ML20030D043
| ML20030D043 | |
| Person / Time | |
|---|---|
| Site: | San Onofre  |
| Issue date: | 08/24/1981 |
| From: | Pigott D ORRICK, HERRINGTON & SUTCLIFFE, SAN DIEGO GAS & ELECTRIC CO., SOUTHERN CALIFORNIA EDISON CO. |
| To: | Atomic Safety and Licensing Board Panel |
| References | |
| ISSUANCES-OL, NUDOCS 8108310333 | |
| Download: ML20030D043 (10) | |
Text
,
22 1
DAVID R. PIGOTT EDWARD B. ROGIN 2
SAMUEL B. CASEY Of ORRICK, HERRINGTON & SUTCLIFFE 3
A Professional Corporation 600 Mcntgomery Street 4
San Francisco, California 94111 Telephone:
(415) 392-1122 5
CHARLES R. KOCHER 6'
6 JAMES A. BEOLETTO SOUTHERN CALIFORNIA EDISON COMPANY 7
P.O.
Box 800
,\\
p 2244 Walnut Grove Avenue ce AUG 271gg{ p 8
Rosemead, California 91770 Telephone:
(213) 572-1900
... s e tat.M 9
~ ' ~ L M*
- C U3*
Attorneys for Applicants j
10 Southern California Edison Company J3 U*
and San Diego Gas & Electric Company A
11 12 UNITED STATES OF AMERICA 13 NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSION 14 BEFORE THE ATOMIC SAFETY AND LICENSING BOARD 15 In the Matter of
)
Docket Nos. 50-361 OL
)30-362 OL 16 SOUTHERN CALIFORNIA
)
)
APPLICANTS' MEMO-17
)
RANDUM IN OPPOSITION
)
TO MOTION FOR 18
)
CONTINUANCE (San Oncfre Nuclear Generating
)
19 Station, Units 2 and 3)
)
)
20 I
21 Introduction 22 On August 20, 1981, Applicants were advised by 23 telephone by Charles E. McClung, Jr.,
an attorney'for Inter-24 venor GUARD, that GUARD would be requesting continuance of 25 the hearings scheduled for August 25, 1981 to September 8, 7)3D3 26 1981.
s
//h 0108310333 810824 PDR ADOCK 05000361 g
'S 5
1 Applicants received on August 21, 1981 a copy of " Motion for 2
Continuance and Memorandum in Support Thereof" dated i
1 3
August 20, 1981.
4 Applicants oppose the motion for continuance.
5 II 6
PREPARATION OF TESTIMONY IN SUPPORT OF THE EPZ ISSUE DOES NOT EFFECT 7
HEARING ON THE OTHER ISSUES.
8 Intervenors are partially correct in their 9
representation of the history of the EPZ issue.
The final 10 wording of that issue was set forth in the transcript of 11 these proceedings dated August 4, 1981.
That issue is as 12 follows:
13 The emergency response plans fail to meet the requirements of 10 C.F.R. 50.47(c)(2) because local 14 emergency planning officials have arbitrarily established the boundaries of the Plume Exposure EPZ in that they have 15 mechanically applied a 10 mile boundary and that the Interagency Agreement (IAEP) among all local jurisdictions 16 defines the EPZ by drawing compass lines on a map of the area.
In determining the exact size of the EPZ, emergency 17 planning officials have failed to consider the following local conditions:
18 1.
topography 19 2.
meteorology 3.
evacuation routes 20 4.
demography 5.
jurisdictional boundaries 21 6.
SAI report 7.
land characteristics 22 23 The history of that issue well precedes August 4, 24 1981.
By written proposal of June 17, 1981, Intervenors 25 Carstens, et al. proposed an issue questioning the size of 26 the Emergency Planning Zones.
Applicants opposed said 2
1 contention in " Applicants Memorandum of Law on Appropriate 2
Means for Determining Size of Plume Exposures and Ingestion 3
Pathway Emergency Planning Zones for SONGS 2 and 3 Under 10 4
C.F.R.
50.47 (c)(2)" dated June 22, 1981.
By document 5
"Intervenor GUARD's Comments Concerning the Issue of the Size 6
of the Emergency Planning Zones," dated June 24, 1981, GUARD 7
supported the position of Carstens, et al.
8 By oral Order of July 20, 1981, the Board rejected 9
the proposed EPZ size contention as raised by Intervenors but 10 allowed submission of an issue questioning how the 10 mile 11 EPZ was determined.
Intervenors Carstens, et al. submitted 12 such a proposed issue on July 23, 1981 and on August 4,
- 1981, 13 alter some minor word changes, the above issue was admitted.
