ML20032D959
| ML20032D959 | |
| Person / Time | |
|---|---|
| Site: | Diablo Canyon  |
| Issue date: | 11/10/1981 |
| From: | Crane P PACIFIC GAS & ELECTRIC CO. |
| To: | JOINT INTERVENORS - DIABLO CANYON |
| References | |
| NUDOCS 8111190353 | |
| Download: ML20032D959 (30) | |
Text
k h
[
EII".TI Cr.2.2r;; znct 00cKETED USNRC
[I /@
1 p
UNITED STATES OF AMERICA 81 NOV 12 P5:53
[)N k REGULATORY COMMISSION 2
3 "I T SECRE1ARY 198P ~-
i 3
tiOV 1 a.Ema a SERVICE
- O' Y 4
h BEFORFx ATOMIC SAFETY AND LICENSING BOARD M P' 6
7
-In the Matter of
)
8
)
Docket No. 50-275 PACIFIC GAS AND ELECTRIC COMPANY
)
Docket No. 50-323 9
)
Diablo Canyon Nuclear Power Plant
)
(Full Power Proceedings) 10 Units Nos. 1 and 2
)
11 12 13 14 APPLICANT PACIFIC GAS AND ELECTRIC COMPANY'S ANSWERS TO JOINT INTERVENORS' 15 THIRD SET OF INTERROGATORIES
_ _ r~
16 17 INTERROGATORY NO. 69:
18 For each of the components, systems, or facilities 19 listed below, state whether you contend that it has been 20 seismically qualified to withstand and continue to function 21 in the event of a 7.5 magnitude earthquake on the Hosgri 32
- Fault, and state each and every fact upon which your 23 response is based.
Include in your response a description 24 of all qualification tests performed, the date of such 25 tests, the persons or entities conducting the tests, and any 26 fff 8111190353 811110 9b PDR ADOCK 05000275
$0 s
G PDR I
6
1 1
modifications to the component, system, or facility tested 2
which were made as a result of such testing.
3 4
(a)
Early Warning System sirens (and related compressors 5
and compressor platforms) located within the Diablo 6
Canyon plume exposure pathway EPZ; 7
(b)
PGandE telecommunications equipment racks, battery 8
racks, antennae, and supports; 9
(c) mountaintop PGandE Private Microwave System repeaters; 10 (d) mountaintop UHF and VHF Radio System repeaters located 11 at Davis Peak, Tepusquet Peak, and Tassajera Peak; 12 (e)
Emergency Broadcast System radio transmission towers; 13 (f)
Early Warning System transmitters (located at Davis
~
14 Peak, Rocky Butte, du~ehta Peak, Morro Bay, San Luis 15 Obispo, and Pismo Beach) and encoders (located at the 16 San Luis Sheriff's Office and the California Department 17 of Forestry);
18 (g)
Offsite Emergency Operations Facility and associated 19 cables, wiring, and equipment; 20 (h)
San Luis Obispo County Emergency Operations Center and 21 associated cables, wiring, and equipment; I
22 (i)
Onsite Technical Support Center and associated cables, 23 wiring and equipment; 24 (j)
Radiological monitoring stations 25 (k)
PGandE onsite meteorological tower and associated 26 cables, wiring, and equipment.
1.
1 (1)
UDAC and associated cables, wiring, and equipment.
2 3
ANSWER TO INTERPOGATORY NO. 69:
4 (a)
The Early Warning System sirens are not 5
seismically qualified.
The Model 1000 siren from 6
Federal Sigr.1 Company v?,s tested by Wyle Lab.
Test 7
results are available for discovery in the PGandE 8
offices in San Francisco.
9 (b)
The PGandE telecommunications equipment 10 racks, battery racks, antennae and supports are not 11 seismically qualified.
However, all equipment has been 12 strengthened and braced.
Additional information is 13 available in the TERA Corporation report on Earthquake Emergency Planning a[ Diablo Canyon.
14 15 (c)
The mountaintop PGandE Private Microwave 16 System repeaters are not seismically qualified.
_17..
- However, all equipment has been strengthened and 18 braced.
Additional information is available in the N_
19 TERA Corporation report on Earthquake Emergency 20 Planning at Diablo Canyon.
'(d)
The mountaintop UHF and VHF Radio System 21 r
,22 repeaters located at Davis Peak, Tepusquet Peak and t'
/ 23 Tassajera Peak are not seismically qualified.
- However, 24 all equipment at Davis Peak and Tassajera Peak has been 25 strengthened and braced.
Additional information is 26 fff,
4 1
available in the TERA Corporation report on Earthquake 2
Emergency Planning at Diablo Canyon.
3 (e)
The Emergency Broadcast System radio 4
transmission towers are not seismically qualified.
5 Additional information is available in the TERA 6
Corporation report on Earthquake Emergency Planning at 7
Diablo Canyon.
8 (f)
The Early Warning System transmitters be.ing 9
purchased for this application are not seismically 10 qualified.
All other structures and equipment are not 11 owned or maintained by PGandE and information relating 12 to their seismic design is unknown.
13 (g)
The permanent Emergency Operations Facility
~ ~
14 (EOF) building wil be designed seismically in 15 accordance with the principles of the Uniform Building 16 Code and Lateral Force Requirements of the Structural 17 Engineers Association of California.
