ML20236N985
| ML20236N985 | |
| Person / Time | |
|---|---|
| Site: | Seabrook  |
| Issue date: | 08/04/1987 |
| From: | Shoemaker C NRC ATOMIC SAFETY & LICENSING APPEAL PANEL (ASLAP) |
| To: | |
| References | |
| CON-#387-4171 ALAB-726, OL-1, NUDOCS 8708120180 | |
| Download: ML20236N985 (2) | |
Text
__
t// 7/
L ox-ci.
.>p UNITED STATES OF AMERICA
. NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSION 87 AUG -5 N0 38 l
ATOMIC SAFETY AND LICENSING APPEAL BOARD 1
Administrative Judgesi
[..[g. :.
.v.
Alan S. Rosenthal, Chairman August 4, 1987 Gary J. Edles Howard A. Wilber SERVFD AUG -51987 In the Matter of
)
)
PUBLIC SERVICC COMPANY OF
)
Docket Nos. 50-443-OL-1
.NEW HAMPSHIRE, ET AL.
)
50-444-OL-1
)
(Seabrook Station, Units 1
)
(Onsite Emergency Planning and 2)
)
and Safety Issues)
{
)
MEMORANDUM on July 31, 1987, several of the interveners in this operating license proceeding involving the Seabrook nuclear facility filed a petition with the Licensing Board assigned to consider onsite emergency planning and safety issues.1 The petition seeks a waiver, under 10 CFR 2.758, of 10 CFR
- 50. 33 (f) and 50.57 (a) (4) to the extent necessary to require the applicants to demonstrate, prior to low-power operation, that they are financially qualified to operate and decommission the facility.
On March 25,.1987, that Licensing Board rendered a partial initial decision in which it decided all of the issues then before it (none of which involved financial 1 A separate Licensing Board was established to hear and decide the offsite emergency planning issues.
8708120100 870804 7/
POR ADDCK 05000443 50 G
PDR j
e
'4 2
qualifications).
LBP-87-10, 25 NRC Appeals from that decision were taken to us and are currently under submission.
Thus, as of the time of the filing of the waiver petition, the entire safety issue-phase of the
' proceeding was in our bailiwick.
Despite this consideration, it appears to us that the waiver petition was correctly filed with the Licensing Board.
See Philadelphia Electric Co. (Limerick' Generating Station, Units 1 and 2), ALAB-726, 17 NRC 755, 757 n.4 (1983).. There is, however, no necessity to explore any jurisdictional question.
For, in all events, we think it desirable that the Licensing Board entertain the waiver petition in the first instance.
If it concludes that the interveners have made a prima facie showing of entitlement to'the relief sought, the matter should be certified directly to the Commission for ultimate decision in accordance with 10 CFR 2.758(d).
Otherwise, it should deny the petition subject to our possible appellate review.
FOR THE APPEAL BOARD E.[Jh C. J hn Sh'oemaker l
Secre!ary to the Appeal Board 18 I
i L.