ML20005B908: Difference between revisions

From kanterella
Jump to navigation Jump to search
(StriderTol Bot change)
(StriderTol Bot change)
 
Line 17: Line 17:
=Text=
=Text=
{{#Wiki_filter:_
{{#Wiki_filter:_
1                                                                          0   ci 1
0 ci 1
G     %l1O   79 %c.
G
2 UNITED STATES OF AMERICA               f
%l1O %c.2 1
                                                                              ,9 y
79 UNITED STATES OF AMERICA f
NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSION           4             g BEFORE THE ATOMIC SAFETY AND LICENSING BOARD
y
                                                  )
,9 NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSION 4
In the Matter of                   )
g BEFORE THE ATOMIC SAFETY AND LICENSING BOARD
                                                  )
)
BOSTON EDISON COMPANY et al.       )       Docket No. 50-471
In the Matter of
                                                  )
)
(Pilgrim Nuclear Generating       )
)
* Station, Unit 2)                 )                     p           /\,
BOSTON EDISON COMPANY et al.
                                                  )
)
                                                                  ! nElfff'9 gT  #f?15 % a
Docket No. 50-471
                                                                                            ^
)
2 SUPPLEMENT TO COMMONWEALTH'S MOTION TO EXTEND TIME FOR       g' Dgag 8'/
(Pilgrim Nuclear Generating
FILING DIRECT TESTIMONY ON                           D
)
                                                                                      ,,/#
/\\,
EMERGENCY PLANNING               %
Station, Unit 2)
On August 24, 1981, the Commonwealth filed a Motion to Extend the Time for Filing Direct Testimony on Emergency
)
,              Planning stating, inter alia, that testimony could not yet be properly prepared because discovery disputes remained outstanding and time was needed to review :he Applicants' revised evacuation study and any additional information to be produced in response to discovery requests.
p
)
! nElfff'9
#f?15 % a gT
^
SUPPLEMENT TO COMMONWEALTH'S Dgag 8'/
2 MOTION TO EXTEND TIME FOR g'
D FILING DIRECT TESTIMONY ON
,,/#
EMERGENCY PLANNING On August 24, 1981, the Commonwealth filed a Motion to Extend the Time for Filing Direct Testimony on Emergency Planning stating, inter alia, that testimony could not yet be properly prepared because discovery disputes remained outstanding and time was needed to review :he Applicants' revised evacuation study and any additional information to be produced in response to discovery requests.
The Commonwealth believes that the following events, which have occurred subsequent to the date of its Motion, lend additional support thereto:
The Commonwealth believes that the following events, which have occurred subsequent to the date of its Motion, lend additional support thereto:
6 9 40 ( \
6 9 40 \\
    /i 8109160101 810o02
(
{DRADOCK0500C,
/ 8109160101 810o02
{DRADOCK0500C, i


4
4 1.
: 1. The Board granted, on August 20, 1981, the Commonwealth's Motion to *-nel disclosure by the Applicants of the results of any accident consequence analyses and any evacuation studies of areas outside 1
The Board granted, on August 20, 1981, the Commonwealth's Motion to
*-nel disclosure by the Applicants of the results of any accident consequence analyses and any evacuation studies of areas outside 1
the Applicants' proposed EPZ within their possession.
the Applicants' proposed EPZ within their possession.
: 2. On August 28, 1981, the Applicants filed, pursuant to the Board's order, an answer to the Commonwealth's discovery requests which reveals that they in fcct have performed both a consequence analysis for the Pilgrim site and an evacuation study for Cape Cod.
2.
As the Commonwealth's discovery requests and Detailed Statement of Contentions readily show, these items have been the principal objects of the Commonwealth's discovery efforts since July 1, the first day of the discovery period, and are of critical relevance to the Commonwealth's contentions. The Commonwealth cannot competently prepare its direct testimony without ample opportunity to review these studies with the assistance of its experts.
On August 28, 1981, the Applicants filed, pursuant to the Board's order, an answer to the Commonwealth's discovery requests which reveals that they in fcct have performed both a consequence analysis for the Pilgrim site and an evacuation study for Cape Cod.
i
As the Commonwealth's discovery requests and Detailed Statement of Contentions readily show, these items have been the principal objects of the Commonwealth's discovery efforts since July 1, the first day of the discovery period, and are of critical relevance to the Commonwealth's contentions.
: 3. On August 24 the Applicants filed their revised evacuation study. As is clear from the attached tables taken from that revised study (with notations I           added to allow comparison with the results of the Staff's evacuation study) and the original study as contained in PSAR Amendments 40 and 41, the new
The Commonwealth cannot competently prepare its direct testimony without ample opportunity to review these studies with the assistance of its experts.
i 3.
On August 24 the Applicants filed their revised evacuation study.
As is clear from the attached tables taken from that revised study (with notations I
added to allow comparison with the results of the Staff's evacuation study) and the original study as contained in PSAR Amendments 40 and 41, the new


