ML20209H614

From kanterella
Revision as of 02:45, 5 December 2021 by StriderTol (talk | contribs) (StriderTol Bot insert)
(diff) ← Older revision | Latest revision (diff) | Newer revision → (diff)
Jump to navigation Jump to search
Discusses 861216 Public Meeting in King of Prussia,Pa & 861216 Meeting W/Util & NRC in Washington,Dc Re Epz.Licensee Did Not Divulge in Public Meeting That 2.758 Petition Would Be Filed to Reduce EPZ to 1 Mile as Discussed in DC Meeting
ML20209H614
Person / Time
Site: Seabrook  NextEra Energy icon.png
Issue date: 02/02/1987
From: Weiss E
HARMON & WEISS, NEW ENGLAND COALITION ON NUCLEAR POLLUTION
To: Harbor J, Hoyt H, Linenberger G
Atomic Safety and Licensing Board Panel
References
CON-#187-2411 OL, NUDOCS 8702060089
Download: ML20209H614 (2)


Text

0

2 {l{

0LKEIC HARMON & WEISS UW 2001 S STREET, N.W.

smTE 430

'87 FEB -4 P2 :23 WASHINGTON, D.C. cocoo-nes GAIL McGREEVY HARMON TELEPHONE ELLYN R. WEISS (f t :m O . ..e i MO2) 328 3500 rW DIANE CURRAN 90C C M A DEAN R. TOUSLEY BEf NCW ANDREA C. FERSTER February 2, 1987 Helen Hoyt, Ch a i rma n Dr. Jerry Harbor Gustave A. Linenberger, Jr.

Atomic Safety and Licensing Board U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission Washington, D.C. 20555 PE: Docket Mos. 50-44 3 OL and 50-444 OL

Dear Administrative Judges,

NECNP is in receipt of the letter sent to you by Mr. Perlis of December 18, 1986 and attachments regarding a meeting on the morning of December 16, 1986, between Mssrs. Derrickson and DeVincentis of PSNH and Mssrs. Stello, Vollmer, Ch ristenbury and Noonan of NRC. This meeting was not publicly announced nor were the parties permitted to attend. According to Mr. Ch r is tenbu ry:

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 the Commission's rules concerning the 10 mile EPZ. He indicated that the petition would be filed under 10 CFR 2.758 and would seek to reduce the Seabrook EPZ to one mile. (Mr. Stello asked me to explain the procedures for a petition under 2.758 which I d id. ) 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.

What the NRC staf f members involved in this f ail to note is the critical fact that the parties to this case were, in fact, notified a day before of a public meeting in King of Prussia at 2 P.M. on that same day, December 16, 1986. The meeting was requested by PSNH, ostensibly to discuss the same subjects.

Since the subject-namely, the emergency planning situation for Seabrook - is a critical one in this case, we sent a paralegal to that meeting in King of Prussia on one day's notice at not insub-stantial cost to NECNP. Apparently, Mssrs. Derrickson and DeVin-8702060089 870202 5h PDR G

ADOCK 05000443 '

PDR 3 56

j]

O HAaMox & WEISS centis drove directly from the NRC's Washington of fice to King of Prussia to attend the "public" meeting.

In the public meeting, the PSNH executives stated that they would be making a filing "soon" on the emergency planning situa-tion but that they could not state exactly when or in what form.

The transmission of this non-information took approximately five minutes and the remainder of the half-hour session consisted primarily of discussing the future plans of Mr. De r r ick son. At no time did Mr. De rrickson or Mr. DeVincentis divulge what they had specifically told the NRC officials in Washington that morn-ing: namely, that on Thursday a 2.758 petition would be filed to reduce the EPZ to one mile. Indeed, the impression they conveyed was that such details were not yet firmly decided.

In short, the "public" meeting was a sham apparently staged for the benefit of the one representative of the public able to spend wnat turned out to be a wasted day travelling to and from Pennsylvania.

Mr. Stello can hardly claim with credibility that the sub-ject matter of hic morning meeting was exempt from NRC's policy statement requiring puclic notice when it was precisely the same subject matter coverea by the public meeting that afternoon. Of course, the most offensive aspect of this entire episode is that, while the subject was the same, Mr. Stello and the other Washing-ton officials were given different information than that given in the afternoon to the public.

Very truly yours,

  • p. #

Ellyn R. Weiss cc: Seabrook Se rvice List Rep. Carlos Moorhead Rep. Edward J. Ma rkey ( Attn: Larry Sidman)

Victor Stello, Executive Director of Operations, NRC