ML19284A472

Provides Comments on NRC 790116 Statement of Outstanding Issues in Proceeding Re Alternative Sites,Financial Qualification,Need for Power & NRC Reactor Safety Study

ML19284A472
Person / Time
Site:	05000471
Issue date:	01/25/1979
From:	Abbott W SIMMONDS, WINSLOW, WILLIS & ABBOTT
To:	Callahan A, Cole R, Luton E Atomic Safety and Licensing Board Panel, UNION CARBIDE CORP.
References
NUDOCS 7903060545
Download: ML19284A472 (5)

Text

.

S I M O N O S. WI N S LOW. WI LLI S & A B B OTT

. = se o c s s . o 6 associat.o ,

ATT O R N C Y S AT L AW SO CONGRESS GTRCCT S O S T O N. MASSACHUSCTT5 Caro 3 wetstav e. ABBOTT A a t a C O O C '$ . :' 523 5520 r4 u.

s. .

January 25, 1979 Edward Luton, Esquire Atomic Safety and Licensing Board U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission Washington, D.C. 20555 Dr. A. Dixon Callahan y,,

Un n Car ide Corporation j Oak Ridge, Tennessee 37830 g TlTp 'G, Dr. Richard F- Cole Y3 2 g 33 jg79 y Atomic Safety and Licensing Board 6-U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission c12.d .

N Yff d <

5"*'

Washington, D.C. 20555 g, RE: In the Matter of V'I cd 3oston Edison Company, et al (Pilgrim Nuclear Generating Station, Unit 2)

Docket No. 50-471 Gentleaen:

As counsel to Alan and Marion Cleeton, a carty in the refer-enced proceeding, I wish to coc ent upon the Nic S'taff's statement of outstanding catters dated January lo, 1979 which was circulatec to the various parties. For your convenience I have or:1niced my -

c c ents with respect to each of the ren.aining issues in this ca'se.

1. Alternative Sites The Staff has proposed to codify the normal NEPA procedure for recirculation of the new alternative site evaluation. We be-lieve that the particular abbreviated crocedure as croocsed bv the Staff is i= proper and fails to meet th'e legal recuiren'ents o f' ': EPA and the Commission's adjudicatory decisions regarding the matter of recirculation of FIS supplements. Such a truncated procedure, particularly with respect to this critical issue of site analysis which is at the heart o f the N_?A prccess , muld not be in the pu':-

lic interest nor would it demcnstrate a seri us NRC cc-nitrent to the Congressional candate to implement the policies o f ' EPA to 7003060546 .

Edward Luton, Esquire -

Dr, A. Dixon Callahan Dr. Richard F. Cole January 25, 1979 Page Two the fullest extent." The last opportunity for public comment in this case was 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 substantial change in the population of Plymouth. lurther, for the reasons stated in my letter of December 29, 1978 to Mr. Denton of the NRC, a copy of which was earlier furnished to you, the various time constraint f actors existing outside this NRC permit case with respect to Pilgrim 2 remove any potential financial advantages of an earlier construction authorization uhich miaht otherwise flow from an ab-breviated recirculation process. We have informed the Council on Environmental Quality of our strong feelings on this matter. If the NRC Staff, in fact, adopts the position of a truncated NEPA recirculation of the FES site analysis supplement, we will move to stay the Board hearing until the normal NEPA procedures have been followed in thi, case.

2. Financial Qualifications As you kncv, the Massachusetts Department of Public Utilities is presently holding hearings on-the capacity needs of Boston Edi-son Company and the reasonableness of the construction program re-quired to meet such needs (D.P.U. #19494). The Department indicat-ed in its last rate decision involving Boston Edison (D.P.U d19300 issued February 28, 1973) that in the event Edison was unable to justify the construction of Pilgrim 2 in the successor proceeding DPU #19494 the Department could not approve future capital financ-ings by Edison which would be required to finance Pilgrim 2. At the conclusion of Phase 1 of D.P.U. proceeding #19494 the Massa-chusetts Energy Facilities Siting Council, which was holding hear-ings jointly with the D.P.U., found that Edison's forecast of its .

capacity needs was insufficient to justify its cons truction pro-gram (E.F.S.C. 478-12, issued October 24, 1973). This decision was forwarded to you by Laurie Burt, Massachusetts Assistant Attorney General, by letter of December 5,1978. The hearings are new about to commence as to Phase II, which are on the reasonableness of the specific 3oston Edison construction program, consisting al-most entirely of the proposed Pilgrim 2, to meet the level of need for power established in P' se I. In that the final D.P.U. decis-ion regarding Pilgrim 2 will cirectly and conclusively determine whether in fact Boston Edison will be able to finance the cons truc-tion of Pilgrim 2 through some combination of rate relief, capital financing or otherwise, any Board hearing now on this i sue ;s pre-mature. Accordingly, we herewith file Motion 31 (attached hereto),

that the Board hearing with respect to this is sue of financial cualifications be held in abeyance until such time as the '42s s a-chusetts Department of Public Utilities issues a final decision in the D.P.U. proceeding #19494.

