ML20236N208

From kanterella
Jump to navigation Jump to search
Answer to 740114 Petition for Leave to Intervene Filed by Jj Forster & L Valentine.Petition Should Be Denied. Certificate of Svc Encl
ML20236N208
Person / Time
Site: Diablo Canyon  Pacific Gas & Electric icon.png
Issue date: 01/23/1974
From: Crane P
PACIFIC GAS & ELECTRIC CO.
To:
AFFILIATION NOT ASSIGNED
Shared Package
ML20236J368 List: ... further results
References
FOIA-87-214 NUDOCS 8708110410
Download: ML20236N208 (10)
v • d • e


Text

r- ,

UNITED STATES OF'AMERI

/q3.<;u7 ATOMIC ENERGY COMMISSIt .

1 In the Matter of ) l

} J PACIFIC GAS AND ELECTRIC COMPANY ) Dockets 50-275

) 50-323 Units 1 and 2 )

)

Diablo Canyon Site )

)

ANSWER OF PACIFIC GAS AND ELECTRIC COMPANY TO PETITION FOR LEAVE TO INTERVENE DATED

  • JANUARY 14, 1974 FILED BY JOHN J. FORSTER AND LONNIE VALENTINE l

l Pacific Gas and Electric Company (PGandE) hereby answers the above-captioned petition as follows: '!

1. Contention 1 deals with the effectiveness of _ the ECCS. This has been the subject of a widely publicized generic i rulemaking proceeding (Docket RM-50-1) and final decision by the

-i commission with new resulting regulations. PGandE will have to l l

l comply with thece regulations. If Petitioners do not accept the  !

revised regulations adopted by the Commission, they are in effect seeking to attack a Commission regulation and must comply v4.th 10 CFR 2.758.

2. Contention 1 A deals with pressure vessel rupture.

This is an appropriate area of inquiry only upon a showing of l special circumstances, and such a showing requires more than the mere allegation thereof. Contentions or challenges regarding-pressure vessel integrity which-have no substantial or prima facie basis are excludible. (In the matter of Long Island Lighting Company, ALAB-156, RAl-73-10 at 847. )

8708110410 870729 1

PDR FOIA W {i .'

.CONNOR87-214 PDR m i

.. i

, , l 1

3. Contention 2 deals with site geology. This has ,

l been adequately covered in the AEC Staff report placed in the I Public Document Room describing a meeting held to discuss recent offshore explorations of USGS and PGandE. A copy of this report is appended hereto as Attachment A. )

4. Contention 3 deals with matters which were con- )

sidered during the environmental hearing held pursuant to Section B of Appendix D to 10 CFR 50. As such they are not proper matters for consideration in an operating license proceeding.

5. Contention 4 deals with financial and insurance matters. The financial information required to be set forth in the Final Safety Analysis Report (FSAR) is described in AEC regula-tions (10 CFR 50.33 (f) and Appendix C to 10 CFR 50). Nothing more is required. As the law now stands the Diablo units will be I 1 i j covered by the Price-Anderson indemnity provisions because the l

construction permits were issued between August 30, 1954 and  ;

1 August 1, 1977. If Petitioners believe the level of financial l i

protection required by the Price-Anderson Act to be inadequate, they must comply with 10 CFR 2.758 and should also appeal to Congress. The effect of a retroactive revocation of Price-Anderson, even if legally permissible, clearly is beyond the scope of this proceeding.

6. Contention 5 appears to deal with the environmental effects of accidents and thus is beyond the scope of the issues of l this proceeding. The environmental effects of various accidents were analyzed in the environmental hearing as required by the Annex to l

\

2 l

t____._________________._____---__ _ - - - - - _ -

Appendix D to 10 CFR 50. If the contention is that more analysis is required, then'the contention represents an attack on AEC regu-lations and must comply with 10 CFR 2.758.

7. Contention 6 appears to deal with t2un transportation

~

of nuclear waste material. This is the subject of an AEC generic-rulemaking proceeding. (Docket RM-50-4) and thus is not a proper subject for an individual licensing proceeding.

8. Contention 7 deals with a number of acts of violence.

AEC regulations provide that acts of war and sabotage need not be I considered in licensing proceedings. (10 CFR 50.13.) 'The other matters in this paragraph are generic issues which are covered by AEC regulations. (10 CFR 73.)

9. Contention 8 deals with processing and storage of I wastes. This is the subject of a generic'rulemaking proceeding (Docket RM-50-3) and as such is not a proper subject for an individual licensing proceeding.