The temporary EOF 18 ar, ' associated ~ cables, wiring and equipment are not i
19 seismically qualified.
20 (h).
The seismic qualification of the San Luis 21 Obispo County Emergency Operations Center and 22 associated cables, wiring and equipment are unknown.
23 (i)
The onsite Technical' Support Center is a 24 seismically qualified structure; however, no seismic 25-design criteria have been applied to ass'ociated cables, 26 wiring or equipment.
_4
1 (j)
Radiological monitoring stations have not 2
been seismically qualilled.
Reference response to 3
Brown Interrogatories (First Set) No. 9, Page 38.
4 (k)
The PGandE onsite meteorological tower and 5
associated cables, wiring and equipment are not 6
seismically qualified.
Reference responses to Brown 7
Interrogatories (a) First Set, No. 9, Page 40, (b) 8 Second Set, No. 2, Page 3.
9 (1)
UDAC and associated cables, wiring and 10 equipment need not be seismically qualified because of 11 its functional objectives.
See response to Brown's 12 Second Set of Interrogatories, No. 4, Page 7.
13
~
14 INTERROGATORY NO. 70:
15 With respect to each of the components, sistems,
~
~
16 or facilities listed in Interrogatory No. 69, state whether 17 you cor. Lend that such component, system, or facility need 18 not be seismically qualified to withstand and continue to
._ _h 19 function in the.svent of a 7.5 magnitude earthquake on the 20 Hosgri Fault, and state each and every fact upon which your 21 response is based.
22
,/
~ 23 ANSWER TO Ih"IERROGATORY NO. 70:
24 Other than class one structures, systems and 25 con.pnents at Diablo Canyon, little equipment which might be 26 relied upon in any way would be seismically or - -
1 environmentally " qualified" as no such requirement exists 2
nor could reasonably be expected to exist.
However, it is 3
expected that all of such equipment would not be rendered 4
totally inoperable in the event of a 7.5 M earthquake on the 5
Hosgri Fault.
See also the TERA Report referred to in the 6
Answer to Interrogatory No. 69.
7 8
9 10 INTERROGATORY NO. 71:
11 List each and every agreement and/or contract 12 between PGandE and any third party for the provision by such 4
13 third party of services, assistance, workers, equipment,
~
~
and/or vehicles for the reTa~ir of damage. resulting from an 14 15 earthquake on the Hosgri Fault which accompanies a 16 radiological emergency at Diablo Canyon, and specify 17 precisely:
18 (a) whether the agreement and/or contract is formal or 19 informal; 20 (b) the party or entity committing to provide such 21 services, assistance, workers, equipment, or vehicles; 22 (c) the substance of such agreement and/or contract; 23 (d) the type and number of service's, assistance, workers, 24 equipment, or vehicles agreed to be provided; 25 (d) whether such agreement and/or contract ~ specifically 26 provides for'the provision of such services,.
1 assistance, workers, equipment, or vehicles when there 2
is a risk of ra'diation exposure to such ' workers, 3
equipment, or vehicles; 4
(f) the address of the party or entity committing to 5
provide services, assistance, workers, equipment, or 6
vehicles and the location of such equipment or 7
vehicles.
8 9
ANSWER TO INTERROGATORY NO. 71:
10 PGandE has numerous agreements and contracts with 11 third parties for - a variety of services, assistance, and 12 equipment to support Diablo Canyon and other facilities 13 during normal operations as well as emergencies.
These could be used $here the emergency specifically 14 resources 15 involves an earthquake.
Those resources principally
- T-16 pertaining to emergency response are found in the site.and
____17 corporate emergency plans.
For emergencies, many additional 18 resources would also be available through the local, state,
. __ h-19 and federal governments, incitiding military.
While these 20 resources would be available as needed, they would not 21 ordinarily be the subject of formal prior contracts or
,2 2' agreements.
/ 23 24 25 26.
=
1 Ih"fERROGATORY NO. 72:
2 At section 6 of the TERA Corporation Report 3
entitled " Earthquake Emergency Planning at Diablo Canyon," a 4
number of "special task < that might have to be performed 5
following a major earthquake. and radiologie al emergency" are 6
identified.
Included among these tasks are 7
(a) damage reconnaissance; 8
(b) emergency repair and/or restoration of key _
9 transportation routes; 10 (c) clearing debris from key transportation routes; 11 (d) coordination with law enforcement agencies for 12 barricading of certain areas; 13 (f) traffic control; and 14 (g) evaluation and dete2[di3ation of protective actions to 15 be taken by nonessential PGandE employees and by the 16 public.
17 As to each of these individual tasks in the event of a 7.5 18 magnitude earthquake on the Hosgri Fault, state precisely 19 (1) how many persons would be needed to perform the 20 specified task; 21 (2) how many PGandE employees would be available to 22 perform the specified task; 23 (3) how many County or State' personnel would be 24 available to perform the specified task; 25 (4) how many other persons would be available to 26 perform the specified task; -
1 (5) a list of any and all agreements and/or contracts 2
in which ' specific commitments have been made to 3
supply personnel; 4
(6) every fact upon which your responses to subparts 5
(1) through (5) of this interrogatory are based.
6 7
ANSWER TO INTERROGATORY NO. 72:
8 PGandE would expect to utilize the number of 9
persons available and necessary to perform the particular 10 task.
