ML19308B664
| ML19308B664 | |
| Person / Time | |
|---|---|
| Site: | Crane  |
| Issue date: | 12/19/1979 |
| From: | Eilperin S NRC OFFICE OF THE GENERAL COUNSEL (OGC) |
| To: | Vollmer R NRC - TMI-2 OPERATIONS/SUPPORT TASK FORCE |
| Shared Package | |
| ML19308B663 | List: |
| References | |
| NUDOCS 8001160618 | |
| Download: ML19308B664 (2) | |
Text
..
A N/
pm afo UNITED STATES
[
ug$0 NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSloN g
[
P S
WASHINGTON, D. C. 20555 s
-l#
December 19, 1979 MEMORANDUM TO: Dick Vollmer, AD/SEP, NR -
FROM:
Stephen F. Eilperin, o
' tor
SUBJECT:
PROPOSED DRAFT SETTLEMENT IN CITY OF LANCASTER, ET AL. V. NRC, No. 79-1368 The City of Lancaster has sent us a December 7 draft settlement agreement which I would appreciate your comments on.
Since I was away on vacation, this is the first chance I have had to send you the City of Lancaster proposal.
I have the following problems with the proposed agreement.
My comments are keyed to the City of Lancaster paragraph numbers.
1.
Our commitment on a programmatic environmental impact statement should refer to and be no broader than what is promised in the Commission's policy statement.
Additionally, " accident generated water" is probably too broadly defined.
I would especially appreciate your thoughts on how best to define " accident generated water".
2.
I do not think that we can commit on an absolute basis to no discharge of water through 1981.
We have to have some allowance for emergencies.
Additionally, the Com-mission held out the possibility that it would take interim action, e.g.,
purging gases or processing high level waste water, prior to completion of the programmatic impact statement.
I do not think we can have a flat-out commitment that no action will be taken until a programmatic statement is completed.
- 3. & 4.
These seem to be of concern to the utility and not to us.
Probably 1982 should be defined more precisely as January 1, 1982 and there seems to be a typo in the second sentence on page 3.
The word "to" should be "by".
5.
Thirty days ' notice of Commission meetings seems exces-sive.
Compliance with the Sunshine Act should be all that is required.
Most importantly, the kind of hearing that the City of Lancaster would want prior to the dis-pesal of accident generated water is very unclear since 42 U.S.C. 2239(a) provides in different circumstances for adjudicatory hearings or hearings of lesser formality.
f 6001160
Dick Vollmer 2
I ~ intend to advise the Commission not to settle on the terms pro-posed by the City of Lancaster.
However, since there may be an opportunity to do some further negotiation with the City, I would appreciate your thoughts on the settlement proposal at your earliest convenience.
t cc:
John Collins, DSE
Enclosure:
Draft Settlement i
I s
i i
i l
I l
P j
i r
i i
F