ML20126K986
| ML20126K986 | |
| Person / Time | |
|---|---|
| Site: | Diablo Canyon  |
| Issue date: | 07/26/1985 |
| From: | Norton B NORTON, BURKE, BERRY & FRENCH, PACIFIC GAS & ELECTRIC CO. |
| To: | NRC COMMISSION (OCM) |
| References | |
| CON-#385-994, CON-#385-999 ALAB-811, OL, NUDOCS 8507300541 | |
| Download: ML20126K986 (8) | |
Text
QQl]
a o
DCCKETED 1
U$hRC 2
UNITED STATES OF AMERICA
'63 Jg( pg p4 ;jg A
O M SSION 3
f;[hI$'h 4
0 ET
'E 5
BEFORE THE COMMISSION 6
_ In the Matter of
)
7
)
PACIFIC GAS AND ELECTRIC
)
Docket No. 50-2750L.
O COMPANY
)
Docket No. 50-323 9
Diablo Canyon Nuclear
)
Power Plant
)
10 Units 1 and 2
)
I 11 ANSWER OF PACIFIC GAS AND ELECTRIC COMPANY TO JOINT INTERVENORS' PETITION FOR REVIEW OF ALAB-811 13 14 I
15 INTRODUCTION 16 On July 12, 1985 the joint intervenors filed, pursuant 17 t
10 CFR 2.786, a petition for review of ALAB-811, 18 NRC
(. Tune 27, 1985.)
In that decision the Atomic 19 Safety and Licensing Appeal Board
(" Appeal Board") held that 20 Pacific Gas and Electric Company's ("PGandE's") Diablo 21 Canyon Unit 2 22 23 verification program is sufficient to 24 establish that the design of Diablo Canyon Unit 2 meets its licensing criteria.
That 25 program provides adeauate confidence that the tinit 2 safety-related structures, systems and 26 components are designed to perform 8507300541 850726 PDR ADOCK 05000275 C
PDR lyso3
o 11 satisfactorily in service.
Accordingly, we 1
conclude that.there is reasonable assurance Unit 2 can be operated without endangerina 2
the health and safety of the public and the license authorization previously granted to 3
the Director of NRR by the Licensing Board's initial decision remains effective.
(Slip 4
Op. at 25.)
5 For the reasons set forth below PGandE respectfully 6
submits the petition for review should be denied.
7 8
ry 9
FACTUAL BACKGROUND 10 While the Diablo Canyon design verification efforts 11 were ongoing the Appeal Board granted the motions of the 12 joint intervenors and the Governor of California to reopen 13 the operating license proceeding on the issue of the 1
14 adequacy of PGandE's design quality assurance program.
At 15 the request of the parties the Appeal Board presided over f
16 the reopened proceeding.
In ALAB-763 (19 NRC 571,(1984))
17 the Appeal Board set forth its findings on the contested 18 issues concerning the adequacy of the design of Unit 1.1 In 19 order to avoid any unnecessary delay in the full power 20 licensing of Unit 1 the Appeal Board severed its findings on 21 the contested issues for Unit 2 and, in effect, stayed the 22 full power license authorization for that unit granted 23 l
24 I
25 1
The Commission decided not to review ALAB-763 (20 NRC 285(1984)).
26,
I
f 1
previously by the Licensing Board's initial decision.
(16 NRC 756 (1982).
ALAB-811 contains the Appeal Board's 2
3 findings on Diablo Canyon Unit 2, and it is that decision 4
that the joint intervenors ask this Commission to review.
5 6
On September 10, 1984, the Appeal Board entered an 7
Order requesting the parties to provide their views on how 8
the Board should proceed with respect to Diablo Canyon Unit 9
The Board directed the parties to address whether 2.
10 further hearings were necessary and, if so, to identify 11 those issues identified in ALAB-763, 19 NRC 571 (1984),
12 which could not be resolved for Unit 2 on the existing 13 record and to fully explain why the record evidence was insufficient.
