ML20212K951
| ML20212K951 | |
| Person / Time | |
|---|---|
| Site: | 05000000, Diablo Canyon |
| Issue date: | 01/23/1974 |
| From: | Hirons T US ATOMIC ENERGY COMMISSION (AEC) |
| To: | US ATOMIC ENERGY COMMISSION (AEC) |
| Shared Package | |
| ML20150F500 | List:
|
| References | |
| FOIA-86-391 NUDOCS 8608250143 | |
| Download: ML20212K951 (7) | |
Text
,
~. _ _ - _. _ _.
e g
.y, 3
3 i
i M
Docket Mos. 50-275,3 JAN 2 31974 and 50-323 APPLICANT: PACIFIC GAS AND ELECTRIC GMPANY (PG4E)
FACILITY:
DIABLO C& MYON UNITS 1 AND 2 SUM 1ARY OF MEETING HELD WITH POTENTIAL DIABLO CANYON INTERVENORS IN SAN LUIS OBISPO, CALIFORNIA A meeting with potential intervemors on the Diablo Canyon operating license application was held December 18, 1973 at the Veterana Memorial Building in San Imis Obispo. The purpose of the meeting was to allow the potential intervenors to communicate directly to the staff their conceras regarding the application by PG6E to operate Units 1 and 2 of the Diablo Canyon Nuclear Plant.
The notice of opportunity for hearing on this application expired on November 19, 1973; as of this date, four petitions to intervene and one request for a limited appearance had been received. These petitions were submitted by the following groups and/or individuals:
1.
Scenic Shoreline Preservation Conference, Inc. of Santa Barbara, California; l
1 2.
Elizabeth E. Apfelberg and Sandra A. Silver, both as individuals
,and as representatives of the San Luis Obispo Mothers for Peach; 3.
John J. Forster and Iannie Valentine, both as individuals and as representatives of the Ecology Action Club of California Polytechnic
- State University in San Imis Obispo; I
4.
People of the State of Californ{n and the Public Utilities Commission of the State of California; 5.
Bruce Patrovsky, representing tlia Sierra Club (Limited Appearance).
Of the five listed above, only Scenic Shoreline was not represented at the meeting. The staff was ' represented by the Licensing and Environmental Project Managers, the Light Water Reactors Branch daief in whose branch the safety,' review is being @nducted, and the Office of General Counsel attorney assigned to this cahe. A complete list of attendees is given in Enclosure No. 1.
L
=
j
=
cnia
..... HOUCH.96-391 p
A -5
~$
% AEC-H4 (Rn. 9-3J) AEC ( 0 60 e.o e
at s-a est a
r JN; 2 31974 2-De LPM opened the meeting by discussing the purpose of the meeting, and indicating that the staff was here to consider and understand the concerns of the potential intervenors in order to attempt to incorporate these concerns into'our review process. De structure of the Regulatory Organisation was discussed briefly, and the mechanics and procedures of the actual review process were outlined. Me EPM summarised the status of the envirar==ntal review to data.
At this point representatives of the potential intervenors asked several questions regarding the form and substance of their petitions to intervene.
j ne petitions of groups 1, 2, and 3 listad previously had recently been denied by the Board (see Atomic Safety and Licensing Board Order dated December 14, 1973), but these groups were allowed an additional 30 days to submit mended petitions. Most of the questions concerned the statement of particularity and interest in the petions, and were addressed by Mr. Chandler of OGC. De mechanics of prehearing conferences and hearings were also discussed at this time.
Before discussing specific contentions that had been expressed in the
~
petitions, several miscellaneous items or concerns were raised by the potential intervanors:
1.
Availability of ReRulations in the Local Document Room l
Way would like to see a complete set of the applicable parts of the-Code of Federal Regulations in the local public document room. We LPM indicated that the Regulations were not routinely sent to the local PDR, but that we would provide copies of the appropriate parts upon request.
2.
Inspection of Diablo Canyon Facilities l
Several persons indicated the desire to tour the Diablo Canyon plant.
