ML20155H111
| ML20155H111 | |
| Person / Time | |
|---|---|
| Site: | Diablo Canyon  |
| Issue date: | 05/09/1986 |
| From: | Mcgurren H NRC OFFICE OF THE EXECUTIVE LEGAL DIRECTOR (OELD) |
| To: | Atomic Safety and Licensing Board Panel |
| References | |
| CON-#286-109 OLA, NUDOCS 8605130273 | |
| Download: ML20155H111 (33) | |
Text
^
$\
1,
/
o Map 9,1986 g# '
^
UNITED STATES OF AMERICA VN u
. NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSION " ?
BEFORE TIIE ATOMIC SAFETY AND LICENSING BOARD J
,w\"\
In the Matter of )
)
PACIFIC G AS AND ELECTRIC ) Docket Nos. 50-275 OLA C O %!P A N Y ) 50-323 OLA
)
1 (Diablo Canyon Nuclear Power Plant )
l Units 1 and 2) )
RESPONSE OF THE NRC STAFF TO TIIE AMENDED PETITIONS FOR LEAVE TO INTERVENE FILED BY SAN LUIS OBISPO MOTilERS FOR PEACE, CONSUMERS ORG ANIZED FOR DEFENSE OF ENVIRONMENTAL SAFETY AND TIIE SIERRA CLUB
- 1. INTRODUCTION On January 13, 1986, the Nuclear Regulatory Commission published in the Federal Register (51 Fed. Reg. 1451) a notice entitled " Consi-deration of Issuance of Amendments to Facility Operating Licenses DPR-80 and DPR-82 fe Diablo Canyon Nuclear Power Plant, Units 1 and 2, Re-spectively, and Proposed No Significant IIazards Consideration Determina-tion and Opportunity for H earin g " . This related to the request by Pacific Gas and Electric Com pany (Licensee) for amendments to Facility Operating License Nos. DPR-80 and DPR-82 which would authorize the Licensee to increase the Diablo Canyon Nuclear Power Plant, Unit 1 and Unit 2, spent fuel storage capacity from 270 to 1324 storage locations for each unit. In response to this notice the San Luis Obispo Mothers for Peace (" Mothers for Peace"), Consumers Organized for Defense of Envi-ronmental Safety (CODES) and the Sierra Club, Santa Lucia Chapter (Sierra Club) filed timely petitions for leave to intervene.
8605130273 860509 PDR ADOCK 05000275 G PDR "D 30 ~/ ,
4 By Order of March 28, 1986, the Licensing Board in this proceeding scheduled a prehearing conference for May 13, 1986 and set April 29, as '-
the deadline for receipt of supplements to the intervention petitions .
Each of the petitioners timely filed supplements to their intervention peti-tions . The Staff response to each of these supplements is set forth below .
II. NRC STAFF RESPONSE A. Satisfaction of the " Interest Requirements"
- 1. Mothers for Peace in its response to the original petition to intervene, filed on behalf of the Mothers for Peace, the Staff noted that the petitioner had not shown its standing to intervene because it had neither demonstrated injury to itself from the proposed license amendments nor sufficiently identified at least one member who has standing and has authorized Moth-ers for Peace to represent his or her interests. 1/ The supplemental information filed on March 17, 1986, identifying the address of a member, Nancy Culver, within close proximity to Diablo Canyon and her author-ization of the Mothers for Peace to represent her interest in the proceed-ing rectifies these deficiencies. Accordingly, the Stsff submits that the Mothers for Peace has adequately demonstrated its stl.nding through the interest of at least one member.
-1/ Response of the NRC Staff to the Petitions for Leave to Intervene Filed by San Luis Obispo Mothers for Peace, February 27, 1986, at 6-7.
4
- 2. CODES
.In its response to the original petition to intervene filed on .
behalf of '.QODES, the Staff noted that the petitioner had not shown its
~
~
j standing to intervene because it had neither demonstrated injury to itself from the proposed license amendments nor sufficiently identified at least one member who has standing and has authorized CODES to represent his i
nj or her interests. 1 The supplemental information filed on April 26, 1986, identifying the address of a member, Laurie McDermott, within close 4
proximity to Diablo Canyon and her authorization of CODES to represent her interest in the proceeding, rectifies these deficiencies. Accordingly, the Staff submits that CODES has adequately demonstrated its standing through the interest of at least one member. '
- 3. Sierra Club In its response to the original petition to intervene filed on behalf of the Sierra Club, the Staff noted that the petitioner had not shown its standing to intervene because it had neither demonstrated inju-ry to itself from the proposed license amendments nor sufficiently identi-fied at least one member who has standing and has authorized the Sierra Club to represent his or her interests. 3/ The supplemental information filed on March 12 and April 8, 1986 identifying the address of a member, June A. vonRuden, within close proximity to Diablo Canyon and her au-thorization of the Sierra Club to represent her interest in the proceeding 2/ Response of the NRC Staff to the Petitions for Leave to Intervene Filed, by Consumers Organized for Defense of Environmental Safety and the Sierra Club, March 3,1986, at 6-7.
3/ Id. at 8.
i
- - _m -
, rectifies these deficiencies. Accordingly, the Staff submits that the Sierra Cldb has adequately demonstrated its standing through the interest of ed. least-one member.
B. Legal Standard Governing Admissibility of Contentions Only those contentions which fall within the scope of issues set forth in the Federal Register notice of opportunity for hearing and comply with the requirements of 10 C.F.R. S 2.714(b) and applicable Commission case law may be admitted for litigation in NRC licensing proceedings. See, eg., Commonwealth Edison Co. (Zion Station, Units 1 and 2), ALAH-616, 12 NRC 419, 426 (19S0); Vermont Yankee Nuclear Power Corp. (Vermont Yankee Nuclear Pow er Station) , ALAB-245, 8 AEC 873, 875 (1974);
} Philadelphia Electric Co. (Peach Bottom Atomic Power Station , Units 2 and 3), AL A B-216, 8 AEC 13, 20 (1974); Commonwealth Edison Co.
(Byron Station, Units 1 and 2), LBP-80-30,12 NRC 683, 689 (1980). See also Portland General Electric Co. (Trojan Nuclear Plant), ALAB-534, 9 NRC 287, 289 n.6 (1979).
Pursuant to 10 C.F.R. 5 2.714(b), a petitioner is required to file "a list of contentions which petitioner seeks to have litigated in the matter, 3
and the bases for each contention set forth with reasonable specificity."
A petitioner who fails to file at least one contention which satisfies the requirements of S 2.714(b) will not be permitted to participate as a party.