14 The filing dates for testimony related to emergency 15 planning initially we*. set according to whether issues were 16 to be presented b GUARD or Carstens, et al.
With the 17 exception of the EPZ issue and issue now subject to 18 Applicants' request for certification, all issues were to be 19 presented by GUARD.
As to those issues, no reason has been 20 presented justifying a continuance.
The filing date for such 21 issues is August 24, 1981 and such filing is totally separate 22 from the EPZ issue.
Applicants have already submitted their 23 direct testimony on the EPZ issue. (Testimony of Messrs.
24 Murri, Brothers, Plimer and Woodard.)
25
///
26
///
3 1
3 1
III 2
INTERVENORS WILL HAVE SUFFICIENT TIME TO PREPARE AND FILE THEIR EPZ TESTIMONY 3
As previously stated, Applicants have filed their 4
direct testimony on the EPZ issue.
A date was never formally 5
set for Intervenors filing of EPZ testimony, but Applicants 6
had expected Carstens, et al. to file such testimony by 7
August 2?.. 1981.
Based on the Motion for Continuance, 8
Applicanta do not anticipace such a filing.
9 Applicants consider that at most, Intervencrs 10 should be given a date certain for the filing of their EPZ 11 testimony.
Applicants suggest September 14, 1981 for filing 12 of the EPZ testimony.
Such date should not cause any delay 13 in the present hearings.
14 The Commission has articulated its goal of 15 completing operating license proceedings prior to completion 16 of construction (Statement of Policy on Conduct of Licensing 17 Proceedings, May 20, 1981. 46 Fed. Reg. 28533.)
It is 18 clearly recognized that this proceeding will not achieve the 19 above goal.
Delays should not be allowed that will 20 unnecessarily delay issuance of an operating license.
21 IV 22 A CHANGE IN REPRESENTATION SHOULD NOT 23 CAUSE A DELAY IN THE PROCEEDINGS.
24 It would appear that Carstens, et al. have changed 25 counsel.
Applicants have not received formal notice of any 26 such change, Lut the caption of the " Motion for Continuance 4
~
'}
}
1 1
and Memorandum in Support Thereof" show Ms. Gallagher and 2
Mr. Mc Clung as " Attorneys for GUARD, CARSTENS, ET AL."
3 Further at page 2, lines 7-8 of that same document, "The 4
formulation of this contention on the EPZ is not known to 5
the attorneys for Intervenors GUARD, CARSTENS, ET AL." 1/
6 Intervenors Carstens et al. should not be allowed to 7
complain of lack of knowledge of the issue since their 8
attorney, Mr. Wharton proposed and obtained the issue 9
initially.
Attorneys for GUARD have known of the develop-10 ment of the issue since its inception.
Any failure to 11 obtain the final language of the issue reflects their own 12 level of interest in the emergency planning portion of this 13 proceeding.
In the present instance, a change of attorneys 14 does not warrant delay.
15 At all times during this proceeding, Intersenors g
16 Carstens, et al. have been represented by Richard J.
17 Wharton.
Interver.or GUARD was represented by counsel at all 18 times.
The procedure followed in arriving at the subject 19 issues was never opposed. [Cf. Motion for Continuance and 20 Memorandum in Support Thereof, August 20, 1981, page 2, 21 lines 22-25.]
The GUARD attorneys are familiar with this 22
///
23
///
24 1/
It would appear Mr. Carstens has undergone a change of 25 heart concerning representation by anyone other than Mr.
Wharton. 2.0 zurther, Declaration of August S. Carstens, 26 June 18, 1981.
5
1 case, including the EPZ issue involved and, in fact, 2
submitted argument in favor of that issue.
3 The fact thay may now have to prepare a direct case 4
on this issue is not so burdensome as to warrant a, continuance 5
V 6
CERTIFICATION OF THE EMERGENCY PLANNING /
SEISMIC ISSUE DOES NOT WARRANT A DELAY 7
IN THE PROCEEDINGS.
8 Intervenors contend that a continuance should be 9
granted pending resolution of the issue proposed for 10 certification to the Commission.
Applicants oppose such a 11 continuance.
It is this clear intent of the regulations that 12 the certification of a question to the Commission is not 13 expected to stay any portion of the proceedings (10 C.F.R. 14 5 2.730(g).
The argument of lesser resources is not a valid 15 reason for delay.
Th9 Commission has stated:
16 17 "While a board should endeavor to conduct the proceeding in a manner that takes account of 18 the special circumstances faced by any participant, th? fact that a party may have 19 personal or other obligations or possess fewer resources than others to direct to the 10 proceeding does not relieve that party of its hearing obligations."
