DOCSLIB.ORG

Status of Yucca Mountain

Total Page：16

File Type：pdf, Size：1020Kb

Download full-text PDF Read full-text
Status of Yucca Mountain DOCKET 08-IEP-1F DATE SEP 25 2008 RECD. SEP 25 2008 AB 1632 ASSESSMENT OF CALIFORNIA’S OPERATING NUCLEAR PLANTS APPENDICES EPORT R ONSULTANT C Prepared For: CALIFORNIA ENERGY COMMISSION RAFT D Prepared By: MRW & Associates, Inc. September 2008 CEC-100-2008-005-D-AP Preliminary Draft – Not to Be Cited Appendices APPENDIXA:FEDERALWASTEDISPOSALEFFORTS ..............................................................................................1 STATUSOFYUCCAMOUNTAIN .........................................................................................................................................1 LicensingDevelopments.......................................................................................................................................1 LegislativeDevelopments.....................................................................................................................................3 LegalChallenges...................................................................................................................................................5 PotentialManagementChanges..........................................................................................................................6 STATUSOFREPROCESSINGINITIATIVE ................................................................................................................................6 STATUSOFCENTRALIZEDSTORAGEINITIATIVES..................................................................................................................10 WORKSCITED .............................................................................................................................................................12 APPENDIXB:GENERATIONALTERNATIVESSOURCEMATERIAL..........................................................................16 RESOURCEPOTENTIAL ..................................................................................................................................................16 NuclearandGasͲFiredPowerPlants..................................................................................................................16 WindͲPoweredPlants.........................................................................................................................................16 SolarThermalPlants ..........................................................................................................................................18 SolarPhotovolataicPlants .................................................................................................................................19 GeothermalPlants .............................................................................................................................................20 BiomassPlants ...................................................................................................................................................20 DemandͲSideResources.....................................................................................................................................21 INTERCONNECTION/RELIABILITYISSUES ............................................................................................................................24 NuclearPowerPlants .........................................................................................................................................25 GasͲFiredPowerPlants ......................................................................................................................................25 WindͲPoweredPlants.........................................................................................................................................25 SolarThermalPlants ..........................................................................................................................................26 SolarPVPlants ...................................................................................................................................................27 GeothermalPlants .............................................................................................................................................27 BiomassPlants ...................................................................................................................................................28 DemandͲSideResources.....................................................................................................................................28 COSTOFALTERNATIVEGENERATIONSOURCES ..................................................................................................................28 NuclearPowerPlants .........................................................................................................................................28 GasͲFiredPowerPlants ......................................................................................................................................29 WindͲPoweredPlants.........................................................................................................................................30 SolarThermalPlants ..........................................................................................................................................32 SolarPVPlants ...................................................................................................................................................33 GeothermalPlants .............................................................................................................................................35 BiomassPlants ...................................................................................................................................................35 DemandͲSideResources.....................................................................................................................................36 ENVIRONMENTALIMPACTS ............................................................................................................................................37 GreenhouseGasandOtherEmissions................................................................................................................37 LandUse.............................................................................................................................................................43 WaterUseandPollution ....................................................................................................................................45 