ML20207M078

Order.* Defers Ruling on Intervenors Motion for Stay for 1 Wk to Allow Board Opportunity to Address Stay Request Now Pending.Served on 870109

ML20207M078
Person / Time
Site:	Seabrook
Issue date:	01/08/1987
From:	Shoemaker C NRC ATOMIC SAFETY & LICENSING APPEAL PANEL (ASLAP)
To:	AMESBURY, MA, HAMPTON, NH, MASSACHUSETTS, COMMONWEALTH OF
References
CON-#187-2146 OL, NUDOCS 8701130080
Download: ML20207M078 (4)

Text

r- '

- 1 2Ll946 DCLKEILT' USNPC UNITED STATES OF AMERICA 1 NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSION )

87 JAN -9 gio;43 j ATOMIC SAFETY AND LICENSING APPEAL BOARD '

Off a., , l Administrative Judges: 00CnEit,J T ?, Q j BA us;  !

Alan S. Rosenthal, Chairman January 8, 1987 I Gary J. Edles Howard A. Wilber In the Matter of l SERVED JAN 0 91987

)

PUBLIC SERVICE COMPANY ) Docket Nos. 50-443-OL OF NEW HAMPSHIRE, _E _T _A_L_. ) 50-444-OL

)

(Seabrook Station, Units 1 ) (Offsite Emergency Planning) and 2) )

) '

ORDER We have before us a motion filed by Massachusetts

~

Attorney General Francis X. Bellotti on behalf of himself

, and the Towns of Hampton and Amesbury, the Seacoast Anti-Pollution League, and the New England Coalition on

, Nuclear Pollution (intervenors), seeking an immediate stay l

! of all proceedings leading to hearings on the New Hampshire

Radiological Emergency Response Plan in this operating

( license proceeding. As explained below, we defer ruling on the motion temporarily.

t On December 4, 1986, the Licensing Board issued an i order establishing a schedule for litigation of the New l

Hampshire plan. The Board intends to rule on contentions by l

January 16, 1987, and discovery will then begin. Hearings are scheduled to commence on or about April 27.

l/

l 8701130080 870108~

PDR 360 ADOCK 05000443 G PDR t

FT . .

? . -.

J l

2 On December 18, however, the applicants filed a petition pursuant to 10 CFR 2.758 and 10 CFR 50.47 (c) requesting that the ten-mile plume exposure pathway emergency planning zone for the Seabrook Station be reduced to one mile. And, on December 23, the Board directed that responses to the applicants' petition be submitted by January 27.

After the filing of the petition but before the scheduling of the responses to it, the intervenors filed simultaneous requests with the Commission and the Licensing Board seeking to stay all proceedings on the New Hampshire plan.1 They assert, among other things, that the hearing schedule allows insufficient ti'me to prepare for litigation on that plan. They point out, in addition, that action on the applicants' pending petition could render the current New Hampshire plan moot. Still further, they claim that the i simultaneous litigation of the New Hampshire plan and the applicants' petition would be unduly burdensome. For these l'

reasons, they maintain that litigation regarding the New l

l Hampshire plan should await the disposition of the petition.

1 The request filed with the Commission was rejected by the Secretary and the intervenors were advised to file any stay request with us. They did so on December 30. At about the same time, they also filed with the Licensing Board a request that it reconsider its directive that responses to the applicants' petition be submitted by January 27.

/ - - . - -- --

3 The applicants and the NRC staff oppose the request for stay.

We have decided to defer ruling on the motion temporarily. As noted above, the intervenors filed similar stay requests with us and the Licensing Board. Both requests are directed to the timing of proceedings before the Licensing Board. This is a matter on which that Board should be accorded an opportunity to speak in the first instance. Hence, we will stay our hand for a week to accord the Board an opportunity to address the stay request now pending before it. If the Board has not acted by the close of business on Wednesday, January 14, however, we will take up the request ourselves.2 Decision on the intervenors' motion for stay is deferred.

2 We note that the Licensing Board has promptly disposed of various objections to, and motions for reconsideration of, the schedule established in its December 23 order for the filing of responses to the applicants' December 18 petition. See Memorandum and Order (Supplement to Board Order of December 23, 1986) (January 7, 1987). The Board denied those requests. It noted, however, that

" [il f . . . any party cannot complete its response by January 27, then that party [shall) provide . . . its partially completed response and advise the Board of a reasonable date certain on which its written response can be completed." Id. at 3.

. . .~.>

~

P 4 a

It is so ORDERED.

I

- .FOR THE~ APPEAL BOARD I

i:

O..[r-- beh__

C. . JQln Sh~oemaker Secretary to the

. Appeal: Board 4

f i

B I

i~

f 1

j t'

{ , , '

t i

l.

l i

l l

i