ML20236J841
Text
_ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ - _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _
UNITED STATES OF AMERICA I
ATOMIC ENERGY COMMISSION j
BEFORE THE ATOMIC SAFETY AND LICENSING BOARD j
In the Matter of
)
)
l PACIFIC GAS & ELECTRIC COMPANY
)
)
(Diablo Canyon Nuclear Generating
)
Docket No. 50-323 l
)
Station, Unit No. 2)
)'
i
)
)
i AMENDED AND CONSOLIDATED PETITION TO INTERVENE 1
(
A. Standing i
1 Scenic Shoreline Preservation Conference, Inc., is organized and operates under the laws of California relating to non-profit corporations.
One of its purposes is to
" provide leadership f or conservation of the ecological integrity and aesthetic quality of the shoreline... of the United States so that the educational, scientific, his-torical, recreational and scenic values of such areas are not impaired...."
The membership includes a number of residents and householders of San Luis Obispo County, in the vicinity of the site proposed for construction of the subject nuclear
.Janarating ctation.
Such manbership nas authorized the president and counsel to act on their behalf in this matter l
l in protecting the economic value of their individual property and in attempting to preserve the educational, scientific, historical, recreational and scenic values of the shoreline at Diablo Canyon.
The corporation is also acting to conserve 8708060308 870729 PDR FOIA 1
CONNOR B7-214 PDR
I conserve the ecological integrity and aesthetic quality of the shoreline in that vicinity.
The corporation declines to state its entire membership, s
in San Luis Obispo County or elsewhere on the grounds that it i
l is irrelevant to the question of standing and on the grounds that such general disclosure has been demanded by applicant only so it can harrass, coerce and intimidate the individual members and that accordingly the compiete list of names is priveleged under NAA CP 9a A Zabama, 357 U.S. 449.
Representative members of the corporationfor whom the l
corporation is acting as agent are:
)
j Katherine Wallina l
690 Olive Street Morro Bay, California 93442 William L.
Deneen j
760 Cielo Lane Nipono, California 93444 Ian I.
McMillan l
Box 63 1
Shandon, California 93461 Such members are typical of the class of persons whose personal and property rights would be adversely affected if I
they were not allowed to intervent with respect to the issues more particularly detailed below.
With respect to each and every such contention, the corporation, its membership, and the typical representative members named above assert that the r.ubject constructica permit should be modified, barninated or appropriately conditioned to protect the environmental values more specifically enumerated below.
2
Petitioner Luigi'Marre' Land & Cattle Company is a duly qualified California corporation with principal offices in Avila Beach, California.
Said petitioner is the owner j' fee simple.of approximately 7,700 acres of land, located in San Luis Obispo County, California, which'it operates as a cattle ranch.
Petitioner San Luis Obispo Bay Properties, Inc., is a duly qualified California corporation with principal offices also in Avila Beach.
Said petitioner either owns or leases lands in San Luis and manages various improved and unimprove d Obispo County and elsewhere.
It leases a certain portion of I
the above-mentioned 7,700 acres from Petitioner Luigi Marre' Land & Cattle Company.
On September 17, 1966, said petitioner and Pacific Gas
~
& Electric Company entered into a sublease under the termsof which the latter subleased from the former that certain property fcr a term of 99 years, with the cption to renew for an additional 99 years.
Pacific Gas & Electric Company is constructing Unit 2, which is the subject of these he'arings, on a parcel consisting of approximately 585 acres with easements for access across other portions of Petitioner *s property.
Said Petitioners aver that continued work under the within permit will adversely affect both their reversionary interests in and to the construction site and the value of the adjoining property.
Aff adavits to this ef fect will be filed with the Commission under separate cover.
1 3
l
l B.
Con tedtions The di"ft Environmental Statement on Diablo Canyon Unit 2 f ails to demonstrate that the project will meet the conditions of the National Environmental Policy Act of 1969.
