ML17083A648
| ML17083A648 | |
| Person / Time | |
|---|---|
| Site: | Diablo Canyon  |
| Issue date: | 11/03/1980 |
| From: | Bishop C NRC ATOMIC SAFETY & LICENSING APPEAL PANEL (ASLAP) |
| To: | CALIFORNIA, STATE OF |
| References | |
| ISSUANCES-OL, NUDOCS 8011070198 | |
| Download: ML17083A648 (76) | |
Text
REGULATORY INFORMATION DISTRIBUTION SYSTEM (RIDS)
ACCESSION NBR:8011070198 DOCiDATE: 80/ll/03 NOTARIZED:
NO DOCKET ¹ FACIL:50-275 Diablo Canyon Nuclear Power Plant~
Unit ii Pacific Ga 05000275 50-323 Diablo Canyon Nuclear Power Planti Unit 2i Pacific Ga 05000323 AUTH,NAME AUTHOR AFFILIATION BISHOP'S C ~ J ~
Atomic Safety and Licensing Appeal Panel RECIP ~ NAME REC I'P IENT AFFILIATION Californian State of
SUBJECT:
Order affirming present schedule re holding of 801110 in camera hearing in San FranciscoiCA until full completion
~
DISTRIBUTION CODE:
DS02S COPIES RECEIVED:LTR ENCL SIZE:
p TITLE: Non Antitrust Issuances NOTES:J Hanchett w/1 copy all materially J Hanchett w/1 copy all material.
05000275 05000323 RECIPIENT ID CODE/NAME'CTION:
LEKgJ.
INTERNAL; ASLAP ISE OKLDgBLANTON PUBLIC AfFAIRS EXTERNAL: I.PDR COPIES LTTR ENCL RECIPIENT ID CODE/NAP)K BUCKI EYgB ~
ASLB NRC PDR NSIC'OPIES LTTR ENCL 0
I' TOTAL NUMBER OF COPIES REQUIRED:
LTTR ~
ENCL
'I e
1.
A l
-C"%
UNITED STATES OF AMERICA NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSION ATOMIC SAFETY AND LICENSING APPEAL BOARD Richard S.
- Salzman, Chairman Dr. N.
Reed Johnson Thomas S.
Moore Hl+
tkov - ghS86~
the Set;re\\st 5Senlce
- I~
Do&eking
- Stanci,
)
Docket, Nos.
50-275 OL
)
50-323-OL
)
(Security Plan)
)
)
g)C:c m~cn.
QMPv
~)
~)
order of October 17th, (Diablo Canyon Nuclear Power
~ Plant, Units 1 and 2)
ORDER November 3, 1980 For reasons explained in our In the Matter of PACIFIC GAS AND ELECTRIC COMPANY we declined to accede to the Governor of California's request to delay the start of the hearing from Monday, November 10th, to Tuesday, November 11th, for the personal convenience of his lead counsel.
The Governor now moves us to reconsider that denial because, in the judgment of his lead counsel, a full week will not be necessary for cross-examination and rebuttal.
Our own review of the prefiled testimony,
- however, leaves us unable to share lead counsel's certainty.
Rather than risk inconveniencing many others if the hearing runs longer than the Governor's lead counsel anticipates, we will remain
Q4 ~
4 I<<Pf~ mg
'f=-tl jt
'C Qgkf p
.o >><<>g 80jg'pf~og
/ldggfg i;
Il f.'
I I
I hl f ll I A
~ '=f'7 1
f'~
4 C"P C<C'V II
with our present schedule.
(We note that the Governor has additional competent trial counsel representing him in. this phase of the case.
)
As previously announced, the hearing will be held in camera at the offices of the applicant,'7 Beale
- Street, San Francisco, California, commencing at 9:30 A.M.
- Monday, November 10th.
It, will continue from day to day until
. completed without interruption for the Veteran's Day holiday on November 11th.
It is so ORDERED.
FOR THE APPEAL BOARD C. Jea Bishop Secretary to the Appeal Board
./ /
<<f
~'"
UNITED STATES OF AMERICA NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSION COMMISS IONERS:
John F. Ahearne, Chairman Victor Gilinsky Joseph H. kendrie Peter A. Bradford
+O~r
<rn, e
In the Hatter of PACIFIC GAS AK ELECTRIC COMPANY (Diablo Canyon Nucl.ear Power Plant, Units 1
and 2)
Docket Nos.
50-275 OL 50-323 OL (Securi ty)
ORDER On November 3,
- 1980, the Commission received motions from Governor Brown and the San Luis Obispo Mothers for Peace requesting it to direct the Atomic Safety and Licensing Appeal Board to certify the question whether the Diablo Canyon physical security hearings, which are scheduled to commence on Novem-ber 10, should be held as planned at applicant Pacific Gas 5 Electric Company's jt p San Francisco headquarters.
Ne have rev'iewed:the Appeal Board's Order of October 17, 1980 on this subject and the motions filed by petitioners and decline to direct certification of the question.
Although we and the Appeal Board would prefer that NRC hearings be held on neutral
- ground, the Board did not abuse its discretion in selecting PGSE head-quarters as the hearing site given the special circumstances of th ca e.
Furthermore, the petitions have come to us too 1ate to avoid considerab1e de1ay if we were to require a change.
It is so ORDERED.
~B Rkq~
><<gV~k'!~
~
For the Commission SAMUEL J.
Secretary of th
/
(
,LK Commission Dated at Washington, D.C.
r 4 this 6
day of November, 1980.
UNITED STATES OF BK~CA, NUCLEAR REGULATORY CO MISSION In the Matter of PACIFIC GAS AND ELECTRIC COMPANY (Diablo Canyon, Units 1 and 2)
)
)
)).
)
)
)
))-
Dodcet No.(s) 50-275OL 50-3230L (SECURITY PLAN)'ERTIFICATE
'OF SERVICE I hereby certify that I have this day served the foregoing document(s) upon each person designated on the o ficial service list compiled by the Office of the Secretary of the Commission in this proceeding in accordance with the requirements of Section 2.712 of 10 CFR Part 2 Rules of Practice, of the Nuclear Regulatory Commission's Rules and Regulations.
