ML20011F430
| ML20011F430 | |
| Person / Time | |
|---|---|
| Site: | Seabrook  |
| Issue date: | 02/26/1990 |
| From: | Carr K NRC COMMISSION (OCM) |
| To: | Humphrey G, Erin Kennedy, Kerry J, Markey E, Mavroules N HOUSE OF REP., SENATE |
| Shared Package | |
| ML20011F431 | List: |
| References | |
| CON-#190-9979 OL, NUDOCS 9003060025 | |
| Download: ML20011F430 (14) | |
Text
'
h 7:
l'b V,
w...
- p.,\\
UNITED STATES J:
8' ~
NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMIM10N W ASHINGTON, O. C. 20666 o,
February 26, 1990 CHAIRMAN l
r i
Th'e Honorable Nicholas Mavroules United-States House of Representatives Washington, D.C.
20515
Dear Congressman Mavroules:
We have received your letter of February 23, 1990, in which you stated that while you had written to us on numerous occasions concerning the licensing of the Seabrook Nuclear Plant Facility, you had not had the opportunity to meet with us to share your views.
You were therefore requesting a meeting with the Commission early this week to personally stress your views regarding the importance of public safety and plant readiness.
We recognize from your earlier letters concerning the Seabrook facility and from previous personal exchanges, such as with Mr. Markey during the February 8th hearing before the Interior Committee, how important you, as do we, consider matters of public safety and plani readiness to be.
The Commission is always ready to discuss matters of interest with Members of Congress, but we are very much concerned about the timing of the requested meeting.
The' Commission held a public session on January 18, 1990, which included the parties to the Seabrook adjudicatory licensing proceeding, to discuss the readiness of the Seabrook plant to receive a full power license.
We have also received extensive comments and briefs from the parties on the matters germane to the Commission's "immediate effectiveness" review and have considered these views in our review of the issues bearing on possible issuance cf a full power license.
You are aware, of course, that the Commission has scheduled an affirmation session for Thursday, March 1, 1990, to affirm the votes of the individual Commissioners with regard to authorization of a full power license for Seabrook, b'
Although you have indicated that no matters under litigation
. would be discussed at any mceting we might hold, we are appre-hensive that it would be very difficult to avoid discussion of contested matters in any exchange on Seabrook.
We believe it is important that there be no perception of unfairness to the parties to the proceeding or of any intrusion into the integrity of the adjudicatory processes of the Commission.
See Pillsbury Company v.
F.T.C., 354 F.2d 952 (5th Cir. 1966).
(\\
I
f~ ~.
n L,
i t
.?.
Consequently, in view of the highly contested nature of the application for a license for the Seabrook facility and our role as independent adjudicators of the various contested matters associated with that application, we do not believe it is appropriate for the Commission to meet with you on the eve of a scheduled Commission action on a license for the Seabrook facility.
Should you wish to renew your request following the
[
affirmation session, we will meet with you at a mutually i
agreeable date to discuss matters of public safety and plant readiness to the extent that it is possible to do so under carefully considered arrangements that will avoid interference with ongoing adjudicatory issues.
l Commissioner Remick did not participate in this response.
Sincerely.
\\L m.0-Kenneth M. Carr t
t t
o
'p'
[na me i
o UNITED STATES
^
f*
NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSION g
{
WASHINGTON, D. C 20065 k
/
February 26, 1990 CHAIMMAN The Honorable Edward J. Markey United States House of Representatives Washington, D. C.
20515
Dear Congressman Markey:
We have received your letter of February 23, 1990, in which you stated that while you had written to us on numerous occasions concerning the licensing of the Seabrook Nuclear Plant Facility, you had~not had the opportunity to meet with us to share your views.
You were therefore requesting a meeting with.
the Commission early this week to personally stress your views regarding the importance of public safety and plant readiness.
We recognize from your earlier letters concerning the Seabrook facility and from previous personal exchanges, such as during the February 8th hearing before the Interior Committee, how important you, as do we, consider matters of public safety and plant readiness to be.
The Commission is always ready to discuss matters of interest with Members of Congress, but we are very much concerned about the timing of the requested meeting.
i The Commission held a public session on January 18, 1990, which included-the parties to the Seabrook adjudicatory licensing '
proceeding, to discuss the readiness of the Seabrook plant to receive a full power license.
We have also received extensive comments and briefs from the parties on the matters germane to the Commission's "immediate effectiveness" review and have considered these views in our review of the issues bearing on possible issuance of a full power license.
