ML19295C417
| ML19295C417 | |
| Person / Time | |
|---|---|
| Issue date: | 03/17/1980 |
| From: | Chilk S NRC OFFICE OF THE SECRETARY (SECY) |
| To: | Bickwit L, Dircks W, Kammerer C NRC OFFICE OF CONGRESSIONAL AFFAIRS (OCA), NRC OFFICE OF THE EXECUTIVE DIRECTOR FOR OPERATIONS (EDO) |
| References | |
| REF-10CFR9.7 SECY-80-095, SECY-80-95, SECY-A-80-20, SECY-A-80-21, SECY-A-80-5A, SECY-A-80-9, NUDOCS 8010230021 | |
| Download: ML19295C417 (3) | |
Text
E UNITED STATES 83' NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSION
$' E,E W ASHINGTON, D.C. 205L5 s
%s e,.
March 17, 1980 OFFICE OF THE SECRETARY MEMORANDUM FOR:
William J. Dircks, Acting EDO Leonard Bickwit Jr., General Counsel Carlton Kamnerer, Directo ongressional Affairs l
FROM:
Samuel J. Chilk, Secreta y
SUBJECT:
STAFF REQUIREMENTS - AFF,RhyION SESSION 80-10*, 2 :05 P.M.,
THURSDAY, MARCH 13, 1980,' CDMMISSIONERS' CONFERENCE ROOM, D. C. OFFICE (OPEN TO PUBLIC ATTENDANCE)
I.
SECY-A-80 Consumers Power Company (Midland fluclear Power Plant, Units 1 & 2)
Order TAodifying Construction Permits (CONSENT CALENDAR ITEM)
The Commission, by a vote of 5-01/, approved./ a Notice of Hearing directing 2
the Atonic Safety & Licensing Board to consider and decide whether the facts set forth in Part II of the Director of Nuclear Reactor Regulation and Inspection & Enforcement's Order of December 6,1979, are correct and whether that Order should be sustained.
(OGC)
(Subsequently, the Secretary signed the Notice on March 14,1980).
II.
SECY-80 Docket No. PRM 2-5, Petition for Rule Making Filed by the State of New Hampshire Requesting NRC and Six Other Federal Agencies to Conduct J_oint Proceedings to Adoot Rules to Achieve Efficiency in Licensing the Construction The Commission, by a vote of 5-0 /, approved, as revised, a proposed I
1.
Federal Register flotice denying the subject petition.
(ELD)
(SECY Suspense: 3/27/80) 2.
The Commission requested that:
a.
references to the "flRC staff position" in the text of the Notice and in the Appendix be changed to "NRC position" or
" response" to reflect that these positi J.s are Commission position; (ELD) (SECY Suspense: 3/27/80)
(Specific changes have been discussed with ELD and will be incorporated into the final Notice).
b.
a letter transmitting a copy of the Notice of Denial of Petition be sent to the State of New Hampshire at the same time that the Notice is dispatched to the Federal Register for publication; (ELD) (SECY Suspense: 3/27/80) 8010090 O2I
- All footnotes for this Session appear on the last page.
cc:
Chairman Ahearne Commissioner Hendrie Commissioner Gilinsky Commissioner Bradford Commissioner Kennedy Commission Staff Offices
(2)
~
c.
a copy of the Notice of Denial of Petition be sent to each of the Federal agencies to whom the petition was addressed (CEQ, EPA, Department of the Army, Department of the Interior, Department of State & Department of Transportation);
(ELD) (SECY Suspense: 3/27/80) and d.
the appropriate Congressional Committees be informed of this action.
(OCA)
(SECY Suspense: 3/27/80)
III. SECY-A-80-5A - Redraft Opinion in Atlantic Research The Commission, by a vote of 4-13/, with Commissioner Kennedy dissenting, approved the issuance of the Opinion contained in the February 27, 1980 SECY memorandum to the Commissioners.
The Memorandum & Order would vacate and remand ALAB 542 to the Appeal Board for further consideration. Commissioner Hendrie's separate concurring Opinion and Commissioner Kennedy's dissenting Opinion will be published with the majority Opinion.
(0GC)
(Subsequently, the Secretary signed the Opinion on March 14,1980).
IV.
Policy Statement on Licensing Pause The Commission 4/ did not affirm this item and returned it to the General Counsel for revision.
(0GC) (SECY Suspense: 3/20/80)
V.
SECY-A-80 TMI Unit One Proceeding In First & Second Special Prehearing Conference Orders 1.
