ML18003A511
| ML18003A511 | |
| Person / Time | |
|---|---|
| Site: | Harris  |
| Issue date: | 03/29/1979 |
| From: | Gossick L NRC OFFICE OF THE EXECUTIVE DIRECTOR FOR OPERATIONS (EDO) |
| To: | Andrews I HOUSE OF REP. |
| Shared Package | |
| ML18003A513 | List: |
| References | |
| NUDOCS 7904110112 | |
| Download: ML18003A511 (8) | |
Text
lNAR gg )g79 Docket Nos. 50-400 50-401 50-402 50-403 The Honorable Ike Andrews United States House of Representatives Washington, D.C.
20515 Dear Congressman Andrews:
/
This responds to your request of March 5, 1979 that we provide you with necessary information to respond to a communication from Mr. Wells Eddleman regarding the NRG public hearing held in Raleigh, North Carolina, from February 27 to March 8, 1979 dealing wit/ the technical capability of the Carolina Power and Light Company to design, construct and operate the company's proposed Shearon Harris Nuclear Power Plant.
The public hearing was held in Raleigh; North Carolina, which is some 15 to 20 miles from the site of the proposed plant, because of its con-venience to interested members of the public and because suitable accommodations for the hearing were available.
This is in accordance with established Commission policy that hearings be scheduled in the vicinity of proposed plant sites.
Contrary to Mr. Eddleman's statement, there is no Commission policy or regulation that requires that an NRC hearing be held "at night or on weekends 'whenever possible.'"
In fact, most NRC hearings are scheduled during normal working hours.
There are occasions,
- however, when for the convenience of the public a session of a hearing will be held in an evening or on a weekend.
This determination is left to the dis-cretion of the presiding Atomic Safety and Licensing Board.
At the, hearing in Raleigh, the presiding Board considered Mr. Eddleman's request for night sessions but determined not to schedule such sessions.
P gee Q//0//Z OPFICd~
, audNAMd&
DATd~
NRC PORM 818 (976) NRCM 0240 4 VoO OOVCIINMCHTI'ltlNTINOOPPICd1 1 ~ 7 ~
RO ~
1 ~ 0
~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~
1.
P~
Jl n'
Ike Andrews As to Mr. Eddleman's assertion that the presiding Board refused to allow public statements at the hearing, that is incorrect.
The Board permitted members of the public to submit written statements for the record.
Furthermore, Mr. Eddleman was permitted'to 'make an oral statement at the hearing and was invited by the Board to join counsel for the State of North Carolina and the intervenors and to advise them regarding the issues to be heard.
Both counsel accepted his assistance and he assisted them during the course of the hearing.
If you desire additional information, please contact me.
Sincerely, (S;g~ca) T. A.B<~
Lee V. Gossick Executive Director for Operations Enclosure Postcard from Wells Eddleman to Ike Andrews dtd 2/27/79.
Dist:
NRC Central LPDR /DGSS (4)
Shapar/Engelhardt Christenbury/Scinto
- Reis, Barth Chron (2)
FF (2)
SECY 79-0428 (3)
EDO 805626 JCook Docket Files (50-400, 50-401, 50-402, 50-403)
OCA (3)
SEE ATTACHED YELLOWS FOR PREVIOUS CONCURRENCES SDRNAMKW DATE&
OELD
-Barth/4nr----
..3/ZZ/79................
(concurred)
OELD
-'Re"I s"""""""'"
3/.22/.7.9............
(Concurred)
OELD OE
-Chr"i's'te'n'b'u'r"'ng h
d
..-.-3/26/.79------ ----3/2 /-79----
(Concurred)
(Concurted),
NRC FORM 518 (9-76) NRChf 0240
+ U, $, 4OVSRNMSNT RRINTIN4 OPPICSI ISTS ddd ddd
0 l
(f
-goal/
I(
~ I
','8 ~ ~
~
~ li J' 'i t'
C Ike Andrews Hr. Eddleman furthe states that the Licensing Board "refuses to allow public statements o
any kind, orally, rejects written statements The assertion is incor<rect, and in the recent hearings the Licensing Board did accept writth statements, from those who wished to present them and those statement have been made a part of the record.
Hr. Eddleman made a lengthy, limited ap france oral statement at the hearing and was invited by the Licensing Bobbed to sit with counsel for the State and the Intervenors and advise them.- +hey both accepted his assistance and Hr. Eddleman did so sit and par icipate through counsel for the State and the Intervenors during the entire course of the hearing.
Hr. Eddleman's postcard concludes th the Licensing Board did not accept the North Carolina Attorney General's quest for night sessions.
This is
- correct, the Licensing Board having dete ined that daylight business hours were more appropriate.
In sugary, we do not feel that Hr. Eddleman'ostcard to you of February 27, 1979, written before the hearings pere held, is an accurate depiction of what transpired at the recent hearth s.
Sincerely, Enclosure Postcard from Wells Eddleman to Ike Andrews dated 2/27/79 Dist NRC Central LPDR Shapar/Engelhardt Christenbury/Scinto
'eis Barth Chron(2)
FF(2)
SECY 79-0428(3)
EDO IlI05626 JCook Docket Files (50-400, 50-401, 50-402, 50-403)
OCA (3)
OELD OFFICE~
Barth/dmr --- 79---
SURNAME~
DATE~
FO2CI AEC 318 (REF. 9-$3) hXCM 0240 OC OELD
. OE OE D
eis Christenbury Engelhardt
- 3/----/79---
8"2 -/79------"----3/A/79 3/......./.79...............
A U, 2, OOVERNMENT PRIHTINO OFFICEI I OF@ ~ II20 lee
I
>> I t
~
~
rl
'I
~ 'I f
1 r ~If t'" >>
r
>>I
Ike Andre s Mr. Eddlema goes on to assert that the Licensing Board "refuses to allow pub'lic state ents of any kind, orally, rejects written statements The assertio is a bit untimely as it was made by Mr. Eddleman prior to the hearing.
The Licensing Board at the recent hearings did accept written state nts from those who wished to present them and those -state=
ments have been made a,part of the record.
Mr. Eddleman made a lengthy limited appearan e oral statement at the hearing and was invited by the Licensing Board t sit with counsel for the State and the Intervenors and advise them.
They oth accepted his assistance and Mr. Eddleman did so sit and participate rough counsel for the State and the Intervenors during the entire cou e of the hearing.
I Hr. Eddleman's postcard ncludes that the Licensing Board did not accept the North Carolina Attorne General's request for night sessions.
This is
- correct, the Licensing Boar having determined that daylight business hours were more appropriate.
In summary.
we do not feel that hr. Eddleman's postcard to you of February 27, 1979, written before the-hearings were even held, is an accurate depiction of what transp>
ed at the recent hearings.
Ss cerely.
Enclosure Postcard from blells Eddleman to Ike Andrews dated 2/27/79 Dist NRC Central LPDR Shapar/Engelhardt Christenbury/Scinto Reis Barth Chron(2)
FF(2)
SECY 79-0428 (3)
EDO 805626 JCook Docket Files (50-400, 50-401, 50-402, 50-403)
OCA (3)
OPPICCW SURNAMSW OATS~
OELD Barth/dmr "37'--'9 OELD Reis
""""lid-"/'79"""
OELD Chri stenbury
--3'/----f79-'"- "
OELD
.QCA Engelhardt
--3/----/79----"- - -3f"--/79 FOrm AEC-318 (RST. II.5 )
0240 Q V. S, OOVKRNMSNT PRINTINO OPPICEI IOTA S20 ISS
C 1V