ML20210E792

Responds to Re Notification to Parties When Meetings Conducted by NRC as Part of Review of License Application.Commission Policy Statement on Notification Encl.Served on 870206

ML20210E792
Person / Time
Site:	Seabrook
Issue date:	02/05/1987
From:	Zech L NRC COMMISSION (OCM)
To:	Markey E HOUSE OF REP., ENERGY & COMMERCE
References
CON-#187-2452 OL, NUDOCS 8702100368
Download: ML20210E792 (2)

Text

a, 2 ,

4g . g?

y g

NUCLEAR UNITED STATES wAsHmorow, o. c.zoess

'---v)---

REGULATCRY COMMISSION" U","64 -QL/

g

\.....[y  %%[

cHAmuAm February 5, 1987

'87 FEB -5 P4 :31 The Honorable Edward J. Markey [c h , , .t Committee on Energy and Commerce s, ;"

United States House of Representatives Washington, D.C. 20515

Dear Congressman Markey:

SERVED F to O o 1937 I

I am responding to your letter dated January 14, 1987, concerning notification to parties when meetings are conducted by the NRC staff as part of its review of a license application. NRC policy in this matter is covered in a Commission policy statement published in the Federal Register on June 28, 1978. A copy of this policy statement is enclosed. - -

I regret that a representative of the State of Massachusetts Attorney General's Office was unable to attend the January 14, 1987 meeting. Because of the concerns of the participants in-.

the Seabrook hearing, the Staff is initiating a practice whereby the active parties in the Seabrook proceeding will be notified of scheduled meetings by telephone (in addition to written notification) as soon as possible after a meetina is scheduled. We will give parties two weeks notice of meetings i as you suggest. However, unusual circumstances might require

that a meeting be scheduled with less than two weeks notice.

! In those cases, we will provide as much advance notice as l possible.

l The Staff will also transcribe all future meetings related to l Applicants' December 18, 1986 petition for a waiver of the 10-mile emergency planning zone. The transcripts of those meetings will be available to all parties to the Seabrook proceeding. I believe that these measures will address the concerns of the parties involved in the Seabrook proceedings.

Sincerely, b .44A.

Lando W. Zec), J

Enclosure:

As Stated E @

C RE op

3_

UNITED STATES NUCLEAR REOULATCRY CEMMISSf3N RULES and REGULATIONS TITLE 18. CHAPTER 1. CODE OF PEDERAL REOULATIONS-ENEROY 4 l

l l

i COMMISSION NOTICES POLICY STATEMENTS Conduct of Proceedings es an seoes summary of the unclassified and non- reenaammeon of the enes regelatery runnewsen w7e proprietary portions of such meetinas structure. After DdL for over a year and and forward the summary to interest. e half.the '*h'e stemanum and soasssvecucswse ArrucAficoes ed persons unable to attend so that "h " " rueeseen were fecasedempts a vskish ce ss a.o. 4 se.e was .e esec se.se tred at snu'. s. ve were already hcessed to sensats and en P""'F tendance will not be limited solely be. espMPeradosof aestasplanwhek The Nuclese Regulatory Comsnis- cause preliminary opinions, recosa. epectSed ebanges ammenesy les sessemen alon's (NRC'el reguladons in 10 CPR emendations, or advice will be offered se e semult efibenesident 3.103 permit applicants to confer in- on the merits of the app!! cations Althoud etsf review ei formally witit the NRC technical staff during the meeting. licene tems during reviews of domestic Ilcense or When a party or petitioner for leave pernalt applications. These smeetings this oldidas subish ,

to intervene requests.- reasonable of*

have served as an essenual means for forts mill be made by the NRC staff to conseurden pasmita Ntobadis '

the enchange of technicalinformation gnform the party or petitioner of g ,,g,,g,,g ,g,g,,,,g g, M and vlees necessary for the technical forthcoming meetings conducted by e lie feWwaf b apphaetene i review of appIlcauona. For several the NRC technical staff so that appro- and a empmeedented musber af I

years other parties or potenual parties priate artangements for attendance heariage are ededeledin the aest 3.

