ML20236B755

From kanterella
Jump to navigation Jump to search
NRC Staff Reply to Scenic Shoreline Motion on Notification of Meetings,Seismic Review Committee & Exam of Design Calculations.* Motion Should Be Denied in Entirety. Certificate of Svc Encl
ML20236B755
Person / Time
Site: Diablo Canyon, 05000000
Issue date: 04/12/1976
From: Davis L
NRC OFFICE OF THE EXECUTIVE LEGAL DIRECTOR (OELD)
To:
Atomic Safety and Licensing Board Panel
Shared Package
ML20236A877 List: ... further results
References
FOIA-87-214 OL, NUDOCS 8707290227
Download: ML20236B755 (8)
v • d • e


Text

-

c -

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA April _12,1976 NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSION 7 BEFORE THE ATOMIC SAFETY AND LICENSING BOARD In the Matter of PACIFIC GAS AND ELECTRIC COMPANY ) Docket Nos. 50-275 0.L -.

7 0-323 0.L.

(Diablo Canyon Nuclear Power Plant, !

Units Nos. 1 and 2) )

NRC STAFF REPLY TO SCENIC SHORELINE MOTION ON NOTIFICATION OF MEETINGS, SEISMIC REVIEW C0fftITTEE AND EXAMINATION OF .

DESIGN CALCULATIONS

- In an undated motion postmarked March 29, 1976, Intervenor, Scenic

! . Shoreline Preservation Conference, Inc. (Scenic Shoreline or Intervenor), ,

requested the following:

~

'- ~ ~

1. That all U. S. Nuclear Regulatory ~Comission Staff (S'taff)',7 ~,

meetings on both seismic and other issues be noticed in advance and open to the public and the press.

2. That Dr. Newmark be removed as the " single arbiter" of differences on geological-seismic matters between the United States Geological Survey and the United States Nuclear .

Regulatory Commission and a five person comittee appointed in his stead. .

3. That a detailed independent review of the analysis, design calculations, and construction plans for the Diablo Canyon Plant be conducted, by the Staff and that a review of that .._.

analysis be conducted by the State of Californis.

-g m .; \

g72 7 870721 {

CONNOR B7-214 PDR . . _ _ _ _ . , , _ , , , , , , , _

i

l Because the Intervenor misunderstands the nature of Dr. Newmark's .

i relationship to the NRC and this proceeding and misconceives the process

/

of regulatory review as contemplated by the Atomic Energy Act and the Commission's regulations, its requests are without legal or factual merit and should be denied.

1. Staff Meetings -

Scenic Shoreline alleges that a closed meeting was held between the Staff and the Applicant in San Francisco the week of March 22,1976 and that ,.-

Dr. Nathan Newmark was selected to resolve interagency differences over the seismic implications of the Hosgri Fault. It asks that all future meetings be pre-noticed and open to the press and public. Intervenor's position misapprehends the relationship between the NRC and Dr. Newmark and thus misconceives the role public participation would play in such a meeting.

In order to assist it in its geologic and seismic analysis of the Diablo Canyon Project, the NRC Staff has hired Dr. Newmark as a i consultant. Dr. Newmark, as a recognized leader in structural engineering, i

who has been used by the Staff in other projects of this kind, will be used by the Staff to augment the work of its own in-house structural ..

.and mechanical engineers. While his duties may require consultation with the United States Geological Survey (USGS) (which is another

_ . , .- .~. 's .- .. ....... -s.. . . . - , . . . . .. .

