ML20211C574
Text
.. _
J M2 d.si
~
./
May 25, 1983 Note to: Harold R. Denton, Director Office of Nuclear Reactor Regulation Richard C. DeYoung, Director 1%
Office of Inspection and Enforcement From:
Guy H. Cunningham, III Executive Legal Director
SUBJECT:
DIABLO CANYON - APPEAL BOARD DECISION (ALAB-728)
AFFIRMING LICENSING BOARD DECISION ON LOW POWER On May 18, 1983, the Atomic Safety and Licensing Appeal Board issued its Decision, ALAB-728, copy attached, affirming the Licensing Board's July 17, 1981 Partial Initial Decision authorizing the issuance of an operating license for fuel loading and low power testing for Diablo Canyon Unit 1.1/
The principal issues addres's'ed are low power emergency preparedness, the Weed for a separate low power environmental statement and the propriety of the Licensing Board's rejection of contentions.
With respect to emergency preparedness, the Appeal Board concluded that, contrary to the intervenors' arguments, in accordance with the Commission's emergency preparedness regulations in 10 C.F.R. 6 50.47 as amended in July 1982, offsite preparedness is not required prior to issuance of an operating license authorizing only fuel loading and for low power operations (up to 5% of rated power).
Rather it is the applicant's onsite emergency plan that is crucial L1ong with aspects of some offsite requiraments such as communications, notification, assistance agreement::, fire protection and medical services.
The Appeal Board found that the applicant's plans
~
satisfied all applicable requirements.
(Slip op. at 11-20) The Appeal Board also places reliance on the fact the Licensing Board, in its Initial DecisiorL of August 31, 1982 authorizing issuance of full power operating licenses,'~~~
has found offsite preparedness to be adequate.
(Dr. Johnson dissents from the opinion insofar as it addresses the adequacy of emergency preparedness for full power operation.)
-1/
The Appeal Board's Decision does not affect the suspension of the operating license ordered by the Commission on November 19, 1981, CLI-81-30.
/
i t
g,
?-
. 1 Also in connection with emergency preparedness, the Appeal Board aff'irmed the Licensing Board's determination that, based on the Commission's decision in the San Onofre proceeding, CLI-81-33 (1981), it could not consider the impacts of an earthquake or emergency planning.
(Slipop.at20-21)
In regard to the need to prepare a separate environmental statement, or alternatively, a negative declaration and supporting environmental impact appraisal evaluating the impacts of fuel loading and low power testing, the Appeal Board concluded that none was required. The Appeal Board determined that fuel loading and low power testing are normal, necessary and expected steps in achieving full power operation regardless of whether they are undertaken pursuant to a separate fuel loading and low power testing license or are scheduled as the first steps under a full power license. They are not an alternative to full power operation and do not involve environmental impacts different from those evaluated in the environmental statement prepared for full power, full term operation; such statement necessarily includes the lesser impacts of fuel loading and low power testing and, therefore, there is no need for a separate evaluation.
(Slip cp. at 21-24)
The Appeal Board also rejected the intervenor's argument that Class 9 accidents had to be considered prior to authorizing low power operation. The Appeal Board concluded that, in light of the issuance of the Diablo Canyon FES prior to the Commission's revised policy on consideration of Class 9 accidents and the intervenors' failure to establish the existence of special circumstances regarding Diablo Canyon, the Licensing Board properly rejected a requirement that Class 9 accidents be considered.
(Slipop.at25-28)
Finally, for a variety of reasons, the Appeal Board affirmed the Licensing Board's rejection of a number of TMI-related contentions proposed by the intervenors.
In brief, the Appeal Board agreed that the intervenors failed tn setisfy the Commissien's requirements for raising la+.e-filed TMI-related contentions.
W m
/
l Guy H. Cunningh d, III j
Executive Legal Director
Attachment:
As stated cc w/ attachment:
W. J. Dircks J. ' Martin, Region V l
I
T
$ 3b y
fh.
CENTER FOR LAW g
lN THE Pusuc INTEREST 6..6.."
...~,=......c.
r ric e enUl*"L":'.'s.
T,
..,..,..,. m. :.
~ = = ~ * =
- : =l..
6.....u,......oo..
,t;;";;' ";;;,g;,a*
- -c;;;;,.,ff,m,
,m.....:........
":?:3..~ :.c,-'"
or cov=. 6 i
f>
f a
- UHll~;'..~
~p f,,
C
........,m...
May 25, 1983 L--.
q n'.,'=j/ "".
- 6.......
w r:::....
T. Hrs W(
r=:. =..
