ML20093F073

Reply to Joint Intervenor Response to Aslab 840910 Order Requesting Party Views on How ASLB Should Proceed W/Respect to Facility.Further Hearings Unwarranted.Certificate of Svc Encl

ML20093F073
Person / Time
Site:	Diablo Canyon
Issue date:	10/10/1984
From:	Norton B NORTON, BURKE, BERRY & FRENCH, PACIFIC GAS & ELECTRIC CO.
To:
References
CON-#484-435 ALAB-763, OL, NUDOCS 8410120372
Download: ML20093F073 (9)

Text

_ _ _ _ _ _ - - _ _ _ _ _ _ _

COC TED US C '

1 UNITED STATES OF AMERICA NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSION 3

Before The Atomic Safety And Licensing Appeal Board a _ECRETuv 4 h').$f~fW

In the Matter of )

Pacific Gas and Electric Docket Nos. 50-275 0L 6 Company ) 50-323 C {

)

7 (Diablo Canyon Power Plant, )

8 Units 1 and 2.) )

)

._ g 10 i 11 12 Pacific Gas and Electric Company's Reply to Joint Intervenors' Response 13 To Appeal Board Order of September 10, 1984

14 e l

15 16 I 17 INTRODUCTION

, 18 On September 10, 1984, the Appeal Board requested 19 that the parties provide their views on how the Board should 20 proceed with respect to Diablo Canyon Unit 2. The Board 21 directed the parties to address whether- further he(arings 22 were necessary and, if so, to identify those issues 4

23 identified in ALAB-763, 19 NRC 571 (1984), which could not 24 be resolved for Unit 2 on the existing record and fully 25 explain why the record evidence was insufficient;. The 26 ///

8410120372 841010 PDR ADOCK 05000275 G PDR ,

b

1 Appeal Board also requested a hearing schedule be furnished 2 if a party believed further hearings were necessary. If 3 PGandE and the NRC Staff filed responses to the 4 Appeal Board's Order concluding that no further hearings are 5 warranted or necessary- for Unit 2. 2/ The joint 6 intervenors, however, took the position that further

, 7 hearings are necessary to confirm the design adequacy of 8 Unit 2 an'd, accordingly, proposed a hearing schedule. For

- - 9 the reasons set- forth below, PGandE opposes joint 10 intervenors' request.

11 II

, 12 ARGUMENT 13 Joint intervenors have ignored the Appeal Board's 14 plain request that a party must specify those issues decided i

15 in ALAB-763 which could not be resolved for Unit 2 on the 16 existing _ record and, more importantly, specify why the 17 record is insufficient as to those issues. (Board Order, 18 p. 2.) Rather than complying with the straightforward

19 requirements of the Board's Order, joint intervenors have 20 the temerity to suggest that contentions (issues allegedly 21 not resolved for Unit 2) be finalized only after further

! 22 l 23 1] The Appeal Board requested that the Staff provide it l with information on the expected date of issuance of a  !

24 Unit 2 SSER and that PGandE indicate a schedule for Unit 2 operation.

j 25 26 2f The Governor has apparently not filed a pl'eading in response to this Board's invitacion.

l l

1 hearings are decreed by the Board and discovery has been 2 completed. (J.I. Response at p. 7) . By this action, joint 3 intervenors ignore not only the Appeal Board's Order but 4 nullify the orderly adjudicatory process mandated by the 5 Commission's-rules of practice.

6 As the Staff noted in its Response, the design of 7 Unit 2 was litigated in the October-Noveanber 1983 design 8 hearing. (Staff Brief, p. 2. ) This fact was reflected not

.. -- 9 only in the admitted contentions, discovery, prefiled 10 testimony, and testimony at hearing, but also in the 11 proposed findings of the parties.

i 12 Joint intervenors in effect would have this Board 13 conclude that Unit 2 was not even a part of the case 14 considered to this point in time. They completely ignore 15 the fact that specific Unit 2 contentions were put at issue 16 in those reopened proceedings and evidence was adduced i

17 concerning those contentions. Nowhere in their response do 18 joint intervenors discuss, much less justify, what 19 additional evidence is needed on any specific contention.

20 Rather, joint intervenors make sweeping generalizations of a

~21 need for further hearings on Unit 2 while at the same time 22 ignoring the considerable evidence in the record relating to 23 Unit 2 design verification activities. Nowhere do they 24 dispute that the same criteria, methodology, design 25 processes and basic procedures were used for Unit 2 as were

~

l 26 used for Unit 1. Nowhere do they articulate why the l

i .- . -..-_-. . . - . . .. - . . - --. - - . . - . . - - . . - . - -

l l .. .

i 1 evidence and conclusions reached by the Board in ALAB-763 do 2 not apply with equal force to Unit 2. Nowhere do they 3 dispute that the IDVP reviewed the seismic design criteria, 4 methodology, and processes applicable to both units when it 5 conducted its review of Unit 1. Instead, they rely on 6 generalized statements of concern about the scope of the 7 verification effort for Unit 2 and whether PGandE in fact 8 did what it said it was going to do in unrebutted testimony.

