ML20236B571
Text
- _ - _ _ _ _ _ _.
n
..y May 1, 1974 Mr. Stanley H. Mendes Structural Engineer 1226.1/2 State Street Suite 1 Santa Barbara, California 93101 (Diablo Canyon NucgPower Plant,In the Matter of Pacific Gas &
Units 1 & 2 Docket Nos/$b-2ZB0.L. and 50-323 0.L.
Dear Mr. Mendes:
This is in response to your letter of April 15, 1974 to Mr. Shapar and reflects our recent telephone conversation in connection with the cap-tioned proceeding.
I In connection with your concern regarding the adequacy of seismic design of the Diablo Canyon facilities, I informed you that the staff indicated at the prehearing conference held in connection with the pending operat-ing license application, that this was an appropriate issue for the pro-ceeding as raised in the petition for leave to intervene filed by Scenic-Shoreline Preservation Conference, Inc.
We felt that the staff posi-tion, expressed at the prehearing conference, addressed your main' con-cerns, and had anticipated that the discussions between the parties at the prehearing conference with respect to this matter would adequately j
respond to 'your questions since we understood _ that you may be participat,.,
ing in the proceeding with the' Scenic Shoreline Preservation Conference.
{
When I learned that you had not attended the prehearing conference I called you to determine whether you had been informed of our position.
In that call you indisated that you also had questions.concerning the prv-cedural propriety of the exclusion of the issue of seismicity from the hearings held during' May 1972, pursuant to Section E.10 CFR Part'50, Ap -
pendix 0 of the Connission's regulations and from the hearings (not yet completed) pursuant to Section B of 10 CFR Part 50 Appendix D.
This is enftected in your letter of April 15, 1974, which indicates that
')
you wish copies of various of the documents relating to this matter.
I have compiled the information outlined in the Appendix to this letter and I am enclosing a copy of the various orders, pleadings, decisions'and I
arguments which I believe are responsive to y'our' request.
These are part
{
f 8707290153 870751 f D PDR FOIA PDR
(/. /
CONNOR87-214 i
3 w
y 3
y i
I
. i
)
i of the public record in this case and copies have previously been
]
i served on the parties in the proceeding including Scenic Shoreline and copies have been sent to the public document room, San Luis Obispo County Library 888 Morrow Street, San Luis Obispo. California 93406.
l I hope that this provides the infonaation you desire.
If there is J
any further information you wish, please do not hesitate to contact me, y
Sincerely, i
f I
I i
Joseph F. Scinto Assistant Chief Hearing Counsel
Enclosures:
As Stated in Distribution:
Appendix cc w/o enclosures:
0GC Files Scenic Shoreline Preservation Gmtwn Files Conference. Inc.
Reg. Central Files PDR LPDR HShapar TEngelhardt JGallo JScinto i
LChandler THirons, L j
VWilson, L RCushman, EP j
RWade, EP Formal Files (2)
]
Chron n
I i
i omer*
GC
/
JFSCIhT0/dd sua aus, JD M /
o*n l
e._, oc.m %....u 9 m.o 4
1 i
f APPENDIX q
A.
The Comission's Memorandum and Order, dated April 21,1972 is at-j tached as Enclosure 1. is the Commission's Determination j
to Suspend Certain Construction Activities published in the Federal Register on December 7,1971. is the Order to Show Cause i
referred to in the Determination and Enclosure 4 is a copy of.the;
)
Discussion and Findings by the Directorate of Licensing also re-ferred to in the Determination.
Enclosure S is the request for hear-ing filed by Scenic Shoreline Preservation. Conference in connection with the published Determination.
Enclosures 6 and 7, respectively, are the staff and applicant's res'ponses to Scenic Shoreline's re-quest for Hearing.
These were the documents. referenced in the April 21,'1972 Memorandum and Order. 'Sabsequent to the' April 21, 1972 Memorandum and Order, Scenic Shoreline filed a motion with the Licensing Board to include seismic design issues in the hearing En-l closure 8.
The Applicant's response is Enclosure 9.
The Licensing i
Board's Initial Decision on the issues covered by the April 21.
j 1972 Memorandum and Order is Enclosure 10.
q B.
The April 21, 1972 Memorandum and Order on page 3, refers to prior
)
decisions concerning seismic design during the construction pennit pnoceeding.