A proffered contention must be rejected where:
(1) it constitutes an attack on applicable statutory requirements ;
(2) it challenges the basic structure of the Commission's regulatory process or is an attack on the regulations ;
(3) it is nothing more than a generalization regarding the Petitioner's view of what applicable policies ought to be; i
e , ,- - - -, - , .- - . - - , - . . , -
g 1
4 (4) it seeks to raise an issue which is not proper for adjudi-cation in the proceeding or does not apply to the facility .
.in question ; or .
(5) It ' seeks to raise an issue which is not concrete or fitigable. ,
Peach Dotton, supra, 8 AEC at 20-21. The purpose of the basis require-ment of 10 C.F.R. S 2.714(b) is: (a) to assure that the matter sought to be put into question dcms not suffer from any of the infirmities listed above; (b) to establish sufficient foundation to warrant further inquiry into the subject matter; and (c) to put the other parties sufficiently on notice "so that they will know at least generally what they will have to defend against or oppose." Id. at 20.
At the early stages of a proceeding, petitioners need to identify only the reasons "(i.e., the basis)" for each contention. Houston Lighting and Power Co. ( Allens Creek Nuclear Generating Station , Unit 1),
ALAB-590,11 NRC 542, 548 (1980). The basis stated for each contention need not " detail the evidence which will be offered in support of each contention. " Mississippi Power & Light Co. (Grand Gulf Nuclear Station, Units 1 and 2), ALAB-130, 6 AEC 423, 426 (1973). ' Accordingly, in ex-amining contentions and the bases therefor to determine admissibility, a liconsing board may not reach the merits of contentions. Id. ; Peach Bot-tom, supra , 8 AEC at 20. Nevertheless, the basis for contentions must be sufficiently detailed and specific: (a) to demonstrate that the issues raised are admissible and further inquiry into the matter is warranted ;
and (b) to put the parties on notice as to what they will have to defend against or. oppose. This is particularly important where, as here, a hearing is' not mandatory, in order to assure that an asserted contention raises an issue which clearly is open to adjudication. Cincinnati Gas
L Electric Co. (William II. Zimmer Nuclear Power Station), ALAB-305, 3 NIiG 8, 12 (1976); Gulf States Utilities Co. (River Bend Station, Units l' ,
and 2), ALAB-183, 7 AEC 222, 226 (1974).
~
In ad'dition, a board is not authorized "to admit conditionally for any reason, a contention that falls short of meeting the specificity require-m en t s . ." Duke Power Co. (Catawba Nuclear Station , Units 1 and 2),
ALAB-687, 16 NRC 460, 466 (1982), modified on other grounds, CLI-83-19,17 NRC 1040 (1983). The NRC's Rules of Practice do not per-mit "th e filing of a vague, unparticularized contention , followed by an endeavor to flesh it out through discovery against the application or staff." Id,., at 468.
Finally, a licensing board has no duty to recast _ contentions offered by a petitioner to remedy the infirmities of the type described in Peach B ottom , supra, in order to make inadmissible contentions meet the re-quirements of 10 C.F.R. 5 2.714. Commonwealth Edison Co. (Zion Sta-tion, Units 1 and 2), ALAB-226, 8 AEC 381, 40G (1974). Should a board nevertheless elect to rewrite a petitioner's inadmissible contentions so as to eliminate the infirmities which render the contentions inadmissible, the scope of the reworded contentions may be made no broader than the bases that - were previously provided by the petitioner for the inadmissible con-tentions . Cleveland Electric illuminating Co. (Perry Nuclear Power Plant, Units 1 and 2), ALAB-675,15 NRC 1105,1114-16 (1980).
- 1. Conterttions Proposed by Mothers for Peace Contention 1 - The Applicant has not adequately consid-
-cred alternatives to the proposed reracking of the spent
, fuel pools. In particular, because of the increased dan-ger posed by the close proximity of the llosgr! fault, alternatives should be considered. Some alternatives include :
_7_
- a. The contracting out of trans-shipirent of spent fuel for storage at a government owned spent fuel facility;
'_. b. Derating the facility or reducing the plant out-put and thereby reducing the generation of spent "
f uel.
N g c. Closing or shutting down the facilities.
Staff Response In this contention. Mothers for Peace asserts that alternatives ,
have not been adequately considered to the proposed reracking scheme.
Mothers for Peace specifies three alternatives that should be . considered based on their assertion of the " increased danger posed by the close proximity of the dosgri fault".
The Staff does not oppose the admission of this contention pro-vided the contention is limited to the basis and particulars, alternatives a.\ through and including c. As limited, the Staff believes the contention raisbs an issue within the scope of the proceeding, is adequately specific,
\
and ik supported by minimally sufficient basis.
\
Contention 2 - The Applicant failed to evaluate the over-all cost (in terms of both health effects and potential associated medical costs) associated with the additional exposures of the plant personnel to increased radioactiv-ity levels due to the increased spent fuel storage.
\
\
Staff Response
\
In this contention Mothers for Peace asserts a failure to consid-
\
er in the environmental analysis, the health effects and potential associat-ed medical costs associated with the additional exposures of plant personnel due to increased radioactb-ity resulting from the increased stor-1 age capaci,ty.
The Staff does not oppose the admission of this contention pro-vided it is limited to consideration of the health effects and potential
_g.
associated medical costs due to the increased storage capacity of the reracked fuel pools under normal operating conditions. .
Ms ~ limited, the Staff believes the contention raises an ' issue
~
within the scope of the proceeding, is adequately specific, and is sup-ported by a minimally sufficient basis.
Contention 3 - No analysis has been made of the overall costs (in terms of both health effects and potential asso-ciated medical costs associsted with the additional expo-sures of persons off the Diablo Canyon site to increased radioactivity levels due to the increased spent fuel storage.
Staff Response In this contention Mothers for Peace asserts a failure to consid-er in the environmental analysis the health effects and associated medical g
costs to persons off-site resulting from the increased storage capacity due to the reracking proposal.
The Staff does not oppose the admission of this contention pro-vided it is limited to consideration of such health and medical costs due to the increased storage capacity of the reracked fuel pools under normal operating conditions.
As limited, the Staff believes this contention raises an issue within the scope of the proceeding, is adequately specific, and is sup-ported by a minimally sufficient basis.
Contention 4 - The expansion of the spent fuel storage capacity will have a significant effect on the quality of the human environment and therefore requires the prep-aration of an Environmental Impact Statement.
