ML20002D262
| ML20002D262 | |
| Person / Time | |
|---|---|
| Site: | Byron  |
| Issue date: | 12/02/1980 |
| From: | Jenny Murray NRC OFFICE OF THE EXECUTIVE LEGAL DIRECTOR (OELD) |
| To: | Harold Denton Office of Nuclear Reactor Regulation |
| Shared Package | |
| ML20002D260 | List: |
| References | |
| NUDOCS 8101200195 | |
| Download: ML20002D262 (4) | |
Text
e
.I f* "%{o y.
g UNITED STATES y
g NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSION g-E WASHINGTON. D. C. 20555 o
E o %,
/
v
+....
Decuber 2,1980 MEMORANDUM FOR: Harold R. Denton, Director Office of Nuclear Reactor Regulation FROM:
James P. Murray, Director e.d Sief Counsel Rulemaking and Enforcement Division, OELD
SUBJECT:
REQUESTS OF THE ROCKFORD LEAGUE OF WOMEN V0TERS PURSUANT TO 10 C.F.R. 2.206 AND 2.202 RE: BYRON (COMMONWEALTH EDISON COMPANY) OUTSTANDING SAFETY PROBLEMS By its request dated November 21, 1980, the Rockford League of Women Voters (League) requested pursuant to 10 C.F.R. 2.206 that a proceeding be initiated pursuant to 10 C.F.R. 2.202 to consider (1) modification of the construction pennit for the Byron facility so that construction may not proceed without resolution of all outstanding safety problems applicable to Byron, (2) suspen-sion or revocation of the construction pennit until such time as Comonwealth Edison has developed an adequate plan for resolving all outstanding safety problems and (3) revocation of the construction pennit for Byron if the outstand-ing safety problems cannot be resolved prior to completion of construction.
Pending full hearings and detenninations on these issues, the League sought an imediate halt to further construction of the Byron station.
This office will work with your staff to develop an appropriate response to the petition under 10 C.F.R. 2.206. Enclosed for your use are:
1.
A partial draft of a letter of acknowledgment to the League which will require substantive NRR input prior to dispatch; and 2.
A draft notice of receipt of the request for publication in the Federal Register.
The League requests that imediate action be taken. The letter of acknowledgment should address this aspect of the request in reasonable detail and should indi-cate why immediate suspension is or is not called for. Such an approach com-ports with recent Comission action in another similar case.
In that case (River Bend), an acknowledgment letter indicating that no imediate action would be taken CONTACT:
Richard K. Hoefling x27013 8101200 \\
- ~
by the staff with respect to a 2.206 petition requesting immediate relief was treated by the Commission as a partial denial by the staff of that portion of the 2.206 request and was reviewed by the Commission as such.
We stand ready to assist you and your staff in any further way we can so as to expedite dispatch of the special acknowledgnent letter.
RI e '
y James P Murray Director and Chief Counsel Rulenaking and Enforcenent Division
Enclosures:
As stated cc:
CalvinW. Moon (ByronProjectManager)
(withenclosures)
I
DRAFT Myron M. Cherry, Esq.
Cherry & Flynn 1 IBM Plaza Suite 4501 Chicago, Illinois 60611
Dear Mr. Cherry:
This letter is sent to acknowledge receipt of the Request Pursuant to 10 C.F.R. 2.206 and 2.202, filed by you on behalf of the Rockford League of Women Voters on November 21, 1980, requesting that I take certain actions with respect to the continued construction of the Byron Nucle'ar Power Station of Commonwealth Edison Company.
The League's petition is being treated under 10 C.F.R. 2.206 of the Com.-
mission's regulations and appropriate action will be taken on the petition within a reasonable time. The pecition, which requests among other things an immediate halt to further constructio.n of the Byron station, urges a decision on my part within 30 days.
I have considered this request for expeditious con-sideration and have determined that such treatment is not warranted.
(NRR HERE TO SUPPLY THE BASIS IN REASONABLE DETAIL FOR THE DETERMINATION AND IMMEDIATE HALT TO CONSTRUCTION AND HENCE EXPEDITED TREATMENT OF THIS PETITION IS NOT WARRANTED).
Finally, with respect to your understanding as reflected in both your cover letter of November 21, 1980 and the Petition itself that my office will consider the League's request without the benefit of a reply from the Commonwealth Edison Company, it is the practice of this office in dealing with requests such as the League's to consider all relevant information, and, should the licensee provide l
i l
. 6.'
2 us with information relevant to the issues you raise, this office will cons l. der it.
Furthermore, should my office determine that there are certain matters which are uniquely within the purview of the licensee, for example project status, such information will be obtained from the licensee to the degree that it is needed. Consequently, your understanding that the procedures and rules which govern the staff's treatment of a petition under 2.206 bar a response from the licensee is not correct.
I enclose for your information 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 e
p l