ML20206H118
| ML20206H118 | |
| Person / Time | |
|---|---|
| Site: | Seabrook  |
| Issue date: | 04/09/1987 |
| From: | Lord W AMESBURY, MA |
| To: | NRC ATOMIC SAFETY & LICENSING APPEAL PANEL (ASLAP) |
| References | |
| CON-#287-3081 OL, NUDOCS 8704150261 | |
| Download: ML20206H118 (3) | |
Text
ga/
DOLMETEP USNRC
(,...
w nen13 e4:o? Amsmg Board of Selectmen 0FFICE ci nna iW Town Hall, Amesbury, MA 01913 00CKET FW' Tel. 388-0290 l
I BEFCRE Tf!E ATOMIC SAFETY AND LICENSING APPEAL BOARD.
In the matter of
)
Docket Nos. 50-443-OL
)
50-444-OL PUBLIC SERVICE COMPANY OF
)
HEW HAMPSHIRE, el d.
)
Offsite Emergency Planning
)
Seabrook Station, Units 1 & 2
)
April 9, 1987 TOWN OF AMESBURY'S RESPONSE TO ASLAB ORD R,
OF APRIL 3, 1987.
The Town of Amesbury fully concurs with the arguments proffered by JOINT INTERVENOR APPEAL BY MOTION FOR DIRECTED CERTIFICATION. In support of those c.rguments, the TOA cites as example the treatment of TOA contentions by the ASLB.
This example alone substantites the basis for directed certification of the issue and for the relief sought.
Throughout this latest ro:and with the " moving target" the TOA I
has met all the deadlines ordered by the ASLL. The TOA, not represented by counsel in this proceeding, has made a concerted effort to fulfill the suggestion of tl:e ASLAB order of November 17, 1986, to both i
become familiar with and comply with the Commission's Rules of Practice. The Town's record of compliance over the past eighta :.~ i months has been flawless.
As outlined in the Joint Appeal,the TOA anticipated.that the ASLB ruling on contentions would be handdd down by February 13, 1987; ten days later the ruling was finally received and discover began.
The ASLB ruled against admission of all eight TOA contentions.
Furthermore, the ASI& refused to accept any motions for reconsideration 8704150261 gDR ADOCK O 43 S63 PDR
A -;-
g t'
y prior'to issuance of its memorandum describing basis for admission or denial of contentions. - As of this date, the ASLB has failed to cceply with its own order and has further ob'scured the " moving i
targk$",h blindfolding the intervenors.
The TOA has been irreparably harmed by the ASLB.
No' contentions.
have been admitted; no explanation has come forth; and no opportunity.
for reconsideration has been afforded. The time for_ discovery has passed, and even if the ASLB ever-reconsidered-and admitted TOA contentions, no discovery would be available in such a compressed schedule. Appeal at the conclusion of proceedings by Amesbury and/or other intervenors would potentially require the entire record to be reopened.
Through its failure to adhere to its own schedule and order, while at the samc/ time demanding strict compliance by the intervenors, the ASLB is acting in a " pervasive and unusual manner". 'The ASLB's obligation to "... conduct a fair and impartial hearing..." has been grossly violated. How can the various parties be expected to prepare for litigation when the' administrative tribunal displays such pro-cedural mis-direction? Is "due process" to be redefined to read:
"Intervenors must follow the rules, regulations and orders, but the ASLB has the whimsical privilege to bend them";
it certainly appears that a new definition has been forged.
In conclusion, the standards for directed certification have been met by the jcint movants. The TOA has been irreparably harmed by the ASLB's actions and the ASIA's performance in adhering to its own orders and schedule is truly unusual from the accepted standards.qf due process.- The merits of the claims rquire only cursory review t
,,--e--
o
,-~..,-,-
r--
(3) o
-to be deemed substantive.
The motion should be certified, and the requested relief granted.
For tb Tow
- Amesbury, William S. Iord Amesbury Board of Selectmen I, William S. Lord, certify that the OF AMESBURY'S RESPONSE TO ASLAB ORDER OF APRIL 3,1987 has been served on tne attached list of parties this 10th ay o -
ril, 1987.
S f
(
William S. Iord 8%
-m
-