Staff Response The Mothers for Peace has not stated any basis for this conten-tion . Accordingly, it fails to meet the basis and specificity requirements of 10 C.F.R. 5 2.714 and should, therefore, be rejected.
Contention _5 - Applicant's proposal does not ensure that spent fuel pool conditions will be maintained within regu-latory or design limits in the event of a Class 9 accident s
,or other extreme accident in the main reactor. The Ap-plicant has not shown that in such cases the electrical systeins , cool!ng systems and plant personnel will func- ,,
tion sufficient'y well to ensure continued safe operation of the spent fuel pools.
Str.ff Response In this contentior: Mothers for Peace asserts that that the Ap-plicant's proposal does not ensure that spent fuel conditions will be main-tained in the event of a Claso 9 accident and that the Applicant has not shown that the electrical systems, cooling systems and plant personnel will function sufficiently well to ensure continued safe operation of the fuel pool in the event of such Class 9 accident.
This contention must be rejected for failure to identify the req-uisite basis. There is no identification of the Class 9 accident Mothers for Peace is asserting will occur nor has there been any identification of how such accident is likely to occur. Absent such basis the parties could not be given sufficient notice "so that they will know at least generally what they will have to defend against or oppose." Peach Bottom, supra, at 20.
Moreover, in the Commissioner's " Policy Statement on Severe
! Reactor Accidents Regarding Future Designs and Existing Plants (50 Fed.
Reg. 32138, August 8,1985), the Commission stated at 32,144:
Operating nuclear power plants require no further regu-latory action to deal with severe accident issues unless significant new safety information arises to question whether there is adequate assurance of no undue risk to public health and safety.
4 J
N x.
The Mothers for Peace has not asserted any "significant new safety information" that would affect Diablo Canyon facility let along the s spent fuel'_po' o l reracking which is the subject of this proceeding.
The Commission further stated at 32,144-45:
Individual licensing proceedings are not appropriate fo-rums for a broad examination of the Commission's regula-tory policies relating to evaluation, control and mitigation of eccidents more severe than the design basis (Class 9) . The Commission has announced a policy re-garding Class 9 environmental reviews and hearings in its Statement of Interim Policy on " Nuclear Power Plant Accident Considerations Under the National Environmental Policy Act of 1969" (45 FR 40101, June 13, 1980), and expects to continue this policy. The environmental is-sues deal essentially with the estimation and description of the risk of severe accidents. The Commission be-lieves that considerations which go beyond that to the possible need for safety measures to control or mitigate severe accidents in addition to those required for con-formance with the Commission's safety regulations or conformance with the Clarification of TM1 Action Plan Requirements , should not be addressed in case-related safety hearings.
For these reasons, Contention 5 should be rejected.
Contention 6 - The application for reracking is prema-ture' in that no need for the immediate expansion has been shown. Applicant will have no need for the in-crensed storage capacity for the next 4 years.
Staff Response This contention must be rejected for failure to specify the req-1 uisite basis. The premise of the contention is that not only must there be a need for the proposed reracking but that such need must be an im-mediate need. Ilowever, Mothers for Peace cites no authority for this proposition. The Appeal Board has indicated that the incremental impact of a proposed action, not need, is the principal issue in amendment pro-ceedings. The Appeal Board has stated with respect to amendment pro-ceedings that under the National Environmental Policy Act (NEPA) " . ..
l I
all that need be undertaken is consideratin of whether the amendment itself would bring about significant environmental consequences beyond s those preklously assessed and, if so, whether those consequences (to' the
~
extent unavoidable) would be sufficient on balance to require a denial of the amendment application." See Northern States Power Co. (Prairic Is-land Nuclear Generating Plant, Units 1 and 2), ALAB-455, 7 NRC 41, 46 n.4 (1978), and see Portland General Electric Co. (Trojan Nuclear Plant),
ALAB-531, 9 NRC 263, 266 n.6 (1979).
The Appeal Board added that the inquiry concerning incremen-tal impacts is the principal issue even if " . . . by happenstance, the particular amendment is necessary in order to enable continued reactor operation (although such a factor might be considered in balancing the environmental impact flowing from the amendment against the benefits to be derived from it)". Id. Accordingly, Contention 6 must be rejected.
Contention 7 - The NRC has ordered PG &E to conduct a long-term seismic program and submit the results of the study to the Commission by 1988. In view of the fact that the study is still in the early planning stages, any seismic analyses done on the spent fuel pools as well as on the racks are inadequate. It also makes consideration of reracking premature, and woefully inadequate.
Staff Response The essence of Mothers for Peace Contention 7 is that the rcracking proposal is " premature" and " inadequate" in light of the or-dered long-term seismic evaluation of the site to be completed by 1988.
The premise of this contention is that the seismic design of the Diablo Canyon Facility is inadequate. This is not the case. The seismic design of the Diablo Canyon facility was found adequate by the Appeal Board, Pacific Gas and Electric Co. (Diablo Canyon Nuclear Power Plant, Units I and 2), ALAB-644, 13 NRC 903, 966 (1981); the Commission declined to
review ALAB-644 rendering the Appeal Board's decision final on March 18,,1982 (letter from S. J. Chilk of the NRC to the parties, dated s 1-March 18,'_1982) . Further the Commission has stated that the information
~
being evaluated in connection with the long-term seismic reevaluation pro-gram does not have an immediate effect on the current operation of the facility. See Pacific Gas and Electric Co. (Diablo Canyon Nuclear Power Plant, Units 1 and 2), CL!-84-5, 19 NRC 953, 961-2 (1984); see also Pacific Gas and Electric Co. (Diablo Canyon _ Nuclear Power Plant, Units 1 and 2), CL1-84-12, 20 NRC, 249, 251 n.3 (1984); and see CL1-84-13, 20 NRC 26", 276 (1984). The seismic design basis of the Diablo Canyon facility is, therefore appropriate for the proposed reracking. According-ly, Contention 7 is without any basis and, therefore, should be rejected.
i Contention 8 - The Applicant has not adequately consid-J ered or analyzed the long term health, safety and envi-ronmental effects of the proposed re-racking with respect to such periods of time over which the spent fuel pool is likely to be used beyond the expiration of Applicant's operating license.
Staff Response i
This contention raises an issue for litigation (the health and safety impacts of storage of spent fuel beyond plant operation) that has been addressed by the Commission in its Waste Confidence Rulemaking in which the Commission concluded:
i
- 1. The Commission finds reasonable assurance that safe disposal of high-level radioactive waste and spent fuel in a mined geologic repository is technically feasible.