Darrell Eisenhut dN Director of Licensing U.S. Nuclear Regulatory
}
f')
f g.i MeC Commission Washington, D.C.
20555 J
Dear uos u tA4 On behalf of the Joint Intervenors to the Diablo Canyon licensing proceeding, I am writing to express our alarm in reading a recent news report in the San-Luis Obispo County Telegram-Tribune.
According to the May 10, 1983 report (see attached article), a Pacific Gas and Electric Company
("PGandE") spokesman indicated that PGandE officials had seen preliminary drafts of a still-uncompleted NRC investigation report into charges by two former quality control personnel of quality assurance violations at Diablo Canyon.
He assured the reporter that the drafts identified no major problems at Diablo.
Three days later, on May 13, that same representative attempted a retraction, stating that he was incorrect and that PGandE had not reviewed preliminary drafts of the NRC's report.
We are seriously concerned that once again PGandE may be receiving access to preliminary drafts of critical, supposedly independent reports.
As should have been made crystal clear.in early 1982 after disclosure of PGandE's editing of preliminary drafts of the Cloud Report, such access by the utility being l-investigated is not only highly inappropriate, but it makes a i
mockery of the principle of independence which is essential if j
the investigations and conclusions described in the reports are l
to be takea seriously.
Moreover, particularly in as vigorously contested a proceeding as this one, access by PGandE to preliminary findings -- either through review of draft reports or discussions with the investigating entity -- undermines even the appearance of fairness to other parties and, more soAno or tmuststs I
l
- "."" '. Ta*
"% U E.fn.
"o. U c=
EE' %"'"
CIU70 m
I
- "J.=
- ". l'A-
- ".l~'.*."
=ter:::;*'~
= o:;;"'
1 2 & f' s Ir %
Gu I U r
- T l
'W(
, h 4
e Darrell' Eisenhut Director'*0'f Licensing May 25, 1983 Page Two importantly, suggests that the paramount interest of the residents of San Luis Obispo County in safety may again be taking a back seat to the short-term interests and convenience of PGandE.
Public confidence in Diablo Canyon demands independence, and independence cannot be ensured if PGandE'is reviewing draft NRC investigation reports.
We do not know wh'ich of the statements of the PGandE 1
representative is accurate.
However, we believe it is incumbent upon -- and_we herehy e ;_'--*
- h.
une to inve=*faare the matter to determine the fan *= end-take-all Qctions'nec_essar,y_to._ ensure -thab such improper access, if..it occurred, wf1T~not happen in the futu.r.e. -
~~-~~6n behalf o5 the Joint Intervenors, I request that you
~~
j give this matter your prompt attention..
Very truly yours,
~
Joel R. Reynolds Counsel to the Joint Intervenors
~
JRR:av cc:
NRC Commissioners Harold Denton Diablo Canyon Service List Rep. Morris Udall Rep. Leon Panetta Rep. Edward Markey i
e t
a L
e
- w. _ -,, - - - _ -. _ _. _ _.. - - - -. _ -. - _ _, -. _ _
t r
Q. '
i l
SAN LtNS 08tSPO COUNTY (CALIF.) TELEGRAM. TRIBUNE. FRIDAY, MAY 111983 A-3
{
2 more problems at Diablo Engineers find thin-walledpipe & leaky weld i
Pacific Gas and Electric Co. officials are thickness is 2.215 inches."
reexamining piping at the Diablo Canyon nucle-PG&E reported the stainless steel pipe may junction of a 3-inch and a 241nch pipe.
Davin said PG&E engineers now believe the i
ar power plant after finding a leak in one pipe have been ground thinner than allowed in 1975 or weld may have been damaged when the rein-and discovering that the wall of another is too 1975 when its surface was ground smooth to forcement was being attached, but they aren't thin to meet engineering specifications.
prepare it for ultrasonic testing.
sure yet.
The thin-walled pipe is one of the main lines Illshop said PG&E plans to test It other Meanwhile,_PG&E representative Georceb I
carrying cooling water to the nuclear plant's unit sections of pipe during the acnt three or four JSat islag_said Thursdav he was ir. correct why
[
l reactor, Nuclear llegulatory Commission Con-weeks to look for similar problems.
he said_ ear lier shie week that PG&E ha struction Branch Chief Tom Bishop said today.
