ML20100F182
| ML20100F182 | |
| Person / Time | |
|---|---|
| Site: | Oyster Creek |
| Issue date: | 11/23/1964 |
| From: | Roberts C AFFILIATION NOT ASSIGNED |
| To: | Conner T US ATOMIC ENERGY COMMISSION (AEC) |
| Shared Package | |
| ML20100F143 | List:
|
| References | |
| FOIA-95-389 NUDOCS 9602200292 | |
| Download: ML20100F182 (9) | |
Text
$
I'
$jq fu s+ '-
s 1
N. J. Scientists' Committee for Public Information 268 Edgewood Avenue -- Teaneck, New Jersey November 23, 1964 Troy B. Conner Jr., Esquire Trial Counsel AEC Regulatory Staff U. S. Atomic Energy Commission Washington, D. C. 20545 Re:
Docket No. 50-219 4
Dear Mr. Conner:
The New Jersey Scientists' Committee for Public information has instructed me to reply to your communication of November 9, 1964 in response to my letter of October 28, 1964 to Mr. Samuel W. Jensch, Chairman of the Atomic Safety aad Licensing Board.
The remarks containc5 herein represent the joint views of our entire Committee.
We appreciate that the AEC Staff has no objection to the insertion of our statement in the record of the proceeding held at Toms River, New Jersey, October 14-16, 1964.
However, we are not in accord with certain comments in your letter.
In addi-tion, we feel that the tone of the letter is not constructive in that facts are presented so as to leave erroneous impressions.
You refer to Mrs. Gloria Roberts' authorization to make a " limited appearance" on behalf of our Committee at the hearing.
In a letter dated October 14, 1964 to Mr. Jensch, I expressed our appreciation for that opportunity anC far the Board's courtesy.
Then you state, "Neither Mrs. Roberts nor any representative of the Committee responded to the Board's call for 9
the Committee 's presentation. "
We interpret this as a form of 3
criticism, the inference being that for some reaeon we had been 9602200292 960129 PDR FOIA DEKOK95-389 PDR
}
?
Troy B. Conner Jr. November 23, 1964 derelict.
The fact is that Mrs. Roberts was present throughout the entire day of the hearing on October 14 prepared to present our statement, after having requested the opportunity to do so for-mally at 10 a. m or so that morning.
In my letter of October 14 to Mr. Jensch, I stated I realized that "your Board was deluged with witnesses" on October 14, but "unfortunately, Mrs. Roberts is unable to make the trip to Toms River again" and that " medical obligations..... have made it impossibic for me to appear per-sonally..... therefore our Committee ic hopeful that it will be possible for the encloced statement to be inserted into the record. "
Hence, your statement, "Neither Mrs. Roberts etc., etc.,
" by itself, conveys the imprescion that our Committee simply 1
ignored the opportunity presented.
We are at a complete loss to understand why you would make such a statement out of context, and then disseminate it to the persons named in your Certificate of Service.
The significant fact is that our Committee made every eff ort to participate in the Toms River hearing via advance tele-gram requesting to be heard; the appearance and readiness of Mrs. Roberts to speak in our behalf on October 14 and the mailing l
of our statement to Mr. Jensch during the course of the hearing, which he did not receive, as I explained in my October 29 letter, through no fault of ours, as you are aware.
These facts are unmentioned in your letter.
We wonder, therefora, why you decided that this entire question of our failure to respond to the Board 's j
call, or more correctly, our inability to do so on October 15 and October 16, "should be noted. "
We reject your implications.
i Troy' B._' Conner Jr. Novemb'er 23, 1964 I now draw attention to your comment that "the basis" of our suggestion to delay ~ issuance of the construction permit " appears to be that the Committee conuiders that' insufficient public notice of the hearing was given. "
Your conclusion was based on my state-ment that a delay be considered "until all interested groups in New Jersey have a fuller opportunity to study the matter further. "
What'you failed to mention was that I further stated in my letter dated October 28, 1964, "We feel the hearings were not sufficiently publicized in New Jersey, and therefore the residents of this otate are not adequately informed as to the various issues regarding possible hazards and safety _ measures to prevent these."
Public information in this matter is paramount in our thinking, with the view that a well-informed citizenry can make intelligent decisions about any of the issues which vitally affect it, and be in a posi-tion to express its voice either at hearings or any other appro-priate outlet.
The question of whether tne hearing was acequately pub-licized in New Jersey is a matter of opinion.
It is true that notice was placed in the Federal Register tnirty days prior to the hearing, but it is equally true that the vast majority of New Jer-sey residents are completely unaware of the hegister 's existence.
Nor do we doubt that press r leases were made of the proposed hear-ing and that the availability of Staff's " Hazards Analysis" were "the basis of news itene in various newspapers in New Jersey. "
At the same time many newspapers in New Jercey did not publish notice of.the hearing in advance.
Associated Press International of New Jersey sent out no advance release about the hearing; similarly,
Troy B. Connor Jr. November 23, 1964 neither did United Press International of New Jersey, whose Bureau Manager expressed further that " coverage was not generally good about the proposed hearing."
In no way did our Committee hold the AEC responsible for any of this, but we disagree that our position, that the hearings were inadequately publicized, is "without merit."
It appears to us that you ignore the main consideration which is that the citizens of New Jersey, generally, were not suf-ficiently aware of the hearings in advance, much less about the issues pertaining to the application of New Jersey Central Power and Light Compay.
As for the " availability" of the Staff's "3azards Analysis", it is not a document which, from the date of its avail-ability to the date of the hearing, can be lightly perused without intensive study, includiac a study of supoorting Government docu-ments, not to mention voluminous data submitted by Jersey Central (which we are not certain is available to the public at all prior to the hearing).
Finally, I did not deem it necessary in the afore-mentioned letter of October 28 to delineate what you consider
" unspecified" groups who would desire to have a fuller opportunity to study the matter further.
I referred generally to any group that might be interested.
Purther, I saw no point in acquainting you with the fact that the New Jersey State Radiation Protection Commission (an unspecified group) felt it had not had as much time as it required to make a comprehensive study of the " Hazards Analy-sis" report prior to the hearing.
I assumed thie was made clear at the hearing.
J.l t
L Troy. B. Connor Jr. November 23,-1964
-In all.of_this,.I have been quite detailed.- The reason in-that our Committee does not feel it should have been taken to 1
- task, in the manner'as it was done,'for voicing our-conviction that the construction permit be delayed, and that our views were summar-
- 11y dismissed in semantic fashion thereby.
In the AEC's " Outline For The Conduct of Proceedings by An Atomic Safety and Licensing Board", among the purposes of such' hearings is "to educate and inform the public.on these matters" (safety and other questions).
It seems to us, therefore, that the Atomic Energy Commission should be pleased that our Committee, or anyone else, is interested in informing the public about the scientific facts relevant to a matter of such dimensions; that the AEC would desire the general public to learn as much as possible whether a specific proposed nuclear plant has potential risks as well as advantages; that the AEC would welcome the support of an informed public in making its decision on the issuance of a con-
_struction permit; that if controversy arose about certain aspects in the minds of people, the scientific facts would speak for them-selves, and an enlightened citizenry could then judge the AEC 's decision more objectively.
Prom press reports, we have noted that during the course of and at the completion of the Toms River hearing, the Board was "somewhat troubled by certain technical considerations involving the core;of'the nuclear reactor" and that "the design of the core i
had not been completed, nor had the final core analysis been com-pleted."
If this be true, then our Committee must ask why is it so objectionable to the Staff that the construction permit be
l Troy B. Connor Jr.. November 23, 1964 delayed? 'Had the technical concerns of the Staff about thescore been adequately answered by New Jersey Central by November 9, the date of your reply to me?
Was the Board satisfied by November 9 that the terms of the proposed permit were consistent with its evaluation of the application and with public health and safety?
We believe our concern is legitimate in that such questions raised by your Board, together with those of the New Jersey State Radiation Protection Commission, merit the delay.
Our position, therefore, may be summarized as follows:
(1)
In our view, New Jersey Central Power and Light Co.
had not, during the course of the hearine:, adequately ec tisfied certain questions raised by both the Board and the New Jersey State Radiation Protection Commission, relevant to some structural safety limitations in design and pot ential environmental hazards to the public.
This view is maintained by us despite the withdrawal of the Department of Public Health's objection to the issuance of a construction permit.
