ML19294B724

Statement in Response to ASLB 800117 Order Re Emergency Planning as Proper Issue in Proceeding.Issue Must Be Litigated Prior to CP Issuance.Psar & NRC Safety Evaluation Must Be Issued Prior to Hearing.Certificate of Svc Encl

ML19294B724
Person / Time
Site:	05000471
Issue date:	02/07/1980
From:	Wright F MASSACHUSETTS, COMMONWEALTH OF
To:	Atomic Safety and Licensing Board Panel
References
NUDOCS 8003050425
Download: ML19294B724 (8)

Text

's -

".. ,g g i g 2:t -

N

. . -- ,s 000 0 S DOCKET NUMSER '- ,

' -' ~3- # "

PROD. & IJTil. F I-- -

ys O ,@.ci \% ~

\ L .

-3 UNITED STATES OF AMERICA \ g.c k N NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSION ,

W cp y BEFORE THE ATOMIC SAFETY AND LICENSING BOARD

)

)

In the Matter of ) STATEMENT OF

) THE COMMONWEALTH BOSTON EDISON COMPANY et al. ) OF MASSACHUSETTS

) IN RESPONSE TO (Pilgrim Nuclear Generating Station, ) THE BOARD'S ORDER Unit 2) ) OF JANUARY 17, 1980

) '

)

In its order of January 17, 1980 the Board requested all parties to comment on the following two questions:

1. In light of the NRC's imminent amendments to 10 CFR Part 50 and Appendix E to 10 CFR Part 50, is the Com:2onwealth's contention with respect to emergency still a proper issue in the above-captioned pro-ceeding?

2. If emergency planning is a proper issue, when can testimony be filed and hearings schedul,ed thereon?

8003050

P' ,

n' u

I.

As to the Board's first question, the Commonwealth notes that this matter has been addressed once before, during a con-ference call held on September 10, 1979 between members of the Board and representatives of all parties. At that time the  ;

E parties were asked to submit memoranda on whether the Commis- 5 sion's proposed changes to its regulations ou emergency plan-

. ning precl-uded the Board from conducting hearings on the sub-ject. Both the Commonwealth and the Staff argued in subsequent filings that the Board was not precluded from considering the question of emergency planning for cilgrim II during the Com- ,

mission's consideration of the broader issue, and rather than repeat those arguments, a copy of the Commonwealth's earlier memorandum is attached hereto, as Exhibit A, for the Board's consideration.

In the time that has passed since the' filing of the Com-monwealth's memorandum, draft changes to the N*C's emergency planning regulations have been promulgated (See 44 29d. Reg.

75167, December 19, 1979), and the period during which ir cer-ested parties can comment on these changes will expire on

. February 19, 1980. As this Board is aware, the NRC has thus f ar acted expeditiously in promulgating its draf t regulations

-and conducting regional workshops thereon, and has announced its intention of adopting the regulations in final form shortly after close of the comment period.

I

.; ,~

_3..

Given the fact that the NRC is on the verge of adopting new emergency planning regulations, the position taken by the Commonwealth in the attached memorandum (as well as that taken .

by the Staff in its own memorandum) becomes all the more per- {

suasive. Under the case law cited in the Commonwealth's memo- 3 randum, the issue of the feasibility of taking emergency mea-sures must be. addressed during the construction ~ permit stage, while under 10 CFR 550.34 (a) (10) and Appendix E thereto the applicant must submit preliminary plans for dealing with radio-logical accidents as part of its PSAR, a document that must_be complete before issuance of a construction permit. Both the applicant's position on feasibility and its preliminary emer-gency action plans must be tested against the NRC's new standards and regulations governing eme~rgency planning, and can only be done so prior to a decision by the Board on issuance of a construction permit.

Indeed, the only thing that has changed since the parties last addressed this question is that the NRC has moved much closer to promulgation of a final rule that will serve to in-form the Board in its deliberations on the related issues of feasibility and adequacy of the applicant's preliminary plans.

The NRC's action in moving towards swif t promulgation of a final rule can hardly be treated as divesting ,this Board of jurisdicition over matters that both case lav and the regula-tions require to be resolved prior to issuance of a construc-tion permit.

