NUREG-0675, Forwards Decision DD-86-12 in Response to Petition & Suppls Re Licensing Actions Based on Allegations.Nrc Evaluation of Allegation & Basis for Conclusions in Decision DD-86-12 Contained in Sser 33 to NUREG-0675,transmitted on 860527
| ML20215B526 | |
| Person / Time | |
|---|---|
| Site: | Diablo Canyon  |
| Issue date: | 09/30/1986 |
| From: | Vollmer R Office of Nuclear Reactor Regulation |
| To: | Devine T GOVERNMENT ACCOUNTABILITY PROJECT |
| Shared Package | |
| ML16341D895 | List: |
| References | |
| RTR-NUREG-0675 2.206, DD-86-12, NUDOCS 8610060632 | |
| Download: ML20215B526 (4) | |
Text
r;. 4-
. D0-86-12 S:ptember 30, 1986 DISTRIBUTION Docket Nos. 50-275 4 Docket FU e-(504275/323)?s/ incoming y and 50,-323 NRC ~ PDR^" " '"""~"" D.~ Mos s b0rg~
Local PDR PD#3 Rdg.
ED0#000125 PD#3 GT File ED0 Reading L. Hannon Mr. Thomas Devine -
H. Denton/R. Vollmer
~ Government Accountability Project T. Novak V. Stello Institute for Policy Studies S. Varga SECY 1901 Que Street, N.W.- C. Vogan 0GC Washington, DC 20009 H. Schierl.ing ASLAB OPA ASLBP
Dear Mr. Devine:
ACRS(10) J. Resner(2)
Enclosed is.my Final Decision responding to your petition which you filed pursuant'to 10 CFR 2.206 and on behalf of certain individuals. The petition and its supplements requested that the Commission take certain actions regarding the licensing of Diablo Canyon Units 1 and 2. Supplement No. 33 to the staff's Safety Evaluation Report (NUREG-0675, SSER-33, dated May 1986) was sent to you on May 27, 1986. The document completes the NRC evaluation of allegations. It is the principal basis for our conclusions in the Final Decision.
Sincerely, Richard H. Vollmer, Acting Director Office of Nuclear Reactor Regulation
Enclosure:
As stated cc: See next page
- SEE )REVIOUS CONCURRENCE I l PD#3 PD#3 D:PWR-A N NRR HS hi ig SVarga* TNovak* mer HDenton*
9/ 86 9/ /86 9/ /86 $ci/86 9/ /86 bl0Db0b3 f(
.,. C DISTRIBUTION Docket Nos. 50-275 Docket File (50-275/323) w/ incoming and 50-323 _NRC PDR D. Mossburg Local PDR PD#3,Rdg.
EDO#000 m fi r- PD#3 GT File ED0 Reading L. Harmon Mr. Thomas Devine H. Denton/R. Vollmer V. Stello Government Accountability Project T. Novak Institute for Policy Studies S. Varga SECY 1901 Que Street, N.W. C. Vogan 0GC Washington, DC 20009 H. Schierling ASLAB OPA ASLBP
Dear Mr. Devine:
- ACRS(10) J. Resner(2)
Enclosed is my Final Decision responding to your petition which you filed pursuant to 10 CFR 2.206 and on behalf of certain individuals. The petition and its supplements requested that the Commission take certain actions ,
regarding the licensing of Diablo Canyon Units 1 and 2. Supplement No. 33 to the staff's Safety Evaluation Report (NUREG-0675, SSER-33, dated May 1986) was sent to you on May 27, 1986. The document completes the NRC evaluation of allegations. It is the principal basis for our conclusions in the Final Decision.
Sincerely, Harold R. Denton, Director.
Office of Nuclear Reactor Regulation
Enclosure:
As stated cc: See next page
. PD#3 NRR NRR HSchie ing arga k RVollmer HDenton 9/(j/86 9// /86 9/ /86 9/ /86 9//f/86
- - . _ . . . - - = _ _ . - . . . ..- . _.
)
cc:
Philip A. Crane, Jr., Esq. NRC Resident Inspe'ctor/Diablo Canyon l Pacific Gas & Electric Company Nuclear Power Plant i Post Office Box 7442 c/o U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission San Francisco, California 94120 P. O. Box 369 Avila Beach, California ' 93424 Mr. Malcolm H. Furbush
! Vice President - General Counsel Ms. Raye Fleming Pacific Gas & Electric Company 1920 Mattie Road Post Office Box 7442 Shell Beach, California 93440 San Francisco, California 94120 Joel Reynolds Esq.
