ML20198E177

Order Requesting Summary Responses to Listed Questions Re Commonwealth of Ma Atty General Fx Bellotti Appeal from ASLB 860429 Memorandum & Order by 860530.Served on 860523

ML20198E177
Person / Time
Site:	Seabrook
Issue date:	05/22/1986
From:	Shoemaker C NRC ATOMIC SAFETY & LICENSING APPEAL PANEL (ASLAP)
To:	MASSACHUSETTS, COMMONWEALTH OF
References
CON-#286-225 OL, NUDOCS 8605270307
Download: ML20198E177 (2)

Text

. _

a k. e s

+

{ - .

O! N %q lh UNITED STATES OF AMERICA 2 -3 4Qy0 NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSION .

8g_

/

ATOMIC SAFETY AND LICENSING APPEAL B -

Administrative Judges: #

y Alan S. Rosenthal, Chairman May 22, 1986 Gary J. Edles -

Howard A. Wilber SUNED MAYld 1"6 In the Matter of )

)

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

) (Offsite Emergency Planning)

(Seabrook Station, Units 1 )

and 2) )

)

ORDER Before us is the appeal of Francis X. Bellotti, the Attorney General of Massachusetts, from a portion of the Licensing Board's April 29, 1986 memorandum and order. Our preliminary examination of the papers in support of that appeal gives rise to the following questions:

1. Is Attorney General Bellotti a party to this operating license proceeding? If so, by what order of the Licensing Board was he admitted to the proceeding?

2. If the Attorney General is not a party, is the pending appeal in fact that of the Commonwealth of Massachusetts? Was not the Commonwealth admitted to the proceeding under 10 CFR 2.715(c), rather than 10 CFR 2.714(a)? If so, notwithstanding the Licensing Board's April 29 order, is not the Commonwealth still a participant in the proceeding as an " interested State"?

8605270307 860522 PDR ADOCK 05000443 G PDR )O M2

~

a l 9

2 * -

3. In view of the Licensing Board's April 29 order, is it now the case that neither the Attorney General nor the Commonwealth has a pending contention in this proceeding on any subject -- emergency planning or otherwise?

We request the Attorney General to submit summary responses to these questions in written form on or before May 30, 1986. This request has no effect upon the time for the filing of the briefs of the other parties in support of or opposition to the Attorney General's appeal. In this connection, whether or not they also raise a question respecting the viability of the appeal, we will expect those briefs to address the merits of the Licensing Board's rejection in the April 29 order (at 40-46) of the Massachusetts / Attorney General contention.

It is so ORDERED.

FOR THE APPEAL BOARD

b. M Mo C. J(5n Sfoemaker Secrelary to the Appeal Board

y. _ , y- -,,,-___ ,