. _ 9 In the face of uncontroverted evidence that the same 10 crite.ria, methodologies, design processes, and basic 11 procedures were utilized in the ITP's review of the design 12 of Unit 2, vis-a-vis Unit 1, joint intervenors have failed 13 to present anything to the contrary. In fact, joint 14 intervenors have already abandoned contention 2(d) which 15 dealt with the adequacy of the ITP verification activities 16 for Unit 2.

< 17 PGandE has clearly established by record evidence 18 that the seismic design of Units 1 and 2 has been l 19 essentially reviewed by the IDVP and ITP (PGandE Response, 20 pp. 6-10). PGandE has also demonstrated that for nonseismic 21 design involving basic system functions and components, the 22 same criteria, design, and methodologies were utilized for l 1

23 /// l 24 ///

l 25 ///

-26

, . _ _ . _._..._ _-___.._ _ .. _ _ _ _ _ . ~ . _ . - _ _ . _ _ _ . _ . . - - _ _ . _ - -

1 both units since the systems and components are basically 2

the same for both units. 3/

3 Joint intervenors also claim that a hearing on 4 Unit 2 is necessary to review allegations by Messrs. Stokes

5 and Yin concerning small and large bore piping design.

6 However, that matter has been resolved by this Board's 7 decision in ALAB-775. There the Appeal Board found that:

8 " . . . the joint intervenors have failed to present new evidence of any signifi-

- - 9 cant safety issue that could have an effect on the outcome of the licensing 10 of the proceeding. Among other things, the movants have not presented evidence 11 that establishes uncorrected design

. . . errors that endanger safe plant 12 operation. Nor have they demonstrated 13 that there has been a breakdown of the 4

applicant's quality assurance program that raises legitimate doubt that the 14 facility can operate safely." (Footnote 15 omitted.) ALAB-775 (Slip. Op. at, j

9-10.)

I 16 The Board also observed in ALAB-775 that the joint

)

i 17 intervenors, despite being requested to address why the 18 PGandE and Staff responses were insufficient, failed to 19 uindividually address all of . . . the matters raised."

j 20 (ALAB-775, Slip Op. p. 9 fn. 19.) In similar fashion, joint i

j 21 ///

I 22 23 3f Indeed, the Board recognized in ALAB-763 (19 NRC at 581, fn. 46) that the IDVP's findings in the nonseismic I

24 area were few in number, of relatively minor signifi-cance, and required only a few minor modifications.

The Board went on to observe that it agreed with the 25 ITP's conclusion that there was a high degree of confi-l dence in the adequacy of the nonseismic design at

! 26 Diablo Canyon. (ALAB-763, 19 NRC at 591-592.)

i l _. ___ ... _ __ _.. _ . _ ____ _ . _ _ _ _ _ . _ . . _ . _ _ . . _ . - - _ _ _ _ _ . _

l l

l l

1 intervenors have failed or refused to comply with the 2 Board's direction to give specifics on the issu~es 3 (contentions) decided in ALAB-763 for which the record 4 evidence is insufficient. This failure, standing alone, 5 warrants denial of joint.intervenors request for additional 6 hearings.

. 7 As the Board acknowledged in its September 10, 8 1984 Order, in NRC licensing proceedin'gs it is often

, _ 9 permissible to litigate an " applicant's present plans for 10 future regulatory compliance." This is just such a case.

11 There are no significant design differences between Unit 1 i

12 and Unit 2. (PGandE Response, pp. 2-3.) The-ITP applied 13 the same design review approach to Unit 2 as it did for 14 Unit 1. Accordingly, all that is necessary is for the NRC 15 staff to confirm, as part of its normal inspection process, 16 PGandE's compliance with the established design and 17 licensing criteria.

18 As noted above, PGandE is firmly of the opinion 19 that further hearings on Unit 2 are not required.

. 20 Nonetheless, in response to the Board's request, PGandE 21 would point out that the schedule for further hearings 22 proposed by Joint Intervenors is far in excess of any which 23 could be deemed reasonable. The proposed schedule is one 24 which might be acceptable for de novo consideration of 25 issues but is patently absurd for review of matters j 26 ///

l i  !

l i

,o .

1 previously reviewed in some detail in adjudicatory 2 proceedings.

3 CONCLUSION 4 The evidence in the record is sufficient to permit 5 this Board to conclude that the design of Unit 2 is l 6 adequate. Accordingly, it is respectfully submitted that no )

7 further hearings on the design of Unit 2 are warranted and 8 that this Board should issue its finding that the design of 9 Unit 2 is adequate.

