|
---|
Category:CORRESPONDENCE-LETTERS
MONTHYEARML20212B1681999-09-13013 September 1999 Forwards Insp Repts 50-275/99-12 & 50-323/99-12 on 990711- 08-21.Four Violations Being Treated as Noncited Violations ML20211A9501999-08-12012 August 1999 Discusses 990720-21 Workshop Conducted in Region IV Ofc,Re Exchange of Info in Area of Use of Risk Insights in Regulatory Activities.List of Attendees,Summary of Topic & Issues,Agenda & Copies of Handouts Encl ML20210L1461999-08-0303 August 1999 Informs That NRC Plans to Administer Gfes of Written Operator Licensing Exam on 991006.Requests Submittal of Ltr Identifying Individuals Taking Exam,Personnel Allowed Access to Exams & Mailing Address for Exams ML20210H6181999-07-27027 July 1999 Forwards Insp Repts 50-275/99-07 & 50-323/99-07 on 990503- 0714.Apparent Violations Being Considered for Escalated Enforcement Action ML18107A7011999-06-25025 June 1999 Requests Rev of NRC Records to Reflect Change of PG&E Address ML20205J3381999-04-0808 April 1999 Informs That Time Provided by NRC Regulation within Which Commission May Act to Review Director'S Decision Expired. Commission Declined Any Review & Became Final Agency Action on 990406.With Certificate of Svc.Served on 990409 DCL-99-038, Forwards Decommissioning Funding Repts for Diablo Canyon Power Plant,Units 1 & 2 & Humboldt Bay Power Plant,Unit 3, Per Requirements of 10CFR50.75(f)1999-03-31031 March 1999 Forwards Decommissioning Funding Repts for Diablo Canyon Power Plant,Units 1 & 2 & Humboldt Bay Power Plant,Unit 3, Per Requirements of 10CFR50.75(f) DCL-99-033, Forwards Change 16 to Rev 18 of Diablo Canyon Power Plant Physical Security Plan,Per 10CFR50.54(p).Changes Do Not Decrease Safeguards Effectiveness of Plan.Without Encl1999-03-12012 March 1999 Forwards Change 16 to Rev 18 of Diablo Canyon Power Plant Physical Security Plan,Per 10CFR50.54(p).Changes Do Not Decrease Safeguards Effectiveness of Plan.Without Encl DCL-99-010, Forwards Change 15 to Rev 18 of Dcnpp Physical Security Plan,Per 10CFR50.54(p).Changes Do Not Decrease Effectiveness of Plan.Encl Withheld1999-01-26026 January 1999 Forwards Change 15 to Rev 18 of Dcnpp Physical Security Plan,Per 10CFR50.54(p).Changes Do Not Decrease Effectiveness of Plan.Encl Withheld ML20202A9831999-01-18018 January 1999 Informs That Modesto Irrigation District No Longer Seeking Addl Interconnection with Pacific Gas & Electric Co at Pittsburg,Ca & Matters First Addressed in 980429 Comments in Opposition to Restructuring of Util Have Now Become Moot IR 05000275/19980121999-01-13013 January 1999 Informs That Insp Repts 50-275/98-12 & 50-323/98-12 Have Been Canceled DCL-98-163, Forwards Change 14 to Rev 18 of Physical Security Plan. Changes Do Not Decrease Safeguards Effectiveness of Plan & Submitted Pursuant to 10CFR50.54(p).Encl Withheld1998-11-24024 November 1998 Forwards Change 14 to Rev 18 of Physical Security Plan. Changes Do Not Decrease Safeguards Effectiveness of Plan & Submitted Pursuant to 10CFR50.54(p).Encl Withheld ML20195G5161998-11-16016 November 1998 Forwards Insp Repts 50-275/98-16 & 50-323/98-16 on 980913- 1024.No Violations Noted ML20155F7951998-11-0303 November 1998 Second Partial Response to FOIA Request for Documents. Records Subj to Request Encl & Identified in App C DCL-98-123, Submits Listed Address Changes for NRC Service Lists for Listed Individuals1998-09-0909 September 1998 Submits Listed Address Changes for NRC Service Lists for Listed Individuals DCL-98-108, Submits 90-day Response to NRC GL 98-01, Yr 2000 Readiness of Computer Sys at Nuclear Power Plants. Util Has Pursued & Continuing to Pursue Year 2000 Readiness Program Similar to That Outlined in Nei/Nusmg 97-07, Nuclear Util Year..1998-08-0707 August 1998 Submits 90-day Response to NRC GL 98-01, Yr 2000 Readiness of Computer Sys at Nuclear Power Plants. Util Has Pursued & Continuing to Pursue Year 2000 Readiness Program Similar to That Outlined in Nei/Nusmg 97-07, Nuclear Util Year.. ML20236T2931998-07-24024 July 1998 Forwards Order Prohibiting Involvement in NRC Licensed Activities for 5 Yrs.Order Being Issued Due to Falsification of Info on Application to Obtain Unescorted Access to PG&E Plant ML20236T3431998-07-22022 July 1998 Forwards Insp Repts 50-275/98-11 & 50-323/98-11 on 980526-28.Apparent Violations Identified & Being Considered for Escalated Enforcement Action ML20236J2251998-07-0101 July 1998 Ltr Contract,Task Order 232 Entitled, Review of Callaway, Comanche,Diablo Canyon & Wolf Creek Applications for Conversion to Improved TS Based on Standard TS, Under Contract NRC-03-95-026 ML20236G0691998-06-19019 June 1998 Forwards Endorsement 123 to Neila Policy NF-228,Endorsement 145 to Neila Policy NF-113,Endorsement 124 to Neila Policy NF-228 & Endorsement 89 to Maelu Policy MF-103 IR 05000275/19980051998-04-17017 April 1998 Forwards Insp Repts 50-275/98-05 & 50-323/98-05 on 980202-06 & 23-27 & 0302-18.No Violations Noted.Insp Focused on Resolution of Previous NRC Insp Findings & Included Review of Issues Identified During Architect/Engineering Insp Rept ML20203G0371998-02-25025 February 1998 Forwards Revised Copy of NRC Form 398, Personal Qualification Statement - Licensee, (10/97) Encl 1,which Has Been Revised to Reflect Current Operator Licensing Policy DCL-98-014, Forwards Change 12 to Rev 18 to Physical Security Plan,Per 10CFR50.54(p).Plan Withheld1998-02-10010 February 1998 Forwards Change 12 to Rev 18 to Physical Security Plan,Per 10CFR50.54(p).Plan Withheld ML20199H6691998-02-0202 February 1998 Ack Receipt of ,Transmitting Rev 18,change 11, to Plant Physical Security Plan,Submitted Under Provisions of 10CFR50.54(p).Role of Video Capture Audible Alarm Sys Needs to Be Addressed in Security Plan,Per 980123 Telcon DCL-97-187, Forwards Change 11,rev 18 to Physical Security Plan.Encl 1 Describes Proposed Revs to Physical Security Plan.Plan Withheld1997-11-19019 November 1997 Forwards Change 