ML20212K559

Protests Lack of Timely Notification of Atty General of 870114 Meeting in Bethesda,Md Re BNL Draft Rept on Technical Review of Facility Emergency Planning Sensitivity Study. Steps to Correct Failure Requested.Related Correspondence

ML20212K559
Person / Time
Site:	Seabrook
Issue date:	01/21/1987
From:	Bronstein D MASSACHUSETTS, COMMONWEALTH OF
To:	Noonan V Office of Nuclear Reactor Regulation
References
CON-#187-2287 OL, NUDOCS 8701290111
Download: ML20212K559 (2)

Text

r l r z2r7 .suutD was=om E5s$$"Z"c sem 1 b THE COMMONWEAJ TH OF' MAC2ACHUZd ~

I

\' DEPARTMENT OF THE A1TORNEY GENERAL JOHN W. Mc CORMACK STATE OFFICE BUILDING [Cf r -

ONE ASHBURTON PLACE, BOSTON O2108-1698 'M,-

'87 JAN 27 P4 :24 FRANCIS X. MLLOTTI arrosary casaAL -

. aFF .. . .

00ChU: . . m a

% tv

.Tanuary 21, 1987 Vincent Noonan -

Project Director, PWRA No. 5 U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission Washington, DC 20555

Dear Mr. Noonan:

I am writing to protest formally your failure to notify the Dephrtment of the Attorney General timely of the meeting held in Bethesda, Maryland on January 14, 1987 to discuss the Brookhaven National Laboratory draft report on its technical review of the Seabrook Emergency Planning Sensitivity Study.

Although we discussed this matter at length la.it week, and you apologized for the lack of notice, it is important that steps be taken to assure that such a serious breach never occurs again.

As you know, the Brookhaven report is directly relevant to the on-going licensing proceedings and, in particular, to the issue currently pending before the Licensing Board con-cerning the Applicants' petition for reduction of the emergency planning zone. You undoubtedly know, as well, that the reduction, if allowed, would exclude the Commonwealth of Massachusetts from the 10-nile plume exposure pathway EPZ. Consequently, it was of vital importance that this office, on behalf of the Commonwealth, be notified in timely fashion of this meeting so that it could arrange for a representative to attend.

- The notice of the January 14 meeting was dated January 6, 1987. You told me that you personally mailed it. However, on closer questioning, you acknowledged that you mailed it by sending it to the NRC mail room. Quite clearly there are serious problems with the mail room's efficiency since we did not receive the notice until January 15, the day after the meeting.

Nor can there be any excuse for the failure to notify us by telephone. In fact, you stated that some of the other parties were telephoned. There should never be such selective notification of some, but not all, interested parties.

8701290111 870121 PDR ADOCK 05000443 G PDR C <h

5 Vinc nt Noon 2n 4 Jcnurry 21, 1987 ,

-1 Page Two This incident is not isolated, but is the most serious due to the importance of the meeting. On other occasions, notices have been delayed in the mailing and parties have been selectively called. These inequities cannot be allowed to continue.

I appreciate the fact that you agreed to have the meeting transcribed, but I must demand that all future'msetings between Staff and the Utility also be transcribed. Moreover, I am troubled by your statement to me that transcription was an adequate substitute for our attendence since the purpose of the meeting was only to hear from the utility. Such one-sidedness is intolerable and must not recur.

We are left with the inescapable conclusion that the NRC does not take seriously the rights and interests of interested states -

and other intervenors. I hope that you will immediately take steps to correct this unfortunate impression.

Very truly yours, Mh &c. . ..)

G Donald S. Bronstein Assistant Attorney General Environmenal Protection Division DSB/BT cc: Marjorie Norlinger, Esq.

Office of General Counsel Robert Perlis, Esq.

NRC Staff Philip Greenberg Subcommittee on Energy Conservation and Power i Victor Herses, Project Manager

PWRA No. 5 l

l Service List l

l l

- - - - - - - , - - , - _ - . _ _.-,e _