10 Respectfully submitted, 11 ROBERT OHLBACH PHILIP A. CRANE, JR.

12 RICHARD F. LOCKE DAN G. LUBBOCK 13 Pacific Gas and Electric Company P.O. Box 7442 14 '

San Francisco, California 94120 15 ARTHUR C. GEHR 16 Snell & Wilmer 3100 Valley Center 17 Phoenix, Arizona 85073 g (602) 257-7288 BRUCE NORTON 19 Norton, Burke, Berry & French, P.C.

P.O. Box 10569 20 Phoenix, Arizona 85064 i

21 (602) 955-2446 l

l Attorneys for 22 Pacific Gas and Electric Company l

23 24 By Bruce Norton 5

26 DATED: October 10, 1984.

i i . .

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA .

NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSION In the Matter of )

) l PACIFIC GAS AND ELECTRIC COMPANY ) Docket No. 50-275

) Docket No. 50-323 Diablo Canyon Nuclear Power Plant, )

Units 1 and 2 )

. )

CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE The foregoing document (s) of Pacific Gas and Electric Company hao (have) been served today on the following by deposit in the United States mail, properly stamped and addressed:

Judge John F. Wolf Mrs. Sandra A. Silver i Chairman 1760 Alisal Street Atomic Safety and Licensing Board San Luis Obispo CA 93401  !

US Nuclear Regulatory Commission l

- Wachington DC 20555 Mr. Gordon Silver I

1760 Alisal Street Judge Glenn O. Bright San Luis Obispo CA 93401 l Atomic Safety and Licensing Board US Nuclear Regulatory Commission John Phillips, Esq.

Washington DC 20555 Joel Reynolds, Esq.

Eric Bavian l Judge Jerry R. Kline Center for Law in the Public Interest Atomic Safety and Licensing Board 10951 W. Pico Blvd. - Suite 300

, US Nuclear Regulatory Commission Los Angeles CA 90064 Wachington DC 20555

• David F. Fleischaker, Esq.

I Mrs. Elizabeth Apfelberg P. O. Box 1178 c/o Betsy Umhoffer Chlahoma City OK 73101

+

1493 Southwood

San Luis Obispo CA 93401 Arthur C. Gehr, Esq.

Snell & Wilmer Janice E. Kerr, Esq. 3100 Valley Bank Center i Public Utilities Commission Phoenix AZ 85073 State of California I 5246 State Building Bruce Norton, Esq.

l 350 McAllister Street Norton, Burke, Berry & French, P.C.

SEn Francisco CA 94102 P. O. Box 10569 Phoenix AZ 85064 l! Mrs. Raye Fleming

! 1920 Mattie Road Chairman l Shall Beach CA 93449 Atomic Safety and Licensing Board Panel

Mr. Frederick Eissler US Nuclear Regulatory Commission Scsnic Shoreline Preservation Washington DC 20555

! Conference, Inc.

. - 4623 More Mesa Drive Santa Barbara CA 93105 .

l

[ . . . .

l .

i Chnirman .

• Judge Thomas S. Moore

! Atomic Safety and Licensing Chairman Appeal Panel - Atomic Safety and Licensing US. Nuclear Regulatory Commission Appeal Board WOchington DC 20555 US Nuclear Regulatory Commission Washington DC 20555 Sacretary

l. US Nuclear Regulatory Commission

• Judge W. Reed Johnson l

Washington. DC 20555 Atomic Safety and Licensing Appeal Board Attn: Docketing and Service. US Nuclear Regulatory Commission Section -Washington DC 20555

• Lawr nce J. Chandler,-Esq. Commissioner Nunzio J. Palladino Hanry J. McGurren Chairman US Nuclear Regulatory Commission US Nuclear Regulatory Commission Office of Executive Legal Director 1717 H Street NW Wachington LO 20555 Washington DC 20555 Mr. Richard B. Hubbard Commissioner Frederick M.'Bernthal MHB Technical Associates US Nuclear Regulatory Comunission 1723 Hamilton Avenue Suite K 1717 H Street NW San Jose CA 95125 Washington DC 20555 Mr. Carl Neiberger Commissioner Lando W. Rech, Jr.

1 Talegram Tribune US Nuclear Regulatory Comunission P. O. Box 112 1717 H Street NW Scn Luis Obispo CA 93402 Washington DC 20555 Michael-J. Strumwasser, Esq. Comunissioner James K. Asselstine Susan L. Durbin, Esq. US Nuclear Regulatory Commission Pater H. Kaufman, Ecq. 1717 H Street NW 3580 Wilshire Blvd. Suite 800 Washington DC 20555 Los Angeles CA' 90010 Comunissioner Thomas M. Roberts US Nuclear Regulatory Commission 1717 H Street NW Washington DC 20555 1

t

)

l t ___-

i

• Date: October 10, 1984-Bruce Norton i

i

• Copies delivered by Courier

_ _ .__ ._ _. _ . _ . _ _ , . _ _ . _ _ - _ - . . _ _ . _ . _ _ . . . . _ , _ . _ _