11,rev 18 to Physical Security Plan.Encl 1 Describes Proposed Revs to Physical Security Plan.Plan Withheld IR 05000275/19970181997-10-31031 October 1997 Forwards Insp Repts 50-275/97-18 & 50-323/97-18 on 971006- 10.Insp Verified That Liquid & Gaseous Radioactive Waste Effluent Mgt Program Was Properly Implemented.No Violations Noted DCL-97-156, Provides Change 10 to Rev 18 of Physcial Security Plan & Change 2 to Rev 3 of Safeguards Contingency Plan.Plans Withheld1997-09-16016 September 1997 Provides Change 10 to Rev 18 of Physcial Security Plan & Change 2 to Rev 3 of Safeguards Contingency Plan.Plans Withheld ML20210H4671997-08-0202 August 1997 Requests That NRC Suspend Investigation & Review of Issues Raised by Modesto Irrigation District & Transmission Agency of Northern CA Re Contention That PG&E Had Violated Nuclear License Conditions Known as Stanislaus Commitments ML20137N1591997-03-31031 March 1997 Informs That Licensee Facility Scheduled to Administer NRC GFE on 970409.Sonalsts,Inc Authorized Under Contract to Support NRC Administration of GFE Activities ML16343A4801997-02-25025 February 1997 Forwards non-proprietary WCAP-14796 & Proprietary WCAP-14795, Nrc/Util Meeting on Model 51 SG Tube Integrity & ARC Methodology. Proprietary Rept Withheld,Per 10CFR2.90 ML20134H6271997-02-10010 February 1997 Fifth Partial Response to FOIA Request for Documents.Records in App I Encl & Available in Pdr.App J Records Withheld in Part (Ref FOIA Exemption 5) & App K Records Completely Withheld (Ref FOIA Exemption 5) ML20134K3421997-02-0606 February 1997 Conveys Results & Conclusions of Operational Safeguards Response Evaluation Conducted by NRR at Plant,Units 1 & 2, on 960909-12.W/o Encl ML16342D5291997-01-31031 January 1997 Transmits WCAPs Supporting NRCs Review of License Amend Request 96-10,rev of TSs to Support Extended Fuel Cycles to 24 months.WCAP-11082,rev 5,WCAP-11594,rev 2 & WCAP-14646,rev 1 Withheld ML16342D5331997-01-24024 January 1997 Requests Proprietary Version of WCAP-14646,rev 1, Instrumentation Calibration & Drift Evaluation for Diablo Canyon Units 1 & 2,24 Month Fuel Cycle Evaluation, Jan 1997 Be Withheld from Public Disclosure Per 10CFR2.790 ML16342D5311997-01-24024 January 1997 Requests That WCAP-11594,rev 2, W Improved Thermal Design Procedure Instrument Uncertainty Methodology,Diablo Canyon Units 1 & 2,24 Month Fuel Cycle Evaluation Be Withheld from Public Disclosure,Per 10CFR2.790 ML16342D5321997-01-24024 January 1997 Requests WCAP-11082,rev 5, Westinghouse Setpoint Methodology for Protection Sys,Diablo Canyon Units 1 & 2,24 Month Fuel Cycle Evaluation, Jan 1996 Be Withheld from Public Disclosure Per 10CFR2.790 ML20136C3521997-01-11011 January 1997 Discusses Japan Oil Spill & Np Intake & Possibilities of Such Event Occurring at SONGS or Dcnpp ML20133F8961997-01-0909 January 1997 Responds to NRC Ltr of 961206 Received on 961210 Which Requested Further Info Re Utils Violations of Conditions of Its Nuclear Licenses Designated to Promote & Protect Competition in Bulk Power Market in Northern & Central CA ML20133F8721997-01-0909 January 1997 Acks & Responds to NRC Ltr of 961206 Received by Undersigned on 961210 Requesting Further Info to Document Tancs Assertion,Per Filing on 960429 That Util Has Violated Terms & Conditions of Nuclear Power Project Licenses ML16342D5521996-12-18018 December 1996 Requests That Proprietary WCAP-14795, Nrc/Util Meeting on Model 51 SG Tube Integrity & ARC Methology, Be Withheld (Ref 10CFR2.790(b)(4)) ML20129J4001996-10-18018 October 1996 Forwards Order Approving Corporate Restructuring by Establishment of Holding Company & Safety Evaluation NSD-NRC-96-4846, Transmits Proprietary & non-proprietary Versions of Preliminary Rept, Incomplete Rcca Insertion. W Authorization ltr,AW-96-1021 & Affidavit Requesting Info Be Withheld from Public Disclosure Encl1996-10-16016 October 1996 Transmits Proprietary & non-proprietary Versions of Preliminary Rept, Incomplete Rcca Insertion. W Authorization ltr,AW-96-1021 & Affidavit Requesting Info Be Withheld from Public Disclosure Encl ML20129G6121996-09-24024 September 1996 Second Partial Response to FOIA Request for Documents. Forwards Documents Listed in App C,E,F & G.Documents Available in Pdr.App E,F & G Documents Partially Withheld Ref FOIA Exemptions 4 & 6.App D Record Listed as Copyright DCL-96-170, Forwards Change 1 to Rev 4 of Training & Qualification Plan, Per 10CFR50.54(p).Plan Withheld1996-08-14014 August 1996 Forwards Change 1 to Rev 4 of Training & Qualification Plan, Per 10CFR50.54(p).Plan Withheld DCL-96-141, Submits Change 9 to Rev 18 of Physical Security Plan.Plan Withheld1996-07-31031 July 1996 Submits Change 9 to Rev 18 of Physical Security Plan.Plan Withheld ML20116B8411996-07-22022 July 1996 Forwards Revisions to SR 95-03,SR 95-04 & SR 95-05 Re EDG 1-2 Valid Failures ML20117E6171996-05-24024 May 1996 Forwards Public Version of Rev 11 to EPIP EP R-7, Off-Site Transportation Accidents DCL-96-102, Submits Change 8 to Rev 18 of Physical Security Plan,Per 10CFR50.54(p).Encl Withheld1996-05-0606 May 1996 Submits Change 8 to Rev 18 of Physical Security Plan,Per 10CFR50.54(p).Encl Withheld DCL-96-096, Forwards Public Version of Rev 3 to Diablo Canyon Power Plant Units 1 & 2 Emergency Plan, Change 151996-04-16016 April 1996 Forwards Public Version of Rev 3 to Diablo Canyon Power Plant Units 1 & 2 Emergency Plan, Change 15 DCL-96-054, Forwards Change 7 to Rev 18 of Physical Security Plan & Change 1 to Rev 3 of Safeguards Contingency Plan.Encl Withheld1996-02-28028 February 1996 Forwards Change 7 to Rev 18 of Physical Security Plan & Change 1 to Rev 3 of Safeguards Contingency Plan.Encl Withheld 1999-09-13
[Table view] Category:NRC TO U.S. CONGRESS
