ML20038A414
| ML20038A414 | |
| Person / Time | |
|---|---|
| Issue date: | 09/04/1980 |
| From: | Fitzgerald NRC OFFICE OF THE GENERAL COUNSEL (OGC) |
| To: | |
| Shared Package | |
| ML20038A409 | List:
|
| References | |
| FOIA-92-436, TASK-CA, TASK-SE SECY-A-80-130, NUDOCS 8110290461 | |
| Download: ML20038A414 (6) | |
Text
.-...
1 UNITED STATES NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSION WASHINGTON, D. C. 20555 g
SECY-A-80-130 September 4, 1980 COMMISSIONER ACTION
)
For:
The Commissioners James A. Fitzgerald From:
j Assistant General Counsel REVIEW OF ALAE-607 (IN THE MATTER OF
Subject:
PACIFIC GAS AND ELECTRIC COMPANY) j Diablo Canyon Nuclear Power Plant, Facility:
Units 1 and 2
\\
Petitions for Review:
None received and none expected.
To inform the Commission of an Appeal f
in our opinion,
- p. E '
Purpcse:
Board decision [which, l
-~
Review Time Expires:
September IS,1950 i
In ALAB-607, the Appeal Board denied Discussien:
intervenors' request that the United States Geological Survey (USGS) be invited to comment on the questions propounded by the Ecard in the reopened proceedi en the seismic design of this facility.
- See, ALAB-598.
The USGS was a seismic consultant t e the staff in the Licensing Board prcceed-ing.
Intervenors contended that it would not be sufficient for USGS to serve as a consultant to the staff because the USGS may have an independent point of view which may not be apparent unless its comments are submitted directly to the Board.
The Governor of California supported intervenors' request; the applicant and the staff opposed it.
Staff also reported Ir. form:2n in tB tcod via; d:'ctcd that it had submitted the Board's ques-m a::ctnte v o the f eedom ciIn9;mation tions to the USGS, and that in reply the Act, cumpP" USGS stated:
(J ) it has no information to F0tA.,22,- W 4- -
give directly to the Board; and (2) its previous testimony is not affected.
The Appeal Board noted that USGS personnel had testified before the Licensing Board, and
! Mb290b[
that neither the intervenors nor the Governor offered any basis for believing m
~
,r 4
fI',
~rutetch, CE
e e,
og
2 4
that the views of the USGS would shift if the Board rather than the staff requested the USGS to respond to the Board's questions.
Accordingly, the Board denied intervenors' request and declined to certify it to the Commission.
[
hnourviewthe 1le also bel'iev'e t' hat' I
Recommendation:
c I
ames A. Fitzgerald Assistant General Counsel Atcaehment:
ALAE-6C7 Commissioners' comments should.be provided directly to the Office of the Secretary by c.o.b. Thursday, September 18, 1980.
Commission Staff Office comments, if any, should be submitted to the Commissioners NLT September 11, 1980, with an information copy to the If.the paper is of such a nature that it requires Office of the Secretary.
additional time for analytical review and comment, the Coctnissioners and the Secretariat should be apprised of when comments may be expected.
DISTRIBUTION Commissioners Commission Staff Offices Secretariat
?
i
[!I '
UNITED STATES OF AMERICA NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSION 1
ATOMIC SAFETY AND LICENSING APPEAL BOARD Richard S. Salzman, Chairman Dr. John H. Buck Dr. W. Reed Johnson
)
)
In the Matter of
)
PACIFIC GAS AND ELECTRIC COMPANY
)
Docket Nos. 50-275 OL
)
50-323 OL (Diablo Canyon Nuclear Power Plant,
)
)
Units 1 and 2)
)
Mr. David S. Fleischaker, Washington, D.
C.,
Johnston and Mr. John Phillips,
~ Ms. Marion P.
for the Joint Inter-Los Angeles, California, San Luis Obispo Mothers 'for Peace.
- venors, Messrs. Herbert H. Brown and Lawrence C. Lanpher, Washington, D.
C., and J. Anthony Kline and Byron S. Georgiou, Sacramento, California, for the Governor of California.
Messrs. Bruce Norton and Arthur C. Gehr, Phoenix, and Malcom H. Furbush and Philip A.
- Arizona, for the Crane, Jr., San Francisco, California, Pacific Gas and Electric Company.
applicant, 4
Mr. William J. Olmstead for the Nuclear Regulatory Commission staff.
MEMORANDUM AND ORDER August 19, 1980 (ALAB-607)
J Joint Intervenors' motion to reconsider ALAB-598 (in 1.
which we ordered the record reopened for additional seismic
.l evidence) 1/ asked us to call two ACRS consultants as Board I
_1/
11 NRC (June 24, 1980).
l
. 4 a request we granted.-2/
Their motion also asked witnesses, that the " United States Geological Survey * - *
- be provided t.n opportunity to comment independently on [the] questions" we appended to ALAB-598. 1/
The Governor of California supported the request; the applicant and the staff opposed it.
We with-held a ruling until we had opportunity to review the parties' responses to ALAB-598, The USGS served as a seismic consultant to the staff 2.
in the Licensing Board proceeding; the staff called Geological Survey personnel as its witnesses and offered them for cross-examination.
Neither the intervenors nor the Governor offer the slightest basis for believing that the views of the USGS.
-- or any of its personnel -- might shif t were we rather than the staff to call upon that agency for responses to our ques-We have no cause ourselves to believe such would be tions.
In these circumstances we deny intervenors' request the case.
and decline to certify it to the Commission.
The staf f's responses to the questions posed in 3.
ALAB-598 do not include the testimony of any USGS witnesses.
in answer to question 9 in ALAE-598, the staf f has
- However,
_2/
ALAB-604, 12 NRC (August 7,1980).
_3/
See 11 NRC at (slip opinion at 21-29).
e y
. a supplied the written direct testimony of Richard M. McMullen, an NRC geologist.
Mr. McMullen's testimony.contains the state-ment (at p. 5) that The LNG report (USGS, 1980) is another piece of evidence f avoring the occurrence of the subject earthquake on structures other than the Hosgri [ fault).
Attached to Mr. McMullen's testimony is a July 29, 1980 letter from Robert H. Morris, an Acting Assistant Director of the USGS, to Dr. Robert E. Jackson of the staf f.
That letter states that Mr. McMullen's testimony accurately depicts USGS' position and that this has not changed since the Licensing Board hearing.
Mr. Morris' letter also states, however, that The geology and seismology reports which the USGS reviewed for the Point Conception LNG Site do include data not on record for the Diablo Canyon Nuclear Power Station because the LNG review was undertaken after trans-mittal to the NRC of our Diablo Canyon posi-tion, dated April 29, 1976 (emphasis added).
)
The letter further indicates that, "even though" the USGS has there "still re-q obtained some additional data on the subject, main ambiguities in the location of the November 4,1927 earth-ouake" which require the, conservative assumption that the Hosgri fault (among others) be considered the site of that
~
seismic disturbance.
In the interest of a complete record, the staf f shall sub-i mit written testimony from a knowledgeable witness describing
the USG5' new data bearing on the location of that 1927 carth-quake and the nature of the " ambiguities" that remain about where that earthquake occurred.
That testimony is to be in the hands of all parties, Drs. Trifunac and Luco, and this Board no later than September 15, 1980; its sponsor shall be made available for questioning at the reopened hearing in San Luis Obispo, California, should we so direct.
It is so ORDERED.
FOR THE APPEAL BOARD b.
h3 C. J n Bisnop
\\
Secretary to the Appeal Board
.-.