ML20215N105
| ML20215N105 | |
| Person / Time | |
|---|---|
| Site: | 05000000, Diablo Canyon |
| Issue date: | 01/26/1977 |
| From: | Allison D Office of Nuclear Reactor Regulation |
| To: | Office of Nuclear Reactor Regulation |
| Shared Package | |
| ML20197J003 | List: |
| References | |
| FOIA-86-371 NUDOCS 8611040276 | |
| Download: ML20215N105 (2) | |
Text
i I
DISTRIBUTION Docket File T U
LWR-1 File J. Stolz JAN 2 6 1977 E. Hylton D. Allison Docket tios. 50-275/323
?!0TE T0: File JACK ANDERS0ft COLU! Mil CONCERN!?iG DIABLO ColYOU I tslbd today with Carl Niet, urger of the San Luis Obispo Teleqraph Tribune. !!e discussed Jack Anderson's colunn for tomorrow, which deals with Diablo Canyon.
fir. Mieburger asked me about the accuracy of the following quotations in the article that were attributed to me:
1.
The proposed safety regulations give some comfort "but not such."
I told ifr..'lieburger that this had been taken out of context.
I had used the words in some other context, but not to mean that 9;;;jijjiijg the proposed measures for Diablo Canyon were of doubtful adequacy.
I had discussed the matter with Richard Sokolow of Jack Anderson's organization several~ times, explaining the situation-in detail, and it.should have been clear that I thought the presently proposed design basis was adequate.
2.
The Diablo Canyon site " turned out not to be such a great place."
I told Itr. iteiburger that this was an accurate quotation.
I explained that it meant that,fgiven a choice, one would not uant to build a plant and then rian into previously unknom seismic problems tlat would cause significant delays in receiving an operating license, as was the case here.
3.
The operating license "probably would be granted."
I told t'r. i;eiburger that this "as an accurate onotation.
I exnlained the present status of the nlant.
I told hin that the authority to make a decision rests tiith ASLB (or the Comission) rather than the staff or the ?.CRS.
l'o'icver, it '<.as ny opinion tha t, erobably, the elant smeld be no lified to neet a morr sever.'
seismic desian basis ani obtain an onoratinn license on that Fasi.
I explained the present status of the revieu.
I told him that the 3CRS consultants had asked questions indicating that sone vre unharny uith the proposed design basis anlothers ' tere not.
18 uever, the ACRS has not
-p f 0
taken a position.
I told him that PG.tr honed to ansiter the consultants' q
l l
l B611040276 861023 I
' " ' = =
- h0H 71 PDR
- = = ~ =.
- 1 1
i
~
.- n. >, n -.u.
p.g
od2 6 1977 conments and to comolete a major portion of the reanalysis in time for another ACP,5 meeting in April or l'ay.
I explained that, although the decisional authority rests with ASLB, as a practical natter, it would be difficult to convince the ASLC that the plant was safe if the ACRS or the staff did not think it was safe.
Mr. fleiburder asked if it were oossible that the plant could never be operateii or that the necessary nodifications would be so expensive that oneration would be inpractical.
I told him that this was possible, but I didn't think it would turn out that way.
I noted that this was only an opinion and the answer wouldn't be known until the seismic design basis had been settled and the reanalysis had hern conpleted.
Original Signed By Dennis P. Allison D. P. Allison, Project Manager Light Water Reactors Branch fio.1 Division of Project "anagement cc:
C. Miles J. Stolz
@NN D. Vassallo P. DeYoung f
_LWRlM.._
_LWRA w
r'= E *
,m,,,,,.-
DAllison:klj JStolk..
._.l/n/77 1/4 77.{
oe.
Foren AEC 3tB (Res. 9 53)' AEO4 0240 -