ML20236D447

From kanterella
Revision as of 10:47, 1 July 2022 by StriderTol (talk | contribs) (StriderTol Bot insert)
(diff) ← Older revision | Latest revision (diff) | Newer revision → (diff)
Jump to navigation Jump to search
Reply of AEC Regulatory Staff to Motion of San Luis Obispo Mothers for Peace for Imposition of Stop Work Order.* AEC Urges Board to Deny Stay of Const.Certificate of Svc Encl
ML20236D447
Person / Time
Site: Diablo Canyon, 05000000
Issue date: 10/29/1974
From: Black R
US ATOMIC ENERGY COMMISSION (AEC)
To:
Atomic Safety and Licensing Board Panel
Shared Package
ML20236A877 List: ... further results
References
FOIA-87-214 OL, NUDOCS 8707300452
Download: ML20236D447 (9)
v • d • e


Text

<

r m

\

,d.ff. $d -

l UNITED STATES OF AMERICA )

, ATOMIC ENERGY COMMISSION l

,BEFORE Tl!E ATOMIC SAFETY AND LICENSING BOAD

. In the Matter of )

)

PACIFIC GAS AND ELECTRIC COMPANY ) Docket Nos. 50-275 0.L.

) 50-323 0.L. 1 (Diablo Canyon Nuclear Power Plant, 'l Units Nos. 1 and 2) i REPLY OF AEC REGULATORY STAFF TO MOTION OF SAN LUIS OBISPO MOTHERS FOR PEACE F0P l IhP')SITION OF A STOP WORK ORDER i i

On October 14, 1974, the San Luis Obispo Mothers for Peace (Petitioner) filed a motion pursuant to the provisions cf 10 CFR 52.730 for the impositicn of a stop work order to halt construction by Pacific Gas and Electric Company (P.G. and E.) on Ciablo Canyon Units 1 and 2. The Petitioner alleges that the "most overriding and dominating basis supporting the motion is the disorderly and precarious I treatment, on the part of P.G. and E. , of the effects of a deficiently explored and poorly understood scismic environment. .

(Motion, pg.1)

Particularly, the Petitioner asserts that P.G. and E. failed to adequately assess the 90-mile ho;gri Fault Zone (formerly called the Hoskins-Griffiths Fault), and the effects of the 1971 San Fernando earthquake 1

on Class I structures at the Diablo Canyon site, j I

It is the opinion of the Staff that the Petitioner has failed to show the requisite good cause for staying construction which the I Q.  !

Appeal Board set forth in the Point Beach N ecision, d thht is: I E Wi sconsin ElectrU Power Co. (Point Beach Nuclear Plant Unit 2), ALAB-58,  !

Wash-1218 447 at 450, 451 (June 20,1972). See also, Virginia Petroleum j B707300452 B bES PDR FDIA CONNORB7-214 PDR .

a ,,

g

, T(

1. Has the Petitioner made a strong showing that it is likely to prevail on the merits of its appeal?

Has the Petitioner shown that without such relief, it will. be 2.

irreparably injured?

1

3. Would the issuance of a stay substantially harm other parties  !

interested in the: proceeding?

4. Where lies the public interest?

The Petitioner has not addressed any of these .four points. Instead, Petitioner merely alludes in a general way to the facts in this case as i Petitioner sees them. With no more than this' general statement of pcsition, Petitioner then requests the Board to exercise its autho'rity to stop construction. This approach is patently deficient in light of the criteria established in the Point Beach decia, ion"and the Board should deny Petitioner's request outright. Even though Petitioner

/

I has not addressed those criteria reached in. the Poi lit Beach decision, the Staff recognizes that the Scard could, 'on it's own motion, raise -

,.he question of why a stay of construction should not be issued in this proceeding in light of the issues raised by Petitioner. For this reason, the Staff offers the following analisis,of;the instant 'h$se in relation to the Point Deach decision. )

i i

)

a

}

c I .

n- i 4

The Petitioner cannot make a strong . showing that it is likely to prevail on its appeal. Essentially, +he same issues relating to seismic environment were raised-by the-Scenic Shoreline Preservation Inc. (Scenic) on December 3,1973 in its petition to suspend construction, la the process of answering that petition, SNaff presented an affidavit by Richard B. McMullen and Carl Stepp that_ the Hoskins Griffith (Hosgri) features had been assessed and any earthquake activity associated with that feature "would not produce accelerations at the site that  :

are greater than those produced by the safe shutcoun earthquake to which the facilities are designed". (See Staff- reply of January 14,.

