ML20215L871
| ML20215L871 | |
| Person / Time | |
|---|---|
| Site: | Seabrook  |
| Issue date: | 10/27/1986 |
| From: | Shoemaker C NRC ATOMIC SAFETY & LICENSING APPEAL PANEL (ASLAP) |
| To: | SEACOAST ANTI-POLLUTION LEAGUE |
| References | |
| CON-#486-1281 OL-1, NUDOCS 8610290334 | |
| Download: ML20215L871 (3) | |
Text
% f
))8-I UNITED STATES OF AMERICA
);c NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSION ATOMIC SAFETY AND LICEPSING APPEAL BOARIB6 0CT 28 A9 :52 Administrative Judges:
g Alan S. Rosenthal, Chairman OctobYr2k)3I9dh Gary J. Edles Howard A. Wilber SERVED OCT 281986
)
In the Matter of
)
)
PUBLIC SERVICE COMPANY
)
Docket Nos. 50-443-OL-1 OF NEW HAMPSHIRE, et al.
)
50-444-OL-1
)
(Seabrook Station, Units 1
)
(On-Site Emergency Planning and 2)
)
and safety Issues)
)
ORDER On the morning of October 24, 1986, we received the notice of intervenor Seacoast Anti-Pollution League (SAPL) that it was joining in the pending appeal of the Massachusetts Attorney General from the Licensing Board's October 7, 1986 memorandum and order.
Later on that date, we conducted a telephone conference with representatives of those parties, and of the applicants and the NRC staff, for the purpose of discussing the impact of that notice on the scheduling of oral argument on the Attorney General's appeal.
At the conclusion of the discussion, we obtained the agreement of the participants to the following:
1.
SAPL is to ensure that its brief is received by this Board and by counsel for the applicants, the Massachusetts Attorney General, and the NRC staff no later bhh443 PDR 030 2
,=
. s.
l 2
than the morning of October 30, 1986.1 This can be accomplished either by personal delivery on or before October 29 or by placing the brief in the hands of an expedited delivery service in sufficient time to allow its receipt by che addressee by noon on October 30.
2.
Oral argument on the Attorney General's appeal will be held at 10:00 a.m. on October 31, 1986, in the NRC Public Hearing Room, Fifth Floor, East-West Towers Building, 4350 l
East-West Highway, Bethesda, Maryland.
The argument will be i
l restricted to the single question raised by that appeal:
whether, in light of 10 CFR 50.33(g), fuel loading and 4
precriticality testing could not be authorized without the l
prior submission of emergency response plans for that l
portion of the Commonwealth of Massachusetts within the plume exposure pathway emergency planning zone.
Each side will be allocated forty-five minutes for the presentation of its argument.
For this purpose, the Attorney General and SAPL (assuming that its brief addresses the Section 50.33(g) issue) will constitute one side; the applicants and the NRC staff will constitute the other side.2 i
The SAPL participant in the telephone conference advised us that the brief would be completed by October 29.
In the event that SAPL's brief does not address the Section 50.33(g) issue, it will not be permitted to participate in the oral argument.
If SAPL's brief does (Footnote Continued)
N.
6 3
3..
In the event that the SAPL brief raises issues other than the Section 50.33(g) issue presented by the Attorney General's appeal, we will establish a schedule for the filing of responses to the arguments advanced by that intervenor on those issues.
In those responses, the parties may address, if they so desire, the question (raised by applicants' counsel during the telephone conference) whether SAPL's joinder in the Attorney General's appeal permitted it to raise issues beyond the single issue presented by the Attorney General's appeal.
If that question is addressed, SAPL will be afforded an opportunity to reply.
It is so ORDERED.
FOR THE APPEAL BOARD b.
ch Secre(tary to theJ gn Sh6emaker C.
Appeal Board Mr. Wilber did not participate in the telephone conference or in this order.
(Footnote Continued) address the Section 50.33(g) issue, and advances arguments with regard to that issue that were not put forth by the Attorney General in his brief, the applicants and the staff will (upon request) be granted leave to file a post-argument supplemental memorandum.
Any such memorandum shall be confined to the new SAPL assertions on the issue.
l t
-