- 2. The Commission finds reasonable assurance that one or more mined geologic repositories for commercial high-level radioactive waste and spent fuel will be available
,by the years 2007-09, and that sufficient repository ca-pacity will be available within 30 years beyond expiration of any reactor operating license to dispose of existing commercial high-level radioactive waste and spent fuel 1
originating in such reactor and generated up to that time.
,3 . .The Commission finds reasonable assurance that high-level radioactive waste and spent fuel will be managed in a safe manner until sufficient repository capa- ,
city is available to assure the safe disposal of all high-level radioactive waste and spent fuel.
- 4. The Commission finds reasonable assurance that, if necessary, spent fuel generated in any reactor can be stored safely and without significant environmental im-pacts for at least 30 years beyond the expiration of that
~ reactor's operating license at that reactor's spent fuel storage basin, or at either onsite or offsite independent spent fuel storage installations.
- 5. The Commission finds reasonable assurance that safe independent onsite or offsite spent fuel storage will be made available if such storage capacity is needed. lem-phasis added]
Rulemaking on the Storage and Disposal of Nuclear Waste (Waste Confidence Rulemakin g) , CL1-84-15, 20 NRC 288, 293 (1984). Since Contention 8 seeks to raise an issue (impacts of long term storage of spent fuel) which the Commission has addressed in a rulemaking proceeding (concluding such storage to be safe and without significant environmental impact) it is not proper for adjudication in the instant proceeding. See Peach Bottom, supra, at 20-21. Accordingly, Contention 8 should be rejected.
Contention 9 - The Applicant has not shown that people could safely be evacuated in the event of a simultaneous earthquake and accident at Diablo Canyon's spent fuel pools . Current evacuation times are inadequate to pre-serve the health and safety given the increased quantity of radiation that would occur with a spent fuel pool stor-age expansion.
Staff Response In this contention Mothers for Peace raises the issue of compli-cating effects of earthquakes in the context of adequacy of emergency planning. Mothers for Peace attempts to fit this issue within the scope of
! the instant proceeding by asserting that the evacuation time would not be
adequate "given the increased quantity of radiation that would occur with a spent fuel- pool storage expansion." '
Ihe Commission has ruled that the NRC regulations "do not require consideration of the impacts on emergency planning of earth-quakes which cause or occur during an accidential radiological release."
' Diablo Canyon, CLI-84-12, supra, at 250 (quoting Southern California Edison Co. (San Onofre Nuclear Generating Station , Units 2 and 3),
CL1-81-33,14 MRC 1091, at 1091). This Commission decision was affirmed by the Court of Appeals. San Luis Obispo Mothers for Peace v. NRC.
751 F.2d 1287 (D.C. Cir. 1984) , vacated in part and rehearing en banc granted , 760 F.2d 1320, affirmed en bane. No. 84-1410, slip op. at 5 (D.C. Cir. Aprn 25, 1986).
In light of the fact that the Commission has previously rejected the issue of complicating effects of earthquakes on planned emergency responses and has determined that the Commission's regulations uo not require such considerations, Contention 9 must be rejected.
Contention 10 - The Applicant has not analyzed nor con-sidered the consequences of an accidental impact fmm an aborted, misfired, misguided or exploded missile aunched from the Vandenberg missile range. Vandenberg is a major launch facility for the U.S. Air Force, and soon will become a prime launching facility for NASA. Acci-dental explosions have been occurring with increased frequency.
Staff Response This contention fails to meet the basis and specificity require-monts of 10 C.F.R. 5 2.714 and must, therefore, be rejected. As phrased the contention has no relationship to the expansion of the spent fuel pools, the only issue before this Board . Rather, this contention
appears to relate to the initial siting of the facility which is a matter long since resolved and not before this Board.
Contention 11 - In light of increased terrorist activities, the Applicant has not adequately analyzed nor considered ,
the consequences of sabotage of the spent fuel facilities.
The possibility of increased harm due to sabotage of the spent fuel pools will necessitate increased security mea-sures over and above current forces.
Staff Response There is insufficient basis to meet the requirement of 10 C.F.R.
S 2.714 since there is no basis stated for the proposition that the present security plan is inadequate. It should be noted that the issue of the adequacy of PG &E's security measures was previously litigated and re-solved . See Pacific Gas and Electric Co. (Diablo Canyon Nuclear Power Plant, Units 1 and 2), ALAB-653,14 NRC 629, 630 (1981).
- 2. Contentions Proposed by CODES Contention 1 - Adequate consideration has not been giv-en to alternatives to reracking the spent fuel ponds at Diablo Canyon. Under the N aclear Waste Policy Act of 1982, Public Law 97-425, January 7, 1983, the Federal Government has the responsibility to provide it.terim storage of spent nuclear fuel for civilian nuclear power reactors that cannot reasonably provide adequate storage capacity at the sites of such reactors when needed to assure the continued, orderly operation of such reactors (emph , added) . PG LE and its wholly owned subsidiary, Pacific Energy Trust (P.E.T.) have a contract with the Department of Energy for storage of high level radioac-tive waste at this time.
Staff Response The basis stated for this broad assertion is a reference to the Nuclear Waste Policy Act of 1982 stating that under this Act "the Federal Government has ine responsibility to provide interim storage of spent fuel for civilian nuclear power reactors that cannot reasonably provide ade-quate storage . capacity at the sites of such reactors when needed to 1
assure the continued, orderly operation of such reactors" [ emphasis sup-plied by CODES]. .
This basis does not support CODES' assertion. The language
~
of the Waste Policy Act cited by CODES in fact makes it clear that the Federal Government's interim storage option is only triggered where the reactor "cannot reasonably provide adequate storage capacity." The Nu-clear Waste Policy Act of 1982, in S 111(a)(5), explicitly makes utilities primcrily responsible for interim storage of spent nuclear fuel until a Federal repository is available. The Act provides for limited Federal in-terim storage for utilitics, but only if requested by the utility and only if a determination is made that the utility is unable to provide its own stor-age through the use of spent fuel storage alternatives such as expansion of existing storage facilities by reracking . 10 C.F.R. S 53.13(c)(1).
Part 53 makes clear that before such a determination can be made, a utili-ty must demonstrate to NRC that it has " diligently" pursued the spent fuel storage alternatives including expansion of an existing fuel pool by the use of high-density fuel storage racks the action proposed here by PG &E. See 10 C.F.R. SS 53.13(c)(1) and 53.27(a). In short, the asserted basis does not support the contention. Accordingly, this contention should be rejected.
