ML20136G706
| 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: |
| References | |
| FOIA-84-885 NUDOCS 8508190617 | |
| Download: ML20136G706 (1) | |
Text
- .
o UNITED. STATES
, if
! o NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSION
$ WASHINGTON, D.C. 20555
{ -
November 16, 1984 3
i k ..... ,o/ .
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 l
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 ;
1 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. ,
l 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. ,
l l
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 -
Nc s. ' -
U J V I Visv y y)
. - - _ . _ - _ _ - - _ _ _ - _ _