OtherEnvironmentalIssues ...............................................................................................................................46 A-ii Preliminary Draft – Not to Be Cited LOCALECONOMICIMPACTS ...........................................................................................................................................50 NuclearPowerPlants .........................................................................................................................................50 GasͲFiredPowerPlants ......................................................................................................................................51 WindͲPoweredPlants.........................................................................................................................................51 SolarThermalPlants ..........................................................................................................................................52 SolarPVPlants ...................................................................................................................................................53 GeothermalPlants .............................................................................................................................................54 BiomassPlant.....................................................................................................................................................54 DemandͲSideResources.....................................................................................................................................54 WORKSCITED .............................................................................................................................................................55 APPENDIXC:LITERATUREREVIEWͲDIABLOCANYONANDSONGSSEISMICSETTINGS .......................................63 INDEXOFLITERATUREREVIEWED ....................................................................................................................................63 SUMMARIESOFLITERATUREREVIEWED............................................................................................................................70 A-iii Preliminary Draft – Not to Be Cited APPENDIX A: FEDERAL WASTE DISPOSAL EFFORTS It has been more than 20 years since Congress identified Yucca Mountain as the site for a potential repository. The U.S. Department of Energy (DOE) only recently submitted a license application for the repository. The regulatory review of DOE’s license application is expected to take years to complete, and final approval of the application is not a foregone conclusion. In light of this delay, options for spent fuel reprocessing and interim waste storage are also being considered. This appendix outlines the status of high-level waste disposal and spent fuel reprocessing initiatives. Status of Yucca Mountain The Nuclear Waste Policy Act of 1982, as amended,
Load more

Recommended publications
  • Seismic Setting of Diablo Canyon
    DOCKET 08-IEP-1F DATE SEP 25 2008 RECD. SEP 25 2008 AB 1632 ASSESSMENT OF CALIFORNIA’S OPERATING NUCLEAR PLANTS EPORT R DRAFT REPORT ONSULTANT C Prepared For: CALIFORNIA ENERGY COMMISSION RAFT D Prepared By: MRW & Associates, Inc. September 2008 CEC-100-2008-005-D Prepared By: MRW & Associates, Inc. Steven C. McClary, Heather L. Mehta, Mark E. Fulmer and Laura B. Norin 1814 Franklin Street, Suite 720 Oakland, CA 94612 Prepared For: California Energy Commission Barbara Byron Contract and Project Manager Melissa Jones Executive Director DISCLAIMERS This report was prepared as the result of work sponsored by the California Energy Commission. It does not necessarily represent the views of the Energy Commission, its employees or the State of California. The Energy Commission, the State of California, its employees, contractors and subcontractors make no warrant, express or implied, and assume no legal liability for the information in this report; nor does any party represent that the uses of this information will not infringe upon privately owned rights. This report has not been approved or disapproved by the California Energy Commission nor has the California Energy Commission passed upon the accuracy or adequacy of the information in this report. AB 1632 (Chapter 722, Statutes of 2006) authorizes the California Energy Commission to work with other public entities and agencies, including the California Seismic Safety Commission, to gather and analyze information related to the vulnerability of the state's largest baseload power plants to a major disruption due to a seismic event of plant aging. In places where this report contains input from staff of the Seismic Safety Commission, it does not reflect input from the full California Seismic Safety Commission nor have the Commissioners approved the report.
    [Show full text]
  • Seismic Characteristics of Earthquakes Along the Offshore Extension of the Western Transverse Ranges, California
    Bulletin of the Seismological Society of America, Vol. 81 2, pp. 399-422, April 1991 SEISMIC CHARACTERISTICS OF EARTHQUAKES ALONG THE OFFSHORE EXTENSION OF THE WESTERN TRANSVERSE RANGES, CALIFORNIA BY ALLISON L. BENT AND DONALD V. HELMBERGER ABSTRACT The short- and long-period body waves of five moderate (M L 5 to 6) earthquakes that took place in the nearshore region of southcentral California between 1969 and 1981 are modeled to obtain the source parameters. Both regional Pnl waveforms and teleseismic P waveforms are used in this analysis. Four of the events are thrust earthquakes with strikes that rotate southwestward as the epicenters move southward; the fifth is a strike-slip event occurring on a fault subparallel to the San Andreas fault. The focal mechanisms for all five events are consistent with known faults in the source localities and suggest that the regional stress field is compressional in a north-south direction. At least three events have complex source time histories, suggesting that complex sources are common even for events of this size. The most exotic event started with a low stress drop subevent, ruptured bilaterally, and con- cluded with strong asperity ruptures at each end. Since Phi waveforms for thrust events are particularly sensitive to crustal thickness, regionalized crustal models were developed. The crustal thickness appears to increase southward but may be a function of the distance of the event from shore rather than of latitude. Basin and range paths yield the thinnest crustal models, while paths crossing the Colorado Plateau and Rockies yield the thickest. We also examined amplitude variations with station and path.
