ML20033D016
| ML20033D016 | |
| Person / Time | |
|---|---|
| Site: | Diablo Canyon  |
| Issue date: | 11/25/1981 |
| From: | Reynolds J CENTER FOR LAW IN THE PUBLIC INTEREST, JOINT INTERVENORS - DIABLO CANYON |
| To: | NRC OFFICE OF THE EXECUTIVE LEGAL DIRECTOR (OELD) |
| References | |
| ISSUANCES-OL, NUDOCS 8112040593 | |
| Download: ML20033D016 (13) | |
Text
{{#Wiki_filter:_ _. _ RELATED CC2ICSF0;;;ENCE DOCKETED ~ - USimc UNITED STATES OF AMERICA b 9 ~ NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSIO BEFORE THE ATOMIC SAFETY AND LICENSING' BOAREE;A,qy I "RQW'C E 4 i i ) In the Matter of ) ) = PACIFIC' GAS AND ELECTRIC COMPANY ) Docket Nos. 50-275 O.L. ) 50-323 0.L. (Diablo Canyon Nuclear Power ) Plant, Units 1 and. 2) ) ,'9 \\ S t 6"Lu u 6
- )
JOINT INTERVENOR'S RESPONSE D DECS 1981* I TO NRC STAFF'S REQUE.ST FOR
- i. -
, mas ADMISSICNS AND THIRD SET
- '$72ined
~ OF INTERROGATORIES /) li h' Joint Intervenors hereby respond to the NRC Staff's i. (" Staff") October 21, 1981 Requests for Admissions and Third Set i of Interrogatories. Because the interrogatories call only for an i explanation of answers to the request for admissions, they are answered in connection with the response to the applicable request i for admission. RESPONSE TO ADMISSION NO. 1 Joint Intervenors object to this request for admission on the ground that it calls for a legal conclusion -- namely, compliance as a matter of law with applicable regulations -- I rather than for the admission of the genuineness of any relevant i document or for the admission of the truth of any specified E)503 relevant matter of fact. See 10 C.F.R. S2.742. Although j/ 8112040593 811125 PDR ADOCK 05000275 o PDR l<. _. _ _,... _ _
I 4 e 4 numerous unspecified factual issues undoubtedly underlie the legal conclusion called for by the request to admit, the propounding party's failure to identify those facts precludes a response by Joint Intervenors to this request. RESPONSE TO ADMISSION NO. 2 Joint Intervenors object to this request for admission on the ground that it calls for a legal conclusion -- namely, 1 compliance as a matter of law with applicable regulations -- rather than for the admission of the genuineness of any relevant document or for the admission of the truth of any specified relevant matter of fact. See 10 C.F.R'.-S2.742. Although numerous unspecified factual issues undoubtedly underlie the legal conclusion called for by the request to admit, the propounding party's failure to identify those facts precludes a response by Joint Intervenors to this request. RESPONSE TO ADMISSION NO. 3 Joint Intervenors object to this request for admission on the ground that it calls for a legal conclusion -- namely, compliance as a matter of law with applicable regulations -- rather than for the admission of the genuineness of any relevant document or for the admission of the truth of any specified relevant matter of fact. See 10 C.F.R. S2.742. Although numerous unspecified factual issues undoubtedly underlie the legal conclusion called for by the request to admit, the propounding party's failure to identify those facts precludes a response by Joint Intervenors to this request. 1n ycp x.q. \\ O [l-t [ w 3 x ~ ^ i s RESPONSE TO ADMISSION NO. 4 '-o 4 c ^I ' Joint Intervenors object to this request for admission on U \\' the ground that it calls for a legal conclusion'-- namely, [ compliance as a matter of law with applicable regulations'-- ,y rather than for the admission of'the genuineness of any relevant- + ^ document or for the' admission of the truth'of'any specified I ~ relevant matter of fact. See 10 C.F.R. S2.'742. Although numerous unspecified f actual issues undoubtedly un' eilie the d legal conclusion called for by the request.to admit, the propounding party's failure to identify those facts precludes a response by Joint Intervenors to this request. L' RESPONSE TO ADMISSION NO. 5 L y Joint Intervenors were excluded from the; August 19, 1981 f emergency planning exercise in San Luis Obispo; in addition, they" 1.J 1 n. .y : l have not yet completed their review.of the exercise critiquesvand-U . they cannot .4 no FEMA " finding" has been issued. Consequently, y give a definitive answer to this request forl admission.y ' c '. - s s ( However, at this time, as far as is known','the a'gencids & L l involved did not demonstrate the necessary capabilitysof [ ~ c. i controlling access and performing a coordinated evacuationf + l l' procedure because the exercise did not realistically simulate'tpe circumstances likely to be present in the event of an' actual 's A: N, l emergency at Diablo Canyon. Specifically, no evacuation of : l i j remote areas of the LPZ was demonstrated; no capability to 4 s evacuate large numbers of actual residents of the San Luis Obispo . 9 v e l and the Five Cities area was demonstrated; no ability to control' g access on traffic routes actually being utilized for evacu'ablon' 4 l z
