ML19291D665
| ML19291D665 | |
| Person / Time | |
|---|---|
| Site: | Diablo Canyon  |
| Issue date: | 09/17/1981 |
| From: | Hanback C CALIFORNIA, STATE OF, HILL, CHRISTOPHER & PHILLIPS |
| To: | NRC COMMISSION (OCM) |
| References | |
| ISSUANCES-OL, NUDOCS 8109210006 | |
| Download: ML19291D665 (6) | |
Text
-
ed (y i e ['y 6
"^
~
S 1
NI D STATES OF AMERICA
/b fg USIg 2
m lo,g-REGULATORY COMMISSION
"'r 6-
- 17. ;Jc L, >
e
- g. *#bmwn
~
e M
ORE THE CO!Oi:SSION h?q g 3e%i:eef the 9
KA E:,
--,-d
)
\\ W In the Matter o.
)
U,
)
PACIFIC GAS AND ELECTRIC COMPANY
)
Docket Nos. 50-275 O.L.
)
750-323 0.L.
(Diablo Canyon Nuclear Power Plant,
)
Units 1 and 2)
)
)
MOTION FOR CO!/ MISSION TO DEFER CONSIDERATION OF LICENSE TO LOAD FUEL, AND CONDUCT LOW POWER TEST 7 On September 9, 1981, the Atomic Safety and Licensing Appeal Board issued its public decision (ALAB-653) regarding the sufficiency of PG&E's security plan for Diablo Canyon.
The Appeal Board concluded:
Based on our review of the entire record on thu security plan s s tne s, and subject to the condi-i tions end us.:p:_locs noted in 72fs-7.53 'E20TR10 *ED, we conclrde that the applicant'F s3t.urity plan col.f r =S to all applicable gcVisions 01 the Atemic Energy het of 1954, as a:nended., and +he Commissio: 'c security regt12tions.
(L:aphasis supplied).
The decision of the Appeal Board in conditioning its ap-proval of PG&E's security plan in substance constitutes a find 5ng thst the plan as now written is inadequate.
In other words, the plan that was the srbject of the Nove aoer 198 0 hearing does not comply with the NRC's regulations in Part 73.
This substantive
-*/
Specific citations to the record in ALAB-653 RETfRICTED cannot be made in this.iotion because they are subject to the Appeal Bt,ard's protective order.
When the Commission instructs the parties on the proper procedures for pleadings containing pro-tec ted.tnf t.r_ 'on, chese citations will be provided in accord-ance with the Comn ssion's guidance.
6}
0(
etov2:noOs a Ooi7 9 hE\\
PDR ADuCK 95000275 O
d 2.
finding of the Appeal Board thus prevents the Commission from issuing a license to PG&E at this time.
Only if PG&E were to accept all of the Appeal Board'c conditions and exceptions, and such acceptance were implemented and confirmed, could the Com-mission issue the subject license.
Moreover, there is no n; sis for the Commission, os indeed for the Appeal Eoard, to find that the conditions and exceptions imposed by the Appeal Board are not relucant to fuel loading or low power operation.
The security plan relates to the security of the Diablo Canyon plant at any leval of power operation.
In-deed, since PG5E's plan is inadequate, ac the Appeal Board sub-stantrvely found by imposing conditions and exceptions, this mer.ns that the current plan does act provide the requisite "high assurance" againrt the design basin threat of secticn 73.1.
See ection 73.fl.
Therefore, it in not legal 2y or factually possibl- ~ :r the Com-tnssian now to find that lov power cperation will not inimical to tne pubid e health. c.nd r3f ?ty and the common defense tr ' security.
Finally, if the Commission believes that a judgment sho116 be made whether any particular cond5tien or 'xception imposed by the Appeal 30ard is relevant to 1cw power o_aration, soch a judg-ment must follow a hearing on that particular issue.
Tne Governor emphasizes that no evidence.as taken at the Govember 1980 hearing or the relevance or any aspect of PG&E's securit-j plan to particular levels of power operation, and neither PG&L nor the Staff made any suggestion that the elenents of the security plar. for low power operation shou 3d be dif ferent from fu]1 power operation.
^
k
^
g**
y
3.
Section 50.57 (c) specifically grants the Governor the right to contest and litigate any issue pertinent to operation at low power.
