ML19209B092

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)

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