There is no showing that the project is consistent with the requirement to " fulfill the responsibilities of each genera-tion as trustee of the environment for succeeding generations";
nor does the proposal " attain the widest range of beneficial uses of the environment without degradation, risk to health or safety or other undesirable or unintended consequences";
furthermore, there is no showing that the project will
" preserve important historic, cultural, and natural aspects of our national heritage, and maintain, where possible, an environment which supports diversity and variety of individual choice."
1.
Seismic Environment a.
The geological assumptions underlying the conclusions 1
of seismic safety are not supported by the evidence.
The extent and distances from major faults are stated as facts j
when in f act they are unproven hypotheses.
Epicenters have been recorded closer than the assumed 20 miles in paragraph 1
2.4.2 of the Statenent.
Geological mapping off shore has been inadequate to determine whether the epicenters recorded might i
be associated with the Sur-Naciniento Fault, with the Santa Ynez Fault or with the Murray Fracture Zone.
Mapping of the submarine geology in the area of fshore from Diablo, in fact, is so deficient that a distinct major fault could exist, not directly connected to any of the above-named structures, b.
The geological evidence of recent inactivity, in 4
r---
f 1
1 paragraph 2.4.1, on the fault which underlies the construction site is not adequate to rule out future seismic activity of an extent which could adversely affect the structural integrity of Unit 2 c.
Even if the geological assumptions of applicant and
)
l staff were accurate, recent developments in aseismic design, such as are discussed in the aff adavit of Stanley Mendes, j
attached as an exhibit to the "Petiti6n for Leave to Intervene of Scenic Shoreline Preservation Conference, Inc., dated i
January 23, 1973 and incorporated here by reference, render the engineering design inadequate rfor,what-is apparently the j
design basis earthquake, an af tershock of magnitude 6.75,
{
i contered at the site at a depth of 6 miles.
i l
4 d.
The present state of the science of seismology is a
1 too uncertain to guarantee aseismic structural integrity unless l
1 the design will withstand at least 1.25 g, total ground
]
acceleration.
I 1
Postponing consideration of aseismic design until c.
a review prior to issuing the operating license is improper because of the possibility that further expenditures will be I
made in constructing the f acility to the present design; such 1
additional expense might be considered in the economic balance relating to the practicality of corrective design changes as opposed to asumption of a risk of breaching the aseismic integrity of the structure.
i f.
Consideration of the seismic environment is a necessary and proper element of a de novo environmental review under the National Environmental Policy Act of 1969, which demands an appraisal of risks to health and safety as well 5
othor undesirable and unintended consequences.
g.
Failure to consider both af firmative evidence of deficiencies in the aseismic design of the proposed plant at this tire, and to reevaluate the geological and geophysical assumptions underlying the applicant's aseismic design could result in either substantial economic waste for rate-payers or substantial risk to life in the event of an earthquake exceeding the t
l aseismic design limit of the structure and causing the design basis accident, which would result in the release of radionuclides in excess of design limits.
l 2.
Marine Environment Studies by the applicant and regulatory staff of the impact on marine environment are inaccurate and incomplete.
Unless their studies are corrected the Commission will have an incomplete and inaccurate assessment of the damage to the 1
marine environment from the proposed design.
j 4
a, The studies of existing marine environments are not i
complete in that they (1) f ail to include a complete study of j
algae; (2) rely to a major extent on population studies con-ducted some ten miles from the p1'nt site; (3) group species a
1 into biologically untenable categories of " warm-water" and 1
" cold-water" species; (4) f ail to consider at length the more detailed survey of the marine environment in the precise locality conducted by the Calif ornia Department of Fish and Game; (5) f ail to give appropriate weight to the econonic value of the great population of juvenile red abalone in the area of Diablo; and (6) f ail to place any economic value.on the sports fishing industry in the vicinity of Diablo, b.
The predictions of thermal dispersion are inaccurato 6
l 1
4 in the following respects: (1) they f ail to take. full account l
of the prevailing northwesterly winds, which will have the tendency to force the thermal plume shoreward and result in a substantial temperature increase through recirculation of l
heated water; (2) they f ail to identify the mouth of Diablo l
l Cove as the point of discharge; and (3) they fail to reconcile j
i major discrepancies among the.four.predictionsrof: Ehermal
)
i dispersion -- the applicant's, the regulatory staff's, the i
Environmental Protection Agency's, and that. prepared under the auspices of the Department of the Interior.
