ML20209C609
Text
UNITE' D STATES o
",j NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSION g-E CASHINGTc N, D. C. 20555 f
V
,e 4'0V 3 1983 MEMORANDUM FOR: Thomas M. Novak, Assistant Director for Licensing, DL FROM:
L. S. Rubenstein, Assistant Director for Core and Plant Systems, DSI
SUBJECT:
WORK SCHEDULE IMPACT DUE TO DIABLO CANYON HEARINGS, POWER SYSTEMS BRANCH
REFERENCE:
Memo, B. Youngblood to M. Srinivasan, Millstone 3 Draft SER Input, dated October 27, 1983 In answer to the referenced memorandum, due to participation of John Knox in the Diablo Canyon hearings, the Power Systems Branch electrical review schedule for the following plants will be impacted. The Millstone Unit 3 draft SER input, currently scheduled for November 1,1983, will be delayed to December 1, 1983. However, the mechanical draft SER input for Millstone 3 will be provided by the end of December 1983 (refer to memo L. S. Rubenstein to T. Novak of October 4,1983). The Hope Creek Unit 1 SAR question input will be provided by November 15, 1983. These schedule delays, however, should not impact the PSB scheduled SER inputs for the above referenced plants..
(
-.s S{
hb.' c.
L. S. Ru'b stein, Assistant Director for Core and Plant Systems Division of Systems Integration cc:
R. Mattson D. Eisenhut E. Doolittle B. Youngblood D. Wagner A. Schwencer L. Lazo J. Knox A. Ungaro J. Knight
Contact:
i J. Knox x24568 qf f-.7 1
q O Ir 29 m) k
' * =.
UNITED STATES-i}-
[
'~
g(. w p,
NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSION jj wAssencTcu.o. c.zosos ll1 QCM/
/
NOV 3 1983 y
./*
MEMORANDUM FOR:-
ChaiNnan Palladino s -
Comissioner Gilinsky A
Comissioner, Roberts Comissioner Asselstine
~ f'-
Comissioner Bernthal FROM:
Jack W. Roe, Acting Executive Director for Operations
SUBJECT:
MOTION FOR REVOCATION OR CONTINUATION OF SUSPENSION OF THE DIABLO CANYON LICENSEES In a memorandum dated October 31, 1983, the Secretary of the Comission asked for the staff's views on how to address the matters raised by an October 20th " motion" for license revocation or continuation of low power license suspension filed by petitioners who are also joint intervenors in theDiabloCanyonlicensingproceeding.*f In the staff's view, the so-called " motion" would be best handled by.
its referral to the staff for consideration as *a request for act. ion under 10 CFR 2.206. Such treatment would permit the staff an-opportunity to examine the request more closely and to gather other relevant information.
If the staff declined ultimately to grant the requested relief, the Comission would have an opportunity to review the staff's denial as provided in 10 CFR 2.206(c).
The request is like the usual section 2.206 petition; it seeks enforcement action on the basis of certain facts set forth in the request. Although it is filed before the Comission, the Comission has usually referred similar letters and petitions to the staff for appropriate action under 10 CFR 2.206.
- /
Although styled a " motion
- there is no currently pending proceeding in which such a motion could properly lie.
The re-opened license proceeding does not encompass construction quality assurance.
See Appeal Board Order of October 24, 1983. There is no low power license suspension pro-ceeding since no one objected to the suspension. action and no proceeding is engendered by the process for lifting a suspension order. Accordingly, the pending request for revocation or continuation of suspension will hereinafter be referred to as the joint intervenors' " request."
~
CONTACT:
Stephen G. Burns, OELD x27268
~
r { } [qgl m
t
2_
The District of Columbia Circuit Court of Appeals recently recognized this practice of referring such requests to the staff as a reasonable one.
See Lorion v. NRC, 712 F.2d 1472,1474 (D.C. Cir.1983).
Moreover, treatment of the request under section 2.206 is particularly appropriate since the subject matter and request for relief do not fall within the scope of any existing proceeding on Diablo Canyon. On October 24, 1983, the Appeal Board denied the joint intervenors' motion to reopen the record of the proceeding on construction quality assurance; the motion to reopen had been based in part on an audit report by Nuclear Services Cor-poration (NSC), which also forms the basis for the joint intervenors' current request to revoke. Because there is no active proceeding with respect to the earlier suspension of the Diablo Canyon'11 censes and because the basis for the 1981 suspension order did not encompass the matters raised in the current request, the consideration of whether to lift the suspension is not tied to consideration of the joint intervenors' request. The usual Comission practice would be, therefore, to treat the request as a section 2.206 request.
Cf. Pacific Gas & Electric Co., CLI-81-6,13 NRC 443, 446 (1981).
~
The Comission, of course, is not compelled to come to a final determination on the merits of the joint intervenors' request before deciding other matters pending on Diablo Canyon. We do not recommend, based on our review to date, that the Comission defer such matters pending the outcome of the 2.206 process.
(Signed) Jack W. Hoe Jack W. Roe, Acting Executive Director for Operations cc:
SECY OGC OPE Distribution:
JWRoe SBurns chron EDO r/f EChristenbury WJDircks LChandler
.Cunningham/Murray HDenton Subject
-90Eisenhu t Reading RDeYoung NRC Central Files ELD RDR Liebennan Chron JMartin, RV
.,n n
0FC
- 0ELQ
- 0EL
- DE
{'
- Region V
- EDO V:
(____.-:__ g_.....--:-----.. --_:-----
NAME :SBu hs [ :JL e
- JP(u]rray yp) k W :J. Roe man
) __...:-_---....-__:.___......--:..........--:-__---_. --:--- _-------:....__-----:----.....--
' DATE :11/ a/83
- 11/q /83
- 118/83
- 11/3/83
- 11/7/83
.