUBJECT:
CONCERN BY G. BRUNO ABOUT EROSION ALONG OIABLO CANYON'S TRANSMISSION LINE CORRIDOR
(
On July 11, 1983, Mr. Gordon Bruno wrote a letter to Mr. Denton expressing concern with " serious erosion problems" on his wife's ranch which is north of and contiguous to the Diablo Canyon NPP site. The ORPM, B. Buckley, l
requested our technical assistance in investigating the matter.
G. LaRoche of this branch visited the site in August 1983. He examined the areas where significant erosion was claimed to be occurring. He also inspected the applicant's efforts to control erosion, which are adequate except in one location. At this location, erosion begins in l
an area that is not related to any R0W activity. However, erosion does get worse on the lower side of the R0W service road because of the increase of water flowing down the road. The applicant has repaired the road out not the eroded areas above or below the road.
l As a result of Dr. LaRoche's inquiries in this matter he learned that the Public Utilities Commission of the State of California in their Decision No. 79726 filed June 8, 1970 (Case No. 9075) determined that PG&E was required to control erosion, repair access roads and make l
progress reports in writing at six month intervals. According to a letter from P. W. Hanschen, PG&E, to J. E. Bodovitz, California PUC, dated October 25, 1983, PG&E made the requisite filings from 1972 to 1979. Thereafter reporting was discontinued because revegetation was properly established. This letter was to no.tify the PUC that they were reinstating their surveys and annual reporting of the erosion l
conditions along the R0W.
In the FES-OL (May 1973) Section 4.2.2, staff accepts the condition imposed on PG&E by the PVC for the control of erosion along the R0W.
PG&E personnel claimed that the state has not inspected for compliance with PUC Decision No. 79726. This claim was confirmed by Dr. LaRoche j
via a telephone conversation with Mr. George Hersh of PUC on February 14, 1984. After discussing this case, Mr. Hersh suggested that the best l
- "?M
n t
I l
!}
l 2-APR 5 1984 George Knighton course of action would be for Mr. Bruno to write directly to PUC's President, Mr. Leonard Grimes, 350 McAllister Street, San Francisco, California 94102.
Mr. Hersh stated that Mr. Grimes is very sensitive j
to citizen complaints and further that according to California law l
someone from the PUC must investigate any complaints.
We recommend that Mr. Bruno be provided with this,information and that he be asked to inform us of the outcome.
This completes our review of the matter.
9 Yndl d r.8wb RonaldL.80iard,Cnief Environmental & Hydrologic Engineering Branch Division of Engineering cc:
H. Schierling I
9 I
l