ML20010G541

Forwards Corrected Page 3 of Util Opposition to Joint Intervenors Stay Motion & Page 6 of SA Maneatis Affidavit

ML20010G541
Person / Time
Site:	Diablo Canyon
Issue date:	09/18/1981
From:	Laupheimer F PACIFIC GAS & ELECTRIC CO.
To:	Buck J, Johnson W, Moore T Atomic Safety and Licensing Board Panel
References
ISSUANCES-OL, NUDOCS 8109220169
Download: ML20010G541 (5)

Text

s a

d PACIFIC CrA S A N D E LE C T RI C C C M PANY

- - - , . --- 77 EEALE STFEET $AN FR ANCISCC, C ALIFO R NI A 94:06 TELE PHONE (4:5) 78;.42:1

~^ ~

F C. EOh 7442, SAN FR A N Cl$CC, C ALIFC E NI A 94120 T E LE CC PIE F (415, 543 7613 most at CMLeacM

.<t..n ats as: st. t ... +0.% rv e- aces t van oawseu b'.'.1 T? 'i t.'. . l*;.". r";?a* *. ~.-* I'!!!!f.  !;t'/.' *.!:::'..

.-,ei...en.a.,n.  :,";."..*;':! ll:  :::7 !*;;':..."!!.

. ht".W T." . . =. *:'/c'i'.7//

- .,,,.L. ta~ta  :'i!:7. Tr/l7/' *;".*:t. L*lf... :01: " 3t;; fl> ' *, 3 ;" -**"

soo a.aeaso~ 27 *.t " e.i;i; :a:L'L'?;::"'"" "l::.':

. ' .t*;s llll;!::it' a=vsv= 6.*iu ua~.sa.  ; ?.!;t.' t :ll.' ~" t T.;?;i. ;?- *

.;;;.".".:......

• l.::l'?":;'.

e na n u e s w. vn,s e e a ' ' * " ' * "

o.~ieur...sso~

?:. ;.';;.--':;..

':;:::: :.n;....

n'J..*. ;;;;

.:ti':.::::::

" ***-n-sac <...u.~.s.. '-.

s o s . .- i . r uv

. . .., u .. ... m . m ai September b Thomas S. Moore, Esq.

?gG9R[(({ f,h Chairman 2:' SEP2 2 igg; ,

Atomic Safety and Licensing Appeal Boa % u.s % ,,,  %

U. S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission

\) * *'85u4 j 'g .g 1717 H Street, N.W. C j S{pO %g Washington, D.C. 20555 6 f fg 7[l.

l-a /\l \ 't Q k Ibo Dr. John H. Buck 4 Atomic Safety and Licensing Appeal Board #'#8e U. S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission g @

1717 E Street, N.W. 5 Washington, D.C. 20555 Dr. W. Reed Johnson Atomic Safety and Licensing Appeal Board U. S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission 1717 H Street, N.W.

Washington, D.C. 20555 Re: In the Matter of Pacific Gas and Electric Company (Diablo Canyon Nuclear Power Plant, Units 1 and 2)

Docket Nos. 50-275 0.L. and 50-323 0.L.

(Low Power Proceedino)

Gentlemen:

Pacific Gas and Electric Company ("PGandE") filed various papers today opposing the stay applications of the y Joint Intervenors and Governor Brown. We have discovered two pages that have typographical errors that we feel should QSO>

y be corrected, one on page 3 of PGandE's opposition to Joint Intervenors' sta,' .otion and one on page 6 of G. A.

Maneatis' affidavit. Enclosed find corrected copies of ff these pages. I would appreciate it if you would substitute

, the corrected pages in the appropriate places. (I have enclosed two copies of the corrected page for Mr. Maneatis' 8109220169 010910 PDR ADOCh 05000275 G PDR

1 4

e Themas.S. Mccre., Esq.

j

.i Dr. John H. Buck I

, Dr. U. Reed Johnson. September 18,.1981 I

4 i affidavit since his affidavit was filed in support of PGand2's opposition papers to both the Joint Intervenors' 4

and Governor Brown's stay motions.)

j Sincerely yours, t

l F. RONALD LAUPHEIMER FRL:et j cc: Diablo Canyon Ser G List I i'

t l

l 4

1 4

6 4

l' I

r i

i I

l l

4 Moreover, the Revised Policy Statement has aot denied to Joint Intervenors any rights under either the Administrative Procedure Act or the Atomic Energy Act.