O

~ v As to the Board's second question, concerning the sche-duling of an evidentiary hearing on the emergency planning issue, the Commonwealth canno.e suggest a precise date, but only enumerate those things that must occur before such a hearing can take place.  :

1. The E 's new regulations on emergency planning

. must be adopted in final form, an action which we have been informed can be expected in March of this year.

2. Based on the NRC's new informational require-ments, which can be found in the draft regulations as well as the numerous communications that have been going out to construction permit applicants from the  :

NRC's Office of Nuclear Reactor Regulations, the applicant must submit an amendment td its PSAR, set-ting forth its preliminary plans for dealing with radiological accidents.

3. Based on the NRC's new emergency planning re-quirements and the Staff's own investigation of the Pilgrim II emergency planning zone (EPZ), an investi-gation which has been ongoing since September of 1979 (See Staff motion of September 11, 1979, attached hereto as Exhibit B), the Staff must prepare a supplement to its Safety Evaluation Report (SER),

P"

/ " n in which the issue of feasibility and the adequacy of the applicant's preliminary plans are discussed.1/

4. The Staff has yet to answer the Commonwealth's .

interrogatories on emergency planning, filed on _;

August 13, 1979. By agreement, the Staff has de-

{

ferred answering these interrogatories until it has  ;

compl'eted its field investigation and reassessment of  :

the Pilgrim II emergency planning issue. _

1/ The Commonwealth notes that the Staff is still investiga-ting the Pilgrim II emergency planning issue r most recently'by seeking evacuation time estimates from the applicant (See .

letter of December 26, 1979, attached hereto as Exhibit C), '

estimates which presumably will be used to prepare a feasibil-ity analysis for the 10 mile EPZ. For at least two reasons it would be far more appropriate to submit this analysis of the area surrounding Pilgrim II as a supplement to the SER -rather than as pre-filed testimony:

1) Since the Staff began reassessme'nt of the Pilgrim II emergency planning issue in September, the Commonwealth has had little information as to the data being gathered and the con-clusions being reached. The Commonwealth, therefore, cannot begin to prepare its own testimony until it has had an oppor-tunity to study the Staff 's conclusions, which in such matters are usually contained in the first instance in the SER and not as written testimony filed just before an evidentiary hearing.

Written testimony typically is only in support of statements and conclusions contained in previously filed documents such as the'EIS or SER. ,

2) Once the Staff concludes its reassessment of the Pilgrim II emergency planning issue and presents its conclu-sions, the Commonwealth may be in a position to look again at its own concerns as to this matter, and to determine whether in light of the Staff's additional field studies its contention might be withdrawn or at least narrowed in scope.

l _

Upon submission of the applicant's amendment to its PSAR, -

the Staff's supplement to the SER and the Staff's answers to the Commonwealth's interrogatories, the Commonwealth will then =

be able to prepare its own testimony. Because some of the .

preliminary work has been done on this testimony, the Common-wealth estimates that it can be filed within one month of i

. receipt of the above-mentioned documents. The evidentiary .

hearing could then be scheduled according to the provisions of -

10 CFR 52.743 (6) , i.e. fif teen days af ter the filing of all  ;

testimony.

Respectfully submitted,

. ~

FRANCIS S. WRIGHT L Assistant Attorney General G

Environmental Protection Division Department of the Attorney General One Ashburton Place, 19 th Floor Boston, Massachusetts 02108 DATED: February 7, 1980

a*

5 kr 0 .;.

DOCKETED UNITED STATES OF AMERICA { gggg; NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSION .

FEB i11980 > i BEFORE THE ATOMIC SAFETY AND LICENSING BOARD ' Ottice of the Secretan pghting&SeM" N.

b Branch

0) e

)  :

In the Matter of ) y

)

BOSTON EDISON COMPANY et al. ) Docket No. 50-471  :

)

(Pilgrim Nuclear Generating Station, )

, Unit 2) )

)

~

CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE I hereby certify that the within " Statement of the Commonwealth of Massachusetts in Response to the Board's Order of January 17, 1980" has been served on the following by deposit of copies thereof in the United States Mail, first class mail, postage precaid, this 7th day of February 1980.

Andrew C. Gecdhope, Esq. Henry Herrmann, Esq.

