ML13304A628
| ML13304A628 | |
| Person / Time | |
|---|---|
| Site: | San Onofre  |
| Issue date: | 08/06/1980 |
| From: | Smith I Atomic Safety and Licensing Board Panel |
| To: | |
| Shared Package | |
| ML13304A629 | List: |
| References | |
| ISSUANCES-OL, NUDOCS 8008110497 | |
| Download: ML13304A628 (7) | |
Text
UNITED STATES OF AMERICA NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSION DO 0CGcEM USNRC ATOMIC SAFETY AND LICENSING BOARD 9 AUG 7 1980 1
Ivan W. Smith, Chairman OffcoftheSecret Dr. Cadet H. Hand Dr. Emmeth A. Luebke CA In the Matter of
)
SOUTHERN CALIFORNIA EDISON
)
Docket Nos.
0
)
(San Onofre Nuclear Generating
)
Station, Units 2 and 3)
)
MEMORANDUM AND ORDER ON PREEEARING CONFERENCE OF JULY 17, 1980 (August 6, 1980)
The board conducted a prehearing conference pursuant to 1/
notice in San Diego, California on July 17, 1980.
All parties attended and participated. The Public Utilities Commission of the State of California, authorized to par ticipate under 10 CFR §2.715(c) did not attend.
Matters considered included the anticipated schedule for the completion of SONGS Units 2, and 3, the estimated publication date for the staff's SER, SER supplement, and FES, the Contentions of intervenors Friedds of the Earth (FOE),
and Groups United Against Radiation Danger (GUARD) and the effect of the Commission's June 16, 1980 Policy Statement on Guidance for Power Reactor Operating Licenses.
1/ 45 FR 45429, July 3, 1980.
80081106
-2 FOE Contention 1 FOE Contention 1, as adopted for discovery, alleges that the earthquake which could cause the maximum vibratory ground motion has not been assigned as the safe shutdown earthquake.
In other words, the contention avers that the safe shutdown earthquake accepted in the construction permit proceeding is incorrect.
Applicant moves to narrow the contention by substituting:
Whether as a result of geologic features and seismic events discovered or occurring sub sequent to issuance of the construction permit, the seismic design basis for SONGS 2 and 3 is inadequate to protect the public health and safety.
FOE opposes the refinement, at least insofar as the contention serves as a guide for discovery. FOE, while recognizing the principle of res judicata, does not wish to have later earthquakes in the Imperial Valley and Mexicali, Mexico barred from consideration and wishes to have all scientific knowledge developed since the con struction permit proceeding applied to the determination of the correct safe shutdown earthquake. Tr. 193, 194, 210.
A discussion of the point among counsel demonstrated that the area of difference between FOE and applicant is rather narrow.
Applicant would not bar consideration of new seismic events or newly discovered geologic features, nor
-3 bar the application of the new information to features and events previously considered.
However applicant would object to purely new methodology and new theory "...
as to the same old geology." Aplicant would require a physical nexus, either newly discovered geologic features or new seismic events, before the reconsideration of old geology and events would be permitted. New methodology, predicated upon new physical information would not be precluded.from consideration in applicant's view.
Tr. 210-212.
The area where the parties disagree is whether new theory and new methodology can be considered in this pro ceeding without an intervening connection of newly discovered geologic features or new seismic events. The board rules that accepted or acceptable genuine new methodology based upon sound scientific principles may be applied to old features and events under FOE Contention 1. New and unsubstantiated theory or opinion applied directly to old geologic features and seismic events may not be considered because the issue of the seismic design of SONGS 2 and 3 is res-udic-ata with respect-to old features and events.
Whether proffered evidence of knowledge is accepted or acceptable scientific methodology, or whether it is merely new and unsubstantiated theory or opinion may be a difficult determination to make.
It will depend upon the circumstances of the situation and cannot be determined out of context.
-4 The board, for now at least, declines to accept the narrowing of FOE Contention 1. However, in further discovery, the parties may be guided by this discussion of the scope of the issue.