I

10. Contentions 9 and 10 are not clear. To the extent they deal with matters covered by Appendix I to 10 CFR 50 they concern matters currently being considered in an AEC rulemaking proceeding and thus are not a proper subject' for an individual licensing proceeding.
11. Contention 11 appears.to be an attack on the AEC ')

regulatory review procedure. This is clearly. beyond the scope

.]

of the instant proceeding and properly is a subject which should ~!

be addressed, if at all, to Congress.  :

1

12. Contention 12 involves uranium supply problems.

l 3

. i I

Here again the issue appears to be one beyond the scope of this proceeding as the question of supply is a risk which must be accepted by a reactor licensee. It has no health and safety i

, significance. The necessary cost-benefit analysis was made during the environmental hearings and is not part of the ,

I operating license proceeding.  !

13. Contention 13 deals with evacuation and disaster plans. In PGandE's opinion all information required by AEC regulations (10 CFR 50.30 (b) and Appendix E) is set forth in ,

i Section 13.3 of the FSAR. Any request for further information j is, in effect, an attack on AEC regulations and must comply with 10 CFR 2 . 7 58.

14. Contention 14 deals with the need for power, geo-l thermal and solar energy as alternatives, and rates. Rate matters are properly considered by AEC, if at all, in connection l with energy conservation measures. These will be considered in the environmental hearing and need not be considered herein. The need for power and geothermal and solar energy alternatives like-wise were considered at the environmental hearing and need not be considered here.
15. Contention 15 is garbled and confused. With regard to low plant availability as an alleged added cost to consumers, The. Wall Street Journal of January 21, 1974 carried an article indicating that availability of new nuclear units on the Common-l wealth-Edison system were 81% compared with an availability factor of 69% for new fossil units. At any event, review of this para-1 graph fails to reveal any contention cognizable by the Board in l 4 u

I

)

this proceeding. .

16. Contention 16 deals with radiation monitoring devices, which was a cubject dealt with at the environmental hearing and need not be considered again here.. (Tr. p. 1133 et seq.) The AEC Staff reviewed the monitoring ~ program proposed by PGandE and found it to be' adequate (Final Environmental State- -

ment p. 6-14)'.

17. Contention 17 is a generalized, conclusionary statement and not a contention cognizable in this proceeding.
18. Contention 18 deals with the location of the trans-mission lines. This has been considered a nudber of times in a number of forums, most recently at the environmental hearing, and need not be considered at this proceeding. (Tr. p. 832 et ' seq. )
19. Contention 19 is vague and general. As previously stated above the types of accidents PGandE is required to consider are covered by AEC regulations.

I

20. Contention 20 deals with containment of radioactivity i on abandonment of the facility. Permitted releases of. radioactivity i are dealt with in AEC regulations and no special issue exists which i

must be considered herein. '

21. Contention 20 A does not appear to present any con-tentions cognizable in this proceeding but merely presents.a state-ment of opinion.
22. . As a general comment many of the so-called contentions fail to comply with 10 CFR 2.714 because they do not set' forth the

-5 .

I basis for the contention but merely state conclusions. This is particularly true for Contentions 16 and 18 and to the others in lesser degree.

WHEREFORE, PGandE prays that the above-captioned Petition I

J to Intervene be denied.

Respectfully submitted, F. T. SEARLS 1 JOHN C. MORRISSEY PHIL T CRANE, JR I

By_t i r -

i

'Phill A. Cra , Jr. j Attorneys for Pacific Gas and Electric Company 77 Beale Street San Francisco, California 94106 415-781-4211 l

l I

Dated: January 23, 1974 l

6

,) . '

o 5 c ATTACHNENT'A

<c. -

$ -} +

,u UNITED STATUS

' Y g. q,I).f

../E;

, t. -

%eh [OM1C ENERGY COMMIS5 ION

'$ T WASHINGTON D.C. 20545

(..' %"y . q, y s.

s w,q .

Doci E Nos. 50-275 '

I l B74 ai.t' 50-323 -

G ,

APFLICANT,: PACIFIC CAS AND ELECTRIC tdPANY (PGLE) 9

, FACILITY: DIA3LO CANYON UNITS 1 AND 2 g

I.

SLT!ARY OF MEETING HELD TO DISCUSS RECENT 0?l.5'fDRE EXPLORATIONS OF USGS AND PGSE '

A meeting between representatives of PGSE, USGS, and the AEC wt.s held -

at (ne US Geological Survey offices in Memlo Park, California, on January 8, 1974. PGGE was also represented by Douglas H. W:ailton of Earth Sciences Assoc 1stes, one of their geological consultants.