    [Show full text]
  • A Summary of the Geology and Geologic Hazards in Proposed Lease Sale 53, Central California Outer Continental Shelf
    UNITED STATES DEPARTMENT OF THE INTERIOR GEOLOGICAL SURVEY A Summary of the Geology and Geologic Hazards in Proposed Lease Sale 53, Central California Outer Continental Shelf By D. S. McCulloch, H. G. Greene, K. S. Heston, and D. M. Rubin Open-File Report 80-1095 This report is preliminary and has not been reviewed for conformity with U.S. Geological Survey editorial standards and stratigraphic nomenclature. Any use of trade names is for descriptive purposes only and does not imply endorsement by the USGS. TABLE OF CONTENTS Page Introduction ...................... 1 Geographic Setting ................ 1 Geologic Framework ................ 5 Geological Hazards ................ 7 Procedures and Methods .............. 9 Offshore Santa Maria Basin ............... 10 Geology ...................... 12 Faults ...................... 16 Seismicity .................... 21 Gas ....................... 32 Slides and Possible Slides ............ 37 Outer Santa Cruz Basin ................ 44 Introduction ..................... 44 Geology ..................... 45 Faults ..................... 47 Seismicity .................... 48 Seafloor Instability ............... 50 Slumps/ Landslides/ and Downslope Sediment Movement 50 Channels ................... 51 Quaternary Sediment Character and Thickness ... 51 Erosion and Deposition ............ 52 Gas ..................... 53 TABLE OF CONTENTS Page Bodega Basin ...................... 54 Geologic Framework ................. 54 Faults ...................... 56 Seismicity ..................... 58 Slumping ....................
    [Show full text]
  • Mission Statements
    MISSION STATEMENTS DEPARTMENT OF THE INTERIOR The Mission of the Department of the Interior is to protect and provide access to our Nation's natural and cultural heritage and honor our trust responsibilities to Indian Tribes and our commitments to island communities. BUREAU OF RECLAMATION The mission of the Bureau of Reclamation is to manage, develop, and protect water and related resources in an environmentally and economically sound manner in the interest of the American public. CONSULTANT: URS CORPORATION 1333 Broadway, Suite 800 Oakland, CA 94612-1924 CONTRACT NUMBER: 01CS20210H CACHUMA LAKE Draft Resource Management Plan / Environmental Impact Statement June 2008 Prepared by United States Department of the Interior Bureau of Reclamation Mid Pacific Region South Central California Office CACHUMA LAKE Draft Resource Management Plan / Environmental Impact Statement Prepared by United States Department of the Interior Bureau of Reclamation Mid Pacific Region Sacramento, California South-Central California Area Office 1243 “N” Street Fresno, California 93721-1813 (559) 487-5116 June 2008 Executive Summary The Bureau of Reclamation (Reclamation) developed the Cachuma Lake Resource Management Plan (RMP) to establish management objectives, guidelines, and actions for the Cachuma Lake Recreation Area (Plan Area). The Plan Area encompasses approximately 9,250 acres, including Cachuma Lake (3,043 acres at full level) and the surrounding shores and rugged hillsides. Santa Barbara County Parks Department manages the Plan Area pursuant to a contract between Reclamation and the County. Most of the recreational facilities at the lake are located in a 375-acre County Park on the south side of the lake. Facilities include campsites, general store, a marina and launch ramp, bait and tackle shop, amphitheater, trailer storage yard, recreational vehicle campsites, Nature Center, County Park Ranger Station, family center, swimming pools, and snack shop.