Janice E. Kerr, Esq. John R. Phillips, Esq.
California Public Utilities Commission Center for Law in the Public Interest 350 McAllister Street 10951 West Pico Boulevard San Francisco, California 94102 Third Floor Los Angeles, California 90064 4
Mr. Frederick Eissler, President l Scenic Shoreline Preservation Mr. Dick Blankenburg Conference, Inc. Editor & Co-Publisher South County Publishing Company i 4623 More Mesa Drive
' Santa-Barbara, California 93105 P. O. Box 460
! Arroyo Grande, California 93420 Ms. Elizabeth Apfelberg
- 1415 Cozadero Bruce Norton, Esq.
San Luis Obispo, California 93401 Norton, Burke, Berry & French, P.C.
202 E. Osborn Road 4 Mr. Gordon A. Silver P. O. Box 10569
, Ms. Sandra A. Silver Phoenix, Arizona 85064 1760 Alisal Street
. San Luis Obispo, California 93401 Mr. W. C. Gangloff Westinghouse Electric Corporation Harry M. Willis, Esq. P. O. Box 355 i
Seymour & Willis Pittsburgh, Pennsylvania 15230 601 California Street, Suite 2100 David F. Fleischaker, Esq.
! San Francisco, California 94108 P. O. Box 1178 i Mr. Richard Hubbard Oklahoma City, Oklahoma 73101 MHB Technical Associates l Suite K Managing Editor 1725 Hamilton Avenue San Luis Obispo County Telegram San Jose, California 95125 Tribune 1321 Johnson Avenue Arthur C. Gehr, Esq. P. O. Box 112 .
! Snell & Wilmer San Luis Obispo, California 93406 3100 Valley Center Phoenix, Arizona 85073 l
I'
. cc:
Dr. R. B. Ferguson Mr. Thomas Devine Siera Club - Santa Lucia Chapter Government Accountability Rocky Canyon Star Route Project Creston, California 93432 Institute for Policy Studies 1901 Que Street, NW Mr. Leland M. Gustafson,' Manager Washington, DC 20009 Federal Relations Pacific Gas & Electric Company Chairman 1726 M Street, N.W. San Luis Obispo County Board of
, Suite 1100 Supervisors Washington, DC 20036-4502 Room 220 County Courthouse Annex
. Regional Administrator, Region V San Luis Obispo, California 93401 U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission 1450 Maria Lane Director Suite 210 Energy Facilities Siting Division Walnut Creek', California 94596 Energy Resources Conservation and Development Commission 4
Michael J. Strumwasser, Esq. 1516 9th Street Special Counsel to the Attorney General Sacramento, California 95814 State of California 3580 Wilshire Boulevard, Suite 800 President Los Angeles, California 90010 California Public Utilities
! Commission Mr. Tom Harris California State Building Sacramento Bee 350 McA11 ester Street i
21st and 0 Streets San Francisco, California 94102 Sacramento, California 95814 Mr. Joseph 0. Ward, Chief Mr. H. Daniel Nix Radiological Health Branch California Energy Commission State Department of Health 1516 9th Street, MS 18 Services Sacramento, California 95814 714 P Street, Office Building #8 Sacramento, California 95814 Lewis Sho11enberger,.Esq.
US Nuclear Regulatory Commission Ms. Nancy Culver Region V 192 Luneta Street j 1450 Maria Lane San Luis Obispo, California 93401 Suite 210
- Walnut Creek, California 94596 Ms. Laurie McDermott, Coordinator
~
Consumers Organized for Defense Mrs. Jacquelyn Wheeler of Environmental Safety 2455 Leona Street 731 Pacific Street, Suite 42 San Luis Obispo, California 93400 San Luis Obispo, California 93401 i
f
---.-..w.--.- , - - - , - . , . . .-.:--.,--..,,--.~--.