1974, Appendix 2.) Therefore, the seismic activities related to' the hosgri fault havc been assessed by the Staff and found to be within the parameters of the seismic design features of these facilities. Since the Petitioner has not presented any information in its motion which would challenge the validity of that position, i; is unlikely that Petitioner would prevail on the merits of its appeal. Although the effects of the 1971 San Fernando earthquake on Class I structures at the 1

1 u - j

I

  • . g; -

c

., 4 9

Diablo Canyon site were not considered in conjur.ction with the earlier proceedings by Scenic, the Petitioner has failed to even allege that the Diablo Canyon facilities are not designed te withstand seismic conditions similar to that earthquake. Therefore, Petitioner has not only failed to make a showing, strong or otherwise, that it is likely to prevail on the merits of its appeal, Fetitioner has totally failed to make an allegation to which merits might attach.

The most liberal interpretation of Petitioner's pleading would suggest that construction should be stayed in this instance because the public health and safety might be endangered because of seismic problems.

If, indeed, this is the case, Petitioner has wh:lly failed to provide i

a technical er factual basis for its position. In short, Petitioner cannot be said to be likely to prevail on the rerits of its appeal because it has failed to provide substantial information as a basis for the merits for its case.

Neither has Petitioner shown that without su:n relief it will be i

irreparably injured. The reason Petitioner has not sho'<.n irreparable injury is that it cannot do so. In association with the earlier T petition to suspend by Scenic, the Regulatory 5 aff in its reply of January 14, 1974, took the position that:

?

(1) Scenic Shoreline would have an opportunity to raise geological, seismic, and seismic design issues in the operating license evidentf ary l hearing;

./ . 5 l (2) Any potential earthquake activity resulting from the newly discovered evidence can be accounted for in the seismic design to which the facilities are being constructed and, accordingly, would pose no increased hazard to the public health and safety; and -;

H (3) Continued construction of Units i and 2 would pose no hazard to the health and safety of the public.

The Board generally accepted the Staff's position and concluded that continued construction poses no risk to the health and safety 1

)

of the public in its Order dated April 3,1974 by stating: l "1. Continued construction of the plant poses no risk to the health and safety of the public, regardless of any geological problems which might exist. Operation of the plant is, of <

course, quite a different matter. The Board thus feels that i consideration of seismic issues is properly carried out in the operating license procedure.

2. Argument that the incremental cost of continued construction could have an effect upon the eventual granting of an operating license is, from a health and safety standpoint, invalid. Econcmic factors cannot be considered in any matter which involves a risk to the public health and safety. I
3. Continued construction will neither conceal nor render  !

inaccessible any of the geological features of the site not already affected."

The Staff takes the position that its argumsnts raised in the Scenic proceeding are valid and applicable to the instant case. The Staff also suggests that the reasoning of the Board in its April 3,1974 Order is equally apposite. In the circumstances it is clear that the Petitioner could not have shown irreparably by. reason of continued  !

construction even if it had sought to do so.

l

_ _ _ _ _ . _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ ________________________2______:_. - - - _ f._. _ _ _ _ _ ___m_5 _.

a. ,

e .1

~6-

]

The'questior of whether the issuance of a stay would substantially .

harm the other parties' interest.in the. proceeding is a matter, best answered by P.G. & E. The Staff, therefore, declines comment on this point, i

Finally, Staff turns its attention to the question of where lies 1

l the public interest. The public ' interest with respect to regulation of construction and operation of nuclear power plants is broad.

Certainly of prime importance is the health and safety of the public.

