ML20137N139
| ML20137N139 | |
| Person / Time | |
|---|---|
| Site: | Seabrook  |
| Issue date: | 01/24/1986 |
| From: | Backus R BACKUS, MEYER & SOLOMON |
| To: | Harbour J, Hoyt H, Luebke E Atomic Safety and Licensing Board Panel |
| Shared Package | |
| ML20137N125 | List: |
| References | |
| 82-471-02-OL, 82-471-2-OL, OL, NUDOCS 8601290169 | |
| Download: ML20137N139 (2) | |
Text
e BAC KU S, M EY ER & S O LO M O N ArronNces af law ll6 LowELL STREET P O Box 516 ess rara nostata eACnus JoNMtyta*
M ANCH ESTER. N. H. osios
.atSo Aouirico to MaMSACHU5ErtS ban STEvCN A SotoMoM MAnttN n JENu NS MICH AEL E IPAvtc January 24, 1986 d
?'$
4 llel en iloy t, Chairman
'3 Adminis t rat ive Judge sp Atomic Safety & Licensing Board 93 g g,T I4 6
T
U. S.
NRC
. [c Washington, DC 20555 Dr. J er r y liar bour Administrative Judge Atomic Safety & Licensing Board U.S.
NRC Washington, DC 20555 Dr. Emmeth A.
Luebke Adminis t rat ive Judge Atomic Safety & Licensing Board U.S.
NRC Washington, DC 20555 Re:
Docket No. 50-443-OL Docket No. 50-444-OL Off-site Emergency Planning issues (ASLBP No. 82-471-02-OL)
Dear Judges:
09 ei ther Thursday, January '16, or Fr iday, January 17, I received a call from a Kathleen Kerr, who identified herself as Secretary to Chairman llellen lloyt of the Atomic Safety & Licensing Board panel.
Ms. Kerr informed me that a motion had been filed by the Seabrook applicant requesting a schedule for filing of contention and for a prehearing conference in the above-captioned docket.
Ms. Kerr said that she had been instructed to call to find out if I had any obj ection to the Motion.
I informed Ms. Kerr that I had not received any Motion from the applicant.
Ms. Kerr then asked that, after receiving the Motion, I advise her if there was an objection on behalf of my clients, the Seacoast Anti-Pollution League.
[
he A
G
Page two:
On Monday, January 20, although it was a Federal holiday, I received a copy of t he appl icant 's Mo t ion.
On the next working day, Tuesday, January 21, I called Ms. Kere to tell her that having reviewed this mat ter, I did indeed wish to advise the Board that we had an objection to the proposed schedule in two particular respects.
I suggested I could detail those, but that perhaps it would be appropriate for me to file a written response to the Motion, in accordance with 10 CFR 2.730(c).
Ilowever, I was then informed that the Board had issued an Order on Friday, January 17, apparently granting the relief sought on the applicant's Motion.
Thus, it appears that the Board has acted on a Motion filed by the applicant, before it was even received by at least this party to the proceeding, and after a time at which the Secretary to the Chairman had specifically asked for a telephone response to the Motion, upon its receipt.
We wish to protest the Board's action in acting on a Motion before we even receive it, or had any opportunity to take a position.
In fact, although the Board's precipitous action, which we suggest is neither fair or in accordance with the rules, has precluded us from doing so, we do wish to state that we find the necessity to file, I gather in hand, by February 24, contentions on these numerous and voluminous plans is inadequate, and premature.
The time allowed is inadquate in part because, although we asked Civil Defense to make copies of these plans available to us, they chose not to do so, so we had no oppor tunity to see them at all unt il they were forwarded by Attorney Perlus from the NRC staff.
Filing contentions is also premature, because there are no plans from the Massachusetts communities, and as yet no completed FEMA review.
We are also informed there are now in the hands of certain town representatives, later and different versions of at least some town plans.
Very truly yours, f fr Robert'A. Backus RABi l a b cc:All parties on service list
/