ML20056E737
| ML20056E737 | |
| Person / Time | |
|---|---|
| Site: | Diablo Canyon  |
| Issue date: | 08/12/1993 |
| From: | Repka D PACIFIC GAS & ELECTRIC CO., WINSTON & STRAWN |
| To: | Atomic Safety and Licensing Board Panel |
| References | |
| CON-#393-14214 OLA-2, NUDOCS 9308250125 | |
| Download: ML20056E737 (8) | |
Text
/O/f August 12, ~ ~19 9 3 ca 1: a: ;,
UNITED STATES OF AMERICA
~
NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSION BEFORE THE ATOMIC SAFETY AND LICENSING BOARD
)
In the Matter of:
)
)
Docket Nos. 50-275-OLA-. Z.
Pacific Gas and Electric Company
)
50-323-OLA
)
(Construction Period (Diablo Canyon Nuclear Power
)
Recovery)
Plant, Units 1 and 2)
)
)
PACIFIC GAS AND ELECTRIC COMPANY'S RESPONSE TO SAN LUIS OBISPO MOTHERS FOR PEACE MOTION FOR FURTHER DISCOVERY AND FOR DELAY IN HEARING ON THERMO-LAG CONTENTION I.
INTRODUCTION l
On August 11, 1993, the San Luis Obispo Mothers for Peace l
l
("MFP") filed a request for leave to conduct additional discovery on Contention V regarding implementation of compensatory measures in Thermo-Lag fire areas.
MFP also moved for postponement of the hearing scheduled on this matter.
Finally, given that the hearing l
is to take place as early as next week, MFP requested expedited consideration of this request.1/ Pacific Gas and Electric Company
("PG&E") herein responds to the requests.
l 1/ " San Luis Obispo Mothers for Peace's Request for Leave to Conduct Discovery on NRC Inquiry into Allegations Regarding Pressure to Falsify Fire Watch Logs, Motion for Postponement of l
Hearing on Thermo-Lag Contention Pending Completion of Said Discovery, and Request for Expedited Consideration," August 11, 1993 (" Motion").
Z8RB2so12svsOese
- ocxosegggs y3p i
o
I l
PG&E opposes the requests for discovery ano for postponement F
P l
of the hearing.
The existence of an unsupported and meritless allegation provides absolutely no basis for either more discovery or for a delay in the hearing.
PG&E agrees that expedited consideration of the matter is warranted and is amenable to a conferenca call with the Licensing Board at the Board's earliest convenience in order to resolve this matter.
II.
DISCUSSION The basis for MFP's request is the NRC Staff's Board Notification 93-18 (July 15, 1993).
The Board Notification i
concerns an unsubstantiated allegation that a PG&E employee was f
being pressured to alter fire watch logs presumably related to firewatches in Thermo-Lag areas and had continuously refused to do I
so.1/
As stated in the Board Notification, NRC's Office of Investigations
("OI")
has found no evidence to support the allegation.
Even setting aside that MFP's notion comes several weeks after the Board Notification and is patently untinely, this matter is not an occasion for new discovery or a reason to postpone the hearing.
First, the existence of an unsubstantiated allegation has no bearing on the issue in controversy in this proceeding.
OI is I
f 1/ MFP, at page 1 of its Motion, misstates the Board Notification in at least one important respect.
MFP states that the allegation was that pressure to alter logs was applied by a PG&E " officer."
In fact, according to the Board Notification, the allegation was of pressure by a PG&E " employee."
In any event,
- however, the allegation is without merit.
, l
responsible for looking into these matters.
The mere fact that an 9
allegation was received does not imply that MFP or the Licensing Board must retrace the steps of OI or duplicate OI's inquiry.
MFP provides absolutely no basis to question OI's inquiry; rather, MFP simply wants to engage the Board in a review of OI's inquiry.
However, the Licensing Board's duty in this proceeding is not one of overseeing 01.
Simply stated, the Board Notification reports an allegation, not a fact.
This is not a matter that requires attention in this forum.
Second, the allegation on its face does not raise an issue relevant to the contention in this proceeding.
According to the i
Board Notification, the allegation asserted the following:
(A)
"high ranking" Pacific Gas & Electric employee put pressure on a PG&E licensing engineer to alter documents which will be introduced into evidence in the NRC Diablo Canyon construction permit recapture proceeding.
. The cognizant engineer has repeatedly refused to be part of this and because of this his career with PG&E is in jeopardy.
The Board Notification further states that the engineer, under oath, denied that any such pressure occurred.
There is absolutely no allegation that fire watch logs or any other documents were actually altered.
Thus, the allegation has absolutely no bearing on the matter in controversy in this case, i.e.,
whether fire j
watches in Thermo-Lag fire area were in fact completed.2/
1 l
1/ MFP, in its Motion at page 5, implicitly recognizes that the l
allegation does not suggest that logs were actually altered.
MFP goes on to argue that the allegation would still be relevant because " pressuring of PG&E employees to falsify the logs, if (continued...)
_3_
l
1 i
8 i
I i
l i,,
Third, MFP's plea for more time to pursue discovery of the l
l l
l fire watch logs is completely unjustified.