These include the Initial Decision of the Licensing i
i Board on Unit 2, Enclosure 11 and the June 14, 1971 Decision of the Atomic Safety and Licensing Appeal Board, Enclosure 12, (and the Memo-randum and Order dated August 16, 1972, Enclosure 18). On July 9, 1971, Scenic Shoreline filed a " Supplemental Motion for Reconsiders-tion..." which attached your Affidavit of July 9,1971, Enclosure 13
)
The Applicant's response of July 19, 1971 is Enclosure 14 and Appli-cant's Supplemental Reply of July 28, 1971 is Enclosure 15. The staff's response is Enclosure 16.
Scenic Shoreline's reply of Au-gust 5,1971, referring to your comments, is Enclosure 17.
The Memorandum and Order af the Atomic Safety and Licertsing Appeal Board, dated August 16, 1971, is Enclosure 18.
C.
After issuance of the Draft Environmental Stateacnt, the Comission published a Hotice of Hearing on issues under 10 CFR Part 50, Ap-pendix C of the Commission's regulations. Enclosure 19.
On January 22, 1972, Scenic Shoreline filed a petition for leave to intervene in such hearing which attached your 29-page" Affidavit"; Encloure 20.
The Applicant's response is Enclosure 21 and the staff response is
) 2.
Scenic Shoreline's Amended Petition, dated April 29, 0FFICE ),
' ~...." "
SURNAMEF k.
.4,W4-sl ass 4, 44Ws
,lM S&e43.5 CMS
^ '
\\
4 UNITED STATES 7
.) -
ATOMIC ENERGY COMMISStu wassmoros, o.c. 2em Nis e May 1, 1974 Mr. Stanley H. Mendes Structural Engineer 1226 1/2 State Street Suite 1 Santa Barbara, California 93101 In the Matter of Pacific Gas & Electric Company (Diablo Canyon iluclear Power Plant, Units 1 & 2)
Docket NosM_O.L. and 50-323 0.L.
Dear Mr. Mendes:
This is in response to your letter of April 15, 1974 to Mr. Shapar and reflects our recent telephone conversation in connection with the cap-tioned proceeding.
In connection with your concern regarding the adequacy of seismic design of the Diablo Canyon facilities, I informed you tnat the staff indicated' at the prehearing con #erence neld in connection with the pending operat-ing license application, that this was an appropriate issue for the pro-ceeding as raised in the petition for leave to intervene filed by Scenic Shoreline Preservation Conference, Inc.
We felt that the staff posi-tion, expressed at the prehearing conference, adcressed your main con-l cerns, and had anticipated that the discussions berdeen the parties at i
the prehearing conference with respect to this mattar would adequately j
respond to your questions since we understood that you may be participat-3 ing in the proceeding with the Scenic Shoreline Preservation Conference.
When I learned that you had not attended the prehearing conference, I l
called you to determinef whether you hcd been infomed of our position.
l In that call you indicated that you also had questions concerning the pro-cedural propriety of the exclusion of the issue of seismicity from the hearings held during May 1972, pursuant to Section E.10 CFR Part 50, Ap-pendix D of the Commission's regulations and from the hearings (not yet completed) pursuant to Section B of 10 CFR Part 50, Appendix D.
This is reflected in your letter of April 15, 1974, which indicates that I
you wish copies of various of the documents relating to this matter.
I l
have compiled the information outli.ned in the Appendix to this letter and i
I am enclosing a copy of the various orders, pleadings, decisions and arguments which I believe are responsive to your request.
These are part i
f4
':14 t
l
~2 served on the parties in the proceeding inclu and copies have been sent to the public documentng Sceni ve previously been
- County Library, 888 Morrow Street, San Luis Obispor t
I hope that this provides the information '
, California 93406.
any further infonnation you wish, please do not h you desire.
If there is me.
esitate to contact Sincerely,
/
i
~.
.6%
i l Joseph'F.Scinto }. Y
~ / l!
t
Enclosures:
. t Chief Hearing Counsel As Stated in Appendix i
)
3 cc w/0 enclosures:
Scenic Shoreline P Conference, Inc.
}
\\
4 s
j i
9 l
I
h c
r 2
i 1973, is Enclosure 23. Applicant's response is Enclosure 24, and staff's response is Enclosure 25. 6 is a copy of the argument on this point at the prehearing conference held April 11, 1973. 7 is a copy of the argument on this point at the prehearing conference held June 6, 1973. 8 is a copy of the Licensing Board's Order of June 18, 1973, admitting certain of
)
Scenic Shoreline's contentions.
These did not include the contentions relating to " seismic environment".
The Licensing Board has not yet j
rendered its overall decision in the proceeding.
J I
Also enclosed is a copy of the AEC regulations as of January 1, 1
1973.
0 0
0 e
d j
}
\\
.