11 12 13
~
14 INTERROGATORY NO. 73:
15 State whether you contend that the TERA 16 Corporation Report cited supra satisfied the NRC Staff's 17 December 16, 1980 request that PGandE provide analyses of 18 the co ating effects of earthquakes on the Diablo Canyon 19 emergency plans, and state each fact upon which your 20 response ic based.
21
,22 ANSWER TO INTERROGATORY NO. 73:
?
/ 23 Yes.
See p. 1-2 of the TERA Repol'.
24 25 26,
1 INTERROGATORY NO. 74:
2 Describe in detail.the specific changes which will 3
be'made in PGandE's onsite emergency plan based on the 4
information, findings, and recommendations contained in the 5
TERA Corporation Report cited supra.
6 7
/~..SWER TO INTERROGATORY NO. 74:
8 PGandE is continuing its review of the TERA 9
report.
Currently, changes to the PGandE plan do not appear 10 warranted since Section 6 of that report provides an 11 augmented plan for earthquake effects.
If changes to the-12 Emergency Plans are warranted after review of the TERA 13 report by federal, state, and -local pl. dining officials is 14 complete, PGandE will inc E e these in its annual review and 15 update.
16 17 18 19 INTERROGATORY NO. 75:
20 Do you contend that sheltering will, under certain 21 circumstances, be a preferable protective action alternative i
22 to evacuation?
If so, state what those circumstances are 23 and each and every fact upon which 'your response is based.
24 List each and every study, report, and/or analysis which 25 supports your conclusion.
26.
1 ANSWER TO INTERROGATORY NO. 75:
2 In order to determine the most effective 3
protective action, the dose reduction factor for whole body 4
dose and thyroid dose would be determined for sheltering and 5
evacuation.
The protective action which has the greater 6
dose reduction factor would be the protective action 7
recommended.
In cases where the dose reduction benefits are 8
nearly equal, sheltering would be recommended with 9
evaluation of advantages gained by subsequent evacuation.
10 The advantages of sheltering are:
(1) dose 11 reduction for thyroid and whole body doses; (2) relatively 12 rapid and easy to accomplish; (3) effective in reducing 13 population exposures for short time-to-release and short 14 cloud / plume travel time; (4) can be effectively used in 15 conjunction with evacuation.
The constraints against 16 sheltering are:
(1) may be inadequate for projected large Tf ses (2) benefit decreases as plume exposure perl'ad 18 increases; (3) benefit decreases as air-change rate
._ N -
19 increases; (4) if thyroid dose ~ is controlling, ventilation 20 control is essential and relocation should occur as soon as 21 possible after cloud / plume passage.
,22 The advantages of evacuation are:
(1) it can 23 offer total protection if implemented in time; (2) provides 24 for contaminated area control; (3) can be accomplished in an 25 orderly manner.
Constraints against evacuation are:
(1) 26 demographic factors; (2) environmental considerations; (3).
-1 social-.and economic disturbance; (4)_ inconvenience, hardship 2
and risk to special population groups.
3 1.
uManual of Protective Action Guides and Protective 4
Actions for Nuclear Incidents,"
U.S.
Environmental 5
Protection Agency (EPA-520/1-75-001), September 1975 6
(revised June 1980).
7 2.
uReactor Safety Study," WASH-1400, October, 1975.
8 3.
" Accidental Radioactive Contamination of Human Food and 9
Animal Feeds," U.S. DBLW (DHHS)/FDA, Federal Register, 10 December 15, 1978 (43 FR 58790).
11 4.
"Public Protection Strategies for Potential Nuclear 12 Reactor Accidents - Slieltering Concepts with Existing 13 Public and Private Structures," Sandia Laboratory (SAND 14 77-1725).
15 5.
" Examination of Offsite Radiological Emergency Measures 16 for Nuclear Reactor Accidents Involving Core Melt,"
17 Sandia Laboratory (SAND 78-0454).
18 6.
" Protective Action Evaluation Part II, Evacuation and 19 Sheltering as Protective Actions Against Nuclear l'
i 20 Accidents Involving Gaseous Releases,"
U.S.
f
(
21 Environmental Protection Agency -(EPA 520/1-78-001 B).
22 7.
" Evacuation Times Assessment for the Diablo Canyon 1
23 Nuclear Power Plant," Alan M. 'Voorhees & Associates, 24 September 1980.
25
///
\\
D
///
l t
r
-+,,,--~n
,---g g
- +-
1 8.
" Emergency Planning Zones for Serious Nuclear Power 2
Plant Accidents," State of California Office of 3
Emergency Services, November 1980.
4 9.
Draft ". State of California Nuclear Power Plant Response 5
Plan," January 1981 (revised March 1981).
6 10.
Draft " State of California Department of Health 7
Services Implementing Procedures - Volume II," March 8
1981.
9 11.
Draft " San Luis Obispo County Nuclear Power Plant 10 Emergency Response Plan," Rev. A, October 1981.
11 12.
PGandE Diablo Canyon Power Plant 'Jnits 1 & 2 Emergency 12 Plan, August 1981.
13 13.