_~,-------,-.---,---nn-
^
s
.- a DD-86-12 s UNITED STATES OF AMERICA
. NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSION
- 0FFICE OF NUCLEAR REACTOR REGULATION Harold R. Denton, Director In the Matter of Docket Nos. 50-275 and 50-323 PACIFIC GAS 8 ELECTRIC COMPANY (10 CFR 2.206)
(Diablo Canyon Nuclear Power Plant, Units 1 and 2)
T DIRECTOR'S DECISION UNDER 10 CFR 2.206 s
INTRODdCTION ND BACKGROUND Thomas De. vine of the Government Accountability Project (GAP), on behalf of
~
Timothy 3. O'Neill and James L. McDemott, filed a request on July 27, 1984, pursuant to 10 CFR 2.206 of the Comission's regulations, that the Nuclear
-- Regulatory Coicission (NRC) defer further licensing actions on the Diablo Canyon Nuclear Power Plant (Diablo Canyon, the Plant). Specifically, the s petitioners requested the auth'orization of commercial operation of Unit I and further' licensing actions on Unit 2 be deferred pending the completion of
, 9. ) specific items.for which relief was requested. Supplemental documents were 8
T filed by the petitioners on July 29, 30 and 31, 1984; an Amendment to the Petition was filed on November 16, 1984, and a Supplement to the Petition was filed on March 14, 1985. In accordance with the Commission's usur) practice, the Petitioner's request was referred to the staff for appropriate action. The basis for the requested actions are numerous allegations, contained in affidavits _
by individuals, relating to alleged inadequate design, construction, and Ad/te A / A/r!M L r i W O v p 'f V ~Jd
4
. management of Diablo Canyon, in particular with respect to quality assurance
.orogram implementation practices, alleged personnel intimidation by the licensee management, and alleged improper investigation and evaluation of allegations by the NRC staff.
On August 20, 1984 the Director, Office of Nuclear Reactor Regulation, issued an Interim Decision regarding the Petition of July 27, 1984. See Pacific Gas and Electric Company, (Diablo Canyon Nuclear Power Plant, Units 1 and 2),
DD-84-19, 20 NRC 773 (1984). The decision denied the aspects of the petition dealing with'the requested deferral of any licensing action on Diablo Canyon, and stated that a final detemination regarding the circumstances of the temination of the employment of Mr. O'Neill and Mr. McDermott with a contractor for the Pacific Gas and Electric Company (PG&E) would be made upon completion of investigations by the Office of Investigation (01).
On January 11, 1985 the Director responded to the November 16, 1984 Amendment to the Petition and concluded that the Amendment did not reveal any new information necessitating a major re-investigation of the Diablo Canyon Plant or circumvention of the NRC's Region V office (this aspect was discussed in detail in a letter, dated September 24, 1984, from the NRC's Executive Director for Operations to Thomas Devine of GAP).
On April 16, 1985 the Director responded to the Supplement of March 15, 1985 to the Petition. In a letter dated May 15, 1985, the Director provided a status of the NRC's investigations, reviews and evaluations of all allegations. The letter stated that allegations concerning improper conduct by the NRC staff had been referred to the NRC's Office of Inspector and Auditor (OIA), allegations
' concerning harassment and intimidation of workers at the plant had been referred to the NRC's Office of Investigations (01), and that the status of the staff's evaluation of individual allegations, in particular the technical aspects, was
, documented in Supplement No. 28 (SSER-28) to the staff's Safety Evaluation Report (NUREG-0675). In sumary, the letter concluded that complete resolution of all allegations was not necessary prior to the licensing of Unit 2 and that there was no need for an immediate suspension of the Unit 1 operating license.
CONSIDERATION OF ALLEGATIONS IN DIABLO CANYON LICENSING ,
The staff evaluation of allegations submitted by GAP and other sources since early 1983, including concerns regarding small and large bore piping and pipe supports, has been documented throughout the licensing process for Diablo Canyon Units 1 and 2 in the following Supplements (SSERs) to the staff's Safety Evaluation Report (NUREG-0675): SSER-21 (December 1983), SSER-22 (March 1984),
! SSER-25 (July 1984), SSER-26 (July 1984), SSER-28 (August 1985), SSER-30 (April
( 1985), and SSER-33 (May 1986).
I t The NRC staff briefed the Comission on the status of its evaluation of allegations prior to the Comission's decisions regarding the major licensing steps for Diablo Canyon Units 1 and 2. In its Memorandum and Order CLI-84-13, dated August 10, 1984, the Comission authorized issuance of a full power license for Unit 1. See Pacific Gas and Electric Company, (Diablo Canyon Nuclear Power Plant, Units 1 and 2), CLI-84-13, 20 NRC 267 (1984). The decision included the following considerations:
(1) regarding allegations on strall and large bore piping and pipe supports, including license conditions resulting, in part, from concerns expressed l
- by an NRC inspector, the Comission accepted the staff and Advisory Comittee on Reactor Safeguards (ACRS) conclusions that these matters had been adequately resolved for issuance of a full power license; (2) regarding more than 1400 allegations, including those that had been filed by petitions under 10 CFR 2.206, the Comission determined that a full power license need not be deferred pending the final resolution of outstanding allegations; (3) regarding allegations of harassment and intimidation, the Comission accepted the staff's finding that there was no widespread pattern of purposeful harassment and intimidation; accepted the staff's approach for continuing investigations by OI and OIA; and concluded that there was no need to defer the full power decision.
