ML20206G917

Memorandum.* Interim Ex Parte Stay of Effectiveness of 870325 Partial Initial Decision to Await Determination Whether Stay Pendente Lite Warranted Should Be Issued.Served on 870413

ML20206G917
Person / Time
Site:	Seabrook
Issue date:	04/10/1987
From:	Shoemaker C NRC ATOMIC SAFETY & LICENSING APPEAL PANEL (ASLAP)
To:
References
CON-#287-3067 OL-1, NUDOCS 8704150197
Download: ML20206G917 (2)

Text

O 3667 DOCKETED USNRC UNITED STATES OF AMERICA NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSION 17 APR 13 P2 :Do.

ATOMIC SAFETY AND LICENSING APPEAL B9hEREff SECRtTARY.

00CKETihG A SEnvlCf.

Administrative Judges: BRANCH Alan S. Rosenthal, Chairman April 10, 1987 Gary J. Edles Howard A. Wilber SERVED APR 131987

)

In the Matter of )

)

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

)

(Seabrook Station, Units 1 ) (Onsite Emergency Planning and 2) ) and Safety Issues)

)

MEMORANDUM Earlier this week, we announced our intention to hold oral argument on April 24, 1987 on the several pending applications for a stay of the effectiveness of the Licensing Board's March 25, 1987 partial initial decision in the onsite emergency planning and safety issues phase of this operating license proceeding involving the Seabrook nuclear facility.1 In its decision rendered yesterday in this phase of the proceeding, the Coramission continued a stay of the issuance of a low power license for Unit 1 of the Seabrook facility that it had previously imposed.2 It 4

I See our orders of April 8 and 9, 1987.

See CLI-87-02, 25 NRC .

ADkgoOO 3

4

,- 2 appears from the text of that decision that the commission's

,. stay will remain in ef fect until at least May 1, 1987.3 ,

In the circumstances, it is no longer necessary to consider whether, as requested by at least one of the stay applicants, we should issue an interim ex parte stay of the effectiveness of the March 25 partial initial decision to await, following full briefing and oral argument, our determination respecting whether a stay pendente lite is warranted. At the same time, however, there is no reason why the briefing and oral argument of the pending stcy applications should not proceed on their current schedule.

Accordingly, no change is being made in that schedule.

Should the Comraission lif t its stay on or af ter May 1, we will rule expeditiously on the stay applications before us.

FOR THE APPEAL BOAPD

b. b _#

C. J$1n Shoemaker  ;

l Secretary to the  !

Appeal Board

'l Id. at note 1.

.