You are aware..of course, that the Commission has scheduled an affirmation session for Thursday, March 1, 1990, to affirm the votes of the 1
individual Commissioners with regard to authorization of a full j
power license for Seabrook.
I Although you have indicated that no matters under litigation I
would be discussed at any meeting we might hold, we are appre-hensive that it would be very difficult to avoid discussion of contested matters in any exchange on Seabrook.
We believe it is important that there be no perception of unfairness to the 1
parties to the proceeding or of any intrusion into the integrity of the adjudicatory processes of the Commission.
See Pillsbury Company v. F.T.C., 354 F.2d 952 (5th Cir.1966).
(
O
=
!, L Co n s eqtte n tly, in view of the highly contested nature of the application for a license for the Seabrook facility and our role as independent adjudicators of the variotts contested matters associated with that application, we do not believe it is appropriate for the Commission to meet with you on the eve of a scheduled Commission action on a license for the Seabrook facility.
Should you wish to renew your request following the i
affirmation session, we will meet with yac et a autuelly agreeable date to discuss matters of public sa" sty a%d plant readiness to the extent that it is possible to do so cnder carefully considered arrangements that will avoid int,erference with ongoing adjudicatory issues.
Commissioner Remick did not participate in this response.
Sincerely, UEh. C%
Kenneth M Carr t
4 6
l 1'
wn
/
UNITED STATES
~'
~'
f NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSION o
.g
. AsHwovow, o, c. roess w
k February 26, 1990 CHAIRMAN The Honorable John F. Kerry United States Senate Washington, D. C.
20510
Dear Senator Kerry:
We have received your letter of. February 23, 1990, in which you stated that while you had written to us on numerous occasions concerning the licensing of the Seabrook Nuclear Plant Facility, you had not had the opportunity to meet with us to share your views.
You were therefore requesting a meeting with the Commission early this week to personally stress your views regarding the importance of public safety and plant readiness.
We recoonize from your earlier letters concerning the Seabrook e
facilit and from previous personal exchanges, such as with Mr. Har ey during the February 8th hearing before the Interior Committee, how important you, as do We, consider matters of public safety and plant readiness to be.
The Commissionfis always ready to diset;s matters of interest with Members of Congress, but we are very much concerned about the timing of the requested meeting.
l The Commission held a public session on January 18, 1990, which-H included the parties to the Seabrook adjudicatory licensing proceeding, to discuss the readiness of the Seabrook plant to receive a full power license.
We have also received extensive comments and briefs from the parties on the matters germane to the Commission's "immediate effectiveness" review and have considered these views in our review of the issues bearing on possible issuance of a full power license.
You are aware, of j
course, that the Commission has scheduled an affirmation session for Thursday, March 1, 1990, to affirm the votes of the individual Commissioners with regard to authorization of a full power license for Seabrook.
I' Although you have indicated that no matters under litigation would be discussed at any meeting we might hold, we are appre-hensive:that it would be very difficult to avoid discussion of contested matters in any exchange on Seabrook.
We believe it is-important that there be no perception of unfairness to the parties to the proceeding or of any intrusion into the integrity of the adjudicatory processes of the Commission.
See Pillsbury Company v.
F.T.C., 354 F.2d 952 (5th Cir. 1966).
I o
'A d
Consequently, in view of the highly contested nature of the application for a license for the Seabrook facility and our role as-independent adjudicators of the various contested matters associated with that application, we do not believe it is appropriate for the Commission to meet with you on the eve of a scheduled Commission action on a license for the Seabrook facility.
Should you wish to renew your request following the
- i affirmation session, we.will meet with you at a mutually agreeable date to discuss matters of public safety and plant readiness to the extent that it is possible to do so under carefully considered arrangements that will avoid interference with ongoing adjudicatory issues, Commissioner Remick did not participate in this response, 5
Sincerely, I
kem h.b i
Kenneth M. Carr P
e
'l I
m I
1-i
-t F'@ M0 4,;
0E umito STATES s.!
NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSION g
{
wAswiworow. o. c. 2onsa o
%,*ess February 26, 1990 e
CHAIRMAN The Honorable Gordon J. Humphrey United States Senate Washington, D. C.
20510
Dear Senator Humphrey:
We have. received your letter of February 23, 1990, in which you stated that while you had written to us on numerous occasions concerning the licensing of the Seabrook Nuclear Plant Facility, you had not had the opportunity to meet with us to share your views.
You were therefore requesting a meeting with the Commission early this week to personally stress your views regarding the importance of public safety and plant readiness.