14 15 16 In their September 28, 1984 filing, the joint 17 intervenors ignored the Appeal Board's plain request that a 18 party must specify those issues decided in ALAB 763 which 19 could not be resolved for Unit 2 on the existing record and, 20 m re importantly, specify why the record was insufficient as to those issues.
(Board Order, p.
2.)
Rather than j
21 22 complying with the straightforward requirements of the 1
23 Board's Order, the joint intervenors suggested that contentions (issues allegedly not resolved for Unit 2) be 24 l
25 finalized only after further hearings were decreed by the l
Board.
i 26 l
l t
I I
f
\\
Joint intervenors completely ignored the fact that specific Unit 2 contentions were at issue in the i
3 0 tober-November 1983 reopened design proceedings and evidence was adduced concerning those contentions.
Joint 4
intervenors failed to even discuss, much less justify, what additional evidence was needed on any specific contention.
Rather, they made sweeping generalizations of a need for 7
9" 8
the considerable evidence in the record relating to Unit 2 g
design verification activities.
Nowhere did they dispute that the same criteria, methodology, design processes and basic procedures were used for Unit 2 as were used for Unit 1.
Nowhere did they articulate why the evidence and g
conclusions reached by the Board in ALAB 763 did not apply with equal force to Unit 2.
Nowhere did thev dispute that 15 the Independent Design Verification Program (IDVP) reviewed 16 the seismic design criteria, methodology, and processes g
q applicable to both units when it conducted its review of 18 Unit 1.
Instead, they relied on generalized statements of g
concern about the scope of the verification effort for Unit 2 and whether PGandE had in fact done what it said it was going to do in unrebutted testimony.
In the face of uncontroverted evidence that the same critoria, g
methodologies, design processes, and basic procedures were utilized in the Internal Technical Program's (ITP's) review g
26 I
\\
1 of the design of Unit 2, vis-a-vis Unit 1, joint intervenors 2
failed to present even arguments to the contrarv.
3 4
III 5
AM'WMT 6
J int intervenors now continue their non-specific, 7
generalized attack on the verification program for Unit ?
before this Commission.
As before the Appeal Board, they 8
9 continue to ignore the plain facts and simply offer 10 generalized conclusions and arguments with either no 11 reference to the record or, at best, a handful of citations taken out of context.
ALAB-811 is a well-reasoned decision 12 13 which sets forth with specificity the bases for the decision 14 and the factual predicates underiving those bases.
The l
petiti n f r review f that decision simply argues that the 15 16 decision should have been the reverse of what it was without 17 any legal authority or factual bases supporting that 18
^#9""*"D*
19
{
20 A reading of the 26-page decision in conjunction with j
ALAB-763 indicates that ALAB-811 is an accurate and 21 mprehensive discussion of all the issues in contest in 22 this proceeding, complete with numerous citations to the 23 rec rd.
24 The citations indicate that the overwhelming weight 25 f the evidence supports the Appeal Board's opinion.
That 26 al no should preclude Commission review of this I
I 4
1 well-documented opinion.
However, in addition, joint 2
intervenors have failed to include in their petition the 3
matters required to be included by 10 CFR 2.786 (b) (2) (ii).
4 The petition should be denied on this basis as well.
5 IV 6
CONCLUSION 7
J int intervenors have failed to establish any basis 8
for this commission to review ALAB-811 and the petition for 9
review should be denied accordingly.
10 Respectfully submitted, 11 ROBERT OHLBACH PHILIP A. CRANE, JR.
12 RICHARD F. LOCKE DAN G. LUBBOCK 13 Pacific Gas and Electric Company P. O. Box 7442 14 San Francisco CA 94120 (415) 781-4211 ARTHUR C. GEHR 16 8"*11 ' Wil"*r 3100 Valley Center Phoenix AZ P5073 17 (602) 257-7288 0
BRUCE NORTON gg Norton, Burke, Berry & French, P.C.
