ML20238A648

Forwards Page 7 of 870813 Pleading Entitled, Response of NRC Staff to Licensing Board Order of 870732 (Directing Parties to File Comments on Applicability of Appeal Boards Decision...), Which Was Inadvertently Omitted

ML20238A648
Person / Time
Site:	Diablo Canyon
Issue date:	08/17/1987
From:	Chandler L NRC OFFICE OF THE GENERAL COUNSEL (OGC)
To:	Bright G, Cotter B, Harbour J Atomic Safety and Licensing Board Panel
References
CON-#387-4254 OLA, NUDOCS 8708210038
Download: ML20238A648 (2)

Text

_ . _ _

P # 'o,, UNITED STATES 8, e NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSION pu :t y p WASHINGTON D. C. 205S5 U 3 tP-4 ,o 9***** August 17, 1987 '87 AUG 18 All :34 kCh. >-

1 w.

B. Paul Cotter, Jr., Chairman Glenn O. Bright l Atomic Safety and Licensing Atomic Safety and Licensing l Board Panel Board Panel U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission H Washington, D.C. 20555 Washington, D.C. 20555 Dr. Jerry Harbour Atomic Safety and Licensing Board Panel U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission Washington, D.C. 20555 in the Matter of.

PACIFIC GAS AND ELECTRIC COMPANY (Diablo Canyon Nuclear Power Plant, Units 1 and 2) t Docket Nos. 50-275 OLA and 50-323 OLA (Spent Fuel Pool)

Dear Administrative Judges:

Attached is Page 7 of the pleading which was filed August 13, 1987, entitled " Response of the NRC Staff To The Licensing Board's Order of July 31, 1987 [ Directing The Parties To File Comments On the Applicability of the Appeal Board's Decision in Vermont Yankee Nuclear Power Corporation, ALAB-869, To the Proposed Contentions at issue in This Matter]" which was inadvertently omitted. We apologize for any inconvenience this may have caused.

Sin rely, Lawrence . Chandler Special Litigation Counsel

Attachment:

As stated cc: Service List, w/ attachment 8708210038 870817 e6 PDR ADOCK 05000275 7 C PDR

1

't l

l by definition, highly improbable -- i.e. , remote and speculative -- events.

ALAB-869, Slip op. at 27..

The Appeal Board stated that before the NEPA Policy Statement can be invoked there must be some basis other than a mere claim of increased risk from a beyond design-basis scenario. ALAB-869, Slip.' op at 28-29.

The Appeal Board held that the Interveners could not "use a beyond design-basis accident scenario to bootstrap their way to an admissible l l

contention that asserts an EIS is required to examine the environmental risks of such an accident." id. at 29. The Appeal Board, accordingly, l

rejected the proposed contention. 6/

C. Applicability of ALAB-869 to Sierra Club's Proposed Contention  ;

)

In the Staff's Answer to Sierra Club's motion to admit contentions, which is incorporated herein by reference, the Staff repeatedly pointed l out that the Sierra Club's proposed contention was predicated upon a draft BNL report that analyzed two older surrogate plants and hypothesized a complex chain of events terminating in a catastrophic beyond design-basis accident. The Staff referred to the numerous caveats throughout the draft BNL report discounting its applicability to any specific nuclear facility and stated that it was incumbent upon the Sierra Club at a minimum to establish a nexus between the draft BNL report and the Diablo Canyon facility. See, discussion in part A. supra.

Instead, as the Staff noted, the Sierra Club merely relied upon simplistic

~6/

It will be noted that the Vermont Yankee intervenor, NECNP, filed a Petition for Reconsideration or in the Alternative for Certification of ALAB-869 on August 10, 1987.

-t' yr