ML19350A368

Responds to Re Scope of ASLB Hearing on Util Request for CP Extension.Aslb Did Not Hold That Site Suitability Could Never Be re-examined Once Approved But That Other Review Procedures Were Available

ML19350A368
Person / Time
Site:	Bailly
Issue date:	02/25/1981
From:	Bickwit L NRC OFFICE OF THE GENERAL COUNSEL (OGC)
To:	Bushemi J ILLINOIS, STATE OF
References
NUDOCS 8103130630
Download: ML19350A368 (2)

Text

w g

s m3

[.,nga UNITED STATES W

'o, NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSION WASHINGTON, D. C. 20555 DOCKET NUf/CER

, PROD.L UTIL FAC.g gp (isg j

February 25, 1981

....,_m,,_,,

N 4

A MAR,g2ISB Ng Senator John Bushemi g

4994 Hayes Street Gary, Indiana 46408 9

s i

Dear Senator Bushemi:

On November 25, 1980, you wrote to Chairman Ahearne with respect to the proposed Bailly nuclear power plant; the decision of the Atomic Safety and Licensing Appeal Board regarding the scope of the hearing on the utility's request for a construction permit extension; and the need for a policy on the siting of nuclear power plants near densely populated areas.

The Commission is actively addressing at this time the issue of the problems posed by the Bailly site.

The Commissioners have been reconsidering the appropriateness of this site since last August.

At the same time, the Director of Nuclear Reactor Regulation has been examining a petition challenging the site 's suitability.

With regard to the adjudicatory decision to which you referred, the Appeal Board was considering the legal question of what issues are properly within the scope of a proceeding that is considering a licensee's request for an extension of the completion date in its construction permit.

The Appeal l

Board's decision did not hold that the suitability of a site l

could never be reexamined once it has been approved.

Rather, the Appeal Board held that there were other procedures l

available -- specifically, the filing of a petition under l

10 CFR 2.206 -- for assuring a careful reexamination of the l

Bailly site.

On February 13, 1981, the Commission decided

~

i against review of that Appeal Board deci5lon. '

l 1

l

~

s g

e

,.asse.*

y ey e m e s e* *'

, es e

8103130 @

pS8

$ *, 8 f

.. _. i 1

. Senator Bushomi 2

On the overall question of siting policy, the Commission is

~

in the process of developing new siting criteria for nuclear power plants.

An advance notice of rulemaking has been published requesting comments on the recommendations of the Commission's Siting Policy Task Force.

Among those recommenda-tions were proposals 'to change the way protection is provided for accidents by incorporating a fixed exclusion and protective action distance, as well as population density and distribution criteria; to require consideration of the potential hazards posed lar human activities and natural phenomena by establishing mininum standoff distances; to include consideration of post-licensing changes in offsite activities; and, while continuing the overall current safety approach to site selection, to refrain from selecting sites where unique or unusual design features would be needed to compensate for unfavorable characteristics of the site.

In addition, the NRC's authorization bill for fiscal year 1980 directed the agency to promulgate regulations establishing demographic criteria for siting nuclear power facilities.

I trust that this is fully responsive to the concerns you expressed.

Sincerely, o.

Leonard Bickwit,' Jr. '

General Counsel e

9 t

l l

l l

l

.