ML20153D266
Text
_ _ _ - - _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _
s p, d, L. (-
LEON E. PANETTA On==7 m a, seo Aswan.co sraart 187w Distnet. Ca68P****
wo.,,.. -.
n..
. m. l ,Jfc[". Congress of tijt En(ttD 6tates ",,i"g .,mo.
- 7,077,';-'
A ""^aM"~" Mouse of Representatibeg ii 72.h*C"" "' 7J'f='g,"** 8Eashington, D.C. 20515 """"E."**0"~" A ,a e. e_. ~ ~, March 31, 1980 Oco '""' su r\\ Commissioner Victor Gilinsky Nuclear Regulatory Commission 1717 H Street, N.W. Washington, D. C. 20555
Dear Mr. Gilinsky:
I am writing to advise you of my deep concerns regarding the process which will be utilized in response to PG&E's request for a low power testing permit for the Diablo Canyon nuclear power plant.
There are a number of mitigating circumstances which I believe place Diablo in a different category from the other two plants which are currently awaiting licensing.
I believe these circum-stances require a different procedure from the one used in the Sequoyah and North Ana low power permit decisions.
The Diablo plant is unique in several respects.
It is situated a mere two miles from an active earthquake fault, and has active intervenor involvement in the licensing process.
As you know, the Atomic Safety and Licensing Appeal Board will hear oral arguments on seismicity on April 2, 1980, and Appeals Board hearings on the overturned licensing board decision on security will not be scheduled until the week of June 15, 1980.
NRC staff informs me that normally, the fact that issues are pending on appeal is not an impediment to the licensing process.
Because there are so many outstanding issues which may prove problematical, I am requesting that you delay con-sideration of a low power testing permit until the issues of seismicity, emergency planning, security, and TMI-related issues have been through the hearing and appeal process and been completely resolved.
I believe this action is warranted for several reasons.
First, it seems most inappropriate to alloh the reactor to go critical, even at 5% of power, until the outstanding issues have been resolved.
To procaed with low power testing before these issues have been successfully addressed would create a momentum for full power licen-sing which would be quite difficult to resist even if some safety issues were still outstanding.
If these safety considerations could not be successfully resolved, PG&E and the people of California would be faced with the additional expense of decomnissioning and decontamination.
8905090095 000410 FOIA PDR PDR HAMLIN87-444
6 1
1 Page Two Another special circumstance which I would like to bring to your attention is the possibility of converting Diablo to an alternative fuel source.. This option is currently under consideraton by the California Public Utilities Commission, which is conducting a pre-liminary, in-house feasability study.
Governor Brown has expressed an interest in examining this option, as have several of the in-tervenor groups.
At least two House Subcommittee Chairmen have indicated their support for a comprehensive study of the feasability of nuclear power plant conversion.
As the low power testing of Diablo would render the plant critical and make conversion a vastly more com-plicated and expensive, if not impossible task, I am requesting that you delay your consideration of a low power testing' permit until a comprehensive conversion study has been completed.
It would also be helpful to me if in responding to my request for a delay in consideration of a low power testing permit for Diablo, you would also include a written schedule of the steps you intend to follow with respect to lower-power and full power licensing for this particular plant.
Thank you for your attention to this request.
I will look forward to hearing from you in the near future.
i l
?
Si
[
,s
,/
i
/
EON E.
ANETTA Member,f Congress 1
i LEP: ton
.