I l Contention 2 - It is unreasonable and premature to con-sider the spent fuel pool's seismic design, as modified by the proposal; adequate when the long term seismic pro-gram (a licensing condition) is to be completed in 1988, l 2 years from now.
l Staff Response See Staff's response to Mothers for Peace Contention 7, supra, i Contention 3 - By ordering the long term scismic pro-gram study, the Commission has indicated that there are L
unanswered questions and possible seismic hazards that must be investigated.
Staff Response -
This ' contention must be rejected for the reasons stated above
~
regarding Contention 2.
Contention 4 - No site in California is being considered for a permanent waste repository for high-level radioac-tive waste partly because of the seismic conditions. It is unreasonable to extend the storage capacity of spent fuel pools for the same reasons.
Staff Response The basis, above, that no site in California is being considered for a permanent waste repository for high-level radioactive waste does not support CODES assertion that "[ilt is unreasonable to extend the storage capacity" at the Diablo Canyon Facility. As noted above in response to Contention 2, . the Cotamission has approved the seismic design basis for the Diablo Canyon Facility. Further, CODES has failed to explain how, if at all, any decision regarding the selection of permanent high-level waste repositories bears any relationship to the Commission's decision on the proposed reracking of the spent fuel pool at the Diablo Canyon Facility.
Accordingly, this contention must be rejected.
- Contention 5 - The additional spent fuel rods in the reracked spent fuel pools would increase radioactive con-tamination in an accident involving the fuel pools.
St ff Response There is no basis stated for this contention and it is so broad
! that it seeks to raise an issue that is not concrete or litigable. See j
Peach Bottom, supra , 8 AEC at 20-21. Without knowing what kind of accident, "the basis for such accident, and basis for increased radioactivi-ty the parties would not be given sufficient notice "so that they will know
at least generally what they will have to defend against or oppose." Id.
at 20.- Aecordingly, this contention does not satisfy the basis and speci- .
ficity reiuir'ements t of 10 C.F.R. S 2.714 and must, therefore, be
~
rejected .
Contention 6 - Human error and its possible consequenc-es in the operation of the reracked spent fuel pools have not been adequately considered.
Staff Response There is no basis stated for this contention. Further, it is so broadly stated that it does not present a litigable issue. See Peach Bottom, supra, 8 AEC at 20-21. Absent the requisite basis and specificity regarding "[hluman error and its possible consequences" the parties would not be given sufficient notice "so that they will know at least generally what they wii. have to defend against or oppose." Id.
at 20. Accordingly, this conter tion does not satisfy the basis and speci-ficity requirements of 10 C.F.R. S 2.714 and must, therefore, be .
rejected.
Contention 7 - Inadequate and/or faulty procedures com-bined with operator and technician errors has not been adequately considered.
j Staff Response 4
l There is no basis asserted for this contention and absent the requisite specificity regarding inadequate and/or faulty procedures" and I
" operator and technician errors." The parties would not have sufficient l notice to litigate this contention. See Peach Bottom, supra, at 20. Ac-l cordingly, this contention does not satisfy the basis and specificity re-t quirementy of 10 C.F.R. S 2.714 and must, therefore, he rejected.
u__ _ __.._ _ _ _ _ _ _____ . _ . _ - _ . _ ._- . _ ._
Contention 8 - The adequacy of procedures, technical specifications, administrative controls and their imple-eentation - and training has not been considered .
, adequately. - -
l 5'taff Response ,
There is no basis asserted for this contention and absent the requisite specificity regardini; " procedures , technical specifications, ad-ministrative -controls and their implementation and training" the parties would not have sufficient notice to litigate this contention . See Peach Bottom, supra, at 20. Accordingly, this contention does not satis-fy the basis and specificity requirements of 10 C.F.R. S 2.714 and must, therefore, be rejected.
Contention 9 - The possibility of faulty reasoning and inappropriate deviation from procedures during an emer-gency or accident has not been adequately considered.
Staff Response There is no basis asserted for this contention and absent the requisite specificity regarding " faulty reasoning and inappropriate devia-
. tion from procedures" the parties would not have sufficient notice to liti-gate this contention. See Peach Bottom, supra, at 20. Accordingly, .this contention does not satisfy the basis and specificity requirements of 10 C.F.R. S 2.714 and must, therefore, be rejected.
Contention 10 - The consequences of poor communications between site personnel and NRC personnel contributing to the severity of an emergency or accident involving
! the reracked spent fuel pools has not been given ade-quate consideration, j Staff Response j There is no basis asserted for this contention and absent the I
requisite specificity regarding " consequences of poor communications be-tween site personnel and NRC personnel" and " emergency or accident l
. . _ - _ _ _ _ _ . _ - _ . _ - - . _ - _ _ _ _ . _ - _ _ _ . . - _ _ . . _ . ._ _ _ . , _ . - - . - - ~ _ _ - - - - -
q r-involving the reracked spent fuel pools". The parties would not have sufficient -notice to litigate this contention. See Peach Bottom, supra, -
at 20. Akcor'dingly, this' contention does not satisfy the basis and speci-
~
ficity requirements of 10 C .F.R . 6 2.714 and must, therefore, be rejected .
Contention 11 - Adequate consideration of the loss of spent fuel cooling has not been considered for the rcracked fuel pools.
Staff Response This contention must be rejected since there is no basis stated i
to support it. There is no indication of the cause of the loss of fuel pool
- coolant. Further, the contention is so broadly stated that the parties i would not have sufficient notice to "know at least generally what they will have to defend against or oppose." See Peach Bottom, supra , at 20.
Accordingly, this contention does not satisfy the basis and specificity requirements of 10 C.F.R. S 2.714 and must, therefore, be rejected .
Contention 12 - The lack of resolution and action on critical issues being investigated by the Office of Inves-tigation (01) and Office of Inspection and Auditer I (OIA), issues which are directly related to the SignHi-
! cant Hazard Issue of the fuel pools reracking application l
have not been given any consideration.
i Staff Response Contention 12 must be rejected since it lacks the requisite
~
10 C.F.R. S 2.714 basis and is so vague that the parties would not be put on notice "so that they will know at lease generally whti they will have to defend against or oppose." See Peach Dottom, supra , at 20.
