ML20236C221

From kanterella
Jump to navigation Jump to search
Responds to Forwarding Constituent Devincenzo Re Plant.Nrc Currently Reviewing Util Application for Ols.Radwaste Created by Plant Operation Will Ultimately Be Shipped to Govt Facilities for Disposal
ML20236C221
Person / Time
Site: Diablo Canyon, 05000000
Issue date: 12/08/1975
From: Dircks W
NRC OFFICE OF THE EXECUTIVE DIRECTOR FOR OPERATIONS (EDO)
To: Lagomarsino R
HOUSE OF REP.
Shared Package
ML20236A877 List: ... further results
References
FOIA-87-214 NUDOCS 8707290374
Download: ML20236C221 (3)
v • d • e


Text

. _ - _ _ - - . _ _ _ .

{ Distribution l

\ Docket File EHughes NRC PDR Shill EDO Reading DPA111 son NRR Rdg (MGroff) VHVilson Docket Nos. 50-275 LWR 1-3 File IE (3)

, and 50-323 . . J (- b BCRusche LWR 1 Branch Chiefs i

I EGCase ba r. .1 'Teinty DEisenhut )

I Attorney, ELD WRoss I i Bonorable Robert J. Lagonarsino CA (3) WHaass  !

i U 3. House of Representatives GErtter (#DR-9434) TIC m Local FDR Dear Mr. Lagoestsinot MGroff Your letter of October 22, 1975 to the U. S. Energy Research and Development Administration, which forwarded she September 24 letter of your constituent, Mr. DeVincense, has been referred to as and I am pleased to respond. ]

Mr. DeVincenso asked several questions concerning the Diablo Canyon Nuclear Power Plant. Pacific ces and Electric Company has nearly coupleted construction of Unit 1 at the Diablo Canyon site, about 12 miles from San Luis Obispo, California. Construction of Unit 2 at this site is more than half completed. Construction, Permits for these units l were granted in 1968 and 1970, respectively. The Neclear Regm1 story Consdseion's staff is currently reviewing the company's application for Operating Licenses for these units. Our responses to Mr. DeVincenso's questions, based on the staff's review to date, are given talow.  !

Mr. DeVincenzo asked how far the radiation would go if there were an earthquake and the plant should explode. As with other counsreial nuclear power plants, we require that the Diable Canyon Plant be designed to safely withstand severe earthquakes so that en earthquaka cannot be expected to cause a release of significant amounts of radioactivity.

Also, it is impossible for nuclear power plants to explode like a nuclear weapon. However, we do evaluate, in a conservative manner, the potential consequences of postulated accidents, such as ruptures of reactor coolant pipes, which could release radioactivity. Although these postulated accidents are very unlikely, safety features are provided in the plant to cope with them and to limit the amount of radioactivity that would be released to acceptable levels as defined in 10 CFE Part 100, the Nuclear Regulatory Commission's " Reactor Site Criterin" (a copy of which j is enclosed).

Mr. DeVincenzo asked where the radioactive wastes would be buried. The radioactive westes created by plant operation will ultimately be shipped to government facilitiss for disposal. Some of these wastes, primarily /j3 low level wastes, may be buried at approved burial sites. Others, which are primarily the highly concentrated and long lived radioactive p//

wastes that will result from the reprocessing of used nuclear fuel, will e i

8707290374 B70721 PDR FOIA PDR h

CONNORB7-214

4

! nonorable Robert J. Lagonersino  !

I I 1 be stored to await final disposal. The specific method for final disposal I of these highly concentrated wastes has not yet been selected. kvever,

" the present storage methods are considered to be oefe and evaluations of f methods suitable for the very long term are being conducted.

Mr. DeV1acesso suggested that the risks of having the plant close by

! should be horas by people living at.another locattaa if those people i want the electric power. Of course, we will not allow operatism of the y l plant unless we can determine that such operation is safe. Bowever, this safety determination is independent of what segment of the population lives amar the plant and of the extent to which persons living near the plant utilise its electrical output. Nevertheless, it is also worth noting I that the Diablo Canyon site is well within Pakific Ces and Electric i Company's servies area, which sovers most of Central and Northern California.

Mr. Defincesso asked if there is any way to stop the constructica. yhe Commissima's staff does not have any reanos at this time for stepping constructies. The Atomic Safety and Licenstag Board is expected to begin public hearings near the plant site withis the next few months to consider the issuance of Operating Licenses for,the Diable Canyon Plant.

, Members of the public may, at the discrettan'of the presidtag officer, participate in the hearings by making limited appearances. A person making a limited appearance any state his position and any also raise questions which he would like answered. If the questions are relevant to the proceeding, the presiding officer may direct that they be answered by the Parties. A member of the public any, alternately . petition for leave to intervene. If the petition were allowed he could"become a party and i participate more fully in the proceeding (including introducing motions, i

presenting evidence and cross armnining witnesses). However, since the deadline for such petitions was Movember 19, 1973 for the Diablo Canyon Plant, such a petition would now need to make a substantial showing of good cause for late filing in order to be granted. The standards against which a late petition would be judged are set forth in Section 2.714 of 10 CFR Part 2, the Nuclear Regulatory Ceemissime's " Rules of Practica" 1 (a copy of which is enclosed). If Mr. DeVincense should wish to f participate in the proceedings, either by a limited appearance or by petitioning for leave to intervene, he should follow the procedures in ,

the snelosed Federal Register Notice. He should substituto Nuclear l Begulatory Commission, Washington, D. C. 20555 for Atomic Energy Commission

! in the' addresses given in the Notice.

l Finally, Mr. DeVincesso maked about the musber of units planned and discussed the temptation for sabotage. We have reviewed Facific Gas and Electric Company's proposed measures to protect the Disblo Canyon Plant

l i Honorable Robert J. Lagomarsino  !

agt. inst sabotage and have found them acceptable. Nevethelees, in response to Mr. DeVincenso's specific question, the Cosysay has only i applied to build the two units discussed above at the Disblo Canyon site. We are not aware of any plans to build additional units at x

near this site. In addition, thess two units 'sould be a small fraction of the Company's total generating capacity and the electrical grid could

, withstand a loss of one or both of these units (since they asy be unarpactedly lost for other reasons such as automatic plant shutdown er transmission line interruptions).

I trust that you will find this information responsive to Mr. DeVincenso's questions.

i Sincerely, Williem 1. D!r:ks l ,

I nfr'r- r uector L2 0,. . r :wr.s

Enclosures:

1. Code of Federal Regulations 10, Energy, Parts O to 199
2. Federal Registar Notice of October 19, 19737 concerning Diablo Canyon, 38 FR 29105 I

1 d OCA -

l 12/h/75 RL: - WR '

E kl NRR f. .,..

l

,, , ,c e D...... -

..-..y .

DAll. son un g .

RSha Ef1se BCRusche l

e .... __

j ,,,,,. 12/,f. /75. . ,12///75 12/)/75 12 /(./.. 7. 5 .

j ...

12,.. ... . ../..,7 5 12 /. .).. / 7 5

{ form AEC 318 (Rev,9-53) AECM 9240 W u. s. novsanusNT emwvine orricsi sev4.oss-see

Retrieved from "https://kanterella.com/w/index.php?title=ML20236C221&oldid=3448255"