ML20236N255
Text
- _ _ - _ _ _ _ - _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _
1 1
]
s 1
UNITED STATES OF AMERICA Gj ATOMIC ENERGY COMMISSION
/
-)
l In the Matter of
-).
i
)
)
PACIFIC GAS AND ELECTRIC COMPANY
)'
Dockets _50-2 7 5
)
)
50-323 4
Units 1 and 2
)
h'
)
Diablo Canyon Site g
)
]i
)
l RESPONSE O PACIFIC GAS AND ELECTRIC COMPANY TO PETifION FILED BY SCENIC SHORELINE i
PRESERVATION CONFERENCE, INC.
Pacific Gas and Electric Company (PGandE) hereby responds j
1 to the " Petition By Scenic Shoreline Preservation Conference, Inc
[ Conference) To Suspend Construction of Diablo Canyon Nuclear Power-Plants Units 1 and 2 " as follows :
)
1.
It would be premature to suspend construction and reopen hearings until the new offshore feature recently identified by the U. S. Geological Survey has been completely analyzed to l
determine whether or not it is a fault and, if so, whether it has any significance regarding the design of the Units.
We understand that a report on this feature will be published by the U. S.
3 Geological Survey.
Although as of the date hereof this report has not been released statements in the public press indicate the feature is a fault only about three miles long.
In any event this report will have to be studied and, possibly, further investigative work l
performed, before the significance of this feature can be established.
l The existence of an offshore fault in and of itself is not surprising nor any'cause for concern.
The existence of offshore' faults has been d)-
recognized by PGandE, and the Final Safety Analysis Report (FSAR) g 8708110425 870729 PDR FOIA-1 c.CONNOR B7-214 PDR,,,
discusses them (see, for example, pages 2.5-66, 2.5-67, figures 2. 5-2,
- 2. 5-3).
However, for the reasons,given in the FSAR, these faults are l
not the governing faults insofar as plant design is cor.cerned.
1 2.
Paragraph 2 of Conference's petition misconstrues l
Clarence Hall's statements appearing in the public press by making them positive assertions rather than what they were - speculations.
The possibility of the connection of the various faults was considered at the hearing held in connection with the construction permit for Unit 2, and PGandE's geological consultant concluded the faults were not connected.
(Tr. pps. 136, 162-165.)
This contention was later upheld by an Atomic Safety and Licensing Appeal Board in a decision dated June 14, 1971.
PGandE's geological and seismological con-sultants have examined the Hall map, and it has not caused them to revise any of their original conclusions.
The Hall map is included in the PSAR.
(Figure 2. 5-4A. )
Contrary to the statements in para-graph 3 of Conference's petition, the FSAR does discuss the San Miguelito Pault, which is referred to therein as the Miguelito Fault (see pps. 2.5-7, 2.5-20, 2.5-21, 2.5-66, 2.5-67).
(A copy of the i
FSAR and Amendment 1 thereto was sent to the late Bruce Sharpe, Esq.,
the former General Counsel of Conference and its attorney of record in the environmental hearing.
Copies of future amendments will be mailed directly to Mr. Frederick Eissler.
In addition, a copy of the FSAR, as amended, is available in the local public document room in San Luis Obispo.)
3.
PGandE has shown at several stages of the licensing proceedings that power from the Units must be available on schedule to permit PGandE to meet its loads.
The most recent showing was 2
i in connection with the hearing held pursuant to Section B of 1
Appendix D to 10 CFR 50 to consider the environmental impact of l
Unit 2 (see testimony of H.
R.
Perry, Tr. pps. 934 - 986; exhibits 5A - SD).
There was no contrary evidence introduced at the hearing.
To suspend construction at this time solely upon the basis of l
instrument readings interpreted preliminarily to show the existence l
of a geological feature the full extent and character of which has i
not yet been analyzed and thereby to jeopardize PGandE's ability to I
l serve the needs of its customers would be completely unwarranted.
l 1
4.