PGandE Diablo Canyon Power Plant Units 1 & 2 Emergency
..- n 14 Procedure RB-10,
" Protective Action Guidelines,"
15 September 1, 1981.
16
- 17.. _
18
,___ N --
19 INTERROGATORY NO. 76:
20 State where, if at all, in the evacuation times 21 assessment prepared for Diablo Canyon and submitted by 22 PGandE the estimates are adjusted for delays likely to e
23 result from " spontaneous evacuation" by persons other than 24 those within a specified evacuation area.
25 26.
-.--m
--+--
N
. ANSWER TO INTERROGATORY NO. 76:
1 The evacuation time estimates in the TERA Report 2
include total evacuation scenarios as well as scenarios for 3
specified evacuation areas.
Therefore, the evacuation times 4
for -the total evacuation cases address '.' spontaneous 5
evacuation" of the entire area.
6 7
8 9
INTERROGATORY NO. 77:
10 On pp. 26-27 of PGandE' Response to Joint 11 Intervenors' first set of interrogatories
("PGandE 12 Response"), PGandE's proposed public education program is 13
- utlined, but no projected-implementation dates are 14 specified.
For each element of the program, state the 15 current status of development and the projected date for 16 implementation.
17 18 MS R TO INTERROGATORY NO. 77:
19 The attached states the current status of develop-20 ment for PGandE's public education programs.
Tentative 21 implementation deadlines (where applicable) and project due 22 dates are also listed in the document.
23 24 25 26 s,
4 w.
f t.
iRevised: 11/5/81 EMERGENCY RESPONSE INFOI41ATION
% Done s Done PG&Eer Project
.Last This Project Responsibility Responsible Due Week Week Status l
FJRockmaker 1 Feb 70 75 New text being written.
Response Plan -- writing, printing
- p. Above in Spanish SLO Co.
RRaab 1 Feb 0
10 Awaiting'English version Translators ready,
- p. Distribute booklet door-PG&E BBWoertz 1 Feb 5
5 Awaiting printing.
i to-door l
%. Phone book emergency page SLO Co.
FJRockmaker l July 100 100 Complete l
GilRuc' 20 July 100 100 Complete i
TLedwell (Booklet);
l i
. News release on booklet SLO Co.
TLedwell 1 Yeb 70 70 Awaiting booklet, i
g f.FAurtisingonbooklet PG&E RHMiller 1 Feb (A) 50 50 (A) Copy and layout developed..
l In approval.
(B) 0 0 (B) Production i
).' Bill insert on booklet PGEE RilMiller 1 Feb
'(A) 50 50 '(A) Developed. In' approval.
(B) 0 0 (B) Production
,,(a) Emergency Plan signs County PWGirard (a) 1 Dec.
0 10 Awaiting County approval j
of plan. Montana del Oro (b) Arrange posting
. County BBWoertz (b) 15 Dec O.
O sign in clearance to NPO i
k O.PSAs on Plan County GHRuge
'30 July 50 50-Awaiting County approval of plan
'N'K
% 's
}
l-
- h..
i v
O
,G.
eviesd: 11/5/81 EMERGENCY RESPONSE INFORMATION - Page 2
% Done % Done PG&Eer Project Last-This Project Responsibility Responsible Due Week Week
. Status 1.
(a) Develop and County (a) TLedwell 1 Nov 10 10 Met with Co. 10/16 (b) distribute posted (b) BBWoertz 15 Dec 5
5 Awaiting County plan.
Instructions for motels, other
& CATF 2a. Write notification to LPZ PG&E TRLedwell 15 July 100 100 Completed.
residents of Emergency procedures.
2b. Distribute notification.
Pu?E CATF 15 Aug 100 100
. Completed c-
- esponse plan, PG&E JHoya Producer-15 July.
100 100 Completed
' t.,
- 1ume version PG&E JNoya Producer 1 Aug 100 100 Completed sc.
- 3akers support nuclear PG&E JNoya 15 Sept.
100 100 Completed pcwnr*
l.
Speeches on plan, radiation PG&E IINPeelor 15 July 100 100 Complete
- i. Vidiotape on PG&E DAnderson 30 July 100 100 Complete A.
Plan B.
Radiation 100 100 Complete C. Drill Documentary 100 100 Complete L. Ovarall video tape on DCNPP PG&E DAAnderson 15 Sept 5
5 Writing script, a la Pub Serv Co Colorado M. Duvalop and PG&E PJRockmaker 1 Nov.
10 10 Awaiting county Pb. Distribute County WLSeavy 19 Oct.
20 20 approval of plan.
direction sheet for Met with County institutions 10/16 l.
Train County PIO's County /PG&E WLSeavy/
17 Aug.
100 100 Complete DJDaxter h,
evistd: 11/5/81 GENERAL INFORMATION ON NUCLEAR, PLANT, RADIATION - Page 3
% Done' % Done PG&Eer Project Last This Project Responsibility Responsible Due Week Week Status p Quarterly Newsletter (#1)
PG&E AWeinberger 20 July 100 100 Completed, b puarterly Newsletter (#2)
PG&E AWeinberger 15 Dec 15 15 Copy being written
' r;ia backgrounders PG&E RPDavin 1 August 75 75 LA to be done Press kit for (a) backgrounders,
PG&E PWGirard 20 July 100 100 Complete ib) drill PG&E RPDavin 10 Aug 100 100 Complete (c) c.mergency PG&E PWGirard 15 Aug 75 75 Awaiting Co. input Plant tours PG&E CFPiper 14 August 100 100 Complete 3
- 2. Ovarlook Tours PG&E RAHouriggp Ongoing Train speakers on D.C./
PG&E HNPeelor[
15 July 98 100 Complete a
nuclear Community seminars on PG&E WLSeavy 14 Aug Ongoing 3
nuclear and radiation Mobil'e environmental PG&E NPO/Public 17 Apr 100 100 Showings complete.
