ML17297B327

Ack Receipt of W/Comments on Des,Aslb 811118 Prehearing Conference & ACRS 811123-24 Meetings.Fes & Notices of Evidentiary Hearings to Be Sent.Ser,Evaluating Issues Such as Tornado Protection,To Be Available in Lpdr

ML17297B327
Person / Time
Site:	Palo Verde
Issue date:	02/26/1982
From:	Eisenhut D Office of Nuclear Reactor Regulation
To:	Michael Scott AFFILIATION NOT ASSIGNED
Shared Package
ML17297B328	List: ML17297B327
References
NUDOCS 8203100601
Download: ML17297B327 (10)

Text

., Og 8203100b01 82022b PDR ADOCK 05000528 D

PDR Hr. +ron L. Scott 4341 North 86th Street Scottsdale, Arizona 85251

Dear Hr. Scott:

In your letter, dated December 16, 1981, to the Nuclear Regulatory Commission (NRC), you provided comments on the Draft Environmental Statement (DES) for the Palo 'Verde Nuclear Generating Station, Unit's 1, 2, and 3 (Palo Verde).

You also commented on the notice of availability of the DES, the prehearing conference held by the Atomic Safety 'and Licensing Board (ASLB) on November 18, 1981',

arid on the meeting held 'by the subcommittee of the Advisory Committee for Reactor Safeguards (ACRS) on November 23 and 24, 1981.

The NRC staff is currently evaluating your comments on the Palo Verde DES.

The responses to these

comments, and all other comments that have been received on the DES, wil'1 be included in the Final Environttiental Statement (FES) for Palo Verdi which is in preparation.

After publication, a copy of the FES will be forw'arded to you.

The following discussion addresses your other comments concerning the notice of availability of the DES, the prehearing conference and the ACRS subcommittee meeting.

The notice of availability oFthe Palo Verde DES was not limited to a few sources.

The notice was sent to the Office of the Federal Reg'ister for publication.

Copies of She DES and the Feder'al Register notice were sent to various Federal, State and local agencies, including the State and regional clearinghouses.

'In addition, a copy of the DES.and the

'otice were sent to the local'Public Document Room located at, the Phoenix Publ.ic Library, 12 East ttcDo>Iell Road, Phoenix, Arizona.

With regard'o.your comment on the November 18, 1981 prehearing conference, at the time the ASLB i.ssued its notice for the prehearing conference, it designated the location as the Federal Building on 230 North First Avenue in Phoenix, but was not able to designate the specific courtroom.

Subsequent to the notice, Cour'troom 2 (7th floor) was chosen and on the

'ay of the prehearing conferen'ce, the building clerk was notified "so that he could provide the courtroom location-to persons who asked.'At

, the beginning of the prehearing conference, Judge Lazo, Chairman "of "the ASLB, apologized for this inconvenience.

Prehearing coni'erences are no't evidentiary hearing sessions.

These conferences are held prior to the start of an evidentiary hearingto determine the issues in controversy, parties to the hearing, schedules for documents relating to the 'hearing and other related administrativ'e matters The Novem.ber 18, 1981 prehearing conferen'ce

>van held to consider various matters that had aris'en since the pr'evi'ou's prehearing conference

'~qO held on December 4, 1980.

'l 4<

ll ~

II Q 1

Ilq

FEB 3 6 1982 The evidentiary hearing for Palo Verde is tentatively scheduled to start on triarch 30, 1982.

In response to your request, we have advised the Office of the Secretary to pl'ace you on the mailing list for all board notices relating to the Palo 'Verde evidentiary hearing.

At hearings, all admitted parties to a pro'ceeding can present testimony and crossexamine on the matters in controversy".

During these

hearings, the boards have permitted other members of th'e public to express their views in a limited appearance statement.

He expect that the Palo Verde board would permit such expression if any member'f the public made a request to th'e board.

The November 24, 1981 session you referred to was not a hearing but a meeting of a subcommittee of the ACRS.

The ACRS is an independent statutory Committee established to advise the NRC on the safety aspects of proposed and existing nucl'ear facilities.

At the subcommittee

meeting, Chairman Bender indicated that the subcommittee had not received any requests for public statements when the agenda was in preparation.

As you point out in your letter, when members of the public at the meeting indicated that they wanted to express their views, I1r. Bender was cooperative and offered them the opportun'ity to do so.

The matters that you referred'o, such as protection against tornadoes and tornado generated missiles, the adequacy of emergency planning, communication procedures, the design of the spray pond and inspection of welds, are not before the ASL8 but are matters which were discussed with the ACRS at the subcommittee 'meeting.

These are matters which are being reviewed by the NRC staff as 'part of its safety review of Palo Verde.

Hhen completed, the results o'f the staff review will be included in a supplement to the Safety Evaluation Report (SER).

As they become available, the SER and its supplements are sent to the local Public Document Room we discussed previously.

He appreciate receiving your 'views on these matters and are pleased to have had this opportunity to address your coranents.

Sincerely, czP~Ag Darrell G. Eis nhut, Director Division of Licensing Office of Nuclear Reactor Regulation

• SEE PREVIOUS CONCURRENCES OFF1CE [>

SURNAME/

OAVES

..EAL~iEtra.;

.BL:LBj3"........

b... FAHi.rgg1 i.a

...Dl,:,AD(.L~

gLTedesco OELD*

~.

D isenhut 2/S//82 NRC FORM 3l81lO/80) NRCM 0240 OFF I CIA L R ECOR D COPY o USGPO: 1980-329 824

II

~

(

i ~. ~

C

~>a

\\

The e identiary hearing for Palo Verde is tentatively scheduled t start on Na h 30, 1982.

