ML20205J533

Ack Receipt of Denying Request from NRC That Addl Info Be Provided Prior to Informal Public Hearing Held on 990222 Re River Bend Station & Perry Nuclear Power Plant 10CFR2.206 Petitions

ML20205J533
Person / Time
Site:	Perry, River Bend
Issue date:	04/06/1999
From:	Adensam E NRC (Affiliation Not Assigned)
To:	Lochbaum D UNION OF CONCERNED SCIENTISTS
References
2.206, NUDOCS 9904120075
Download: ML20205J533 (3)

Text

_

i V" ~hk y%

[c nom % 4 UNITED STATES

, j 't j NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSION WASHINGTON, D.C. 2055M001 April 6, 1999 Mr. Devid A. Lochbaum -

Union of Concemed Scientists 1616 P Street, NW., Suite 310 Washington, DC 20036-1495

Dear Mr. Lochbaum:

Your letter to Mr. Robert Fretz dated January 25,1999, denied a request from the U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission (NRC) that you provide additional information prior to the informal public hearing held on February 22,1999, conceming your River Bend Station (RBS) and Perry Nuclear Power Plant (PNPP) 10 CFR 2.206 Petitions. In that letter, you stated that the UCS intended to "go by the book"in dealing with the NRC. Our concem with the tone of your letter was discussed with you by Mr. John Hannon on February 11,1999. As he told you in that conversation, we are interested in establishing a more cordial working relationship with all petitioners and, in that spirit, are working toward implementing improvements to the 10 CFR 2.206 process in the near future. It is my understanding that you have discussed potential improvements with Mr. Herbert terkow of the staff. Thus, I hope you will continue to work with the staff to arrive at a process that enhances communications among all parties and encourages the discussion of nuclear safety issues whenever a concem is raised under any NRC process, including Section 2.200.

In this spirit of enhanced communication, I wish to express my disappointment that the UCS did not fully participate in the informal hearing conducted on February 22,1999. The informal public hearing was held at your request, in the anticipation that the UCS had new information regarding the issue of fuel cladding integrity and its impact on the operation of RBS and PNPP. It is my understanding that the hearing schedule was established in advance based on your availability, as well as with the input from the two !!censees. It is unfortunate if you felt that there was a communications barrier between the UCS and the petition managers, or any other NRC representative, which prevented you from approaching the NRC in advance of the February 22nd informal public hearing to discuss deferring it when your schedule conflict was first identified. I can assure you that the NRC staff does not believe such a barrier exists it is our expectation that, on similar occasions in the future, you or another member of your organization, will be available to allow the UCS to be fully represented at an informal hearing being held solely at its request.

As a consequence of 97nting your request, a significant expenditure in time and resources by f all hearing attendees occurred, including interested citizens living near the two facilities. Not / ,

only did two licensees undergo considerable cost to prepare for and attend the hearing in the D Washington, DC area, the NRC, for the first time, video teleconferenced the hearing simultaneously at three locations in order to give the public the opportunity to participate fully , ,

as a partner in the Petition's review process. It was unfortunate that you were not available to ~b respond to five or six members of the public to clarify questions they had regarding issues -

raised in your Petitions. Although the purpose of thJ hearing was not for the UCS, the licensees, or the NRC to respond directly to questions from interested citizens present at the 9904120075 990406 POR ADOCK 05000440 m. g g fh y

D. Lochbrum .

'~

hearing, an opportunity to further explain your position or eliminate a misunderstanding was missed as a result. This was of particular importance given that your read statement did not provide any additional new information beyond that provided in your petitions.

The NRC staff believes it went beyond the requirements of Management Directive (MD) 8.11 to accommodate your request to share new information with the staff. In light of UCS's limited support of the hearing, we do not believe that we can continue to exercise such discretion in the future without confirmation that one or more of the MD 8.11 criteria have been met before accommodating a request for a future informal public hearing.

Our interest, our focus, and our mission are to have safety issues brought forward so they can be dealt with properly. If you have safety concems regarding operation of a nuclear power ,

facility licensed by this agency, you should come to the NRC staff directly and not wait for the 10 CFR 2.206 process, including an informal public hearing, to resolve safety concems.

The NRC considers the 10 CFR 2.206 process an essential part to its core mission. I believe that it is incumbent upon all of us who either represent the NRC, the public, an industry organization, or a licensee, to endeavor to improve communications among all parties so that we can all continue to serve the public to the best of our ability. I If you would like to further discuss ways we can improve this process, please do not hesitate to call me at (301) 415-1353 or Mr. Herbert Berkow at (301) 415-1485.

Sincerely,

/s/

Elinor G. Adensam, Director Project Directorate l Division of Licensing Project Management Office of Nuclear Reactor Regulation l

1 DISTRIBUTION Central File Perry Reading File SRit aards PUBLIC River Bend Readng File CThomas '

PDI-2 Reading LBerry BFrettz BSherun EBamhill DPickett JZwolinski/SBlack HBerkow EAdensam JHannon *Previously Concurred OFFICE PDl/Df_ s PDI-2/LA DLPM/D* ADPT*

NAME EAde m:rb TClarkib' JZwolinski BSheron l DATE @ /h /99 9 /h/99 04/01/99 04/02/99 OFFICIAL RECORD COPY DOCUMENT NAME: LOCHBAUM.LTR

t- .

i .

l .

D. Lochbaum - hearing, an opportunity to further explain your position or eliminate a misunderstanding was i missed as a result. This was of particular importance given that your read statement did not )

provide any additional new information beyond that provided in your petitions. j The NRC staff believes it went beyond the requirements of Management Directive (MD) 8.11 to accommodste your request to share new information with the staff. In light of UCS's limited support of the hearing, we do not believe that we can continue to exercise such discretion in i

i

- the future without confirmation that one or more of the MD 8.11 criteria have been met before accommodating a request for a future informal public hearing. ,

Our interest, our focus, and our mission are to have safety issues brought forward so they can

{

l

~

be dealt with properly. If you have safety concems regarding operation of a nuclear power  !

facility licensed by this agency, you should come to the NRC staff directly and not wait for the l 10 CFR 2.206 process. 5cluding an informal public hearing, to resolve safety concems.

The NRC considers the 10 CFR 2.206 process an essential part to its core mission. I believe I that it is incumbent upon all of us who either represent the NRC, the public, an industry ,

! organization, or a licensee, to endeavor to improve communications among all parties so that )

we can all continue to serve the public to the best of our ability, if you would like to further discuss ways we can improve this process, please do not hesitate to i call me at (301) 415-1353 or Mr. Herbert Berkow at (301) 415-1485.

Sincerely, j Eiinor G. Adensam, Director Project Directorate i Division of Licensing Project Management Office of Nuclear Reactor Regulation

.