ML19209B294
| ML19209B294 | |
| Person / Time | |
|---|---|
| Site: | 05000471 |
| Issue date: | 09/11/1979 |
| From: | Beverly Smith NRC OFFICE OF THE EXECUTIVE LEGAL DIRECTOR (OELD) |
| To: | |
| References | |
| NUDOCS 7910090458 | |
| Download: ML19209B294 (8) | |
Text
-
NRC PUBLIC DOCUMENT ROOM UNITED STATES OF AMERICA 9/11/79 NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSION BEFORE THE ATOMIC SAFETY AND LICENSING BOARD 4 7, *'
s
/t
~}VN
/Ty
'L' j',.T ;[.) Nh Z In the Matter of
)
)
. v BOSTON EDIS0N COMPANY, et al.
)
Docket No. 50-471
'Q
,2 j
)
\\ '; _ k s. -
(Pilgrim Nuclear Generating Station,
)
Unit 2)
)
V^.
~
s NRC STAFF MOTION TO DEFER ISSUE OF EMERGF,NCY PLANNING AND TO ESTABLISH SCHEDULE FOR FILING PROPOSED FINDINGS ON COMPLETED ISSUES The issue of emergency planning is scheduled to be heard beginning October 1, 1979. During the past several weeks, a numbar of developments, more fully described below, have occurred in the area of emergency planning. Among these is a planned site visit by the Staff to determine if ten miles is a sufficient distance for emergency planning for Pilgrim Unit 1.
The cumulative impact of these developments have caused the Staff to reassess its prior position that it can go forward with the issue of emergency planning.
For this reason, the Staff moves that this issue be deferred until the Staff has completed its re'iew of emergency planning considerations at the Pilgrim site.
The developments referred to above are:
1) the Ccmmission issued a " Notice of P oposed Expedited Rulemaking on the Adequacy and Acceptance of Emergency Planning Around Nuclear Facilities" (Notice), 44 Fed. Reg. 41483 (July 17,1979);
2) the Joint EPA-NRC Task Force Planning Basis for Deveicoment of State and Local Government Radioloaical Emergency Response Plans in Succort of Light Mer Nuclear Pc'.ler Plants (N'JREG-0396) (Joint n k Force) is pending before s
1114 237 7910 0 90 f-TF
2_
the Commission for its approval; 3) Mr. Denton, Director of Nuclear Reactor Regulation, promulgated SECY-79-450, " Action Plan for Promptly Improving Emergency Preparedness," (Action Plan); and 4) the Staff is planning a site visit to Pilgrim Unit 1 to review adequacy of emergency planning.
The Notice of Proposed Rulemaking may not directly affect this proceeding because a tajor portion of it relates to operating reactors.
Howev'er, the Joint Task Force report is important to this proceeding because it forms a major portion of the. basis for extending emergency planning to at least ten miles.-1/In addition, items three and four have a direct impact on this pro-ceeding and are more fully discussed below.
In the Action Plan, Mr. Denton, Director, Office of Nuclear Reactor Regula-tion, infomed the Cocmissioners that the staff will (5)
Assess the relationship of state / local plans to the licensee's and Federal plans so as to assure the capability to take appropriate emergency actions.
Assure that this capability will be extended to a distance of 10 miles as soon as practical, but not later than January 1, 1981.
To implement the " Action Plan" the Staff will visit operating plants to assess their emergency preparedness capability. Among the things the Staff will determine is whether the Pilgrim Unit 1 site has any unique features which will necessitate extending the emergency planning beyond 10 miles.
This deter-mination will be applicable to the proposed Unit No. 2.
Another area being 1/ The Staff will continue to use this Report unless it is rejected by the Commission.
1114 238
considered by the Staff review team is the ability of the licensee to insure rapid notification of residents.
Both of these areas are essential in evaluating the proposed emergency planning in accordance w'th 10 CFR Part 50, Appendix E, Section II, and the proposed amendments thereto.
To prepare testimony, the Staff must know the distance for emergency planning.
It also must be assured that the criteria on emergency planning at the new
~
distance is well understood. The present state of affairs is such that any testimony now presented may not fully reflect the current position of the i
Staff or the Commission.
During the..m that the site evaluation is taking 1
place, the Staff believes that the criteria for establishing reasonable assurance that protective actions can be applied will be more firmly estab-lished.
See Affidavit.
In light of T.hese factors, the Staff believes it is in the interest of the Board and parties to defer this issue and allow more time for the preparation of testimony.
4 The delay covered by this deferral will not be an inordinate one.
Staff in-j tends to give the Pilgrim Unit I review the highest priority.
See Affidavit.
Rather than establishing a specific time for a hearing, it is suggested that a status report be provided on October 1,1979. Depending on the course of the review, a hearing date could be established.
Deferral will delay a final decision by the Board.
This consideration must be weighed against the need for a complete and full review of this issue.
Deferral does not mean a cessation of all activity.
Proposed findings of fact on all completed matters can be filed and a partial initial decision issued.
If this precedure is folic'ed, any apeeals from a partial initial decision can be commenced.
~
1114 239
4-Based on the above, the Staff moves that the issue of emergency planning be deferred.
In addition, the Staff fully supports the establishment of a schedule for filing proposed findings of fact on all completed issues and the subsequent issuance of a partial initial decision.
Respectfully submitted, OW y (/ 9:dt Barry H. Smith Counsel for NRC Staff Dated at Bethesda, Maryland thislith day of September,1979.
1114 240 mem
-