ML20141H071
| ML20141H071 | |
| Person / Time | |
|---|---|
| Site: | Diablo Canyon, San Onofre, 05000000 |
| Issue date: | 06/13/1985 |
| From: | Chandler L NRC |
| To: | Mcgurren J NRC |
| Shared Package | |
| ML20140C992 | List:
|
| References | |
| FOIA-85-653 CL, NUDOCS 8601130404 | |
| Download: ML20141H071 (2) | |
Text
~
. vy
%. gl. g*%
3 Jv' O
UNITED STATES I
NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSION 5
WASHINGTON. D. C. 20555
[ *Af
\\.....)
June 13, 1985 Note to:
Jay McGurren From:
Larry Chandler
SUBJECT:
RESPONSE TO MARKEY LETTER OF JUNE 10, 1985 In response to the letter from Congressman Markey dated June 10, 1985, I've drafted the following which should be viewed as a narrative outline for those questions for which OELD is responsible.
In addition, I've noted a few gbestions for which we have been asked to prepare responses which I think are better handled by OGC/0PE inasmuch as they call for information dealing with the Comission's deliberations to which we are not, to my knowledge, privy.
I mentioned this to Tom Rehm who assured me that the draft answers will in fact be reviewed by OGC/0PE.
I also mentioned to. Tom that IE (Shelly Schwartz and Dave Matthews were not assigned any questions although they have.been very directly involved, in fact are largely responsible for the staff position.
Please make sure that a copy of both the Markey letter and the June 10 ACRS letter are sent to IE and the matter is discussed with them. For convenience,
"~
I've used the same numbering as in the Markey letter.
1.a. The Appeal Board's conclusion that the area in which Diablo Canyon is located is one of " low to moderate seismicity" is based on testimony presented by a witness testifying on behalf of Pacific Gas and Electric Company. The NRC staff did not present testimony specifically addressing this question at the hearing.
Nevertheless, in our opinion, this statement is correct in a relative sense, that is, recognizing that the facility is located in the State of California which is an area of relatively higher seismicity than'..
other areas of the country, the Diablo Canyon site may be character-ized as one of " low to moderate seismicity" within the state.
[ Jay:
this language should be checked with Leon Reiter who prepared a response to this question a month or two ago. Also, check with him to see if the Diablo SER discusses the seismicity of the area and see if any citation to the SER would help (including any reference to any report provided by the USGS). The PG&E witness who made the quoted statement was, I believe, Dr. Stu Smith; a citation to the transcipt of his testimony should be be provided.]
5.
Although the issue was not considered in the evidentiary hearing, the Comission's conclusion regarding the existence of sufficient flexibility in the emergency plans to accomodate the complicating effects of earthquakes was reached only after considering the views e
of the parties.
In an order issued in April 1984, CLI-84-4, the Consission invited the parties to address several questions concerning this issue: whether the NRC's regulations required g
h li k 04 851125 BELL 85-653 PDR
- _. ~ _ _. _ _. _ - - _ _. -,
m 4
y ? Up' g,, [.
consideration of the matter; if not, whether special circumstances exist with respect to Diablo Canyon so as to warrant consideration of the matter; and,_if consideration is to be given to the matter, what particular elements of emergency planning should be addressed.
As a final deterinination by the Connission itself, the parties were.
not afforded an' opportunity to challenge the conclusion before the Commission, although as a final agency _ action on the issue, it was-then subject to review by the U.S. Court of App'eals.
In fact, the matter was raised before.the Court which initially affirined the Commission's determination.
Subsequently, however, the Court granted a request for a rehearing en banc on this issue; the matter is still pending before the Court.
Flexibility to accommodate a wide spectrum.of potential impediments to emergency response actions is provided by the NRC's regulations and guidance which require consideration of adverse conditions, irrespective of cause. Such matters were litigated in.the Diablo Canyon proceeding although explicit consideration of the possible effects of earthquakes was not allowed based on the
[Ja a
Connission's earlier decision in the San Onofre proceeding.
general cite to the Diablo record (see I.D. of August 31,1982)y:
might help. Also, you might take a look at the PG&E' response to CLI-84-4 filed in May 1984 which might have some record cites.]
6.
In its decision in the San Onofre proceeding, the Connission i
determined that consideration of the complicating effects of.
earthquakes on emergency planning was not required based on its 4
review of the rule as written and the record associated with the emergency planning rulemaking. [ Jay: Beyond this, OGC needs to draft the response.
You might be able to fill in some additional informationifyoulookatCLI-81-33.]
3 8.
[ Jay: Other than some language in the ED0's memo to the Cosnission dated January 13, 1984, which is attached to CLI-84-4, I'm not aware of any on-the-record support for this proposition; it wasn't litigated. 0GC/0PE should prepare the response.]
9.
[ Jay: My connent above on question 8 applies here as well although"I
' January 1984 memo.]y that the staff addressed this issue in the think it less likel I hope the-above is helpful.
I'll call to see how things are going.
- i Larry Chandler
-cc: Dave Matthews s
F
'++s bw++w