    [Show full text]
  • Provides Natl Register of Historic Places Eligibility Notification of Plant Archeological Site SLO-2
    'REGULATORY FORMATION DISTR IBUTION 'S EM (BIDS) AGCBSSION NBR 8212210037 DOC ~ DATE 82/12/14 NOTARIZED~, NO ¹ FAOIL:50 '275 Diablo Oanyon Nuclear ipower .'Plantr 'Uni~t ii Pacific Ga 05000275 BYNAME.50»323 Diablo Canyon Nuclear 'Power Planti 'Unit 2r Pacific Ga 05000323 AUTH AUTHOR AFFILIATION InteriorrDept.of r National;Park Ser vice '~RE~CIP ~ NAME RECIPIENT AFFILIA'TIOP KERRIGANiJBD<, .NRC No Detailed, Affiliation Given 'SUBJEQT! Provides Natl Register of Historic, Places eligibility notification of tplant Archeological Si,te 'SLO 2, Documents'OCKET'" DISTRIBUTION ICODE: tCO028 „COPIES <RECEIVED;L'TR . $ ENCL .j SIZE:,, <TITTLE: 'Public 'Comment on Environmental Statement NOTES:J Hanchett icy 'PDR 05000275 1cy IPDR Documents',Hanchett 05000323 RECIPIENT iCOPIES RECIPIENT ICOPIES ID DECODE/NAME ('TTR 'ENCL ID:CODE/NAME L'TTR ENCL NRR L83»BC 06 7 L7 NRR L83 LA 1 1 NL! ORNL 1 1 BUCKLEYrB~ 1 1 INTERNAL! ELD/HDS1 1 NRR NORRI'Sr J 1,1 NRR/DE/AEAB 20 1 .1 NRR/DE/EEB 16 1 1 .NRR/DE/HGEB 21 NRR/DE/SAB, 18 1 1 NRR/DS I/AEB 19 1 1 N S I/METB 15 1 1 NRR/DS I/RAB 17 1 G FIL'4 1 1 RGN5 1 .'1 .EXTERNAL! AGRS 6 I6 LPDR 03 '2 2 NATL LAB '21 5 i5 NRC,PDR 02' 1 NSI~C -05 1 1 NTIS ,1 1 NOTES! ,-1 1 )TOTAL NUMBER,OF COPIES REQUIRED ! „LITETR 38 ENCL >38 o W~)JRf" wf y' ' " I'" y'3 ,rr Pic ~ C (. t r Qr,'R w L q $ s R,ys3 I i, Rh W f,J h ry W «,'.,..-l f Iy sri ~ I,' 'I rc R rIJI '"JX3 Q f e i>c, ''w 4r ye Icy wy I( ~ f '1RjWI'RR Iy r.I R'RQ ~ Jrhhf Whyrc 'R cry,") r WJ g f R A w3 r L Ow3 RrR f r,l'3 f >wh 1 =fl )llc ,",,'<g j», s3 ~ hh sR 1 A wJI r r P r.» A R3 ir fw',J jr hl I ~ q Ih Q r f r t t g f 0 'JJlw'r s>s3 yf tfy', rwsJ h cw J'R hif,c c 1 r f rs<r[Wi R ) >I, f R ".
    [Show full text]
  • Magnitudes of Significant Earthquakes
    Last revised 24 June 2013 Preferred Magnitudes of Selected Significant Earthquakes Date Time† Place Lat. Long. Fatalities M MX‡ (M reference) January 23, 1556 Shaanxi (Shensi), China 34.5 109.7 830,000 ~8 February 5, 1663 22:30 Charlevoix-Kamouraska, Quebec, 47.6 -70.1 none ~7 M (Lamontagne et al, Canada (5:30 PM local time) 2008) August 17, 1668 Anatolia, Turkey 40.0 36.0 8,000 ~8 January 26, 1700 Cascadia subduction zone from No. CA to Vancouver Is. ~9 M (Satake et al, 1996) November 1, 1755 10:16 Lisbon, Portugal 36.0 -11.0 70,000 ~8.7 MI (Johnston, 1996) December 16, 1811 08:15 New Madrid, MO 36.6 -89.6 ~7.7 MI (Williams et al, 2011; (2:15 AM local time) Johnston, 1996; Hough et al, 2000; Bakun and Hopper, 2004) December 16, 1811 13:15 New Madrid, MO 36.6 -89.6 ~6.8-7.0 MI (Williams et al, 2011) (“dawn aftershock” -7:15 AM) January 23, 1812 15:15 New Madrid, MO 36.6 -89.6 ~7.5 MI (Williams et al, 2011; (9:15 AM local time) Johnston, 1996; Hough et al, 2000; Bakun and Hopper, 2004) February 7, 1812 09:45 New Madrid, MO 36.6 -89.6 ~7.7 MI (Williams et al, 2011; (3:45 AM local time) Johnston, 1996; Hough et al, 2000; Bakun and Hopper, 2004) June 2, 1823 08:00 South flank of Kilauea, HI 19.3 -155 ~7 MI (Klein and Wright, 2000) June 10, 1836 15:30 S San Francisco Bay region, CA 36.96 -121.37 ~6.5 MI (Bakun, 1999) June 1838 San Francisco Peninsula, CA 37.27 -122.23 ~6.8 MI (Bakun, 1999) January 5, 1843 02:45 Marked Tree, AR 35.5 -90.5 ~6.3 MI (Johnston, 1996) January 9, 1857 16:24 Fort Tejon, CA (San Andreas fault from Parkfield to 1 ~7.9
    [Show full text]
  • USGS Bulletin 1995-AA, Plate 1