3 monitoring lab (MEML)
Activities Publicity on MEML PG&E SGBrown 6 May (100 100 Complete.
3 t
t Displays in area local PGGE J RHiggins 1 Aug 100 100 Completed offices 4
I t
l D. G:naral Information, PG&E Various Ongoing 1
sp:cial audiences
s
\\
a.
Doctors
- HNPeelor, 1 Aug}
100 100 ' Complete CATF & JRSumner
'N 1
~
,l
-t t q.
y
tevised: 11/5/H1 GENERAL INFOIMATION ON NUCLEAR, PLANT, RADIATION - Page 4
% Done % Done PG&Eer Project Last This Project Responsibility Responsible Due Week Week Status 0 Gersoral Information, special audicnces (con t ' d,)
b.
Schools llNPeelor &
1 Aug 100 100 All contacts BBW ertZ o
complete
- c. Government Officials PG&E CATP, Gov-14 Aug Ongoing ernmental Affairs
- d. Clergy PG&E llNPeelor 1 Aug 100 100 Complete
- e. Employees PG&E GSTurnbull Ongoing
- f. Community leaders PG&E CATF Ongoing
- 1. Slid 2 show and talk on PG&E LBaack &
1 Apr 100 100 Complete g:nsral nuclear MSmith
- 2. Advsrtising on nuclear.
PG&E RHMiller I
Ongoing t
Staff backgrounding PG&E FJRockmaker 22 June 100 100 Sessions complete.
).
- 1. Salected Staff to PWR School PWG DJBaxter/
1 Aug 100 100 Completed (DJB, D RJI, CIIP, DWP, RRR)
PWGirard
- vised: 11/5/81 GENERAL INFORMATION EMERGENCY RESPONSE PLAN - Page 5 ik Done % Done PG&Eer Project Last This Project Responsibility Responsible Due Week Week Status Devnlop plan as per'NUREG-0654 PG&E DJBaxter 4 Feb 100 100 Completed and approved Ocvslop implementing procedures PG&E FJRockmaker 1 Aug 75 75 Waiting reconciliation with county. Met 10/16 Select media center and get PG&E &
- DJBaxter, 1 July 100 100 Completed approval County County, CATP, Gov't1 Affairs L.
S5curo media center.
PG&E DJBaxter/ Land 15 Aug.
100 100 Completed
- b. Rehabilitate annex PG&E DJBaxter/GC/
15 Aug.
100 100 Completed I
S cure alt. media center PG&E JTorrens/D B 15 July 95 95 Waiting letter agreement Staff up PG&E DJBaxter 15 Apr 100 100 Completed Phonts and other communications PG&E TRFerry 1 August 68 68 Awaiting PTT & lines k !!2rd copy communicationa PG&E Milalter/ CST 7 July 100 100 Completed Employee information plan PG&E GSTurnbull 30 July 100 100 Completed Plan info delivery to PG&E PG&E JMGanzer 15 June 100 100 Recommendation made to officrs
[
NPO and Management.
Clerical services PG&E DLKennady/
20 July 100 100 Completed
{
PBToomer 1
A-V, photo services PG&E DAnderson 14 August 100
'100 Completed l
).
Rumor control center, SID PG&E SGBrown &
14 August 100 100 ' \\ Completed (Public Infor Center).
GABlanc N
L. Trnining staff on ERP PG&E RMcDevitt 14l August 100 100 Completed h
y b
V
taviced s 11/5/81 GENERAL INFORMATION EMERGENCY RESPONSE PLAN - Page 6
% Done % Done PG&Eer Project Last This Project Responsibility Responsible Due Week Week Status
.2.
Equip media centers A. Communications Equip.
PG&E TFerry/MHalter 1 Aug 100 100 Completed B. Visuals PG&E PWGirard 20 July 85 87 Changing visuals
- 3. Background media for drill PG&E SGBrown 19 Aug 100 100 Completed
- 4. Press release, press kit PG&E SGBrown 10 Aug 100 100 Completed i
for field drill
1 Aug 100 100 Turned over to SLO Co.
radio-TV messages and get GNHorne 8
commitments.
7/28.
- 5. Develop timely exchange of PG&E DJBaxter 1 Aug
.100 100 Ongoing info between Co. spokespersons F. Prepare public info program PG&E DJBaxter 1 Aug 25 40 Being developed
~
for site review team and EWS task force approval.
L. Implement P1 plan for County PG&E RPDavin /
1 Jan 35 35 First release mailed 7/7.
EWS. Prepare and implement SGBrown media programs, Siren test info program in planning stage.
I. Provide area phone number on PG&E 24 hour2.777778e-4 days <br />0.00667 hours <br />3.968254e-5 weeks <br />9.132e-6 months <br /> basis CATP/Seavy 1 Aug 100 100 Complete Develope emergency info PG&E WLSeavy 10 Aug 0
0 New item. Gathering reference binder for Rumor Control.
material.
b
./
1 1
INTERROGATORY NO. 78:
2 On p. 27 of the PGandE Response, you assert that 3
"all known residents within the 10-mile radius will be 4
alerted and notified within 15 minutes."