At the hearing held in May 1972 pursuant to Section E of Appendix D to 10 CFR 50 to determine whether construction of the i
Units should be suspended pending completion of the NEPA review the evidence indicated that the cost of suspension of construction l
for a period of seven months (the amount of time assumed for the l
NEPA review would be about $123,000,000.
This amounts to about
$17,500,000 per month on a straight pro rata basis, making no 1
allowance for the costs of suspension which are not pro ratable.
1 That estimate is over a year and one-half old and doubtless would l
be larger today becm'c: of the skyrocketing cost of fuel and con-tinuing inflation.
Again, to impose this economic burden on PGandE based upon an unsubstantiated report would be unjust and unreasonable.
)
5, Continued construction during the period of time the new feature is being analyzed would not foreclose alternatives should subsequent analysis of the feature indicate a change in design should be made, because any such change would involve retrofitting work already in place.
Furthermore, the continued expenditure of money during the interim period (about $10,400,000 per month) is dwarfed 3
l l
by the amount already spent (over $500,000,000) and thus would not influence the final decision regarding the significance of the new feature.
6.
The remainder of the Conference petition consists i
mainly of a regurgitation of old arguments of Conference which have been considered and rejected by previous AEC licensing boards.
For example, the influence of the Murray Fracture Zone was con-sidered at length by an ASLB in connection with the issuance of j
a construction permit for Unit 2 (Tr. pps. 51-60; 104-106).
Similarly, the allegations contained in the affidavit of Stanley Mendes have been considered and rejected.
(See Answer of Pacific Gas and Electric Company To Amended and Consolidated Petition To Intervene, dated May 10, 1973, filed in connection with the envi-ronmental hearing on Unit 2.)
The adequacy of the ECCS is the subject of a generic rulemaking proceeding and thus is not properly a subject for consideration by individual licensing boards.
Geo-thermal energy was found not to be a viable alternative to the Diablo Units a year and one-half ago by an Atomic Safety and Licensing Board following the hearing held pursuant to Section E of Appendix D to 10 CPR 50, and because of lead time and steam prove-up requirements it is even less a viable alternative today.
For these reasons PGandE submits the Conference petition 4
j
4 I
J J
should be denied.
I Respectfully submitted, F. T. S EARLS JOHN C. MORRISSEY j
PHILIP A. CRANE, JR.
(
'a
. SULLIVAN N
d Bht ~
Philip 'hi Crane, Tr. '
/,
f Attorneys for Pacific Gas and Electric Company 77 Beale Street I
San Francisco, California 94106 i
415-781-4211 l
Dated:
December 24, 1973 i
I 5
)
UNITED STATES OF AMERICA.
ATOMIC ENERGY COMMISSION 1
1
'I 1
In the Matter of
)
)
PACIFIC GAS AND ELECTRIC COMPANY
)
Dockets 50-275
)
50-323 l
Units 1 and 2
)
)
Diablo Canyon Site
)
)
l l
j CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE The foregoing Response of Pacific Gas and Electric Company to Petition filed by Scenic Shoreline Preservation Conference, Inc.
has been served today on the following by deposit in the United States mail, properly stamped and addressed:
Lawrence J. Chandler, Esq.
James R. Yore, Esq.
I Office of the General Counsel Atomic Safety and Licensing Regulation Board Panel U. S. Atomic Energy Commission U. S. Atomic Energy Commission Washington, D. C. 20545 Washington, D. C. 20545 Secretary Andrew Skaff, Esq.
U. S. Atomic Energy Commission Counsel Washington, D. C. 20545 Public Utilities Commission of the State of California i
Attn..
Chief, Public Proceedings State Building l
Staff San Francisco, California 94102 Frederick Eissler President Scenic Shoreline Preservation Conference, Inc.
4623 More Mesa Drive Santa Barbara, California 93110
{
n 3 m
A
[
l s
n,
.i_
P 1p A. Cra e, Jr.
Attorney 'or Pacific Gas and Electric Company Dated:
December 24, 1973
...