ML20238D323

Limited Appearance Statement by Reichman Re Storage of Larger Amounts of Radwaste at Facility than Licensed To. Congressional Inquiry Needed to Ascertain That Decisions Being Made According to Legal Mandate

ML20238D323
Person / Time
Site:	Diablo Canyon
Issue date:	06/15/1987
From:	Reichman S AFFILIATION NOT ASSIGNED
To:
References
OLA, NUDOCS 8709110113
Download: ML20238D323 (3)

Text

,1 i

.~

June 15,1987 i

j Office of tho Secretary.

'87 J" 10 P 3 '11 Enclosed is a copy of the statement I made before the Nuclear Reg-GFi ulatory Commission during their06 earings on PG&E'S plan to store larger amounts 3

of radioactive waste at Diablo Canyon than they are licensed to do.

Sincereley, q

4 VM S. fL e:ch m a. n

$D,yjs

_Bo,( R5y soc qo ;.... -s a, nc -

yto kJ b' cL OW Al.T542V 1

I l

i

)

I l

e, e. ~

l PDR ADOCK 05000275 PDR l

hllg

'l

& O ' $ h.5~~ 0 l f g y -- 3 g 3 +g c g__

Good afternoon, my name is Sylvia Reichman.

I am and have been a home-owner here in Avila Beach for sixteen years.

I am here to address the 11.vgality of the increase of spent fuel storage proposed for Diablo Canyon.

In order to increase storage capacity of the waste storage pools at Diablo it is necessary for the NRC to have their original license amended. The amendment would increase storage five-fold.

The original license allowed for 540 scent rods to be stored in station-ary racks secured to the bottom of two pools. The amendment L E is request-ing would pemit 2,648 rods to be stored in tne origanally ' designated area.

These rods would not be anchored to the base of the pools.

So anxious was the NRC to have such a plan approved that they determined no health or safety hazards would be posed despite the fact that this on site waste storage was to be increased in an active seismic zone. Such a determination was made, and I quote from Leon Panetta,"without considering whether the re-config-uration of the pools could create the possibility of a new kind of accident, The Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals has found that this action was impermis-sable under the NRC's own regulations promulgated pursuant to Section 2239 (a)@c) l (1982) of the Atomic Energy Act(42USC).

1 In addition, the court found that the Commission acted 'in direct cont 4 "~

vention of Congressional intent,' that doubts be resolved in favor of holding I

hearings before amendments are made effective when there is possibility of a l

new or different kind of accident." end of quote.

This public hearing is important in that, for the first time, the NRC l

is required by law to conform to local public opinion.. However, this must not be a token meetingto pacify the public. Our whole government is made up of a system of checks and balances. ke can not leave an agency to police itself;

.t

]

~

-2.

he are aware of the report from Brookhaven National Laboratory. h'e realize that high density nuclear waste storage could cause a nuclearplant accident twice as serious as a core meltdown, if cn earthquake hits. The NRC rules in-t._end that they respond to any questions raised esncerning safe operation of I

nuclear power plants, yet they downplay the Brookhaven recort which very specifically addresses the safety of storing spent fuel.

]

)

To ascertain that decisions are ceing made accordine to legal mandate, I

aCongressidlkibneeded. I ask that public hearings on the issue of spent fuel storage be conducted by the Comm.ittee on Energy and Commerce to insume I

an unbiased investigation on this serious issue.

I i

1 l

I i

i I

\\

\\

l l

l

_. _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _