ML19309C722
| ML19309C722 | |
| Person / Time | |
|---|---|
| Site: | Peach Bottom, Hope Creek, Sterling, Crane  |
| Issue date: | 03/05/1980 |
| From: | Bordenick B NRC OFFICE OF THE EXECUTIVE LEGAL DIRECTOR (OELD) |
| To: | Buck J, Johnson W, Rosenthal A NRC ATOMIC SAFETY & LICENSING APPEAL PANEL (ASLAP) |
| References | |
| NUDOCS 8004090192 | |
| Download: ML19309C722 (4) | |
Text
.
a nuouq(o, UNITED STATES e
[ \\
... t, j NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSION g *- ' "" "
'dE. E WASHINGTON, D. C. 20555
'%.."..[. #}
March 5,1980 Alan S. Rosenthal, Chairman Dr. John H. Buck, Member Atomic Safety and Licensing Atomic Safety and Licensing Appeal Board Appeal Board U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Comission U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Comission Washington, D. C.
20555 Washington, D. C.
20555 Dr. W. Reed Johnson Atomic Safety and Licensing Appeal Board g
~
U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission
'/
4 Washington, D. C.
20555
- C 4 siso 01 U;;mc
- b In the Matters of.
MAR PHILADELPHIA ELECTRIC COMPANY, ET AL.
C om I 19S05 (Peach Bottom Atomic Power Station, Units 7 & 3) 6 to 4
Docket Nos. 50-277 & 50-278 METROPOLIT,e EDISON COMPANY, ET AL.
g 3
(Three Mile Island Nuclear Station, Uiiit lio. 2)
Docket No. 50-320 N
PUBLIC SERVICE ELECTRIC AND GAS COMPANY (Hope Creek Generating Station, Units 1 & 2)
Docket Nos. 50-354 & 50-355 ROCHESTER GAS AND ELECTRIC CORPORATION, ET AL.
(Sterling Power Project, Nuclear Unit TT--
Docket No. STN 50-485 Gentlemen:
At the request of the, Appeal-Soard ~(TF.146), I-have made inquiry into the circumstances involved when on February 22, 1980, L served, under separate cover, the following two documents in these proceedings:
1.
Draft Report prepared by Battelle Pacific Northwest i.aboratories on recent measurements of radon releases from underground mining.
2.
Re/ised Testimony of Staff witness Ralph M. Wilde (as a result of the above draft report).
Sinca hearings on the radon release issue in the above proceedings were scheduled l
to comence on Tuesday, February 26, 1980, I attempted to imediately serve the aDove two documents on the following persons:
The three Appeal Board Panel members hearing the issue in question, Jay E. Silbert, Esq., as counsel for Licensees and Dr. Chauncey Kepford and Ms. Sue Reinert (Intervenors). On 8004000 jg
. Friday, February 22, hand delivery was made on the Appeal Board members and a messenger picked up the documents for Licensees. As to Dr. Kepford and Ms. Reinert, copies were delivered to the NRC mail room in Bethesda (Division of Facilities and Operations Support, Mail and Messenger Branch).
Explicit instructions were given to provide for delivery of the documents to Dr. Kepford in State College, Pennsylvania, and Ms. Reinert, in Oswego, dew York, by no later than Saturday evening, February 23. The mail room arranged for such delivery on the Friday in question, but as is known, the documents were not timely delivered.
The mail room considered four potential means for arranging delivery of the documents.
These were:
United States Postal Service Express Mail, Federal Express, Emery Air Freight and Air Courier. As to the Postal Service, it was determined that the cities of State College and Oswego were not on.the list of cities to which mail could be guaranteed for next day delivery.
It was also determined that the two cities were not on the next day guarantee list of Federal Express or Emery.
It was, however, determined that Air Courier could and would attempt such delivery.
Accordingly, the Draft Report was placed in Air Courier's hands at approximately noon on February 22 and the revised testimony at shortly after 4:00 p.m. of that day.
In the case of Dr. Kepford, the packages were flown to Pittsburgh and, I am advised, deliv.ery was attempted at Dr. Kepford's address in State College on Saturday. Air Courier asserts that no one was present at Dr. Kepford's address.
For unknown reasons, the package was not left at Dr. Kepford's house.
Delivery was again attempted on Monday but, of course, Dr. Kepford was already in Harrisburg.
As to Ms. Reinert, the documents were flown to Syracuse, New York.