NUREG-0737 imposed new and additional safety requirements with which operating license applicants are required to comply in order to receive a license. Joint Intervenors, in effect, argue that the Commission, by imposing this substantial additional public protection, somehow opened the door for them to litigate anything else they could think of by merely asserting that there is some unspecified relation to TMI. This is nonsensical. Joint Intervenors have long had an avenue open to them to seek additional safety measures, i.e., petitions for rulemaking. Indee'd, the i

Commission several months ago commenced rulemaking regarding NUREG-0737. 9/ Moreover, there is no question that the Commission may consolidate into a single administrative proceeding - rulemaking - challenges to the sufficiency of additional licensing requirements imposed on license applicants rather than have them litigated in individual licensing proceedings. 10/

The rejection of Joint Intervenors' TMI-related contentions was proper.

B. The ASLB Was Correct In Ruling That The Emergency Prepared-ness For Low Power Testing Is Adequate.

Joint Intervenors complain that the ASLB improperly failed to require compliance with 10 C.F.R. S 50.47 and appendix E, the Commission's new emergency planning 9/ " Licensing Requirements for Pending Operating License Applications," 46 Fed.

Reg. 26491 (May 13, 1981). For this reason, the cases cited by Joint Inter-l venors at page 5, note 10 of their stay motion are inapplicable. Those cases raised the completely separate issue of whether a binding requirement may be issued without notice and comment.

10/ Union of Concerned Scientists v. AEC, 499 F.2d 1069,1081-85 (D.C. Cir.1974).

l See also Nader v. Ray, 363 F.Supp. 946, 949, 955 (D.D.C. 1973). Joint Inter-venars' argument thr t they are being deprived of their right to a hearing under section 189(a) of the Atomic Energy Act is specious. If, as here, the Commis-sion can properly prec1 ide litigation of certain issues in a licensing proceed-

. ing, it is illogical to claim that Joint Intervenors are being improperly denied a hearing to that extent. Siegel v. AEC, 400 F.2d 778, 784-85 (D.C. Cir. 1968).

i L m

8. The electricity which would be generated by Diablo Canyon is needed in the PGandE system now. While Diablo Canyon cannot be operated until the licensing and testing described above is completed, it is nonetheless true that delays now will correspondirqly delay commercial operation, and not to operate this facility at the earliest opportunity will in. crease the cost to consumers because of increased ,

capital and replacement power costs. It is estimated that i

the delay of the operation of the Diablo Canyon units will cost our customers approximately S1,000,000 per day based on l

the differential cost of fuels burned and the carrying cost of the plant investment.

9. PGandE's system reliability will be seriously impaired by a failure to bring Diablo Canyon into commercial operation at the earliest possible time. The Federal Energy Regulatory Commission ("FERC") has concluded that between a 15 and 20 percent reserve margin of generating capacity is a reasonable margin to assure adequate and reliable electric service. The California State Energy Resources Conservation and Development Commission (" CEC"), in its 1981 Biennial Report to the Governor of California and the State Legislature, has identified inadequate reserve margins as one of two "Particular Vulnerabilities" of PGandE:*/ _

-*/ The second is the further erosion of PGandE's financial condition if Diablo Canyon does not achieve commercial operation in 1981.

8. The electricity which would be generated by Diablo Canyon is needed in the PGandE system now. While Diablo Canyon cannot be operated until the licensing and testing described above is completed, it is nonetheless trye that delays now will correspondingly delay commercial operation, and not to operate this facility at the earliest opportunity will increase the cost to consumers because of increased capital and replacement power costs. It is estimated that the delay of the operation of the Diablo Canyon units will cdst our customers approximately $1,000,000 per day based on the differential cost of fuels burned and the carrying cost of the plant investment.

9. PGandE's system reliability will be seriously impaired by a failure to bring Diablo Canyon into commercial operation at the earliest possible time. The Federal Energy Regulatory Commission ("FERC") has concluded that between a 15 and 20 percent reserve margin of generating capacity is a reasonable margin to assure adequate and reliable electric service. The California State Energy Resources Conservation and Development Commission (" CEC"), in its 1981 Biennial Report to the Governor of California and the State Legislature, has identified inadequate reserve margins as

'one of two "Particular Vulnerabilities" of PGandE:*)

-*/ The second is the further erosion of PGandE's financial condition if Diablo Canyon does not achieve commercial operation in 1981.

. _ _