ML20083N284

FOIA Request for Five Categories of Records Re Mu Rothschild 830613 Memo to RA Clark Concerning Notice of Consideration of Issuance of Amend to License DPR-65 & Proposed NSHC Determination

ML20083N284
Person / Time
Site:	Millstone
Issue date:	03/09/1984
From:	Adato M UNION OF CONCERNED SCIENTISTS
To:	Felton J NRC OFFICE OF ADMINISTRATION (ADM)
References
FOIA-84-166 NUDOCS 8404190143
Download: ML20083N284 (2)

Text

., ;

UNION OF CONCERNED SCIENTISTS me ce._timt me..e. s.w. . s. iioi . w..si.,te.. oc 2oose . <2o2> 2*.5eoo 9 March 1984 Mr. J. M. Fel ton, Direc tor Office of Administration FREEDOM OF INFORMATION Division of Rules and Records ACT REQUEST U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission '

Washing ton, D.C. 20555 gM '8Y-/4 g, MNB-4210 FREEDOM OF INFORMATION ACT REQUEST

Dear Mr. Felton:

In the enclosed memo. Marj orie U. Rothschild infonns Robert A. Clark of a problem she has with the portion of his memo [

Subject:

Request for Publication in Monthly Federal Register Notice - Notice of Consideration of Issuance of Amendment to Facility Operating License and Proposed No Significant Hozards Consideration Determination and Opportunity for a Hearing (Millstone #2)] entitled " Basis for proposed no significant hazards consideration determination" Pursuant to the Freedom of Information Act.

please make availabl? for public review at the Commission's Public Docunent Room:

1. All written responses she received to the enclosed memo.

2. All notes and minutes from and docu11ents referred to, during all meetings in which this problem was discussed by or with NRC staff.

including the meeting held with Marjorie Rothschild and Paul Leech on June 9, 1983.

3. All doctJueats generoted as a resul t of the problem she cites in the enclosed memo, both from her observation and those of other NRC staff with the same or other problems with the memo she is referring to.

! 4. All docunents reviewing. commenting on, and/or suggesting changes to the NRC staff's " Request for Puolication in Monthly Federal

, Register Notice - Notice of Consideration of Issuance of Amendment to Focility operating license and proposed No Significant Hazards Consideration Determination and Opportunity for a Hearing" for all license amenonents requested for all nuclear power plants, since April, 1983.

8404190143 840309 PDR FOIA ADATO84-166- PDR Main Office: 26 Church Street . Cambridge, Massachusetts o2238 . (617) 547 5552 j

. ., l

5. All documents given to and/or prepared by the Office of the Executive Legal Director and/or the Office of the General Counsel, in which guiddnce, criterid and/or instructions are given directing the

. NRC staf f's no significant hazards consideration determindtions.

Please consider " documents" to include written correspondence, internel staf f memoranda, SECY papers, reports, studies, analyses, minutes of meetings.

meeting notes, working papers, telephone logs. The docunents are specifically requested from, but not limited to , the following offices of the NRC. Office of the Executive Legal Director Office of the Generdi Counsel . and Office of Nuclear Redctor Regulation.

Should there be any questions regarding this request, please do not hesitdte to contact me at UCS's Washington, D.C. office at 296 5600. Your cooperation in responding to this request within 10 working days is d ppreC i d ted.

Sincerely.

fW/W l Michelle Acato Research Associdte Enclosure 1

(

June'13, 1983

NOTE TO: Robert A. Clark, Chief Operating Reactors Branch #3 Division of Licensing Office of Nuclear Reactor Regulation THRU: Paul H. Leech Project Manager Operating Reactors Branch #3 FROM: Marjorie U. Rothschild, Attorney Office of the Executive Legal Director

SUBJECT:

REQUEST FOR PUBLICATION IN MONTHLY FEDERAL REGISTER NOTICE - NOTICE OF CONSIDERATION OF ISSUANCE OF AMENDMENT TO FACILITY OPERATING LICENSE AND PROPOSED NO SIGNIFICANT HAZARDS CONSIDERATION DETERMINATION AND OPPORTUNITY FOR A HEARING (MILLSTONE #2)

The above request relates to proposed changes in the Millstone #2 Technical Specifications primarily resulting from Cycle 6 refueling considerations and the probability that additional steam generator tubes will need to be plugged because of corrosion effects. I have a problem with the portion of the memo entitled " Basis for proposed no significant hazards considera-tion detemination," which I discussed on June 9,1983 with Paul Leech.

Specifically, this portion of the memo does not adequately explain the basis for the Staff's position that Example VI in the Commission guidance (of license amendments that are considered not likely to involve significant hazards considerations) envelopes the proposed amendment. The Staff states that two unreviewed safety questions are involved, yet there'is no explana-tion why such unreviewed safety questions are not significant and thus within Example VI of the examples of license amendments that are likely to involve significant hazards considerations. Although we considered merely deleting the phrase "unreviewed safety question", there is no reason not to ackncwledge that unreviewed safety questions are involved, provided that there is adequate basis for the Staff's proposed no significant hazards consideraton detemination (i.e., by showing that the unreviewed- safety question is not significant). Therefore, I am returning this to you for appropriate revisions.

IM U.- lAC Mi d Marjorie U. Ecthschild, Attorney i

-Office of the Executive Legal Director l

- s /A Q,U WO& wc7 9 f

m