MONTHYEARML20058N8501990-08-10010 August 1990 Responds to Forwarding Correspondence from Bl Boxer & Le Panetta Re Seismic Safety of Plant.Nrc Will Complete Review of Plant Seismic Reevaluation Program & Will Document Findings in SER ML20210U9971986-10-0303 October 1986 Responds to 860826 Request for Review of Milwaukee Journal 860813 Article Submitted W/P Vollrath Ltr Expressing Concerns Re Safe Operation of Plant Following Seismic Event in State of Ca.All Plants Must Meet Seismic Requirements ML20211P5021986-07-11011 July 1986 Responds to Seeking Justification for Commission 860611 Request That Distribution of Two Ofc of Inspector & Auditor Repts Be Restricted.Partially Deleted 851021 Rept Placed in Pdr.Rept Released in Entirety ML20151R1271986-01-24024 January 1986 Forwards General Counsel 860121 Legal Memo Supporting Commission View,Per NRC Re Consideration of Earthquakes & Emergency Planning in Licensing Proceeding ML20137A6471985-08-16016 August 1985 Discusses Commission 850812 Response to E Markey Requests That NRC Reconsider Decision on Earthquakes & Emergency Planning.Decision Cannot Be Reconsidered Since Jurisdiction Passed to Us Court of Appeals ML20134F9751985-08-12012 August 1985 Forwards Rept Identifying Significant Inaccuracies in Subcommittee on Energy Conservation & Power 850709 Memo Re Emergency Planning Issue.Subcommittee Use of Internal NRC Documents Incomplete Picture of NRC Deliberations ML20134F9731985-08-12012 August 1985 Provides Commission Views Re Appropriateness of Addl Hearing on Facility Issues & Generic Question of Earthquake Emergency Planning,In Response to 850710 Request.Nrc Decision in Facility Case Correct & Proper ML20141H1081985-07-0909 July 1985 Forwards Responses to 850610 Questions Re Diablo Canyon OL Proceeding.Responses Delayed Due to Press of Other Business ML20129B1001985-06-27027 June 1985 Forwards Commission Responses to E Markey 850610 Questions Re Licensing Process.Commissioner Asselstine Will Forward Addl Responses Before Date of Rescheduled Hearing,If Necessary.Commissioner Zech Did Not Participate in Vote ML20141G9371984-12-31031 December 1984 Forwards Notice of Proposed Rulemaking to Be Published in Fr.Amends to 10CFR50.47 & 10CFR50,App E Would Explicitly Incorporate Interpretations in Commission San Onofre & Diablo Canyon Rulings ML20212F0801984-11-0707 November 1984 Responds to 841016 Request for Info Re Constituent Request for Listed Documents,Including Evacuation Plan for Santa Cruz County.Nrc Has No Plan on File Since County Not Required to Have Radiological Emergency Response Plan ML20214T4531984-10-0303 October 1984 Forwards Transcripts of Commission 840725,30 & 0803 Deliberations Re Issuance of Full Power License for Plant. Issue of Need to Consider Effects of Earthquakes on Emergency Planning Discussed in Closed Meetings.W/O Encl ML20132E8721984-07-20020 July 1984 Ack Receipt of Ltr Requesting Info Re Status of Licensing for Facility.Forwards Chairman Palladino & H Denton Statements.Results of ACRS Review Also Encl.W/O Encl ML20140H8671984-05-17017 May 1984 Forwards Press Release 84-58 Re NRC Proposed Fine Against Util for Alleged Violation of NRC Requirements During Preoperational Testing ML20214K7491983-11-17017 November 1983 Responds to Re Commission Schedule & Procedures for Future Licensing Decisions for Facility.Aslab Holding Hearings on Design QA in State of Ca.Hearings Should Be Completed by 831123 W/Decision in Jan 1984 ML20212M0961982-06-21021 June 1982 Discusses 820430 Meeting W/Bechtel & Util Re Role of Bechtel in Completion of Diablo Canyon Project,Per 820519 Request. Summary of Meeting & Press Release Encl ML20212L2861982-04-29029 April 1982 Responds to Constituent 820316 Concerns Re Electrical Costs in Santa Barbara,Ca.Nrc Does Not Regulate Costs Associated W/Cancellation of Nuclear Power Plants.More Info May Be Obtained from California Public Util Commission ML20153C9121982-03-0505 March 1982 Informs That Response to 820302 Questions in Error Per Chairman Palladino to Chairman Udall.Parties Involved Should Have Opportunity to Comment & to Vote When Opportunity Arises ML20153C9611982-03-0303 March 1982 Clarifies Misunderstanding from 820302 Hearing Re Opportunity for Public Comment in Proceeding on QA Program. Comments Requested Re Auditor But Not Audit.Commission Has Not Yet Decided to Request Comments ML20209B2871982-02-26026 February 1982 Forwards NRC 16th Monthly Status Rept for 820115-0215, Discussing Actions Taken on Operating Reactors & Licensing Reviews of New Facilities,Per House Rept 96-1093.Licensing Schedules for Perding OL & Cp/Ml Applications Encl ML20126M5961981-06-0404 June 1981 Ack Receipt of Re Fg Lunden Comments Supporting Proposed Rule 10CFR2 Concerning Regulations Designed to Reduce Licensing Process for Nuclear Power Plants. Alternatives to Amends Are Being Considered ML20153D2051980-05-0909 May 1980 Ack Receipt of Re Procedures & Timing of Plant Low Testing Proceeding.Proceeding Is Contested Adjudicatory Proceeding.Executive Director for Operations Responding Directly on Issue of Delaying Low Power Testing ML20236N3341977-08-30030 August 1977 Responds to 770805 Note Requesting NRC Comments on F Chase Concerns Re Role of NRC in Licensing Review.No Pressure Applied Upon USGS ML20236N0151977-06-30030 June 1977 Responds to 770614 & 0527 Ltrs Expressing Concern About Delays in Licensing of Plant.Util Must Complete Work on Important Technical Issues Before Record Can Be Completed ML20236P1241977-06-13013 June 1977 Responds to Transmitting Righetti Ltr,Urging Immediate Issuance of OL on Temporary Basis for Diablo Canyon Nuclear Power Plant & Questioning Value of Laws That Require Nearly Four Years to Compile Info to Issue OL ML20236P2511977-04-15015 April 1977 Responds to Requesting Info About Diablo Canyon Nuclear Power Plant.Licensing & Operation Delayed Pending Resolution of Earthquake Safety Questions in Relation to Hosgri Fault ML20236B2861977-03-22022 March 1977 Responds to Constituent K Schulze Ltr Expressing Opinion That Plant Should Not Be Allowed to Operate.Hosgri Fault Under Investigation by Util,Usgs & Nrc.Util Performing Engineering Analysis ML20236B3121977-03-18018 March 1977 Responds to Constituent H Osborne Strongly Opposing Opening of Plant & Claiming Plant Unsafe Due to Possibility of Earthquake.Hosgri Fault Situation Being Investigated by Util,Usgs & NRC ML20236P3991976-07-0707 July 1976 Informs That NRC Issued Order Extending Const Completion Dates Contained in CPPR-39 to 770101.Application for Extension of Cp,Commission Order & Staff Evaluation Encl ML20236B7371976-04-16016 April 1976 Responds to 760317 Note Requesting Views on Concern Expressed by E Jacobson in .Commission Evaluating FSAR for Plant.Plant Designed to Withstand Earthquake of Magnitude 8.5 Along San Andreas fault,48 Miles from Plant ML20236B8201976-04-0707 April 1976 Responds to 760304 Inquiry Re Questions Directed to Author by J Schuchman Concerning Effect of Potential Earthquake Activity on State of CA Nuclear Power Plants.Executive Summary of Reactor Safety Study Encl.W/O Stated Encl ML20236B8821976-03-24024 March 1976 Responds to 760302 Memo Forwarding J Greenberg Expressing Concerns Re Seismic Design of Plant.Operation of Unit 1 Will Not Be Authorized Until Seismic Questions Thoroughly Evaluated by Commission ML20236C2211975-12-0808 December 1975 Responds to Forwarding Constituent Devincenzo Re Plant.Nrc Currently Reviewing Util Application for Ols.Radwaste Created by Plant Operation Will Ultimately Be Shipped to Govt Facilities for Disposal 1990-08-10
[Table view] Category:OUTGOING CORRESPONDENCE
MONTHYEARML20212B1681999-09-13013 September 1999 Forwards Insp Repts 50-275/99-12 & 50-323/99-12 on 990711- 08-21.Four Violations Being Treated as Noncited Violations ML20211A9501999-08-12012 August 1999 Discusses 990720-21 Workshop Conducted in Region IV Ofc,Re Exchange of Info in Area of Use of Risk Insights in Regulatory Activities.List of Attendees,Summary of Topic & Issues,Agenda & Copies of Handouts Encl ML20210L1461999-08-0303 August 1999 Informs That NRC Plans to Administer Gfes of Written Operator Licensing Exam on 991006.Requests Submittal of Ltr Identifying Individuals Taking Exam,Personnel Allowed Access to Exams & Mailing Address for Exams ML20210H6181999-07-27027 July 1999 Forwards Insp Repts 50-275/99-07 & 50-323/99-07 on 990503- 0714.Apparent Violations Being Considered for Escalated Enforcement Action ML20205J3381999-04-0808 April 1999 Informs That Time Provided by NRC Regulation within Which Commission May Act to Review Director'S Decision Expired. Commission Declined Any Review & Became Final Agency Action on 990406.With Certificate of Svc.Served on 990409 IR 05000275/19980121999-01-13013 January 1999 Informs That Insp Repts 50-275/98-12 & 50-323/98-12 Have Been Canceled ML20195G5161998-11-16016 November 1998 Forwards Insp Repts 50-275/98-16 & 50-323/98-16 on 980913- 1024.No Violations Noted ML20155F7951998-11-0303 November 1998 Second Partial Response to FOIA Request for Documents. Records Subj to Request Encl & Identified in App C ML20236T2931998-07-24024 July 1998 Forwards Order Prohibiting Involvement in NRC Licensed Activities for 5 Yrs.Order Being Issued Due to Falsification of Info on Application to Obtain Unescorted Access to PG&E Plant ML20236T3431998-07-22022 July 1998 Forwards Insp Repts 50-275/98-11 & 50-323/98-11 on 980526-28.Apparent Violations Identified & Being Considered for Escalated Enforcement Action ML20236J2251998-07-0101 July 1998 Ltr Contract,Task Order 232 Entitled, Review of Callaway, Comanche,Diablo Canyon & Wolf Creek Applications for Conversion to Improved TS Based on Standard TS, Under Contract NRC-03-95-026 IR 05000275/19980051998-04-17017 April 1998 Forwards Insp Repts 50-275/98-05 & 50-323/98-05 on 980202-06 & 23-27 & 0302-18.No Violations Noted.Insp Focused on Resolution of Previous NRC Insp Findings & Included Review of Issues Identified During Architect/Engineering Insp Rept ML20203G0371998-02-25025 February 1998 Forwards Revised Copy of NRC Form 398, Personal Qualification Statement - Licensee, (10/97) Encl 1,which Has Been Revised to Reflect Current Operator Licensing Policy ML20199H6691998-02-0202 February 1998 Ack Receipt of ,Transmitting Rev 18,change 11, to Plant Physical Security Plan,Submitted Under Provisions of 10CFR50.54(p).Role of Video Capture Audible Alarm Sys Needs to Be Addressed in Security Plan,Per 980123 Telcon IR 05000275/19970181997-10-31031 October 1997 Forwards Insp Repts 50-275/97-18 & 50-323/97-18 on 971006- 10.Insp Verified That Liquid & Gaseous Radioactive Waste Effluent Mgt Program Was Properly Implemented.No Violations Noted ML20137N1591997-03-31031 March 1997 Informs That Licensee Facility Scheduled to Administer NRC GFE on 970409.Sonalsts,Inc Authorized Under Contract to Support NRC Administration of GFE Activities ML20134H6271997-02-10010 February 1997 Fifth Partial Response to FOIA Request for Documents.Records in App I Encl & Available in Pdr.App J Records Withheld in Part (Ref FOIA Exemption 5) & App K Records Completely Withheld (Ref FOIA Exemption 5) ML20134K3421997-02-0606 February 1997 Conveys Results & Conclusions of Operational Safeguards Response Evaluation Conducted by NRR at Plant,Units 1 & 2, on 960909-12.W/o Encl ML20129J4001996-10-18018 October 1996 Forwards Order Approving Corporate Restructuring by Establishment of Holding Company & Safety Evaluation ML20129G6121996-09-24024 September 1996 Second Partial Response to FOIA Request for Documents. Forwards Documents Listed in App C,E,F & G.Documents Available in Pdr.App E,F & G Documents Partially Withheld Ref FOIA Exemptions 4 & 6.App D Record Listed as Copyright ML20149H8171994-12-23023 December 1994 Advises That 941010 & 1102 Changes 4 & 5 to Rev 18 of Physical Security Plan,Respectively Consistent W/Provisions of 10CFR50.54(p) & Acceptable ML20059L5031994-01-28028 January 1994 Extends Invitation to Participate in Workshop Re Emergency Preparedness & Incident Response on 940222 in