evacuation time estimates are considerably higher than the Applicants' and Staf f's prior eetimates. It is also clear to the Commonwealth, after only a preliminary review of the Applicants' revised evacuation study, that the new study employs a different methodology from that used in the past.
. evacuation time estimates are considerably higher than the Applicants' and Staf f's prior eetimates.
It is also clear to the Commonwealth, after only a preliminary review of the Applicants' revised evacuation study, that the new study employs a different methodology from that used in the past.
The ramifications of these changes are considerable.
The ramifications of these changes are considerable.
The evacuation study which the Commonwealth must address .n its direct testimony looks very different, both in methodology and results, from that which has been at issue thus far. Methodological problems raised by the Commonwealth's discovery requests and included as issues in its Detailed Statement of Contentions may well ne corrected in the revised study. And, since the Staff's SER Supplement on emergency planning dces not address the adequacy of this new and very different evacuation study, the Staff's position on .ne adequacy of the Applicants' preliminary emergency plans is not even known at this time.1/
The evacuation study which the Commonwealth must address.n its direct testimony looks very different, both in methodology and results, from that which has been at issue thus far.
: 4. While the Commonwealth has received no written notice to this effect, it has been orally advised by counsel for the Staff that the Staff will probably not be 1/ In other words, it is not known whether the Staff still concludes (and, if so, the reasons for its otnelusion) that the requirements of 10 C.F.R. , Part 50, Appendix E, Part II, Item G are satisfied. See SER Supplement No. 5 , at 13. 3-8 and 13.3-9.)
Methodological problems raised by the Commonwealth's discovery requests and included as issues in its Detailed Statement of Contentions may well ne corrected in the revised study.
And, since the Staff's SER Supplement on emergency planning dces not address the adequacy of this new and very different evacuation study, the Staff's position on.ne adequacy of the Applicants' preliminary emergency plans is not even known at this time.1/
4.
While the Commonwealth has received no written notice to this effect, it has been orally advised by counsel for the Staff that the Staff will probably not be 1/
In other words, it is not known whether the Staff still concludes (and, if so, the reasons for its otnelusion) that the requirements of 10 C.F.R.
, Part 50, Appendix E, Part II, Item G are satisfied.
See SER Supplement No. 5, at 13. 3-8 and 13.3-9.)


