ML20235E062

Summary of 870127 Meeting W/Util to Introduce Feigenbaum to Recipient,Per Derrickson Request

ML20235E062
Person / Time
Site:	Seabrook
Issue date:	01/28/1987
From:	Jenny Murray NRC OFFICE OF THE GENERAL COUNSEL (OGC)
To:	Stello V NRC OFFICE OF THE EXECUTIVE DIRECTOR FOR OPERATIONS (EDO)
Shared Package
ML20235D912	List: ML20235D909 ML20235D977 ML20235D997 ML20235E018 ML20235E038 ML20235E062
References
FOIA-87-10 NUDOCS 8707100402
Download: ML20235E062 (2)

Text

- _ _____ ______-__

y .

/  %, UNITED STATES M~4

/

8' g NUCLE AR REGULATORY COMMISSION /

l

<j WASHINGTON, D. C. 20555 o,

'% , , , , , #p January 28, 1987

?!EMOPAFDUM FOR: Victor Stello, Jr.

Executive Director for Operations FROM: James P. Murray Deputy General Counsel

SUBJECT:

?IEETING t'ITII SEABROOK REPRESENTATIVES This is to provide a brief record of the meeting we had last evening with Mr.

Derrickson and Mr. Feigenbaum of Seabrook. Mr. Derrickson had requested the meeting in a telephone contact with your office last week. The stated purpose of the meeting was to introuduce Mr. Feigenbaum, the newly appoint-ed V.P. for engineering, to you. You asked me to sit in on the meeting and' make a record of it for possible future reference.

The meeting began at 5:00 p.m. on January 27, 1987 and ended about 45 minutes later. After introductions you ' stated your understanding of the reason for the meeting and noted the Congressional interest in certain types of meetings between the staff and Seabrook representatives. You stated that we did not consider that this meeting was the sort for which advance notice was required to. be given under a commitment the NRC has made to Congress-man Markey. You noted that I was present, however, to make a record of

- the meeting in the event it might later prove to be of interest.

Derrickson rencrked that he hcd just come from a visit at TVA and a discus-slon ensued as to what Derrickson had been doing at TVA, what he saw as some of the problems there, how he thought solutions might be implemented, and the general philosophy of prioritization in the context of resolving numer-ous problems. You explained your approach to prioritizing numerous plant modifications.

You then asked whether Seabrook was planning to submit a utility-generated emergency plan for the portion of the EP zone in Massachusetts. After noting the emergency planning efforts already undertaken in Massachusetts, the anticipated antagonism to any utility plan, and other "real world" prcb-lems, Derrickson said that a plan would be ready by the end of April.

However, he said the company had not decided whether and, if so, when to submit it. You then observed that if cne were to put political and complex procedural issues aside for a moment and focus solely on the technical issues, it seemed to you the strongest technical core for public safety would include a formal plan.

Derrickson noted the strong and growing opposition to the expensive plant ever operating but ascerted that he thought Seabrook h6d made a strong case in its 2.758 petition for relief from the ten mile EPZ requirement. He said that if it is t.djudged to have established a prima facie case for relief under the rules he would like to see finel resolution of the matter proceed quickly.

FoZM -? 7-/6 8707100402 870TO1 PDR FOIA TYE87-10 PDR

" /#h

. , .i . . -

You asked whet the distribution of the population was within the portion of.

the EPZ in fiassachusetts. Brief discussion suggested it was non-linear and that most of the population was 5 miles or more away.

The meeting then ended on the note that the Seabrook people were anxious to do anything they could to bring matters to a conclusion.

Dr James P . Aiurray(+

Deputy General Counsel

, j t/

e

g. .

d

???7

. ~

December 2,1986 PENRANDUM FOR: Commissioner Roberts Victor Stello, Jr.

FROM:

Executive Director for Operations .

SUBJECT:

COMMISSION BRIEFING ON GE/ MARK 1 CONTAINMENTS In the Comission briefing on November 3,1986, on the Park I Containment Program, you raised the ouestion which you reiterated in your memorandum to me of November 5, 1986; 'That is the staff's rationale for not pursuing rule.

making as the preferred solution (in accordance with Comission Policy) to address issues which clearly go beyond current regulatory requirements and which affect a class of plants?"

