ML16340A742

Order Directing Intervenors to Consider Whether to Proceed W/Contention Re PG&E Security Plan

ML16340A742
Person / Time
Site:	Diablo Canyon
Issue date:	05/11/1978
From:	Bowers E Atomic Safety and Licensing Board Panel
To:
Shared Package
ML16340A739	List: ML16340A740 ML16340A741 ML16340A742 ML16340A744 ML16340A746
References
NUDOCS 8001100338
Download: ML16340A742 (8)

Text

+Ct+W4 UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSION lp Befoxe the Atomic Safet and Licensin Boara r

.)

In the Matter of PACXFXC GAS AND ELECTRXC COMPANY I'"(Diablo Canyon Nuclear Power Plant, Units 1 and;2)

)

)

),

Docket Nos.50-27S OL

)

50-323 OL

)r I

I ORDER RELATIVE TO SECURITY EXPERTS AND FURTHER PROCEDURES r

t On February 1,'1978, counsel for Intervenors petitioned to establish the qualifications of Dr. Douglas L. DeNike and Dr. Bruce L. Welch to proceed with discovery of Pacific Gas and Electric Company's (PG6Z) security plan.

On February 13, 1978, the Applicant requested. the Board to affirm its de-termination that Dr. DeNike is not qualified and to grant time for PGGE to depose Dr. Welch..

On February 17, 1978, the NRC Staff opposed both Dr. DeNike and Dr. Welch but suggested that the Board should grant leave to Xntervenors to perfect their showing of Dr. Welch's expertise.

On March 9, 1978, PG6E stated that the deposition es-tablished that: Dr. Welch does not have expert. knowledge in the thxee obvious areas of interest:

nuclear power plants, present-day security. devices and plans, and the requirement:s'

~

II EXHXBXT 3 8 oo i i o og9%,.'

t t

'i C

c" )t~

<<(

~

~

ll

~<<

which govern them. 'he Board was requested to deny Inter-venors'etition to qualify Dr. DeNike and Dr. Welch.

On March 31, 1978, the Intervenors responded to PG&E and re-

"quested that Dr. DeNike and Dr. 'Welch be permitted to ex-l

'amine those limited matters which related to certain

' identified paragraphs of the Amended Security Contention filed by the Intervenors on January 17, 1978.

The Inter-J venors also requested that Mr. Richard L. Hubbard be quali-fied as an expert witness and be permitted to examine certain identified matters.

On April 11,

1978, PG&Z reiterated its reasons why the Board should not accept Dr. DeNike and Dr. Welch and further stated that the submittal of Mr. Hubbard is not only out of time but Mr. Hubbard does not have the necessary expertise.

The Board received the Staff's filing on May 8, 1978.

The Staff requested the Board to reject Dr, DeNike, Dr. Welch, and Mr. Hubbard because their expertise in other areas does.

not qualify them as experts in the security area.

Intervenors requested a ruling by the Board since their proposed witnesses were interested in an upcoming conference on security.

~ ~

~

- ~

3 In a conference call on May 10,, 1978, the Board informed the parties that it had determined that the proposed witnesses were not qualified in the security-plan area and that this

'.determination"would be the subject of a forthcoming Order.

r In the Order. of November 3, 1977, the Board determined, that Dr. DeNike is not a qualified expert to proceed with discovery of'the components of the security system.

The Board has determined that no new information has been fur-

'I nished that would affect this determination.

A review of Dr. Welch's deposition on February 24,

1978, and the filings of the parties establishes that while Dr. Welch has expertise in other areas, he is not knowledgeable about security systems at nuclear power plants.

The Board agrees with PG6Z and the Staff that he is not qualified as an expert to review the security. plan at Diablo Canyon.

While Mr. Hubbard has ex-perience in the fields of engineerin'g and quality assurance in the nuclear industry, neither his resume nor clarifying statements by Intervenors indicates either the education or experience that would qualify him as a security expert.

In a preliminary conference call on May 8, 1978, before the Staff's filing had been released, counsel for the Inter-venors mentioned proceeding with the security Contention

~ 4q

~

~

~

'p ~

j

l

4 limited to cross-examination of Staff and PG&Z witnesses I

if the Board determined that Intervenors',witnesses are not

~ W

~ I

~

I qualified.

The Board tabled the sugges'tion since the first matter to be determined was the question of Intervenors' witnesses.

Now that that has been determined, the Board requests the Intervenors to consider if they wish to proceed with the Contention and will expect the Staff and PG&E to respond. If the Board determines that there will be discovery and an evidentiary hearing, n'o discovery is permitted until Protective Orders have been executed, the Board has received the responses of PG&E and St'aff on the amended Contention,and PG&E releases information on its witnesses as requested by Intervenors.

IT IS SO ORDERED.

~

FOR THE ATOMIC SAFETY AND.

LICENSING BOARD Dated at Bethesda, Maryland This 11th day of May 1978.

Eliz et S.

Bowers, Chairman

~

wS gs ~

~ Js

I

'l I