ML20212N915
| ML20212N915 | |
| Person / Time | |
|---|---|
| Site: | Seabrook  |
| Issue date: | 08/29/1986 |
| From: | Shoemaker C NRC ATOMIC SAFETY & LICENSING APPEAL PANEL (ASLAP) |
| To: | NEW ENGLAND COALITION ON NUCLEAR POLLUTION, PUBLIC SERVICE CO. OF NEW HAMPSHIRE, SEACOAST ANTI-POLLUTION LEAGUE |
| References | |
| CON-#386-520 OL, NUDOCS 8609020066 | |
| Download: ML20212N915 (4) | |
Text
_ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ - _ _ _ _ - _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _
hTNED AUG 29 M
~
DCCKETED' UNITED STATES OF AMERICA USNRC NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSION ATOMIC SAFETY AND LICENSING APPEAEBW9 P3 :46 Administrative Judges:
OFFICE Cr HvD Adv 00CXLTitC A Sfi< Viri.
Alan S. Rosenthal, Chairman Aubu'dt'"29, 1986 Gary J. Edles Howard A. Wilber
)
In the Matter of
)
)
PUBLIC SERVICE COMPANY OF
)
Docket Nos. 50-443-OL NEW HAMPSHIRE, ~ET AL.
)
50-444-OL
~ - -
) (Offsite Emergency Planning)
(Seabrook Station, Units 1
)
I and 2)
)
)
MEMORANDUM AND CRDER Our August 11, 1986 memorandum and order (unpublished) solicited the views of the parties on whether in the totality of circumstances "we should direct that any.
challenges to the Licensing Board's rulings on the admissibility of contentions on the New Hampshire emergency
[ response] plan be made at this time."1 Responses to that solicitation were received from, in addition to the applidhnts and the NRC staff, the following intervenors:
1 August 11 memorandum and order at 6.
Those rulings were embodied in two Licensing Board orders in which the Board passed upon the admissibility of approximately 100 contentions.
See Licensing Board Memorandum and Order (Ruling on Contentions and Establishing Date and Location for Hearing) (April 29, 1986) (unpublished); Licensing Board Memorandum and Order (Ruling on Late-filed Contentions of Seacoast Anti-Pollution League) (May 21, 1986)
(unpublished).
8609020066 860829
{DR ADOCK 05000443 dEoz.
2 the State of New Hampshire; the Commonwealth of Massachusetts; the Towns of Hampton and Kensington; the New England Coalit' ion on Nuclear Pollution (NECNP); and the i
Seacoast Anti-Pollution League.
Most of those parties support in principle an interlocutory appellate review of those rulings below to which the August 11 order referred.2 Some of the responses, however, brought to our attention two considerations bearing upon the appropriate timing of the review.
For one thing, we are told that in the near future New Hampshire will submit possibly significant revisions to its radiological emergency response plan.3 For another, the Licensing Board that is scrutinizing the safety and onsite emergency planning issues (the "Wolfe" Board) has scheduled a further evidentiary hearing which is to commence on September 29 and to run through at least October 1.4 The parties concerned 2 In addition, NECNP suggested that such review might also be justified with respect to the contentions rejected in the other phase.of this operating license proceeding, which is concerned with safety and onsite emergency planning issues.
Given the fact that that phase appears to be rapidly approaching Licensing Board decision, we see no good reason t.o adopt the suggestion.
3 In answer to an informal telephone inquiry on August 28, the State's counsel informed the Secretary to this Board that the revisions are now expected to surface in early September.
4 See Licensing Board August 20, 1986 order (unpublished).
~
w.
3 with the specific matters to be addressed at that hearing will be required to devote time and resources to trial preparation and partic'ipation, as well as to the post-hearing formulation of proposed findings of fact and conclusions of law.
In light of these factors, it seems prudent to stay our hand with respect to interlocutory review of the rulings on the admissibility of offsite emergency response contentions to await further developments.
We do not wish, of course, to take any measure that might impair the ability of the parties - especially those with limited resources -- to fulfill effectively and expeditiously their responsibilities in connection with the Wolfe Board's upcoming hearing.
Moreover, we have no means for now determining what impact the revisions to the New Hampshire emergency response plan might have on the significance of the Licensing Board's rulings on the previously rubmitted contentions directed to that plan.
To the contrary, that assessment obviously must abide the event of the submission of the revisions and the disposition made by the Licensing Board responsible for the offsite emergency response phase of the proceeding (the "Hoyt" Board) of any new contentions spawned by them.
(On that score, we anticipate that, as soon as the revisions have surfaced, the Hoyt Board will establish procedures for the presentation of such additional contentions.)
4 In sum, we are satisfied that there are considerations that militate against pursuing at this juncture the course of action proposed in our August 11 order.
For.the time being, we will content ourselves with keeping an eye on both the progress of the Wolfe Board hearing and events in the wake of the submission of the revisions to the New Hampshire emergency response plan.5 A further order of this Board will issue at such time as the existing situation on those two fronts appears to warrant the initiation of the interlocutory review process on the admissibility of contentions concerning the New Hampshire emergency response plan.
It is so ORDERED.
FOR THE APPEAL BOARD O.
db r.rbah C. (gan Shoemaker Secretary to the Appeal Board To aid that effort, counsel for the State is to notify us by letter when the revisions are issued.
_ _-