In response to your concern which has also been reflected in the SRM (M861103) dated November 17, 1986, the staff and I are fully aware of the Comission's existing Policy on the severe accident matters and the Comission's stated preference to use rulemaking to resolve generic vulnerabilities identified in implementing this Policy. Please understand that I have not formulated my final recommendations to you on this matter and have not yet reached any con.

riusions that would preclude rulemaking as the preferred solution. I would expect my final recommendation to you will take into account CRGR recomenda.

tions on this matter. These will include the available findings from NUREG-1150 and an assessment of the overall safety benefits to be gained when the proposed actions are measured against the Comission's Policy on Safety Goals. I would also expect these final recommendations to you will take into account whether it would be better to focus the safety improvement on accident prevention features rather than accident mitigation. For example, you may recall during the November 19, 1986, briefing to the Comission on NUREG.1150, the staff mentioned-

. that they did not give any credit to certain backup electric powerYou features may also existing at the Surry Station in their updated risk assessment.

recall that the station blackout sequences appeared to be very important severe accident and risk contributors for most of the plants in NUREG 1150. I intend to explore the degree to which this risk dominance was driven by this kind of "no credit" assumption.

1 trust this adequately responds to the concerns indicated in your November 5 .

1986 memorandum.

Original signea bt 3

victor Stelle[ ,

Victor Stello, Jr.

Executive Director ,

for Operations t, m cc: Chairman Zech

$$50 '$ O'r$f' Commissioner Carr

• h/$dMbJS$$6 Jy FoI4 -f 7-/o ~

SECY

• See attached for previous concurrences OGC Revised in DEDROGR 12/2/86 1

NRP:DD* :NRR:D* :EDQ 0FC :DBWRL*

.....:............:............:............:..K........:............:............:...........

RVo11mer :HDenton :VSto11o  :  :  :

NAME :RBernero

.....:............:............:............:..L........:............:............:...........

11/17/86 :1?/,y/86  :  :  :

DATE :11/10/86 :11/13/86 nmem arrnon ROPY

l .

..~."' -

1 i l l

Distribution V5tello .

JRoe TRehm JSniezek l

. EBeckjord JMurray Central Files PDP EDO #002289 EDO Peading HDenton RVo11mer PPAS (GT #002289)-

DMossburg RBernero '

DBL R/F 0

9 4

. . . . _ _ _ . _ _ _ _ _ _ ___ _ ___._____________________.____.-________o

4 ,

% UNITED STATES g 'ty NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSION g WASHINGTON, D. C. 20655 k.,c...* December 18, 1986 The Honorable Edward J. Markey, Chairman Subcommittee on Energy Conservation and Power Committee on Energy and Commerce United States House of Representatives Washington, D.C. 20515

Dear Mr. Chairman:

In several telephone conversations yesterday with NRC staff members, Mr. Sidman of your office expressed an interest in a meeting I recently had with Mr. William Derrickson from Public Service Company of New Hampshire concerning

~

the Seabrook facility. I believe that through his conversations with the staff he was able to obtain all of the information which he was seeking; however, if it will be of assistance to you in this regard, I am enclosing a copy of a sunrnary of that meeting. Mr. Vince Noonan of nly staff had a meeting with Mr. Derrickson on the same day, and I am also enclosing a copy of a summary of that meeting as well.

In his conversations with the staff, Mr. Sidman also expressed interest in the NRC's practice with regard to the holding of meetings with utility officials, and specifically inquired as to which meetings with utility officials were publicly noticed and which ones were not. The NRC does not have a regulation expressly addressing public meetings with an applicant. However, in 1978 the NRC did issue a policy statement which provided generally that when the technical staff is meeting with utility officials to discuss their application and to exchange technical information, interested parties would be advised of such meetings. There are, however, certain meetings which are not covered by the Policy Statement and which are not noticed to the public. As Mr. Vollmer recently advised you in the testimony he gave at your hearings in Amesbury, Massachusetts, NRC staff management may meet with corporate licensee management to discuss administrative matters such as scheduling and timing of certain staff reviews, rather than to discuss technical information, and these meetings are not open to the public or noticed. The recent meetings held in Bethesda with Mr. Derrickson were of this nature and were not noticed.