providing the results of its consequence analysis for the Pilgrim site to the Commonwealth. According to the Staff, it may be necessary for the Commonwealth to subpoena this data from Sandia Laboratories.
. providing the results of its consequence analysis for the Pilgrim site to the Commonwealth.
According to the Staff, it may be necessary for the Commonwealth to subpoena this data from Sandia Laboratories.
Again, the Commonwealth should not be expected to prepare its expert testimony until it has received and reviewed this data.
Again, the Commonwealth should not be expected to prepare its expert testimony until it has received and reviewed this data.
: 5. The Staff has informed the Commonwealtn, in its August 24, 1981 Response to the Commonwealth's Second Set of Interrogatories, that the findings and conclusions of the Staff's implementation review of BE Co.'s emergency plans for Pilgrim Unit 1 are still being prepared and will be supplied once available.
5.
Counsel for the Commonwealth states, upon information and belief, that the Staff conducting the review found a multitude of deficiencies in the Pilgrim I plans,at least some of which are highly relevant to this proceeding on the emergency plans for Pilgrim II. Again, the Commonwealth must receive this information and assess the implications thereof for its contentions in this proceeding before filing direct testimony.
The Staff has informed the Commonwealtn, in its August 24, 1981 Response to the Commonwealth's Second Set of Interrogatories, that the findings and conclusions of the Staff's implementation review of BE Co.'s emergency plans for Pilgrim Unit 1 are still being prepared and will be supplied once available.
These recent developments lend even greater force to the Commonweatlh's previods request for additional time to prepare testimony. Review of the studies referenced above may well enable the Commonwealth to narrow the issues which, in its
Counsel for the Commonwealth states, upon information and belief, that the Staff conducting the review found a multitude of deficiencies in the Pilgrim I plans,at least some of which are highly relevant to this proceeding on the emergency plans for Pilgrim II.
Again, the Commonwealth must receive this information and assess the implications thereof for its contentions in this proceeding before filing direct testimony.
These recent developments lend even greater force to the Commonweatlh's previods request for additional time to prepare testimony.
Review of the studies referenced above may well enable the Commonwealth to narrow the issues which, in its


opinien, need to be addressed in this proceeding.                                   The Staff's review of the new evacuation study and preparation of a revised SER Supplement may well do the same.                             And, in any event, it is clear that the basic data which the Commonwealth must address in its testimony is now very different than has previously been the case, resulting in c need for considerable review before the preparation of direct testimony.                                   -
. opinien, need to be addressed in this proceeding.
The Staff's review of the new evacuation study and preparation of a revised SER Supplement may well do the same.
And, in any event, it is clear that the basic data which the Commonwealth must address in its testimony is now very different than has previously been the case, resulting in c need for considerable review before the preparation of direct testimony.
Respectfully submitted, C
Respectfully submitted, C
                                                                      . /l           j$         "[
. /l j$
By:M 0 ^*'                   4U
"[
                                                              / JO ANN SHOTWELL
By:M 0 ^*'
                                                            ''' Assistant Attorney General Environmental Protection Division Public Protection Bureau Department of the Attorney General One Ashburton Place, 19th Floor Boston, Massachuse ts 02108 (617) 727-2265 DATED:   September 2, 1981 i
4U
/ JO ANN SHOTWELL
''' Assistant Attorney General Environmental Protection Division Public Protection Bureau Department of the Attorney General One Ashburton Place, 19th Floor Boston, Massachuse ts 02108 (617) 727-2265 DATED:
September 2, 1981 i


1 .
1 TABLE 6-1 PIL GRIM ST ATION 1990 EVACUATION CLEAR TIME ESTIMATES (Time in Minutes from Siren Alert)
TABLE 6-1 PIL GRIM ST ATION 1990 EVACUATION CLEAR TIME ESTIMATES (Time in Minutes from Siren Alert)                           !   j b,pgAh      Peak 3 Population Peak     Typical     Typical Population Population Population b
!j b,p Ah g
Nk)     Normal       Adverse     Normal     Adverse               f Case           Weather     Wea th e r We a th er Wea th er             .
Peak Peak Typical Typical f
i
3 Population Population Population Population Nk)
: 1. 2 Mile     /43       165           190       160         180             .
Normal Adverse Normal Adverse b
: 2. 5 Mile West 16 0     270           380       285         425
Case Weather Wea th e r We a th er Wea th er i
: 3. 5 Mile South lbD     205           255       165-       185 4 10 Mile Northl(O     260           330       175         210 i
1.
j     5. 10 Mile West f 60     295           420       290         435
2 Mile
: 6. 10 Mile Sou th lCS   3 15         365       215         250         l 'l
/43 165 190 160 180 2.
: 7. Plymouth             3 15         380       285         425 I
5 Mile West 16 0 270 380 285 425 3.
: 8. EPZ           2 4$   355           490       300         460 f
5 Mile South lbD 205 255 165-185 4
i!
10 Mile Northl(O 260 330 175 210 i
j 5.
10 Mile West f 60 295 420 290 435 6.
10 Mile Sou th lCS 3 15 365 215 250 l 'l 7.
Plymouth 3 15 380 285 425 I
8.
EPZ 2 4$
355 490 300 460 f
i !
l 6-2 a
l 6-2 a


