ML20039A063
| ML20039A063 | |
| Person / Time | |
|---|---|
| Site: | Diablo Canyon  |
| Issue date: | 12/11/1981 |
| From: | Shoemaker C NRC ATOMIC SAFETY & LICENSING APPEAL PANEL (ASLAP) |
| To: | |
| References | |
| ISSUANCES-OL, NUDOCS 8112160186 | |
| Download: ML20039A063 (4) | |
Text
T
'/:
p*8 '
^
e DOCKETED UNITED STATES OF~ AMERICA triNPC NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSION ATOMIC SAFETY AND; LICENSING APPEAL BOARB1 DEC 14 #0:34
' dministrative Judges:
' hfh',f S[C {
A 3
5 BRANCH Thomas _S.
Moore, Chairman c
,,,s Dr. John H. Buck j
'f g
.,h Dr.iW. Reed Johnson
$DEcj hh In the Matter of U
8 PACIFIC GAS AND ELECTRIC" COMPANY
) Docket Nos. 50 OL-U
%p
)
50 '
(Diablo Canyon Nuclear Power Plant, )
e Units 1 and 2)
)
)
ORDER
.SEv D DEC141981 December 11, 1981 On October 29, 1981 the Commission directed us to consider the Licensing Board's August 4 ruling rejecting all but one 'of joint intervenors' contentions in the Diablo Canyon full power.
l
. proceeding.
We ordered immediate briefing and heard argument _
on these matters on November 20, 1981 along with argument on the appeals of Governor Brown and the joint intervenors from the_ Licensing Board's July 17 partial initial decision authorizing fuel loading and low power testing.
The Licensing Board has now scheduled a prehearing con-ference in the.. full power proceeding for December 16 and s
/D
$$A2;ggyoggg2 G
f{'b tentatively set a hearing for January 19, 1982.
Because
'our resolution of the questions pending before us on the full power contentions is obviously pertinent to the upcoming.prehearing conference, we are announcing our decision'on the full power contentions at this time.
As we will_ explain in a subsequent opinion, the Licensing Board's August 4 rejectio:. of joint intervenors' clarified contentions numbered 2 & 3, 4, 10, 11, 15 & 16, 1/
-~
and 17~is affirmed.
None of these contentions meet the standards for reopening the record enunciated by the Com-2/
mission in its policy statements of June 20--
and December 18, 3/
1980--
and further explained in its April 1, 1981 order in 4/
this proceeding.--
On September 21, 1981 the Commission,-inter alia, directed the Licensing Board to include in the full power proceeding
)
--1/
Our affirmance of the Licensing Board's rejection of these contentions carries with it no implication that we accept the Licensing Board's reasoning set forth in its August 4 memorandum.
_2/
45 FR 41738 (June 20, 1980).
_3/
4/
s/
0 joint intervenors' low power contention 12.
That low
' power contention corresponds to joint intervenors' original full power contention 8.
Subsequently joint intervenors combined that contention with their original full power contention 9 and, after rewriting both, submitted them to the Board below as clarified, combined contention 8.& 9.
In our view, the Commission's action in admitting joint intervenors' low power contention 12 had the practical effect of admitting intervenors' clarified contention 8 & 9.
This follows because low power contention 8 deals with the classification and qualification of certain relief valves and associated block valves as components important to safety, while clarified and combined contention 8 &.9L-deals with this identical issue as well as the testing and verification of these same components.
Obviously, the testing and verification of these components is an integral part of the qualification process.
Finally, we withhold judgment on the Licensing Board's treatment of joint intervenors' clarified contention 14 dealing with the functional capability of certain safety related electrical equipment under various service conditions.
.. b 4
Because the Board now has before it joint intervenors' revised contention on safety related electrical equipment, 1
w'e see no present necessity to consider this contention.
4-
)
It is so ORDERED.
FOR THE APPEAL BOARD I
RN _ gh - ;_ A
- Cg JeaFShoemaker Secretary to the Appeal Board i
.i 1
t 5
I f
l
~m
- + _.,
,w....h-_,,
-_y
-, _.. _ ~ _ - -
-.,,m.-
,m.-,