ML20154N730

Requests Extension of Comment Period Re Proposed Rule 10CFR50 Concerning Early Notification & Clear Instruction to Populace within EPZ Before Issuance of Low Power OL

ML20154N730
Person / Time
Site:	Seabrook
Issue date:	05/20/1988
From:	Jonas S MASSACHUSETTS, COMMONWEALTH OF
To:	Wolf J NRC OFFICE OF THE GENERAL COUNSEL (OGC)
References
FRN-53FR16435, RULE-PR-50 53FR16435, NUDOCS 8806030048
Download: ML20154N730 (2)

Text

000XET NUMBER e PROPOSED RULE PR R

.b THE COMMONWEALTH OF M ACSA CHUCETTO

~

e kJ si k 47 N DEPARTMENT OF THE ATTORNEY GENERAL 4.0L l%EC

• .E 'l *5 3 ey &l

.g JOHN W. McCoRM ACK STATE OFFICE BL ILDING oNE ASHBURToN PLACE, BOSTON 021( 81698 v '88 MY 24 P3 30 JAMES M. SHANNON gfIt moa svca an May 20, 1988 .

BRA M James R. Wol#, Esq.

Office of the General Counsel U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission Washington, D.C. 20555 RE: Proposed Rule, 53 Fed. Reg. 16435 (May 9, 1988)

Dear Mr. Wolf:

Massachusetts Attorney General James M. Shannon requests an extension of the comment period on the proposed rule published at 53 Fed. Reg. 16435 for one hundred twenty (120) days.

The proposed rule specifically addresses the perceived problem with the Appeal Board's Decision of February 3, 1988 in the Seabrook litigation (ALAB-883). The proposal affects a reversal of the July, 1982 rule change which required neans to provide early notification and clear instruction to the populace within the EPZ before the issuance of a low power operating license.

The proposed rule would profoundly af fect the population in the Massachusetts portion of the emergency planning zone surrounding Seabrook. An extension of time is necessary to notify the population in that area of the proposed rule and to provide them with the opportunity to write the Commission with their comments. It would be unfair if the Commission were not only to remove the early notification protection of the populace but also to do so with so limited an opportunity for them to comment on the proposed rule. Moreover, the rule purports to be based on analyses of the risk of offsite consequences to a low power accident. The Massachusetts Attorney General believes that those analyses are suspect and the NRC could benefit from additional comment on the issue. Additional time is needed to develop those comments.

8806030040 8G0520 PDR PR 50 53FR16435 PDR y.5I'

Jam 3s R. Wolf, Esq.

May 20, 1988 i Page two P

Finally, no' sound reason exists to rush this proposed rule through a 30-day comment period into a Commission vote.

The joint owners of Seabrook acknowledge that a full power commercial operating license for the plant cannot be obtained

. before January 1, 1990. Low power testing is itself of no benefit and is a benefit to the joint owners only if a full

, power operating license follows. The low power testing program for the Seabrook plant is a relatively short one. Therefore, a 120 day extension for comments on the rule change would not prejudice any legitimate interests of the joint owners.

Very truly yours,

/ -

fi I Ste n A. s Assistant Attorney peneral Deputy Chief Public Protection Bureau SAJ:bm I

I i

l l

L l

l