The Governor's categorical position is that there is no basis on whici the conditions and exceptions imposed by the I
Appeal Board could be deemed not rele' ant to fuel le dang or low power tariing.
'nd>2d, there is neth r in the evidence of record to support any finding contrary to this position of the Governer's.
If the Comnissic;..'ishes to address the relevance of any of the Appeal Board's conditions or exceptions ~ to fuel 1c ading and los power >pnration, the Governor nereby moves that the Commission set a hearing for resolution of this issue by the parties on the record.
Until sue:1 hearing is completed, or until such time as PGhE a;cepts the Apoeal Board's conditions and exceptions and such rnfirmed, _ne Governor moves that the Commission defer con-
- oeration of whether PG&E should be authorized to load fuel rac periorm low power tests.
Notwithstanding the foregoing, the Governor emphasizes thtt even if TJLE were to conform its security plan to the conditions and exceptions imposed by the Appeal Board, the Commission should not authorize fuel loading and low powe: testing.
The reasons are set forth and supported in the Governor's Brief on Exceptions filed with the Appeal Board on September 2, J981, and, specifically with respect to the security issues, will be elucidated in the
4.
Governor's Petitior. to the Commission for review of the Appeal Board's securiry decision (ALAB-653).
Respectfully submitted, Byron S.
Georgiou Legal Affairs Secretary Governor.'s Office State Capitol Sacramento, California 95814 R
i Herbert H.
Brown Lawrence Coe Lanpher Christopher B.
Hanback HILL, CHRISTOPHER AND PHILLIPS, P.
C.
1900 M Street, N.
W.
Washington, D.
C.
20036 Attorneys for Governor Brown of the State ci California September 17, 1981
~
/,
UNITED STATES OF AMERICA NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSION gj
% D "b Ci
@iv SEP17 tg3E,
3EFORE THE COM'ilSSION ts.,..
~
CQ-g, i
~
)
'v i 6 In the Matter of
)
)
PACIF: GAS AND ELECTRIC COMPANY
)
Docket Nos.30-275 0.L.
)
50-323 0 L.
(DiaLit Canyon Nuclear Fower
)
P'i
'It.
U-it Fos.1 and 2)
)
(Security Plan Proceeding)
)
CERTIFICATE CF SERVICE I hereby certify that copies of the " MOTION FOR COMMISSION TO
'EFER CONSIDERATION OF LICE::SE TO LOAD FUEL AND CONDUCT LOh' POWER T3ST" have been served to the'following on September 17, 1981 in the manner indicated below.
Nunzio J.
Palladino, Chairman U.S.
Nuclear Regulatory Corenission Washington, D.C.
20555 Commissioner Victor Gilincky
- U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission Wash'ingmen, D.C.
2C555 Commissioner Peter A. Bradford*
U.S. Nuclear Regu.' atory Commission Washington, D.C.
20,555 Ccmmissioner John F. Ahearne U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission Washincton, D.C.
20555 Cc=missioner Thomas Roberts
- U.S. Nuclear Regu3 atorv Commission Kashington, D.C.
20555 Thomas A. Moore, Esq., Chairman
- Atomic Safety and Licensing Appeal Board U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission Washington, D.C.
20555 Dr.
W. Reed Johnson
- Atomic Safety and Licensing Appeal Board U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission Washington, D.C.
20555 Secretary
- U.S.
Nuclear Regulatory Commission Washington, D.C.
20555 ATTENTION:
Docketinc & Service Section Leonard Bickwit, Esq.
- General Counsel Office of the General Counsel U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Cor:nission Room H-1035 1717 H Srreet, N.W.
Washington, D.C.
20555 Bruce Norton, Esq.
t Norton, Burke, Berry & Junck 3216 North Third Street Suite 3DJ Phoenix, Arizona 85012 Harry M. Willis I
601 California Street Suite 2100 San Francisco, California 94108 William J.
Olmstead, Esq.
- Edward G.
Ketchen, Esq.
Lucinda Low Swartz, Esq.
Office of Executive Legal Director BETH 042 U.S. Nuclear Regulhtory Commission Washington, D.C.
20555
-f f
Christop'her B. Hanback HILL, CHR75TOPHER AND PHILLIPS, P.C.
1900 M Street, N.W.
Washington, D.C.
20036 September 17' 1981
- Hand delivered on September 17, 1981 f Via Express Mail
.