Arlington,Tx ML20058A1211993-11-16016 November 1993 Forwards Safeguards Info Referenced in Preliminary Draft Guide Re Proposed Rule for Protection Against Manevolent Use of Vehicles at Nuclear Power Plants.Encl Withheld IR 05000275/19930211993-08-27027 August 1993 Forwards Insp Repts 50-275/93-21 & 50-323/93-21 on 930726-30.Non-cited Violations Identified.Insp Repts Withheld in Entirety Ref 10CFR73.21 ML20057B3241993-05-0404 May 1993 Partial Response to FOIA Request for Documents.Forwards Documents Listed in App Q Which Are Being Made Available at Pdr.Documents Listed in App R Are Partially Withheld (Ref FOIA Exemption 5) ML20058M0361993-04-12012 April 1993 Partial Response to FOIA Request for Documents.Forwards Records in App L Which Are Being Withheld Partially for Listed Reasons,(Ref FOIA Exemptions 5) ML20056C2811993-01-29029 January 1993 Ltr Contract,Mod 1 to Task Order 5,providing Incremental Funding of Listed Amount,To IPE Reviews,Internal Events Back-End-Only ML20127F1091993-01-13013 January 1993 Extends Invitation to Participate as Breakout Session Facilitator on 930217-18 at Workshop Hosted by Regions IV & V in Arlington,Tx to Discuss Operability/Degraded Equipment as Specified in GL 91-18.Record Copy IR 05000275/19920321992-12-11011 December 1992 Forwards Insp Repts 50-275/92-32 & 50-323/92-32 on 921116-19 & Notice of Violation.Violation Noted Re Failure to Withdraw Security Safeguards Access List.Encls Withheld (Ref 10CFR73.21) IR 05000275/19920281992-12-0202 December 1992 Forwards Insp Repts 50-275/92-28 & 50-323/92-28 on 921005-09.No Violations Noted.Encl Withheld (Ref 10CFR73.21) ML20058B5331990-10-22022 October 1990 Forwards Partially Withheld Safeguards Insp Repts 50-275/90-17 & 50-323/90-17 on 900924-28.Licensee Identified Violations Reviewed But Not Cited ML20058N8501990-08-10010 August 1990 Responds to Forwarding Correspondence from Bl Boxer & Le Panetta Re Seismic Safety of Plant.Nrc Will Complete Review of Plant Seismic Reevaluation Program & Will Document Findings in SER DD-90-03, Advises That Time for Commission to Review Director'S Decision DD-90-03 Expired.Commission Declined Review. Decision Became Final Agency Action on 900724.Served on 900731.W/Certificate of Svc1990-07-27027 July 1990 Advises That Time for Commission to Review Director'S Decision DD-90-03 Expired.Commission Declined Review. Decision Became Final Agency Action on 900724.Served on 900731.W/Certificate of Svc ML20059M9781990-06-13013 June 1990 Forwards NRC Performance Indicators for First Quarter 1990. W/O Encl ML20246K4721989-08-28028 August 1989 Advises That 880419 Rev 2 to Guard Training & Qualification Plan Consistent W/Provisions of 10CFR50.54(p) & Acceptable ML20246E5321989-08-22022 August 1989 Forward Summary of Sys Engineering/Design Engineering Initiatives & ...Quarterly Sys Status Rept,2nd Quarter 1989.... Rept Demonstrates Depth,Scope & Usefulness of Walkdown as Tool for Assessing Sys Status,Problems & Trends IR 05000275/19890201989-07-31031 July 1989 Forwards Safeguards Insp Repts 50-275/89-20 & 50-323/89-20 on 890710-14.No Violations Noted ML20245D9431989-04-18018 April 1989 Forwards Insp Repts 50-275/89-12 & 50-323/89-12 on 890403-07.No Violations or Deficiencies Noted IR 05000275/19890071989-03-24024 March 1989 Forwards Safeguards Insp Repts 50-275/89-07 & 50-323/89-07 on 890227-0303.No Violations Noted.Repts Withheld (Ref 10CFR2.790(d) & 73.21) ML20235W2621989-03-0101 March 1989 Final Response to FOIA Request for Transcripts Re Facility. Forwards App H Documents.App H Documents Also Available in Pdr.App I Documents Partially Withheld Per Sunshine Act ML20205R1641988-10-18018 October 1988 Final Response to FOIA Request for Documents.Informs That App a & B Documents Available in Pdr.Forwards Partially Deleted App B & C Documents (Ref FOIA Exemption 5) IA-88-102, Final Response to FOIA Request for Documents.Informs That App a & B Documents Available in Pdr.Forwards Partially Deleted App B & C Documents (Ref FOIA Exemption 5)1988-10-18018 October 1988 Final Response to FOIA Request for Documents.Informs That App a & B Documents Available in Pdr.Forwards Partially Deleted App B & C Documents (Ref FOIA Exemption 5) ML20205C3521988-09-23023 September 1988 Final Response to FOIA Request for Documents Re Plant. Forwards App D Documents.App D Documents Also Available in PDR ML20155F8691988-09-0808 September 1988 Final Response to FOIA Request for Documents.App a Documents Available in PDR IA-88-455, Final Response to FOIA Request for Documents.App a Documents Available in PDR1988-09-0808 September 1988 Final Response to FOIA Request for Documents.App a Documents Available in PDR ML20153H6121988-08-18018 August 1988 Final Response to FOIA Request.Forwards App E Documents.Apps D & E Documents Available in Pdr.Charges for Search, Duplication & Postage Listed ML20151X2161988-08-18018 August 1988 Ack Receipt of Transmitting Scenario for Util 1988 Annual Emergency Preparedness Exercise ML20153G9331988-08-15015 August 1988 Partial Response to FOIA Request for Documents.Forwards App C Document.Documents Available in PDR ML20153H1821988-08-12012 August 1988 Responds to 880505 Appeal of Denial of Documents & Portions of Documents Identified on Encl Apps E & F in 880425 Response to FOIA 87-444.Documents or Portions of Documents Continue to Be Withheld (Ref FOIA Exemption 5) ML20151U3741988-08-11011 August 1988 Informs of NRC Interpretation of 10CFR50.74(a) Re Changes in Operator or Senior Operator Status 1999-09-13
[Table view] |
Text
__ __
)[
f ,
untTsJsTATs3 NUCLEAR RECULATORY COMMIS810N g'f
{
op msorTus
-R August 16, 1985 The Honorable Edward Markey, Chainnan Subcomittee on Energy Conservation and Power Comittee on Energy and Comerce United States House of Representatives Washington, D.C. 20510
Dear Mr. Chainnan:
In two letters of August 12, 1985, the Comission responded to your request to reconsider its decision on earthquakes and emergency planning in Diablo _