The Unit 1 full power license DPR-80 was issued on November 2,1984.
I On April 23, 1985 the staff briefed the Commission on matters relating to the issuance of a low power license for Unit 2, including allegations and their significance on low power operation. The staff concluded that none of them, received as of that date, were of such safety significance to defer the proposed I
licensing action. The Commission, in its Memorandum and Order dated April 23, 1985 authorized the issuance of the low power license for Unit 2. The Unit 2 low power license was issued on April 26, 1985.
On August 1,1985 the staff briefed the Comission on matters relating to the l
issuance of a full power license for Unit 2, including allegations and their i
significance on full power operation. The staff concluded that none of them l
. received as of that date were of such safety significance to defer the proposed licensing action. The Consnission, in its Memorandum and Order CLI 85-14, dated August 1, 1985 accepted the staff's determination and authorized issuance of a full power license for Unit 2. See Pacific Gas and Electric Company, (Diablo Canyon Nuclear Power Plant, Units I and 2), CLI-85-14, 22 NRC 177(1985). The Unit 2 full power license was issued on August 26, 1985.
EVALUATION OF PETITION The Comission found the staff's evaluation acceptable, did not , defer any licensing action on Diablo Canyon Units I and 2 pending any further evaluation, and authorized issuance of the licenses. With the issuance of SSER-33 in May 1986, the staff's evaluation of the technical aspects of all allegations has been completed and documented in SER Supplements referenced above. The staff has concluded that the technical concerns raised in the allegations have all been resolved and that no further action is required regarding the safety of the Plant.
As documented in SSER-22, allegations of intimidation and harassment of workers at the plant were considered by the staff. The staff took specific action to assess whether these conditions were a widespread problem or concern at Diablo Canyon. The staff effort on Diablo Canyon allegations involved several thousand staff man-hours on-site interfacing with hundreds of licensee and contractor personnel at all levels, including specifically questioning about f50 site personnel regarding pressures to " cut corners", intimidation, harassment, or freedom to bring forth safety and quality related concerns. During the course
. 6-of its resolution of these allegations over the past three years, the staff did not detect an attitude to suppress employee concerns or corrupt the effectiveness of those controls the NRC depends upon to assure quality and safety. The various technical concerns, including the concerns on quality control, that were raised by the alleger as a basis for intimidation and harassment, were reviewed and found to be either unsubstantiated or insignificant from a safety standpoint, as documented in SSER-33. The Office of Investigations has determined not to pursue these investigations based on the priority of other investigations, resources and available infonnation concerning the allegations. On the basis of all of the above, the staff has concluded that further action concerning the alleged intimidation and harassment is not warranted.
As stated'in the SER Supplements cited above and as discussed at the various Comission briefings, certain concerns, related to alleged improper conduct by NRC staff in its investigation and evaluation of allegations, had been referred l
to the NRC's Office of Inspector and Auditor. The Office conducted a review of the NRC's allegation management effort, including a detailed examination of the processing of allegations by the staff and interviews with allegers regarding the NRC staff conduct. The Office concluded that while numerous problems were encountered in dealing with allegers and processing their concerns, overall the NRC staff did a credible job of managing the vast number of allegations. See (1) Report to the Comission, " Review of Allegations Management for Diablo Canyon", NRC Office of Inspector and Auditor, March 1986 and (2) f
( Report of Investigation, "Diablo Canyon - Allegations of Misconduct by NRC
- 7 Employees", NRC Office of Inspector and Auditor, October 21, 1985.I The staff has concluded that these allegations do not pertain to the safety of the Plant and do not provide a basis to take any licensing action.
In the Petition of July 27, 1984, the Petitioner requested investigations by an Inspector General at a government agency outside the NRC into the NRC's staff handling of allegations. A request for such an investigation, particularly one for an investigation of internal NRC personnel matters, does not fall within the class of requests contemplated by 10 CFR 2.206. See Duke Power Company, (Catawba Nuclear Station Units 1 and 2), DD-84-16, 20 NRC 161, 164, n.5.
