ML20236B550

From kanterella
Jump to navigation Jump to search
Order Relative to Petitions to Intervene.* Order Granting & Rejecting Listed Contentions Presented by Intervenors During 740326 & 27,0430 & 0501 Prehearing Conference
ML20236B550
Person / Time
Site: Diablo Canyon, 05000000
Issue date: 05/30/1974
From: Bowers E
Atomic Safety and Licensing Board Panel
To: Forester J, Valentine L
CALIFORNIA POLYTECHNIC STATE UNIV., SAN LUIS OBISPO, CALIFORNIA, STATE OF
Shared Package
ML20236A877 List: ... further results
References
FOIA-87-214 NUDOCS 8707290145
Download: ML20236B550 (8)
v • d • e


Text

1 e., s. -

e

? k 1

CCCfCIED W -

99 if' l b

N, -

/ UNITED STATES OF AMERICA ATOMIC ENERGY COMMISSION d' MAY 3 01974=-

n., g .3 d

m.tejr sim p g

In the Matter of ) e j

)  % _a PACIFIC GAS AND ELECTRIC COMPANY ) Docket Nog. 503 a OL

) '50-323 OL (Diablo Canyon Nuclear power ) I Plant, Units 1 and 2) )

ORDER RELATIVE TO PETITIONS TO INTERVENE

1. In the special prehearing conference on March 26 and 27, 1974, April 30, 1974 and May 1, 1974, interveners were given an opportunity to present their contentions and the Applicant and Regulatory Staff were given the opportunity to respond to each contention. The Board has considered this record as well as the documents filed by the parties in its determination as to which contentions are acceptable for the purpose of discovery. After discovery is closed, in accordance with 10 CFR 92.752, the parties will be given j an opportunity to refine the contentions approved for dis-

]

l covery and a determination will be made by the Board as to l l

which contentions meet the requirements of 10 CFR 92.714 and )

1 are otherwise appropriate for consideration in the eviden-  !

l tiary hearing. In its Order following this prehearing con-ference, the Board will also issue its ruling on the Motion for the consolidation of the parties on certain contentions.

B707290145 B70721 l PDR FOIA I CONNORB7-21A PDR

. t 0\

i 1

m___________ _ _ _ . _ _ J

'l l

I Petition of John J. Forester and Lonnie Valentine, j as individuals and as members of the Ecology Action Club of California Polytechnic State University. __

2. The following contentions are acceptable for the purpose of discovery: 2, 3b and 10 consolidated; 3c but limited to information developed subsequent to the environ-mental hearing in September 1973; 6 but limited to the routes of transportation to and from the facility 1/;

7 but limited to domestic sabotage 2/; 13 with last two sentences deleted; and 15.

3. The following contentions are rejected:

Contentions 1 and la -- a mere allegation that special cir-i cumstances unique to this facility will be established i does not meet the threshold test for a challenge under 10 CFR 92.758 or establish a basis to consider generic issues. (See footnote 1, supra) .

J Contention 3a -- is outside the scope of this proceeding since it is an alleged environmental effect of customer use of electricity. S!

1/ Vermont Yankee Nuclear Corporation (Vermont Yankee Nuclear Power Station) ALAB-56, WASH-1218 at page 395 (June 6, 1972); In the Matter of Long Island Lighting Company (Shoreham Nuclear Power Station), ALAB-99, RAI- l 73-2 at pp. 56-57 (February 1, 1973).

2/ See Shoreham, footnote 1, supra, at p. 851. )

1

-3/ Consumers Power Company (Midland Plant, Units 1 and 2)  !

CLI-74-5, RAI-74-1 at page 28 (January 24, 1974). 1 l

1

I Contention 3d -- the testimony in the NEPA hearing was extensive and witnesses were subjected to exhaustive j cross-examination. Reconsideration would be repetitive.

Contention 4 -- The Board concurs with the position of the Applicant and Staff. A!

Contention 5 -- The Board agrees with the Staff that there i

is no factual issue.

Contention 8 -- The Board concurs with the Applicant and j

Staff that this is the subject of a generic rulemaking I 1

proceeding and is, therefore, not for consideration in an individual licensing proceeding.

i Contention 9 -- The Board concurs with the Applicant and i

Staff that this is a generic question which is the subject of a rulemaking proceeding and not appropriate for consideration in an individual licensing proceeding. A Contention 11 -- The Board concurs with the statement of Applicant and Staff. 4 l

Contention _12 -- The Board concurs with the Staff's position. E!

Contention 14 -- The Board concurs with the Staff's I position. S! I 1

4/ Tr. pp. 86-88.

1/ Tr. 122.

6/ Tr. 130.

Contention 16 -- The Board concurs with the Applicant's and Staff's position. 1! 1 Contention 17 -- The Board concurs with the Applicant and Staff that this is not a contention but a conclusion. 8/

I Contention 18 -- The Board concurs with the Applicant and Staff. S!  !