PS PSAR                   AMENDMENT 40 Octobar 10, 1980
PS PSAR AMENDMENT 40 Octobar 10, 1980 TABLE 5-1
    --                                          TABLE 5-1
@I..
  @I..
CLEltR-TIME ESTIMATES *
CLEltR-TIME ESTIMATES *
  ==                                                (a)     (b)           (c)
(a)
  ~
(b)
    ~-                                              Peak   Adverse       Typical
(c)
: 1. 2 miles                   70       40             20
 
: 2. West 5 miles             200     200           130
==
: 3. South 5 miles             150       75             50
~
: 4. North 10 miles           180     140           120
Peak Adverse Typical
: 5. West 10 miles             240     240           170
~-
: 6. South 10 miles           160       75             50
1.
: 7. Town of Plymouth         200     23G           130
2 miles 70 40 20 2.
: 8. 3600                     345     300           225
West 5 miles 200 200 130 3.
                        ** North 5 miles             120     120           120 "t.:_
South 5 miles 150 75 50 4.
North 10 miles 180 140 120 5.
West 10 miles 240 240 170 6.
South 10 miles 160 75 50 7.
Town of Plymouth 200 23G 130 8.
3600 345 300 225 North 5 miles 120 120 120 "t.:_
sss:
sss:
          ...i...
...i...
* Times in minutes.
Times in minutes.
                    ** Assumed time for evacuating Saquish Neck only.       Note that the winter population is estimated to be three people.
Assumed time for evacuating Saquish Neck only.
        .....l"'                                                                 .
Note that
9 13A-29               _
** the winter population is estimated to be three people.
..l"'
9 13A-29


UNITED STATES OF AMERICA NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSION BEFORE THE ATOMIC SAFETY AND LICENSING BOARD
. UNITED STATES OF AMERICA NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSION BEFORE THE ATOMIC SAFETY AND LICENSING BOARD
                                            )
)
In the Matter of                   )
In the Matter of
                                            )
)
BOSTON EDISON COMPANY et al.       )         Docket No. 50-471
)
                                            )
BOSTON EDISON COMPANY et al.
(Pilgrim Nuclear Generating       )
)
Station, Unit 2)                 )
Docket No. 50-471
                                            )
)
                                            )
(Pilgrim Nuclear Generating
)
Station, Unit 2)
)
)
)
CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE I hereby certify that the within Supplement has been served on the following by deposit of copies thereof in the United States Mail, first class mail, postage prepaid this 2nd day of September, 1981:
CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE I hereby certify that the within Supplement has been served on the following by deposit of copies thereof in the United States Mail, first class mail, postage prepaid this 2nd day of September, 1981:
* Andrew C. Goodhope, Esq.         Henry Herrman, Esq.
* Andrew C. Goodhope, Esq.
Chairman                           Room 1045 Atomic Safety and                   50 Congress Street Licensing Board                 Boston, Massachusetts     02109 3320 Estelle Terrace Wheaton, Maryland 20906             Mr. & Mrs. Alan R. Cleeton 22 Mackintosh Street Dr. A. Dixon Callihan               Franklin, Massachusetts 02038 J
Henry Herrman, Esq.
Union Carbide Corporation P.O. Box Y                         William S. Abbot, Esq.
Chairman Room 1045 Atomic Safety and 50 Congress Street Licensing Board Boston, Massachusetts 02109 3320 Estelle Terrace Wheaton, Maryland 20906 Mr. & Mrs. Alan R. Cleeton 22 Mackintosh Street Dr. A. Dixon Callihan Franklin, Massachusetts 02038 Union Carbide Corporation J
Oak Ridge, Tennessee 37830         Suite 925 50 Congress Street Dr. Richard F. Cole               Boston, Massachusetts 02109 Atomic Safety and Licensing Board                 Thomas G. Dignan, Jr., Esq.
P.O.
U.S. Nuclear Regulatory             Ropes & Gray Commission                       225 Fran;.lin Street Washington, D.C. 20555             Boston, Massachusetts 02110 Patrick J. Kenny, Esq.             Atomic Safety and Licensing Edward L. Selgrade, Esq.             Appeal Board Deputy Director                   U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Mass. Office of Energy               Commission Resources                       Washington, D.C. 20555 73 Tremont Street Boston, Massachusetts 02108
Box Y William S.
Abbot, Esq.
Oak Ridge, Tennessee 37830 Suite 925 50 Congress Street Dr. Richard F. Cole Boston, Massachusetts 02109 Atomic Safety and Licensing Board Thomas G. Dignan, Jr., Esq.
U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Ropes & Gray Commission 225 Fran;.lin Street Washington, D.C.
20555 Boston, Massachusetts 02110 Patrick J. Kenny, Esq.
Atomic Safety and Licensing Edward L.
Selgrade, Esq.
Appeal Board Deputy Director U.S.
Nuclear Regulatory Mass. Office of Energy Commission Resources Washington, D.C.
20555 73 Tremont Street Boston, Massachusetts 02108