Dated at Washington, D.C. this day of 1986.
Oific of the Secretary of the Co ssion
In the Matter of Dccket No. (s) 50-2750L 50-3230L PACIFIC GAS AND ELECTRIC COMPANY (Diablo Canyon, Units 1 and 2)
~
(SECURTIY PLAN)
UNITED STATES OF AMERICA NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSION
)I
)
)
)
)
)
)
r
)
)
e SERVICE LIST Elizabeth S.
Bowers, Esq.,
Chairman Atomic Safety and Licensing Board U. S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission
'ashington, D.C.
20555 Philip A. Crane, Jr.,
Esq.
Pacific Gas
& Electric Company 77 Beale Street, Room 3127 San Francisco, California 94106 Mr. Glenn O. Bright atomic Safety and Licensing Board U;S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission
'a'shington, D.C.
20555 Arthur C. Gehr, Esq.
Snell
& Wilmer 3100 Valley Center
- Phoenix, Arizona 85073 Dr. Jerry R. Kline Atomic Safety and Licensing Appeal Board U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission Washington, D.C.
20555 Richard S.
- Salzman, Esq.,
Cha'irman Atomic Safety and Licensing Appeal Board U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission Washington, D.C.
20555
)
Dr.
W. Reed Johnson Atomic Safety and Licensing Appeal Board U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission Washington, D.C.
20555 Thomas S. Moore, Esq.
Atomic Safety and Licensing Appeal Board U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission Washington, D.C.
20555 Counsel for NRC Staff Office of the Executive Legal Director U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission Washington, D.C.
20555 Mr. James
- 0. Schuyler Nuclear Projects Engineer Pacific Gas
& Electric Company 77 Beale Street
~ San Francisco, California 94106 Bruce Norton, Esq.
3216 North Third Street, Suite 202 Phoenix, Arizona 85012 Harry M. Willis, Esq.
W. Andrew Baldwin, Esq.
Seymour
& Willis 601 California Street, Suite 2100 San Francisco, California 94108 Herbert H. Brown, Esq.
Hill, Christopher
& Phillips, P.C.
1900 M Street, N.W.
Washington, D.C.
20036 Mr. Bryon S. 'Georgiou Governor's Office State Capitol Sacramento, California 95814
Board and arties continued 50-275, -323 (SECURITY PL'AN)
Mrs. Elizabeth Apfelberg c/o Ms. Nancy Culver 182 Luneta Drive San Luis Obispo, California 93401 Janice E. Kerr, Esq.
California Public Utilities Commission 5246 State Building San Francisco, California 94102 Mrs. Raye Fleming 1920 Mattie Road Shell Beach, California 93440 Mr. Frederick Eissler Scenic Shoreline Preservation Conference, Inc.
4623 More Mesa Drive Santa Barbara, California 93105 Mrs.
Sandra A. Silver 1760 Alisal Street San Luis Obispo, California 93401 Mr. Gordon A. Silver 1760 Alisal Street San Luis Obispo, California 93401
~
<Ng(gpss< 4 UNITED STATES OF AMERICA NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSION ATOMIC SAFETY AND LICENSING APPEAL BOARD Richard S.
- Salzman, Chairman Dr. John H. Buck Dr. W.
Reed Johnson In the Matter of PACIFIC GAS AND ELECTRIC COMPANY (Diablo Canyon Nuclear Power Plant, Units 1 and 2)
Docket Nos.
50-275 OL 50-323 OL (Seismic Proceeding)
ORDER November 5, 1980 At the reopened seismic hearings in San Luis Obispo, we received Joint Intervenor's exhibits R-6, R-7, R-8, R-9, and R-17 into evidence but reserved our ruling on the staff's objections to parts of them on grounds of irrelevancy.
As evidenced by the attached letter of November 4,
- 1980, from counsel for the staff, the parties have now agreed on the portions of those exhibits that are not relevant to this proceeding.
We accept their agreement as the basis for our ruling.
Accordingly, the portions of the exhibits specified in staff counsel's attached letter. are not received into evidence in this case.
It is so ORDERED.
FOR THE APPEAL BOARD C. J n Bz.shop
.~Secre ary to the Appeal Board
Attachment:
Staff counsel's letter of November 4,
1980.
gp,R AEGy,Np0 Cy
~i 0
0 ~>>*<<+
~
UNITED STATES NUCLEAR R EG ULATORY COMMISSION WASHINGTON, D. C. 20555 November 4, 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 Washington, D. C.
20555 Dr. M. Reed Johnson Atomic Safety and Licensing Appeal Board U. S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission Washington, D. C.
20555 In the Matter of PACIFIC'AS AND ELECTRIC COMPANY (Diablo Canyon Nuclear Power Plant, Unit Nos.
1 and 2)
Docket Nos.
50-275 O.L.
8 50-323 O.L.
Gentlemen:
The NRC Staff indicated at the conclusion of the Diablo Seismic hearings on October 25, 1980 that it would document the objections that it had to Joint Intervenor's Exhibits R-6 through R-9 and R-17.
The following ob-jections have been agreed to by the parties and, consequently, reference should not be made to the following portions of those exhibits as evidence in this proceeding:
SIMULATION OF EARTH(UAKE GROUND MOTIONS FOR SAN ONOFRE NUCLEAR GENERATING STATION UNIT 1 - FINAL REPORT J.I.
R-6 P.
1 P.
1V P ~
V P. Xvl-Xvl1 The first full sentence.
Paragraph 3, second sentence and paragraph 4.
The remainder of paragraph 4 and the following two sen-tences.
The entire material entitled "Postulated Ground Motion at San Onofre.
P.
XV111 P. XlX P.
XX Figure 5-A.
Figure 5-B.
The first sentence and last paragraph on that page; retain the middle paragraoh.
- p. 1-1
- p. 4-14
- p. 4-16
- p. 4-17
- p. 5-1
- p. 5-2
- p. 5-4 Paragraph 1.1 - OBJECTIVES.
