ML20210U734
| ML20210U734 | |
| Person / Time | |
|---|---|
| Site: | Diablo Canyon  |
| Issue date: | 07/06/1984 |
| From: | Cunningham G NRC OFFICE OF THE EXECUTIVE LEGAL DIRECTOR (OELD) |
| To: | Harold Denton, Deyoung R NRC OFFICE OF INSPECTION & ENFORCEMENT (IE), Office of Nuclear Reactor Regulation |
| Shared Package | |
| ML20210U520 | List:
|
| References | |
| FOIA-86-197 ALAB-775, ALAB-776, NUDOCS 8610100166 | |
| Download: ML20210U734 (2) | |
Text
.
. _ ~
I JUL 6 564 I
Note to: Harold R. Denton, Director Office of Nuclear Reacter Regulation Richard C. DeYoung Director Office of Inspection and Enforcement
~
From:
Guy H. Cunningham, III Executive Legal Director
SUBJECT:
DIABLO CANYON - APPEAL BOARD DECISIONS ON MOTIONS TO REOPEN AND ON STAFF / APPLICANT APPEAL OF INITIAL DECISION On June 28, 1984, the Appeal Board in the Diablo Canyon proceeding issued a Iknerandum and Order denying Joint Intervenors' motions to reopen the record on design quality assurance and'on construction quality assurance and licensee character and competence. On June 29, 1984 the Appeal Board issued a Decision on the appeal of the Licensing Board's August 1982 Initial Decision authorizing issuance of full power operating licenses taken by the Staff and Applicant.
ALAB-775 and ALAB-776, copies attached.
In the first of these decisions, ALAB-775, the Appeal Board determined that Joint Intervenors had failed to meet the standards for reopening the record. In particular, the Appeal Board found with respect to design and construction quality assurance that, although relying on numerous allegations of design and construction deficiencies (those reviewed or currently under review by the Staff), the Joint Intervenors had
" failed to present new evidence of any significant safety issue that could have any effect on the outcome of the licensing proceeding." (Slip op. at 9)*/
The Appeal Board also denied Joint Intervenors' motion insofar as it sought to reopen the record on licensee character and competence. This ruling was based primarily on the Appeal Board's determination that the matters raised could have been brought forward earlier, i.e., they were untimely, and, more-over, that the examples of alleged misconduct, even in light of the more recent allegations, do not establish that the licensee does not possess the i
j character and competence to design, construct and operate Diablo Canyon.
i In a related Order dated June 28, 1984, copy also attached, the Appeal Board i
denied Joint Intervenors' motion for a protective order regarding four affidavits filed in support of their motion to reopen the record. The Appeal Board found that Joint Intervenors had failed to establish the need for the sweeping protective order they sought which would have precluded disclosure k
- /
It should be noted that PG&E is required to provide additional in-formation to the Appeal Board, by July 6 regarding the acceptability of A307 bolts for use on the containment liner.
8610100166 860930 PDR FOIA HOLMES86-197 PDR
--v-g g--
,, -.. -..,ww-,
+w.-
.g-.--m,_g---
w
--,v.
-.---.--,-,y.,
,g__,ym,y.,-
,:.we,gey-w
- i JUL 6 8 84 of the four affidavits in their entirety to the Staff and other parties. The Appeal Board did, however, allow Joint Intervenors to provide to the parties
)
copies of the affidavits in the form provided to them with names and other identifying information deleted.
In ALAB-776, the Appeal Board resolved the appeal of the Licensing Board's Initial Decision of August 1982 taken by the Staff and Applicant regarding the need for fonnal, 44 C.F.R. 350 FEMA findings on the adequacy of the State i
of California emergency plan. Agreeing with the position taken by the Staff, the Appeal Board vacated the condition imposed by the Licensing Board requiring such findings as a pre-condition to issuance of full power operating licenses, finding that the evidence presented by the Staff, including FEMA's interim findings and testimony regarding the adequacy of the state plan in its then-current fonn was adequate to satisfy the NRC's requirements in 10 C.F.R.
I 50.47. Since the Licensing Board itself had found offsite planning to be adequate (including those aspects for which the State is responsible), based on the foregoing evidence, a finding which the Appeal Board affirmed, the Appeal Board concluded that the Licensing Board erred in attaching to its license authorization the condition reiuiring further, final FEMA findings.
l g
GuyH.Cunningb,III Executive Legal Director Attachments:
ALAB 775 ALAB-776 Order, June 28, 1984 cc: William J. Dircks John B. Hartin l
l
-