ML20005B910
| ML20005B910 | |
| Person / Time | |
|---|---|
| Site: | Diablo Canyon  |
| Issue date: | 09/14/1981 |
| From: | Tompkins B NRC ATOMIC SAFETY & LICENSING APPEAL PANEL (ASLAP) |
| To: | CALIFORNIA, STATE OF, JOINT INTERVENORS - DIABLO CANYON |
| References | |
| ISSUANCES-OL, NUDOCS 8109160103 | |
| Download: ML20005B910 (4) | |
Text
_ -
e
+
Ll
~
SEP 141981] > Q-U3Nnc Olha e' the Secrebry UNITED "TATES OF AMERICA
' & Sen!ce j
NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSION ATOMIC SAFETY AND LICENSING APPEAL BOARD y
D Administrative Judges:
4 9
4-'
s Thomas S. Moore, Chairman
}{ ()
g Dr. John H. Buck 2
Dr. W. Reed Johnson 2
SEP 151981 *$
In the Matter of A
G PACIFIC GAS AND ELECTRIC COMPANY
)
Doc et Nos. 50-275 OL
)
50-323 OL (Diablo Canyon Nuclear Power Plant,
)
Units 1 and 2)
)
)
MEMORANDUM AND ORDER September 14, 1981 1.
On July 17, ' 81, the Licensing Board rendered a partial initial decis!an in which it authorized the issuance of a low-power operating license-for the Diablo Canyon facility.
LBP-81-21, 14 NRC On July 22, the Commission entered an order in which it tolled the running of the peri-ods (1) for determining whether to allow'the initial decision to become effective (see 10 CFR. 2.7 64 (f).(2)~, '4 62 Fed.: Reg. 28627, 28630 (May 28, 1981)); and (2) for the filing with us of a mo-tion for a stay pending appeal under 10 CFR 2.788.
The order provided that those periods would-begin to run at the time
-1/
The relationship between the Commission's Section 2.764
" effectiveness review" and appeal board action on a Section 2.788 stay motion was explained in Duke Power Co.
(William B. McGuire Nuclear Station, Units T and 2), ALAB-647, 14 NRC (July 1, 1981).
60N 8109160103 810914 M
PDR ADOCK 05000275 G
PDR 6
. of service of our then pending decision on the physical security issues presented in this proceeding.
That decision was handed down on September 9.
ALAB-653, 14 NRC Shortly thereafter, joint intervenors and inter-venor Governor Brown of California filed separate motions for a stay pending the outcome of their appeals from the low-power decision below (appeals now.in the briefi ng. process).
Joint intervenors asked that we act on their motion by September 15 so that, were it to be denied, they would have an opportunity to renew the motion before the Commission prior to completion of the " effectiveness review".
For the same reason, Governor Brown requested our action by September 16.
2.
Both motions reached us (and presumably the other parties) last Friday, September 11.
Each advances a number of arguments in support of the stay relief sought.
Obviously, the other parties to the proceeding must be accorded a reason-able opportunity to respond.
Beyond that, following receipt of the responses, we will require time t6 study closely all of the papers before us in order to enable an informed judgment on whether the stay criteria contained in Section 2.788 (e) have been met.
In the circumstances, a ruling on the motions within a matter of but four or five days after their receipt is simply
m.
- not feasible.
Nor do we perceive a need for such precipitous action.
It now appears that the Commission will not announce the result of its Section 2.764 effectiveness review any earlier than September 18.
Should that result be favorable to the fa-cility, and the low-power licens.e then be issued forthwith, the applicant likely would embark upon fuel loading with some dis-patch.
But even in the absence of unanticipated complications, this process perforce would take one to two weeks (and possibly as much as one month) to complete -- a fact seemingly acknow-ledged in the affidavits appended to the stay motions.
- And, once completed, the facility would,then have to undergo numerous and varied preliminary tests before achieving initial criticality.
Because of these considerations,.we may justifiably assume that in no event would criticality be achievable any earlier than mid-October.
Nothing in either stay motion suggests to us a basis for any possible safety concern with respect to the carry-ing out of the pre-criticality preparatory activities.
This l
being so, the issues raised by intervenors' appeals run no danger of becoming moot prior to the date upon which those activities are completed.
In.the event that our determination has not been announced by that date, the applicant is to provide advance noti-fication of its intent to achieve criticality.
That notification must be in our hands (and those of the other parties) at least
t three full business days before the date upon which that event is scheduled to take place.
We will then promptly decide whether an interim stay is warranted.
It is so ORDERED.
FOR THE APPEAL BOARD
. o.,)D.L.L a Barbara A. Tompkinst Secretary to the Appeal Board Dr. Johnson participated in the consideration of this matter and indicated his agreement with the content of the above order.
He was not available, however, to review the text of the order in its final form, l
l I
O i
. ~.,.,. -.,. -,., -, -. -. -.,, - - -.,. - -, -, - ~, -,
-