Figure 4-8.
Figure 4-9.
Figure 4-10.
Entire page.
Figure 5-1.
Figure 5-3.
- p. 5-8
- p. 5-9 p.
5-11
- p. 5-12
- p. 5-13
- p. 5-14 Figure 5-6.
Figure 5-7.
Paragraph 5.3 "Computed Ground t<otion" Figure 5-8 A.
Fi gur e 5-8 B.
Figure 5-9.
Su lement I - J. I. R-7
- p. 1-7
- p. 1-8
- p. 1-9 Last paragraph.
Figure 1-1.
Figure 1-2.
- p. 1-10 Figure 1-3.
p.
1-11
- p. 1-12
- p. 1-13
- p. 1-14 p.
1'-15
- p. 1-16
- p. 4-6 Figure 1-4.
Figure 1-5.
Figur e 1-6.
Figure 1-7.
Figure 1-8.
Figure 1-9.
Figure 4-1.
Su lement II - J.I;-'-8
- p. 4-7
- p. 4-8
- p. 4-9
- p. 4-10
- p. 4-11
- p. 4-12
- p. 4-13
- p. 4-14
- p. 5-28 Figure 4-2.
Figure 4-3.
Figure 4-4.
Figure 4-5.
Figure 4-6.
Figure 4-7.
Figure 4-8.
Figure 4-9.
Figure 5-16.
- p. 5-36 Figure 5-23.,
- p. 5-29 Table 5-6.
p.
1 p.
51 Introduction - second sentence; second paragraph, third sen-tence.
Conclusions.
Su lement III - J. I. R-9 p.
1-1 p.
1-2 Paragraph 3, third, fourth and fifth sentences.
First two sentences.
Su lement III - J.I.
R-9 (continued) p.
1-3 p.
1-5 Last three sentences.
Paragraph 1.3 - "Calibration and Validation Studies."
Last sentence of first paragraph, and second paragraph.
- p. 1-6
- p. 1-8
- p. 1-9
- p. 1-10 p.
1-11
- p. 3-2
- p. 3-8
- p. 3-9
- p. 4-3 p.
6-.1
- p. 6-2 Entire page.
Figure 1-1.
Figure 1-2.
Figure 1-3.
Figure 1-4.
Last sentence of second par agraph.
Figure 3-4.
Figure 3-5.
First paragraph.
Entire page.
Entir e page.
- p. 6-3
- p. 6-4
- p. 6-5
- p. 6-6
- p. 6-7
- p. 6-8
- p. 6-9
- p. 6-10
- p. 6-11
- p. 6-12
- p. 6-13
- p. 6-14 Figure 6-1.
Figure 6-2.
Figure 6-3.
Figure 6-4.
Figure 6-5.
Figure 6-6.
Figure 6-7.
Figure 6-8.
Figure 6-9.
Figure 6-10.
Figure 6-11.
Figure 6-12.
J.I.
R Report Prepared for NRC by J.
Enrique Luco, September 28, 1980 The second sentence of the first paragraph.
p.
4 p.
5 Paragraph 2.1 - "Predicted Spectra."
Entire page.
Sincerely, i V'>
William J.,Olmstead Counsel for NRC Staff cc:
Service List
f 1
4 I~
~ ~
1"
/
~ t ~
~ A
~
4l
~
0 v
I" 0
'I
~ r
~
~ '4
~ - '
a.
~
UNI'.RED STATES OP. ~KXCA, "MUCKER REGULAZORZ. COMMISSION
\\ ~
~4 V
In the Matter of PACIFIC GAS AND ELECTRIC COMPANY (Diablo Canyon, Units 1 and" 2)
)
)
)
Docket, No. (s) 50-275OL
' ~...
50-3230L..
)
)
(SEISMIC)
)
)
)
CERTIFICATE 'OP SERVICE I hereby certify that I have this day served the foregoing document(s) upon
,each p'erson designated on the official service 1ist, compiled by the Office
~
of the Secretary of the Commission in this proceeding in accordance with the requirements of Section 2.712 of 10 CFR Part 2 Rules of Practice, of the Nuclear Regulatory Commission's Rules and Regulations.
Dated at Washington, D.C. this day af Md5 198 '~.
0'ffice f the Secretary of the Commission
UNITED STATES OF
~ NUCLEAR.REGULATORY
)
)')
)).
)
)
)
In the Matter of (Diablo Canyon, Units 1 'and 2)
~ PACIFIC GAS AND ELECTRIC COMPANY AMBICA-,
COMMISSION-,
Docket No. (s) 50-275 OL, 50-323 OL (SEISMIC)
SERVICE LIST Elizabeth S.
Bowers, Esq.,
Chairman Atomic Safety and Licensing Board U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission
'Washington, D. C.
20555 Marjorie Nordlinger, Esq.
Office of theGeneral Counsel U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission Washington, D.C.
20555 Mr. Glenn O. Bright Atomic Safety and Licensing Board U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission Washington, D.C.
20555 Philip A. Crane, Jr
, Esq.
Pacific Gas 6 Electric Company 77 Beale Street, Room 3127 San Francisco, California 94106 Dr. William E. Martin Senior'Ecologist Battelle Memorial Institute
- Columbus, Ohio 43201 Richard S.
- Salzman, Esq.,
Chairman Atomic Safety and Licensing Appeal Board U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission
'ashington, D.C.
20555 Dr.
W. Reed Johnson Atomic Safety an'd Licensing Appeal Board U.S.'uclear Regulatory Commission Washington, D.C.
20555 Arthur C. Gehr, Esq.
Snell 6 Wilmer 3100 Valley Center Phoenix, Arizona 85073 Mr. 'James
- 0. Schuyler Nuclear Projects Engineer Pacific Gas
& Electric Company 77 Beale Street San Francisco, Californian 94106 Bruce Norton, Esq.
3216 North Third Street, Suite 202 Phoenix, Arizona 85012 Dr. John H. Buck Atomic Safety and Licensing Appeal Board U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission Washington, D.C.
