ML20080T495
| ML20080T495 | |
| Person / Time | |
|---|---|
| Site: | Midland |
| Issue date: | 11/25/1983 |
| From: | Adensam E NRC |
| To: | Eisenhut D NRC |
| Shared Package | |
| ML20080T401 | List: |
| References | |
| FOIA-83-707 NUDOCS 8403010285 | |
| Download: ML20080T495 (1) | |
Text
-
h i
p * **
s f
bNITED STATES 5
NUCLE AR REGULATORY COMMISSION
- \\,.....
w AswiwaTc,N.o.c. zeans NOV 3 5 W13 NOTE T0:
D. Eisenhut FROM:
E. Adensam
SUBJECT:
MIDLAND DGB - RECOMENDATION ON RE-OPENING THE HEARING Please note that Vollmer has recomended reopening the Midland hearing on the DGB structural adequacy based on the Task Group Report. We as.
- M W MW
%n satell)
A copy of Dick's memo is attached.
cc:
T. Novak e4030iO285 031214 g.W s 3ST
% d h^-707 PDR
!b t
h UNITED sT ATEs
[
NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSION e
5 W ASHiesGTD8d. D. C. 20555 NOV 3 0196 Dicket Nos.:
50-329 and 50-330 MEMORANDUM FOR:
Darrell G. Eisenhut, birector Division of Licensing THRU:
Thomas M. Novak, Assistant Direc r for Licensing Division of Licensin FROM:
Elinor G.'Ader. san, Branch Chief Licensing Branch No. 4 Division of Licensing
SUBJECT:
RE-OPENING THE HEARING AT MIDLAND ON THE DIESEL GENERATOR BUILDING As indicated to you in my note of November 25, 1983, we told the Board at the last hearing session that by December 1,1983, we would advise them
, hethe,r or, not,we would. move to re-open.the hearing on the Diesel Generator w
! -.. r......Bhil di ng. Based on our. review of,the criteria'used-(attached) by DE and -
+-
provided by OELD, we would hite=ee recomend that Division of Licensing support Vollmer's finding that the hearina be re-opened.
Your prompt consideration of this recomendation would be appreciated as we do need to respond to OELD pronptly and we need to resolve any differences that may arise if you do not concur.
dim.
Elinor G. Adenstm, Branch Chief Licensing Branct. No. 4 Division of Licensing
Attachment:
As stated i
i a
[
b
I a
. if Test to apply in deciding whether to recommend that the hearing be reopened.
Is there new evident that rodifies the evjdence of record? For i
example, dods the ner evidence affect what was said by the witnessei i
n j
(any or all) in such d way that somethihg different would have been t.
said if the information had been available before the testimony
~
was given?
The issue is one of " fairness to the board".
If our feeling is g.
that the evidence would not change our conclusions but that the
/
board nevertheless, should have the benefit of reviewing this I
new evidence to reach its conclusions then we'should recoernend l{'
for reopening the record.
I.,,
ll 3 J <. '.
",I".
"', :s.
1-
,I-1 Are the facts or expert opinions in the DGB Task Report that are differeni. from f acts or expert opinions now in evidence before the l
Licensing Board?
(The f acts and expert epinions referred te are
(
~ ~
significant facts and expert opinions, i.e., facts enc expert opinions that could affect a conclusion with respect to the structural
. adequacy of the Diesel Generator Building.)
l j.
_ _ _ _ - _ _ - _ _ _ _ _ _ - - - _ _ _ _