ML19345F949
| ML19345F949 | |
| Person / Time | |
|---|---|
| Site: | Seabrook  |
| Issue date: | 02/17/1981 |
| From: | Tompkins B NRC ATOMIC SAFETY & LICENSING APPEAL PANEL (ASLAP) |
| To: | NRC OFFICE OF THE EXECUTIVE LEGAL DIRECTOR (OELD), PUBLIC SERVICE CO. OF NEW HAMPSHIRE |
| References | |
| NUDOCS 8102190589 | |
| Download: ML19345F949 (2) | |
Text
%
I83 J UNITED STATES OF AMERICA
/ff/
NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSION ATOMIC SAFETY AND LICENSING APPEAL BOARD p
g Administrative Judges:
9 Y.CXETEC Alan S. Rosenthal, Chairman l1.
usNA' q\\
Dr. John H. Buck FIS ! 3 g >
/
Dr. W.
Reed Johnson i 7
_.La:e Of :*e recre yy 77 s
0 w'?(iOmid
- nm
)
g jo In the Matter of
)
% ; ip
)
PUBLIC SERVICE COMPANY OF
)
Docket Nos. 50-443 NEW HAMPSHIRE ET AL.
)
50-444
)
(Seabrook Station, Units 1 and 2)
)
)
ORDER February 17, 1981 The evidentiary hearing on the seismic issues remanded to this Board by the Commission 1/ will commence at 9:00 a.m. on Monday, April 6, 1981, in the Courtroom of the Superior Court, Hillsborough County Courthouse, 19 Temple Street, Nashua, New Hampshire.
The hearing will continue on succeeding days.
If l
it will serve to: obviate a second hearing week, a session j
will be held on Saturday, April 11.
The parties are to confer among themselves at an early date with a view toward reaching agreement, if possible, on _(1) which of the two remanded issues should be first heard; and (2) the l
order of presentation of testimony on each of those issues.
In l
l this connection, the Board believes that it might be a warranted I)so3 J/
See CLI-80-33, 12 NRC 295 (1980).
J
/ o 810219oSTr?
s
e
. courtesy to Dr. Mihailo Trifunac to hear the ground acceleration issue (on which he will be testifying as a Board witness) ahead of the earthquake intensity issue.
Under the terms of the Com-mission's remand order, the NRC staff appears to have the burden of going forward on the ground acceleration issue, with the con-sequence that the testimony of its witness (es) on it most likely will precede that of Dr. Trifunac.
Nonetheless, if that issue is taken up at the inception of the hearing, it should be possi-ble to minimize the extent of his absence from his residence in California.
Because we perceive no compelling reason why the two issues must be consia.ered in any particular order, we are hopeful that the parties will keep Dr. Trifunac's convenience in mind in their scheduling deliberations.
A report of the outcome of those deliberations should be provided the Board expeditiously and, in all events, no later than Friday, March 13, 1981.
Aay other matters concerning the hearing which might warrant advance Board consideration and de-termination should likewise be brought to our attention promptly.'
It is our strong desire to have all scheduling and other proce-dural aspects of the hearing settled well before its commencement on April 6.
It is so ORDERED.
FOR THE APPEAL BOARD
- 1.._.,0 $;)N J g
Barbara A.
Tompkins Secretary to the l
Appeal Board t