W e staff replied that this matter should be addressed directly to PGE.
Mr. Chandler of OGC added that parties to a hearing often inspect the plant as a group with the Hearing Board.
3.
Receiving of Nuclear niel Way would like to be informed when initial fuel shipments will be received at the site.
I 4.
Interim Operating License (s) ne potential intervonors were concerned that PGs could obtain an interim low-power operating license lwfore all safety concerns had 4 e.....
A e. _-... c ;'._: 01. _ __id ;;in er : "f:::
omc > in..the..doct'.'..toward..phtain.ima.a.. fu11., power _,11.c.ense.,_, $ere was considerable d iscussion as to whether specific contentions in the summer >
petitiona.had. to..sppLy to.JTactional.as, we ll.,,s s,,, full, power,, operation.
. Om o 6 -900 Mairrsnm i 7
.l.
~ ~ ~ ~ ~ "~
-~
~
.,,,,r....,,
i
' JAts 2 31974 5.
Generie Safety Issues Several persons expressed their opinions that it was improper for the AgC to treat certain safety concerns, e.g., ECCS criteria, ia a generic
)
rulemaking hearing, and not allow them as contentions on specific
)
plants. %e staff replied that it was the Cossaission's position that the concentration of expertise from all sides, i.e., ABC, vendors, intervonors, in a single hearing provided for the most in-depth and completa discussion of the issues at hand.
6.
Of fshore Paults Serious concerns were expressed regarding the faulting near Diablo Canyon that was discovered during recent offshore geologic mapping performed by USGS. A request was made that the USGS report be made available to everyone, as soon as it is published.
7.
Ascelerstions at Site due to Potential Ea.F -_ %
- WP %
A general concern expressed was that the analytical models in the codes used to calculate acceleration at the site are not up to date, and that acceleration factors could be achieved that are greater than those specified by PG&E for the safe shutdown earthquake.
8.
Prehearina Conferences and Hearings
%e potential intervenors indicated a strong preference that all prehearing conferences and the hearing should be held in San Luis Obispo. We staff replied that this would depend upon the Atomic Safety and Licensing Board, but that this would most likely be the case.
me remainder of the meeting was devoted to discussion of specific contentions i
raised in the petitions of Apfelberg and Silver (Mothers for Peace), and Forster & Valentine (Ecology Action Club of Cal. Poly.). A suaesry of the more significant items discussed is given below:
1.
Laak of Specific Evacuation Plans for the Town of San Luis Obispo Regarding this item, the staff indicated that PG6E has made arren ements s
with the County Sheriff's Office to coordinate any evacuation of the town that is required. Wie information is stated in diapter 13 of the FSAR.
omca>
sunnow >
ont>
....=.
-]~ ^P* !*" 3:??L^** *!!*
~ l't ' *" ***'*
r
-.. =
u-l
.t
)
)
4 2.
Isso of Coolant Accident (lOCA)
Opinions were expressed that a LOCA could initiate a chain of events which would result in releases of large announts of radioactivity to the surroundings. Also, it was felt that fuel densification is not clearly understood, and that this phenomenon has not been properly related to the current ECCS criteria.
3.
Environmental Irpact of a class 9 Accident D e potential intervenors felt strongly that the staff or PG&E should perform this type of analysis. We staff replied that we do not require this type of analysis because the probability of such an accident occurring is so small that the environmental risk is extremely low (see Federal Register, Volume 36, page 22,852 -
December 1, 1971).
4.
Deficiencies in Final Environmental Statement M 2-De staf f's Final Environmental Statement on Diablo Canyon tinits 1 and 2 was cited as being deficient in the following areas:
a.
We Diablo Canyon Plant as a growth inducing factor was not properly addressed; b.
Biological effects of low level radiation were not sufficiently studied; they questioned whether the plant would meet oroposed Appendix I; c.
Effects of thermal pollution were not properly studied; d.
Alternative snergy sources have not been examined in sufficient detail.
