ML19289E883

Interrogatories Submitted to NRC Re Values in Table S-3 of Es Christenbury 790326 Ltr

ML19289E883
Person / Time
Site:	05000471
Issue date:	04/19/1979
From:	Cleeton A, Cleeton M CLEETON, INTERVENORS
To:
Shared Package
ML19289E884	List: ML19289E883 ML19289E885
References
NUDOCS 7905290292
Download: ML19289E883 (2)

Text

- .

y u,up copr = n u NCE \,e m iI E009 g4 ng3LIC DOCUgb y-. g% gv

1. UNITED STATES OF AMERICA w' f NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSION .

Q W'f ND / 'l BEFORE THE ATOMIC AND SAFETY LICENSIMG BOARD 9 ,

%p #!**# %g

(.'

)

In the Matter of: )

)

BOSTON EDISON COMPANY, et al. ) DOCKET NO. 50-471

)

( Pilgrim Nuclear Gnerating ) ,

Station, Unit No. 2 ) )

)

INTERROGATORIES OF INTERVENOR CLEETONS

~

REGARDING THE VALUES IN TABLE S-3 Pursuant to 10 CFR Part 51, the Intervenors Cleeton propound the following interrogatories in regard to the pro-posed rule to be sent to the Nuclear Regulatory Commission on or about April 6, 1979 to Alan S. Rosenthal, Esq., Chairman of the Atomic Safety and Liscensing Board Panel of the NRC, from the Staff ( presumably of the NRC ), described in a letter from Edward S. Christenbury, Director & Chief Counsel, Hearing Division of the NRC, posted March 26, 1979.

Our questions are as follows:

2048 194 7905290232 -

2

1. If the rule will propose a new value for radon releases, what effect will this have on the request of the Staff and the Applicant (s) Memoranda on the~ Applicability and Effect of the PERKINS PARTIAL (sic) INITIAL DECISION in the Pilgrim , Unit 2, proceeding ?

2. If the rule will propose, as is stated in the aforementioned correspondence, " a new value for radon releases but will not address the question of health effects from radon nor the period of time over which such effects should be calculated "; then may we ask how we should treat this new value ? Should we t.: e a t is as a short-lived phenomoenon ? Should we treat it as a one time cost, in the cost benefit analysis ?

3. If these values are just now being set forth and may be dif-ferent than the previous values, how can any determination of the applicability of the Perkins Partial Initial Decision be appropriately considered at this time ?

Alan R'. Cleeton

/)w. - r.; # ,, w, a, d -

Marion W. Cleeton

/_ O k O