ML20206M813
| ML20206M813 | |
| Person / Time | |
|---|---|
| Site: | Seabrook  |
| Issue date: | 08/18/1986 |
| From: | Rosenthal A NRC ATOMIC SAFETY & LICENSING APPEAL PANEL (ASLAP) |
| To: | Cotter B Atomic Safety and Licensing Board Panel |
| References | |
| CON-#386-390 OL, NUDOCS 8608210406 | |
| Download: ML20206M813 (1) | |
Text
.e., s v.
m.:
- #pon vr
,o q
s.,.
m UNITED STATES g y.
g NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSION.
\\ E~
p ATOMIC SAFE.TY AND LICENSING APPEAL PANEL
/ ~$
WASHikGTON. 'D.C. 20555 40(NETED1
- [
USNRC August 18, 1986 N M 19 A10 n5 hgCE UC SMt.IAh y MEMORANDUM FOR:
B. Paul Cotter 5
Chief Administrative Juc bC" Atomic Safety and Licensing Board Panel MCKET NUMBER
~
FROM:
Alan S. Rosenthal "00 8' UTIL FAC Ik Chairman Atomic Safety and LicensingTMUMEER gg ot-/
..* C M Appeal Panel e
- ~19E
~
PROD. & UTIL FAC.
SUBJECT:
Public Service Co. of New Hampshire (Seabrook Station, Units 1 and 2)
Docket Nos.
50-443-OL and 50-444-OL (Offsite Emergency Planning)
~.
SERVED AUS 19 896 This is in response to your memorandum of today on the subject of our August 11, 1986 memorandum and order in the Seabrook proceeding.
That memorandum'and order specifically invitedi the parties to advise us of any considerations that might
~
militate against an interlocutory review at this time of the Licensing Board's. rulings on contentions in the offsite emergency planning phase of the proceeding.
In. responding to that invitation by thelend of this week, the parties no doubt will inform us of any undue burden that such a review might place onetheir resources.
You may be assured that any representations along that line will receive our full consideration in determining what course to follow.
I would add only that I do not understand the relevance of _ your reference. (in numbered paragraph three on page' two-of your memorandum) to the ir.unediate. effectiveness rule.
l More particularly, in my judgment at least, that rule could l
not operate to avoid a remand to the Licensing Board for j
further proceedin.gs were we to decide, on appellate review
. followin.g: the rendi; tion 'of.the. decision in the _offsite emergency planning phase,.that certain contentions had been improperly excluded from litigation.
And, depending upon the nature of the contentions found to have been improperly excluded, it might well'be necessary to preclude plant operation during the pendency of the hearing and decision on the remand.
cc:
Service List 8608210406 860818 l
PDR ADOCK 05000443 G
.s.
J
)
...y.
,-pw.
.=4..wa
=r e - -* E
- yMb**"
3*
,