_ - - - - . - - - - _ - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - _ - - - - - - - - - - 1

I

. I j

consultant of the NRC) he is by no means to be a " single arbiter" of interagency differences of opinion. USGS will express its views on the seismic issues in this proceeding in the usual form of a report to the NRC Staff, and all parties to this proceeding will have full  ;

(

opportunity to explore the bases upon which both the USGS and NRC Staff conclusions were reached. l An unannounced meeting between the NRC and Dr. Newmark was held in f i

San Francisco, California on March 23, 1976. Representatives of the ,

i United States Geological Survey were also'in attendance. The right of the NRC to confer ex_ parte with a party or, in this case, its own experts or consultants is provided for by Section 2.102(a) of the Commission's regulations. That right was detailed in Northeast ~ Nuclear Energy Company (Montague Nuclear Power Station, Units 1 and 2), LBP-75-19, NRCI-75/4-436

(April 23,1975), which recognized the right of the Staff as an independent, t

autonomous entity to prepare its review of a nuclear license application in the manner it sees fit. Under the rationale of the Commission's i regulations and the Montaoue decision, the Staff may confer privately with its own consultants and expert witnesses, just as the Intervenor would be entitled to consult privately with its consultants and contemplated expert witnesses. l

.t.  ;

)

-=. *e*M*** td W**d * ** , sie P l

1 l

4

2. Appointment of a Seismic Comittee_

l l

i Scenic Shoreline has requested the appointment of an independent comittee of five experts to review the design of the Diablo Canyon Plant and, presumably, report its findings to the Licensing Board. This request is based upon the misconception of the role of Dr. Newmark which we identified in the preceeding section and thus is without merit.

The ultimate resolution of the seismic problem will be by the Licensing Board after hearing the testimony of the Staff's in-house experts or ,

its consultants, such as Dr. Newmark or the. U.S. Geological Survey, l

or the testimony of other witnesses presented by the Applicant or by the Interveners. Dr. Newmark's opinions, like any other person's )

opinions, will have only such weight in this proceeding as they are

, shown to be entitled to on the public hearing record. The Staff has not presumed to usurp the important Licensing Board function of evaluating the evidence and determining what conclusions that evidence supports.

.. \

~~

The Staff feels that the evidence to be presented to the Board at the safety hearing will be sufficient to enable it to carry out its function of deterTnining whether the Diablo Canyon Plant can be operated with appr6priate regard for the health and safety of the public. Since it is the Applicant's burden to show compliance with all safety regulations, should the cumulative testimony of all witnesses at the hearing be insufficient to convince the Board of the seismic safety of the Plant, it will not authorize issuance of a license. .. .. _ . , . _

YM

=..... - . _ . . _ , . _ . . . . . , _ . . , . . .. ,

r

3. Staff Analysis Intervenor's third request demands that a detailed, independent review.

and analysis of the Diablo Canyon facilities be made by.the Staff and the State of California. While the Staff does not debate the in1portance

' ~

of a thorough review of the Applicant's analysis E it does resist the Intervenor's attempt to dictate how it should prepare its case. ,

s \

. As. the Montague decision supra recognized, the Consnission's regulations

.. . impose..upon the Staff an independent duty. to review applications for_ q licenses and report its findings to the Cont..ission in the fonn of -

1 safety evaluations and environmental assessments. The thrust of the l

Montague decision is that the Licensing Board should recognize the responsibility of the Staff to conduct its inves+1gation of a case in the manner in which it sees fit, just as the Su.ff and the other parties snust observe and not encroach upon the. Licensing Board's delegated authority to hear and decide matters in controversy. Any decision to the contrary would upsrt the balance of separation

]/ For example, an extensive seismic audit of the Diablo Canyon was conducted by the NRC Staff's mechanical and structural '

engineers in May of 1975. Meetings and discussions were held not only with the Applicant's engineers but also with

.its consultants and vepdors' technical experts. . , .

In connection with the current analysis and review being conducted for the upcoming safety hearing, the NRC Staff has several geologists, seismologists, structural engineers and mechanical engir.eers doing extensive review of the plant. Thus, the Staff plans to conduct an .

extensive study of the plant design prior to th safety hearing date.

