ML20035D371
| ML20035D371 | |
| Person / Time | |
|---|---|
| Site: | Diablo Canyon  |
| Issue date: | 04/01/1993 |
| From: | Hodgdon A NRC OFFICE OF THE GENERAL COUNSEL (OGC) |
| To: | Atomic Safety and Licensing Board Panel |
| References | |
| CON-#293-13829 OLA-2, NUDOCS 9304130135 | |
| Download: ML20035D371 (5) | |
Text
. _,
/37 Z9 i
April 1,1993
+
UNITED STATES OF AMERICA NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSION 93 g _.1 M :32 BEFORE THE ATOMIC SAFETY AND LICENSING BOARI2 l
In the Matter of
)
)
Docket Nos.
50-275 OLA, g PACIFIC GAS & ELECTRIC CO.
)
50-323 OLA
)
l (Diablo Canyon Nuclear Power Plant,
)
(Construction Period Recapture) l Units 1 & 2)
)
i i
NRC STAFF RESPONSE TO LICENSING BOARD'S OUESTIONS i
On March 19, 1993, the Atomic Safety and Licensing Board issued a
" Memorandum and Order (Addendum to FES)," in which the Board noted that its records indicate that in May 1976, the Staff issued an Addendum to its May 1973 FES. The j
Board also noted that the Addendum modified in certain respects the environmental impacts predicted to result from the operation of the Diablo Canyon facility. The Board i
invited the parties to respond to two questions posed by the Board in its Order:
1.
Does the existence of the Addendum, with its impacts that differ in
)
certain respects from those evaluated in the May 1973 FES,
)
invalidate in whole or in part the conclusions reached by the Staff l
in its February 3,1993, EA?
l 2.
Does this omission support in some degree MFP's challenge to the adequacy of the methodology used to produce the EA (proposed Contention XI, at 2)?
l The NRC Staff's answers to the Board's questions are as follows.
l 1.
No. The existence of the Addendum does not invalidate the conclusions i
reached by the Staff in its February 3,1993, Environmental Assessment (EA). The conclusions reached in the EA explicitly take the 1976 Addendum into consideration and i
i i
1 9304130135 930401 pI PDR ADOCK 05000275 pg o
I
. l L
are hsed on the Addendum wherever the impacts discussed are different from those j
i discussed in the FES of May 1973. See, e.g., p.4 of the EA when the Staff states that:
l i
"we conclude that the occupational exposures used in Figure 2 serve as a realistic i
est. mate through the proposed 40-year period of operation. These projected exposures i
are significantly less than the 450 person-rem per year per unit values estimated in the i
FES Addendunt for Diablo Canyon." [ Emphasis Added.] Where the Staff states, at p.11, that the effects of changing the expiration dates for the licenses arc bounded by the assessment in the original FES, tnat statement includes the Addendum, as the Addendum
{
is an integral part of the FES and was not ignored.
{
2.
The Saff disagrees with the premise of the second question, as the EA itself indicates the EA was based on the complete FES, including the Addendum. There was no " omission." The Addendum's Summary and Conclusions at p.1 states that the l
Addendum updates the FES and supersedes cenain conclusions in the FES. Further, MFP's statements on p.2 of its "I2te-Filed Contention" concern whether an EA or an i
EIS should be prepared for the proposed licensing action, and do not question the adequacy of the methodology used to produce the EA. In any event, as there was no i
omission, either in the FES or the EA, the answer to Question 2 is No, without regard a
to the meaning of MFP's remarks on p.2 of proposed contention XI.
)
4 l
4
-m.
- +
i 4
.t The Staff is aware that the Board's Order of March 19, 1993, permits the Staff to file its answers together with its response to MFP's two late-filed contentions.
However, the Staff chooses to respond separately so that the Board and the other parties may have the benefit of the Staff's views.
Respectfully submitted,
/\\
G t
V VtM--
O ClCJ\\b-
\\
I Ann P. Hodgdon Counsel for NRC Staff i
Dated at Rockville, Maryland this 1st day of April 1993 F
l I
6 i
i t
i r
1 t
UNITED STATES OF AMERICA NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSION
.g3 g,.~' -1 P;'32 BEFORE THE ATOMIC SAFETY AND LICENSING BOARD i
In the Matter of
)
)
Docket Nos.
50-275 OLA PACIFIC GAS & ELECTRIC CO.
)
50-323 OIA
)
(Diablo Canyon Nuclear Power Plant,
)
(Construction Period Recapture)
Units 1 & 2)
)
i CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE I hereby certify that copies of "NRC STAFF RESPONSE TO LICENSING BOARD'S QUESTIONS" in the above captioned proceeding have been served on the following by deposit in the United States mail, first class or, as indicated by an asterisk, by deposit in the Nuclear Regulatory Commission's internal mail system this 1st day of April 1993:
Charles Bechhoefer*
Office of Commission Appellate Administrative Judge Adjudication
- Atomic Safety and Licensing Board Mail Stop: 16-G-15 OWFN i
Mail Stop: EW-439 U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission Washington, DC 20555 Washington, DC 20555 Adjudicatory File * (2)
Jerry R. Kline*
Atomic Safety and Licensing Board Administrative Judge Panel Atomic Safety and Licensing Board Mail Stop: EW-439 Mail Stop: EW-439 U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission Washington, DC 20555 Washington, DC 20555 Atomic Safety and Licensing Board
)
Frederick J. Shon*
Panel
- Administrative Judge Mail Stop: EW-439 Atomic Safety and Licensing Board U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission Mail Stop: EW-439 Washington, DC 20555 U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission Washington, DC 20555 4
t
. 4 Nancy Culver, President Joseph B. Knotts, Jr., Esq.
San Luis Obispo Mothers for Peace David A. Repka, Esq.
P.O. Box 164 Kathryn M. Kalowsky, Esq.
Pismo Beach, CA 93448 Winston & Strawn 1400 L Street, N.W.
^
Christopher J. Warner Washington, DC 20005-3502 Richard F. Locke Pacific Gas & Electric Co.
Truman Burns 77 Beale Street Robert Knosian San Franciso, CA 94106 California Public Utilities Commission 505 Van Ness, Rm. 4103 Office of the Secretary * (2)
San Francisco, CA 94102 Attn: Docketing and Service Mail Stop: 16-G-15 OWFN U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission Washington, DC 20555
\\
06; $ - -
~ \\/LNL 6
Ann P. Hodgdon
(
Counsel for NRC Staff 5
e s
1 e