ML20207M291

Memorandum & Order (Suppl to Board Order of 861223).* Affirms That Responses Addressing Issue of Whether Prima Facie Showing for Waiver of 10-mile Emergency Planning Zone Must Be Filed by 870127.Served on 870108

ML20207M291
Person / Time
Site:	Seabrook
Issue date:	01/07/1987
From:	Hoyt H Atomic Safety and Licensing Board Panel
To:	HAMPTON, NH, MASSACHUSETTS, COMMONWEALTH OF, NRC OFFICE OF THE GENERAL COUNSEL (OGC)
References
CON-#187-2113 82-471-02-OL, 82-471-2-OL, OL, NUDOCS 8701130135
Download: ML20207M291 (3)

Text

_ _ _____ _ - _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ . _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _

e r

203 UNITED STATES OF AMERICA hr NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSION ATOMIC SAFETY AND LICENSING BOARD '87 JAN -7 P4 :42 Before Administrative Judges: c7g. ,,

Helen F. Hoyt, Chairperson 00 Chir , i ; r Si Emeth A. Luebke Un cn Jerry Harbour SERVED JAN 0 81987 In the Matter of ) Docket Nos. 50-443-OL

) 50-444-OL PUBLIC SERVICE COMPANY ) (ASLBPNo. 82-471-02-0L) 0F NEW HAMPSHIRE, et al. (Offsite Emergency Planning)

(Seabrook Station, Units 1 and 2) ) January 7, 1987 MEMORANDUM AND ORDER (Supplement to Board Order of December 23,1986)

On December 23, 1986 this Board directed parties to file in-hand responses no later than January 27, 1987 to Applicants' Petition under 10 CFR 2.758 and 10 CFR 50.47(c) with Respect to the Regulations Requiring Planning for a Plume Exposure Pathway Emergency Planning Zone in Excess of a One-Hile Radius.

Objections to and motions for reconsideration of the schedule provided in our Memorandum and Order dated December 23, 1986 were filed by the Town of Hampton (T0H) on December 24, 1986, the Massachusetts Attorney General (Mass) on December 30, 1986 and the New England Coalition cn Nuclear Pollution (NECNP) on December 31, 1986. The NRC Dbho$$$8443 PDR og 350

s.

l 1

2 Staff on December 22, 1986, in response to Applicants' petition, proposed that parties be allowed to submit schedules for responses to the petition by January 20, 1987 and that the Board schedule a pre-hearing conference during the week of January 26, 1987, "to discuss and schedule for further proceedings on Applicants' petition." On January 5,1987 NRC Staff's Motion for Reconsideration of Licensing Board Order of December 23, 1986 was filed in which the Staff states its

" technical input will be of crucial importance to a proper detennination by the Licensing Board and by the Comission of the important issues raised by the Petition." The Staff seeks reconsideration of the December 23, 1986 Order by requesting that a proposed schedule for reply to Applicants' petition be established and that January 20, 1987 be the due date for such schedules.

The Board finds that the authority vested by the provisions of 10 CFR 2.758 is to review the petition and any responses to determine if the petitioning party has made a prima facie showing that .the l

application of the specific Commission rule or regulation would not l

serve the purposes for which the rule or regulation was adopted and that the rule or regulation should be waived or an exception granted. This Board is not directed to conduct an evidentiary proceeding or to decide if a waiver or exception should be granted; this power is reserved to the Comission. Our duty and obligation is to review the petition and i

p .

1 t

3 any responses and determine if a prima facie showing has been made by the petitioner.

The Board affirms that responses will be filed in-hand by close of business on January 27, 1987. We have directed that responses address the Applicants' petition on the issue of whether a prima facie showing for a waiver of the 10-mile EPZ has been made. The Board expects all parties to diligently work to complete their responses by January 27, 1987. If, however, any party cannot complete its response by Janu-ary 27, then that party will provide to this Board by close of business on January 27, 1987, its partially completed response and advise the Board of a reasonable date certain on which its written response can be completed. In view of the technical nature of the issue, the Board will detennine the prima facie issue at hand through written pleadings. No oral hearings to supplement written responses are anticipated.

IT IS S0 ORDERED.

FOR THE ATOM SAFETY AND LICENS GB0$RD -

l VHelen F. [ Hoyt, ChairpersorV Administrative Judge

( Dated at Bethesda, Maryland l

this 7th day of January 1987.

I i

Although prima facie is not defined in 10 CFR 2.758, one Licensing Board has found it " reasonable to equate '3 rima facie' showing with

' substantial' showing." Carolina Power & _ight Company and North i

l Carolina Eastern Municipal Power Agency (Shearon Harris Nuclear l Power Plant), LBP-85-5, 21 NRC 410 (1985). We believe, however, l prima facie to mean evidence of a sufficient nature that would cause reasonable minds to inquire further.

1 l

l