Chairman Room 1045 Atomic Safety and Licensing Board 50 Congress Street 3320 Estelle Terrace Boston, Mass. 02109 Wheaton, Md. 20906 Mr. and Mrs. Alan R. Cleeton Dr. A. Dixon Callihan 22 Mackintosh Street Union Carbide Corporation Franklin, Mass. 02038 P.O. Box Y Oak Ridge, Tennessee 37830 William S. Abbott, Esq.

Suite 925 Dr. Richard F. Cole 50 Congress Street

. Atomic Safety and Licensing Board Boston, Mass. 02109 U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission -

Washington, D. C. 20555 George H. Lewald, Esq.

Roper and Gray Patrick J. Kenny, Esq. 225 Franklin Street Edwaru L. Selgrade, Esq. Boston, Mass. 02110 Deputy Director Mass. Office of Energy Resources .

73 Tremont Street Boston, Mass. 02108

Atomic Safety and Licensing Office of the Secretary Appeal Board Docketing and Service Section U. S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission U. S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission Washing, D. C. 20555 Washington, D. C. 20555 Atomic Safety and Licensing Chief Librarian Board Panel Plymouth Public Library U. S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission North Street Plymouth, Mass. 02360 Steven Lewis, Esq. o Office of the Executive Legal Director .

U. S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission Washington, D. C. 20555 FRANCIS S. WRIGH F Assistant Attorney General Environmental Protection Division Department of the Attorney General One Ashburton Place, 19th Floor Bosten, Massachusetts 02108 oo m a

see e a

s

' # =

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA DOC 0 .

NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSION 6- .

g g%@ # C" B o jY /

BEFORE THE ATOMIC SAFETY AND LICEMSING BOAP.D y y F

n the Matter of )

) i BOSTON EDISON COMPANY, et al. ) E

) Docket No. 50-471 r (Pilgrim Nuclea. Generating Station, ).

Unit 2) )

)

)

~

MEMORANDUM OF THE COMMONEALTH OF MASSACHUSETTS IN OPPOSITION TO DISMISSAL OF ITS CONTENTION ON EMERGENCY PLAUNING In the course of a conference call on September 10, 1979 .

the parties were asked to brief the following question: in.

light of the consideration now being given by the NRC to the issue of emergency planning, should the Licensing Board dismiss the Commonwealth's emergency planning contention as a matter' presently the subject of a generic rulemaking proceeding? For .

the following reasons, the Commonwea]th opposes dismissal of the contention, but does renew its recuest that the evidentiary [

- hearings on eme::gency hearings not be reconvened eatil -further guidance on emergency planning has been issued by the NRC, guidance which can reasonably be expected to be forthcoming in the next few months.

DUPLICATE DOCUMENT Entire document previously entered into system under:

ANO No. of pages:

U!!ITED STATES OF AMERICA' 9/11/79 HUCLEAR REGULATORY C0:'DISSI0f!

CEF0P.E T :E I70"': STT7 A':0 LI:E"S!': CS* 00 In the "atter of )

)

BOST0:1 EDIS0:1 COMPAt1Y, e_t_ _al .

) Docket ??o. 50-471

)

(Pilgrim fluclear Generating Station, )

. Unit 2) ) .

NRC STAFF MOTIOil TO DEFER ISSUE OF EMERGE!!CY PLAT:NING A: D TO ESTABLISH SCHEDULE FOR FILING PROPOSED FII;DI!!GS ON COMPLETED ISSUES The issue of emergency planning is scheduled to be heard beginning October 1, 1979. During the past several weeks, a number 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 review of emergency planning considerations at the Pilgrim site.

. The developments referred to above are: 1) the Commission issued a " Notice

'of Proposed Expedited Rulemaking on the Adequacy and Acceptance of E'mergency Planning Around fluclear Facilities" (Notice), 44 Fed. Reg. 41483 (July 17,1979);

2) the Joint EPA-NRC Task Force Plannina Basis for Develocment'of State and o

Local Government Radioloaical Emercency pf_ter t'ucle.w Peypr,flants (!:U?EG-0295)

DUPLICATE DOCUMENT Entire document previously entered into system under:

ANO No. of pages:

~

UI!ITED STATES OF Al'. ERICA NUCLEAR REGULATORY C0:"11SSIO!1 _

EEFORE THE AT0!!IC SAFETY AND LICE : sit!G BOARD In the Matter of: )

)  :

BOST0:1 EDIS0!i COMPA;1Y, et al .