    U.S. DEPARTMENT OF THE INTERIOR BULLETIN 1995-AA U.S. GEOLOGICAL SURVEY Plate 1 122° 120° 36’ 30’ 121° 30’ 36’ Jolon Fault (Burch, 1971; Buchanan-Banks and others, 1979) U D (Espinosa Segment) Na c imi e n to F Search au lt Z one (J e n ni n g s, 1958 U D Bu San Andreas Fault (Jennings, 1959; Dibblee, 1973) rc U h D , 1 9 San Simeon Fault Zone 7 1 U D ; D U B ucha n an- Ba n ks (San Marcos Segment) a n d o th ers , 1 U D 979 Oceanic Fault (Hall, 1974; Hall and Prior, 1975; Hall and others, 1979) ) U ? D ? D U U D Cambria Fault (Hall and Prior, 1975; Hall and others, 1979) U D U U D Piedras D Blancas Anticlinoruim S a U D n San Juan Fault (Dibblee, 1973) U D t a L u 30’ c D 30’ i U U a D D U B U D U D a n Rinconada Fault (Dibblee, 1973, 1976; Durham, 1974; k D D U U D D F U U D U a u l t D U U D ( Buchanan-Banks and others, 1979) M U D U D c U D D U C u l l D Rinconada Segment o U c D U h , H 1 9 o U D 8 s U D 7 g D , r U Cambrian Fault 1 i 9 8 D D U 9 U U ; D PG F a D U D & u U l E t D U U D La Panza Fault (Dibblee, 1973) 1 U 9 D 9 D Z U 0 U ) o D n e D U U Los Osos Fault Zone D Edna Fault U U D D West Huasna Fault (Hall and Corbato, 1967; Hall, 1973, 1979; Buchanan-Banks and others, 1979) U D Pismo East Huasna Fault (Hall and Corbato, 1967; Buchanan-Banks and others, 1979) D U U D U D South Cuyama Fault Syncline Indian Knob San Miguelito Fault U Olson D D U U D D Fault U (Nacimiento Segment) U Pismo Fault (Hall, 1973) U D D U D San Luis (Dibble, 1973) Bay Fault U U D D D U D U U U D D U D Wi U D U Pecho Fault l U m D D U ar D Av en D
    [Show full text]
  • Tsunami Hazards Associated with the Catalina Fault in Southern California
    PROOF COPY 001403EQS Tsunami Hazards Associated with the Catalina Fault in Southern California a) b) b) Mark R. Legg, M.EERI, Jose C. Borrero, and Costas E. Synolakis We investigate the tsunami hazard associated with the Catalina Fault off- shorePROOF of southern California. COPY Realistic faulting001403EQS parameters are used to match coseismic displacements to existing sea floor topography. Several earthquake scenarios with moment magnitudes ranging between 7.0 and 7.6 are used as initial conditions for tsunami simulations, which predict runup of up to 4 m. Normalizing runup with the maximum uplift identifies areas susceptible to tsunami focusing and amplification. Several harbors and ports in southern California lie in areas where models predict tsunami amplification. Return periods are estimated by dividing the modeled seafloor uplift per event by the observed total uplift of the Santa Catalina Island platform multiplied by the time since the uplift began. The analysis yields return periods between 2,000 to 5,000 years for the Catalina Fault alone, and 200 to 500 years when all offshore faults are considered. [DOI: 10.1193/1.1773592] INTRODUCTION Locally generated tsunamis from major active faults offshore southern California threaten nearby coastal cities. Disruption of operations at port facilities due to tsunami attack could severely impact the regional and national economies. Historically, the po- tential for tsunami generation from local sources was believed to be insignificant be- cause most of the faulting in the southern California region is strike-slip in character. Yet major thrust and reverse faulting occurs throughout the western Transverse Ranges (WTR), including historical tsunami occurrence following strong earthquakes in the Santa Barbara Channel region and west of Point Conception (McCulloch 1985, Lander et al.