(Statement of Policy on Conduct of Licensing Proceedings, May 20, 1981 46 Fed. Reg. 28533, 28534.)
' 2 23 The presence of Applicants Request for 24 Certification on a separate issue does not justify any delay 25 and certainly not the entire proceeding.
26
///
6
-.,--.,--r-.
,a.
n
~-
>4 1
VI 2
INTERVENORS HAVE HAD SUFFICIENT TIME TO PREPARE THEIR CASE.
3 Intervenors apparently seek a continuance simply to 4
prepare their case.
They allege a continuance would allow 5
~
them time to confer with FEMA and obtain " vital information."
6 (Motion for Continuance and Memorandum in Support Thereof, 7
August 20, 1981, p.3.)
Applicants find it incredible that 8
Intervenors would pose such an argument a mere five (5) days 9
_,,, prior,..to.the commencement of hearings., GUARD has had ample time to prepare its case.
It is Intervenors' obligation to 11 meet the schedules they agreed upon.
12 Dated:
August 24, 1981.
13 Respectfully submitted, 14 DAVID R.
PIGOTT 15 EDWARD B.
ROGIN SAMUEL B.
CASEY 16 Of ORRICK, HERRINGTON A SUTCLIFFE A Professional Corporation 17 18 CHARLES R. KOCHER JAMES A.
BEOLETTO
.... 19...._....-
.-- -. - - SOUTHERN CALIFORNI A EDISON COMPANY "~~"~~~ ~'~~ ~
20 Attorneys for Applicants SOUTHERN CALIFORNIA EDISON COMPANY 21 and SAN DIEGO GAS & ELECTRIC COMPANY 22 BRYiBR.nGOTT 23 By David R.
Pigott 24 one of Counsel for Applicants 25 26 7
PROOF OF SERVICE BY MAIL I declare that:
I am employed in the City and County of San Francisco, California.
I am over the age of eighteen years and not a party to the within entitled action; my business address is 600 Montgomery Street, lith Floor, San Francisco, California 94111.
On August 24, 1981, I served the attached APPLICANTS' MEMORANDUM IN OPPOSITION TO MOTION FOR CONTINUANCE in said cause, by placing a true copy thereof enclosed in the United States mail at San O
Q, Francisco, California, addressed as follows:
p
/4 2
41 2
AUG 271981 >
I-
\\p>,
~
,~
s James L. Kelley, Chairman g
y Administrative Judge r
Atomic Safety and Licensing Board
'd,
['y U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission a
se Washington, D.C. 20555
\\
/
Dr. Cadet H. Hand, Jr.
l Administrative Judge c/o Bodega Marine Laboratory University of California P.O.
Box 247 Bodega 2ay, California 94923 Mrs. Elizabeth B.
Johnson Administrative Judge Oak Ridge National Laboratory P.O. Box X, Building 3500 Oak Ridge, Tennessee 37830 t
i
(
.c David W. Gilman Robert G. Lacy -
San Diego Gas & Electric Company P.O. Box 1831 San Diego, California 92112 Robert Dietch, Vice President Southern California Edison Company P.O. Box 800 2244 Walnut Grove Avenue Rosemead, California 91770 Alan R. Watts, Esq.
Rourke & Woodruff California First Bank Building 10555 North Main Street Santa Ana, California 92701 Lawrence J. Chandler, Esq.
Office of the Executive Legal Director U.S. liuclear Regulatory Commission Washington, D.C.
20555 Janice E. Kerr, Esq.
J. Calvin Simpson, Esq.
Lawrence Q. Garcia, Esq.
California Public Utilities Commission 5066 State Building San Francisco, California 94102 Mr. Loyd von Haden 2089 Foothill Drive Vista, California 92083 Mrs. Lyn Harris Hicks GUARD 3908 Calle Ariana San Clemente, California 92801 James F.
Davis State Geologist Division of Mines and Geology 1416 Ninth Street, Room 1341 Sacramento, California 95814 Richard J. Wharton, Esq.
University of San Diego School of Law Alcala Park San Diego, California 92110 t
~~
Phyllis M. Gallagher, Esq.
1695 W. Crescent Avenue, Suite 222 Anaheim, California 92801 Atomic Safety and Licensing Board U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission Washington, D.C. 20555 Docketing and Service Section Office of the Secretary U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission Washington, D.C. 20555 Richard K. Hoefling, Esq.
U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commis'sion I
Office of the Executive Legal Director Washington, D.C.
20555 Charles E. McClung, Jr., Esq.
23521 Paseo de Valencia. Suite 308 Laguna Hills, California 92653.
JOHN A. MENDEZ JOHN A. MENDEZ J
1 l
-