The second problem involves a leaky weld reviewed pre iminnry Wit = of an NitC rerio'd i
Bishop said PG&E engineers discovered the discovered on a prefabricated section of pipe in investigatine charees of quality control prcblems i
I i
rt e
pipe wall near a weld was one-fifteenth of an the nuclear plant's component coolinig water aRhenuclear pjani d
l inch thinr.cr than the minimum code require-system, which circulates water to cool machin-Sarkisian said PG&E has concluded. howev-ments.
ery, said PG&E representative Ilichard P. Dav-
"The measured wall thickness. Is aproxi-in.
er, based on internallnvestigations, that charges
[
a made by a former construction quality control mately 2.15 inches, an NltC report on the Ile said the leak was discovered by a welder supervisor at the Diablo plant revealed no I
problem said. Code required minimum wall who was attaching a reinforrement pad at the serious problems.
i
'o i
l
r
..='.:......
d Date
[-
ROUTING AND TRANSMITTAt. buP 5/27/83
..,,.. ~ TO: (Name, office symbol, room number, lnDtials Date i
. b,unding, Agency / Post)
,.. 1.
VaieriaWilson
~
r..............
.g,
. i. ;.. ;....
-:-: -t..
. r... ;..
- L
.N..:......u.. J.
e.:,.
. :- e. s -.. ;M.....,..c.+-
.. s
.n
.v.3. v..
,.i..... 3,-,* ~. d.
- -;- g..c ac... J
,.m.
u.
s. e,.....:. -. 3...-w g.:- :.c.,.:.;.,....:y.
~..a..~...:(
.x
.-':* %. s :
...m. n..,.....: s.
1 :.
ty
- ,.a 7:..,..
....n.
.e m..
. : e::..c,.,
- .
- a.
S..
L [:4
.M g"
- t.., '.#'. '#$.* V.C.. '-%.. e
.l.'J.2 ':'c:'.N'.i.}N. w-2* i.';.4*Js 'W =.-YNr-M.p'%, 8 I
- p.. c, - #
,.p.:.s
.;3.p" _:..
. g,. g
.g y
Action. r-
-a--
Fue
.--W.'- -
Note and Return W-"-
. y.- *
' '.; ~, -
Approvetit.. > -
'l - -
For Clearance -;.
Per Conversation'.
4*
For Correct 4on . e ' -
Prepare R'eply.' M '
As Requested c l.. ~ Circulate ~.*.
For Your Information See Me :.k.:rb. ' -
f'[ ~ ~[..
Comment '. ; #
Investigate J ' - - *
' Signature * *.W.:.
Justify' :/ th ^.
O"
> # W..
7 Coordination -
E.
~-
i
~. - V. 2.."*:,:/ b.2 4T. '& ?c REMARKS...:. $.
- C
.:,, -.. ;... l - Q./*-' W.
a W
%.7.G :
a ~.. x.
.,. a....
.s.,:,... -.
- . ~~ '......
l
-c
.w
.. n.. es 3.w. :,. &,..,.....
' r.
.. y.. ;- -
- r
.r.p y. -
.... a u. r; =.
.e....o. FOIA 83-267'.....,s..,,es..~. r.,..w..
.f,..~...~..
y.
4 u
- n. t.. N.e %-;:::.}s.tqc.<ur e,.
7
. fg -s-nse.to the subject. i
..a...::t-,-;.. :.;...
.. c;.. c j
,.;ip In respo. =v..nn :.,.
r..
t..a.-
i n:
.... request, Licensin. Branch -3 g.
W"~is Pro. vid.iiig 'the. attached list. of. relevant documents'_'
~
!..t that are Also attached is an E' '" interna 1' publicly available. memorandum *that we are not sure w has b..eeft placed in the.Riblic Document Room. ; ~ c
- 2. :.:
t-
.. ~.......
.a
.'{~ '
i':f.:.:u ~.
.:~5.
.,:n..y -......, _.
. ;~...
.....m --e..
..e.
% edoi.andui:1,',J. 'P. Knight to R. E.' Vollmer,'"dtd' 4/12/83 M
.s.: ;;
i.
- ..,.-.,;.-..."....,..s
- 2.. :, :.
y.
.,..,...a...,'....;; :.. -
n:
- c....,..
u..
f.*
- s;..
.,.,e.,,-A.
.;.~*. %.rt* s.J*...
j.
g g
.... r.._,.r. t >.. ~. -. a,." :y.-..
. - ~.
...., ~
DO NOT use this form as a RECORD of approvals, concurrencesi disposals,'. ;
!: *..~.
t. .t.- - W.c?
2.~.,~,'
clearances, ar.d similar actions
'. ' -i. ' Il '..r -
n p'.
- FROM:(Name, org. symbol, Agency / Post)
K' ;.:-
' Room No.---Bldg.' ',
- ..., b.-
~
' n.'.C. '.i r.:2 h ',&.-
t-$.."< _. D..- ).. 3...