We recognize from your earlier letters concerning the Seabrook facility and from previous personal exchanges, such as with Mr. Markey during the February 8th hearing before the Interior Committee, how-important you, as do we. consider matters of public safety and plant readiness to be.
The Commission is always ready to discuss matters of interest with Members of Congress, but we are very much concerned about the timing of the requested meeting.
The Commission held a public session on January 18, 1990, which included the parties to the Seabrook adjudicatory licensing proceeding, to discuss the readiness of the Seabrook plant to receive a full power license.
We have also received extensive comments and briefs from the parties on the. matters germane to the Commission's "immediate effectiveness" review and have considered these views in our review of the issues bearing on possible issuance of a full power license.
You are aware, of course, that the Commission has scheduled an affirmation session for Thursday, March 1, 1990, to affirm the votes of the individual Commissioners with regard to authorization of a full power license for Seabrook.
Although you have indicated that no matters under litigation would be discussed at any meeting we might hold, we are appre-l hensive that it would be very difficult to avoid discussion of l
contested matters in any exchange on Seabrook.
We believe it I
is ituportant that there be no perception of unfairness to the parties to the proceeding or of any intrusion into the
~
integrity of the adjudicatory processes of the Commission.
See Pillsbury Company v.
F.T.C 354 F.2d 952 (5th Cir. 1966).
3,
1
-2 i
Consequently, in view of the highly contested nature of the application for a license for the Seabrook facility and our i
role as independent adjudicators of the various contested matters associated with that application, we do not believe it is appropriate for the Commission to meet with you on the eve of a scheduled Commission action on a license for the Seabrook facility.
Should you wish to renew your request following the affirmation session, we will meet with you at a mutually agreeable date to discuss matters of public safety and plant readiness to the extent that it is possible to do so under carefully considered arrangements that will avoid interference with ongoing adjudicatory issues.
Commissioner Remick did not participate in this response.
Sincerely.
.A Kenneth M. Carr a
r e
?
i
{
a nem
/
D UNITE 3 STATES o
r NUCLEAft MEGULATORY COMMISSION 0
}
W AEHWGTON, D. C. 20066
.I CHAIRMAN i
l The Honorable Edward M. Kennedy i'
United States Senate Washington, D. C.
20510
Dear Senator Kennedy:
f We have received your letter of February 23, 1990, in which you stated that while you had written to us on numerous occasions concerning the licensing of the Seabrook Nuclear Plant Facility, you had not had the opportunity to meet with us to share your views.
You were therefore requesting a meeting with the Commission early this week to personally stress your views s
regarding the importance of public safety and plant readiness.
i We recognize from your earlier letters concerning the Seabrook facility and from previous personal exchanges, such as with Mr. Markey during the February 8th hearing before the Interior Committee, how important you, as do we, consider matters of public safety and plant readiness to be.
The Commission is always ready to discuss matters of interest with Members of Congress, but we are very much concerned about the timing of the requested meeting.
The Commission held a public session on January 18, 1990, whi'ch l
included the parties to the Seabrook adjudicatory licensing proceeding, to discuss the readiness of the Seabrook plant to receive a full power license.
We have also received extensive comments and briefs from the parties on the matters germane to the Commission's "immediate effectiveness" review and have considered these views in our review of the issues bearing on possible issuance of a full power license.
Yuu are aware, of course, that the Commission has scheduled an affirmation session for Thursday, March 1, 1990, to affirm the votes of the individual Commissioners with regard to authorization of a full power license for Seabrook.
Although you have indicated that no matters under litigation would be discussed at any meeting we might hold, we are appre-hensive that it would be very difficult to avoid discussion of contested matters in any exchange on Seabrook.
We believe it is important that there be no perception of unfairness to the parties to the proceeding or of any intrusion into the integrity of the adjudicatory processes of the Commission.
See Pillsbury Company v.
F.T.C., 354 F.2d 952 (5th Cir. 1966).
-E 4
)
~
2-Consequently, in view of the highly contested nature of the application for a license for the Seabrook facilit/ and our role as independent adjudicators of the various contested matters associated with that application, we do not believe it is appropriate for the Commission to meet with you on the eve i
of a scheduled Commission action on a license for the Seabrook facility.
Should you wish to renew your request following the affirmation session, we will meet with you at a mutually agreeable date to discuss matters of.public safety and plant i
readiness to the extent that it is possible to do so under carefully considered arrangements that will avoid interference with ongoing adjudicatory issues.
Commissioner Remick did not participate in this response.
Sincerely, w_b.b e
Kenneth M. Carr
.