(2)
The pertinent questions mentioned in (1) should be adequately demonstrated by Jersey Central Power at this stage, rather than during construction, even though an operating license 1
may be provisional.
i (3)
We do not agree therefore with New Jersey Central's view that our position is erroneous as expressed in my October 28, 1964 letter to Mr. Jensch as fo1104s:
... witnesses representing New Jersey Power and Light Co. did not in our view, answer ade-quately certain questions related to structural design, safety fac-tors, disposal of radioactive wastes, etc. at the hearings."
t, Troy B. Connor Jr. November 23, 1964 (4)
The New Jersey Scientists' Committee for Public Information reaffirms its conviction that as scientists, we have a responsibility to help in the education of the community at large concerning the nature, application and potential hazards to the public health of ionizing radiation resulting f' rom nuclear processes and other sources.
Since knowledge is an essential ingredient in the development of a rational control of nuclear processes, we intend to continue to disseminate information on these matters to the comcunity, basea on the principles of scien-tific objectivity.
Since you had mailed cooiec of the "AEC Staff 's Reply"
{
to my letter, I would ap;reciate if you sent copies of this reply to all the individuals named in your Certificate of Service of November 9, 1964.
Our comuittee would also ap reciate being informel at that time when the AEC arrives at a 6ecision about the issuance of a construction oermit to the applicant.
Very truly yours, k fd $$$
Charles R. Roberts, M. D.
i Co-Chairman New Jersey Scientists ' Committee i
for Public Information l
.. ~
l 4
a.
- ~ f -;.,,.
1 f-'
j
,\\
lb.1 suc$
'Decembc 7, 1964 g4,Cogg,;
f 084 (
f
)
e Respectfully referred to T
^
Congressional Liaison Officer i
Atomic Energy Comunission Washington 25, D. C.
Y with thanks for such favorable consideration as the communication herewith submitted war-O
.m rants, and for a report thereon, to accompany
~ '
return of inclosure.
By direction of U. S. S.
Harrison A. Williams, Jr, PLEASE RETIR N ATTACHED CORRESIONDENCE..
RE: Mr. Frank Krajacich 1
HAW:jd
'84 t
.. Y. &
4
.h. $$
'" - 6 ee geed A
{.c. n,,,. s.m y
N. (_7 ;..
x 2
i
. m.a.,......
+ >. d(xx...
TELEGRAM
.....m...,,m..,..
s'"'"'"*'
f w.......w. u.........
e r'
~
9
,_D E.e.,f e i m %,; ae... _ _
T,.., ~,_.. n.n.h. d....m. on -e_
.m... im L Tim.,_ o, _,.n 1 p
NFC009 PA199 P KHA012 LONG PD AR 9 EXTRA LAKEWOOD NJER 1 1110A EST t;j; NON HARRISON A WILLIAMS
,tSENATE OFFICE BLDS BASHDC,
"%u s.
^
M DEAR MR WILLItJIS, EIPLOYMENT FOR BUILDING AND CONSTRUCTION 1
YRADES OF OCEAN AfG ATLANTIC C00NTIES VERY P00R CURRENTLY WITH 084 I
GREAT UNEMPLOYMENT TO MEMBERSHIP.
JERSEY _ CENTRAL POWER AND LICHT COMPANY ATOM POWER JOB AT FORKED RIVER NJ UNABLE,TO START CAUSED BY DELAY IN ISSUANCE OF ATOMIC Ef'ERGY COMMISSIONS PERMIT FOR CONSTRUCTION.
7
)
THIS JOB WOULD MELP EMPLOYMENT APPRECIABLY IF PERMIT l
ISSUED IMMEDIATELY.
VE REQUEST WHAT HELP YOU CAN GIVE IN EXPEDITING i
ISSUANCE OF.*ERMIT BY AE0 50 THIS JOB MAY COMMENCE.
i ERN LIdON '=NightLein
'/'^"
NL TELEGRAM LTt=,w unlese,ee defergd shoe.
->~~
4 s
y r;'n t "'""<
s
..........m.....
(demnanon The 61 ns inme shown in the dare f.ne on domeseer se,esrams es LOCAL TIME.c poans of or sin. Time of receipt d
v FRANK KRAJACICH, BUSINESS REPRESENTATIVE, CARPENTERS LOCAL Og:
UNION #2018 FIFTH ST AND LEXINGTON AVE LAKEWOOD NJ
( 17).
W b.
084
-- -