ML20215N147
| ML20215N147 | |
| Person / Time | |
|---|---|
| Site: | 05000000, Diablo Canyon |
| Issue date: | 02/09/1977 |
| From: | Udall M HOUSE OF REP., INTERIOR & INSULAR AFFAIRS |
| To: | Rowden M NRC COMMISSION (OCM) |
| Shared Package | |
| ML20197J003 | List: |
| References | |
| FOIA-86-371 NUDOCS 8611040364 | |
| Download: ML20215N147 (4) | |
Text
w/.e
- y 9' s c
r N,f *./ETY-F'IFTH CONGRI.,
CHARLES CONKLjN 140RRIS K. UDALL. ARII., CHAIRMAN PMouaP aus*:mm. CAur.
Jos snue TI. mans.
LEE MC ELVAIN moesof w. mAsTENaststm. wis.
DON N. CLAusEN. CAuF.
GENERAL COUNSEL
'"A,4A..O.*4.ETex.
MMEA e ',"".'M, COMMITTEE ON INTERIOR AND INSULAR AFFAIRS A
,,,ytyy,,, coy,tt, b" 7 44,8 s.~
E"Y u.'e'. EE "*'
U.S. HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES serca AL COUNSEL N.Y.
C"% E.
EC.' U7.O WASHINGTONe D.C. 20515 MICHygMANDE'N ANTDMIO SoEM WQN PAT. GUAM Ja.Mt3 P. (JIM) JoseH90N. COLD.
no e or umrt u.
moesn? J. unoMAnnese. cAuF.
. Doe ECBEN.A8EN. TEM.
DON MAmesDTT U. tap 6 February 9, 1977 oix,u,..
- e. Mo.
- MA.u.s..
,,e7 JgM SANTtpe WEY.
ELDON 81UOD. A8'lE.
p[
PAUL E. TEcembas. M ASS.
BelCatY EDWAftDS. OKLL JAMES WEAWEEL, OsttS.
DOS CAme, tout 34 SECmat eduLLEn. CAuF.
i TNeocons M. :TrD) miso.exwsn.
amu.
JAAe8 9 L Ft.Deugh, N.J.
DAwgape asA7tgra. SA.
PMoup R. SNAdeur. OND.
MATTNgw F. mac HuGH. N.Y.
JOHN Km335. CAL 3F.
OL ROET A ER A.
SALTASAA CDuuulb4DA. P.R.
AtalFIN J. D8upumpf7. PA.
feCM JOC IRAdest A fl. W.WA.
385UCE F. WUr'O. M8H88.
JERST.D.RAE.5tAsplF. LA.
uMA r.t.. Mr The Honorable Marcus Rowden, Chairman Nuclear Regulatory Commission Washington, D.C.
20555
Dear Marc:
W As you know, serious questions have been raised with regard to the manner in which the Diablo Canyon nuclear generating station, as designed, would withstand earthquake forces of a size that have a significant chance of being experienced within the station's lifetime.
As a result of our concern about this matter, the Subcommittee is undertaking an inquiry into the manner in which.the regulatory process has handled the seismic problem in this and other instances.
I would appreciate receiving answers by April 1 to the attached list of questions which have been brought to the Subcommittee's attention.
Sinc rely, Morris K. Udall, hairman Subcommi.ttee on Energy and the Environment Encl.
8611040364 861023 PDR FOIA HOUGH 86-371 PDR
.4,;;*
, '.a I
Questions Pertaining to Earthquake Hazard at ' the Diablo Canyon Nuclear Generating Statlion I.
Pre-construction:
Prior to 1970:
1.
To what extent did the AEC or applicant conduct any offshore surveys before construction licenses were granted?
2.
Was the AEC staff aware of any responsible scientific opinion prior to commencement of construction of the Diablo Canyon plants that held that seismic data on the central
~
California coastal region was inadequate?
3.
Did the AEC staff review the California PUC record to determine if any questions were raised in PUC proceedings regarding offshore faulting?
If the staff did review the record and found questions were raised regarding offshore faulting how did the staff respond?
4.
Did any geologists not directly affiliated with the AEC staff or applicant conduct surveys during the 1967-70 7"**
period that located the Hosgri Fault?
5.
During construction license proceedings (1968-70) the AEC staff aware of a line of earthquake epicenters was off the central California coast that traced a NW/SE trending line running.within a few miles of the plant site?
6 During-c,onstruction license proceedings, was the AEC staff aware of'any investigations by P.G.&E. for faults at other potential reactor sites?
Did the AEC consider any such investigations adequate or inadequate?
II.
Post-ground-breaking:
1970-1975:
1.
khen did the AEC staff first become aware of the Hoskins-Griffiths paper reporting the existence of the Hosgri Fault?
2.
When did AEC-ordered surveys designed to verify the Hoskins-Griffiths report begin?
3.
What efforts did the AEC staff make and at what times to evaluate the applicability to Diablo Canyon of seismic information gathered during the 1971 San Fernando Valley earthquake?
O
- J' -
- ,..s
- . 4.
Did ' the AEC consider new information regarding the earthquake hazards from the Hosgri Fault at the 1973-74 environemntal hearings?
If not, why not?
5.
Did the AEC'ever order work stoppages to allow
~
for a-full. consideration of the potential earthquake hazard from the Hosgri~ Fault before work on the Diablo Canyon plant proceeded. to completion?
III.
Current situation:
1.
When did the Commission staff officially recognize the Hosgri Fault as the most serious potential earthquake j
hazardfat Diablo Canyon?
2.
Has the Commission staff considered the potential linkage of the Hosgri~ Fault to the San Gregorio Fault?
If so, when did the Commission staff begin its consideration of this this problem?
Has the Commission staff ordered. surveys to k*'N confirm or refute the existence of the link?
3.
Has ' the Commission staff hired any other outside
- consultants besides Dr. Nathan Newma'rk to assess the seismic hazards at Diablo Canyon?
.If-so, please identify these consultants, their areas of expertise and the dates they were retained.
4.
Has the Commission staff placed seismic stations in t
the field on the coast to measure' seismic activity along the Hosgri?
If so, are these stations still in place taking measurements?
5.
It has been suggested that the following parameters would be characteristic of an earthquake that might occur during the Diablo Canyon plants' lifetimes :
Distance of epicenter from plant site:
10 kms.
Magnitude:
7.9 Richter Acceleration:
1.1 g Maximum velocity:
50" per second Displacement:
36" Duration:
40-60 seconds at 5% of maximum acceleration Frequencies of'.4. hertz Damping:
2%
O
F 4
e_.
l i
v.c%A..
3 i
- 5. continued Assuming the present plant design, would its structures, systems, and components important to safety be able.to withstand the effects 'of an earthquake characterized by the parameters listed above?
If not, what safety related plant components are most likely-not to withstand an-earthquake with the above parameters?
Is the staff using parameters of at least the above magnitudes in-its seismic safety analyses for Diablo Canyon?
If not, what was the rationale for selecting other parameters?
6.
lias the Commission staff ordered any ' actual testing of the ability of plant components to withstand seismic stress?
If so, please explain-which components have received tests and describe the tests?
W 7._ Has the Commission staff undertaken or does it plan to undertake. a probabilistic epicenter analysis of earthquake epicenter locations along the Hosgri' Fault?
Will the results of such an analysis influence the Commission's-licensing decision?
i
(
l l