What is the basis 5
for that statement, and describe in detail any and'all tests 6
of the Early Warning Siren System conducted to date which 7
relate to the statement quoted.
8 9
ANSWER TO INTERROGATORY NO. 78:
10 The siren system in accordance with 10 CFR 50 and 11 NUREG-0654 criteria, was designed to produce a warning 12 signal 9-10 dB above ambient noise levels throughout the 13 Basic Emergency Planning Zone.
To ensure that this coverage 14 is realized, any potential problem areas, as determined from 15 a sound isopleth map produced by a PGandE acoustical i
_ = _ _
16 engineer, will be monitored during the full-scale system 17 test.
Based on the results of the test, minor adjustments as necessary.
PGandE is presently making 18 will be y de 19 preparations for this test which will be scheduled under 20 FEMA direction.
21 In addition to the siren system, several other 2
methods will be utilized to ensure that people are alerted 23 and notified, including, but not limited to, telephone 24 calls, sheriff's mobile units, fixed wing and helicopter 25 services, Coast Guard, and State Park Rangers.
26 fff l t
1 Based on NRC and FEMA guidance, PGandE-believes 2
that itL is _taking all reasonable. steps-to ensure that-3 essentially all of the residents within a 10-mile radius of 4
the plant will be alerted and notified' within 15 minutes.
5 6
7 8
INTERROGATORY'NO. 79:
9 On pp. 7-15 of the_ PGandE Response, you list 10 numerous existing deficiencies of the applicant, State,-and 11 local emergency plans in compliance with.the commission's 12 regulations.
In response to. a question regarding what 13 deficiencies will. not be eliminated prior to full power 14 operation, you respond, at p. 16, "none."
What actions, if 15 any, are you -taking now to ensure that those deficiencies 16 will be eliminated ~ prior to full power operation?
17 18 ANSWER TO INTERROGATORY NO. 79:
19 Within PGendE, responsible individuals have been j
20 identified and tasks assigned to eliminate existing-21 deficiencies in the PGandE Emergency Response Plan.
Most-of 22 the listed exceptions have already been resolved and closed.
23 The role of the California Office of Emergency.
24 Services by legislation is to assure that state and local 25 plans fully comply with applicabic regulations.
To the best 26 of our knowledge, the state, in fulfilling those 1
f !
1 responsibilities, has notified all state and local agencies 2
of the criteria that must be met to fulfill emergency 3
planning requirements and, through its established review 4
process, will assure - that acceptable state / local emergency 5
. plans are in effect prior to full power operation.
6 7
8 9
INTERROGATORY NO. 80:
10 On p. 32 of the PGandE Response, you note "meteo-11 rological conditions as one of the factors to be considered 12 when evaluating the protective action alternatives."
13 Assuming that the onsite meteorological tower is totally 14 disabled for any reason (including a major earthquake) 15 during a radiological emergency, describe each and every
~~ ~
__._.rnative means for obtaining the necessary meteorological 16 alte 17 information 18
_5-19 ANSWER TO INTERROGATORY NO. 80:
20 Automated meteorological measurement on-site is 21 accomplished continuously on two meteorological towers.
/b These towers have different structural characteristics, are 23 separated spatially, have individual sets of strip chart 24 backup for critical data and are designed for independent 25 operation on battery power in emergencies.
With these 26 characteristics it is assumed unlikely that the two-tower.
1 system will be totally disabled in an emergency situation:
2 Nevertheless,. provision has been made for just such an event 3
by the availability on-site of a fully portable and self 4
contained, battery operated meteorological measurement 5
system capable of rapid deployment at the site.
6 Beyond the on-site measurement systems discussed 7
above, there is recourse to meteorological measurements 8
taken at off-site locations such as Santa Maria, San Luis 9
Obispc, coastal light houses, meteorological buoys and ships 10 at sea.
None of these off-site data are sufficiently 11 representative of the plant site to be used "as is" as a 12 substitute for on-site tower data.
Professional 13 meteorologists must integet,the data and perform any 14 interpolations of extrapolations to the plant site.
PGandE 15 employs a number of such meteorologists full-time and one of 16 these will be stationed at the EOF in San Luis Obispo in the 17 event of any emergency at Diablo Canyon Power Plant.
PGandE 18 meteorologists have access to all available meteorological 19 information in the vicinity of Diablo Canyon via National 20 Weather Service teletype and facsimile links. in the Energy 21 Control Center at corporate headquarters.
The professional 22 meteorological staff at PGandE and specifically the 23 meteorologist at the EOF are committed to providing i
24 meteorological information in emergency situations using any 25 and all means at their disposal.
26 l
r' 1
INTERROGATORY NO. 81:
2 State (a) whether accelerations less than' those 3
postulated for the Diablo. Canyon SSE are utilized in the 4
TERA Report for the Diablo Canyon site and (b) if ~so, what i
5 is the factual basis for the difference.
6 7
ANSWER TO INTERROGATORY NO. 81:
I 8
(a)
The peak acceleration values provided in 9
response to Interrogatory 34 of the first set of 10 Governor Brown's interrogatories represent those 11
" expected" to occur during the SSE and OBE and were 12 computed as median estimates of acceleration using 13 Equation 1 of the TERA report.