s t
s t Atomic Safety and Licensing Office of the Secretary Board Panel Docketing and Service Section U 2. Nuclear Regulatory U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission Commission Washington, D.C.
Atomic Safety and Licensing           Office of the Secretary Board Panel                       Docketing and Service Section U 2. Nuclear Regulatory               U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission Commission                         Washington, D.C.     20555 Washington, D.C. 20555 Chief Librarian Jack R. Goldberg                     Plymouth Public Library Office of the Executive               North Street Legal Director                     Plymouth, Massachusetts       02360 U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission                         William S. Stowe, Esquire Washington, D.C. 20555             Boston Edison Company 800 Boylston Street Thomas S. Moore, Chairman             Boston, Massachusetts       02199 Atomic Safety and Licensing Appeal Board                       Francis S. Wright, Esquire U.S. Nuclear Regulatory               Berman & Lewenberg Commission                         211 Congress St.
20555 Washington, D.C.
Washington, D.C. 20555             Boston, Massachusetts       02110 Christine N. Kohl, Esquire           Dr. John H. Buck Atomic Safety and Licensing           Atomic Safety and Licensing Appeal Board                         Appeal Board U.S. Nuclear Regulatory               U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission                           Commission Washington, D.C. 20555             Washington, D.C.     20555 Stephen H. Lewis                     R. K. Gad III U.S. Nuclear Regulatory               Ropes & Gray Commissien                         225 Franklin Street Office of tne Executive               Boston, Mascachusetts       02110 Legal Director l
20555 Chief Librarian Jack R. Goldberg Plymouth Public Library Office of the Executive North Street Legal Director Plymouth, Massachusetts 02360 U.S.
Mashington, D.C. 20555 l
Nuclear Regulatory Commission William S.
Michael Blume l         U.S. Nuclear Regulatory l           Commission l         Office of the Executive Legal Director                                                             l Washington, D.C. 20555                                     ,
Stowe, Esquire Washington, D.C.
f         ,/     6    4_ sky Jo Ann Shotwell ''
20555 Boston Edison Company 800 Boylston Street Thomas S. Moore, Chairman Boston, Massachusetts 02199 Atomic Safety and Licensing Appeal Board Francis S. Wright, Esquire U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Berman & Lewenberg Commission 211 Congress St.
                                              'Asdistant Attorney General
Washington, D.C.
                                              ' Environmental Protection Division i                                               Public Protection Bureau Department of the Attorney General One Ashburton' Place. 19th Floor Boston, Massachusetts       02108 (917) 727-2265
20555 Boston, Massachusetts 02110 Christine N. Kohl, Esquire Dr. John H.
Buck Atomic Safety and Licensing Atomic Safety and Licensing Appeal Board Appeal Board U.S. Nuclear Regulatory U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission Commission Washington, D.C.
20555 Washington, D.C.
20555 Stephen H. Lewis R. K. Gad III U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Ropes & Gray Commissien 225 Franklin Street Office of tne Executive Boston, Mascachusetts 02110 Legal Director l
Mashington, D.C.
20555 l
Michael Blume l
U.S.
Nuclear Regulatory l
Commission l
Office of the Executive Legal Director l
Washington, D.C.
20555 6
4_ sky f
,/
Jo Ann Shotwell ''
'Asdistant Attorney General
' Environmental Protection Division i
Public Protection Bureau Department of the Attorney General One Ashburton' Place. 19th Floor Boston, Massachusetts 02108 (917) 727-2265
* Express Mail
* Express Mail
                          ---        _ _-            - . ,    . .                .,}}
.,}}

