ML20215G198
| ML20215G198 | |
| Person / Time | |
|---|---|
| Site: | Seabrook  |
| Issue date: | 10/15/1986 |
| From: | Wolfe S Atomic Safety and Licensing Board Panel |
| To: | Studds G HOUSE OF REP. |
| Shared Package | |
| ML20215G200 | List: |
| References | |
| CON-#486-1104 OL-1, NUDOCS 8610200233 | |
| Download: ML20215G198 (2) | |
Text
K II W p u:v
-,,,,,..eq e
~ ^ W.~. )
YOC O
UNITED STATES
[
fj NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSION 3-e ATOMIC SAFETY AND LICENSING BOARD PANEL PO'. H E ID
[
W ASHIN GT ON,0.C. 20555
'd PIP C October 15, 1986 86 0CT 16 P1 :15 f0hhI n.
'h The Honorable Gerry E. Studds MRVFD PrT 16 $86 EU House of Representatives SeabrookSthn, Units 1&2 RE:
Sir:
Yesterday I received your letter of October 8,1986. Please be advised that the public evidentiary hearing began the morning of September 29, and proceeded on September 30, October 1 and October 3.
The parties were the Applicants, the NRC Staff, Seacoast Anti-Pollution League (SAPL) and New England Coalition on Nuclear Pollution (NECNP).
Pursuant to the Comission's Rules of Practice,10 C.F.R. 5 2.715(c),
the interested Commonwealth of Nassachusetts and the interested State of New Hampshire were afforded the opportunity through their counsel to participate. While only the Applicants and the NRC Staff called witnesses to testify, the intervening parties (SAPL and NECNP) as well as the two interested States proceeded to conduct cross-examination.
All witnessas testified under oath. At the conclusion of this e videntiary hearing, the Atomic Safety and Licensing Board directed that the parties in this litigation must file proposed findings of fact, briefs and conclusions of law with respect to the three issues in controversy and stated that the two interested States could submit such filings.
During the afternoon of September 29, and during the evenings of September 29-30 and of October 3, the Board heard numerous oral limited appearance statements and received several written limited appearance statements from citizens of Massachusetts, New Hampshire, and Maine.
I made it clear that these' limited appearance statements were not taken under oath and would not be considered as evidence in this case.
Further, I advised that the purpose of having limited appearance statements is to alert the Board to matters within its jurisdiction in order that the Board could request the parties to present additional evidence upon any matters raised that were relevaat to the three on-site emergency planning and safety issues. The oral limited appearance statements were transcribed and are bound into limited appearance l
transcripts; the written limited appearance statements, having been read by the Board, will be lodged in the Comission's public document room.
Thus, limited appearance statements are part of the official record but not part of the evidentiary record.
l Finally, 10 C.F.R. 5 2.715(a) provides as follows:
A person who is not a party may, in the discretion of the presiding officer, be permitted to make a limited appearance by making oral or written statement of his l
8610200233 861015 PDR ADOCK 05000443 G
PDR 0502-
The Honorable Gerry E. Studds October 15, 1986 positiion on the issues at any session of the hearing or any prehearing conference within such limits and on such conditions as may be fixed by the presiding officer, but he may not otherwise participate in the proceeding.
I trust I have clarified our procedures.
Very truly yours,
\\ LOY Sheldon J:j. Wolfe Administrative Judge bcc: Service List e
l 1
l l
l