I am hopeful that the enclosed meeting summaries and this explanation of the  !

NRC's meeting practice will be of assistance to you.

Sincerely,

~~

fy ictor Stello, .

Executive Director for Operations

Enclosure:

b '

As Stated g cc: Rep. Carlos Moorhead ,

?i p Y

~

, ' ENCLOSURE 1 a

December 17,1986 Note to: Files Frem: Edward S. Christenbury

Subject:

. December 16, 1986 Heating With William Derrickson Concerning Seabrook ,

On Tuesday, December 16, 1986, a meeting was held in Mr. Stello's office with officials from Public Service Company of New Hampshire. The meeting was ettended by Vic Stello, Dick Vollmer, William Derrickson, the Senior Vice Prosident for Public Service Company of New Hampshire, another official from ths utility and myself.

At the beginning of the meeting, I explained generally the NRC's practice with regard to meetings with utility officials. . Specifically, I indicated thet it would be appropriate for the utility to' discuss with Mr. Stello administrative matters such a scheduling, timing and manpower resources, but th0t under the NRC's policy statement on "Open Meetings", discussions involving the exchange of. technical information would have to be held in an open meeting with prior notice to the participants. Mr. Derrickson indicated that he would limit his discussion accordingly.

Mr. Derrickson then stated that on Thursday the utility was going to hold a press conference and announce'the filing of a petition for a waiver of ths Commission's rules concerning the 10 mile EPZ. He indicated that the pstition would be filed under 10 CFR 2.758 and would seek to reduce the Ssabrook EPZ to one mile. ( Mr. Stello asked me to explain the procedures for a petition under 2.758 which I did.) Mr. Derrickson indicated that he felt that'they had a very strong technical case in support of their petition and that they had spent a lot of time making sure every point was fully covered.

Mr. Stello inquired as to whether the utility was also considering preparing a utility plan and Mr. Derrickson indicated that some work was being done in this area. Mr. Stello also asked whether.the utility intended to combine the waiver. request with a proposed utility plan and Mr. Derrickson indicated that tha present petition did not involve a utility plan.  !

During the course of the meeting Mr. Derrickson indicated that after the pross conference he was leaving for Florida for a vacation. Mr. Stello asked

'him about his new role at TVA and Mr. Derrickson explained his duties acuerally.

Edward S. Christ g Sb/D36{l+

o

1 1

.. *b...:* -ENCLOSURE 2

-( k UNITED STATES NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSION wasmworow.o.c.noess j

December 16, 1986 NOTE: TO FILE

FROM

-Vincent S. Noonan, Director PWR Project Directorate No. 5 Division of PWR Licensing-A

SUBJECT:

VISITBYPUBLICSERVICEOFNEWHAMPSHIRE(PSNH)

Bill Derrickson and John DeVincentis stopped by my office today to discuss

- organizational changes being made at PSNH and to talk about closing of any

! open items prior to the issuance of a Low Power License. In addition.

Mr. Derrickson infomed me that the utility could possibly be filing with the ASLB a waiver to the' regulation under 2.758 regarding the 10 mile EPZ for.Seabrook. The utility stated that this waiver might possibly be filed by Friday, December 19, 1986, but that they were not sure.

The organizational changes that were discussed concerned Mr. Derrickson's decision to commit less of his personal time to PSNH and Mr. DeVincentis departure from PSNH to accept a promotion in the Yankee Organization. Mr.

DeVincentis will remain involved with PSNH unitl the ASLB makes a decision l- regarding the issuance of a low power license.

l On the routine licensing' issues, the project Manager will work with the utility and Region.1 in order to resolve any open items. I informed the utility that our current schedule is to issue a final SSER by mid-January 1987.

N Vincent. 5. Noonan, Director PWR Project Directorate No. 5 Division of PWR Licensing-A cc: T. Novak V. Nerses

% p o ~, - , ,