Contention 19 -- The Board concurs with the Staff that j l

it is similar to Contention 5 and that there is no j issue of fact. 1S!

Contention 20 -- The Board concurs with the Applicant and Staff that there is no issue of fact. 11! 4 1

Contention 20A -- The Board concurs with Applicant and Staff that this is a conclusion or summary and not a contention. .

1 Petition of the people of the State of California and the Public Utilities Commission of the State of California

4. California was recognized as a party to this pro-ceeding by the Board designated to rule on petitions for 7/ Tr. 138, 139.

8/ Tr. 141.

9/ Tr. 143, 144.

T0/ Tr. 147.

II/ Tr. 156.

12/ Tr. 161.

(

i l

leave to intervene in its Memorandum and Order of December 14, 1973, under 10 CFR 92.714. This Board adopts the same position as set forth in the prior Board's Memorandum and Order referred to above. This determina- l l

l tion is also based on the further explanation by Cali- 1 fornia in the prehearing conference. 13/

petition for a Hearing and Leave to Intervene of Scenic Shoreline Preservation Conference, Inc.

(November 15, 1973)

5. The following contentions are admitted for the purpose of discovery:

Contentions 1, 2 and 3 combined; 4, 5, 6 and 7, but limited to new information only; 9 but limited to local trans-portation to and from the plant; 11, 14 and 15.

The following contentions are not admitted for the purpose of discovery: I Contention 8 -- The ECCS was the subject of a generic rulemaking proceeding. This contention as originally stated and as enlarged in the prehearing conference is outside the scope of an individual licenstig pro-ceeding since it does not meet a threshold test for l 1

specificity under 10 CFR 62.714 or 02.758. )

13/ Tr. 171.

1 I

l

_ - - _ - - - - - - - - - - -- 1

i 1

I Contention 10 -- The Board concurs with the position stated by Applicant and Staff. 1A!

Contentions 12 and 13 -- The Board went into the question J

of the transmission line in the NEpA review and per-

]

mitted exhaustive cross-examination by this intervenor.

The contentions do not raise anything new. i

6. In the special prehearing conference, permission was requested to add some additional contentions. The j 1

Board stated that any additional contentions would be f I

considered if they were submitted in writing, with good cause established for the late filing, and after responses were received from the Applicant and Staff, 16/ I l

petition by Scenic Shoreline Preservation Conference, Inc., to Suspend Construction l of Diablo Canyon Nuclear power plants {

Units 1 and 2, (December 3, 1973). )

7. The following contentions (conclusions) are accepted I for the purpose of discovery:

l Contentions 1, 2, 3, 5, 6, 7 and 8.

Paragraphs 4 and 9 were covered by the Board's Order of April 3, 1974.

Contention 10 -- is rejected since it was considered in the NEpA review during which this intervenor was permitted 14/ Tr. 213 through 215.

15/ Tr. 241.

I exhaustive cross-examination on the transmission lines.

a The cofferdam is now moot..

l Contention 11 -- is rejected since the-ECCS was the subject ]

of_a generic rulemaking proceeding and the contention does not establish that special circumstances relating I to this facility would make it an appropriate considera- ,

1 tion.

l Contention 12 -- is rejected since it was thoroughly con-sidered in the NEpA review.

1 petition of Elizabeth E..Apfelberg and )

Sandra A. Silver, as representatives of the San Luis Obispo Mothers for peace and as individuals. (As amended January 12, 1974)

8. The following contentions are acceptable for the purpose of discovery:

Contentions 1, 2, 3B, 4B, C and G, 7 but limited to domestic sabotage, 8, and 9 (originally-2D).

]

Contention 5 -- is rejected since the Board concurs with j

the Applicant and Staff. 15!

Contention 6 -- is rejected for the reasons stated by the Applicant and Staff. 11!

16/ Tr. 327.

17/ Tr. 329.  !

j

r l

l Petition of William p. Cornwell l i

9. This petition dated April 2, 1974, and as amended on May 4, 1974, will not be considered in this Order since i i

the Applicant was late in receiving the amended petition and has informed the Board it is preparing a response.

This matter will be covered in a separate Board Order.

10.

All parties who are interested in proceeding with i discovery requests should do so as soon as possible. The Board will close discovery a reasonable time after the I

additional Staff's or Applicant's documents or updating of ext. sting documents are released. 1E!

IT IS SO ORDERED. -

I t

THE ATOMIC SAFETY AND 1 LICENSING BOARD  !

A 3 Eliz/ beths. Bowers, Chairman Issued at Bethesda, Maryland this 30th day of May 1974. i 18/ Tr. 296.

l I

m__________-__ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ - . _ _ _ - . . _ _ _ _ _ _ - - - _ - - _ _ _ _ _ _ - - - . . -- )

Retrieved from "https://kanterella.com/w/index.php?title=ML20236B550&oldid=3448303"