20555 Janice E. Kerr, Esq.
California Public. Utilities Commission 5246 State Building San Francisco, California 94102 Counsel for NRC Staff Office of the Executive Legal Director U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission Washington, D.C.
20555 Mrs. Sandra A. Silver 1760 Alisal Street San Luis Obispo, California 93401 Mrs. Raye Fleming 1920 Mattie Road Shell Beach, California 93440 Mr. Frederick Eissler Scenic Shoreline Preservation Conference, Inc.
4623 More Mesa Drive Santa Barbara, California 93105 Mr. Gordon A. Silver 1760 Alisal Street San Luis Obispo, California 93401
Board and arties continued 50-275, -323 (SEISMIC)"
Stephen M. Kristovich, Esq.
Center for Law in the Public Interest 10203 Santa Monica Drive Los Angeles, California 90067 David F. Fleischaker, Esq.
1735 I Street, N.W., Apt. 709 Washington, D.C.
20006 Mrs. Elizabeth Apfelberg c/o Ms. Nancy Culver 182 Luneta Drive San Luis Obispo, California 93401 Mr. Carl Neiburger San Luis Obispo Telegram-Tribune P.O.- Box 112 San Luis Obispo, California 93406 Mr. James Hanchett Public Affairs Officer, Region V U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission 1990 North California Boulevard Walnut Creek, California 94596 Dr. Enrique Luco 1613 Shields Avenue Encinitas, California 92024 Dr. Mihail D. Trifunac 1488 Old House Road
- Pasadena, California 91107
i'
UNITED STATES OF AMERICA NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSION ATOMIC SAFETY AND LICENSING APPEAL BOARD Richard S.
- Salzman, Chairman Dr.
W.
Reed Johnson Thomas S,
Moore In the Matter of PACIFIC GAS AND ELECTRIC COMPANY (Diablo Canyon Nuclear Power Plant, Units 1 and 2) 8 fNPy~EP USHRC NOv -41980 s
Qffice of the Secretary
/Op
+
Qgcfreting 8r SNYico
" /p
< 1980 Branch Docket Nos.
50-275 OL 50-323 OL (Security Plan)
ORDER November 3, 1980 For reasons explained in our order of October 17th, we declined to accede to the Governor of California's request to delay the start of the hearing from Monday, November 10th, to Tuesday, November 11th, for the personal convenience of his lead counsel.
The Governor now moves us to reconsider that denial because, in the judgment of his lead counsel, a full week will not be necessary for cross-examination and rebuttal.
Our own review of the prefiled testimony,
- however, leayes us unable to share lead counsel's certainty.
Rather than 1
risk inconveniencing many others if the hearing runs longer, than the Governor's lead'ounsel anticipates, we will remain
with our present schedule.
(We note that the Governor has additional competent trial counsel representing him in this phase of the case.)
As previously announced, the hearing will be held in camera at the offices of the applicant, 77 Beale
- Street, San Francisco, California, commencing at 9:30 A.M.
- Monday, November 10th.
It will continue from day to day until completed without interruption for the Veteran's Day holiday on November lith.
It is so ORDERED.
FOR THE APPEAL BOARD C. Jea Bishop Secretary to the Appeal Board
l 'P
'1
~ ~
~ ~
~ '
~
~
UNITED STATES OF.XKKXCA NUCLEAR REGULATORY. COMKZSSION
~ "
In the Matter of
)
)
PACIFIC GAS AND ELECTRIC COMPANY
)')
(Diablo Canyon, Units 1 and 2)
)
)
)
)
)
Docket No. (s) 50-275OL 50-3230L,
~C'.o <+i CERTIFICATE 'OF SERVICE I hereby certify that I have thi.s day served the foregoing document(s) upon each person designated on the,officia1 service list compiled by the Office of the Secretary of the Commission in this proceeding in accordance Mth the requirements o
Section 2.712 of 10 CFR Part 2 - Rules of Practice, of the Nuclear Regulatory Conunission's Rules and Regulations.
Dated at'ashington, D.C.
day or
'98Q
+/-
Offic 6
the Secretary of theQommission
~P.
~-
In the Matter of Dccket No. (s) 50-2750L 50-3230L PACIFIC GAS AND ELECTRIC COMPANY (Diablo Canyon, Units 1 and 2)
~
(SECURTIY PLAN)
UNITED STATES OF AMERICA NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSION
)'
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
SERVICE LIST Elizabeth S.
Bowers, Esq.,
Chairman Atomic Safety and Licensing Board U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission Washington, D.C.
20555 Philip A. Crane, Jr.,
Esq.
Pacific Gas
& Electric Company 77 Beale Street, Room 3127 San Francisco, California 94106 Mr. Glenn O. Bright Atomic Safety and Licensing Board U;S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission Washington, D.C.
20555 Arthur C. Gehr, Esq.
Snell
& Wilmer 3100 Valley Center Phoenix, Arizona 85073 Dr. Jerry R. Kline Atomic Safety and Licensing Appeal Board U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission Washington, D.C.
20555 Richard S.
- Salzman, Esq.,
Chairman Atomic Safety and Licensing Appeal Board U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission Washington, D.C.
20555
)
Dr.
W.
Reed Johnson Atomic Safety and Licensing Appeal Board U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission Washington, D.C.
20555 Thomas S. Moore, Esq.
Atomic Safety and Licensing Appeal Board U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission Washington, D.C.
20555 Counsel for NRC Staff Office of the Executive Legal Director U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission Washington, D.C.
20555 Mr. James
- 0. Schuyler Nuclear Projects Engineer Pacific Gas
& Electric Company 77 Beale Street San Francisco, California 94106 Bruce Norton Esq.
3216 North Third Street, Suite 202 Phoenix, Arizona 85012 Harry M. Willis, Esq.
W. Andrew Baldwin, Esq.
Seymour
& Willis 601 California Street, Suite 2100 San Francisco, California 94108 Herbert H. Brown, Esq.
Hill, Christopher
& Phillips, P.C.
1900 M Street, N.W.
Washington, D.C.