It is my understanding that there was an (undescribed) breakdown in service by Air Courier's subcontractor in Syracuse who did not attempt delivery on Ms. Reinert until Monday.
She, of course, had by then also departed for Harrisburg.
In this connection it should be noted that Air Courier has accepted responsibility for the delivery failure and does not intend to charge the NRC for its' failed efforts.
As to the future, the question of how, in necessary circumstances, to make next day delivery of documents will have to be dealt with on a case-by-case basis.
Based on my experience, packages from the Washington area destined for other large metropolitan areas, placed in a ; urier's hands early in the week, will arrive within the guaranteed time.
Packages destined, as here, for cities located some distance from mal cities sent out on a Friday may or may not arrive in a timely mannei In short, absent personal delivery by an NRC Staff member, which is extre,. ly expensive, similar problems may well arise in the future.
_ ______ In an unrelated matter, the Staff has discovered, subsequent to the conclusion of the hearings in Harrisburg, Pennsylvania, t 18,1980, and from the copies of the testimony prefiled on January 26, 1980.
In our incorporated into the record as if read on February view, much of what appears on the (missing) page 6 was described by Mr. Miller during the course of cross examination and/or questioning by In addition, the missing page 6 does not in our view the Appeal Board. affect the substance of the remainder of Mr. Miller's written testimony Thus, the Staff has determined that it will not seek leave to include the missing page 6 as part of the record in the above referenced proceedings.
A copy of page 6 is enclosed with this letter for information.
Sincerely, W
Bernard M. Bordenick Counsel for NRC Staff Enclosure as stated Dr. Chauncey R. Kepford Mr. Lester Kornblith, Jr.
cc:
Dirk S. Adams, Esq.
Sue Reinert Jay E. Silberg, Esq.
Ceology Action Michael C. Farrar, Esq.
Jeffrey Cohen, Esq.
Gerald Charnoff, Esq.
Edward G. Bauer, Jr., Esq Ms. Sharon Morey Eugene J. Bradley, Esq.
Mr. Ernest E. Hill Troy B. Conner, Jr., Esq.
Dr. Oscar H. Paris Raymond L. Hovis, Esq.
Mark L. First, Esq.
W. W. Anderson, Esq.
F. Michael Parkowski, Esq.
Myron Bloom, Esq.
William Horner, Esq.
John B. Griffith, Esq.
Jerome E. Scharfman, Esq.
Richard S. Salzman, Esq.
Edward Luton, Esq.
Samuel J. Chilk Karin W. Carter Dr. George C. Anderson Peter A. Bucksbaum, Esq.
Harry Voight, Esq.
Richard Fryling, Jr., Esq.
Dr. Paul Mecray, Jr.
Mr. David A. Caccia Dr. John Lamarsh Ms. Judith H. Johnsrud Mr. Gustave A. Linenberger Atomic Safety and Licensing Board Panel Dr. Ernest 0. Salo Atomic Safety and Licensing Appeal Panel George F. Trowbridge, Esq.
Docketing and Service Section James A. Humphreys, III
6 i
The Act further established requirements with which Agreement States must i
comply in licensing uranium mills and mill tailings (byproduct material).
In short, these statutory requirements are designed to assure that control of I
mill tailings in Agreement States is the same as that provided under NRC regulation in non-Agreement States.
More specifically, states are required by November 8, 1981, to have a program which includes technical standards governing tailings management "...which are equivalent, to the extent practicable, or more stringent than, standards adopted and enforced by the Commission...."
States are also required by that time to follow certain procedural requirements such as preparing documented, independent assessments of their mill and mill tailings licensing actions.
By amendment to UMTRCA, the Congress required that during the interim before November 8, 1981, states must meet these new requirements, to the extent practicable, and charged the Commission with h
seeing that this is done.
The staff has taken the position that, under a Commission Policy of offering technical assistance to Agreement States regulat-1 ing uranium mills (43 Fed Reg 17879), it will assure that the requirements for l
)
documented assessments and compliance with minimum standards will be met in each Agreement State licensing action. Where circumstances require it, this will involve preparation of the required documented independent assessments by the NRC staff in support of the State licensing actions.
In conclusion, the authority to assure that tailings will ultimately be covered and stabilized, as the staff previously testified, is firm; moreover, UMTRCA mandates pro)er tailings disposal.
Furthermore, the Congress has established requirements which assure that tailings management is carried out to the same technical standards in all states.
I
-