The Staff agrees with the position stated by the Board in its April 3, i l

1974 Order that, " Continued construction of the plant poses no risk to the health and safety of the public regardless of any geological .)

problems which might exist." The matter of seismic issues.will be considered at the operating license proceeding. The health and l

safety of the public is protected through that proceeding. Making 1

a plant available to provide needed electric power and energy to the l

l public within an established time frame is also a public-interest l consideration. Delaying construction by issuance of a stay.msy l

! seriously interfere with this public interest consideration. The l

public interest would, therefore, be served by not issuing a stay 1

of construction.

4 i -

___m._i-__-_mm_

1 4

4 7

For the foregoing reesons, the Staff respectfully urges the Board to deny the stay of construction at his juncture. A stay will not necessarily expedite the resolution of these mat:ers.nor will it furtner the public interest or the Petitioner's'cause.

Respectfully submitted, 9.e , /? f j d?$?W(; Ph ic/G- \

t Richard L. Black Counsel for AE^ Regulatory Staff Dated at Bethesda, Maryland this 29th day of October,1974.

Lj 1

I l

C

! 'g.

l

. ,, a o-1

- 1 I

UNITED STATES OF. AMERICA ATOMIC ENERGY COMMISSION Before the Atomic Safety and Licensing Board 1

) -l

n the Matter of

)

PACIFIC GAS AND ELECTRIC COMPANY )  : Docket Nos. 50-275 O.L.

) 50-323 0.L.

1 (Diablo Canyon Nuclear Power Plant, )

Units Nos. I and 2) )

l l

CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE I hereby certify that copies of " REPLY OF AEC REGULATORY STAFF TO MOTION 3

OF SAN LUIS 031SP0 MOTHERS FOR PEACE FOR IMPOSITION OF A STOP WORK ORDER",

dated October 29, 1974, in the above-captioned matter, have been served on the follcwing by deposit in the United States mail, first class or air ..lail, this 29th day of October,1974:

Elizabeth S. Bowers, Esq. Philip A . Crane. J.r. , Esq.

Atomic Safety and Licensing Pacific Gat and Flectric Company ,

Board Panel 77 Beale Street U.S. Atomic Energy Commission San Francisco, California 94106 washington, D.C . 20545 Andrew J. Skaff. Erg.

Mr. Glenn O. Bright . California Public Utilities Commission Atomic Safety c.nd Licensing 5246 State Building  ;

Board Pane! 350 McAllister Street U.S. Atemic Energy Commission San Francisco, California 94102 Weshington, D.C. 20545 Ms. Elizabeth E. Apfelberg Dr. William E. Martin 1415 Cazaero Senior Ecologist San Luis Obispo, Cr.lifornia 93/01 Dattel.'e Memorial Institute Columbus, Ohio 43201 Lonnie Valentine John J. Forster c/o Lonnie Valentine l 4580 San Jacinto

~ Atascadero, California l  !

l l

l 1

M

h 4 s pg

{

Atomic Safety nnd Licensing fir. Frederich Einsler Appe al Boarc Scenic Shorcline Preservation U.S. Atomic Energy Commission Conference, Inc. 4 Washington, D .C . 20545 4623 !! ore Mesa Drive Santa Barbc.ra, California 93105

\

Atomic Safety and Licensing Firs . Sandra A. Silver j Board Panel 1315 Cecelia Court U.S. Atomic Energy Commi;sion San Luis Obispo, California 93402

]

Washington, D .C . 20545 Mr. Gordon Silver 1315 Cecelia Court Docketin and Service Section Office of he Secretary of the Mr. William P. Cornwell i Commission P. O. Box 453 l Mn Bay, California 93442 U.S. Atomic Energy Commission Washington, D.C . 20545 f

i

?

.n

_ _.k. .$ .f),lY!'c'.f,'

Richard L. Black 1 Counsel for AEC ?.egulatory Staff I l

i i

1 1

I s 1

Retrieved from "https://kanterella.com/w/index.php?title=ML20236D447&oldid=3448221"