Latest revision as of 09:03, 23 December 2024

Suppl to Commonwealth of Ma 810824 Motion to Extend Time for Filing Direct Testimony on Emergency Planning.Addl Listed Events,Which Occurred Since Motion Filed,Lend Support to Motion.Certificate of Svc Encl
ML20005B908
Person / Time
Site: 05000471
Issue date: 09/02/1981
From: Shotwell J
MASSACHUSETTS, COMMONWEALTH OF
To:
Atomic Safety and Licensing Board Panel
References
NUDOCS 8109160101
Download: ML20005B908 (9)
v • d • e


Text

_

0 ci 1

G

%l1O %c.2 1

79 UNITED STATES OF AMERICA f

y

,9 NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSION 4

g BEFORE THE ATOMIC SAFETY AND LICENSING BOARD

)

In the Matter of

)

)

BOSTON EDISON COMPANY et al.

)

Docket No. 50-471

)

(Pilgrim Nuclear Generating

)

/\\,

Station, Unit 2)

)

p

)

! nElfff'9

  1. f?15 % a gT

^

SUPPLEMENT TO COMMONWEALTH'S Dgag 8'/

2 MOTION TO EXTEND TIME FOR g'

D FILING DIRECT TESTIMONY ON

,,/#

EMERGENCY PLANNING On August 24, 1981, the Commonwealth filed a Motion to Extend the Time for Filing Direct Testimony on Emergency Planning stating, inter alia, that testimony could not yet be properly prepared because discovery disputes remained outstanding and time was needed to review :he Applicants' revised evacuation study and any additional information to be produced in response to discovery requests.

The Commonwealth believes that the following events, which have occurred subsequent to the date of its Motion, lend additional support thereto:

6 9 40 \\

(

/ 8109160101 810o02

{DRADOCK0500C, i

4 1.

The Board granted, on August 20, 1981, the Commonwealth's Motion to

  • -nel disclosure by the Applicants of the results of any accident consequence analyses and any evacuation studies of areas outside 1

the Applicants' proposed EPZ within their possession.

2.

On August 28, 1981, the Applicants filed, pursuant to the Board's order, an answer to the Commonwealth's discovery requests which reveals that they in fcct have performed both a consequence analysis for the Pilgrim site and an evacuation study for Cape Cod.

As the Commonwealth's discovery requests and Detailed Statement of Contentions readily show, these items have been the principal objects of the Commonwealth's discovery efforts since July 1, the first day of the discovery period, and are of critical relevance to the Commonwealth's contentions.

The Commonwealth cannot competently prepare its direct testimony without ample opportunity to review these studies with the assistance of its experts.

i 3.

On August 24 the Applicants filed their revised evacuation study.

