ML20199K566
| ML20199K566 | |
| Person / Time | |
|---|---|
| Site: | 07200022 |
| Issue date: | 11/08/1997 |
| From: | Chancellor D UTAH, STATE OF |
| To: | Sherwin Turk NRC OFFICE OF THE GENERAL COUNSEL (OGC) |
| Shared Package | |
| ML20199K501 | List: |
| References | |
| ISFSI, NUDOCS 9712010155 | |
| Download: ML20199K566 (2) | |
Text
_ _ _ _ - - - _ _ _ _ _ _ _
STATE OF UTAH OFFICE oF THE ATToRN2Y CENER AL 8
J AN GR AH AM ATTORNEY oENERAL CAmot CLAwsow REED Rowes PAtmen DEPAuus se== r %ws cassmew,manneyo s O =8etsid g
November 8,1997 Sherwin E. Turk, Esq.
Office of the General Counsel VIA FIRST CLASS hMIL AND Mail Stop 15 B18 EMAIL: " SET @NRC. GOV" U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission Washington, DC 20555 re: Physical Security Plan for Private Fuel Storage, LLC, ISFSI, Docket No 72 22
Dear Sherwin:
This letter confirms my understanding of where we are in determining whether I muy have access to the Physical Security Plan, a copy of which is in the porsession and control of William J. Sinclair, Director, Utah Division of Radiation Control. Mr. Sinclair is also the Governor's designee for spent fuel shipments under 10 CFR $73.21(c).
I initially contacted you October 14 (when the State's deadline for filing contentions was October 24) to find out about procedures for filing contentions on the Security Plan. I had assumed that as counsel to Mr. Sinclair I could have access to the plan but you informed me that I would need independent authorization to see the plan or draft any contentions based on Mr. Sinclair's review of the plan. In your October 15 email to me you informed me that you were awaiting a reply from NRC security / safeguards staff and would get back to me within a week or so. I responded to your email that as the State would be unable to meet the October 24 filing deadline without an immediate answer to the access question, the State was willing to wait NRC's formulation of proper procedures r.nd controls on disclosures of the plan "provided it does not prejudice the State's ability to file contentions.",
Now that the deadline for the State's contentions has been extended to November 24.
it could be prejudicial to the State if it is not in a position to file contentions on the security plan by that date. I contacted you by telephone November 5 to find out if NRC staff had
' determined whether I could have access to the security plan. Your response was that certain NRC personnel necessary to reviewing the matter were out of the office until next week.
9712010155 971114 PDR ADOCK 07200022 C
PM 160 East 300 South,5th Floot. P.o. Son 140873 Salt Lake City. Utah 84114 0873 Telephone: (801) 366 0200 Feesimile: (801) 366 0292
I strongly urge NRC staffio make a decision about acceu within the nen few days.
Time is of the essence if I am to work with Mr. Sinclair in developing contentions by the c
November 24 deadline (as documents need to be filed in Rockville by that date, the effective deadline is Friday, November 21). The procedures of how contentions are to be served and on whom are not as time critical u my ability to work with Mr. Sinclair. The NRC 3
regulations recognize that panies, States, and their qualified witnesses and counsel may have access to confidential information, such as the security plan. 10 CFR $ 2.744(e).
I would prefer to work out a satisfactory arrangement with NRC staff but if that cannot be timely accomplished, I will apply to Judge Bollwerk for permission to access the plan in order to protect the State's procedural rights.
Sincer A
Denise Chancellor Assistant Attorney General cc:
Jay E. Silberg, Esq.
Shaw, Pittmar., Potts & Trowbridge 2300 N Street, N. W.
Washington, DC 20037-8007 (Via First Class Mail and email: " jay _silberg@shawpittman.com")
William J. Sinclair, Utah Division of Radiation Control w
e
.e