) Docket fio. 50-471 e

)

(Pilgrim fluclear Generating ) .

Station, Unit 2) )

AFFIDAVIT OF FRANK G. PAGA!!0, JR.

I, Frank G. Pagano, Jr., deposes and says under oath as follows:

1. I am Director, NRC Emergericy Preparedness Task Force for Operating Power Reactor.

2. A review team consisting of three members will visit the Pilgrim Unit 1 site to determine, among other thi ,s, whether 10 miles is a sufficient area for emergency planning, and whether rapid notification can be given to the residents within ten miles or any other distance established for emergency planning.

3. Pilgrim Unit I will be among the first sites visited by the Staff. This review is tentatively scheduled to take place on approximately September 17-18, 1979.

e. . The infor.T.ation necessary to make the determination described above will be analyzed within seven weeks after the site visit.

5. Thq deterri:c tica of t." .1 rep -:.nc d it : :ca for e;.er,ency plc.nning and the. evaluation of' notification tir..e would be applicable to the proposed ,

-3

'~

Unit flo. 2. This information is essential in evaluating the proposed emergency planning in accordance with 10 CFP, Part 50, Appendix E, Sec-tion II, and the proposed amendment thereto.

6. L' hen the review of Pilgrim Unit 1 is complete, the criteria necessary to make decisions concerning emergency planning will be more firmly established. ,

For the above reason, the Staff desires to defer preparation of testimony on this issue in order that the most accurate and current information can be presented to the Board. .

e

.. o . . =-- . ~

/ f

-i T/< ,- - . ,,N$.bb. .-i.yu.

f],> .

/

/' Frank G.' w Pagano, Jr.

~

Subscribed and sworn to before me -

this y ; day of September,1979.

u.s

~) i* )

///.iLt..]

/} , ']h^ - / 1 ->

Notary Public in an:! for ne State of Maryland,liontgomery County ,

My Conmission expires: July 1, 1982.

e

/p htes

=

o UNITED STATES

! k. NUCLEAR REGULATORY COT *f.11SSION -

WASHINGTON. D. C. 20555

..... December 26, 1379 APPLICAfiTS FOR C0!!STRUCTIO:1 PERMITS At1D LICEflSEES OF PLAtlTS U?; DER C0llSTRUCTIO 4  :

Gentlemen:

l

SUBJECT:

REQUEST FOR IfiFORMATI0ft REGARDIfiG EVACUATI0tl TIMES [

This letter is being sent to all applicants for construction pemits, and licensees of plants under construction. The purpose of the letter is a request for information regarding estimates for evacuation of various areas #

around future nuclear power plants. The requested information is in addition +

to that requested by the fiovember 21,1979, '. . iter to all applicants for an operating license and licensees of plants ur. der construction from Domenic B. Vassallo, Acting Director, Division of Project Management, Office of fluclear Reactor Regulation.

Although evacuation time estimates are expected to be prepared in the course -

of the upgrading of the state of emergency preparedness as previously specified -

submission of these estimates to the t1RC is being requested on an accelerated time scale so that the fiRC can identify those instances in which unusual evacuation constraints exist and special plar.ning measures should be considered. In some cases of extreme difficulty where a large population is at risk, special facility modifications may also be appropriata. The _

information requested in the enclosure should be submitted no latur than '

i March 31, 1980. -

Previous correspondence indicated that efforts to develop a model plan were continuing. It now appears that the model plan will not be completed on a schedule which will be of use in developing upgraded plans in the near' term.

' The upgraded plan development.should therefore proceed on a site-specific basis. i I

Sincerely,

~

j

._ e

=- --

7

%xa s W > J L-Brian K. Grimes,-Director

- ,, , . , , - a- ..

DUPLICATE DOCUMENT

Enclosure:

RequM t for Evacuation Time Entire document previously

"' entered into system under:

cc w/ enclosure: ANO

- - r h -

Service Lists j{

No. of pages: M