q.. i c i -y s (ll_ ^ ;, il 4 e >3 + a I was demonstrated; no' capacity to coordinate evacuation and d contr'ol access on traffic routes in the event of a major earth' quake occurring simultaneously with an emergency at the site was demonstrated; and no capability to clear blocked roads or to assure evacuation and/or sheltering of the public in the event of 2 J;. ' ' adverse. weather conditions was c'emonstrated. In short, the W, exercise.was seriously deficient as a training tool-'in at least i 4 x m -{ g t h e s e s i g n i f i'c a n t r e s p e c t s, therfore precluding an affirmative g (' response to^this admission. This inadequacy calls into-question. compliance with 10 C.F.R. S50.47 (b) (1), (2), (5), (6), (7), (8),
- d.
l + t g ( 9 ), 410 )\\,' ' (,12 )', (14), (15); see also NUREG-0654 criteria applicable,to each of the cited. planning standards and the s ys ,0ctober 30,x1981 letter from Stilwell to Eldridge (attached to y'
- Go'vbrnor Brown's November 13, 1980 Response to Staff i
i l interrogt
- ).
~ s s RESPONSE TO ADMISSION NO. 6 Joint Intervenors have.not yet completed their review of the i as various classification and action level schemes. However, at this time, as far as is known, the plan for San Luis Obispo 1 1 County has not yet been finalized. It is, therefore, not i possible to know with certainty- (1) whether the plan will be ..(' adopted and (2) whether the classification scheme ultimately n- ,l~~, adopted will be consistent with that of PGandE and the State. 7 s - Assuming that -a classification scheme similar to that set forth s 'A in;the May,'1981 draft plan is adopted, then each plan will
- t c'
H s s , tV conta in - bas i edll'y the same scheme. s i v f. e ,3 + '4-3 ( M 4 r. l' -),. ! a ~. ; c., --.,..n, ,,~,,,
RESPONSE TO ADMISSION NO. 7 Joint Intervenors object to this request for admission on the ground that it calls for a legal conclusion -- nauely, compliance as a matter of law with applicable regulations -- rather than for the admission of the genuineness of any relevant document or for the admission of the truth of any specified relevan't matter of fact. See 10 C.F.R. S2.742. Although numerous unspecified factual issues undoubtedly underlie the legal conclusion called for by the request to admit, the propounding party's failure to identify those facts precludes a response by Joint Intervenors to this request. RESPONSE TO ADMISSION NO. 8 Joint Intervenors object to this request for admission on the ground that it calls for a legal conclusion -- namely, compliance as a matter of law with applicable regulations -- rather than for the admission of the genuineness of any relevant document or for the admission of the truth of any specified relevant matter of fact. See 10 C.F.R. S2.742. Although numerous unspecified factual issues undoubtedly underlie the legal conclusion called for by the request to admit, the propounding party's failure to identify those facts precludes a response by Joint Intervenors to this request. RESPONSE TO ADMISSION NO. 9 Denied. Joint Intervenors have not yet completed their review of the extent to which the various plans actually incorporate measures taking into account the complicating effects,
