ML20136G706

Responds to 841116 Request for Info.Commission Does Not Require Formal Presentation from Licensee During Meeting, Although Licensee Should Be Present

ML20136G706
Person / Time
Site:	San Onofre
Issue date:	11/16/1984
From:	Bernthal F NRC COMMISSION (OCM)
To:	Chilk S NRC OFFICE OF THE SECRETARY (SECY)
Shared Package
ML20136F570	List: ML20136F564 ML20136G574 ML20136G595 ML20136G606 ML20136G634 ML20136G652 ML20136G658 ML20136G664 ML20136G672 ML20136G683 ML20136G691 ML20136G699 ML20136G706 ML20136G712 ML20136G716 ML20136G721 ML20136G979 ML20136G999 ML20136H016 ML20136H034 ML20136H048
References
FOIA-84-885 NUDOCS 8508190617
Download: ML20136G706 (1)

Text

-

UNITED. STATES if o

NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSION o

{

WASHINGTON, D.C. 20555 k.....,o/

November 16, 1984 3

i OFFICE OF THE f

COMMISSIONER MEMORANDUM FOR:

Samuel J. Chilk Secretary FROM:

Frederick Bernthal

SUBJECT:

SAN ONOFRE UNIT 1 My answers to the questions posed"in your November 16 memo regarding San Onofre are as follows:

-f 1.

I am indifferent on the issue of whether the EDO should present recomendations on the legal / policy issues, since I believe this is a matter for the Comission to decide, and I have recorded my decision on that issue yesterds However, I do expect the Staff to present to the Comission the St? " s technical decision and rationale for the Staff position on whett,er the public health and safety will be protected if restart of San Onofre 1 is permitted.

2.

I do not believe that the Comission requires a formal presentation c.

from the licensee during the meeting. However, I do believe that the licensee ought to be present and prepared to answer questions.

cc: Chairman Palladino Comissioner Roberts Comissioner Asselstine Commissioner Zech EDO i

1 s

e P

8508190617 850709 PDR FOIA BELL 84-885 PDR

1 h

f THE SECRETARY OF ENERGY WASHINGTON, D.C. 20535 November 16, 1984 Honorable Nunzio J. Palladino Chairman 4

Nuclear Regulatory Commission g.

Washington, D.C.

20555 t

I

Dear Chairman Palladino:

N

?

Recently I was advised that you are considering a matter that has arisen in connection with the San Onofre nuclear facility that may affect whether nuclear utilities voluntarily undertake safety

(

modifications.

The question concerns whether an NRC "confirma-I tory order" that is issued when a utility voluntarily undertakes safety modifications should be treated as a suspension order or

,j an amendment to a license.

j It is my understanding that if a confirmatory order that subse-quently is changed is considered to be an amendment to a license, more hearings would be held than would have been the case had a suspension order been issued.

That appears to be both an inequitable and inconsistent result because utilities which act voluntarily may be exposed to significant expense and delay as a result of the additional hearings.

If that dilemma discourages utilities from voluntarily undertaking safety modifications, I am sure'you would agree that it would have serious public policy repercussions.

Therefore, I' urge your most careful review of this matter.

Should you conclude that the public policy concerns are of sufficient weight to favor treating confirmatory orders as

)

suspension orders, I am confident after discussing the matter with my General Counsel that a court would find such a rationale persuasive and uphold your interpretation.

i If I may be of any assistance to you on this matter, please let me know.

sincer.ly, I

DONALD PAUL HODEL 11/16...To OGC to Prepare Response for Signature of Chairman and Conn Review...Date due: Nov 28...Cpys to: RF, Cmrs. EDO NP.::A:4.?; co 1084 C% >, u,,, r -

U J V I Visv y y)

Nc s.

_