ML20136G706

Responds to 841116 Request for Info.Commission Does Not Require Formal Presentation from Licensee During Meeting, Although Licensee Should Be Present

ML20136G706
Person / Time
Site:	San Onofre
Issue date:	11/16/1984
From:	Bernthal F NRC COMMISSION (OCM)
To:	Chilk S NRC OFFICE OF THE SECRETARY (SECY)
Shared Package
ML20136F570	List: ML20136F564 ML20136G574 ML20136G595 ML20136G606 ML20136G634 ML20136G652 ML20136G658 ML20136G664 ML20136G672 ML20136G683 ML20136G691 ML20136G699 ML20136G706 ML20136G712 ML20136G716 ML20136G721 ML20136G979 ML20136G999 ML20136H016 ML20136H034 ML20136H048
References
FOIA-84-885 NUDOCS 8508190617
Download: ML20136G706 (1)

Text

- .

o UNITED. STATES

, if

! o NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSION

$ WASHINGTON, D.C. 20555

{ -

November 16, 1984 3

i k ..... ,o/ .

OFFICE OF THE f COMMISSIONER MEMORANDUM FOR: Samuel J. Chilk Secretary FROM: Frederick Bernthal

SUBJECT:

SAN ONOFRE UNIT 1 My answers to the questions posed"in your November 16 memo regarding San Onofre are as follows:

-f

1. I am indifferent on the issue of whether the EDO should present recomendations on the legal / policy issues, since I believe this is a matter for the Comission to decide, and I have recorded my decision on that issue yesterds . However, I do expect the Staff to present to the Comission the St? " s technical decision and rationale for the Staff position on whett,er the public health and safety will be protected if restart of San Onofre 1 is permitted.

2. I do not believe that the Comission requires a formal presentation

c. from the licensee during the meeting. However, I do believe that the licensee ought to be present and prepared to answer questions.

cc: Chairman Palladino Comissioner Roberts Comissioner Asselstine '

Commissioner Zech EDO i l

1 s

e P

8508190617 850709 PDR FOIA BELL 84-885 PDR

1 h

f

. THE SECRETARY OF ENERGY WASHINGTON, D.C. 20535 November 16, 1984 Honorable Nunzio J. Palladino Chairman 4 Nuclear Regulatory Commission

g. Washington, D.C. 20555 t

I

Dear Chairman Palladino:

N

? Recently I was advised that you are considering a matter that has  ;

1 arisen in connection with the San Onofre nuclear facility that '

( may affect whether nuclear utilities voluntarily undertake safety modifications. The question concerns whether an NRC "confirma-I tory order" that is issued when a utility voluntarily undertakes safety modifications should be treated as a suspension order or j an amendment to a license.

j It is my understanding that if a confirmatory order that subse-quently is changed is considered to be an amendment to a license, more hearings would be held than would have been the case had a suspension order been issued. That appears to be both an inequitable and inconsistent result because utilities which act voluntarily may be exposed to significant expense and delay as a result of the additional hearings. If that dilemma discourages utilities from voluntarily undertaking safety modifications, I am sure'you would agree that it would have serious public policy repercussions. ,

l Therefore, I' urge your most careful review of this matter.

Should you conclude that the public policy concerns are of sufficient weight to favor treating confirmatory orders as )

suspension orders, I am confident after discussing the matter with my General Counsel that a court would find such a rationale  ;

persuasive and uphold your interpretation.

i If I may be of any assistance to you on this matter, please let me know. ,

l l

sincer.ly, I

DONALD PAUL HODEL 11/16...To OGC to Prepare Response for Signature of Chairman and Conn Review...Date due: Nov 28...Cpys to: RF, Cmrs. EDO NP.::A:4.?; co 1084 C% > , u , , , r -

Nc s. ' -

U J V I Visv y y)

. - - _ . _ - _ _ - - _ _ _ - _ _