These deficiencies are not cured by the assertion (even if true) that cer-tain issues being investigated by OIA or 01 "are directly related to the Significant Hazards Issue." The issue before the Licensing Board is L
whether there is reasonable assurance of adequate protection of the public health and safety by operation of the facilities ~with the expanded storage s capacity o'L the spent fuel pool, not whether or not there are significant i _
~
hazards considerations. The latter issue is irrelevant in this proceeding since its only purpose is to determine the timing of the hearing (before 1, or after the issuance of the amendment). See, Standards for Determining Whether License Amendments Involve No Significant Hazards Considera-I tions, 48 Fed. Reg. 14,864,14,865 ( April 6,1983); Notice and State Con-c sultation , 48 Fed. Reg. 14.873, 14,876 (April 6, 1983). As the Commission stated in the " Final Procedures and Standards of No Signifi-
! cant llazards Considerations" (51 Fed. Reg. 7744, 7746 (March 6, -1986),
i [i}n short, the no "significant hazards consideration" standard is a procedural standard which governs whether an' opportunity for a prior hearing must be pro-vided before action is taken by the Commission . . .
t Furthermore, CODES has failed to show any relationship between those matters which may be under consideration by OI and OIA and the spent ,
i fuel pool amendment being requested by PG LE.
Contention 13- The views of the population surrounding ^
Diablo Canyon Nuclear Power Plant concerning the stor-age of high level radioactive waste have not been consid-
'. cred. This is inconsistent with and repugnant to the l Nuclear Waste Policy Act of 1982.
1 Staff Response There is absolutely no explanation how this assertion relates in l any way to the proposed action. Accordingly, since CODES has failed to l demonstrate hot this contention falls within the scope of the proceeding, it must be rejected. See Zion ALAB-616, supra, at 426.
j Contention 14 - The uncertainties as to how long high level radioactive waste would be stored at the proposed Diablo Canyon facility, neutron embrittlement and other i metallurgical deterioration and environmental stresses to i
l i
-, ., - - . , - -, , , . . . . . . , , - - . . , . , , - - - , . . , - - - - . , , - , - . . . . - - - - , , . . . - - . ~ . . -.-, - - -
the structural integrity of the spent fuel ponds have not been adequately analyzed and determined.
Staff Response l'n this contention, CODES asserts that the effects of neutron ,
embrittlement and c .tr metallurgical deterioration and environmental stresses to the " structural integrity of the spent fuel ponds" have not been adequately analyzed. As a basis for the contention, CODES cites the length of time of storage of the radioactive waste in the fuel pool.
The Staff does not oppose the admission of Contention 14 pro-vided the length of storage period considered by the scope of this con-tention, is not longer than the storage period authorized by the amendments (the Diablo Canyon Unit 2 operating license will expire December 9, 2010) and the contention la limited to the basis offered.
This includes the assumption that CODES' concern with " structural integ-rity of the spent fuel ponds" is with the pool liner and racks. As limit-ed, the contention raises an issue within the scope of the proceeding, is adec,untely specific and is supported by a minimally sufficient basis.
Contention 15 - The Applicant has not demonstrated the existence nor implementation of a detailed quality assur-ance program which would effectively detect and prevent defective work by contractors and vendors involved with the proposed spent fuel pool reracking.
Staff Response l
The petitioner's basis is not correct. The Applicant has ad-dressed the subject of its quality assurance program in Section 10 of its Report entitled "Reracking of Spent Fuel Pools, Diablo Canyon, Units 1 and 2, Pacific Gas and Electric Co.", dated September 19, 1985. In view of the for'egoing, this contention must be rejected since it lacks the req-uisite basis and specificity.
Contention 16 - The contentions submitted above do meet the three standards (Fed. Reg. Vol. 51, No. 44,
-Thurs., March 6,1986, Rules and Regulations, p. 7754) ~
,for. a Significant Hazards Determination on the spent fuel - -
pool reracking at Diablo Canyon Nuclear Power Plant.
Staff Response This statement is not a contention but rather an assertion by CODES that the contentions above do not meet the three Commission stan-dards concerning significant hazards findings set forth in the Federal Register Notice (51 Fed. Reg. 7744, at 7754). The Staff has not ad-dressed the question of significant hazards considerations in response to any of the contentions above because the legal standard for admissibility of contentions is based on the scope of the proceeding and the basis and specificity requirements of 10 C.F.R. S 2.714(b), discussed in llB above.
Further, as noted in response to Contention 12, above, the issue before the Licensing Board in this proceeding is whether there is reasonable assurance of adequate protection of the public health and safety by oper-ation of the facilities with the expanded spent fuel pool storage capacity, not whether or not there are significant hazards considerations. The latter issue is irrelevant in this proceeding since its only purpose is to determine the timing of the hearing vis a vis the issuance of the amendment.
[ ,
- 3. Contentions Proposed by the Sierra Club Contention 1( A) - It is the contention of the Sierra Club, San Lucia Chapter, (Sierra Club) that the report submitted to the Nuclear Regulatory Commission (NRC) entitled Reracking of Spent Fuel Pools Diablo Canyon i Units 1 and 2 and other communications between Pacific i Gas and Electric Company (PG &E) and the NRC which pre available to the public on the same subject (the Re-ports) fall to contain certain relevant data necessary for l independent verification of the claims made in the Re-l ports regarding consistency of the proposed reracking I
l l
l b
with the protection of the public health and safety, and the environment.
In particular, the Reports fail to contain data regarding: -
~
(1) the mass of a spent fuel assembly and masses ,
of the loaded spent fuel racks (racks);
(2) the spring constants used for the nonlinear springs (gap elements) to model the behavior of the racks (see e.g., p. 6-10ff of the Report);
(3) the expected velocity and displacement of the spent fuel pools (pools) as a function of time in three dimensions during the postulated Hosgri earthquake (PIIE);
(4) the expected maximun velocity and displace-ment of the racks obtained from the computer mod-elling of rack behavior during the PliE; (5) the kinetic coefficients of friction appropriate for estimating the frictional forces between the pool floor liner and the racks when sliding of the racks occurs; and (6) the dimensions and configuration of rack "11".
Additional data may be needed to verify claims made in the Reports.
Staff Response
/ In this contention, the Sierra Club asserts that absent the in-formation from PG LE set forth in items (1) through (6), the NRC will not be able to conduct its independent verification of the reracking proposal.
The Staff does not oppose the admission of this contention pro-vided the contention is limited to the bases and particulars offered, Items 1 through and including 6. As limited, the Staff believes the con-tention raises art issue within the scope of the proceeding, is adequately specific, and is supported by a minimally sufficient basis.
