ML20035D438
| ML20035D438 | |
| Person / Time | |
|---|---|
| Site: | Diablo Canyon  |
| Issue date: | 04/02/1993 |
| From: | Repka D PACIFIC GAS & ELECTRIC CO., WINSTON & STRAWN |
| To: | Atomic Safety and Licensing Board Panel |
| References | |
| CON-#293-13843 OLA-2, NUDOCS 9304130213 | |
| Download: ML20035D438 (7) | |
Text
e y/3ry'.3
'ApR$1 E2, 1993
'93 TF -5 A 16 UNITED STATES OF AMERICA NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSION BEFORE THE ATOMIC SAFETY AND LICENSING BOARD In the Matter of:
)
)
Docket Nos. 50-275-OLA_ L Pacific Gas and Electric Company
)
50-323-OLA
)
(Construction Period (Diablo Canyon Nuclear Power
)
Recovery)
Plant, Units 1 and 2)
)
)
PACIFIC GAS & ELECTRIC COMPANY'S RESPONSE TO MEMORANDUM AND ORDER (ADDENDUM TO FES)
On March 19, 1993, the Licensing Board issued " Memorandum and Order (Addendum to FES)" asking two questions regarding the NRC Staff's Environmental Assessment
("EA"),
dated February 3,
- 1993, addressing the proposed amendment at issue in this proceeding.F The Licensing Board's questions are premised upon its observations that the NRC Staff issued a Final Environmental Statement ("FES")
in May 1973, that the Staff issued an " Addendum" to the FES in May 1976, and that the Staff's February 1993 EA concludes that the proposed amendment involves "no new or unreviewed environmental l
1 F
" Pacific Gas had Electric Co.,
Diablo Canyon Nuclear Power Plant, Units 1 and 2; Issuance of Environmental Assessment and Finding of No Significant Impact,"
58 Fed.
Reg.
7,899 j
(February 10, 1993).
9304130213 930402
(
PDR ADOCK 05000275 O
g impacts that were not considered as part of the [FES] dated May 1973."
EA at 2.
In fact, however, even more absolutely the 1993 EA also states that "the Commission concludes that there are n2 sianificant environmental impacts associated with the proposed amendment."
EA at 11 (emphasis added).
Within this context, I
Pacific Gas and Electric Company ("PG&E") provides the following responses to the Licensing Board's questions.
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 in its February 3, 1993 EA?
No.
The NRC Staff specifically considered the Addendum in preparing the EA.
The EA on its face refers to the Addendum in several places.
- See, e.a.,
EA at 4
(" projected
[onsite radiological) exposures are significantly less than the 450 person-rem per year per unit values estimated in the FES Addendum") ; EA at 10-11 ("Several environmental-related plant modifications have been made since issuance of the FES and Addendum Most of these plant design changes had a
direct positive impact on the environment.").
The Addendum is also considered and referenced in the environmental report included in PG&E's July 1992 license amendment application
("LAR").T Accordingly, the Addendum was expressly and directly considered in the environmental analysis of T
- See, e.a.,
LAR at 18.
o the proposed amendment.
The NRC Staff concluded, apparently with this in mind, that the proposed amendment would involve D2 l
significant impact.
The fact that the environmental impacts discussed in the
)
i Addendum differed "in certain respects" from those in the FES is l
1 also irrelevant as a factual matter in this proceeding.
The changes in the Addendum from the FES were directed at certain limited issues, largely thermal effluents (Addendum Section 3.0),
aquatic impacts ( Addendum Section
- 5. 0), and construction impacts (Addendum Section 4. 0).
The intervenors in the present case do not i
premise their late-filed environmental contention on any of these matters.
Moreover, with respect to the radiological impact of station operation, the FES, Addendum and the EA all reach the conclusion that such impacts will not be significant.2/
Thus, the mere existence of the Addendum creates no new procedural or factual issue.
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)?
No.
As stated above, the Addendum was considered in preparing the EA.
More recent operating data was also considered, which confirmed the continuing validity of the findings in the 1973 FES and 1976 Addendum, i
l' With respect to routine operations, see FES at 5-66; Addendum at ii; EA at 5-6.
