ML20210B889

Responds to & Stated Concerns Re Status of Staff Review of Byron Amend Re Instant Reracking Proceeding.Staff Did Not Make Determination Re Significant Hazards Considerations.Related Correspondence

ML20210B889
Person / Time
Site:	Diablo Canyon
Issue date:	04/30/1987
From:	Chandler L NRC OFFICE OF THE GENERAL COUNSEL (OGC)
To:	Lowry E GRUENEICH, D.M. (FORMERLY GRUENEICH & LOWRY)
References
CON-#287-3304 OLA, NUDOCS 8705060041
Download: ML20210B889 (2)

Text

t.

N lU331ED @

f ato 5

d ,og UNITED STATES o NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSION

., a j WASHINGTON, D. C. 20555 e 00(g((g -

C U3NRC

%, . . . . . /a

'87 W -4 A10 :41 April 30, 1987 0FFxE & - ,s 00CMti w C y g BRANCH Edwin F. Iowry, Esq.

Grueneich & Lowry 345 Trranklin Street San Francisco, California 94102 In the Matter of PACIFIC GAS AND ELECTRIC COMPANY (Diablo Canyon Nuclear Power Plant, Units 1 and 2)

Docket Nos. 50-275 OLA and 50-323 OLA (Spent Fuel Pool)

Dear Mr. Lowry:

This is in responso to your letter of March 25, 1987, in which you raised questions about the status of the Staff's review of the Byron amendment and stated F.everal concerns about a recent Staff audit conducted in New Jersey at the Offices of Holtec International with regard to the instant reracking proceeding.

Regarding your questions concerning the Byron review , the Staff has informed me that Commonwealth Edison has not yet responded to the Staff's request for additional information dated February 25, 1987. Further, Mr. DeGrassi, who, as you know, is Brookhaven's principal structural reviewer on the Byron rerack proposal, advises that he does not recall any direct communication between Brookhaven and Commonwealth Edison concerning the models used to evaluate that proposal. With respect to the notice of Consideration of Issuance of Amendment to Facility Operating License and Opportunity for Prior Hearing concerning the Byron rerack application, published on December 9,1986 (51 F.R. 44393), the Staff did not make any determination regarding significant hazards considerations and does not contemplate doing so. We can report, however, that no petitions for leave to intervene or requests for hearing were filed with the Commission regarding the Byron proposal within the thirty-day timeframe provided by the notice, >

f.e. , by January 8,1987. Thus, no hearing has been scheduled.

As to your concern about the location and notice of the recent Staff audit of the Diablo Canyon multi-rack analysis conducted at IIoltec International offices in New Jersey, this location was selected because the documentation support-ing the PGAE analysis was located at these offices. The two day notice you received was simply the result of the Staff's need to ascertain as quickly as possible whether PG4E had included in its multi-rack analysis the assumptions the Staff believes are necessary to permit the timely completion of PG4E's analysis. We are glad that Dr. Ferguson was able to attend this audit. I am 8705060041 87043025 DR ADOCK 05 g

x, 3

assured by the Staff that every reasonable effort will be made to provide as much advance notice as possible, consistent with the Staff's needs, to accommodate the Sierra Club's attendance at its meetings with PG&E.

Finally, you indicated that you may be filing a motion to reopen discovery regarding recent work performed by PGaE and the Staff. As a result of the Ecard's Memorandum and Order (IIearing Schedule), dated April 9, 1987, which prevides for further limited discovery (to be completed by May 27, 1987), it would appear that the need for such motion has been overtaken by events and that no discovery in addition to that now provided for should be necessary.

Sincerely, NO

,awrence J. Chandler Special Litigation Counsel cc: Service List

_ - - _ - - _ _ _