" Contention 1(B) - it is the contention of the Sierra Club that the Reports fail to include consideration of certain relevant conditions , phenomena and alternatives neces-sary for independent verification of claims made in the
Reports regarding consistency of the proposed reracking with public health and safety, and the environment, and
.with federal law. -
"lp 'particular, the Reports fail to consider:
~
(1) collisions between racks and pool walls and collisions of various types involving groups of racks sliding in contact. with each other during the PHE; (2) the resonant behavior of the spent fuel assem-blies in the racks in response to the PIIE and the consequences of such behavior; (3) the effects of the possible loss of pool cooling capacity on the spent fuel assemblies; (4) the statistical nature of potential failure of the large number of spent fuel storage system compo-nents during the PIIE; (5) the consequences of possible failure of welds, materials, or structural elements of spent fuel stor-age system components during the Pile; (6) the comparison of the proposed spent fuel storage system with other such systems at other reactor sites having less severe seismic design criteria ;
(7) alternative on-site storage facilities including:
(i) construction of new or additional storage facilities and/or:
(ii) acquisition of modular or mobile spent nuclear fuel storage equipment, including spent nuclear fuel storage casks; (8) the use of anchors, braces, or other structur-al members to prevent rack motion and subsequent damage during the PIIE; (9) the use of "boraflex" neutron absorbing mate-rial for all spent fuel racks; and (10) the structural integrity of the pool following collisions of the racks with the pool walls as de-
, scribed in (1)(B)(1) above.
Additional information may be needed to verify claims made in the reports.
t t Staff Resp'onse In this cont nilon, the Sierra Club asserts that alisent PG&E -
~
consideration'in its report of certain conditions, phenomena and alterna-
~
tives the NRC staff will not be able to adequately conduct its independent
-i verification .
The Staff does not oppose the admission of this contention ,with respect to item 1 (collisions between racks and pool walls, and between groups of racks during the postulated IIosgrf earthquake). Item 2 (the resonant behavior of the assemblies in the racks in response to the pody tulated Ilosgri carthquake), Item 5 (the consequences of possible failure of welds, mateEihls, or structural elements of the spent fuel storage sys-1 tem components dtIring the postulated llosgri earthquakes), item 8 (use of anchors, braces, or other structural members to prevent rack motion and subsequent damage during the postulated IIosgel earthquake), Item 9 (use of boroflex for all spent fuel racks), and Item 10 (the structural integrity of the poor itself following collisions of the racks with the pool walls).
As limited, the Staff believes the contention raises issues within the scope of the proceeding, is adequately specific, and is supported by a minimally sufficient basis.
The Staff believes that the Sierra Club has failed to state suffi-cient basis and specificity with regard to item 3 (the effects of the possi-ble loss of pool cooling capacity on the assemblies), since it has failed to indicate any basis for such a loss of cooling capacity; Item 4 (statistical nature of potential fhilure of a large number of spent storage system com-ponents d,uring a postulated flo'sgri earthquake), since this item is so vague the parties would not be\ given sufficient notice "so that will know at least generally what they will have to defend against or oppose" (See
Peach Bottom, supra, at 20); and Item 6 (comparison of the proposed spent fuel storage _ system with other such systems at other reactors hav- ~
ing less siye're seismic design criteria), since the Sierra Club has not set
~
i forth the requisite basis or specificity indicating how such consideration is necessary to the Staff's independent verification.
Finally, with respect to Item 7, th'c Staff believes that Sierra Club raises a separate environmen'tal issue, i.e., that there has been or will be a failure to consider (in compliance with the National Environmen-tal Policy Act) the on-site storage alternatives of:
(i) construction of new or additional storage facilities and/or; i
(ii) acquisition of modular or mobile spent nuclear fuel 1 storage equipment, including spent nuclear fuel storage casks.
As characteri::cd above the Staff believes that Contention I(B)(7) raises an issue within the scope of the proceeding, is adequately specific, and is supported by a minimally sufficient basis.
Contention II( A) and (B) - It is the contention of the Sierra Club that the proposed reracking is inconsistent with the protection of the public health and safety, and the environment, for reasons which include the following :
(A) during the PIIE, collisions between the racks and the pool walls are expected to occur resulting in:
(1) impact forces on the racks significantly larger than those estimated in the reports; (2) impact forces on the racks significantly larger than those expected to damage the racks; (3) significant permanent deformation and other damage to the racks:
(4) reduction of the spacings between fuel assemblies :
y (5) increase in the nuclear criticality coefficient k(eff) above 0.95;
, ~.
(6) release of large quantities of heat and radiation; (7) radioactive contamination of the nuclear power
'" plant and its employee above the levels permitted
, , ., by federal regulations; (8) radioactive contamination of the environment in the vicinity of the nuclear power plant above the levels permitted by federal regulations; and (9) radioactive contamination of humans and other living things in the vicinity of the nuclear power plant above the levels permitted by federal regulations.
(B) during the PIIE, collisions between groups of racks with each other and/or with the pool walls are expected to occur with results similar to those described in II( A) above.
Staff Response In this contention tho; Sierra Club a,sserts that during the pos-tulated llosgri earthquake (1) collisions will occur between the racks or groups of racks and pool walls and (2) collisions will occur between groups of racks with each other resulting in: ,
(a) increase in the nuclear criticality coefficient K(eff) above 0.95; (b) release of large quantities of heat and radiation ;
(c) radioactive contamination of the nuclear power plant and its employees above the levels permitted by federal regulations; (d) radioactive contamination of the environment in the vicinity of the nuclear power plant above the levels permitted by federal regulations; and l ,
(e) radioactive contamination of humans and other livinr things in the vicinity of the nuclear power plan' above the levels permitted by federal regilations.
l l
l l
l
As basis the Sierra Club asserts in items 1 through 5 at page 3 of their list of contentions that the impact forces on the racks are larger s t
than thos'..c estimated by PG LE, that the impact forces on the racks are significantly larger than those expected to damage the racks, that the racks will be deformed and damaged, and that there will be reduction of the spacing between the fuel assemblies.
As characterized the Staff does not oppose the admission of this contention . As characterized , the Staff believes the contention raises issues within the scope of the proceeding, is adequately specific, and is supported by sufficient basis.
Contention 111 - It is the contention of the Sierra Club that:
(A) no attempt has been made to ascertain the views of the population surrounding the reactors at Diablo Canyon coNerning the proposed spent fuel storage facilities and that the proposed reracking is probably inconsistent with thes; views; and that (B) as discussed in Sec. 11 above, the proposed reracking is inconsistent with the protection of the pub-lie health and safety, and the environment; and that (C) existing storage facilities at Diablo Canyon will be effectively used to the maximum extent practical within the next few years; and that (D) adequate storage capacity at Diablo Canyon cannot reasonably be provioed to assure the continued, orderly operation of the reactors.