9 Edward Luton, Esquire Dr. A. Dixon Callahan Dr. Richard F. Cole January 25, 1979 Page Three On a separate point, and still under this issue of " financial qualifications," I have sought repeatedly since last July to ob-tain from Boston Edison counsel copies of certain information sub-mitted during 1978 to the NRC Staff by Boston Edison Company on the issue of financial qualifications. Despite the fact that I clearly identifiec such material in my several letters to counsel, my request has been repeatedly ignored or met with the response that counsel was too Lusy to compile and/or copy such information for my client. In addition to the matter in the preceding para-graph, we are not prepared to go forward with the Board hearing on financial qualifications until we have had an adequate oppor-tunity to study the materials requested from Edison. Further, we herewith file Motion #2 (attached hereto) to compel Boston Edison to make such information nremotiv available to the Cleetons who are a full party in this proceeding.'

3. Need for Power The Staff noted in its letter of January 16, 1979, that the Commonwealth's motion to supplement the hearing record on the issue of need for power was still pending. As stated above, the Massachusetts Energy Facilities Siting Council in its most recent decision regarding the December, 1977 Boston Edison long-range forecast of electric power needs and requirements (E.F.S.C. #78-12, issued October 24, 1978) declared that it "[could] not accept the forecasted electrical consumption or demand growth rates of this year's [3oston Edison] supplement [ forecast) for purposes of jus ti-fying generating capacity expansion or proposed transmission facil-ities." The Siting Cot.icil is the Massachusetts agency, officially convened pursuant to a statute enacted in 1974, charged with the public respcnsibility of approving or disapproving each annual power reed forecast by Boston Edison and planning for and confirming (or cenying) the need for new electric generating facilities. The record in this NRC construction parait proceeding on the need for power was closed on July 1, 1977, and relies upon witness testimony that is now obviously outdated and incorrect and which does not take into account the several it.portant factors cited by the Council in its recent E.F.S.C. #78-12 decision. Accordingly, we herewith file Motion #3 requesting the Board to reopen the hearing record in this case as to the issue of need for power, and to order that the Ap-plicant and NRC Staff be diracted to file testimony with respect to this issue which updates the testimony and forecasts pre viously filed.

4 NRC Reactor Satety Studv (Wash-1400)

As you know the ';RC has announced its withdrawal of support as to certain aspects of the 1975 Reactor Safety Study (Vash-liOO)

A

Edward Luton, Esquire Dr. A. Dixon Callahan Dr. Richard F. Cole January 24, 1979 Page I'our and further indicated that certain regulatory decicions based upon the conclusions set forth in this study would be re-examined. Ac-cordingly, we hereby file Motion #4 requesting the Board to direct the NRC Staf f to prepare a detailed evaluaticn of the ';RC's recent decision regarding the 1975 Reactor Safety Study and hcw such de-cision impacts on Ccrnission regulations and upon the various licen:

ing criteria and specific safety issues (e . g . , radiological risks from possible transportation accidents) of the present Pilgrir 2 Case.

Very truly yours,

~

/ --

! /(

_- ~ ,,

<L e . .f

.. 7 s, Uilliam S. Abbott Counsel for Alan and Marion Cleeton WSA: bat cc. Pilgrim Unit 2 Service List (attached)

L .A

PILGRIM UNIT 2 SERVICE LIST George H. Lewald, Esquire Ropes & Gray 225 Franklin Street Boston, Massachusetts 02110 Dale G. Stoodley, Esquire Boston Edison Company 800 Boylston Street Boston, Massachusetts 02199 Henry Herrmann, Esquire 151 Tremont Street, 27K Ecston, Massachusetts 02111 Mr. Daniel F. Ford c/o Union of Concarned Scientists 120S Massachusetts Avenue Cambridge, Massachusetts 02138 Mr. and Mrs. Alan R. Cleeton 22 Mackintosh Street Franklin, Massachusetts 02038 The Honorable Charles Corkin, II Assistant Attorney General p Environmental Protection Division @\g gals gI*(

One Ashburton Place, 19th Floor 4'g Ecston, Massachusetts 02108 O/

• 0iT! M 3arry H. Smith, Esquire J

U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Co = ission

' .*a s h ing t on , D.C.

. 20555 h _AN 3] .~

p, 1373 >C'3) 4&.

- ,_CLQ - ::)'

0:: ice or the Secretarv /

Occketing and Service 'Section 7" U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Cc= mission Washington, D.C. 20555

- - - - . . - . , .