ML20148D488
| ML20148D488 | |
| Person / Time | |
|---|---|
| Site: | Seabrook  |
| Issue date: | 01/20/1988 |
| From: | Berry G NRC OFFICE OF THE GENERAL COUNSEL (OGC) |
| To: | Rosenthal A, Wilber H NRC ATOMIC SAFETY & LICENSING APPEAL PANEL (ASLAP) |
| References | |
| CON-#188-5398 OL-1, NUDOCS 8801250400 | |
| Download: ML20148D488 (2) | |
Text
. _ _ _ _ _ _
fS18 h
a atg'o n
UNITED STATES 4
E"
^,A NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSION WASHINGTON, D. C. 20555 DC( hC ((r.
(,lk;%.... /
unc '
o m 2 019B8 & 22 P2:16 CFFla ;,
00 CME 7pm ] @ g-cRANN Alan S. Rosenthal, Esq., Chairman Howard A. Wilber, Administrative Judge Atomic Safety and Licensing Appeal Board U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission Washington, DC 20555 In the Matter of PUBLIC SERVICE CO,/oANY OF NEW HAMPSHIRE, ET AL.
Docket Nos 50-4 3 50-44 bn it Emeroency Planning - 6t /
Gentler'en :
On January 19, 1988, counsel for the NRC Staff received a copy of the Massachusetts Attorney General's ("AG") January 7, 1988 "Contention On Notification System For Massachusetts And Motion To Admit Late-Filed Contention And Reopen The Record." 1/
In its motion, the AG requests that the record in the onsite safety issues and emergency pfanning phase of this proceeding be reopened to consider his late-filed contention which challenges the adequacy of Applicants' means of providing early notification and clear instruction to the residents of the Massachusetts towns of Amesbury, Merrimac, Newbury, Salisbury, and West Newbury and the Salisbury State Beach Reservation in Salisbury, Massachusetts as required by 10 C.F.R.
I 50.47(b)(5).
Motion at 7.
The basis for the AC's late-filed contention is that the alert sirens located in these localities which Applicants relled upon to comply with section 50.47(b)(5) have been or soon will be removed.
Id.
at 8.
The instant late-filed contention is substantially similar to the one filed by the AC in regard to the strens in Newburyport, Massachusetts on November 13, 1987.
In responding to that earlier contention and motion to reopen, the Staff recommended that the Appeal Board defer ruling on the AG's motion "until after Applicants submit their alternative plans (for providing early notification and clear Instruction to the affected population) and the Intervenors submit their contentions, if any, on such plans."
NRC Staff Response To Contention Of Attorney General James M.
Shannon And Motion To Admit Late-Filed Contention And Reopen The Record" at 7-8 (January 14, 1988),
inasmuch as the AG's instant late-filed contention and motion to reopen the record raises the same issues presented in his earlier 1/
The AC's motion indicates that it was served upon the Staff by regular mall; the motion was served via express mall upon the Appeal Board and counsel for Appilcants.
i 8801250400 000120 1
PDR ADOCK 05000443
' 'O I G
~
l
.C).
4 motion, the Appea! Board should In a like manner defer the filing of any reply to the AC's more recent motion until after Applicants have filed their alternative plan for providing early notification and clear instruction to the residents of the Massachusetts portion of the emergency planning zone in the event of an emergency at the Seabrook Station.
At that time the Intervenors could formulate proposed contentions directed to Applicants' alternative plan and the Staff and Applicants could reply to those contentions and the motions to reopen the record.
To require the Staff and Applicants to respond to the pending motion to reopen and late-flied contention before Applicants have submitted their alternative emergency notification plans, however, would result in an additional but unnecessary expenditure of time and resources which would unduly hurden the parties.
This matter therefore should be deferred pending the submission of Applicants' alternative plan to notify the residents of the Massachusetts portion of the emergency planning zone in the event of an emergency at the Seabrook Station.
- herely, g
I Gr(gory A *A Ian grry Counsel f NRu Staff cc: Service list l
]
I e