ML19209B092: Difference between revisions

From kanterella
Jump to navigation Jump to search
(Created page by program invented by StriderTol)
(Created page by program invented by StriderTol)
Line 17: Line 17:
=Text=
=Text=
{{#Wiki_filter:~
{{#Wiki_filter:~
          %
  ***
                         .s
                         .s
'
     ~*        '
     ~*        '
THE COMMONWEALTH OF M ASSACHUSETTS
THE COMMONWEALTH OF M ASSACHUSETTS
                      ',%-
               ',1 tta          !h              DEPARTMENT OF THE ATTORNEY GENERAL F
               ',1 tta          !h              DEPARTMENT OF THE ATTORNEY GENERAL F
2                e 1
2                e 1
e f, i , g.I j
e f, i , g.I j
JOH N W. Mc CO RP 8AC'" OTATE OFFICC BUlt.Of NG 5 / .i                    ONE ASHBURTON PLACE. BOSTON C21CD (s.
JOH N W. Mc CO RP 8AC'" OTATE OFFICC BUlt.Of NG 5 / .i                    ONE ASHBURTON PLACE. BOSTON C21CD (s.
                  -
                                                .
           ,rna cea x. a nu.am                                      CCQ,3 %-Gd arvo=~cv =====*'                                      p,; ICD. & UIik FAC. fdM/
           ,rna cea x. a nu.am                                      CCQ,3 %-Gd arvo=~cv =====*'                                      p,; ICD. & UIik FAC. fdM/
August 22, 1979
August 22, 1979
Line 40: Line 34:
                                                                                                           ;
                                                                                                           ;
Barry H. Smith, Esquire                                                    h      @
Barry H. Smith, Esquire                                                    h      @
Office of the Executive Legal Direcror
Office of the Executive Legal Direcror 4    f6  ff/    6 U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission                                N Washington, D.C. 20555                                              ' ', / ,y y Re. Boston Edison Comoanv et e (Pilgrim Nuclear. Generating Station, Unit 2)
                                                                                      '
4    f6  ff/    6 U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission                                N Washington, D.C. 20555                                              ' ', / ,y y Re. Boston Edison Comoanv et e (Pilgrim Nuclear. Generating Station, Unit 2)


==Dear Barry:==
==Dear Barry:==
Line 51: Line 43:
Neither the Applicants nor the Staff have adequately considered the alternative of locating the proposed plant at a site more suitable from a population density and                                -
Neither the Applicants nor the Staff have adequately considered the alternative of locating the proposed plant at a site more suitable from a population density and                                -
environmental standpoint.
environmental standpoint.
As you are well aware, this alternative site contention has fairly raised questions of population densities, and the residual risks of a =ajor accident which the Staff's considerations of population and site characteristics purport
As you are well aware, this alternative site contention has fairly raised questions of population densities, and the residual risks of a =ajor accident which the Staff's considerations of population and site characteristics purport to assess.        It was in this context relating tcour alternative sites contention that we referred generally to a " Class 9 accident analysis."
  -
to assess.        It was in this context relating tcour alternative sites contention that we referred generally to a " Class 9 accident analysis."
791009015 7 00R_M<M                                                iiis 302
791009015 7 00R_M<M                                                iiis 302


8
8
      *
- ,~
- ,~
                                                                      ,
                            .-
If our use of this terminology was confusing, I apologize and hope that the above explanation clarifies the direct relationship of accident risks to the Commonwealth's long-standing contention on alternative sites.
If our use of this terminology was confusing, I apologize and hope that the above explanation clarifies the direct relationship of accident risks to the Commonwealth's long-standing contention on alternative sites.
Very truly yours, bA LAURIE BURT Assistant Attorney General Environmental Protection Division One Ashburton Place, 13th Floor Boston, Massachusetts    021008 (617)  727-2265 L3 :JK cc. Pilgrim Service List
Very truly yours, bA LAURIE BURT Assistant Attorney General Environmental Protection Division One Ashburton Place, 13th Floor Boston, Massachusetts    021008 (617)  727-2265 L3 :JK cc. Pilgrim Service List O
                                                              -
O e
O O
e
                                              %
e 1115 303}}
e 1115 303}}

Revision as of 06:34, 2 February 2020

Ack Receipt of NRC Response to Motion to Defer Forthcoming Evidentiary Hearings on Emergency Planning & Class 9 Accidents.Clarifies Relationship of Accident Risks to long- Standing Contention on Alternative Sites
ML19209B092
Person / Time
Site: 05000471
Issue date: 08/22/1979
From: Burt L
MASSACHUSETTS, COMMONWEALTH OF
To: Beverly Smith
NRC OFFICE OF THE EXECUTIVE LEGAL DIRECTOR (OELD)
References
NUDOCS 7910090157
Download: ML19209B092 (2)
v • d • e


Text

~

.s

~* '

THE COMMONWEALTH OF M ASSACHUSETTS

',1 tta !h DEPARTMENT OF THE ATTORNEY GENERAL F

2 e 1

e f, i , g.I j

JOH N W. Mc CO RP 8AC'" OTATE OFFICC BUlt.Of NG 5 / .i ONE ASHBURTON PLACE. BOSTON C21CD (s.

,rna cea x. a nu.am CCQ,3 %-Gd arvo=~cv =====*' p,; ICD. & UIik FAC. fdM/

August 22, 1979

--.m -

' ~ ~ ~ ~ G L?, g 7 p<., ,,.,.

    • \ WF 'tb

+ -

y a

%g v

Barry H. Smith, Esquire h @

Office of the Executive Legal Direcror 4 f6 ff/ 6 U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission N Washington, D.C. 20555 ' ', / ,y y Re. Boston Edison Comoanv et e (Pilgrim Nuclear. Generating Station, Unit 2)

Dear Barry:

The Commonwealth is in receipt of the staff's

" Response to Motion of the Commonwealth of Massachusetts to Defer the Forthcoming Evidentiary Hearings en Emergen,y Planning on Class 9 Accidents." In this response, you state that there is no Class 9 Contention in the Pilgrim Licensing proceedings. I am writing to clarify what appears to be a misunderstanding on this issue.

Our reference to a Class 9 accident analysis prescinds from the Commonwealth's Contenrion 12 which alleges:

Neither the Applicants nor the Staff have adequately considered the alternative of locating the proposed plant at a site more suitable from a population density and -

environmental standpoint.

As you are well aware, this alternative site contention has fairly raised questions of population densities, and the residual risks of a =ajor accident which the Staff's considerations of population and site characteristics purport to assess. It was in this context relating tcour alternative sites contention that we referred generally to a " Class 9 accident analysis."

791009015 7 00R_M<M iiis 302

8

- ,~

If our use of this terminology was confusing, I apologize and hope that the above explanation clarifies the direct relationship of accident risks to the Commonwealth's long-standing contention on alternative sites.

Very truly yours, bA LAURIE BURT Assistant Attorney General Environmental Protection Division One Ashburton Place, 13th Floor Boston, Massachusetts 021008 (617) 727-2265 L3 :JK cc. Pilgrim Service List O

O e

e 1115 303

Retrieved from "https://kanterella.com/w/index.php?title=ML19209B092&oldid=2391736"