20036
'Mr. Bryon S. Georgiou Governor's Office State Capitol Sacramento, California 95814
Board and arties continued 50-275,
-323 (SECURITY PLAN)
Mrs. Elizabeth Apfelberg c/o Ms. Nancy Culver 182 Luneta Drive San Luis Obispo, California 93401 Janice E. Kerr, Esq.,
California Public Utilities Commission 5246 State Building San Francisco, California 94102 Mrs. Raye Fleming 1920 Mattie Road Shell Beach, California 93440 Mr. Frederick Eissler Scenic Shoreline Preservation
.Conference, Inc.
4623 More Mesa Drive Santa Barbara, California 93105 Mrs.
Sandra A. Silver 1760 Alisal Street San Luis Obispo, California 93401 Mr. Gordon A. Silver 1760 Alisal Street San Luis Obispo, California 93401
UNITED STATES OF AMERICA NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSION ATOMIC SAFETY AND LICENSING APPEAL BOARD Richard S.
- Salzman, Chairman Dr.
W.
Reed Johnson Thomas S.
Moore Og 8
Op cg of~
/g~
~ir~
+wc
/pp
'c>
)
In the Matter of
)
)
PACIFIC GAS AND ELECTRIC COMPANY
)
)
(Diablo Canyon Nuclear Power Plant,)
Units 1 and 2)
)
)
OC Jo@
Docket Nos.
50-275 OL 50-323 OL (Security Plan Proceeding)
ORDER October 17, 1980 1.
The Governor's motion for additional counsel.
Before us is the October 6,
1980 motion of Governor Brown in the Diablo Canyon security plan proceeding seeking to have a third attorney granted access to the applicant's security plan and other associated materials.
Pursuant to the terms of our August 8, 1980 Fourth Prehearing Conference V
- Order, two counsel for each intervenor were granted access to the security plan and related protected information under carefully controlled 'conditions.
Our August 8th order was
~t pr i s d in large part on an agreement of all counsel
- bhat, in exchange for the applicant granting each intervenor access to the entire security plan, eacn intervenor would limit the number of counsel permitted to see the plan.
Cf., ALAB-41 q I
P'I
5 NRC 1398 (1977).
This arrangement among the parties avoided the otherwise more burdensome procedures set forth in our July 15, 1980 order (ALAB-600) that we had determined were necessary to protect the sensitive information contained in the plan.
The Governor now seeks a modification of that earlier agreement.
He asserts that a third attorney is necessary in order that he may complete work on his witnesses'estimony for the upcoming security plan hearing because the Governor' other two counsel are occupied preparing for the seismic hearing which commences October 20, 1980 before another board of the appeal panel.
The NRC staff and intervenor San Luis Obispo Mothers for Peace do not object to the Governor's motion; the applicant objects, stating that the prior stipulations of the parties must be adhered to for "[t]o proceed in any other fashion would render other stipulations equally unenforceable."
(PG&E
- Response,
- p. 2).
We, too, are concerned that the Governor now seeks to alter the terms of:the agreement
.under which access. to the appli-cant's security plan was granted..
From all that appears in the Governor's motion, we are left to speculate why adequate planning by the Governor's counsel could not have avoided his asserted problem.
Nor does the Governor's motion explain why
0 I
additional counsel could not have been brought into the seismic proceeding instead of seeking amendment.
to the previous agreement on access to the security plan.
Accord-ingly, we believe that the applicant's objection is under-standable.
Nevertheless, we recognize the pressures upon all counsel in this matter and are not unaware of the slightly different position of the Governor's counsel vis-a-vis the other parties.
Neither the applicant nor the staff is limited to only two counsel in the security plan proceeding, although both are also participating in the seismic proceeding.
Because we wish to insure that this matter moves forward as quickly as practicable, the Governor' motion is granted.
The procedures already in place for safe-guarding the security plan and other protected information will protect adequately the confidentiality of the plan and the security of the plan will not be affected by granting access to one additional attorney for the Governor.
Accord-ingly, Christopher B. Hanback may have access to the security plan and related materials in accordance with the terms of all our previous orders in this proceeding and the terms of the affidavit of nondisclosure filed with the Governor's motion.
l
2.
The Governor '
motion to dela the start of the
~hearin
- Monday, November 10th was set for the opening date of the security plan hearing in our order of August 28, 1980.
On October 13th the Governor moved to postpone the start of the hearing until Tuesday, November 11th, for the personal 1/
convenience of his lead counsel.
Although the other counsel have indicated that they would be willing to accede to the request, doing so presents a problem.
The Governor has indicated seven principal areas of concern about the applicant's security arrangements; inter-venor San Luis Obispo Mothers for Peace has challenged several more; and we have called for testimony on two additional matters.
There are thus a large number of issues to be covered.
We 2/
cannot be certain how long will be needed to hear them all.
We deliberately scheduled the hearing to start on a Monday.
This allows a full five week days for hearing, with a possible Saturday session in reserve, to minimize the likelihood that witnesses and participants from out of state have to be retained 1/
Counsel's motion stated that he desires to attend a
Bar Mitzvah in Michigan on Saturday, November 8th and Sunday November 9th.
2/
We had hoped to be able to judge this more closely on the completion of discovery.
The Governor's initial responses,
- however, provided insufficient information about the nature of his case to be helpful to us in this regard.
l
in California over the weekend in order to be available for a hearing session the following week.
- Indeed, we even scheduled hearings for the federal holiday,
- Tuesday, November ll, in order to insure. an adequate number of hearing days.
Delaying the hearing start until Tuesday greatly increases the likelihood that many hay. have to be inconvenienced to accommodate one individual.
We are not insensitive to the personal importance that the event in question may have for counsel.
For this reason we had counsel to this panel inquire by telephone whether all the parties were agreeable to a full week's delay.
Start-ing the following Monday (November 17th) would, of course, accommodate the Governor's counsel without the problems that a Tuesday start would engender.
However, although the other parties were willing, one of the Governors own witnesses is unavailable hhat week.
In the circumstances, we are constrained to deny the Governor's request.