    [Show full text]
  • The Location and Source Parameters of the Lompoc, California, Earthquake of 4 November 1927
    Bulletin of the Seismological Society of America, Vol. 82 No. 4, pp. 1678-1709, August 1992 THE LOCATION AND SOURCE PARAMETERS OF THE LOMPOC, CALIFORNIA, EARTHQUAKE OF 4 NOVEMBER 1927 BY D. V. HELMBERGER, P. G. SOMERVILLE, AND E. GARNERO ABSTRACT In this paper, we address the relocation, magnitudes, and the style of faulting of the Lompoc earthquake from a sparse assortment of teleseismic and regional seismograms. The highest quality teleseismic waveform data come from a station at De Bilt (Netherlands) that remains in operation. Thus, recordings of numerous modern events in central coastal California (i.e., the 1969 Santa Lucia Banks, 1983 Coalinga, 1978 Santa Barbara, and 1989 Loma Prieta earthquakes) have been used for comparison with the 1927 records. Location constraints for the Lompoc event were established from the De Bilt recording by comparing S-P and SSS-S waveform matches against the above master events to avoid the effect of unknown clock errors on locations that use absolute times. These same seismograms were modeled to estimate the depth, faulting parameters, and source strength. A similar approach using observa- tional comparisons and numerical modeling was applied to the regional wave- form data obtained from the stations at Berkeley, Tucson, and Pasadena. Our results indicate a north-northwesterly striking reverse event located about 40 km west of Point Conception, which is in excellent agreement with the recent tsunami modeling results by Satake and Somerville (1992). This location is 25 km south of that proposed by Hanks (1979) and well within his error bars. We obtain a body-wave moment of 1 × 10 26 dyne-cm, a trapezoidal time history of (2, 2, 2) sec.
    [Show full text]
  • Methodology for Probabilistic Tsunami Hazard Analysis: Trial Application for the Diablo Canyon Power Plant Site
    Methodology for Probabilistic Tsunami Hazard Analysis: Trial Application for the Diablo Canyon Power Plant Site Pacific Gas & Electric Company April 9, 2010 Submitted to the PEER Workshop on Tsunami Hazard Analyses for Engineering Design Parameters, Berkeley CA 10/22/2010 Executive Summary i 10/22/2010 Executive Summary Traditionally, tsunami hazard analysis for nuclear power plants has been based on deterministic methods. This approach involved selecting a tsunami wave height, a storm wave height, and a tide level and then adding these three components to estimate a design wave height. Based on a recommendation from PG&E’s Advisory Board, we moved away from the deterministic approach and developed a probabilistic method for combining the effects of waves from tsunamis, storms, and tides. Probabilistic methods have been used for tsunami hazard (e.g. Rikitake and Aida, 1988) but they have not been complete probabilistic treatments. In this report, we develop a probabilistic methodology that incorporates three key modifications to the approach used by Rikitake and Aida (1988). First, we include aleatory variability of the tsunami amplitude for a given source in to the hazard calculation. Second, we include offshore landslide sources in addition to earthquake sources. Third, we include the effects of storms and tides in the probabilistic analysis. Storms and tsunamis are assumed to be independent, but submarine landslides triggered by offshore earthquakes are considered. A deterministic approach that combines the tsunami generated by a rare local submarine landslide with a large storm wave would lead to an unreasonably rare combination of events. The probabilistic approach developed here allows for the selection of reasonable tsunami waves from distant earthquakes, local earthquakes, or local landslides with an appropriate storm wave.
