ML20138P981
Text
/g s aseg'c, UNITED STATES t #;
NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSION 4p -
5.. s I $
WASHINGTON D. C. 20555
- g 4 j
'd,', -[j/
.J
,[ /
June 7, 1984
/
/
MEMORANDUM FOR:
Chairman Palladino Commissioner Gilinsky Commissioner Roberts q
Commissioner As sels ti:ne Commissioner Berdtt(al FROM:
Carl ton Kamm rer, D ' '$ctor Office of Con.
s al Affairs
SUBJECT:
DRAFT RESPONSE TO MAY 31, 1984 BEVILL LETTER Attached is a proposed response to Chairman Sevill's letter of May 31.
Please review and provide your comments concurrence by close-of-business today, June V,1984.
cc:
i e
8511140221 851017 gAl PDR FOIA GILINSK85-437 PDR i
B E'/IL_/ J P.5 6-7-82 The Honorable Tom Bevill, Chairman Subccmmittee on Energy and Water Development Ccmmittee on Appropriations House of Representatives Washington, D.C. 20515
Dear Mr. Chairman,
This is in response to your letter of May 31, 1984 asking whether the Commission still intends to pursue the TMI-1 restart tentative schedule announced in April.
In light of the Appeal Board's May 24, 1984 decision on management, ALAB-772, on June 4 the Commission issued an order to the parties requesting their comments on whether the Commission should lift the effectiveness of the 1979 shutdown order.
The Commission additionally advised the parties that after receiving those comments it would decide as soon as possible whether to lift such effectiveness.
The Commission believes it was required to request the parties' comments for at least two reasons.
First, the Commission in its August 1979 order j
establishing the restart proceeding stated that it would decide whether or not to lift the immediate effectiveness of the TMI-1 shutdown order if the Licensing Board found in favor of restart.
ALAB-772 raises the question whether there now exists a favorable Licen' sing Board decision, and hence whether a restart decision at this time would be a change in the procedures set out in the August 1979 order.
The Commission believes the parties must be provided an opportunity to address this issue.
Second, the Commission is legally required o provide the parties an opportunity to comment on all the inforrati:n to be used by the Comission in making its decision.
That information ray include the recently completed investigations by NRC's Office of Investigaticas ano may include other recent evaluations of GPU Nuclear. While the CO:="ssion had planned to obtain co:=lents on this infomation by issuing a d. aft decision for comment, the Commission decided, in view of the issuance of the Appeal Board's decision, that those comments could be asked for by ny of the June 4 order.
In view of the foregoing, we conclude that I cecision in June is no longer possible.
We will continue to work toward a decision on restart as soon as possible consistent with the safety and pro:edural concerns involved.
However, until we have the parties' comenti, an exact timetable for a restart decision is in question.
^
i Since ely,
\\
\\
(
Nunzi: J. Palladino cc:
Rep. John Myers c14 Eud Y "N w %
i 9't.
'g g e es#
I W4 a n w a
nero A-w s.
aw2 w de wdl gaA Q f,n_ 4 0f W 1A$
W.
t
(
-