Accordingly, the hearing will 3/
commence in San Francisco as scheduled on Monday, November 10th.
3.
The hearin site.
As the Commission has noted, "the prospect of even limited disclosure of physical plans for nuclear facilities 3/
Even so, the Governor's counsel still should be able to participate in the Bar Mitzvah on Saturday.
Only his attendance at. other activities the following day need be curtailed.
poses serious and difficult questions."
Pacific Gas and Electric Company (Diablo Canyon Nuclear Power Plant, Units 1 and 2), CLI-77-23, 6
NRC 455 (1977).
Accordingly, Commission policy and regulations mandate that the physical security plans for nuclear power plants be given confidential treatment.
When the adequacy of such plans is challenged in a licensing proceed-ing, the challenging party may be entitled to access to the plan, but only under the terms of a protective order designed to insure its confidentiality.
Similarly, any hearing on such issues must be in camera.
ALAB-410, 5 NRC 1398, review denied, CLI-77-23 6
NRC 455 (1977).
In this case the Governor of California and San Luis Obispo Mothers for Peace challenge the adequacy of the applicant's security plan.
Access to the security plan initially was granted to two counsel for each intervenor and those expert witnesses whom we found qualified.
That access was permitted,
- however, only under the specially prescribed conditions spelled out in our protective order, which incorporated an affidavit of non-disclosure executed by all being granted access.
See ALAB-592, ll NRC 744 (1980), modified and remanded, CLI-80-24, ll NRC 775 (1980),
on remand, ALAB-600, 12 NRC (July 15, 1980).
The pro-tective order and affidavit permitted review of the security plan at the San Francisco business headquarters of the applicant in rooms designated by applicant for that purpose.
All notes, memoranda,
pleadings and other papers regarding the security plan were to be prepared on applicant's premises and then kept at, appli-cant's offices in a locked. safe to which only counsel for inter-venors had access.
Special provisions were also made for filing and serving all pleadings.
For the convenience of the Governor' lead counsel (whose office is in Washington, D. C.), the security plan was also made available at an NRC staff facility in Bethesda, Maryland.
The identical security procedures were then made applicable to all discovery materials produced by the applicant and NRC staff in response to the intervenors'iscovery requests.
We found these security measures necessary to protect the con-fidentiality of the applicant's security plan so that the plan would not be compromised..
It is perhaps needless to note that if such information should be disclosed even inadvertently--
a breach of security could lead to serious consequences for the public health and safety.
In an effort to insure that the plan is adequately pro-tected during the'n camera hearing, we inquired (as part of our search for a hearing site) whether the applicant could make suitable facilities available at its offices in San Francisco the same site where the plan and other protected information have been made available to intervenors.
The applicant has responded affirmatively.
e
The Governor of California and intervenor SLOMFP, how-ever, object to having the in camera hearing at applicant's facilities.
The Governor asserts that such a hearing site would "create the appearance of an improper relationship between the regulator and regulated company" and states, without further explanation, that "fundamental legal issues would be raised" by our doing so.
The Governor claims that the "siting of the hearing at the bosom of the applicant would only heighten the perception of many members of the public that the NRC lacks sufficient independence from the applicant community to consider seriously the possibility that an operating license should be denied at Diablo In the Governor's
- judgment, "the best site would be the headquarters of the NRC in Washington, D. C. or in Bethesda, Maryland," or if not there, then in a federal or state office building in San Francisco or some other California city.
Intervenor SLOMFP's objections essentially mirror the Governor',
and it states, for example, that "a hearing site controlled and operated by the license applicant, and in which the applicant possesses the concomitant rights to control exit, entrance, movement of security materials,
n
security personnel etc., is plainly inappropriate."
Ac-cording to SLOMFP "the applicant should not be given any advantage, practical or psychological, which will taint the objectivity of these important proceeding."
Several factors must guide our discretion in choosing an appropriate hearing site.
The Administrative Procedure Act requires that we consider the "convenience and necessity of the parties or their representatives."
5 U.S.C. 0554(b).
Zn addition, the Commission has a long-standing policy and practice of holding, when practicable, evidentiary hearings in the "vicinity of the site of the proposed facility,"
10 C.F.R. Part 2, Appendix A, I (a),
so that those members of the public in the geographic area of the reactor site who wish to participate may conveniently do so.
Finally, be-cause the hearing involves the physical security plan for a reactor, we must insure that the hearing site is appro-priate from a security standpoint.
Like the Governor, we would prefer to hold the security plan hearing in Commission facilities at Bethesda, Maryland. That option is foreclosed because of intervenor SLOMFP's participation.
10 The intervenor is a California-based organization and its lead counsel informs us that it cannot afford to send its counsel and expert witness to Bethesda.
(Indeed, it was for this same financial reason that oral argument was heard in San Francisco earlier thi.s year on a related issue in the security proceeding.)
We are not prepared to exclude inter-venor SLOMFP from this proceeding because of its financial status.
No mechanism currently exists for the Commission to pay this intervenor's expenses to come to Washington.
We must therefore look for a California site.
In this connection, we note that the security plan hearing is closed to the public.
Only the counsel and the expert witnesses of the parties will be permitted to attend.
- Thus, there is no reason to hold the hearing in the immediate vicin-ity of the reactor site at San Luis Obispo, for interested I
individuals in the locality could not attend in any event.
Moreover, the attorneys for SLOMFP have their offices in San Francisco.
A hearing in that city will serve the convenience of the largest number of participants.
Although none of the Governor's experts lives in the San Francisco area, they are all located in California and should have no difficulty traveling to San Francisco.
The applicant's experts are already present in San Francisco.
The NRC staff, the Governor's Washington counsel and this board all must travel to the west coast and
~%
lt
11 San Francisco presents no undue logistical problems in that regard.
The applicant's facility in. San Francisco is ideally 4/
suited for holding the closed security plan hearing.
The security plan and related protected material have already been made available to intervenors at applicant's San Francisco facility.
