ML17083A639
| ML17083A639 | |
| Person / Time | |
|---|---|
| Site: | Diablo Canyon  |
| Issue date: | 10/31/1980 |
| From: | Olmstead W NRC OFFICE OF THE EXECUTIVE LEGAL DIRECTOR (OELD) |
| To: | NRC ATOMIC SAFETY & LICENSING APPEAL PANEL (ASLAP) |
| References | |
| ISSUANCES-OL, NUDOCS 8011040422 | |
| Download: ML17083A639 (10) | |
Text
UNITED STATES OF AMERICA NUCLEAR REGULATORY COllf EMISSION 10/3g/80 BEFORE THE ATOMIC,SAFETY AND LICENSING APPEAL BOARD In the Matter of PACIFIC GAS AND ELECTRIC COMPANY (Diablo Canyon Nuclear Power Plant Unit Nos. I and 2)
Docket Nos.
50-275 O.L.
50-323 O.L.
NRC STAFF RESPONSE TO MOTION OF SLOMFP FOR RECONSIDERATION On September 2, 1980, Intervenor San Luis Obispo Mothers for Peace (SLOMFP) submitted contentions which they wished to litigate in the captioned proceeding.
The Appeal Board ruled on the admissibility of those contentions on September 18, 1980.
"Rulings on Contentions,"
dated September 18, 1980.
At that time, the Appeal Board "tentatively rejected" SLOMFP Contention 12 which asserted that "the security plan entails procedures...
which are illegal under state and federal
- laws, and which are inimical or violative of rights of privacy or other constitutional rights or guarantees."+
The Appeal Board did allow SLOMFP to submit a revised Contention 12 "in light of" the Applicant's responses to SLOMFP's interrogatories on this subject matter.
The revised x
contention was to be filed on October 2, 1980.
Ql The Staff originally objected to Contention 12 as "patently unsupported."
"NRC Staff Response to Amended Contentions of Intervenor SLOMFP," Septem-ber 8, 1980.
The Staff also noted that the specific procedures which allegedly violate various
- laws, as well zs the laws which are allegedly violated, were not set forth in the Contention.
Staff Response at 6.
The Staff continues to assert this objection.
Z4F
~ b(
V
Although the Applicant provided responses to the interrogatories on Septem-ber 19, 1980, the Intervenor believed those responses to be inadequate and thus filed a "Motion to Compel PG8E to Respond to Interrogatories" on Septem-ber 26, 1980.
The Intervenors also believed that the time in which they could file a revised contention was automatically extended and did not file a
new contention on October 2, 1980.
The Appeal Board, at 'the same time they granted SLOMFP's Motion to Compel, finally rejected Contention 12 in their "Ruling on Motions to Compel and on Remaining Contention" dated October 10, 1980.
- SLOMFP, on October 15, 1980, filed the instant "Motion for Reconsideration of the Board's Order of October 10, 1980" (Motion) asking that they once again be permitted to file a revised Contention 12 after reviewing the Applicant's further answers to SLOMFP's interrogatories which were to be filed on October 21, 1980.
The Staff opposes the Motion.
l<hile 'the original Contention 12 was overly vague, the Appeal Board did give SLOMFP the opportunity to'.revise the Contention based on information, the security plan in particular, which they obtained from the applicant.
SLOMFP argues that inasmuch as the Applicant did not fully provide information concerning Contention 12 in its discovery responses until October 21, 1980 it would be unfair to hold SLOMFP to the October 2, 1980 date for filing a revised Contention 12.
SLOMFP fails to explain,
- however, why access to the security plan on which Contention 12 was based, was not a sufficient basis on which to clarify their Contention.
Direct testimony in response to the Consolidated Issues set forth by the Appeal Board in their September 18, 1980 "Rulings on Contentions" was filed by all the parties on October 29, 1980 and the security hearing is scheduled to begin on November 10, 1980.
If SLOl1FP's Motion were granted, the revised Contention 12 would not be available to the parties in time to reasonably respond to that Contention and prepare supplemental testimony prior to the hearing.
- Thus, SLOHFP's ktotion should be denied.
Respectful ly submi tted, William J.
Olmstead Lead Counsel for NRC Staff Dated at Bethesda, Nary1and this 31st day of October,, 1980
UNITED STATES OF AtlERICA HUCLEAR REGULATORY COl'il1ISS ION BEFORE THE ATOtlIC SAFETY AND LICENSING APPEAL BOARD In the t<atter of PACIFIC GAS AND ELECTRIC COHPAHY (Diablo Canyon Huclear Power Plant Unit Nos.