The logs for fire l
I watches in Thermo-Lag fire areas have been available for review by
. in this case.
i NFP since the beginning of the discovery period l
4 Repeatedly, PGEE has stated that the logs are available.
- Egg, j
1 3
1 l
e.g., " Pacific Gas and Electric Company's Response to Third Set of i
Written Interrogatories and Requests for the Production of i
l Documents Filed by San Luis Obispo Mothers for Peace," dated April l
12,
- 1993, at 22-25.
MFP has never taken advantage of that i
opportunity.
It is simply too late in the day for MFP to' now clain j
j that everything has changed, that maybe the logs would have been j
j j
i
)
worth reviewing.
MFP cannot sit on its discovery rights and then i
j argue for more time.
I Nonetheless, the fire watch logs for Thermo-Lag areas remain i
I available for review by MFP at the plant at any time.
In fact, b
j PG&E has made available other documents to representatives of MFP at the plant for review as recently as last week, and MFP has been 4
readily capable of performing such a review.
PGEE has stated to 1
j-counsel for MFP this week that the logs are available at any time for MFP's review.
The logs will also be available at the hearing-ij on the Thermo-Lag contention.
A desire to look at these logs is 4
i 1/(... continued) established, would implicate the integrity of PGEE's fire ~ watch l
program, and indeed its entire operation." However, this is a very j.
great stretch of the scope of this proceeding.
The issue in contention V is whether fire watches have been implemented.
The p
allegation.-- which OI found to have no merit -- does not reach that issue.
The Licensing Board.is not empowered to step into the 4
shoes of the NRC Staff and.01 and independently review the j.
1-integrity of PG&E's " entire operation."
1 i
i i
.. -. ~
~-
not a basis to alter the hearing schedule. Moreover, one of PG&E's witnesses on the Thermo-Lag contention is the custodian of these logs.
Although PG&E contends that this matter is of no relevance to the issues in this proceeding, the witness will be available at the hearing for cross-examination and can testify as to the authenticity and accuracy of the logs as referenced in PG&E's testimony.
In sum, there is no basis for further discovery or for a delay in the hearing schedule.
MFP's proposal to bifurcate the hearing would be inefficient and costly to the parties, the Licensing
- Board, and the federal government.
These hearings have been scheduled for more than a month, and all parties have made l
extensive plans and preparations in reliance on that schedule. The requests should be denied.
III.
CONCLUSION MFP's requests for further discovery regarding Board l
Notification 93-18 and for a postponement of the hearing on the i
Thermo-Lag contention (Contention V) must be denied.
PG&E agrees that this matter should be handled on an expedited basis and urges
///
///
1
///
l l
l
///
1 l,
that a conference call be scheduled to res,olve it at the Licensing Board's earliest convenience.
Respectfully submitted, k4 I
David A. Repka WINSTON & STRAWN l
1400 L Street, N.W.
Washington, D.C. 20005 (202) 371-5726 t
Christopher J. Warner Richard F.zLocke PACIFIC GAS AND ELECTRIC COMPANY 77 Beale Street San Francisco, CA 94106 Attorneys'for Pacific Gas and l
Electric Company Dated in San Francisco, CA this 12th day of August, 1993 l
. I
,y--
y--
,y,
,,m,,
.,.-ca-
...w,,-,
e---3
l UNITED STATES OF AMERICA 3
NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSION BEFORE THE ATOMIC SAFETY AND_ LICENSING BOARD m i 16 P4 il 1
In the Matter of:
)
)
Docket Nos. 50-275-OLA Pacific Gas and Electric Company
)
50-323-OLA
)
(Construction Period j
(Diablo Canyon F.ver
)
Recapture)
Plant, Units 1 and 2)
)
)
CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE I iureby certify that copies of " PACIFIC GAS AND ELECTRIC CCMPANY'S L SPONSE TO SAN LUIS OBISPO MOTHERS FOR PEACE MOTION FOR FURTHER DISCOVERY AND FOR DELAY IN HEARING ON THERMO-LAG CONTENTION" in the above-captioned proceeding have been served on the following by deposit in the United States mail, first class, er, as indicated by an asterisk
(*), by facsimile, this 12th day of August, 1993.
Charles Bechhoefer, Chairman
- Frederick J. Shon*
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*
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 20556 office of the Secretary Ann P. Hodgdon, Esq.*
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.
Atom c Safety and Licensing Edward W. O'Neill i
"eerd Panel Peter G. Fairchild l
U.a.
Nuclear Regulatory Commission California Public Utilities Wash:ngton, DC 20555 Commission 505 Van Ness Avenue San Franciscc, CA 94102 l
1
Nancy Culver, President Truman Burns California Public Utilities Board of Directors San Luis Obispo Mothers for P.eace Commission 505 Van Ness, Rm. 4103 t
P.O. Box 164 Pismo Beach, CA 93448 San Francisco, CA 94102 Robert R. Wellington, Esq.
Christopher J. Warner, Esq.*
Diablo Canyon Independent Safety Richard F. Locke, Esq.
Pacific Gas & Electric Company l
Committee 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, Rn. 4102 San Francisco, CA 94102 Mr. Gregory Minor Diane Curran
- MHB Technical Associates c/o IEER i
1723 Hamilton Ave., Suite K 6935 Laurel Avenue, Suite 204 San Jose, CA 95125 Takoma Park, MD 20912 e3 x
David A. Repka Counsel for Pacific Gas and Electric Company
)
l i
l l
i l
-v
~ -. _.
..e--
.,.n
.wn.,,