ML19289D868

Questions Legal Procedures Re Abbreviated Recirculation of Fes Suppl Re Alternative Sites Analysis.Asserts Truncated Procedure Is Improper

ML19289D868
Person / Time
Site:	05000471
Issue date:	01/09/1979
From:	Abbott W SIMMONDS, WINSLOW, WILLIS & ABBOTT
To:	Strohbehn E COUNCIL ON ENVIRONMENTAL QUALITY
References
NUDOCS 7903190292
Download: ML19289D868 (2)

Text

'

O S it4 0 N D S WI N S t OW, WI LLIS & Ahl3OTT

. ..4 0 .,.s.,~.t .. ,,,:..r,<,~

A'l 1 O l4 N C Y 'i A T t_ AW

'; O C O tJ G i4 C 2 ' T F4 f E T t 4 O 'i T O N , MA! 1ACD4 U?.Li T S O ?1O9 Wil LI A M S A F4DQ1T l-RLA Ct ^1

.- bl7 '_,7 3 'PO

.Tanuary 9, 1979 E<h'ard Strobbehn, Jr.

Executi.ve Di ree tor Council on Environmental Quality 722 Jackson Place Washington, D.C. 20001

Dear Mr. Strohbehn:

As counsel to a party in the presently pending Nuclear Regulatory Commission Construction Permit proceeding for Pilgrim 2 Nuclear Plant, I run in receipt of a copy of a letter to you dated January 3, 1979 from Harold R. Denton, Director, Office of Nuclear Reactor Regulation. In such letter Mr.

Denton requested that the Council comment upon a NRC proposal which involved an abbreviated procedure for recirculation of a FES Supplement involving the alternative sites analysis for Pilgrim 2.

We helieve that such a truncated procedure as outlined in Mr. Denton's letter is impro er and fails to meet the legal re-quirements of NEPA and the Canission's adjudicatory decisions regarding the matter of the recirculation of supplements. Such an expedited procedure , particularly with respect to this crit-ical issue of si.te analysis which is at the hear of the NEPA process, would not be in the public interest nor would it demon-strate a serious NRC commitment to the Congressional trandate to implement the policies of NEPA "to the fullest extent." We do not believe that the suggested procedure of compressing the con-ment period, and eliminating the review period between publica-tion of Staff responses to NEPA comments and the convening of the ASLB hearing, is responsive to the cri ti cal nature of the alternati.ve sites evaluation process under NEPA. The last oppor-tunity for such public comment in this case as in 1974 and since then a variety of factors have undergone substantial change with respect to the proposed Pilgrim 2 site, not the least of which is the fact that the population of Plymouth has experienced a doubling within the past five years and is the most rapidly growing commun-ity in the Commonwealth of Massachusetts. Further, for the reasons stated in my letter of December 29, 1978 to Mr. Denton, a copy of b

7U033993g G q, D TJ

Edward Strohbehn, Jr.

January 9, 1979 Page Two which is enclosed herewith, t he various tine constraint factors existing outside the :'RC permi t case with respect to Pilgrim 2 remove any potential financial advantages of an earlier const ruc-t ion aut horiza t ion ', hich might otherwise flow from an abbreviated ree ircul at ion process.

He trust you share our view of t he mportance of a tr.c a n i n g-ful reci rcul a t. ion of the alternative site analysis study in t-hi s Cil s e .

Very truly yours, Q,L- Jz. - -,

. , ,')

Uilliam S. Abbott Attorney for Alan & Marion Cleeton WSA: bat Enclosure ec: Alan & Marion Cleeton Charles Corkin, Esquire Harold R. Denton, D i ~c e c t o r , IJ RC