to domesue licensing proceedings, as can be made. It is recognised that in months.Many of thesepmceehags well as members of the seneral public, some cases the need for a prompt concerm e;;' _ _ Isespeseting have. upon rottueet, been permitted to meeting may make it impossible or im- licanassL If these _" ogg ggg attend applicant.NRC techalcal staff pracucable to notify all parties and pe- concluded prior to the Mties af meetings as observers. However, the titioners. The policy described above Comanisalon's regulations do not re* also cannot practicably be applied to construction.the cost ef am:A deley eutre that others be permitted to chance encounters between NRC tech- could reach bdhone of doUerGe attend such informal meetings be- nical staff personnel and other parties Comalessoa snD usk te avoid er mduce tween applicant and staff, and the or petitioners but such chance encoun. nc sys Wmwr mesmu em general practice being followed in this ters till not be permitted to serve as a avadeW set h not compmelse &e regard has never been formally articu- acurce of information for the conduct Comaneelem's h comunibnang lated. This statement is intended to of IIcensing reviews. to a fair and thorsegh beartas process.

Derefose.the rhadamiaateleculag provide such articulation. It is also noted that this matter le related to the this policy stateneet on the need for the '

provision for increased public partici* 46 FR 29833 belanced and afBcient conduct of e1

$ome tsal du Pubbmed 5/27/g1 phases of the hearing procesa.no its e ld rat o of NUREO 0292(Denton Reports. Conuniselon oppmdates the many As a seneral matter, the Comrnission St,tement of Posey on Conduct of <lifficulties faced by its boards la and staff try to involve concerned clu-Uconting Proceedings conducting these contentfoue and sens in any Commission activity in complex proceedings. By end !stge. the which they have espressed an interest. L Backyound boards have performed very wellRio All meetings conducted by the NRC technical staff as part of its review of Re Cornmlulon b revkwed es documentis intended to dealwith dd f6 A problems not prunanly of the boards' Ip 1 e t includi en appl tl Licensing Board Pane LB and the own making. However, the boards wiH for an amendment to a license or current status of proceedings before its pla y an imponent role la ruolvtag encit permits will be open to attendance by individual boarde. !n a series of public O C" "*

all parties or peuuoners for leave to meetings. the Comunisalon has examined Individual adjudicatory boards are intervene in the case. These meetinas et length au major elemente la its encounged to expedite se hurtag are intended by the NRC technical process by using those management i

! staff to factLitate an exchange of infor- licensing procedure. It to clear that a number of difficult problems face the mesode atmedy contamed in Peru of mation between the applicant and the the Comuniseson's Rulee and staff. It is expected that the NRC agency se it endeavore to meet its technical staff and the appilcant wLil responsi ities in the licensing stes. R@ m& h eWho acuvely participate in the meeting. hisle espoually the came wth reged to Othere may attend as observers. IJke* heenngs. the board abouki ensure that staff reviewe and beenega vabase wise, when meetings are scheduled be- ,,,,,,,4 ga, ig.m pg, g the hennage am fair.aad produce a tween the staff and other parties or power pg ,,, opere og record which leads to high quality pettuoners, appilcants would be per, deciosome that adequately protect the mitted to attend only as observers. -4 NRC opwad@emuut public beelth and safety and the The seneral polley of open meetings revhwe beve bue asopisted end the ,,,g,,,,,,,,

described above will admit of only a hmme usued $be Mme the madme few excepuons, which must be ap. plan 4 te reedy to opesea tisminethe V #esaBya5 elthe psendmet devices

,, ,,g proved by the Director of the relevant fht tiase the beaange an a meanneef division. F4r example some persons operatame lkmesc a pplisattamm esp ost NN

• may not be permitted to attend meet- be concleded before emmstrecshoals F"E N C'""8"I"'%

ings where cleastfaed or proprietary in* courpleted. Tina esfestimais e "** '8 ' " * * " 8 'I' 08 iormation tincluding sens.uve safe-consm&=of theDreeMleIsland b guards information)is to be discussed. p ,,,g,,gj,4,,,,,,g g compleeg gree @ he The NRC staff mill prepare a wrWen guidehamm est fork are met le he p3 (*N.1 rw. e... u sees r.....t I. -- --- --.---

_ _ _ __ -. __ _ _ . . _ . . _ ~ - _ _ . _.