P. O. Box 10569 Phoenix AZ A5064 20 (602) 955-2446 21 Attorneys for 22 Pacific Gas and Electric Company 23 By
---a Dated July 26, 1985 Bruce Norton 24 25 26 j
- i
UNITED STATES OF AMERICA NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSION In the Matter of
)
)
PACIFIC GAS AND ELECTRIC COMPANY
)
Docket No. 50-275 00' 4"E0 "M*
)
Docket No. 50-323 Diablo Canyon Nuclear Power Plant, )
Units 1 and 2 l
65 JA 29 P4 *t hh[,Myy CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE BRANCH The foregoing document (s) of Pacific Gas and Electric Company has (have) been served today on the following by deposit in the United States mail, properly stamped and addressed:
Judge John F. Wolf Mrs. Sandra A. Silver Chairman 1760 Alisal Street Atomic Safety and Licensing Board San Luis Obispo CA 93401 US Nuclear Regulatory Commission Washington DC 20555 Mr. Gordon Silver 1760 Alisal Street Judge Glenn O. Bright San Luis Obispo CA 93401 Atomic Safety and Licensing Board US Nuclear Regulatory Commission John Phillips, Esq.
Washington DC 20555 Joel Reynolds, Esq.
Eric Havian Judge Jerry R. Kline Center for Law in the Public Interest Atomic Safety and Licensing Board 10951 W. Pico Blvd. - Suite 300 US Nuclear Regulatory Commission Los Angeles CA 90064 Washington DC 20555 David F. Fleischaker, Esq.
Mrs. Elizabeth Apfelberg P. O. Box 1178 c/o Betsy Umhoffer Oklahoma city OK 73101 1493 Southwood San Luis Obispo CA 93401 Arthur C. Gehr, Esq.
Snell & Wilmer Janice E. Kerr, Esq.
3100 Valley Bank Center Public Utilities Commission Phoenix AZ 85073 State of California 5246 State Building Bruce Norton, Esq.
350 McAllister Street Norton, Burke, Berry & French, P.C.
San Francisco CA 94102 P. O. Box 10569 Phoenix AZ 85064 Mrs. Raye Fleming 1920 Mattle Road Chairman Shell Beach CA 93449 Atomic Safety and Licensing Board Panel Mr. Frederick Eissler US Nuclear Regulatory Commission Scenic shoreline Preservation Washington DC 20555 Conference, Inc.
4623 More Mesa Drive Santa Barbara CA 93105
t chairman Judge Thomas S. Moore Atomic Safety and Licensing Chairman Appeal Panel Atomic Safety and Licensing US Nuclear Regulatory Commission Appeal Board Washington DC 20555 US Nuclear Regulatory Commission Washington DC 20555 Secretary US Nuclear Regulatory Commission Judge W. Reed Johnson Washington DC 20555 Atomic Safety and Licensing Appeal Board Attn Docketing and Service US Nuclear Regulatory Commission Section Washington DC 20555 0
Lawrence J. Chandler, Esq.
Commissioner Nunzio J. Palladino Henry J. McGurren Chairman William D. Paton US Nuclear Regulatory Commission US Nuclear Regulatory Commission 1717 H Street NW office of Executive Legal Director Washington DC 20555 Washington DC 20555 Commissioner Frederick M. Bernthal Mr. Richard B. Hubbard US Nuclear Regulatory Commission MHB Technical Associates 1717 H Street NW 1723 Hamilton Avenue Suite X Washington DC 20555 San Jose CA 95125 Commissioner Lando W. Zech, Jr.
Mr. Carl Neiberger US Nuclear Regulatory Commission Telegram Tribune 1717 H Street NW P. O. Box 112 Washington DC 20555 San Luis Obispo CA 93402 Commissioner James K. Asselstine Michael J. Strumwasser, Esq.
US Nuclear Regulatory Commission Susan L. Durbin, Esq.
1717 H Street NW Peter H. Kaufman, Esq.
Washington DC 20555 3580 Wilshire Blvd.
Suite 800 Los Angeles CA 90010 Commissioner Thomas M. Roberts US Nuclear Regulatory Commission
~
1717 H Street NW Washington DC 20555 i
Date:
July 26, 1985 tuaa Bruce Norton
" Copies delivered by Courier.
-