5.
price-Anderson Act Concerns were expressed regarding the fact that this legislation will expire in 1977; the question was also raised as to whether the act would provide sufficient indemnification in the event of a serious nuclear accident.
6.
Transportation of' Nuclear Ibel Several persons expressed concern about the possible adverse offacts on San Luis Obispo County of the transportation of nuclear fuel throueh the rounty.
g i
orrice >
sumac >
out>
..m.y..m.m. _.
Terra A1C-3 48 ptev. 943) AECM oJ40 4
see
.w is aisas-a 44ws
')
T JA.5 2 31974 7.
Industrial Security The discussion centered on non-accidental risks to which the plant may be subjected; the increase in terrorist activities around the world was viewed as a real threat to safe operation of the plant.
8.
Storage and Disposal of Nuclear Wastes Several persons raised questions about the temporary storage of wastes at the plant aita as well as the long tern storage and disposal at some permanent site. Wey do not feel that this problem has been sufficiently solved to allow the generation of additional nuclear wastes.
9.
Nuclear Plant Reliability A recent Wall Street Journal article was quoted as questioning the reliability of nuclear plants.
iiiijisi@isi@
10.
Independent Monitoring of Plant Activities Once plant startup has occurred, the potential intervenors would like to see someone independent of PG6E in residence at the plant to verify that all abnormal occurrences and releases of radiation are fully disclosed. Asuggestionwasmadethatsomeonefromthq San Luis Obispo Public Health Department could fill this positith.
11.
Population Density Requirements for Plant Siting Several persons felt that the AEC, by allowing the plant to be located in a fairly remote area, was willing to sacrifice a few people in the event of a serious plant accident. We staff stressed that siting criteria from a population standpoint were related to being able to evacuate the areas near the plant as quickly as possible if this should be required.
De meeting ended about 7:00 p.m., with all itene of concern to the intervenors having been covered. We discussions were frank and informal, with both potential intervenors and staff in agreement that the meeting had been worthwhile. We staff agreed to contact Mr. Eissler, president of the Scenic Shoreline organization, to discuss the possibility of a similar meeting with representatives of this group at a later date.
C' homas J. Hirons Limht Water Reactore Grostr-1-6
.(
- "I
/,
omca >.L1 LWR..l..3...
L x7415 sunuuc.
.TJ.lli.ro,
,,e,s.p,,,',
Q),
, R.,,,,, man our> 1/RJ/.74,,,,
1/p/,74 form AEC*HS tale 9-33) AECM 0240 a.e ee4-se-stess-s no efs
p 3
)
sAh 2 3 1974 Enclosure Attendance List cec w/ encl AEC PDR Iscal PDR RP Assistant Directors RP dranch Chiefs S. Varga R. W. Klecker J. M. Hendrie TR Assistant Directors TR Branch Chisfa R. Cushman L. Chandler OGC s
RO (3)
V. H. Wilsou
.,Hesting Attendees frans REG g
R. Fraley, ACRS (16)
DISTRIBUTION:
Docket (2)
RP Reading
, LWR 1-3 Reading
.s omer>
suanwr >
our>
Forse AEC-S ta tRev. 9-5J) AECM 0240 a.e 42-to-stass-s eas4rs
e 1
)
ENCLOSURE NO. 1 ATTENDANCE LIST POIENTIAL INTERVENORS San Luis Obispo Mothers for Peace Elizabeth E. Apfelberg Sandra A. Silver Ecology Action Club - Cal. Poly.
John J. Forster Lonnie Valentine State of California - Public Utilities Commission Andrew J. Skaff Sierra Club Bruce Patrovsky AEC - STAFF Lawrence J. Chandler (Office of General Counsel)
Robert A. Cushman (Environmental Project Manager)
Karl R. Coller (Branch Chief LWR Group 1-3)
Thomas J. Hirons (Licensing Project Manager)
AEC - SAN FRANCISCO OPERATIONS OFFICE
!!ank Bowden (Public Information Representative)
I:GERESTED CITIZENS Mabel Barnes Freddie Raye Gordon Silver Saundra Trice Fbra %-51 A -s