Canyon. The Comission attempts to hide behind transparent legalisms to justify not responding to your request that the Comission reconsider its decision. :
The Comission states that its hands are tied, that it cannot reconsider its decision, because jurisdiction over that issue has passed to the U.S.
Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia Circuit. While jurisdiction i may indeed have passed to the Court, the Comission's answer simply begs -
the question. The Comission has not explained why it would not be appropriate to seek judicial approval to have the matter remanded to it.
The recent views of the staff and the ACRS amount to new infonnation which would clearly support a Comission decision to reconsider its August 1984 decision. It defies belief tiat the Comission would sit helplessly by contending that it had no jurisdiction if new information suggested that a safety issue had been decided wro.' gly against a licensee. Moreover, Comission reconsideration would not raise a Pillsbury problem. All.the Subcomittee requested was that the Comission reconsider its decision.
Given the recent views of the ACRS and i'RC staff that the Comission should give some consideration to the effects of earthquakes on emergency planning, the Subcomittee's request that the Comission reconsider would clearly not be the only motivation for a change in the Comission's position.
The Comission provides no better response to your request to reconsider the proposed rule. The NRC staff has already informally told the Comission that einergency plans should consider the effects of earthquakes on comunications and transportation to and from the plants. The ACRS has supported this view in a meeting with the Comission. Under these circumstances, a meaningful proposed rule would suggest ways of ensuring the survivability of cormonication and transportation links. The coments on such a rule would provide the Comission with the factual basis for choosing the most effective means for accomplishing this goal. As it DE RE
4 0 .
stands now, the proposed rulemaking addresses onlyanswer If the the issue to of whether that question to consider the effects of earthquakes at all.
is going to be yes, as the NRC staff and ACRS analysis suggests, a second round of rulemaking may be necessary. The Commission should recognize that fact and get on with it.
Finally, the Commission spent some effort in attempting to debunk the Subcommittee staff's report to you. Since many of the staff's criticisms of the Connission's actions echo criticisms I made, I feel compelled to respond to the Commission's " report". My views on the Commission's criticisms are enclosed.
Sincerely,
=f% -
James K. Asselstine
Enclosure:
i As Stated cc: Rep. Carlos Moorhead
\
1
~
REPORT TO THE SUBC0fMITTEE ON ENERGY CONSERVATION AND POWER i
The Comission stated: C This report identifies significant inaccuracies in the July 9,1985 memorandum from the Subcomittee Staff to Chaiman Markey.
f Comissioner Asselstine's response: _
l
(
Comissioner Asselstine believes that the Comission's report, which I
identifies "significant inaccuracies" in the Subcomittee staff report, itself contains errors. He has attempted to identify some of the more egregious errors below.
PAGE 4 The Comission stated:
Contrary to the Staff report, the Comission did not base its Diablo Canyon decision on a belief that the earthquake / emergency planning issue is generic in nature. The Diablo Canyon decision rests on the information in the record of the Diablo Canyon case. That infonnation supported the Comission's judgment that there was no need to adjudicate the effects of
2-t .
earthquakes on emergency planning because the probability of a contemporaneous occurrence of an earthquake and a radiologic release from the Diablo Canyon plant would be very low.
Comissioner Asselstine's response: ;
The Comission states that it did not base its decision on a belief that the earthquake / emergency planning issue is gene ic, but rather on the record of the Diablo Canyon case. The answer does not square with the I facts. In San Onofre, the Comission removed the issue from individual ,
I adjudications and left that issue to rulemaking. That decision was based on the alleged generic nature of the issue. In Diablo Canyon the l Comission reaffirmed its San Onofre decision. That decision was again a generic interpretation of the Comission's rules. This generic ;
determination was a major part of the basis of the Comission's determination that the issue was not material to licensing of Diablo i i
Canyon. See discussion below at pp 10-11. The Comissicn then went on to i l
l find that the record in Diablo Canyon did not require a waiver of the g generic'detennination in San Onofre. This determination was based on I
statements regarding the probability of occurrence of an SSE or of an earthquake-induced radiologic release. Thus, the record does not support j the Comission's revision of history.
l t o
{
i e I
Page 5 <
l t
)
The Commission stated:
l The Commission did not state that the " seismic risk" at Diablo Canyon is " low to moderate" nor did it convey the impression that the'" seismic risk" at Diablo Canyon is insignificant. Rather, the Commission found that seismicity, the frequency of earthquakes, at the Diablo Canyon site was low to moderate. The Subcommittee staff's presentation improperly uses I frequency and magnitude interchangeably. Seismicity or frequency is different from magnitude or possible energy released by an earthquake at the site. There is no question ~that the magnitude of the Safe Shutdown Earthquake at the site presented the possibility of a very infrequent but i very large energy release that was relevant to how the plant should be designed to shut down safely in the event of such an earthquake. This risk '
is different, however, from the frequency of earthquakes.
