ML17208A367
| ML17208A367 | |
| Person / Time | |
|---|---|
| Site: | Saint Lucie  |
| Issue date: | 02/22/1980 |
| From: | Nurray J NRC OFFICE OF THE EXECUTIVE LEGAL DIRECTOR (OELD) |
| To: | Harold Denton Office of Nuclear Reactor Regulation |
| Shared Package | |
| ML17208A366 | List: |
| References | |
| ALAB-579, NUDOCS 8004020228 | |
| Download: ML17208A367 (4) | |
Text
c 1
~l P
~it RECt, 1+
0 I
0 UNITEDSTATES NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSION WASHINGTON, D. C. 20555 80 0512 0g3 February 20, 1980 MEMORANDUM FOR:
Haro'td,R.
DetIton, Dfrectop 0ffice of Nucleqr Reactor Regulation FROM:
SUBJECT:
James P. MurIay Office of @ecutiye Legal Director APPEAL BOARD'S REFERRAL OF I'NTERVENORS 'OTION TO NRR FOR TREATMENT UNDER 10 CFR'2.206 As you may know, the Appeal Board in ALAB-579 dismissed a motion by the intervenors in the St. Lucie proceeding and refeI red the motion to you for consideration under 10 CFR 2,206.
The interyenors'otion requested consideration of "Class 9" accidents in the proceeding; howeyeI, the Appeal Board dismissed the motion for lack of jurisdiction.
In making its referral, the Appeal Board intimated "no viewers on thte approptiate course for [the Directorj to take".
Copies of the motion, the staff's and the applicant's responses, and the Appeal Board's decision are enclosed.
This "motion", i.e. petition under 10 CFR,2.206, should receive prompt attention, and
~a ecision to either grant or deny the petition should
'e reached expeditiously.
This office is ready to assist you in every way it can to reach a prompt and appropriate decision.
As is customary, a draft acknowledgment letter and'Federa1'~Re ister notice are enciosed for your use.
These documents should Seessued as soon as possible, and they need not be returned to ELD for concurrence if they are not changed.
- Howeyer, please refer all other correspondence related to this matter to this office for concurrence.
Also, please inform us who your staff contact on this matter will be.
With regard to the substantive evaluation of the St. Lucie petition, I note that, in responding to another 2.206 petition raising the "Class 9" issue at the Seabrook facility, NRR analyzed the three "special circumstances" that to date would trigger a detailed "Class 9" accident evaluation.
A
E~
p e
I 7
p
'U
~ /
E II J'
hI
,t 4
I r
h I
E
0 Harold R. Denton 2
February 20, 1980 similar analysis seems appropriate in responding to the St. Lucie petition.
I have enclosed a copy of the 2.206 decision jn Seab1"ook for information; the relevant language is at pages
'f0. through 19.
Enclosures:
As Stated CONTACT: Steve Burns x28064 a es I'. Hurray Director and Chief Counsel RuIemaking and Fnfopcergent Division
0 I
T T
T I
r e
C T
8 ~
~ T
) ~
~I II