As is clear from the attached tables taken from that revised study (with notations I

added to allow comparison with the results of the Staff's evacuation study) and the original study as contained in PSAR Amendments 40 and 41, the new

. evacuation time estimates are considerably higher than the Applicants' and Staf f's prior eetimates.

It is also clear to the Commonwealth, after only a preliminary review of the Applicants' revised evacuation study, that the new study employs a different methodology from that used in the past.

The ramifications of these changes are considerable.

The evacuation study which the Commonwealth must address.n its direct testimony looks very different, both in methodology and results, from that which has been at issue thus far.

Methodological problems raised by the Commonwealth's discovery requests and included as issues in its Detailed Statement of Contentions may well ne corrected in the revised study.

And, since the Staff's SER Supplement on emergency planning dces not address the adequacy of this new and very different evacuation study, the Staff's position on.ne adequacy of the Applicants' preliminary emergency plans is not even known at this time.1/

4.

While the Commonwealth has received no written notice to this effect, it has been orally advised by counsel for the Staff that the Staff will probably not be 1/

In other words, it is not known whether the Staff still concludes (and, if so, the reasons for its otnelusion) that the requirements of 10 C.F.R.

, Part 50, Appendix E, Part II, Item G are satisfied.

See SER Supplement No. 5, at 13. 3-8 and 13.3-9.)

. providing the results of its consequence analysis for the Pilgrim site to the Commonwealth.

According to the Staff, it may be necessary for the Commonwealth to subpoena this data from Sandia Laboratories.

Again, the Commonwealth should not be expected to prepare its expert testimony until it has received and reviewed this data.

5.

The Staff has informed the Commonwealtn, in its August 24, 1981 Response to the Commonwealth's Second Set of Interrogatories, that the findings and conclusions of the Staff's implementation review of BE Co.'s emergency plans for Pilgrim Unit 1 are still being prepared and will be supplied once available.

Counsel for the Commonwealth states, upon information and belief, that the Staff conducting the review found a multitude of deficiencies in the Pilgrim I plans,at least some of which are highly relevant to this proceeding on the emergency plans for Pilgrim II.

Again, the Commonwealth must receive this information and assess the implications thereof for its contentions in this proceeding before filing direct testimony.

These recent developments lend even greater force to the Commonweatlh's previods request for additional time to prepare testimony.

Review of the studies referenced above may well enable the Commonwealth to narrow the issues which, in its

. opinien, need to be addressed in this proceeding.

The Staff's review of the new evacuation study and preparation of a revised SER Supplement may well do the same.

And, in any event, it is clear that the basic data which the Commonwealth must address in its testimony is now very different than has previously been the case, resulting in c need for considerable review before the preparation of direct testimony.

Respectfully submitted, C

. /l j$

"[

By:M 0 ^*'

4U

/ JO ANN SHOTWELL

Assistant Attorney General Environmental Protection Division Public Protection Bureau Department of the Attorney General One Ashburton Place, 19th Floor Boston, Massachuse ts 02108 (617) 727-2265 DATED:

September 2, 1981 i

1 TABLE 6-1 PIL GRIM ST ATION 1990 EVACUATION CLEAR TIME ESTIMATES (Time in Minutes from Siren Alert)

!j b,p Ah g

Peak Peak Typical Typical f

3 Population Population Population Population Nk)

Normal Adverse Normal Adverse b

Case Weather Wea th e r We a th er Wea th er i

1.

2 Mile

/43 165 190 160 180 2.

5 Mile West 16 0 270 380 285 425 3.

5 Mile South lbD 205 255 165-185 4

10 Mile Northl(O 260 330 175 210 i

j 5.

10 Mile West f 60 295 420 290 435 6.

10 Mile Sou th lCS 3 15 365 215 250 l 'l 7.

Plymouth 3 15 380 285 425 I

8.

EPZ 2 4$

355 490 300 460 f

i !

l 6-2 a

PS PSAR AMENDMENT 40 Octobar 10, 1980 TABLE 5-1

@I..

CLEltR-TIME ESTIMATES *

(a)

(b)

(c)

==

~

Peak Adverse Typical

~-

1.