- c. Even if the extent of thermal dispersion were accurately predicted and the marine population were accurately identified, neither the applicant nor the regulatory staff has accurately predicted the extent of (1) kill within the o
f our-degree isotherm to benthic organisms; (2) mortality from entrainnent in the cooling-water; or (3) loss of habitat f or indigenous species from killing of the standing kelp crop, i.
No consideration has been given by the regulatory staf f to the standard of thermal discharge enacted in Public Law 92-500, that a balanced community of indigenous species must be sustained in the f ace of thermal polution. Even granting that neither this Board nor the Commission might impose a requirement for thermal discharge other than that the plant be licanned by either the Environ;tental Protection Agency or the State, a consideration of this constraint is essential to a rational balancing of probabilities and consideration of niternatives.
3.
Risk of Accident f rom Sabotage The staf f and applicant have not accurately estimated the 7
risk of unintentional release of radioactive particles as the
- 'N consequence of acts of domestic sabotage and the consequential hazard to the environment.
In paragraph 7.1, the staff characterizes the possibility of serious accident as " extremely un likely. "
Nevertheless, the applicant has not demonstrated the l
present ability, nor has the staff reviewed the feasibility of providing plant security of sufficient strength to deter a small band of domestic saboteurs.
The plant location makes it uniquely vulnerable to such attack.
- 4. Alternative Designs The review and evaluation of design alternatives by i
applicant and staff is inaccurate and incomplete.
The alternative design of closed-circuit cooling.has
)
a.
l been summarily discarded, when the uniqueness and economic
(
1 value of the marine environment demand closer consideration.
l The technology in salt-water cooling has advanced markedly
)
within the past two years; the conclusions by staff and l
applicant are based on the state of the art when this plant was initially designed.
Cooling towers, ponds, and canals are each feasible alternatives, which deserve consideration.
b.
The alternative design of installing a diffuser on the cooling water discharge has not been given careful consideration, as an intermediate measure.
Such added protection to the marine environment should be a minimum requirement if a;;plicant is allowed to continue cons truction of the open-circuit, occan-water-cooled reactor, The applicant has f ailed to take adequate measures to c.
ninimize environmental impact of constructing transmission lines.
Additional review is necessary on specific measures f or. erosion control, road drainage systems, reuction of impact on wildlife 8
L' and water. systems, undergrounding of transmission lines and other factors in siting and construction of power lines.
5.
Alternative Sites Since cicsed-circuit cooling is a feasible and necessary alternative design, applicant should show cause why an inland site, which does not require expropriation of a scenic and I
recreational asset for industrial purposes, should not be used.
]
6.
Alternative Energy Sources,
- a. Geothermal energy is presently available in sufficient l
quantity to provide applicant with a reliable and economical 4
alternative source of power, avoiding the environmental risks and eliminating the unavoidable environmental. damage of the nuclear reactor, b.
Fusion energy could be available in sufficient time to provide a safe and reliable alternative source of energy, i
if applicant and the Commission waald commit an amount of l
money and effort which is comparable either to. the fusion-reactor research program of the Soviet Union or the public-relations budgets of the applicant and the Commission.
l 1
Direct conversion.of solar energy is a presently c.
?
l available and practical method of generating electrical power.
d.
Each and every of the foregoing alternative sources of energy would result, under-present law, in major long-term econondes to consumers, at the expense only of corporate profits, which are subject to' regulation.
Each and every such i
alternative would either substantially reduce or totally eliminate environmental risks inherent in other methods of 1
electrical generation.
?
7.
Need for Power Applicant's projection of the need for electrical energy is unrealistic at best or at worst a cynical, self-fulfilling j
prophecy.
Applicant admits that the projected need is based on a growth rato in consumption which is nearly twice the population growth rate.
The reckless waste of resources inherent 1
in applicant's projection is unrelated to any rational plan for l
l l
the conservation of energy.
i 8.