Section 2.206 contemplates requests to institute enforcement proceedings with respect to a license. These allegations, therefore, are not considered to be appropriate for a petition. In any event, as noted above, the NRC Office of Inspector and Auditor, which is similar to an Inspector General office, has i reviewed staff actions in this case.
CONCLUSION The Petitioner bases its request for relief on numerous allegations regarding inadequate and/or improper design, construction and management of the Diablo Canyon Plant, in particular with respect to quality assurance program implementation practices; alleged personnel intimidation by the licensee I Both reports were enclosures to a letter, dated June 11, 1986, from Nunzio J.
l Palladino, Chainnan, Nuclear Regulatory Comission, to Edward J. Markey, Chairman.
Subcommittee on Energy Conservation and Power, Comittee on Energy and Commerce, United States House of Representatives.
management; and alleged improper investigation and evaluation of allegations by the NRC staff. The staff has completed its evaluation of the technical aspects of all allegations and concludes that no issues remain unresolved which either individually or collectively require any licensing action on Unit 1 or Unit 2. The staff did not detect any widespread company attitude, either deliberate or inadvertent, to suppress employee concerns by intimidation or harassment and concludes that the alleged harassment or intimidation circumstances do not collectively or individually require any license action for either Unit 1 or 2. The issues concerning alleged improper conduct by the staff in its investigation and evaluation of allegations, while not considered to be appropriately the subject of a petition under 10 CFR 2.206, have been reviewed; the staff has concluded that none of the allegations pertain to the safety of the plant. Therefore, the Petitioner's request for specific relief to be taken
' prior to or subsequent to any licensing decision on Diabio Canyon Units 1 and 2 is denied. A copy of the decision will be filed with the Secretary for the Commission's review in accordance with 10 CFR 2.206 (c).
Dated at Bethesda, Maryland this 30 day' of September,1986 Richard H. Vollmer, Acting Director Office of Nuclear Reactor Regulation
- SEE PREV OUS CONCURRENCE l
PD#3 *t F PD#3 D:PWR-A RV OI PD#3 Vogan HSchi( ling}* SVarga* TNovak JMartin* BHayes*
8/ /86 9/12/86 8/10/86 8/ /86 8/29/86 8/29/86 OIA OGC N t SConnelly* JLieberman* mer enton 8/12/86 9/17/86 /7#86
/
/J//86
9 management; and alleged improper investigation and evaluation of allegations by the NRC staff. The staff has completed its evaluation of the technical aspects of all allegations and concludes that no issues remain unresolved '
which either individually or collectively require any licensing action on Unit 1 or Unit 2. The staff did not detect any widespread company attitude, either deliberate or inadvertent, to suppress employee concerns by intimidation or harassment and concludes that the alleged harassment or intimidation circumstances do not collectively or individually require any license action for either Unit 1 or 2. The issues concerning alleged improper conduct by the staff in its investigation and evaluation of allegations, while not considered to be appropriately the subject of a petition under 10 CFR 2.206, have been reviewed; the staff has concluded that none of the allegations pertain to the safety of the plant. Therefore, the Petitioner's request for specific relief to be taken
, prior to or. subsequent to any licensing decision on Diablo Canyon Units 1 and 2 is denied. A copy of the decision will be filed with the Secretary for the Commission's review in accordance with 10 CFR 2.206 (c).
Dated at Bethesda, Maryland this day of September,1986 i
l Harold R. Denton, Director Office of Nuclear Reactor Regulation l
- SEE PREVIOUS CONCURRENCE l PD#3 PD#3 PD#3 -A RV OI l Vogan HSchier ing* SVarga* T vak JMartin* BHayes*
8/ /86 9/ /86 8/10/86 g/q/86 8/29/86 8/29/86 OIA OGC NRR W5 NRR SConnelly* JLieberman* RVollmer HDenton 8/12/86 9/17/86 8/ /86 8/ /86 1
?
management; and alleged improper investigation and evaluation of llegations by the NRC staff. The staff has completed its evaluation o the technical aspects of all allegations and concludes that no issues remain unresolved which either individually or collectively require apf licensing action on Unit I or Unit 2. The staff did not detect any widespr/ ead company attitude, either deliberate or inadvertent, to suppress employee concerns by intimidation or harassment and concludes that the alleged harassment or intimidation circumstances
/
do not collectively or individuallyffequireanylicenseactioninUnit1or2.
