ML20148C965

Order.* Motion for Addl Extension Until 880222,of Time within Which to File Opposition to 880107 Motion of Atty General of Commonwealth of Ma to Reopen Record & to Admit late-filed Contention Denied.Served on 880121

ML20148C965
Person / Time
Site:	Seabrook
Issue date:	01/20/1988
From:	Shoemaker C NRC ATOMIC SAFETY & LICENSING APPEAL PANEL (ASLAP)
To:	PUBLIC SERVICE CO. OF NEW HAMPSHIRE
References
CON-#188-5396 OL-1, NUDOCS 8801250298
Download: ML20148C965 (2)

Text

_

M 5316 00'M IE P UNITED STATES OF AMERICA MN4 NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSION ATOMIC SAFETY AND LICENSING APPEAL BOJ JM 21 A10:18 Administrative Judges: OFFICE . i!CT:lAn7 00CKEiiNG '. SL8vlCf.

Alan S. Rosenthal, Chairman January 20,Nifd8 Howard A. Wilber SERVED JAN 211988 3

In the Matter of )

)

PUBLIC SERVICE COMPANY OF ) Docket Nos. 50-443-OL-1 NEW HAMPSHIRE, ET AL. ) 50-444-OL-1

)

(Seabrook Station, Ur.its 1 ) (Onsite Emergency Planning and 2) ) and Safety Issues)

)

0,RDER We deny the applicants' motion for an additional extension until February 22, 1988, of the time within which to file their opposition to the January 7, 1988 motion of the Attorney General of Massachusetts to reopen the record and to admit a late-filed contention.

The sole basis assigned by the applicants for their i motion is the expectation that, by February 22, they will be I

in a position to submit alternative public notification plans that take into account the loss of fixed sirens l

l throughout the Massachusetts portion of the plume exposure l pathway emergency planning zone. Contrary to the applicants' belief (shared by the NRC staff), it appears to

, us that that consideration is entirely irrelevant to the 1

question whether the Attorney General's motion satisfies the established criteria for the reopening of a closed evidentiary record and the admission of r.ew contentions. In V

8801250298 880120 b0 PDR ADOCK 05000443 G PDR

2 this connection, neither the applicants nor the staff has explained why that motion should not be decided on the basis of the indisputable consideration that the public notification system for Massachusetts contemplated at the time the evidentiary record closed below is no longer relied upon by the applicants. Nor have we been told how, given the fact that the existing record assumes the availability of the now-removed emergency notification sirens, we (or for that matter the Licensing Board) could possibly pass judgment upon the adequacy of some substitute proposal without a reopening of that record to permit the introduction of the proposal into it.

If they so desire, the applicants and the staff may include in their responses to the Attorney General's January 7 motion a further exposition of the basis for their belief that the filing of substitute public notification plans for Massachusetts may be relevant to the disposition of that motion. In the absence of a satisfactory demonstration of such relevance, however, we see no reason to delay action on 1

! the motion.

It is so ORDERED.

FOR THE APPEAL BOARD l

b.bd C. J an 6hoemaker Secre ary to the Appeal Board l