/ ri GW. 'c'.
y-v -
' ' * '. ' S. '. (
Phone, No. 2'8k13 :
.~
l
- r. 3.'f.'.l SW_, lv. J
. IAe..'..
~
s, ~ -.....
~..... -
(
7 (,J.
OPTIONAL FORM 41 (Rev. 7-76)
.- 304:p02... sat.52s (tusf-FPssR (41 CHU 101-11.2o6-. ~ ~ -.J...
W. 4 E.".
.. :.. z Prescribus by GaA :
e r
- wo :ise,s s..s 1
Lr*.,.1.:, Q.a
.;s-
,;;.2.: s.,'.:i ? -4
- a..a L..
.:..L.J. :
4 I
s.
e FOIA 83-267 - DOCUMENTS WBLICLY AVAIIABLE 1.
Intter from D. Fleischaker to D. G. Eisenhut dated March 28, 1983 2.
Board Notification, Memorandum from D. G. Eisenhut to NRC Commissioners, BN 83-48, dated April 4,1983 3
Ietter from P. A. Crane (Pacific Gas & Electric Company) to D. G. Eisenhut, dated April 15, 1983 4.
Intter from D. G. Eisenhut to D. S. Fleischaker, dated April 21, 1983 5.
Meeting Notice, Memorandum from H. E. Schierling to G. W. Knighton, dated April 27, 1983 6.
Ietter from D. S. Fleischaker to D. G. Eisenhut, dated April 20, 1983 7.
Board Notification, Memorandum from D. G. Eisenhut to NRC Commissioners, BN 83-61, dated May 4, 1983 8.
Transcript of NRC Meeting on May 4,1983, with Pacific Gas and Electric Company in San Francisco, California,.pages 3/4 and 135/236 (see Board Notification 83-69, dated May 18,1983)
_.,_. -~
.m-4-,--
c.
~
2..
" =. -- =:. :=:
- ~ ~ : =
i UNITED STATES
- 8 NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSION o
f, I
wassmoTom, o.c.zosos V
1
- ~*
APR 121983 l
i i
MEMORANDUM FOR:
Richard H. Vollmer Director l
Division of Engineering FROM:
James P.~ Knight, Assistant Director for Components- & Structures Engineering Division of Engineering j
SUBJECT:
DIABLO CANYON i
^
In accord with your note of April 4,1983 we made inquiries regarding the recent Diablo Canyon allegations contained in the March 28, 1983 letter from David Fleischaker while we were conducting a scheduled audit of work performed by the PGE/Bechtel project Three of the allegations:
- 1) Containment Structures Tilting, 2) group.
Classification of Platform and
- 5) Annulus Structural Steel, were directly related to the subject of our audit.
For each of the above items we found significant evidence that the allegations as written have little, if any, substance.
Inquiry into most of the other allegations will require staff expertise that was not available
+
during this audit.
I will ask each of the branches in CSE to review the allegations in their area of responsibility in order to establish 'a consolidated summary of staff positions with regard to these matters. Before proceeding further however, I recommend that we attempt to arrange a conversation between the alleger and the appropriate technical staff. This direct contact would assure that we fully understand the alleger's concerns and would focus the area of inquiry necessary to resolve these issues.
I discussed this recommendation with Bob Purple in San Francisco.and mentioned it during our exit interview with PG&E.
There was general agreement as to the desirability of this step. The DL project manager is currently drafting a letter to Mr. Fleischaker proposing that direct communication with the alleger be arranged if at all possible.
I Based.on our initial sample, as well as insights gained by our review of activities at Diablo Canyon, the allegations appear to have been made by an individual with only a cursory understanding of the matters alleged.
In some instances the allegations related to matters that have been identified as possible problems for some time and are still under review or for which remedial actions are currently being developed.
o7/
i r
US3 Richard H. Vollmer '
PG&E has mounted an effort to address each of the allegations but they, like the staff, need greater specificity in order to assure that they fully address the alleged concerns.
It is my hope that we can arrange direct communication with the alleger and then make our inquiry into the specific instances that cause the alleger initial concern. Absent that opportunity I would intend to include the general area cited in the allegations as part of our ongoing review of the Diablo Canyon project.
.3
%~ ^
d-kN i
Jarges P.
night, Assistant Director
/ or Comp nents & Structures Engineering f
Diyision of Engineering cc:
H. Denton D. Eisenhut R. Purple L. Chandler G. Lear G. Knighton P. Kuo H. Polk H. Schierling I
i
-....