    [Show full text]
  • Supplemental Request for Hearing & Petition to Intervene by San Luis Obispo Mothers for Peace, Avila Valley Advisory Council
    UNITED STATES OF AMERICA NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSION BEFORE THE ATOMIC SAFETY AND LICENSING BOARD In the matter of Docket # 72-26 Pacific Gas and Electric Company Diablo Canyon Nuclear Power Plant Unit Nos. 1 and 2 Independent Spent Fuel Storage Installation July 18, 2002 SUPPLEMENTAL REQUEST FOR HEARING AND PETITION TO INTERVENE BY SAN LUIS OBISPO MOTHERS FOR PEACE, AVILA VALLEY ADVISORY COUNCIL, PEG PINARD, CAMBRIA LEGAL DEFENSE FUND CENTRAL COAST PEACE AND ENVIRONMENTAL COUNCIL ENVIRONMENTAL CENTER OF SAN LUIS OBISPO, NUCLEAR AGE PEACE FOUNDATION, SAN LUIS OBISPO CHAPTER OF GRANDMOTHERS FOR PEACE INTERNATIONAL, SAN LUIS OBISPO CANCER ACTION NOW, SANTA MARGARITA AREA RESIDENTS TOGETHER, SANTA LUCIA CHAPTER OF THE SIERRA CLUB, AND VENTURA COUNTY CHAPTER OF THE SURFRIDER FOUNDATION In accordance with the Nuclear Regulatory Commission's ("NRC's" or "Commission's") "Rules of Practice for Domestic Licensing Proceedings" in 10 CFR Part 2, and the Atomic Safety and Licensing Board's ("ASLB's) Initial Prehearing Conference Order of June 6, 2002, the San Luis Obispo Mothers for Peace (SLOMFP), Avila Valley Advisory Council ("AVAC"), Peg Pinard, Cambria Legal Defense Fund, Central Coast Peace And Environmental Council, Environmental Center Of San Luis Obispo, Nuclear Age Peace Foundation, San Luis Obispo Chapter of Grandmothers For Peace International, San Luis Obispo Cancer Action Now, Santa Lucia Chapter of the Sierra Club, and Ventura County Chapter of the Surfrider Foundation, hereby submit contentions challenging the adequacy of Pacific Gas & Electric Company's ("PG&E's") December 21, 2001, application for a license for an independent spent fuel storage 2 installation (ISFSI) at the Diablo Canyon Nuclear Power Plant.
    [Show full text]
  • Forwards Matls Used in Long-Term Seismic Program Meetings in San Francisco,CA During Apr & May 1990
    ACCELERATED DISTRIBUTION DEMONSTRATION SYSTEM REGULATORY INFORMATION DISTRIBUTION SYSTEM (RIDS) ACCESSION NBR:9007250057 DOC.DATE: 90/07/17 NOTARIZED: NO DOCKET FACIL:50-275 Diablo Canyon Nuclear Power Plant, Unit 1, Pacific Ga 05000275 50-323 Diablo Canyon Nuclear Power Plant, Unit 2, Pacific Ga 05000323 AUTH.NAME AUTHOR AFFILIATION SHIFFER,J.D. Pacific Gas 6 Electric Co. RECIP.NAME RECIPIENT AFFILIATION Document Control Branch (Document Control Desk) SUBJECT: Forwards matls used in long term seismic program meetings in San Francisco,CA during Apr & May 1990. DISTRIBUTION CODE: AOOID COPIES RECEIVED:LTR J ENCL SIZE: TITLE: OR Submittal: General Distribution l NOTES:P~W5' / RECIPIENT COPIES RECIPIENT COPIES A ID CODE/NAME LTTR ENCL ID CODE/NAME LTTR ENCL PD5 LA g PD5 PD 1 1 D ROOD,H D INTERNAL: ACRS tu NRR/DET/ECMB 9H 1 1 ( NRR/DOEA/OTSB11 NRR/DST 8E2 1 1 S NRR/DST/SELB 8D 1 1 NRR/DST/SICB 7E 1 1 NRR/DST/SRXB 8E 1 1 NUDOCS-ABSTRACT l. 1 OC/~FMB 1 0 OGC/HDS2 1 0 EG F E 01 1 1 RES/DSIR/EIB 1 1 EXTERNAL: LPDR 1 1 NRC PDR 1 1 NSIC 1 1 R D t.lMITEDDISTRIBtmON OF ENCLOSURES DUE TO SIZE D D NOTE TO ALL"RIDS" RECIPIENTS: PLEASE HELP US TO REDUCE WASI'E! CONTACT THE DOCUMENT CONTROL DESK, ROOM P 1-37 (EXT. 20079) TO ELIMINATEYOUR NAME FROM DISTRIBUTION LISTS FOR DOCUMENTS YOU DON'T NEED! TOTAL NUMBER OF COPIES REQUIRED: LTTR 27 ENCL f U ~ g E Paciftc Gas and Electric Company 77 Beate Street James D.
    [Show full text]