Under the terms of our earlier protective order, all protected information obtained in the course of this pro-ceeding is already located at applicant's facility and the security procedures developed for protecting such materials have proved satisfactory.
By using the applicant's facility, such protected information will not have to be transported to another location (perhaps daily) with the attendant risks such a move entails.
If another facility were to be used, comparable security arrangements to those already in place at applicant's facility would have to be duplicated there.
Such arrangements would require considerable unnecessary cost and inconvenience.
But such arrangements cannot be quickly 4/
The applicant has offered to provide a large conference room to serve as a hearing room.
The room will contain locked filing cabinets to hold protected information for the convenience of the parties and the board.
Applicant will provide around the clock security to insure that no unauthorized persons are permitted access to the hearing room.
In addition applicant has offered to make additional conference rooms available to the parties for work related purposes.
and efficiently effectuated in the other federal facilities available to us in San Francisco.
For example, as we have previously noted, time constraints make it necessary for us to take evidence on Tuesday, November ll.
That day is a federal holiday, but not one universally celebrated by the private business community.
Considerable inconvenience would attend our taking evidence that day in the federal building available to us in San Francisco'.
That problem can be avoided by holding the hearing at applicant's facility.
Accordingly, because of the necessity of maintaining the confidentiality of the security plan, we will accept. the applicant's offer and we will hold the closed security plan hearing at applicant's San Francisco offices.
Intervenor SLOMPP also appears to object to holding the closed security plan hearing at, applicant's facility because, according to intervenor, such an arrangement will,permit the applicant to control the hours of access to security materials during trial.
We are confident, that applicant does not intend to deprive intervenor of access to security materials and thus hinder intervenor's trial preparation during recesses in the hearing.
Accordingly, the parties should make suitable arrange-ments to accommodate intervenor's concerns in this regard.
13 Because the security plan hearing is closed to the publicF intervenors concern that holding such hearing on applicant's premises will present the "appearance" of an improper relation-ship between the NRC and applicant is largely illusory.
No legal impediments stand as a barrier against holding the hearing at applicant's facility and intervenors cite none.
- See, Brotherhood of Railroad Trainment v. Chica o, M., St.
P.
6 P.
R. Co., 237 F.Supp.
- 404, 422 (D.D.C. 1964),
remanded on other
- grounds, 345 F.2d 985 (D.C. Cir. 1965).
1t is to be remembered that what we are considering here is the adequacy of applicant's plan to protect its facility.
But we should not overlook the fact that it is the applicant that has primary responsibility for safeguarding the plan.
In')these circumstances it is not unreasonable to hold the hearing at applicant s facility.
The speculation that some members of the public may draw incorrect inferences from holding an in camera hearing on applicant's
-premises must yield to the real need to safeguard the plan.
It is so ORDERED.
FOR THE APPEAL BOARD 5 /
C. J n Bishop Secre ary to the Appeal Board 5/
Dr. Johnson participated in formulating this order ard joins in the result; he did not, however, review the final draft of this order.
AHLAl'cd cooREspoYnr
t~'~
S EYMOUR 8c WILL IS COUNSELORS AT LAW SIX HUNDRED ONE CALIFORNIA STREET SUITE 21OO SAN FRANCISCO, CALIFORNIA 94IOS (415) EXBROOK I 1500
"-iiac q
~ere ~to 4C~~p
+Way
&eg, October 3, l980 Ms. C. Jean Bishops Secretary to the Appeal Board U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission Atomic Safety and Licensing Appeal Panel Washington, D.C.
20555 Re:
Pacific Gas and Electric Company (Diablo Canyon Nuclear Power Plant Units I and 2)
Docket Nos.:
50-275 OL and 50-323 (Securit Plan)
Dear Ms. Bishop:
Enclosed herewith please find an original and three copies of the RESPONSE OF INTERVENOR SLOMFP TO MOTION OF NRC STAFF TO COMPEL ANSWERS TO INTERROGATORIES.
Very truly yours, ka
. e.-4'.W Secretary to HARRY M. WILLIS
/rac
Enclosures:
4
0 1I lt
RQQQ+pg g0 i)gQvgp+
UNITED STATES OF AMERICA NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSION BEFORE THE ATOMIC SAFETY AND LICENSING APPEAL BOARD ln the Matter of:
PACIFIC GAS AND ELECTRIC COMPANY (Diablo Canyon Nuclear Power Plant, Units I and 2) 0
~ 'l~
g(Irypg
RESPONSE
OF INTERVENOR SLOMFP TO MOTION OF NRC STAFF TO COMPEL ANSWERS TO INTERROGATORIES The Staff seeks to compel answers to its first set of interrogatories to Intervenor SLOMFP.
The bases for the motion appear to be:
(a)
The Staff would prefer answers which correspond precisely to the format of its questions, rather than the narrative, cumulative answers
~
furnished by SLOMFP.
(b)
The Staff wishes to know what SLOMFP means by "target areas",
as used in its Amended Contentions.
(c)
The Staff contends that SLOMFP is required now to furnish the details and bases of its "illegality" contention (AC No.
I2), and is barred by Board order from objecting to the Contention Interrogatories on this subject.
I.
With respect to the first point, SLOMFP submits that the Staff should designate precisely the alleged deficiencies in Intervenor s original answers.
Intervenor combined the questions of Applicant and the Staff for purposes of preparing answers because the questions (contention in form) covered the same ground, and because there were so many.
Considering the time limits placed upon responding to discovery, and
the somewhat difficultphysical conditions of preparing answers at the discovery facility, the fastidiousness of the Staff in this regard seems misplaced.
2.
SLOMFP did not intend, as the Staff suggests, to use the term "target area" as a term of art in certain of its amended contentions (those relating to the scenarios of Chapter I I of the Security Plan).
- Rather, Intervenor used the term descriptively to refer to the coded portions of the scenarios which concern areas on the reactor site where acts of sabotage are hypothesized to occur.
Put another way, the relevant inquiry is not what SLOMFP means by "target areas," but what the Security Plan designates as "target areas."
and for this reason intervenor interposed a relevancy objection.
3.