In response to your request.

you are being palaced on the mas ing list for all boar'd notices relating to the Palo Verde

evident ry hearing.

Kt liearings, all admitted parties 'to a,grace'dding can prese t testimony and crossexamine on the matters in con'krove'rsy.

During the e hearings, the boards have permitted other me ers of 'the public to e ress their views"in a limited appearance st tement.

We expect that e Palo Verde board would permit such expr ssion if"a'y

~~ g~ Y ~

member of the ublic made a request to the board.

'<lj Oy.

The Nove'mber 24, 981 session".you referred to was q t a hearing but a meeting of a subco ittee of 'the ACRS.

The ACRS P an independent statutory Committee stablished to advise the NRg on the safety 'aspects of proposed and exist g nucl'ear facil'ities.

'$C the subcommittee

meeting, Chairman Bender indicat that the subcomnitte5 had riot received a'y

'equests for public state ents when the agen 5 was in preparation.

As you point out in your lett

,"when 'members f the public at the meeting

'ndicated that they wanted express thei views, Hr. Bender was cooperative and offered them the oppor tun ty to do s The matters that you referred to, such as protection against tornadoes and tornado generated missiles', th a equacy of emergency planning,'ommunication procedures, the"desig 'of'the spray pond and inspection of welds, are not before the ASLB but r matters which were discussed with

'he..ACRS at the subcommittee "meeti g.

ese are matters which are 'being reviewed'y the NRC staff as 'par'f its afety review of Palo Verde.

When completed', the results o', P e staff r yiew will be included in 'a supplement to the Safety-Eva1u%ion Report

('EER).

As they become available, the SER and its supplements a e sent to the 15 al Public Document Room we discussed previously.

We appreciate receiving yo r views on these matte

'and are pleased to have had this opportunity to address your coments.

Sincerely, Darrell G. Eisenhut, Direc or Division of Licensing Office of Nuclear Reactor Re 1'atio'n

• SEE PREVIOUS CONCURRENCES OFF1CEQ SURNAME)

OATEP

...03,:..NN.....

EALici.tea.;i

...OL:..LAITY.......

FJMi raql i a

.3)L;M/j,.......

RLTedesco L:DIR............

DGEisenhut 2/

/82 OELD

~

~ ~ ~

~ ~ ~ ~

~ ~ ~ ~

2'/j, i782 NRC FORM 318 RO/80) NRCM 0240 OFFlCIAL RECORD COPY iv USGPO: 198~29.824

I Inr

'3%IIV !if'll~ ~

~

I

~ p,lr 3

I L I

I ~

r I

J

~

~ I

~'l

~

Irr

~ '" <

r

-'r =

1

~

'3 n

f j

I

~3 I

~

Per

~ ~

I I I

~

The evidentiary hearing for Palo Verde is tentatively scheduled togstart on March 30, 1982.

At hearings. all admitted parties to a proceeding can preqent testimony and crossexami'ne on the matters'n controversy.

During these hearings, the boards have permitted other members'of the public to'e~press their views in a limited appearance statement.

He expect that the Palo Verde board would permit such expression if any member of the p blic made a req'uest to the board.

The November 24, 1'981 session "you referred to was not a hearing but a meeting of a subcommittee of the ACRS.

The ACRS js an independent statutory Committee established

'to advise the NPC on the safety 'aspects of proposed and existing nuc'fear facilities. Pt the subcommittee

meeting, Chairman Bender indicated<that the subcottmittee had riot received any requests for public statements when the agenda was in preparation.

As you point out in your lette'r,"when membeip of the public at the meeting indicated that they wanted toQexpres's tPeir views, Hr. Bender was cooperative and offered them the opportunity to do so.

The matters that you referred'o, pdch as protection against tornadoes and tornado generated missiles, tlie adequacy of emergency

planning, communication procedures, the design of the spray pond and inspection of welds, are not before the ASL'B~but are%matters which vIere discussed with the ACRS at the subcommittee~m*ecting.

These ar'e matters which are being reviewed by the NRC staff as part of its safety review of Palo Verde.

When completed, the resu]4s o'f the staff review will be included in a supplement to the Safety Eval'uation Report (SER). 's they become available, the SER and its supplements are sent to the local Public Document Room we discussed previously.

We appreciate receiving your views on these matters and are pleased to have had this op'portunity to address your comments.

Sincerely, DISTRIBUTION:

SEE NEXT PAGE.

Darrell G. Eisenhut, Directo Division of Licensing Office of Nuclear Reactor Regu

'tion

~'pv OFFICEtb RNAMEP OaVED 2/ij /82 DL FJM lia 2/'Il /82 D

/L RL edesco

, 2/ (//82 DL:DIR

~

~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ 0

~ ~ ~ ~

~

~

~

DGEisenhut

~ ~ ~

~

~

2/

/82

~

0

~

~ ~ ~ 0 ~

~

~ ~

RM 3l8 ilo OFFlC1AL RECORD COPY

I

UNDERSIZED" DOCUMENTS e V~LF' R e

~

J PldEASi R""VIEN.7F"" DUE DATE"Df')IATELY.':-:-.:

lf the due date does not. allow adeauate time to respond to this ticket, you may,.'.

'eques "a revised;due date.'. The'x'equest"',,:.

. +us~ include.a valid.justification'.and be.=.

'submitted'through your correspondence coordinator to we NRR mail xoom.'uch:..-

re'quest for green. tickets must, be made within 3 days-after aPier-reassignment..

Request.for "revision, of yellow ticket.due-':

'dates may be made,- i'ustification,.

','hrough the weekly.NITS update;,"----,'-i'.1--'",,

The revised due',date, 'if approved by PPAS,'

'will be used to ~~ack'division corresponded<

cocci eciou sclie'dulce

~ ~

H ili I

h