The above discussion also applies to the Subcommittee staff's comment on page 8 which again confuses the NRC staff's statement regarding seismic risk in California with the Appeal Board's finding regarding seismicity of the Diablo Canyon site.
Commissioner Asselstine's response:
The Commission takes the Subcommittee staff to task for supposedly confusing seismic risk with seismicity, the frequency of earthquakes at the 1
4 site. This is' nothing more than a technical quibble, a red herring, which attempts to divert attention from what the Commission really did. There can be no doubt that the Commission's decision attempts to justify not considering the effects of earthquakes on emergency planning by creating the impression that there is only a vanishingly small probability' that an
, earthquake will result in a radiological release requiring invocation of the emergency plan. The Commission's reasoning presents a straight line from " low to moderate seismicity" to vanishingly small seismic risk for the _
purposes of emergency planning. If the Commission had not found seismic risk to be insignificant, it could not have concluded that the effects of -
earthquakes on emergency planning were immaterial. Therefore, the Commission's continued attempts to muddy the waters with this distinction are just absurd.
Further, the Commission's argument that the seismic risk is too low to be considered for purposes of emergency planning is just wrong. Both the ACRS and NRC staff experts have told the Commission this. The Commission's e
decision is based on probabilities which are full of uncertainty; it !
ignores fundamental precepts of emergency planning; and by focusing on the contemporaneous occurrence of an earthquake and a separately caused accident, ignores much more probable events. The NRC staff has told us that earthquakes, even those higher than the SSE, are as likely or more ,
likely than other accident initiators we do consider for emergency [
planning. Chairnen Palladino observed a few months after the Diablo Canyon decision that an earthquake lower than the SSE could be a major contributor i
to risk for a plant:
I
Then there is also the probability that if you have even the SSE or some lesser one, that the equipment say not function as designed. Now, that one deserves some attention. I think that could be a major contributor.
That is one I think you have maybe a better chance of getting a handle on than the probability (of) exceeding the SSE. (" Joint Meeting of the Commissioners with Advisory Committee on Reactor Safeguards," November 2, 1984, Transcriptpp26-27.)
This is precisely the point I have b'een making throughout this process.
And, it is because of this very risk that the Commission requires Diablo Canyon to implement its emergency plan in the event of an earthquake much less than the SSE.
Page 6-7 The Commission Stated:
The analysis fails to acknowledge the following considerations in its discussion of the matter of generic treatment. First, the Commission's Diablo Canyon decision was not based on a plan to conduct a rulemaking.
See comment above, page 4. Second, the Connission's decision readily acknowledged that the Commission "should have acted sooner and initiated rulemaking." CLI-84-12, 20 NRC at 255. And third, the Chairman, as well :
as Commissioner Asselstine, expressed interest in pursuing the issue of possible rulemaking on the effects of earthquakes on emergency planning.
In September, 1983 the Chairman met with the NRC staff and requested a technical analysis of the issue. The staff provided it in its January 13, 1984 memorandum which the Subcommittee has.
l 1
l l
Page 7-8 The Commission stated:
I The Subcommittee staff analysis relies on Commissioner Asselstine's i contention that the Commission implicitly found that earthquakes occur less !
frequently than other natural phenomena which are considered in emergency planning. However, a reading of the Commission's decision clearly shows that the Commission made no such comparison of the relative frequency of I
natural phenomena. Rather, the Commission determined as an absolute i matter, based on the record on earthquake recurrence times, that the frequency of significant earthquakes at Diablo Canyon was too low to warrant the consideration of the effects of those earthquakes on emergency planning. The Commission's letter of February 25, 1985 to you which is not referenced in the Subcommittee's analysis, states that the issue of the consideration to be given to other, infrequently occurring natural phenomena was not before the Commission in the Diablo Canyon case.
Commissioner Asselstine's response: l The Commission states that it did not implicitly find that earthquakes occur less frequently than other natural phenomena considered in emergency j planning. If this is so, the Commission's decision is irrational. The f Commission must necessarily have found that earthquakes are less likely to disrupt emergency planning than other. natural phenomena. If it did not, how can the Commission justify continuing to require licensees to consider
Other natural phenomena in emergency planning? Simply stating that other natural phenomena were not before the Comission in the Diablo Canyon case does not justify treating one natural phenomenon (earthquakes) differently from other natural phenomena having approximately equal probabilities of a occurrence. The Comission is clearly not limited in what it can do in a generic rulemaking by how the issue is raised in a particular adjudication. I If the Comission questioned whether other natural phenomena of equal probability as earthquakes should be considered, the Comission should have initiated a generic rulemaking which considered all those natural l
phenomena. It would be irrational to go to all the trouble of initiating a I generic rulemaking and only consider a part of the issue. The Comission seems to have at least partially recognized this inconsistency when at the 1
last minute it added consideration of tornados to the generic rulemaking on earthquakes.
Page 9 i
The Comission stated:
l l
In as much as the Comission decided in Diablo Canyon that ;
consideratior need not be given to the earthquake emergency / planning issue, there is nothing " ironic" about a proposal to make that decision explicit j in its regulations through a proposed rule that would exclude consideration of earthquakes from emergency planning. The proposed rule put forward this proposition as a working hypothesis suited to eliciting the broadest range of public coment. A proposed rule does not prejudge the outcome of a l 1
rulemaking. ;
l I
1
1 Page 9-10 .
i The Commission stated:
Contrary to the Subcommittee staff's analysis, the approach adopted by i the Commission in response to SECY-84-70 was to address whether to allow ,
consideration of the earthquake / emergency planning issue under the particular circunstances of the Diablo Canyon case. CLI-84-4, 19 NRC 937 (1984). The Connission requested party comments and made its final decision in light of the responses. While the Commission's final decision -
may appear to the Subcommittee staff to be one of the options in SECY-84-70, the fact remains that the quoted OGC analysis' pertains to an option that the Commission did not adopt and was prepared prior to the receipt of responses to CLI-84-4.