By definition, the 14 median estimate is one for which 50 percent of the 15 values are larger and 50 percent of the values are f
-. = - - -
16 smaller.
The postulated 0.75g SSE for the Diablo 17 Canyon facility represents a design acceleration which 18 incorporates a margin of safety larger than a median or H
" expected" value of acceleration.
In context, the 20 value of peak acceleration expected for the SSE at the 21 Diablo Canyon facility is 0.48g.
g22 (b)
As explained in Part (a) of this response, 23 the 0.75g SSE used as the seismic design basis for the 24 Dichlo Canyon facility represents an acceleration that is '.arger than would be expected at the facility during 25 26 an M 7.5 earthquake on the Hosgri fault, and includes s.
..J
1 a margin of safety in addition to that incorporated in 2
the selection of the design basis earthquake.
Use of' J
3 an M 7.5 earthquake on the Hosgri fault for emergency s
4 planning purposes does not necessarily imply 0.75g as 5
the value of acceleration expected at the site during 6
such an earthquake.
In fact, as stated above, the 7
value of the peak acceleration expected at the Diablo 8
Canyon facility for this earthquake is 0.48g.
For 9
planning purposes, expected values of peak acceleration 10 were used so that realistic damage scenarios would be 11 considered.
Scenarios incorporating greater and lesser 12
///
13
///
14
///
15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 l -
1 damage were also considered to account for uncertainty 2
associated with this assessment of expected damages.
3 4
5 6
7 Respectfully submitted, 8
MALCOLM H. FURBUSH PHILIP A. CRANE, JR.
9 RICHARD F. LOCKE Pacific Gas and Electric Company 10 P.O. Box 7442 San Francisco, California 94120 11 (415) 781-4211 12 ARTHUR C. GEHR Snell & Wilmer 13 3100 Valley Center
'-Phoenix, Arizona 85073 14 (602) 257-7288 15 BRUCE NORTON Norton, Burke, Berry & French, P.C.
16 3216 N. Third Street Suite 300 17 Phoenix, Arizona 85012-2699 (602) 264-0033 18 Attorneys for N i 19 Pac' I as and Elect ic C pany 20 21 B
/
x f
/
' Philip
- Crane, r.
,22 23 DATED:
November 10, 1981.
24 25 26 I
l.
(
JOINT INTERVENORS' THIRD SET OF INTERROGATORIES AND REQUEST FOR PRODUCTION OF DOCUMENTS TO PACIFIC GAS AND ELECTRIC COMPANY I have assisted in preparing the answers to Interrogatories 77 Said answers are true and correct to the best of my knowledge and belief.
Rockmaker z
Subscribed and sworn to before me this 10th day of November,1981 M
SEAL Incodora Cooke, Notary Public in and for ihe City and County of San Francisco, State of California My commission expires January 28, 1985
JOINT INTERVENORS' THIRD SET OF INTERROGATORIES AND REQUEST FOR PRODUCTION OF DOCU4ENTS TO PACIFIC GAS AND ELECTRIC COMPsNY I have assisted in preparing the answers to Interrogatories 69
. Said answers are true and correct to the best of my knowledge and belief.
0/
A.J.N[o c
~
-~
Subscribed and sworn to before me this 10th day of N ber, 1981 Js SEAL is Thec:dora Cooke, Notary Public in and for the City and County
/
cf San Francisco, State of California
/
My commission expires January 28, 1985
r
('
JOINT INTERVENORS' THIRD SET OF INTERROGATORIES AND REQUEST FOR PRODUCTION OF DOCUMENTS TO PACIFIC GAS AND ELECTRIC C0ftPANY I have assisted in preparing the answers to Interrogatories 78 Said answers are true and correct to the best of.qy knowledge and belief.
T,,
ti u K. M. Godfrey 8
{
Subscribed and sworn to before me this 10th day l
of November, 1981 1
SEAL Theffdcra Cooke, Notary Public in and for the City and County of San Francisco, State of California My commission expires January 28, 1985 1
C
L.
JOINT INTERVENORS' THIRD SET OF INTERROGATORIES AND REQUEST FOR PRODUCTION OF DOCUMENTS TO PACIFIC GAS AND ELECTRIC C0ftPANY I have assisted in preparing the answers to Interrogatories 69, 70, 79 Said answers are true and correct to the best of my knowledge and belief.
c
R. J. McDevitt
(
-- rb Subscribed ar,J sworn to
~befo'r~e~me this 10th day of November,1981
~%__.
SEAL
/--
neodora Cooke, Notary Public in ind for the City and County
- /.
of San Francisco, State of California
,/
/
My commission expires January 28, 1985
- (
JOINT INTERVENORS' THIRD SET OF INTERROGATORIES AND REQUEST FOR PRODUCTION OF DOCUMENTS TO PACIFIC GAS AND ELECTRIC C0f1PANY I have assisted in preparing the answers to Interrogatories 75 Said answers are true and correct to the best of ray knowledge i
and belief.
