ML20105D353
| ML20105D353 | |
| Person / Time | |
|---|---|
| Site: | 05000000, Calvert Cliffs |
| Issue date: | 05/18/1984 |
| From: | Gray J NRC |
| To: | Jaffe D NRC |
| Shared Package | |
| ML20102A920 | List:
|
| References | |
| FOIA-84-166 NUDOCS 8502090660 | |
| Download: ML20105D353 (1) | |
Text
r
+
A NOTE T0: Dave Jaffe FROM:
Joseph R. Gray
SUBJECT:
LICENSE AMENDMENT ON AUXILIARY FEEDWATER SYSTEM FOR CALVERT CLIFFS The proposed license amendment imposing an LCO and surveillance requirements for the third auxiliary feedwater system train for Calvert Cliffs was prenoticed in the Federal Register on December 14, 1982.
The deadline for petitions to intervene is, therefore, January 14, 1983.
Accordingly, this license amendment cannot be legally issued before the expiration of the intervention period.
Our concurrence in the amendment is conditioned on your delaying issuance of the amendment until after the expiration of the intervention period.
Consistent with the advice we gave on the Calvert Cliffs reload license amendment, we advise that you delay issuance of the instant amendment for several days beyond the expiration of the intervention period -- in this case, at least until January 17, 1983 -- to accommodate the mails for any petition to intervene filed on the last day of the intervention period.
Jos h R. Gr y 1
9 hh 8502090660 840518 PDR FOIA ADATO84-166 PDR i
UNION OF CONCERNED SCIENTISTS im c_-,m., s_e. s.w.. s. noi. w.a i,,,,,. oc mm. yo2,2,s.sooo 9 Marcn 1984 Mr. J. M. Fel ton. Director Office of Administration FREEDOM OF INFO Division of Rules and Records ACT reb'rs U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission EO7 A.g.,
Washington. D.C.
20555 MNB-4210 9 J /g-f 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 Amendnent to Facility Operating License and Proposed No Significant Hozards Consideration Determination and Opportunity for o Hearing (Millstone #2)] entitled " Basis for proposed no significant hazards consideration determinotion". Pursuant to the Freedom of Information Act, please make available 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 docunents referred to during dll meetings in which this problem was discussed by or w.th NRC staff, including the meeting held with Marjorie Rothschild and Paul Leech on June 9. 1983.
3.
All docunents generated as a result of the problem she cites in the enclosed memo both from her observation dnd those of other NRC stoff 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 staf f's " Request for Puolication in Monthly Federal Register Notice - Notice of Consideration of Issuance of Amendment to Focility operating 1icense 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.
Y h 41 'i$I-Q
{...
Ein Office: 26 Church S,reet. Cambridge, muschuse,,s 02238. (617) 587 5552
E
}
/
5.
All ~docunents given to and/or prepared by the Of fice of the Executive Legal Director and/or the Of fice of the General Counsel, in which guidance, criteria and/or. instructions are given directing the NRC staf f's no significant hazards consideration detenninations.
Please consider " documents" to include written correspondence, internal staff 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 General Counsel. and Office of Nuclear Reactor Regulation.
Should there be any questions regarding this request please do not hesitate 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 appreciated.
Sincerely,
fW
/
Michelle Adato Research Associate
- Enclosure 1 1
o M
t-l u ;.
t 4
4 4
'F
(
I June 13, 1983
- i,,2,W.j
/.
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 determination," 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 Comission 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 acknowledge that unreviewed safety questions are involved, provided that there is adequate basis for the Staff's proposed no significant hazards consideraton detennination (i.e., by showing that the unreviewed safety question is not significant). Therefore, I am returning this to you for appropriate revisions.
In Id. h T C, M i d Marjorie U. Rothschild, Attorney Office of the Executive Legal Director 2
g% 2 YY f
-