ML20209H491

Responds to 870123 Procedural Questions Re Proceeding in Matter of Facilities Offsite Emergency Planning Issues

ML20209H491
Person / Time
Site:	Seabrook
Issue date:	01/30/1987
From:	Hoyt H Atomic Safety and Licensing Board Panel
To:	Rich Smith HOUSE OF REP.
Shared Package
ML20209H432	List: ML20209H429 ML20209H491 ML20209H522
References
OL, NUDOCS 8702060063
Download: ML20209H491 (3)

Text

'

m www

• '4 UNITED STATES j

NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSION 3 i ATOMIC SAFETY ANO LICENSING eOARD panel W AsMIN oTON. D.C. 20065

"$ . ~

..... e ;.

January 30,1987

{g, Hon. Robert C. Smith House of Representatives Washington, D.C. 20515

Dear Mr. Smith:

Your letter of January 23, 1987 was received on January 28, 1987.

On behalf of the Atomic Safety and Licensing Board conducting the roceeding In the Matter of Public Service Company of New Hamethire p(Seabrook Station, Units 1 and 2). Docket Mos. 50-44J-UL and 50-444-OL (offsite Emergency Planning Issues). I will respond to several -

procedural questions you raised in your letter.

The due date for responses to Applicants' petition established by the Board order of December 23, 1986 was January 27, 1987. Requests for-;

consideration of an extension already had been denied prior to ycur letter. However, as you are aware, the Washington, D.C. area and the Federal government offices were either completely or partially closed from January 22 - 26. Requests received in my office on January 27, 1987 from Counsel for NECNP and the NRC Staff for an extension were granted and their responses will be due on Monday, February 2,1987.

All other parties filed responses on January 27 except Intervonor SAPt.

who was pemitted to deliver its response on January 28 because of delivery problems in the Washington 0.C. area.

I call your attention to 10 CFR 2.758(b) which provides in part on responses to a petition for waiver of a Comission rule or regulation that: "Any other party may #ile a response thereto, by counter-affidavit or otherwise." (Emphasis supplied). Your request for an extension of the January 27th due date was for public coments on the Applicants' petition and apparently was made in the belief that the cited rule provided public consnent. The Roard has read the word yart to mean a party admitted to this proceeding under 10 CFR 2.714 or 2.715(c).

l Members of the public who may submit coments will have their i

submissions received as written limited appearance statements to be j

included in the docket as provided for in 10 CFR 2.715(a). We have

received several of these coments.

l l

You also ask what impact, if any, the Applicants' petition will <

! have on the NHRERP hearings due to begin no sooner than May 28, 1987. .

l Briefly answered, none is anticipated. The issue of whether the NHRERP j provides a reasonable assurance that adequate protective measures can '

and will be taken in t*e event of a radiological emergency will be decided on the litigatice now well advanced in this proceeding. The g2060063e7o33o g ADOCK 05000443 .

PDR l

2 Board deshuist anticipate any delays. As the Appeal Board said on January ISV 1987 in response to a motion for an imediate stay of all Seabrook proceedings, this Board's decision to move forward on both the NHRERP litigation and the Applicants' petition pursuant to 10 CFR 2.758 and50.47(c)doesnotnecessarilydeprivetheIntervenorsoftheirright to a fair hearing. (In the Matter of PUBLIC SERVICE COMPANY OF NEW et al. (Seabrook Station, Units 1 and 2) Docket Nos.

HAMPSHIRE, 50-443-OL, M -W 4-0L (Offsite Emergency Planning)) ALA8-858. A copy of Appeal Board decision is enclosed.

It is the Board's intent to ensure fairness to all parties. We do not believe, however, that every request for a delay Would be granted when, as is so often the case, there is no documented justification for a delay. As in every case, when in the Board's judgment adjustments of a schedule are needed in the interest of fairness to all parties, we will make necessary adjustments. ,

You ask, "Is the April hearing on New Hampshire off-site plans -

expected to take place in New Hampshire?" The response is yes if an j appropriate federal courtroom facility can be obtained. I have requested such a facility; however, no firm space or dates have been finalized.

You have asked about the Board requirements on service of papers in this proceeding. There have been many difficulties in ensuring that the numerous pleadings reach all the parties, the Comission docket room and this Board. Some of the parties in this case viewed our schedule dates as subject to their "on or about" interpretations. Good case management with an administrative staff of one to assist the Board required that we take charge of the service to get pleadings that were filed into the

' hands of all on the date(s) set by the Board. To accomplish this management task we provided as follows:

The Boa'rd directs that service of papers relating to offsite emergency planning contentions be effected by express mail or personal delivery in any instance where normal service would not result in actual receipt of those papers on or before a deadline for the filing of those papers. As has been this Board's custom, the date for filing of any pleading means that the pleading be delivered in hand to the parties and this Board on that date. (Emphasissupplied)

We believe that we have not required an expensive use of express mail. We do affirm that we must require this certainty of service which materially will aid us in conducting an orderly proceeding.

\

3 Finaily. your letter of January 23, 1987 will be placed in the docket of this proceeding. At this time and in accordance with our order of January 7,1967, the Board will deterinine the 3 rima facie issue raised by Applicants' petition of December 18,19'E'Birough written pleadings in view of the highly technical nature of this matter.

If additional written statements are submitted, they will be included in the docket of this proceeding.

Thank you for your letter. If further requests for infor1 nation are directed to the Board, we will endeavor to respond promptly.

Sincerely $

h-Helen F. Hoyt, Chairper ~

Administrative Judge a

Enclosure:

As stated.

l l

l l

,.- _-- _ _ _ , - - - -