It is not possible to respond to the contention interrogatories regarding Intervenor's Amended contention !2 at the present time.
The Board's order of September I8, l980, tentatively rejected this contention, with leave, however, to resubmit the contention "in light of" the answers of Applicant to its interrogatories on the subject.
The Board's order, of course, instructed "the parties" not to object to interrogatories on the basis of tentative rejection; however, a fair and logical reading of this provision suggests that the Board was offering SLOMFP an opportunity to prepare a more precise contention at the close of discovery, and did not intend to foreclose Intervenor from objecting to premature contention interrogatories on the subject.
DATED:
October 3, 1980 SEYMOUR & WILLIS B
HA Y
. WILLIS Attorne s for Intervenor SLOMFP
CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE I hereby certify that on October 3, l980, a copy of the attached
RESPONSE
OF INTERVENOR SLOMFP TO MOTION OF NRC STAFF TO COMPEL ANSWERS TO INTERROGATORIES was served on the parties listed below:
~RICHARD S. SALZMAN, ESQ., CHAIRMAN
<<DR. W. REED JOHNSON MR. THOMAS E. MOORE, MEMBER Atomic Safety and Licensing Appeal Board U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission Washington, D.C.
20555 WILLIAMJ. OLMSTEAD, ESQ.
L. DOW DAVIS, ESQ.
LUCIO SCHWARTZ, ESQ.
EDWARD G. KETCHEN, ESQ.
Office of Executive Legal director Beth 042 U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission Washington, D.C.
20555 HERBERT H. BROWN, ESQ.
LAWRENCE COE LANPHER, ESQ.
Hill, Christopher
& Phillips l900 M Street, N.W.
Washington, D.C.
20036 BRUCE NORTON, ESQ.
Norton, Burke, Berry & Junck 32I6 North Third Street, Suite 300 Pheonix, Arizona 850 I 2 QC4iPGKD OCT 2 0 1980 s I
VII'0%1 OIAe of fNP4tlr.t > <<4~w f
I declare under penalty of perjury that the foregoing is true and correct.
Executed this 3rd day of October, I 980, at San Francisco, California.
BERT A. CA PBELL S cretary to HARRY M. WILLIS Hand delivered by Federal Express on October P',
l980.
, ~
UhITH) S~~D OF L~JCA HUC~~Z R GO~OZZ CONCESSION In the Putter o
PACIFIC GAS AND ELECTRIC CO.PANY (Diablo Canyon, Units 1 and 2)
)
)
)).
)
)
)
)
)
~
Docket ho. (s) 50-2750L 50-3230L (SECURITY PLAN)'HZL I¹Z-OF-SERVICE I hereby cert" fy that I-have',this day-served the foregoing document(s) upon each pe son designated on tne official se~ce list compiled by the Office of the Secretary of the Co&ssio in this proceeding in accordance with the requirements of Section 2.712 of 10 CR Part 2 Rules of Practice, o'f the Nuclear Regulatory Commission's Rules and Regulations.
Dated "t'ashington, D.C. -tnis I
dyo 198 ('
/
r g'Pj'/P /
~y Pg(d "i-"'~Crt'ffice
'of the Secretary of the Co~ssion
In the Mat.ter of Dc cket No. (s) 50-2750L 50-3230L PACIFIC GAS AND ELECTRIC COMPANY (Diablo Canyon, Units 1 and 2)
~
(SECURTIY PLAN)
UNITED STATES OF AMERICA NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSION
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
SERVICE LIST Elizabeth S.
- Bowers, Esq.,
Chairman Atomic Safety and Licensing Board U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission
't0ashington, D.C.
20555 Philip A. Crane, Jr.,
Esq.
Pacific Gas
& Electric Company 77 Beale Street, Room 3127 San Francisco, California 94106 Mr. Glenn O. Bright
~Atomic Safety and Licensing Board U. S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission h'ashington, D.C.
20555 Arthur C. Gehr, Esq.
Snell
& h'iimer 3100 Valley Center
- Phoenix, Arizona 85073 Dr. Villiam E. Martin Senior Ecologist Battelle Memorial Institute
- Columbus, Ohio 43201 Richard S.
- Salzman, Esq.,
Chairman Atomic Safety and Licensing Appeai Board U. S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission Washington, D. C.
20555 II Dr.
V,.
Reed Johnson Atomic Safety and Licensing Appeal Board U. S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission h'ashington, D.C.
20555 Thomas S. Moore, Esq.
Atomic Safety and Licensing, Appeal Board U. S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission Mashington, D.C.
20555 Counsel for NRC Staff Office of the Executive Legal Director U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission Vashington, D.C.
20555 "ir James 0
Schuyler Nuclear Projects Engineer Pacific Gas
& Electric Company 77 Beaie Street San Francisco, California 94106 Bruce :lorton, Esq.
3216 Ncrth Third Street, Suite 202 Phoen'x, Arizona 85012 Harry M. 4'alias, Esq.
M. Andrew Baldwin, Esq.
Seymour
& Villis 601 Ca'ifornia Street, Suite 2100 San Francisco, California 94108 Herbert H. Brown, Esq.
Hill, Cnristopher
& Ph-ilips, P.C.
1900 M Street,'.h'.
h'ashington, D. C.
20036 Mr. Anthony Kiein Governor's Office State Capitol Sacramento, California 95814
Board and na ties continued 50-275,
-323 (SECURITY PLAN)
Mrs. Elizabeth Apfelberg c/o Ms.
Nancy Culver 182 Luneta Drive San Luis Obispo, California 93401 Janice E. Kerr, Esq.
California Public, Utilities Commission 5246 State Building San Francisco, California 94102 Mrs.
Raye Fleming 1920 Mattie Road Shell Beach, California 93440 Mr. Frederick Eissler Scenic Shoreline Preservation Conference, Inc.
4623 More Mesa Drive Santa Barbara, California 93105 Mrs.
Sandra A. Silver 1760 Alisal Street San Luis Obispo, California 93401 Mr. Gordon A.. Silver 1760 Alisal Street San Luis Obispo, California 93401