ML20031E674
| ML20031E674 | |
| Person / Time | |
|---|---|
| Site: | Indian Point, Diablo Canyon  |
| Issue date: | 09/25/1981 |
| From: | Chilk S NRC OFFICE OF THE SECRETARY (SECY) |
| To: | Bickwit L NRC OFFICE OF THE GENERAL COUNSEL (OGC) |
| Shared Package | |
| ML20031E675 | List: |
| References | |
| REF-10CFR9.7 M810917, NUDOCS 8110160300 | |
| Download: ML20031E674 (3) | |
Text
.-
IN RESPONSE, PLEASE o ur REFER T0: M810917
/p uq'o j
UNITED STATES NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSION o
(
pk WASHINGTON, D.C. 20S55
\\.... + #g September 25, 1981 ll5's!v"'
) D b bop MEM0RAN0VM FOR:
Leonard Bickwit, Jr., Gener Counsel FROM:
Samuel J. Chilk, Secreta y
SUBJECT:
STAFF REQUIREMENTS - AFFIR T 3N SESSION 81-34, 3:10 P.M.,
THURSDAY, SEPTEMBER 17, 1981, COMMISSIONERS' CONFERENCE ROOM, D.C. 0FFICE (OPEN/CCOSED MEETING)
I.
SECY-81-421/421 A - Revisions to Immediate Effectiveness Rule for Fuel Loading and Low-Power Testing Licenses 1
The Commission, by a vote of 5-0, approved for publication in the Federal
~
Register a final rule as modified by Chainnan Palladino and Commissioners Ahearne and Roberts.
A majority of the Commission also approved deletion of a section dealing with issuance of a license in the event of a 2-2 split Commission vote.
(Comissioner Roberts would have preferred not to delete this section.)
(OGC)
(SECY Suspense:
9/25/81)
The Commission voted to close the meeting and acted on the following items in closed session.
II. SECY-81-521/521 A - San Onofre Sua Sponte Issue The Commission, by a vote of 4-12 (Commissioner Bradford dissenting),
decided to take up on its own the issue of whether emergency planning should be concerned with earthquakes at or beyond the safe shutdown earthquake coupled with a release of radiation offsite. A majority of the Comission, by a vota of 3-1, voted to obtain written views of the Atomic Safety and Licensing Joard on the issue, reserving the right to meet with the Board should any Commissioner have questions on which he believe-verbal discussion would be desirable.
(Commissioner Ahearne disagreed with the desirability of verbal discussions. He believed it would confuse the Board and was not necessary since the issue is basically a matter for the Commissioners to decide.
(0GC)
(Subsequently, the Order was signed by the Secretary.)
III. SECY-81-525 - Comanche Peak Sua Sponte Issues The Commission, by a vote of 4-13(CommissionerRobertsdissenting),
approved an order as modified by Commissioners Bradford and Ahearne requesting that the Atomic Safety and Licensing Board describe the particular Footnotes are at end of memorandum.
~
$0lgpoO e10925 PT9.7 PDR
Leonard Bickwit, Jr.
2 September 25, 1981 factors upon which it based its determination of the existence of "a serious safety, environmental, or common defense and security matter."
Commissioner Gilinsky would have preferred a shorter order.
(0GC)
(SECY Suspense:
9/ 2 5/ 81 )
IV.
SECY-81-223 - Requests for Hearings in the Matter of the Proposed Decontamination of Dresden Unit 1 The Commission, by a vote of 3-24 (Commissioners Gilinsky and Bradford dissenting), approved a final order based on revisions by Commissioners Ahearne and Roberts and by the General Counsel directing that the Director, NRR, issue its determination of whether the requested license amendments pose a no-significant-hazards consideration. The order directs that a hearing on these license amendments need not be completed prior to the issuance of the amendments unless the staff 1b finds there is a significant hazards consideration.
(0GC)
(SECY Suspense:
9/25/81)
V.
SECY-81-540 - Diablo Canyon Physical Security--Governor Brown's Motion to Clarify Appellate Procedures and Request for Extension of Time The Commission, by a vote of 4-05(CommissionerGilinskyabstaining),
approved an order as modified by Chairman Palladino which (a) specifies that appeals should be taken pursuant to Section 2.786; (b) extends the time for filing petitions to 25 days after issuance of the order; and (c) clarifies the method for the filing and service of documents which should adequately protect the sensitive material involved in this proceeding.
(0GC)
(Subsequently, the Order was signed by the Secretary.)
VI. SECY-81-550 - Interim Order on Diablo Canyon Effectiveness Review The General Counsel was directed to redraft this order for consideration at a meeting Friday, 9/18/81 I
(0GC)
_ ar7 -
~
~,
cc: Chairman Palladino l
Commissioner Gilinsky Commissioner Bradford Commissioner Ahearne Commissioner Roberts Commission Staff Offices Public Document Room i
l G
m.
D i.
FOOTNOTES I Section 201 of the Energy Reorganization Act, 42 U.S.C. 55841, provides that action of the Comission shall be determined by a " majority vote of the members present." Comissioner Bradford was not present when this item was affirmed, but had previously indicated his approval. Had Cc:amissioner Bradford been present, he would have affirmed his prior vote. Accordingly, the formal vote of the Commission was 4-0 in favor of the decision.
2Section 201 of the Energy Reorganization Act, 42 U.S.C. 55841, provides that action of the Comission shall be determined by a " majority vote of the members present." Comissioner Bradford was not present when this item was affirmed, but had previously indicated his dissent. Had Commissioner Bradford been present, he would have affirmed his prior vote. Accordingly, the formal vote of the Commission was 4-0 in favor of the decision.
3Section 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." Commissioner Bradford was not present when this item was affirmed, but had previously indicated his approval.
Had Commissioner Bradford been present, he would have affinned his prior vote. Accordir. gly, the formal vote of the Commission was 3-1 in favor of the decision.
4Section 201 of the Energy Reorganization Act, 42 U.S.C.15841, provides that action of the Commission shall be determined by a " majority vote of the members present." Commissioner Bradford was not present when this item was affirmed, but had previously ir.dicated his dissent.
Had Commissioner Bradford been present, he would have affirmed his prior vote. Accordingly, the formal vote cf the Comission was 3-1 in favor of the Ocision.
5Section 201 of the Ener"y Reorganization Act, 42 U.S.C. 95841, provides that action of the Comission shall be determined by a " majority vote of the members present." Commissioner Bradford was not present when this item was affirmed, but had previously indicated his approval.
Had Commissioner Bradford been present, he would have affirmed his pr.or vote. Accordingly, the formal vote of the Commission was 3-0 in favor of the decision.
.