Staff Response The Sierra Club has failed to satisfy the basis and specificity requirements of 10 C.F.R. S 2.714 with respect to any of the parts to Contention 111. Absent such basis and specificity the parties would not be given "sufficlent notice "so that they would know at least generally what they will have to defend against or oppose." Further, the Sierra Club has failed to establish how parts A, C and D fall within the scope of
the issues set forth in the Federal Register notice of opportunity for hearing. .For these reasons, Contention til must be rejected. -
' Contention IV - In light of the foregoing, it is the con-tention of the Sierra Club that: ,
(A) the Federal Government has the responsibility to provide sufficient capacity for interim storage of spent fuel from Diablo Canyon; and that (B) the Federal Government is required by law to offer to enter into contracts with PG EE for purposes of pro-viding storage capacity for spent fuel produced at Diablo Canyon.
Staff Response The Sierra Club has failed to satisfy the basis and specificity requirements of 10 C.F.R. S 2.714. The Sierra Club has not adequately specified the basis for its assertion that the Federal Government has the recponsibility to provide sufficient storage capacity for spent fuel from Diablo Canyon and how such responsibility (if it does exist) relates to the ,
scope of the instant proceeding . Accordingly, this contention must be rejected. See also Staff response to CODES's Contention 1.
III. CONCLUSION For the reasons discussed above, the Staff is of the opinion that each of the petitioners has adequately demonstrated their standing to in-tervene, has proffered at least one admissible contention and should be admitted as a party to this proceeding.
Respectfully subnitted, r
IIekryj . M.cGurren CotMel for N11C Staff Dated at Bethesda, Maryland this 9th day of May, 1986
UNITED STATES OF AMERICA NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSION DEFORE TIIE ATOMIC SAFETY AND LICENSING BOARD -
In the Matter of )
)
PACIFIC GAS AND ELECTRIC ) Docket Nos. 50-275 OLA COMPANY ) 50-323 OLA
)
(Diablo Canyon Nuclear Power Plant )
Units 1 and 2) )
CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE 1 hereby certify that copies of " RESPONSE OF Tile NRC STAFF TO Tite
- AMENDED PETITIONS FOR LEAVE TO INTERVENE FILED BY SAN LUIS OBISPO MOTIIERS FOR PEACE, CONSUMERS ORGANIZED FOR DEFENSE OF ENVIRONMENTAL SAFETY AND Ti!E SIERRA CLUB" 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 through deposit in the Nuclear Regulatory Commission's internal mail sys-tem, this 9th day of May,1986:
B. Paul Cotter, Jr., Chairman Bruce Norton, Esq.
Administrative Judge Norton, Burke, Berry Atomic Safety and Licensing Board Panel & Frencli, P.C.
U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission P.O. Box 10569 h'ashington, D.C. 20555* Phoenix, AZ 85064 Glenn O. Bright, Esq. Mr. Thomas II, liarris, Administrative Judge Energy Writer Atomic Safety and Licensing Board Panel San Jose Mercury News U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission 750 Ridder Park Drive Washington, D.C. 20555* San Jose, CA 95190 Dr.' Jerry liarbour Mr. Gordon Silver Mrs. Sandra A. Silver Administrative Judge Atomic Safety and Licensing Board Panel 1760 Alisal Street U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission San Luis Obispo, CA 93401 Washington, D.C. 20555*
Arthur C. Gehr, Esq.
Elizabeth Apfelberg Snell & Wilmer 1415 Cozadero 3100 Valley Center San Luis Obispo, CA 93401 Phoenix, AR 85073
Richard E. Blankenburg Philip A. Crane, Jr., Esq.
Co-publisher P.O. Box 7442 Wayne A. Soroyan, News Reporter San Francisco, CA 94120 -
South County Publishing Company P.O. Box _460 Mr. Frederick Eissler Arroyo Grande, CA 93420 Scenic Shoreline Preservation ,
Conference, Inc.
4623 More Mesa Drive Santa Barbara, CA 93105 Mrs. Raye Fleming Docketing and Service Section 1920 Mattie Road Office of the Secretary Shell Beuch, CA 93449 U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission Washin gton , D.C. 20555*
Joel R. Reynolds, Esq. Atomic Safety and Licensing John R. Phillips, Esq. Board Panel Center for Law in the Public U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission Interest Wa shington , D.C. 20555*
10951 West Pico Boulevard Third Floor Atomic Safety and Licensing Los Angeles, CA 90064 Appeal Board Panel (5)
U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission David S. Fleischaker, Esq. Wa shington , D.C. 20555*
P. O. Box 1178 Oklahoma City, OK 73101 Mr.11. Daniel Nix California Energy Commission Ilichard B. Ilubbard MS-17 MHB Technical Associates 1516 9th Street 1723 IIamilton Avenue - Suite K Sacramento, CA 95814 San Jose, CA 95125 John Marrs, Managing Editor Lewis Shollenberger San Luis Obispo County Regional Counsel Telegram-Tribune USNRC, Region V 1321 Johnson Avenue 1450 Maria Lane, Suite 210 P.O. Box 112 Walnut Creek, CA 94596 San Luis Obispo, CA 93406 Janico E.1: err, Esq. Ilarry M. Willis Lawrence Q. Carcia, Esq. Seymour & Willis 350 McAllister Street 601 California St. , Suite 2100 San Francisco, CA 94 M2 San Francisco, CA 94108 Michael J. Strumwasser, Esq. Mr. J. D. Shiffer Susan L. Durbin, Esq. Vice President Peter 11. Kaufman, Esq. Nuclear Power Generation 3580 Wilshire Blvd., Suite 600 c/o Nuclear Power Generation, Los Angeles, CA 90010 Licensing
. Pacific Gas and Electric Company Mrs Lee M. Gustafson 77 Beale Street, Room 1451
( Pacific Gas and Electric Co. San Francisco, CA 94106 1050-17th Street, N.W.
Washington, DC 20036-5574 l
l
Dr. Richard Ferguson Laurie McDermott, Co-ordinator Vice-Chairman C.O.D.E.S Sierra Club 731 Pacific Street '
Rocky Canyon Star Route Suite # 42 Creston, CA 93432 San Luis Obispo, CA 93401 llenry ) McGnrren Couns or NRC Staff 9
O k
i
. - . - . - . = - . . - . - . - - - - , , . - - _ . , - - - . _ - - _ _ , - - , - - , , - . _ , , . - . _ . . - .- . - ~ . . . - - - . _ _ _ _ - . ,