ML13308A864
| ML13308A864 | |
| Person / Time | |
|---|---|
| Site: | San Onofre  |
| Issue date: | 11/16/1984 |
| From: | Hodel D ENERGY, DEPT. OF |
| To: | Palladino N NRC COMMISSION (OCM) |
| Shared Package | |
| ML13308A863 | List: |
| References | |
| NUDOCS 8501220425 | |
| Download: ML13308A864 (1) | |
Text
74
- -HE SECRETARY OF ENERGY WASHINGTON. D.C. 20585 November 16, 1984 Honorable Nunzio J. Palladino Chairman Nuclear Regulatory Commission Washington, D.C.
20555
Dear Chairman Palladino:
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 tory order" that is issued when a utility voluntarily undertakes safety modifications should be treated as a suspension order or an amendment to a license.
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.
If I may be of any assistance to you on this matter, please let me know.
Sincer.1y, 8501220425 850111 PDR COMMS NRCC DONALD PAUL HODEL CORRESPONDENCE PDR