Environmental Monitors 1
1 l
l The applicant and staff propose a totally inadequate i
system of environmental monitoring.
Radiation, thermal pollution, and destruction of the landscape are all designed to be monitored for irreparableiinjuries after they are inflicted.
There is i
no indication that experiments or simulation studies have been s
undertaken to anticipate adverse impact and provide the chance to take mitigating steps in cavance of the injury.
9.
,"_Re gu lato ry " Matters Proposed Interveners contend that the following issues have been improperly designated as " regulatory" and hence irrelevant to individual licensing matters :
1 A reliable emergency system for core cooling is not a.
presently available, nor is there evidence that the design of a reliable emergency system could be back-fitted with applicant's i
ra:ctor, i
b.
No system of rail, air or truck transportation of q
I drums and casks of radiological waste can avoid undue risk of catastrophic accident, with radiation injuries not only in the immediate vicinity of the site but also in all areas through which the waste materials are transported.
The Commission's I
10 l
)
safety standards f ail to afford adequate protection for public safety, even if applicat purported to meet such standards.
.c.
The assumed safe levels of radiation are not adequate, in that they are based on assumption rather than f act, and furthermore because a reactor designed to release
- no gaseous radiation is both feasible and practical.
- 10. Public Policy l
l l
The Commission owes particular respect to the coastal
)
l L
environment of California not' only for its unique aesthetic,.
recreational and ecological' resources but also because the l
public imposed.a public trust as a matter: of law over the California Coastal Zone, in November,1972, by enacting the Coastal Zone Conservation Initiative (Proposition 20).
That Act, passed in spite of the vigorous and costly opposition of applicant and other utilities, expresses the overwhelming public will that:
... [T]he California coastal zone is a distinct and valuable natural resource belonging to all the people and existing as a delicately balanced ecosystem; that the permanent protection of the remaining' natural and scenic resources of the coa,stal zone is a -paramount concern to present and future residents of the state and nation; that in order to promote the public safety, health and welf are, and to protect public and private property, wildlife, marine fisheries, and other ocean resources, and the natural environment, it is necessary to preserve.the ecological balance of the coastal zone and prevent its further deterioration and destruction; tnat it is the policy of the state te preserve, protect, and, Nhere possible, to restore the resourcas of the coastal zone for the enjoyment of the current and succeeding generations...."
California Public Resources Code, Scotion 27002, enacted November, 1972 11
PRAYER For; the foregoing reasons, petitioners respectfully request leave to intervene on behalf of the persons, ' the wildlife, and the earth which will be adversely affected
~
by continuation of construction under the within permit.
Dated:
May 1, 1973 SCENIC SHORELINE PRESERVATION CONFERENCE, Inc.
\\
g Bruce Sharpe, General Counsel OGLE GALLO, Attorneys at Law Y._ /LA Mv0
)
~
I Gerald Mason Attorney at Law Attorneys for Luigi Marre Land and Cattle Company, and San Luis Obispo Bay Properties, Inc.
e I
i
)
12 l
I AFFADAVIT OF FREDERICK EISSLER State of California
)
l.
)
ss County of Santa Barbara)
Frederick Eissler, being first duly sworn, declares:
)
1 I an president of Scenic shoreline Preservation j
l I
Conference, Inc., a California non-profit corporation. In accordance with the Articles on Incorporation and the Bylaws of the Corporation, I am authorized to state that the Corporation 1
l has duly considered and adopted the foregoing petition to l
l 1
intervene as its of ficial policy, that the Corporation is 1
ready and willing to pursue the duties of an intervenor on I
behalf of the public interest, either as an individual intervenor or as a consolidated intervenor with Luigi Marre s
Land and Cattle Ccapany and San Luis Obispo Bay Properties, recognizing a community of interest among the entities in so i
fcr as these proceedings are concerned.
Principal offices of the corporation are located at 4623 More Mesa Drive, Santa Barbara, California 93110.
A Principal purpose of the corporation is to promote and encourage the prudent use of the Pacific Coastal zone, particularly along the marine border of the State of California.
The corporation draws members primarily from among re....dants of pacific co u t abates.