Congress of t$t Wnittb 6tated Deuse et Representatites canadein se easier est cumusu Remus 2129. Raptose Desse OEdse Bedbing 2 Wastingess. B.C. 20515 ,

January 14, 1987 The Honorable Lando W. Iech, Jr.

Chairman U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission 1717 5 Street, N.W.

Washington, D.C. 20555

Dear Mr. Chairman:

For the second time in the past several months, my office was contacted by attorneys f rom the Attorney General's office in Massachusetts to complain of lack of notice of scheduled meetings- -

between. the NRC staff and Public Service of New Hampshire in connection with the Seabrook licensing proceeding. In this most recent instanco, the Commonwealth of Massachusetts received notice yesterday of a meeting at NRC's Bethesda offices today. The subject of the meeting is the Brookhaven National Laboratory study paid for by the NRC as part of its evaluation of Seabrook's cont;inment structure. The study is germane to the licensee's

petition to waive the 10-mile Emergency Planning Ione requirement

! and was discussed at my Subcommittee's November 18, 1986 field l hearing in Amesbury, Massachusetts.

l

! The meeting comes approximately two weeks before the NRC l staff, as well as other parties, are required to submit their I views on the licensee's petition for waiver to the Atomic Safety and Licensing Board. It is essential that the Attorney General of Massachusetts and other parties be fully informed about what transpires at this meeting.

There is absolutely no excuse for providing one day's notice which precludes the Commonwealth f rom bringing technical experts to the meeting. NBC's Policy Statement on this subject contemplates two weeks notice of such meetings. Particularly l

where the issue is so sensitive, as is the case with Seabrook, there is no reason whatsoever for not complying with the two weeks specified in the Policy Statement.

Mr. Lawrence Sidaan, the Subcommittee Staf f Director, and Mr.

Carlton Kammerer of the NRC, discussed the situation yesterday.

Mr. Sidaan requested a postponement of today's meeting, at my suggestion. Apparently, there was insuffient time to arrange a postponement. Instead, they agreed that there would be a stenographic record kept of the meeting which would be delivered to the Commonwealth of Massachusetts within 48 hours5.555556e-4 days <br />0.0133 hours <br />7.936508e-5 weeks <br />1.8264e-5 months <br /> and that one t O

N Q D Q @ C) W WQ

- ~ - - , ,,------_,,_wn-.n-e w.,,

, , - - - _ - , - - - ~ , _ _ _ , -

2 .

6 s -

The Bonorable Lando W. sech, Jr.

January 1,4, 1987 Page Two t of my staff also would attend the meeting. They also discussed arrangements for providing adequate notice of future meetings of this type, as follows:

1. All acetings between the NRC staff and any person (s) that pertain to the Seabrook nuclear power plant will be noticed by mail two weeks prior to the scheduled meeting date.

2. Contemporaneously with the sending of the notice, the staff will telephone the interested parties and inform them of the meeting time, place, subject, and participants.

f 3. A complete record of the notice provided for all meetings, including the dates sail notices were sent and a list of the parties contacted, will be maintained and will be made available upon request. ,

Please confirm in writing that the NRC will adhere to these procedures in the future. I appreciate your commitment to improve the notice process, and I trust you will impress upon the staff the importance of adhering to these modest and reasonable guidelines.

Sincerely, Edw d J. Markey Member of Congres l .

e 9

w-.--.w-- e----