of an earthquake. However, at this time, as far as is known, none of the plans has been revised to incorporate such measures, and there is no assurance that such action will be accomplished by January 1, 1983. Moreover, in light of the fact that the TERA Corporation report entitled " Earthquake Emergency Planning at Diablo Canyon" underestimates the peak ground accelerations lixely'to occur in the event of a major earthquake on the Hosgri Fault, Joint Intervenors do not believe that the measures described in that report constitute adequate assurance that the puolic will be protected in the event of an earthquake occurring simultaneously with a radiological emergency at Diablo Canyon. .~ RESPONSE TO ADMISSION NO. 10 Denied. The State plan is not fully integrated into the onsite and local offsite emergency response plans for Diablo Canyon -- nor could it be -- because the local plan is still in the proces of extensive revision. In light of the numerous approvals necessary at both the State and local levels, it would be speculative to conclude that integration will be achieved by the date specified. RESPONSE TO ADMISSION NO. 11 Joint Intervenors object to this request for admission on the ground that it calls for a legal conclusion -- namely, compliance as a matter of law with applicable regulations -- rather than for the admission of the genuineness of any relevant document or for the admission of the truth of any specified relevant matter of fact. See 10 C.F.R. S2.742. Although _ ~
9 numerous unspecified factual issues undoubtedly underlie the legal conclusion called for by the request to admit, the propounding party's failure to identify those facts precludes a response by Joint Intervenors to this request. RESPONSE-TO ADMISSION NO. 12 Joint Intervenors object to this request for admission on the ground that it calls for a legal conclusion -- namely, compliance as a matter of law with applicable regulations -- rather than for the admission of the genuineness of any relevant document or for the admission of the truth of any specified relevant matter of fact. See 10 C.F.R. - S 2.74 2. Although numerous unspecified factual issues undoubtedly underlie the legal conclusion called for by the request to admit, the propounding party's failure to identify those facts precludes a response by Joint Intervenors to this request. RESPONSE TO ADMISSION NO. 13 Denied. PGandE's onsite plan does not incorpdrate provisions regarding the complicating effects of an earthquake. Indeed, the TERA Corporation report previously cited herein was necessitated by the absence of such provisions in the site plan. PGandE has not yet amended Rev. 3 to incorporate the necessary response to this issue. RESPONSE TO ADMISSION NO. 14 Joint Intervenors have not yet completed their review of PGandE's onsite plan 'Rev. 3). However, at this time, as far as. w
is known, the criteria for choice set forth in the documents cited do not provide reasonable assurance that the correct protective actions will be timely selected and implemented. Indeed, during the August 19 exercise, protective actions were not ordered for the general public until several hours after a general emergency was declared. Joint Intervenors believe, therefore, that the criteria must be revised to assure that as immediately as is feasible the protective actions to be taken will be selected and communicated to the public. See 10 C.F.R. S50.47 (b) (4), (5), (7), (9), (10), (12), (14); see also NUREG-0654 criteria applicable to the planning standards cited. RESPONSE TO ADMISSION NO. 15 Joint Intervenors object to this request for admission on the ground that it calls for a legal conclusion -- namely, compliance as a matter of law with applicable regulations -- rather than for the admission of the genuineness of any relevant document or for the admission of the truth of any specified relevant matter of fact. See 10 C.F.R. 52.742. Although numerous unspecified factual issues undoubtedly underlie the legal conclusion called for by the request to admit, the propounding party's failure to identify those facts precludes a e respcase by Joint Intervenors to this request. RESPONSB TO ADMISSION NO. 16 Denied. Joint Intervenors have not yet completed their review of the TERA report and the various plans. However, at this time, as far as.is known, tne TERA report has not been. .i-r e m. +,ao
,m
,m r s --e r- -=v 2,
integrated into any of the relevant plans. Moreover, the report does not adequately take into account the complicating effects of an earthquake because, among other things, it underestimates the ground accelerations likely to be generated by a major earthquake on the IIosgri Fault. In addition, the assumptions that manpower and equipment will be available to do repairs, clear roads, and controi access are not supported, nor is there adequate basis cited in support of the limited time. estimated to be necessary to take such actions. Finally, there has teen no demonstration that critical communications, monitoring, and notification equipment /// /// /// l e-l t i 1. i l