- %noerchip includes residents of San Luis Obispo County, which is immediately af fected by the proposed facility.
Members of the corporation have used,. and wish to continue the uninterrupted use of Montana de Oro State neach Park, adjoining the proposed facility.
Members of the corporation have exercised their right to sports fishing in 1
9 waters of Diablo Cove and the adjoining public waters.
Ven6ers of the corporation possess interests in real property
.within a radius of tuenty-five miles from the proposed facility.
The membership of the corporation is reasonably concerned that the economic value of their property will be adversely affected by the proximity of the proposed f acility and by the impact which construction and operation of the f acility would have on the health and safety of the environment.
Members of the corporation and the corporation itself are adversely af fected by the impact on public utility rates of applicant's profligate and economically inef ficient reliance on atomic energy as proposed in this f acility.
Neither the corporation nor to my knowledge any member of the corporation possesses any financial beneficial interest 1
in a competitor of applicant, nor will any member of the l
corporation or the corporation itself realize any economic benefit from any determination of these proceedings except 1
as set out above; in those respects, the economic interests of the corporation and its members are substantially identical with those of other utility users, landowners, and the general public.
The corporation declines, as a matter of policy and principle, to disclose its nembership list f or San Luis Obispo County or for any other area.
The corporation is generally empowered by its membership, in San Luis Obispo County and elsewhere, to act as their agent with respect to the contentions stated in the attached petition to intervene.
The corporation is' specifically empowered to act as special agent for the named 2
i l
I individuals in the attached petition with respect to the l
contentions raised.
j fne petitioner is particularly qualified to act on I
i behalf of the public interest, because (1) it has continuously l
acted in such capacity in the five-year record on this docket, arid' i
in the entire public dockets for Diablo No. 1 and San Onofre l
l Units 1 and 2 '
(2) it has studied the coastal Zone extensively; and (3) it has access to technical resources which can present to' ': 31 i
the Board corpetent and balanced evidence with respect to each l
of the contentions.
The statements in this aff adavit are true of my personal knowledge.
Tne statements in the attached petition are true to the best of my inf ormation and belief; the contentions are l
raised in good faith and not for the purpose of protracting I
or delaying these proceedings.
j Dated:O.f%//
O
/(/7$
" ~ 1 1
1
/
,r,
[QHOk$d l
~,
> G fb h / 6 4
Frederick Eissler, president Subscribed and sworn to before j
re, _t 2Qth day of April, 1973.'
N x
~d'~ D% c) -
l Bruce Sharpe, Nobary Public y 'e
.(q
..... ~,..
1,. L :".45 t,TG *! La
< t.' *y.g )
7,,'<.,4 J
d d
....s
> - s en s-s l
1
I q
i CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE The foregoing Amended and Consolidated Petition to
]
Inetervene, dated April 29, 1973, has been served today by deposit in the United States mail, properly stamped and addresses, on the following persons:
1 l
l l
Elizabeth S. Bowers, Esq.
]
Atomic Safety & Licensing Panel
. 3 U.S. Atomic Energy Commission Washington, D,C, 20545 l
i Mr. Glenn O. Bright Atomic Safety & Licensing Panel F
U.S. Atomic Energy Commission l
Washington, D.C.
20545 1
1 l
l Dr. William E. Martin l
Senior Ecologist i
Battelle Memorial Institute l
Columbus, Ohio 43201 i
Charles A. Haskins, Esq.
j Windy Hill Farm j
Bluemont, Va. 22012 1
J Dr. Clark Goodman, Professor of Physics University of Houston 3801 Cullen Blvd.
' Hous ton, "'e xas 7 70 0 4 lir. Philip A Crane Esq.
Pacific Gas & Electric Company 77 Beale St.
San Francisco, CA 94106 Mr. Tu cke r W.
Peterson, Esq.
California Public Utilities Commission 5066 State Bldg.
San Francisco, CA 94102 z~
l
'h e*
J...
Bruce Sharpe Attorney for Scenic Shoreline Preservation Conf erence, Inc.
Dated:
April 30, 1973
__ ____-___ -