ML20211C485
Text
'
4 April 26,1983 Note to: Harold R. Denton, Director Office of Nuclear Reactor Regulation Richard C. DeYoung, Director Office of Inspection and Enforcement From:
Guy H. Cunningham, III Executive Legal Director
SUBJECT:
DIABLO CANYON - APPEAL BOARD MEMORANDUM AND ORDER REOPENING THE RECORD By Memorandum and Order dated April 21, 1983, copy attached, the Atomic Safety and Licensing Appeal Board reopened the Diablo Canyon record to consider the issue of design quality assurance. This action is consistent with the Staff's and applicant's recommendation stated during the oral argument in this proceeding on April 14th.
At this point in time, the Appeal Board has not considered whether to also reopen the record on the issue of construction quality assurance. Both the Governor and Joint Intervenors have asked that this issue be considered based, in substantial part, on the recently filed supplemental affidavit of Richard Hubbard and on allegations of construction quality assurance deficiencies reflected in a transcript of an interview of two individuals formerly employed by a contractor to the applicant (Tennyson and Roam of H.
P. Foley Co.) conducted by the Governor. Because of the improper manner in which these dccuiraits were submittes, and the lack of are opp;rtunity for the applicant and Staff to reasonably respond, the Appeal Board has allowed both of the intervenors to promptly refile their requests to reopen the record on construction quality assurance. The Staff's preliminary views on the supplemental Hubbard affidavit, presented at the oral argument, were that it did not provide an adequate basis to reopen on the construction quality assurance issue. With respect to the Tennyson / Roam allegations, Region V has been investigating this matter for some time and it has already been the subject of an April 15, 1983 Board Notification, BN-83-51.
In any event, at such time as the intervenors refile a request to reopen on construction quality assurance, we'will have a further opportunity to respond.
8610210301 860930
[ME 6-151 PDR
-2 The Appeal. Board acquiesced in the agreement by all parties that it will preside over the reopened proceeding.
In addition, it authorized the immediate commencement of discovery against the applicant and intervenors; as we recommended, the Appeal Board deferred discovery against the Staff until further notice in order not to interfere with the Staff's review of matters responsive to the Commision's November 19, 1981 Order suspending the Unit 1 operating license. We are to notify the Appeal Board by May 13th, when our responsibilities in connection with the foregoing will be sufficiently complete to permit discovery against us. The Appeal Board does not expect that discovery will extend much beyond July 1st and will establish a schedule for the close of discovery and the remainder of the proceeding after hearing from all parties. The Appeal Board further recommended that discovery focus on three areas:
(1) the scope of the IDVP, (2) the adequacy of its execution, and (3) the adequacy of its implementation ("i.e. whether the
' fixes' recommended or undertaken in response to the IDVP are sufficient").
(Slip op. at 7).
It warrants note that the Appeal Board reminded the parties to be prepared "to bear the heavy burdens that accompany the expeditious litigation of an issue as complex as this one."
(Slip op. at 5).
In this regard, your continued personal support and attention as well as that of the Region will be appreciated.
p G
H. Cu Executive Legal Director
Enclosure:
As stated cc w/ enclosure:
Wiliiam Dircks Jack Martin, Reg. V i
l l
[
_.