J. Harding of the Friet.ds of the Earth was also present, but did not participate in the meetinz,. The complete list of attendees is given in Enclosure No.1. <

The purpose of the meeting was to discuss faultin( near Diablo Canyon that was discovered during recent offshora geologic mapping perforued by both USGS and ? OLE in the vicinity of the Diablo Canyon site. USGS conducted extensive work in this offshore area during the Fall of 1973, and in November reported the discovery of a possible fault in this region (see temo fron W. P. Gacmill to J. M. Hendrie dated November 21, 1973). PGSE perfor:ed additional mapping work in this area during December of 1973.

Fx. Holly Wagner of the USGS presented and described the offshore seismic reflection survey in the vicinity of the Diablo Canyon site. The survey design consists of continuous reflection profiles along traverses that are approximately nornal to the coast line and are spaced at ona-mile intervals.

The staff viewed both the seismic reflection recordings and

' a map showing the locations and trends of three faults and two sea

  • terraces that have been interpreted from the scismic reflection data.

For our discussion the faults were referred to as Faults A, B, and C.

Each was discussed as follows:

l

1. Fault A: At its nearest approach, this fault is located about 3 miles southwest of the Diablo Canyon site. It strikes northwest and has a total capped length of less than one mile. The fault is confined to the Mesozoic geologic section and does not offset the sea floor. It  !

intersects one of the sea terraces, which has a 10 foot change in elevation, at ' small angle, and it was at this point of intersection that the original seismic profile (#139) crossing occurred. As a 3 i

. N

. l l

3

. U. 1.I 1974 o l l

l The staf f has evaluated the of fshore e.<ploration data obtained to date I l

by USGS and PCSE. As a result of this evaluation, the staff feels that I l

faults A and B are local features which do not represent potential l l earthquake sources that would produce acceleration.s at the site which l are greater than those produced by the safe shutdown earthquake set f orth by PGLE in the FSAR. i

' . . 1 i

I Fault C may be related to the larger structural feature described by lioskins and Grif fith; however, its limited extent of nine miles makes it a minor source of potential earthquake activity, regardless of its l l

relation to the Hoskins - Grif fith f eature. As with faults A and B, the staff feels that accelerations at the site produced by fault C would

! be well within the limits for which the plant is' designed. ,

/

~7;"D ' .i N 'O' Thomas J. Hirons  !

Light Water Reactors Group 1-3 Directorate of Licensing

Enclosure:

Attendance List l 6

e e

8 m

U 9:9

, ENCLOSURE NO. 1 ATTENDANCE LIST 4

PACIFIC C,.3 AND ELECTRIC, V.J.Gho l W. ' J. Lindblad , , ,

EARTH SCII'CES ASSCCIATES 1

i

. D. B. E ilton .

USGS R. Jerkes F. McKac-m H. Wagne:

AEC - LICriSING W. F. Gz=1111 T. J. Eir:ns R. B. M: 9211en J. C. S;epp FRID;IJS Ci T22 DR'_'".J.

, J. Harding F

e Y

m

/

UNITED STATES OF AMER' S ATOMIC ENERGY COMMISS1vN In the Matter of )

)

PACIFIC GAS AND ELECTRIC COMPANY ) Dockets 50-275

) 50-323 Units 1 and 2 )

)

l Diablo Canyon Site )

)

j CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE l The foregoing Answer of Pacific Gas and Electric Company l to Petition For Leave to Intervene dated January 14, 1974 filed by John J. Forster and Lonnie Valentine has been served today on the i following by deposit in the United States mail, properly stamped and addressed:

Mr. Nathaniel E. Goodrich Secretary Chairman U. S. Atomic Energy Commission Atomic Safety and Licensing Washington, D. C. 20545

~

Board Panel U. S. Atomic Energy Commission Attn.: Chief, Public Proceedings Washington, D. C. 20545 Staff 1 i

Lawrence J. Chandler, Esq. James R. Yore, Esq.

Office of the General Counsel Atomic Safety and Licensing q Regulation Board Panel .

U. S. Atomic Energy Commission U. S. Atomic Energy Commission ,

Washington, D. C. 20545 Washington, D. C. 20545 l Robert M. Lazo, Esq. Andrew Skaff, Esq.

Atomic Safety and Licensing Counsel Board Panel Public Utilities Commission U. S. Atomic Energy Commission of the State of California Washington, D. C. 20545 State Building San Francisco, California 94102 Dr. Marvin M. Pann Atomic Safety and Licensing Mr. John J. Forster Board Panel 503 Mitchell Drive U. S. Atomic Energy Commission San Lois Obispo, California Washington, D. C. 20545 Mr. Lonnie Valentine 1580 San Jacinto Atascadero, California n_ .

l __

Ph p A. Crane Jr.

)

Attorney fo '

Pacific Gat, and Electric Company Dated: January 23, 1974

Retrieved from "https://kanterella.com/w/index.php?title=ML20236N208&oldid=3175963"