ML19305E485
| ML19305E485 | |
| Person / Time | |
|---|---|
| Site: | Saint Lucie  |
| Issue date: | 02/20/1980 |
| From: | Jenny Murray NRC OFFICE OF THE EXECUTIVE LEGAL DIRECTOR (OELD) |
| To: | Harold Denton Office of Nuclear Reactor Regulation |
| References | |
| ALAB-579, NUDOCS 8005120523 | |
| Download: ML19305E485 (4) | |
Text
I
~
I*
8005120533 G
n *
- ag, 9,
UNITED STATES
!y,,.,
1 NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSION 80'3
,1 i
WASHINGTON D. C. 70555 Q~
s%
a
%,...../
/
February 20, 1980 MEMORANDUM FOR: Harold R. Denton, Director Office of Nuclear Reactor Regulation FROM:
James P. Murray Office of Executive Legal Director
SUBJECT:
APPEAL BOARD'S REFERRAL OF INTERVENORS' MOTION 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 referred the motion to you for consideration under 10 CFR 2.206. The intervenors' motion requested consideration of " Class 9" accidents in the proceeding; however, the Appeal Board dismissed the motion for lack of jurisdiction.
In making its referral, the Appeal Board intimated "no views on the appropriate course for [the Director] 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 decision to either grant or deny the petition should be 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 Federal Register notice are enclosed for your use. These documents should be issue 3 as soon as possible, and they need not be returned to ELD for concurrence if they are not changed. However, please refer all other correspondence related to this matter to this office for concurrence. Also, please infom 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 O
nn
'-L l
L
4 Harold R. Denton February 20, 1980 i
similar analysis seems appropriate in responding to the St. Lucie petition.
1 I have enclosed a copy of the 2.206 decision in Seabrook for information; the relevant language is at pages 10 through 19.
1 i
i i
i James P. Murray Director and Chief Counsel t
l Rulemaking and Enforcement Division
Enclosures:
As Stated CONTACT: Steve Burns x28064 i
1 1
j l,
1 l
i 4
l
_.. - ~
DRAFT 7590-1 e
UNITED STATES OF AMERICA NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSION FLORIDA POWER & LIGHT COMPA'lY
)
(St. Lucie Nuclear Power Plant,
)
Docket No. 50-389 Unit ?!o. 2)
),
REQUEST FOR ACTIO!! UNDER 10 CFR 2.206 Notice is hereby given that the Director of Nuclear Reactor Regulation is considering under 10 CFR 2.206 a request for action filed by Martin H.
Hodder, Esq. and Terence J. Anderson, Esq. This request was originally filed on December 12, 1979, before the Atomic Safety and Licensing Acceal Board as a motion on behalf of the intervenors in the St. Lucie Nuclear Power Plant, Unit No. 2, construction pemit proceeding. The motion requested that the NRC staff be directed to prepare a supplement to the Final Environmental Statement that would consider the environmental consequences of " Class 9" accidents at the St. Lucie site. The Appeal Board dismissed the mc tien, however, for want of jurisdiction and then referred the motion to the Director for cot, fderation under 10,CFR 2.206. See ALAB-579 (Feb. 14, 1980). As provided in 10 CFR 2.206, appropriate action will be taken on the request within a reasonable time.
Cooies of this request for action ar'e available for public inspection
~
in the Commission's Public Document Room at 1717 H Street, N.W., Washington, D.C. 20555 and in the local public document room at FOR THE NUCLEAR REGULATORY CCMMISSION Harold R. Denton, Director Office of Nuclear Reactor Reculation Dated at Bethesda, Maryland this day of February,1980.
l DRAFT Martin H. Hodder 1131 N. E. 86th Street Miami, Florida 33138 Terence J. Anderson University of Miami School of Law Coral Gables, Florida 33134
Dear Sirs:
In accordance with its Memorandum and Order of February 14, 1980, (ALAB-579), the Atomic Safety and Licensing Appeal Board has referred your motion to me for consideration under 10 CFR 2.206 of the Conmission's regulations. Your motion requested that the staff prepare a supplement to the Final Environmental Statement that would consider the environmental consequences of " Class 9" accidents at the site of the St. Lucie Nuclear Power Plant, Unit No. 2.
This letter is sent to infonn you that your motion will be treated as a request for action under 10 CFR 2.206. Accordingly, I will inform you of my decision within a reasonable time.
Enclosed for your information is a copy of the notice that is being filed'for publication with the Office of the Federal Register.
Sincerely, Harold R. Denton, Director Office of Nuclear Reactor Regulation
Enclosure:
As Stated cc: Licensee Michael C. Farrar
)
Richard S. Salzman )
(Appeal Board Panel)
Dr. W. Reed Johnson )
s,e w/
'y