ML19323F376

Submits Applicants' Response to ASLB 800327 Order Re Emergency Planning Hearing.Requests Reconsideration of ASLB Position on Previously Admitted Contention Re Emergency Planning.Related Correspondence Encl

ML19323F376
Person / Time
Site:	05000471
Issue date:	05/01/1980
From:	Lewald G, Stoodley D ROPES & GRAY
To:	Callihan A, Cole R, Goodhope A Atomic Safety and Licensing Board Panel
References
NUDOCS 8005280877
Download: ML19323F376 (3)

Text

.

.

.

ROPES & G RAY 2a5 FRANKLIN STREET DOSTON O2110 cantc aor,ac as"noPGnAtoW nca ec:c eir 423 eioo t e t r a Pa v aa e t s 940589 May 1, 1980

{ WTED CORRESPONDENCE

,

Andrew C. Goodhope, Esq.

Chairman Atomic Safety and Licensing Board 3320 Estelle Terrace Wheaton, Maryland 20906 Dr. A. D'ixon Callihan Union Carbide Corporation Dr. Richard F. Cole P. O. Box Y Atomic Safet:c e.nd Licensing Ecard U. S. Nuc' ear 3.egulatory Commission Oak Ridge, Tennessee 37830 Eashirston, D. C. 20555 Re: In the Matter of Boston Ediscn Company e; al.

(Pilgrim Nuclear Generating Station, Unit 2) -- Docket No. 50 t71 '

Gentlemen:

In response to the Board's Order Ccncerning .:=S"'ng on Emergency Planning (March 27, 1980), Applicants s a;. :

That insofar as the Board's Order purports c reaffirn the -

standing of the contention concerning energency planning pre-clously admitted by the Board in this proceeding, Applicants request reconsideration.

That contention reads as fcllows: e A

.

Given the guidelines established by Appendix E to 10 CFR Part 50 and the proposed Amendment thereto (h3 F.R.  % g (1) An acceptable emergency , plan canno37L73)C D

.

'

be developed to protect persons .tithin

!

2 19 g g i ,;

and beyond the LPZ of the prop: sed site, {. Offke et the D'% 4

- 'D

.

and (2) The Applicant's prelitinary Emc3 4

energency plans as set : crth in its  %

Preliminary Safety Analysis Report are ~ I' inadequate. (Underscoring added) 0 In its subsequent proposed emergenc;. planning rule, pub-11shed December 19, 1979 44 F.R. 75167, :he Commission i

i THIS DOCUMENT CONTAlNS 1 8 0 0 5 es0 %)7

-

b POOR QUAUTY PAGES

'

l

-

\

.

.

Rohts & GRAY

.

Andrew C. Goodhope, Esq.

Dr. A. Dixon Callihan Dr. Richard F. Cole 'My 1, 1980

.

expressly declared at 75170, that:

" Publication of these prcposed rule changes in the Federal Register supersedes and thus' eliminates the need to continue development of the proposed rule change to 10 CFR Part 50, Appendia E (h3 F.R.

37473) published on August 23, 1978 re-garding Emergency Planning considerations outside the Lcw Population Zone (LPZ)."

. .

(Underscoring added.)

The result of the Commission's action in superseding and eliminating continued development cf the proposed rule change to 10 CFR Part 50, Appendix E (h 3 : .

373) is t: have re-mcVed and eliminated the underpinning cf the emergency planning contention previously admitted by the 3 card. Frc;: sed rule change to 10 CFR Part 50, Appendix E ( 3 F.P. 3727?), accordingly no longer provides interim guidance in licensing prcceedings nor can it any longer form the rational basis for a hearing conten-tion. The contention as put is moct and ought to te dismissed.

In further response to the Board's Order Concerning Hearing On Emergency Planning, App _' i c an t s say, that they do not take issue with the Board's ruling as to . hether energency planning is a proper issue to be ccnsidered in future prcceedings before it. However, as demonstrated abcre, in light of the Commission's v. cst recent publicaticn of proposed rule changes en emergency planning, hearings cannc: proceed en the basis of the present contention and on the assur;; ion that :he prcpcsed rule changes as set forth in 43 F.P. 37h 3 are final rules.

Given the nature of the Commission's most recsnt (December 19, 1979) publication of propcsed rule changes (44 F.R. 75167), the fact that certain of the prcp: sed rule changes are presented in the alternative (4h F.R. ~5172), and that the proposed rules are under c:ntinuing evaluaticn, e.g.

(44 F.R. 75651) effectively preclude prceeeding to hearings l on the subj ect of emergency planning on the assumption that the L

Board and parties are dealing with final rules.

In further response to the Board's Order, Applicants note

( that the prior position of the NRC Staff as to a present schedule i for emergency planning issue hearings was expresse1 as a I

1 dependency on its receipt of requested information frcm the

.

.

'

. Ro o cs & G R AY

,

Andrew C. Goodhope, Esq.

Dr. A. Dixon Callihan Dr. Richard F. Cole May 1, 1980 Applicant.

(See, 11RC Staff Response to Board Inquiry Regarding Emergency Planning, dated February 4, 1980.) Assuming that this continues to be the Staff's position, Applicants will commit to answering the Staff's informational requests within sixty days of the promulgation of the Commission's new rules on emergency planning. Inasmuch as the Commission's present proposed rules (h4 F.R. 75167) call for amendments to the Applicants' PSAR of a degree dependent upon the alternative promulgated which in turn bears an interrelationship with the Staff's informational request, it appears both prudent and economic to dovetail. these efforts, particular~y in light of current expectation, of shich J

the Applicant is advised, that the new emergency planning rules will be issued in June.

Respectfully, GeorgeO.et.h%

-

c.3-

..

MY Lewald

_

Dale G. Stoodley '

Boston Edison Company 800 Boylston Street Boston, Mass. 02199 Counsel for the Applicants cc: Service List

.