ML20206M684
| ML20206M684 | |
| Person / Time | |
|---|---|
| Site: | Seabrook  |
| Issue date: | 08/18/1986 |
| From: | Cotter B Atomic Safety and Licensing Board Panel |
| To: | Rosenthal A NRC ATOMIC SAFETY & LICENSING APPEAL PANEL (ASLAP) |
| References | |
| CON-#386-397 OL, NUDOCS 8608210319 | |
| Download: ML20206M684 (2) | |
Text
t]h uoy
?
[p k
UNITED STATES e
E NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSION ATOMIC SAFETY AND LICENstNG BOARD PANEL EO e
,/
WASHINGTON. D.C. 20555 August 18, 1986 9 A9:14 hK BRNck%'t h Y MEMORANDUM FOR: Alan S. Rosenthal, Chairman Atomic Safety and Licensing Appeal Board FROM:
B. Paul Cotter, Jr.
Chief Administrative Judge
SUBJECT:
ASLAP MEMORANDUM AND ORDER DATED AUGUST 11, 1986 CONCERNING PUBLIC SERVICE CO. OF NEW HAMPSHIRE (SEABROOK STATION, UNITS 1 AND 2) DOCKET NOS.
50-443/444-OL AND 50-443/444-OL-1 Pursuant to cur hearing management responsibilities under the Commis-sion's Statement of Policy on Conduct of Licensing Proceedings, 13 NRC 452(1981), I appreciate the effort in the captioned memorandum and order to expedite subject proceeding. Efforts to expedite the Seabrook proceedings are desirable because they are so complex, involving as they do multiple parties, two states, and many municipalities.
However, I am concerned that the possible initiation of an interlocutory review of rulings on the admissibility of contentions in Seabrook pursuant to subject order may overload the parties and their attorneys who are already involved in two separate licensing board proceedings.
j Given that those proceedings are on the critical path to a decision on i
the grant or denial of both the low power and full power licenses requested, it is important that their schedules not be delayed, absent a clear determination that the time for completing these proceedings will be reduced.
Consequently, I would request that in reviewing the coments from the parties submitted in response to your order, you consider the following:
1.
Ongoing discovery in the "onsite" proceeding chaired by Judge Wolfe is to be completed by August 25 (barring motions to compel), written direct testimony must be in by September 12, and hearings are to begin by the end of September or early October.
2.
In the "offsite" proceeding chaired by Judge Hoyt, New Hamp-shire has notified the parties that it will submit the second revision of its offsite emergency plan on August 22 for their review.
It is likely that the parties will have to review and reformulate their existing contentions or submit new ones with 8608210319 860818 99
^=cx "
8M
- =
?
. attendant motions, responses, and other pleadings on the issues raised.
3.
It is not clear that appeals of denied contentions taken in the normal course of proceedings would delay the overall licensing process given the operation of the immediate effec-tiveness rule. Whether or not an admitted contention should or should not have been admitted is rarely if ever considered on appeal after the contention has been litigated.
In sum, I am concerned that the parties (most of whom are repre-sented in both licensing board proceedings by the same attorneys and individuals) will not have the ability to continue to meet their obliga-tions to both the onsite and offsite proceedings should they have to deal with an interlocutory appellate proceeding at the same time, cc: Service Lists l
l l
t L
_