The Commission, by a vote of 3-2E, with Chairman Ahearne_/ and 6
Commissioner Hendrie dissenting, approved the issuance of an Order clarifying the Commission's intention with respect to long and short term actions in the Commission's August 9,1979 Order and Notice of Hearing.
(0GC)
(Subsequently, the Secretary signed the Order on March 14,1980).
VI.
SECf-A-80 Reouest for Hearing, Marble Hill Enforcement Proceeding:
Unresolved Legal Issue Regarding Intervention Rights in Enforcement Proceedings The Commission, by a vote of 3-2U, aith Commissioners Gilinsky & Bradford dissenting, approved a proposed Memore dum & Order which would:
a.
deny the request filed by the Sassafras Audibon Society and the Knob and Valley Audubon Society for a hearing on an Order issued by the Director of Inspection and Enforcement; b.
request that the Director of the Office of Inspection & Enforcement closely scrutinize the SAS filings in this case to determine whether or not they contain information not already considered in the Order Confirming Suspension of Construction and in the Director's decisions on SAS's 10 CFR 2.206 request.
This review should be completed before permission is granted to the licensee to resume construction at the site.
Any matters raised by the filings not yet considered should be investigated thoroughly and remedied, by further enforcement action if necessary; c.
request that the Director of Inspection & Enforcement brief the Commission prior to lifting the Order suspending construction at Marble Hill.
In that briefing, the Director should be prepared to address the issues raised in the SAS statement.
Following that briefing, construction may resume at the Director's discretaion unless otherwise ordered by the Commission, but in any event not earlier than five days af ter the briefing.
(I&E)
(SECY Suspense:
as required)
(Subsequently, the Memorandum & Order was signed by the Secretary on March 13, 1980.
Commissioner Bradford's dissenting views are attached to the Order).
( All Footnotes for Affirmation Session 80-10 l/
Section 201 of the Energy Reorganization Act, 42 U.S.C. 65841 provides that action of the Commission shall be determined by a " majority vote of the members present." Commissioners Hendrie & Bradford were not present at this Affirmation Session.
Had Commissioners Hendrie & Bradford been present at the meeting, they would have voted with the majority.
Accordingly, the formal vote of the Commission was 3-0 in favor of the decision.
2]
Commissioner Bradford, although approving the Order, would have preferred that the Commission: (1) allow the Board to consider whether the I&E actions went far enough as to corrective action; and (2) seek a civil penalty unless I&E knows of some mitigating circumstances not apparent in this paper.
3]
Section 201 of the Energy Reorganization Act, 42 U.S.C. 55841 provides that action of the Commission shall be determined by a " majority vote of the members present."
Commissioners Hendrie & Bradford were not present at this Affirmation Session.
Had Commissioners Hendrie & Bradford been present at the meeting they would have voted with the majority.
Accordingly, the formal vote of the Commission was 2-1 in favor of the decision.
4/
Comissioners Hendrie & Bradford were not present.
5_/
Section 301 of the Energy Reorganization Act, 42 U.S.C. 35841 provides that action of the Commission shall be determined by a " majority vote of the members present."
Commissioners Hendrie & Bradford were not present at'this Affirmation Session.
Had Commissioner Hendrie been present at the meeting he would have voted with the minority.
Had Commissioner Bradford been present he would have voted with the majority.
Accordingly, the formal vote of the Commission was 2-1 in favor of the decision.
6]
In connection with his disapproval, Chairman Ahearne ccamented:
"1.
Class 9 accidents - This Board followed the procedure first used by the Appeal Board in Black Fox (see First Special Prehearing Conference Order, p. 17).
I disagree with this interpretation of the OPS directive to Staff, as mentioned in my response to SECY-A-80-7.
If we do anything to clarify the matters addressed by these orders, it should be to address this issue.
However, the Staff has already submitted its response.
In any event, it would seem reasonable in this case for the staff to have addressed the issue.
Thus, I would be willing to wait for the decision in the Black Fox case to remedy the situation.
"2.
Lesson Learned - I non-concur in the proposed Order.
I do not agree there is any need to clarify the situation.
For example, the Board admitted the control room design question, which is basically a long-term Lesson Learned."
7_/
Section 201 of the Energy Reorganization Act, 42 U.S.C. 55841 provides that action of the Commission shall be determined by a " majority vote of the members present." Commissioners Hendrie & Bradford were not present at this Affirmation Session.
Had Commissioner Bradford been present at the meeting he would have voted with the minority.
Had Commissioner Hendrie been present he would have voted with the majority.
Accordingly, the formal vote of the Commission was 2-1 in favor of the decision.