The issues concerning alleged improper conduct by the staff in its investigation
/
and evaluation of allegations ( while not considered to be appropriately the subject of a petition under 10 CFR 2.206, have been reviewed and concluded that none of the allegatiorts / pertain to the safety of the plant. Therefore, the
/
Petitioner's request'for specific relief to be taken prior to or subsequent to any licensing de sion on Diablo Canyon Units 1 and 2 is denied. A copy of the
/
decision wilJ/be filed with the Secretary for the Commission's review in accordanc,e with 10 CFR 2.206 (c).
/
Dated /at Bethesda, Maryland this' day of August, 1986 Harold R. Denton, Director Office of Nuclear Reactor Regulation w
.s
~
- SEEPREV[rUSCONCURRENCE
((
PD#3 PD#3 PD#3 D:PWR-A RV OI Vogan HSchi ing* SVarga* TNovak JMartin* BHayes* l 8/ /86 8/29/86 8/29/86 8/ /86 OIA Yb OGC 8/10/86 NRR NRR fh ,f 5
SConnelly* JLiebe h- RVollmer HDenton j 8/12/86 8/ I'//86 8/ /86 8/ /86 l
k
?
.g management; and alleged improper investigation and evaluation of all'egations
/
/
by the NRC staff. The staff has completed its evaluation of,th'e technical
/ .
aspects of all allegations and concludes that no issue r,eniains unresolved
/
which either individually or collectively require any' licensing action on Unit 1 or Unit 2.
/
The staff did not detect any widesp, read company attitude, either
/
deliberate or inadvertent, to suppress emp1,0yee concerns by intimidation or harassment and concludes that the alleged harassment or intimidation circumstances donotcollectivelyorindividually,r'[quireanylicenseactioninUnit1or2.
The issues concerning alleged impr' per conduct by the staff in its investigation
/
and evaluation of allegations', hile not considered to be appropriately the subject of a petition undeh 10 CFR 2.206, have been reviewed and concluded that,
' independent of any act[on on an internal NRC personnel matter, none of the.
allegations pertain to the safety of the plant. Therefore, the Petitioner's request for spe ific relief to be taken prior to or subsequent to any licensing decision on'Diablo Canyon Units I and 2 is denied. A copy of the decision _will be filed with the Secretary for the Commission's review in accordance with 10CFR2.206(c).
/ Dated at Bethesda, Maryland
/ tMs day of August,1986 Harold R. Denton, Director
- SEE PREVIOUS CONCURRENCE Office of Nuclear Reac r R gulation PDf3 PD#3h PD#3 D:PWR-A V OI$.bik Vogan HSchierling
- SVarga
- TNovak Martin BHayes 8/ /86 8/10/86 8/10/86 8/ /86 8/7//86 1 8/q86 0IA SConnelly
8/12/86 8/ /86 8/ /86 8/ /86
management; and alleged improper investigation and evaluation of allegations by the NRC staff. The staff has completed its evaluation of the technical aspects of all allegations and concludes that no issue remains' unresolved which either individually or collectively require any licensing action on Unit 1 or Unit 2. The staff has completed its evaluation of allegations related to the intimidation and harassment of individuals, including circumstances associated with the employment termination of Timothy J. O'Neill and James L. McDermott, and concludes that no issue remains unresolved which either individually or collectively require any licensing action on Unit 1 or Unit 2. The issues concerning alleged improper conduct by the staff in its investigation and evaluation of allegations, while not considered to be appropriately the subject of a petition under 10 CFR 2.206, have been reviewed and concluded that, independent of any action on an internal NRC personnel matter, none of the allegations pertain to the safety of the plant. Therefore, the Petitioner's request for specific relief to be taken prior to or subsequent to any licensing decision on Diablo Canyon Units 1 and 2 is denied. A copy of the decision will be filed with the Secretary for the Commission's review in accordance with 10 CFR 2.206 (c).
Dated at Bethesda, Maryland this day of August, 1986 Harold R. Denton, Director Office of Nuclear Reactor Regulation PD#3 PD!3 83 D:PWR-A RV OI Vogan HSchieMing ra TNovak JMartin BHayes 8/ /86 8/l0/86 8 g /86 8/ /86 8/ /86 8/ 86
\\ % (Spr M dII OGC NRR RVollmer NRR HDenton SConne ly JLieberman 8/g/85 8/ /86 8/ /86 8/ /86 P