FOE recognizes the need to specify the contention following discovery. Tr. 194.
Emergency Planning Contentions FOE's.Contention 4 and GUARD's Contention 1 are very similar in that each fault applicant's emergency planning because of alleged infirmities in the emergency plans of state and local agencies.
GUARD's Contention 2 relates to traffic control and protective measures including evacuation within the SONGS exclusion area and low population zone. GUARD's Contention 2 is in effect as a sub-issue under GUARD Contention 1 and FOE Contention 4.
Applicant moves to have all of these emergency planning contentions superseded by a proposed substitute:
Emergency Planning Whether adequate plans exist which provide reasonable assurance that the transient and permanent populations within ten miles of the site can be evacuated in the event of a serious radiological emergency with off-site consequences occurring at SONGS 2 and 3.
Tr. 213
NUREG-0694, TMI-Related Requirements for New Operating 2/
Licenses, published in final form in June, 1980-set out new requirements for emergency planning considerations for operating licenses prior to fuel loading, (p.19) and prior to a full-power license (p.25). Applicant has agreed to comply with all pro visions of NUREG-0694. Tr. 222, 248. Under the Commission's policy statement of June 16 on guidance for operating licenses, intervenors may raise questions concerning applicant's compliance with NUREG-0694 if the questions are timely raised.
Applicant has stated that it will soon complete its revised emergency plans and make them available, with state and local plans, to the parties in this proceeding. Intervenors will be provided some opportunity to discover applicant's emergency plans to determine whether they meet the requirements of NUREG-0694.
Following discovery and perhaps following the issuance of the SER. on appliant's emergency plans, intervenors will be re quired to specify their emergency planning contentions to reflect the products of discovery, current regulation, and NUREG-0694 limitations on-litigation.
Until then, it would be pointless to require a rewording of the emergency planning contentions.
In the meantime they are sufficient for discovery purposes as presently drafted. The NRC staff agrees that revising the emergency planning contentions would be premature. Tr. 219.
2/ NUREG-0694 was available only in draft form at the ore hearing conference.
-6 Consideration of appliant's motion for summary disposition of FOE's Contention la (dewatering wells) and 9 (uranium costs) was deferred pending stipulations among the parties concerning the timing of responses. Tr. 230, 275. The staff was informed that the board would not consider any filing from the staff, either factual or in the form of argument supporting summary dis position which FOE has had no opportunity to address. Tr. 233-34.
The staff and the board struck an understanding that the staff would respond to discovery as each item of discovery is producible in reliable form, and not necessarily when prepared for publication in the SER, FES or supplements.
Tr. 232-35.
The staff committed to an informal discovery procedure.
Id.
The parties were instructed to proceed with discovery without delay; that 10 CFR §2.752 did not provide justification for delaying discovery and the refinement of issues.
Tr. 201, 235-37.
Counsel for FOE agreed to submit in writing a memorandum setting forth his views as to seismic discovery needs and a suitable time limit on seismic discovery. Tr. 269-71. The applicant agreed to include a motion with its emergency plans recommending an. appropriate discovery schedule on emergency planning and the other parties were directed to respond to the motion promptly, before the time provided under 10 CFR §2.730.
Tr. 272.
-7 However, FOE's July 28, 1980 memorandum on discovery also included arguments and recommendations for a schedule on further discovery on emergency planning contentions, thus disturbing the sequence of discussion anticipated at the prehearing conference.
Tr. 269-272. Parties other than FOE may, at their option, address the emergency planning discovery schedule discussion in FOE's July 28 memorandum within ten days following service of this order, or defer discussion of the emergency planning discovery schedule until applicant serves its emergency plans and its motion recommending a discovery schedule on emergency planning.
The board will defer ruling on discovery termination schedules until the responses on the respective issues are received.
TE ATOMIC SAFETY AND LICENSING BOARD Ivan W. Smith, Chairman Bethesda, Maryland August 6, 1980