will continue to function in the event of an earthquake given the conceded failure to design and qualify such equipment to function during such a seismic event. DATED: November 25, 1981 Respectfully submitted, JOEL R. REYNOLDS, ESQ. JOHN R. PHILLIPS, ESQ. Center for Law in the Public Interest 10951 W. Pico Boulevard Los Angeles, CA 90064 (213)470-3000 DAVID S. FLEISCHAKER, ESQ. P. O. Box 1178 Oklahoma City, OK 73101 By 'OEL R.pYMOLDS Attorneys for Joint Inter-venors SAN LUIS OBISPO MOTHERS FOR PEACE SCENIC SHORELINE PRESERVATION CONFERENCE, INC. ECOLOGY ACTION CLUB SANDRA SILVER ELIZABETH APFELBERG JOHN J. FORSTER,
UNITED STATES OF AMERICA NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSION BEFORE TIIE ATOMIC SAFETY AND LICENSING BOARD In The Matter Of ) ) PACIFIC GAS AND ELECTRIC COMPANY) Docket No. 50-275 0.L. ) '50-323 0.L. (Diablo Canyon Nuclear Power ) Plant, Unit Nos. 1 and 2) ) AFFIDAVIT OF RICilARD B. IlUBBARD RICIIARD B. IlUBBARD, being duly swo'rn, do say under oath that I, the undersigned have assis ted in preparing and reviewing responses of Joint Intervenors to NRC Staff's Request For Admissions and NRC Staff Third Set of Interrogatories dated October 21, 1981. Said answer to Admissions 5, 6, 9, 10, 13, 14 and 16 are true and correct to the bes t of my knowledge and belie f. (Ste t< htYt&t Richard B. Ilubbard 4 Subscribed and sworn to before me this 2 day of fNe mac e, 19 81. r f I - - + _ j OFFICIAL SEAL eVW/ ) C-. +h,?, % [gh4 2 M JAMES F LEHMAN 7 ,I cc,p .g none rueuc cAurcardA j fp naA can cou:HY 1 NOTARY PUBLIC k wns.~4 comm. trp ns AUO 21,10M, f Sh/ /f/ Commission expires:
_. - ~ 1 UNITED STATES OF AMERICA NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSION [ 4 BEFORF.THE ATOMIC SAFETY AND LICENSING BOARD ) In the Matter of ) } PACIFIC GAS AND ELECTRIC COMPANY ) Docket Nos. 50-275 0.L. ) ) 50-323 0.L. (Diablo Canyon Nuclear Power ) Plant, Units 1 and 2) ) ) ) i CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE I hereby certify that on this 25th day of November, 1981, I l have served copies of the foregoing JOINT INTERVENORS' RESPONSE l TO NRC STAFF'S REQUEST FOR ADMISSIONS AND THIRD SET OF j INTERROGATORIES, mailing them through'the U. S. mails, first i class, postage prepaid. Admin. Judge John F. Wolf, Docket & ServicerBranch Chairman Office of the Secretary j Atomic Safety & Licensing U.S. Nuclear Regulatory l Board Commission l U. S. Nuclear Regulatory Washington, D.C. 20555 Commission Washington, D.C. 20555 William Olmstead, Esq. i Marc R. Staenberg, Esq. Glenn O. Bright Edward G. Ketchen, Esq. Atomic Safety & Licensing Office of the Executive Legal Board Director - BETH 042 U.S. Nuclear Regulatory U.S. Nuclear Regulatory l Commission Commission Washington, D.C. 20555 Washington, D.C. 20555 4 I . -...~...
Dr. Jerry R. Kline Nancy Culver Atomic Safety & Licensing 192 Luneta Board San Luis Obispo, CA 93401 U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission Washington, D.C. 20555 Mr. Fredrick Eissler Malcolm H. Furbrush, Esq. Scenic Shoreline Preservation Vice President and General Conference, Inc. Counsel 4623 More Mesa Drive Philip A. Crane, Esq. Santa Barbara, CA 93105 Pacific Gas & Electric Company P. O. Box 7442 Sandra A. Silver San Francisco, CA 94106 Gordon Silver 1760 Alisal Street Arthur C. Gehr, Esq. San Luis Obispo, CA 93401 Snell & Wilmer 3100 Valley Center David S. Fleischaker, Esq. Phoenix, AZ 85073 P. O. Box 1178 Oklahoma City, OK 73101 Carl Neiburger Telegram Tribune Bruce Norton, Esq. P. O. Box 112 3216 N. Third Street San Luis Obispo, CA 93402 Suite 202 Phoenix, AZ 85012 Byron Georgiou, r2q. Legal Affairs Secretary to Janice E. Kerr, Esq. the Governor Lawrence Q. Garcia, Esq. State Capitol Building J. Calvin Simpson, Esq. Sacramento, CA 95814 California Public Utilities Commission Lawrence Coe Lanpher, Esq. 5246 State Building Hill, Christopher & Phillips 350 McAllister Street 1900 M. Street, N.W. San Francisco, CA 94102 Washington, D.C. 20036 n MHB Technical Associates 1723 Hamilton Avenue l Suite K l San Jose, CA 95725 @c A. S. VARONA i I _}}