With respect to postulated accident impacts, see FES at 7-7; EA at 2-4..
Therefore, there is no apparent inadequacy in the methodology used to produce the EA.6' Respectfully submitted, tDU" O
Joseph B.
Knotts, Jh.
David A. Repka WINSTON & STRAWN 1400 L Street, N.W.
Washington, DC 20005-3502 (202) 371-5726 Christopher J. Warner Richard F.
Locke PACIFIC GAS AND ELECTRIC COMPANY 77 Beale Street San Francisco, CA 94106 Attorneys for Pacific Gas and Electric Company Dated in Washington, DC this 2nd day of April, 1993 d'
PG&E has also reviewed the untimely proposed Contention XI, at i
2, as cited by the Licensing Board.
PG&E reads the contention to challenge the NRC Staff's decision not to prepare an environmental impact statement
("EIS"),
alleging that there are some unconsidered significant impacts that would necessitate an EIS.
PG&E can find in the proffered contention no challenge to the " methodology" or process followed in preparing the EA.
In any event,
- however, for reasons explained at length in PG&E's separate response to the late-filed environmental contention, there are no previously unconsidered impacts-and there is no basis in law or fact to require an EIS.
Moreover, there is H2 new information cited by MFP in the proposed contention that was not previously available to MFP in the LAR filed nine months ago in July 1992.
UNITED STATES OF AMERICA
]
NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSION l
BEFORE THE ATOMIC SAFETY AND LICENSING < BOARD', '.16 In the Matter of:
)
)
Docket Nos. 50-275-OLA Pacific Gas and Electric Company
)
50-323-OLA
)
(Construction Period (Diablo Canyon Power
)
Recapture)
Plant, Units 1 and 2)
)
)
CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE i
I hereby certify that copies of " PACIFIC GAS & ELECTRIC COMPANY'S RESPONSE TO MEMORANDUM AND ORDER (ADDENDUM TO FES)" 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 for Federal Express delivery, or, as indicated by the (t) symbol, by hand delivery, this 2nd day of April, 1993.
Charles Bechhoefer, Chairman (t)
Frederick J. Shon(t)
Administrative Judge Administrative Judge Atomic Safety and Licensing Board Atomic Safety and Licensing Board U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission U.S.
Nuclear Regulatory Commission Washington, DC 20555 Washington, DC 20555 Jerry R. Kline(t)
Office of Commission Appellate Administrative Judge Adjudication Atomic Safety and Licensing Board U.S.
Nuclear Regulatory Commission U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission Washington, DC 20555 Washington, DC 20555 Office of the Secretary Ann P. Hodgdon, Esq.(t)
U.S.
Nuclear Regulatory Commission Office of the General Counsel Washington, DC 20555 U.S.
Nuclear Regulatory Commission Attn:
Docketing and Service Washington, DC 20555 Section (original + two copies)
Adjudicatory File Peter Arth, Jr.
Atomic Safety and Licensing Edward W.
O'Neill Board Panel Peter G.
Fairchild U.S.
Nuclear Regulatory Commission California Public Utilities Washington, DC 20555 Commission 505 Van Ness Avenue San Francisco, CA 94102
o e
Nancy Culver, President Truman Burns Board of Directors California Public Utilities San Luis Obispo Mothers for Peace Commission P.O.
Box 164 505 Van Ness, Rm. 4103 Pismo Beach, CA 93448 San Francisco, CA 94102 Robert R. Wellington, Esq.
Christopher J. Warner, Esq.*
Diablo Canyon Independent Safety Richard F. Locke, Esq.
Committee Pacific Gas & Electric Company 857 Cass Street, Suite D 77 Beale Street Monterey, CA 93940 San Francisco, CA 94106 Robert Kinosian Jill ZamEk*
California Public Utilities 1123 Flora Road Commission Arroyo Grande, CA 93420 505 Van Ness, Rm. 4102 San Francisco, CA 94102 i
Mr. Gregory Minor
- MHB Technical Associates 1723 Hamilton Ave., Suite K San Jose, CA 95125 CLEt-David A.
Repka
\\
~
Counsel for Pacific Gas &
Electric Company i
1
.-