ML20209E892
| ML20209E892 | |
| Person / Time | |
|---|---|
| Site: | Seabrook  |
| Issue date: | 04/27/1987 |
| From: | Tompkins B NRC ATOMIC SAFETY & LICENSING APPEAL PANEL (ASLAP) |
| To: | NEW ENGLAND COALITION ON NUCLEAR POLLUTION |
| References | |
| CON-#287-3253 OL-1, NUDOCS 8704300147 | |
| Download: ML20209E892 (4) | |
Text
.
32.S3 00LMETED USHRC UNITED STATES OF AMERICA NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSp APR 28 R2 38 ATOMIC-SAFETYANDLICENSINGAPPEggOARD :. y DOCKETmG^ M W M-Administrative Judges:
BRANDI Alan S. Rosenthal, Chairman April 27, 1987 Gary J. Edles Howard A. Wilber sENVED APR 2819fy
)
In the Matter of
)
)
PUBLIC SERVICE COMPANY OF
) Docket Nos. 50-443-OL-1 NEW HAMPSHIRE, _E_T _A_L_.
.)
50-444-OL-1
)
(Seabrook Station, Units 1
) (Onsite Emergency Planning and 2)
)
and Safety Issues)
)
MEMORANDUM AND ORDER on April 24, 1987, this Board heard oral argument on the applications of several intervenors for a stay of the effectiveness of the Licensing Board's March 25, 1987 partial initial decision in the onsite emergency planning and safety issues phase of this operating license proceeding involving the Seabrook nuclear facility.
At the inception of the argument, we announced that, for two separate and distinct reasons, we were denying the motion of one of those intervenors, the New England Coalition on Nuclear Pollution (Coalition), for leave to file a supplemental brief in hDk43g 3
J58 L u
2 support of its stay application.
This memorandum memorializes that denial.
The motion was founded on the proposition that the applicants' April 8, 1987 filing of its own emergency response plan (i.e.,
" utility plan") for the portions of Massachusetts within the ten-mile plume. emergency planning zone "substantially changed the factual circumstances" pertaining to whether low-power Seabrook operation should be authorized.
The Coalition waited, however, until almost 5:00 p.m. on April 23 -- the eve of the oral argument on its stay application -- before submitting the motion and the supplemental brief addressed to that proposition.
As a consequence, counsel for the applicants and the NRC staff (the parties opposing stay relief) did not actually receive those documents until the oral argument was about to commence on April 24.
In the circumstances, the motion clearly came too late.
It both could and should have been in the hands of the applicants and staff in sufficient time to provide those parties with a reasonable opportunity in advance of oral argument to consider the claims made in the tendered supplemental brief.
1 The brief was attached to the motion.
.- ~
3 Beyond that, the claims are presented to the wrong forum.
The Commission now has before it the question whether, in light of the filing of the utility plan, the
^
stay of low-power operation previously imposed by the Commission should be lifted.2 It presumably will decide that question sometime after May 1 (when the last brief on the question is due).3 Whatever result the Commission
~
reaches will, of course, be binding on us.
Stated otherwise, it is for the Commission to determine whether the utility plan for Massachusetts now stands in the way of j
low-power operation.
Our task is limited to ascertaining whether there are other reasons (i.e.,
reasons having nothing to do with the utility plan)-why the effectiveness of the Licensing Board's March 25 partial initial decision should be stayed and, thus, the Director of Nuclear Reactor Regulation precluded from authorizing such operation no matter what the Commission decides with regard to that plan.4 I
i l
See CLI-87-02, 25 NRC (April 9,1987).
Id. at note 1.
4 Although paving the way for low-power operation should the Commission lift its stay, the March 25 decision did not address any issues concerned with offsite emergency planning.
i
+
4 Coalition's motion for leave to file a supplemental brief is denied.
It is so ORDERED.
FOR THE APPEAL BOARD 4
-L.J RA.-)
Barbara A. Tompkins '
Secretary to the Appeal Board a
j 1
l 1
l l
,,c
,,,r,y--,..
c-.
-s.-
-w--.y m