2 miles 70 40 20 2.

West 5 miles 200 200 130 3.

South 5 miles 150 75 50 4.

North 10 miles 180 140 120 5.

West 10 miles 240 240 170 6.

South 10 miles 160 75 50 7.

Town of Plymouth 200 23G 130 8.

3600 345 300 225 North 5 miles 120 120 120 "t.:_

sss:

...i...

Times in minutes.

Assumed time for evacuating Saquish Neck only.

Note that

    • the winter population is estimated to be three people.

..l"'

9 13A-29

. UNITED STATES OF AMERICA NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSION BEFORE THE ATOMIC SAFETY AND LICENSING BOARD

)

In the Matter of

)

)

BOSTON EDISON COMPANY et al.

)

Docket No. 50-471

)

(Pilgrim Nuclear Generating

)

Station, Unit 2)

)

)

)

CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE I hereby certify that the within Supplement has been served on the following by deposit of copies thereof in the United States Mail, first class mail, postage prepaid this 2nd day of September, 1981:

  • Andrew C. Goodhope, Esq.

Henry Herrman, Esq.

Chairman Room 1045 Atomic Safety and 50 Congress Street Licensing Board Boston, Massachusetts 02109 3320 Estelle Terrace Wheaton, Maryland 20906 Mr. & Mrs. Alan R. Cleeton 22 Mackintosh Street Dr. A. Dixon Callihan Franklin, Massachusetts 02038 Union Carbide Corporation J

P.O.

Box Y William S.

Abbot, Esq.

Oak Ridge, Tennessee 37830 Suite 925 50 Congress Street Dr. Richard F. Cole Boston, Massachusetts 02109 Atomic Safety and Licensing Board Thomas G. Dignan, Jr., Esq.

U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Ropes & Gray Commission 225 Fran;.lin Street Washington, D.C.

20555 Boston, Massachusetts 02110 Patrick J. Kenny, Esq.

Atomic Safety and Licensing Edward L.

Selgrade, Esq.

Appeal Board Deputy Director U.S.

Nuclear Regulatory Mass. Office of Energy Commission Resources Washington, D.C.

20555 73 Tremont Street Boston, Massachusetts 02108

s t Atomic Safety and Licensing Office of the Secretary Board Panel Docketing and Service Section U 2. Nuclear Regulatory U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission Commission Washington, D.C.

20555 Washington, D.C.

20555 Chief Librarian Jack R. Goldberg Plymouth Public Library Office of the Executive North Street Legal Director Plymouth, Massachusetts 02360 U.S.

Nuclear Regulatory Commission William S.

Stowe, Esquire Washington, D.C.

20555 Boston Edison Company 800 Boylston Street Thomas S. Moore, Chairman Boston, Massachusetts 02199 Atomic Safety and Licensing Appeal Board Francis S. Wright, Esquire U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Berman & Lewenberg Commission 211 Congress St.

Washington, D.C.

20555 Boston, Massachusetts 02110 Christine N. Kohl, Esquire Dr. John H.

Buck Atomic Safety and Licensing Atomic Safety and Licensing Appeal Board Appeal Board U.S. Nuclear Regulatory U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission Commission Washington, D.C.

20555 Washington, D.C.

20555 Stephen H. Lewis R. K. Gad III U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Ropes & Gray Commissien 225 Franklin Street Office of tne Executive Boston, Mascachusetts 02110 Legal Director l

Mashington, D.C.

20555 l

Michael Blume l

U.S.

Nuclear Regulatory l

Commission l

Office of the Executive Legal Director l

Washington, D.C.

20555 6

4_ sky f

,/

Jo Ann Shotwell

'Asdistant Attorney General

' Environmental Protection Division i

Public Protection Bureau Department of the Attorney General One Ashburton' Place. 19th Floor Boston, Massachusetts 02108 (917) 727-2265

  • Express Mail

.,

Retrieved from "https://kanterella.com/w/index.php?title=ML20005B908&oldid=4668359"