O

\

1g -

p' i

l of responsibilities of the parties and weaken the adversary hearing procedure envisioned by the Commission's regulations. - The Staff, of

, course, would be interested in receiving any 'infomation or opinions possessed by California State ;fficials which are pertinent to the matters being considered in the Staf'f review. If the State of California wishes to advise the Licensing Board of its views with respect to any of its issues in this proceeding, the Commission rules provide a 10 CFR 52.715(c). For these reasons, mechanism by which it may do so.

the motion to require the NRC Staff to conduct its review in a particular - ,

~

' manner acceptable to the Intervenor shoul'd be denied. ,

t For the reasons stated above, the Staff asks that Intervenor, Scenic l

Shoreline's motion be denied in its entirety.

Respectfully submitted, M AN L. Dow Davis Counsel for NRC Staff .

Dated at Bethesda, Maryland j

this 12th day of April,1976 h

1 i

I P

8 i

.. . , - l A ., . . _ . _ , , . . . . , . _ , , _ . . . , _ . _ , _ _

t . - . . . . . . . . .... _.

i

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA

. NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSIL..

BEFORE THE ATOMIC SAFETY AND LICENSING BOARD In the Matter of i PACIFICGASANDELECTRICCOMPAfiY ) Dogket Nos. 50-275 0.L.

, n os , 50-323 0.L-.

(Diablo Canyon Nuclear Power Plant, i

j Units Nos. 1 and 2) j i

' CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE ,

- i l

l I hereby certify that' copies of "NRC STAFF T,EPLY TO SCENIC SHORELINE MOTION ON NOTIFICATION OF MEETINGS, SEISMIC REVIEW COMMITTEE AND EXAMINATION OF DESIGN CALCULATIONS," dated April 12, 1976 in the above captioned matter, , ,

l have been served on the following by deposit in the United States mail, first class or air mail, this 12th day of' April,1976:

. Elizabeth S. Bowers, Esq. Andrew J.'Skaff Esq. .

Atomic Safety and Licensing California Public Utilities Commission

, Board 5246 State Building .

U. S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission 350 McAllister Street -

Washington, D. C. 20555 San Francisco, California 94142 -

Mr. Glenn 0. Bright - -

Raye Fleming Atomic Safety and Licensing 1746 Chorro Street Board San Luis Obispo, California 93401 U. S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission

- Washington, D. C. 20555 Mr. Frederick Eissler Scenic Shoreline Preservation Dr. William E. Martin . Conference, Inc.

Senior Ecologist 4623 More Mesa Drive -

Battelle Memorial Institute Santa Barbara, California 93105 1 Columbus, Ohio 43201 Mrs. Sandra A. Silver Philip A. Crane, Jr., Esq.- 5055 Radford Avenue i Pacific Gas and Electric Compar,y "arth Hollywood, Californ.ia 91607 1

77 Beale Street San Francisco, California 94106 Mr. Gordon' Silver 5055 Radford Avenue Elizabeth Apfelberg North Hollywood, California 91607 1415 Cozadero

. San Luis Obispo, California / 93401 - . . .

k 1

  • m 4 ,
  • . g, 1 *

. mee * ** * * *===. agesw.- gw _ . -

.g7 _

e y

i. .

4- , ,

i Atomic Safety and Licensing i

William P. Cornwell Appeal Board

' P. O. Box 453 U. S. Nuclear Regulatory Comission Morro Bay, California 93442 20555-Washington, D. C.

? - '

Paul C. Valentine Atomic Safety and Licensing a

400 Channing Avenue }

Palo Alto, California 94301 Board Panel

. U. S. Nuclear Regulatory Comission Washington, D. C. 20555 Yale I. Jones, Esq.

507 Polk Street Docketing and Service Section Suite 320 Office of the Secretary of the San Francisco, California 94102

'Comission

, U. S. Nuclear Regulatory Comission Washington, D. C. 20555 l

Respectfully submitted, , ,

hce L. Dow Davis dAS Counsel for NRC Staff e

0 e

4 4 . .

  • r

.g

. ~ -

j

- - - s. .- f .. .

a

    • .e u
Retrieved from "https://kanterella.com/w/index.php?title=ML20236B755&oldid=3448285"