Further, the conclusion of the analysis that the Commission's action f
"would appear to constitute a blatant attempt to escape legal and i regulatory requirements" presupposes that only the OGC could have reasonable views on the issues of the materiality of the effects of I earthquakes on emergency planning and the likely outcome of generic .
rulemaking. Finally, the use of the quoted exchange between OGC and I
Commissioner Bernthal implies incorrectly that there were no other reasons advanced for going forward with a generic rulemaking on the effects of i
earthquakes on emergency planning. A review of the transcripts and the record would show that the Commission and the staff were also concerned about large earthquakes in the Eastern United States.
Comissioner Asselstine's response:
l 1
Once' again, the Comission engages in a rewriting of history to support its decision. The Comission's approach in response to SECY-84-70 had two parts: (1) whether to affirm the Comission decision in San Onofre that the earthquake issue is generic, and (2) whether if the issue is f generic, there are any special circumstances at Diablo Canyon which would warrant departing from the generic decision that earthquakes need not be considered for emergency planning at any plant. Both of these questions played a part in the Diablo Canyon decision. -
In SECY-84-70, the General Counsel and OPE told the Comission that there was no record or technical support for a decision to affim the San Onofre generic determination. Thus, proceeding by generic rulemaking would only result in a decision that the issue was site specific and, given the NRC staff position, was material to the Diablo Canyon site. OGC stated, therefore, that the issue was material to the licensing decision for Diablo Canyon and the parties were entitled to a hearing on the issue.
OGC recomended granting a hearing on the issue because proceeding by rulemaking would merely delay consideration of the issue at Diablo Canyon.
The Comission ignored this advice and chose to ask the parties the two questions I outlined above. After receiving coments from the parties on that order (CI.I-84-4), OGC and OPE met with the Comission and repeated the conclusion it had reached in SECY-84-70 that the issue was material to Diablo Canyon and that there was no basis for a generic exclusion of the
.10 -
consideration of earthquakes. The Comission again ignored OGC and OPE advice. The Comission: (1) affimed the San Onofre generic determination .
and began a generic rulemaking to. codify that decision and (2) found that there are no special circumstances at Diablo Canyon which would warrant i departing from that generic rule. Thus a finding that the issue is generic is an essential part of the Comission's Diablo Canyon decision.
- f Page 11-12 The Comission stated: '.
The Comission's February 25, 1985 letter did not distinguish between i using the TERA report to reach a Comission decision and using it in Court to defend that decision. The letter made no coment regarding use of the TERA report in Court litigation. (The litigation referred to in the Comission's February 25 letter was litigation before the Licensing Board.) ,
Rather, the Comission's February 25 response simply pointed out that because the TERA report was not in the evidentiary record, it could not be relied on as support for the Comission's decision. And, as the l
)
Comission's decision shows, that report was not relied on. Therefore, it is incorrect to suggest that, in the final analysis, the TERA report played an important role in the Comission's decision. Moreover, the Comission's decision did not refer to any off-the-record material because none of that~
material was relied on by the Comission in reaching its decision. The i
Subcomittee staff does not appear to comprehend that the reasons for the Comission's Diablo Canyon decision are the reasons presented in CLI-84-12
11 and that the discussions and statements of individuals reflected in the transcripts do not constitute the Commission's decision or its rationale.
Commissioner Asselstine's response:
The plain far:t is that a review of the transcripts shows that the TERA report was extensively discussed. Yet, the Commission would have you believe that this off-the-record material'was expunged from its mind just as it was expunged from the final version of the Commission's decision.
The Commission supports this argument by drawing a distinction between its final decision and the discussions and statements of individuals leading up to that decision. While it is undoubtedly true that not every statement by an individual Commissioner gets translated into a Commission decision, it is disingenuous to suggest that nothing the Commissioners said at three lengthy Commission meetings had anything to do with the Commission's final decision. To the contrary, those discussions were the primary sources of instruction for the drafters of the Commission's decision.
Page 12 The Commission stated:
The quoted statement of Chairman Palladino is taken out of context and was explained by him at the July 10 hearing. See pages 39-48 of the July 10 transcript. Further, the quotes at the bottom of page 12 and the top of
< page 13 do not reflect that approaches based on information in the adjudicatory record were discussed.
4 Page 14-15 l
The Commission stated:
The Subcommittee staff suggests that contrary to the Commission's belief, the TERA report does not support the Commission's decision in view j of the report's estimate that an earthquake could double or triple evacuation times. However, this estimate does not undercut the
' Commission's decision. The Cominission had before it record evidence that fog could similarly increase evacuation times. _
Page 18 The Commission stated:
In stating that OGC argues that the Commission rested its " final decision" on assumptions about the comparison of earthquakes and other natural phenomena, the Subcommittee staff apparently is relying on quotations about drafts of Commission decisions or hypothetical discussions at Commission meetings as necessarily expressing OGC's view on the final decision as issued. However, the final decision rests on the rationale stated in the Commission's decision and does not depend upon a comparison ,
1 of earthquakes to other natural phenomena.
Commissioner Asselstine's response:
I have already explained why the Commission's decision implicitly makes such a comparison. See discussion at pp 7-8 above.
Page 19_
The Comission stated: !
The statement quoted from the Comission's February 25, 1985 letter is neither tautological (i.e., including a " needless repetition of the same idea in different words" -- The Random House College Dictionary (1973) nor ,
i does it prejudge the issue. The clear inference from the statement is that II no hearing was held in the Diablo Canyon case on the issue of the q complicating effects of earthquakes on emergency planning because that issue was found to be imaterial to plant licensing. Indeed, the )
Subcomittee staff analysis of this matter does not evidence an l understanding of the simple point that the Comission decided in CLI-84-12 that the earthquake / emergency planning issue was not material. The Subcomittee staff study appears to adopt the mistaken view that the Comission " removed" the earthquake / emergency planning issue from the Diablo proceeding because it was a generic issue. On the contrary, the Comission's decision not to consider the issue rested on a judgment that a contemporaneous occurrence of an earthqu'ake and radiologic release from the plant would be very low. i l
Further, the OGC coment referenced at the top of page 20 does not !
pertain to the Comission's final decision in Diablo. See the above coments on pages 9-10. !
l l
l
N Commissioner Asselstine's response.
Once again the Commission tries to argue that a generic determination was not a part of its Diablo Canyon decision. That is nonsense. See discussion at pp 10-11 above.
Page 21 The Commission stated:
The statements regarding delay are quoted out of context. Further, as i
he explained in the July 10 Subcommittee hearing, the Chairman stated a general observation regarding frustration over the length of time for hearings which does not, as suggested, support any inference regarding the need for a hearing in the Diablo Canyon proceeding.
1