1 and 2)
Docket Nos. 50-275 O.L.
50-323 0 L.
CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE I hereby certify tha't copies of "NRC STAFF
RESPONSE
TO NOTION OF SLOl'1FP FOR RECONSIDERATION" in the above-captioned proceeding have been served on the following by deposit in the United States mail, first class or, as indicated by an asterisk, through deposit in the Nuclear Regulatory Commis-sion's internal mail system, this 31st day of October, 1980.
- Richard S. Salzman, Esq.,
Chairman Atomic Safety and Licensing Appeal Board U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission l(ashington, D.C.
20555
'Dr.
John H. Buck Atomic Safety and Licensing Appeal Board U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission Mashington, D.C.
20555
- Dr. ll. Reed Johnson Atomic Safety and Licensing appeal Board U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Coo~'nission
!,'ashington, D.C.
20555
- Br. Thomas S.
i~loore, Member Atomic Safety and Licensing Appeal Board U.S. HucIear Regulatory Commission
!lashington, D.C.
20555
- Elizabeth S. Bowers, Esq.
Atomic Safety and Licensing Board U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission Mashington, D. C.
20555 Elizabeth Apfelberg 1415 Cozadero San Luis Obispo, California 93401
- Ver. Glenn 0. Bright Atomic Safety and Licensing Board U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission
! ashington, D.C.
20555 Dr. william E. t!artin Senior Ecologist Battelle l1emorial Institute
- Columbus, Ohio 43201
~-?hilip A. Crane, Jr.,
Esq.
Pacific Gas'nd Electric Company Room 3127 77 Beale Street San Francisco, California 94106 hr. Frederick Eissler Scenic Shoreline Preservation Conference, Inc.
4623 hove teresa Drive Santa Barbara, California 93105 hrs.
Raye Fleming 1920 flattie Road Shall Beach, California 93449 R-chard E. Blankenburg, Co-publisher
!syne A. Soroyan, Hews Reporter South County Publis'hing Company P.O.
Box 460 Ai royo Grande, California 93420
~
i fajorie Nordl inger Office of General Counsel U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Comm.
lfashington, D. C.
20555 ftr. Gordon Silver 1760 Alisal Street San Luis Obispo, California 93401
~ John R. Phillips, Esq.
Simon Klevansky, Esq.
lfargaret Blodgett, Esq.
ftarion P. Johnston, Esq.
Center for Law in the Public Interest 10203 Santa Monica Boulevard Los Angeles, California 90067 Arthur C. Gehr, Esq.
Snell 8 llilmer 3100 Valley Center Phoenix, Arizona 85073 r
Paul C. Yalentine, Esq.
321 Lytton Avenue Palo Alto, California 94302 Harry H. l<illis Seymour
& Willis 601 California St., Suite 2100 San Francisco, California 94108 Janice E. Kerr, Esq.
Lawrence Q. Garcia, Esq.
350 ffcAIIister Street San Francisco, California 94102 ftr. James
- 0. Schuyler ffuclear Projects Engineer Pacific Gas
& Electric Company 77 Beale -Street San Francisco, California 94106 Bruce Norton, Esq.
3216 North 3rd Street Suite 202 Phoenix, Arizona 85102 David S. Fleischaker, Esq.
Suite 709 1735 Eye Street, N.l<.
tllashington, D.C.
20006 furs. Sandra A. Silver 1760 Alisal Street San Luis Obispo, California 93401 Richard B. Hubbard HHB Technical Associates 1723 Hamilton Avenue - Suite K
San Jose, California 95125 John Harrs thanaging Editor San Luis Obispo County Telegram-Tribune 1321 Johnson Avenue P. 0.
Box 112 San Luis Obispo, California 93606 Andrew Baldwin, Esq..
124 Spear Street San Francisco, California 94105
~ Aerbert H.
Broaden Hill, Christopher
& Phillips, P.C.
1900 M Street, N.M.
tlashington, D.C.
20036 J. Anthony Klein Legal Affairs Secretary Governor's Office State Capitol Sacramento, California 95814 "Atomic Safety and Licensing Appeal Panel U ~ S nucleal Regulatory Commission Has hin gton, D.C.
20555
+Atomic Safety and Licensing Board Panel U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission Washington, D.C.
20555
<<Secretary U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission ATTN:
Chief, Docketing
& Service Br.
washington, D.C.
20555 1((j.
Hilliam J.
Olmstead Counsel for NRC Staff