ML13303A462
| ML13303A462 | |
| Person / Time | |
|---|---|
| Site: | San Onofre  |
| Issue date: | 05/12/1981 |
| From: | Chandler L NRC OFFICE OF THE EXECUTIVE LEGAL DIRECTOR (OELD) |
| To: | Atomic Safety and Licensing Board Panel |
| References | |
| ISSUANCES-OL, NUDOCS 8105150114 | |
| Download: ML13303A462 (7) | |
Text
5/ 12/ S1 UNITED STATES OF AMERICA NUCLEAR REGULATORY COM ISSION P
r!
BEFORE THE ATOMIC SAFETY AND LICENSIN G BOARD 2
MAY 14 1981>
U.S, NUCLEAR REGULATOU COMISSION In the Matter of
)
SOUTHERN CALIFORNIA EDISON COMPANY, Docket Nos.
)
50-352 OL (San Onofre Nuclear Generating Station, Units 2 and 3)
NRC STAFF'S ANSWER TO REVISED CONTENTIONS SUBMITTED BY INTERVENORS FOE, ET AL.
On May 5, 1981*, Intervenors FOE et al. submitted a single, although multipart, contention purporting to revise and presumably consolidate its prior "revised" contentions on geology/seismology which assert "inadequate review and lack of Required Investigations" (REVISED CONTENTIONS SUBMITTED BY INTERVENORS FOE ET AL., hereinafter, "revised contention," at 1).
FOE states that its revised contention is responsive to the leave granted by the Licensing Board to submit a revised version of such contention.
For reasons which follow, the Staff opposes admission of FOE's revised contention.
FOE's revised contention was received by the Staff on May 7, 1981.
8105150114 q
-2 I.
At the April 29, 1931 prehearing conference, Judge Kelley, reflecting on the initial consideration given by the Licensing Board to the revised contentions proposed by FOE at the prehearing conference, stated that the contentions were extremely broad and were unfair to the other parties, notably the Staff, in that they didn't provide any.
indication of what one would have to defend against at the hearing.
(Tr.
365.)
Accordingly, Judge Kelley gave leave to FOE to submit, by May 5, 1981, "a revised contention which was very specific about the respects that you believe either the Applicant or the Staff conducted an inadequate review or investigation..." (Id.)
What the Licensing Board sought was clear:
what we have in mind is something like you want to challenge something that was not done or was done in a superficial way in your view, you could say that the Staff's review of a certain aspect was inadequate in that:
and get very specific about what you're complaining about."
(Tr. 366; see also Tr. 370 and Tr. 435-436, and Prehearing Conference Order, dated May 8, 1981, at 6-7.)
II.
First, as was the case with respect to the contentions discussed at the prehearing conference, the substance of what FOE appears to be complaining of in overly general terms, is already subsumed by the contentions which were admitted by the Licensing Board (Prehearing Conference Order, May 8, 1981, at 4-6), especially contentions 2 and 4.
Thus, as suggested by the Staff at the April 29, 1981 prehearing conference, the substance of these issues can be litigated in terms of
-3 the significance of the factual data vis-a-vis the required demonstration of reasonable assurance (See Tr. 340-343). Accordingly, FOE's revised contention and its subparts are at best duplicative of contentions already admitted in this proceeding.
Second, FOE's revised contention is still wide of the mark and reflects no meaningful improvement of those contentions it supersedes in terms of basis or specificity.
Subparts (a) through (h) of FOE's revised contention all suffer the same infirmity - they identify no deficiency in the investigations and evaluations which were performed, which in any substantive and specified way detracts from the findings and conclusions reached by the Applicants or Staff. Furthemore, although identifying specific parts of 10 C.F.R. Part 100, Appendix A which it alleges have been ignored, FOE has not stated any precise and substantive omissions which would render the investigations or evaluations inadequate.
In light of the similarity of the subparts, several examples are sufficient to illustrate the gross inadequacy of FOE's revised contention. In subpart (a),
FOE asserts:
"(a) Applicants have failed to conduct the investigations required to determine the structural and tectonic relationships between the Cristianitos Fault and the Cristianitos Zone of Deformation and the O.Z.D. in that such structural relationships were not officially mapped until September 1980, and were summarily discussed in the NRC SER of December 1980 and that no further investigations of the relationships or the significance of the same have been performed since that time and that the critical areas close to and under the plant are still listed as "Data Voids" on the last survey performed. Thus the investigations required to determine the S.S.E., the maximum vibratory ground motions that can be postulated and the potential for surface faulting have not been performed in accordance with the applicable regulations."
-4 Implicit in the above contention is the fact that investigations were performed resulting in mapping of the Cristianitos Zone of Deformation as discussed in the Staff's Safety Evaluation Report albeit with indications of "Data Voids."
