ML080880398: Difference between revisions

From kanterella
Jump to navigation Jump to search
(Created page by program invented by StriderTol)
(Created page by program invented by StriderTol)
 
(One intermediate revision by the same user not shown)
Line 2: Line 2:
| number = ML080880398
| number = ML080880398
| issue date = 03/28/2008
| issue date = 03/28/2008
| title = Ltr. to Rep. John Hall, Frm. E. Roy Hawkens, Aslbp, Indian Point Proceeding
| title = Ltr. to Rep. John Hall, Frm. E. Roy Hawkens, ASLBP, Indian Point Proceeding
| author name = Hawkens E
| author name = Hawkens E
| author affiliation = NRC/ASLBP
| author affiliation = NRC/ASLBP
Line 16: Line 16:


=Text=
=Text=
{{#Wiki_filter:March 28, 2008  
{{#Wiki_filter:March 28, 2008 The Honorable John Hall United States House of Representatives Washington, D.C. 20515
 
The Honorable John Hall United States House of Representatives Washington, D.C. 20515  


==Dear Congressman Hall:==
==Dear Congressman Hall:==


I received your letter of March 11, 2008, which expressed concerns regarding the adjudicative proceeding on Monday, March 10 in White Plains, New York, where the Atomic Safety and Licensing Board (Licensing Board) heard attorneys' arguments about the Indian Point license renewal application. Although letters to the Commission relating to ongoing adjudication ordinarily are placed in the adjudicative docket without a substantive response, I felt that your concerns B which relate principally to promoting an Aopen and honest process
I received your letter of March 11, 2008, which expressed concerns regarding the adjudicative proceeding on Monday, March 10 in White Plains, New York, where the Atomic Safety and Licensing Board (Licensing Board) heard attorneys arguments about the Indian Point license renewal application. Although letters to the Commission relating to ongoing adjudication ordinarily are placed in the adjudicative docket without a substantive response, I felt that your concerns B which relate principally to promoting an Aopen and honest process@ B were significant and warranted an answer.
@ B were significant and warranted an answer.
In your letter, you stated that the proceeding convened more than one hour late.
In your letter, you stated that the proceeding convened more than one hour late. Although the proceeding started at 10:00 a.m. consistent with the Scheduling Order issued by the Licensing Board on February 29, 2008, we issued a press release that incorrectly indicated the proceeding would start at 9:00 a.m. We regret that the public was inconvenienced by the  
Although the proceeding started at 10:00 a.m. consistent with the Scheduling Order issued by the Licensing Board on February 29, 2008, we issued a press release that incorrectly indicated the proceeding would start at 9:00 a.m. We regret that the public was inconvenienced by the inaccurate press release, and we will endeavor to prevent such errors in the future.
 
Your letter also stated that a lack of microphones in the courtroom on Monday morning prevented the audience from hearing the attorneys= responses to the judges= questions.
inaccurate press release, and we will endeavor to prevent such errors in the future.
Because our adjudicative proceedings are generally open to the public, Licensing Boards strive to ensure that the attending public can hear. In the instant case, the Licensing Board was informed in advance by courtroom personnel that the sound system would be adequate.
Your letter also stated that a lack of microphones in the courtroom on Monday morning prevented the audience from hearing the attorneys
Unfortunately, the number of microphones proved to be insufficient. The Licensing Board remedied this problem during the noon recess by securing additional microphones. Thus, this problem was short-lived, lasting for only the first two hours of a three-day proceeding. We will nonetheless take additional steps in the future to verify that sound systems are adequate prior to the commencement of proceedings.
= responses to the judges
= questions. Because our adjudicative proceedings are generally open to the public, Licensing Boards strive to ensure that the attending public can hear. In the instant case, the Licensing Board was informed in advance by courtroom personnel that the sound system would be adequate.
Unfortunately, the number of microphones proved to be insufficient. The Licensing Board remedied this problem during the noon recess by securing additional microphones. Thus, this problem was short-lived, lasting for only the first two hours of a three-day proceeding. We will nonetheless take additional steps in the future to verify that sound systems are adequate prior to the commencement of proceedings.  
 
Importantly, the public has access to everything that was said. This adjudicatory proceeding B like all similar Licensing Board proceedings B was transcribed in its entirety and placed in the public domain, thus preserving the transparency of the process. Any interested person may review the transcript, which is located in the Indian Point docket on the NRC website http://www.nrc.gov.
Importantly, the public has access to everything that was said. This adjudicatory proceeding B like all similar Licensing Board proceedings B was transcribed in its entirety and placed in the public domain, thus preserving the transparency of the process. Any interested person may review the transcript, which is located in the Indian Point docket on the NRC website http://www.nrc.gov.
2Finally, regarding your suggestion that the Licensing Board should Ahold an additional hearing@ to Aensure that the public
=s voice will be heard,@ it is important to distinguish between a limited appearance session where a Licensing Board gives the public an opportunity to Amak[e] an oral or written statement of his or her position on the issues
@ (10 C.F.R.
' 2.315(a)), and an adjudicative proceeding where a Licensing Board gives attorneys the opportunity to respond to specific inquiries regarding contention admissibility. This proceeding fell into the latter category, and, as the transcript reveals, the adjudicative purpose of the proceeding was fulfilled. If, based on the attorneys
= written pleadings and oral responses, the Licensing Board determines that the petitioners' contentions are admissible, it may then schedule a limited appearance session. At that time, members of the public will have the opportunity to present their views on the issues to the Licensing Board. 