2d.7a T. A. tiack Subscribed and sworn to before me this 9th day of November,1981 d
SEAL Theodora Cooke, Notary Public in..snd for the City and County of San Francisco, State of California My commission expires January 28,~1985 e
-~w<-
y
,,K-w--
r--
---r-
'(
JOINT INTERVENORS' THIRD SET OF INTERROGATORIES AND REQUEST FOR PRODUCTION OF DOCUMENTS TO PACIFIC GAS AND ELECTRIC C0f!PANY I have assisted in preparing the answers to Interrogatories 80 Said answers are true and correct to the bes'. of sqy knowledge and belief.
O.9/CA R. H. Thuillier f
r-Subscribed and sworn to bifo'r~e~ me this 10th day
~~~
of November,1981
. _ h- -
1 SEAL
/
Theodora Cooke, Notary Public
/
in and for the City and County
. /
of San Francisco, State of California
/
/
My commission expires January 28, 1985
- (
+
o
-*9 i,m.
y y.-~<-
.-,,y.
9 -
.,y.
.w
-w,--
y 9-w r.,-
y--
e
{.
JOINT INTERVENORS' THIRD SET OF INTERROGATORIES AND REQUEST FOR PRODUCTION OF DOCUMENTS TO PACIFIC GAS AND ELECTRIC COMPANY I have assisted in preparing the answers to Interrogatories 71, 72, 73, 74, 76, 81 Said answers are true and correct to the best of rny knowledge and belief.
O t
I
~
/
s D. K. Davis
(
Subscribed and sworn to before me this 10th day of November, 1981 1
SEAL
~Theodora Cooke, Notary Public in'and for the City and County of San Francisco, State of California My commission expires January 28, 1985
'~~ ~ ~~_,_,,'272i UNITED STATES OF AMERICA o
NUCLERR REGULRTORY COMMISSION g-COLKETED nMC N
In the Matter of
'81 NOV 12 PS:53
)
PACIFIC GAS AND ELECTRIC COMPANY
)
Docket No. 50-275
)
Docket No. 505223tARY Diablo Canyon Nuclear Power Plant,
)
.iE1 CG 1 SERVICE EhAMU Units 1 and 2
)
)
CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE The foregoing document (s) of Pacific Gas and Electric Company ixxx (have) been served today on the following by deposit in the United States mail, properly stamped and addressedi Judge John F. Wolf Mrs. Sandra A.
Silver Chairman 1760 Alisal Street Atomic Safety and Licensing Board San Luis Obispo, California 93401 U. S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission Washington, D.
C. 20555 Mr. Gordon Silver 1760 Alisal Street Judge Glenn O. Bright San Luis Obispo, California 93401 Atomic Safety and Licensing Board U. S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission John Phillips, Esq.
Washington, D.
C. 20555 Joel Reynolds, Esq.
Center for Law in the Public Interest Judge Jerry R.
Kline 10951 W. Pico Boulevard - Suite 300 Atomic Safety and Licensing Board Los Angeles, Californi?.' 90064 U. S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission
,__;~ Washington, D.
C. 20555 David F.
Fleischaker, Esq.
P. O. Box 1178 Mrs. El-izabeth-Apfelberg Oklahoma City C/o Nancy Culver Oklahoma 73101 192 Luneta Drive California 93401 Arthur C. Gehr, Esq.
San Luis Obispo, h -
Snell & Wilmer Janice E. Kerr, Esq.
3100 Valley Bank Center Public Utilities Commission Phoenix, Arizona 85073 of the State of California 5246 State Building Bruce Norton, Esq.
~
350 McAllister Street Norton, Burke, Berry & French, P.C.
San Francisco, California 94102 3216 N. Third Street
/
Suite 300 Mrs.' Raye Fleming Phoenix, Arizona 85012-2699 1920 Mattie Road Chairman
'Shell Beach, California 93449 Atomic Safety and Licensing Board Panel Mr. Frederick Eissler U. S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission Scenic Shoreline Preservation Washington, D.
C.
20555 Conference, Inc.
4623 More Mesa Drive Santa Barbara, California 93105
f Chairman Judge Thomas S. Moore Atomic Safety and Licensing Chairman Appeal Panel Atomic Safety and Licensing U. S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission Appeal Board Wa shington, D. C. 20555 U. S. Nuclear Regulatory Cominission Washington, D. C. 20555 Sncretary U. S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission Judge W. Reed Johnson Washington, D.
C. 20555 Atomic Safety and Licensing Appeal Board
-Attn.:
Docketing and Service Section U. S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission; Washington, D. C. 20555 William J.
Olmstead, Esq.
Bradley W. Jones, Esq.
Judge John H. Buck Office of Executive Legal Director Atomic Safety and Licensing BETH 042 Appeal Board U. S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission U. S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission W2shington, D. C. 20555 Washington, D. C. 20555 Mr. Richard B. Hubbard MHB Technical Associates 1723 Hamilton Avenue, Suite K San Jose, California 95125 Mr. Carl Neiberger Telegram Tribune P. O. Box 112 San Luis Obispo, California 5s402 Herbert H. Brown, Esq.
L;wrence Coe Lanpher, Esq.
Christopher B. Hanback, Esq.
Hill, Christopher & Phillips 1900 M Street, N.W.
Washington, D.
C.
20036 Byron S. Georgiou, Esq.
Legal Affairs Secretary Governor's Office Stato Capitol Sacramento, California 95814 e
t Ph Attorn[e,Jr!
ip A.
Cra Pacific as and El ctric Company Date: November 10, 1981
-