FOE presents no basis in fact for its allegations that what was done does not satisfy applicable regulatory requirements or that the investigations do not support the conclusions reached.
In subparts (b) and (c), FOE asserts:
"(b) The Applicants have not conducted the "detailed investigations to determine the need to design for surface faulting" as required by 10 C.F.R., Part 100, Appendix A, Section j in that the latest and most definitive maps of geologic structures in the immediate area of SONGS 2 and 3 indicate "Data Voids" in the area of the offshore and onshore projection of the Cristianitos Zone of Deformation and that such data is necessary to determine the need to design for surface faulting.
(c) Applicants have not performed the required investigations to determine whether the 0.Z.D. extends south of the.Rose Canyon Fault Zone in that there is a data void in the area where such a structural relationship has been postulated."
As with subpart (a), above, FOE has failed to provide any basis to support the implication that the presence of a "data void" compels the conclusion that a required investigation has not been performed.
Moreover, FOE, although citing numerous portions of 10 C.F.R. Part 100, Appendix A, has not identified with a factual basis, any specific required investigation or element thereof which it asserts has not been performed. It merely draws the bald conclusion that these provisions have not been satisfied. Such vague and unsupported statements simply do not satisfy either the Commission's regulations in 10 C.F.R. § 2.714(b) or this Licensing Board's direction. As a consequence of FOE's continued
-5 vagueness, the other parties are in no better position to prepare for the hearing than they were at the prehearing conference.
III.
For the foregoing reasons, the Staff believes that FOE's revised contention and its subparts fail to meet the requirements of the Commission's regulations and Licensing Board's directions insofar as providing bases with reasonable specificity and are otherwise duplicative of contentions already admitted. Accordingly, the Staff opposes admission of FOE revised contention and its subparts.
Resp ctfully submitted, Lawrence J. Chandler Deputy Assistant Chief Hearing Counsel Dated at Bethesda, Maryland this 12th day of May, 1981
UNITED STATES OF AMERICA NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSION BEFORE THE ATOMIC SAFETY AND LICENSING BOARD In the Matter of SOUTHERN CALIFORNIA EDISON COMPANY,
) Docket Nos. 50-361 OL ET AL.
)
50-362 OL (San Onofre Nuclear Generating Station, Units 2 and 3)
CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE I hereby certify that copies of "NRC STAFF'S ANSWER TO REVISED CONTENTIONS SUBMITTED BY INTERVENORS
- 1981, in the above captioned proceeding, have been served on the following by deposit in the United States mail, or, as indicated by an asterisk through the Nuclear Regulatory Commission's internal mail system, this 12th day of May, 1931:
- James L. Kelley, Chairman, David R. Pigott Administrative Judge Samuel B. Casey Atomic Safety and Licensing Board John A. Mendez U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission Of Orrick, Herrington & Sutcliffe Washington, D.C. 20555' A Professional Corporation 600 Montgomery Street Dr. Cadet H. Hand, Jr.,
San Francisco, California 94111 Administrative Judge c/o Bodega Marine Laboratory Alan R. Watts, Esq.
University of California Rourke & Woodruff P. 0. Box 247 10555 North [ain Street Bodega Bay, California 94923 Suite 1020 Santa Ana, California 92701 Ars. Elizabeth B. Johnson, Administrative Judge Richard J. Wharton, Esq.
Oak Ridge National Laboratory University of San Diego School P. 0. Box X, Building 3500 ak RdgeTennssee3783 ofDavid AR.aPigott San Diego, California 92110 Janice E. Kerr, Esq.
Mrs. Lyn Harris Hicks J. Calvin Simpson, Esq.
GUARD Lawrence Q. Garcia, Esq.
3908 Calle Ariana California Public Utilities Commission San Clemente, California 92672 5066 State Building San Francisco, California 94102
-2 Charles R. Kocher, Esq.
A. S. Carstens James A. Beoletto, Esq.
2071 Caminito Circulo Norte Southern California Edison Company Mt. La Jolla, California 92037 2244 Walnut Grove Avenue Rosemead, California 91770
- Atoimic Safety and Licensing Appeal Board Panel David W. Gilman U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission Robert G. Lacy Washington, D.C.
20555 San Diego Gas & Electric Company P. 0. Box 1831
- Atomic Safety and Licensing Board San Diego, California 92112 Board U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission Phyllis M. Gallagher, Esq.
Washington, D.C.
20555 1695 West Crescent Avenue Suite 222
- Secretary Anaheim, California 92701 U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission ATTN:
Chief, Docketing & Service Br.
Washington, D.C.
20555 Lawrence J. Chandler Deputy Assistant Chief Hearino Counsel