2 Finally, regarding your suggestion that the Licensing Board should Ahold an additional hearing@ to Aensure that the public=s voice will be heard,@ it is important to distinguish between a limited appearance session where a Licensing Board gives the public an opportunity to Amak[e]
an oral or written statement of his or her position on the issues@ (10 C.F.R. ' 2.315(a)), and an adjudicative proceeding where a Licensing Board gives attorneys the opportunity to respond to specific inquiries regarding contention admissibility. This proceeding fell into the latter category, and, as the transcript reveals, the adjudicative purpose of the proceeding was fulfilled. If, based on the attorneys= written pleadings and oral responses, the Licensing Board determines that the petitioners contentions are admissible, it may then schedule a limited appearance session. At that time, members of the public will have the opportunity to present their views on the issues to the Licensing Board.
I hope this letter addresses your concerns.
I hope this letter addresses your concerns.
Sincerely,       /RA/ E. Roy Hawkens  
Sincerely,
 
                                              /RA/
cc: Senator Hillary Rodham Clinton Senator Charles E. Schumer Congresswoman Nita M. Lowey Congressman Maurice Hinchey Congressman Eliot Engel}}
E. Roy Hawkens cc: Senator Hillary Rodham Clinton Senator Charles E. Schumer Congresswoman Nita M. Lowey Congressman Maurice Hinchey Congressman Eliot Engel}}

Latest revision as of 19:19, 14 November 2019

Ltr. to Rep. John Hall, Frm. E. Roy Hawkens, ASLBP, Indian Point Proceeding
ML080880398
Person / Time
Site: Indian Point  Entergy icon.png
Issue date: 03/28/2008
From: Hawkens E
Atomic Safety and Licensing Board Panel
To: Hall J
US HR (House of Representatives)
Valloch K
References
ASLBP 07-858-03-LR-BD01
Download: ML080880398 (2)
v • d • e


Text

March 28, 2008 The Honorable John Hall United States House of Representatives Washington, D.C. 20515

Dear Congressman Hall:

I received your letter of March 11, 2008, which expressed concerns regarding the adjudicative proceeding on Monday, March 10 in White Plains, New York, where the Atomic Safety and Licensing Board (Licensing Board) heard attorneys arguments about the Indian Point license renewal application. Although letters to the Commission relating to ongoing adjudication ordinarily are placed in the adjudicative docket without a substantive response, I felt that your concerns B which relate principally to promoting an Aopen and honest process@ B were significant and warranted an answer.

In your letter, you stated that the proceeding convened more than one hour late.

Although the proceeding started at 10:00 a.m. consistent with the Scheduling Order issued by the Licensing Board on February 29, 2008, we issued a press release that incorrectly indicated the proceeding would start at 9:00 a.m. We regret that the public was inconvenienced by the inaccurate press release, and we will endeavor to prevent such errors in the future.

Your letter also stated that a lack of microphones in the courtroom on Monday morning prevented the audience from hearing the attorneys= responses to the judges= questions.

Because our adjudicative proceedings are generally open to the public, Licensing Boards strive to ensure that the attending public can hear. In the instant case, the Licensing Board was informed in advance by courtroom personnel that the sound system would be adequate.

Unfortunately, the number of microphones proved to be insufficient. The Licensing Board remedied this problem during the noon recess by securing additional microphones. Thus, this problem was short-lived, lasting for only the first two hours of a three-day proceeding. We will nonetheless take additional steps in the future to verify that sound systems are adequate prior to the commencement of proceedings.

Importantly, the public has access to everything that was said. This adjudicatory proceeding B like all similar Licensing Board proceedings B was transcribed in its entirety and placed in the public domain, thus preserving the transparency of the process. Any interested person may review the transcript, which is located in the Indian Point docket on the NRC website http://www.nrc.gov.

2 Finally, regarding your suggestion that the Licensing Board should Ahold an additional hearing@ to Aensure that the public=s voice will be heard,@ it is important to distinguish between a limited appearance session where a Licensing Board gives the public an opportunity to Amak[e]

an oral or written statement of his or her position on the issues@ (10 C.F.R. ' 2.315(a)), and an adjudicative proceeding where a Licensing Board gives attorneys the opportunity to respond to specific inquiries regarding contention admissibility. This proceeding fell into the latter category, and, as the transcript reveals, the adjudicative purpose of the proceeding was fulfilled. If, based on the attorneys= written pleadings and oral responses, the Licensing Board determines that the petitioners contentions are admissible, it may then schedule a limited appearance session. At that time, members of the public will have the opportunity to present their views on the issues to the Licensing Board.

I hope this letter addresses your concerns.

Sincerely,

/RA/

E. Roy Hawkens cc: Senator Hillary Rodham Clinton Senator Charles E. Schumer Congresswoman Nita M. Lowey Congressman Maurice Hinchey Congressman Eliot Engel

Retrieved from "https://kanterella.com/w/index.php?title=ML080880398&oldid=2158989"