ML20236V723

Responds to 871105 Request for NRC to Update Responses to New England Coalition on Nuclear Pollution Prior Discovery Requests Re Beach Shelter Issues.Nrc Undecided on Extent of Disagreement W/Fema.Related Correspondence

ML20236V723
Person / Time
Site:	Seabrook
Issue date:	11/27/1987
From:	Sherwin Turk NRC OFFICE OF THE GENERAL COUNSEL (OGC)
To:	Curren D HARMON & WEISS
References
CON-#487-4966 OL, NUDOCS 8712070029
Download: ML20236V723 (2)

Text

_

L p ora RE1MED CORRESPONDENCE),

/ o UNITED STATES

!" [gg. NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSION DOMEi[0

,; WASHINGTON, D. C. 20555 h$NHg

( /;E November 27, 1987_ EdEM l

' OFFICE Di SEG% ,,

DOCMEhNG & SEifvicr~

. BRANCH Diane Curran, Esq.

l Harmon & Weiss 2001 S Street, N.W.

Suite 430 Washington, D.C. 20009 '

in the Matter of PUBLIC SERVICE COMPANY OF NEW HAMPSHIRE, ET AL.

(Seabrook Station, Units 1 and 2)

Docket Nos. 50-443, 50-444 Off-Site Emergency Planning -E i

Dear Diane:

This is in response to your letter of November 5,1987, concerning the draft outline of the NRC Staff's rebuttal testimony on beach shelter issues forwarded to the Board and parties with my letter of October 5, 1987, in which you also request that the Staff update its responses to NECNP's prior discovery requests.

As noted in my letter of October 5, 1987, the draft outline identified areas which the Staff "may wish to address in its rebuttal testimony, in the event the Staff determines followirig cross-examination that such rebuttal testimony is appropriate." As i advised you in our telephone conversation of November 12, 1987, the Staff has not yet determined whether and to what extent it disagrees with FEMA's position on the beach shelter issue. In this regard, I noted the discussion at Tr. 5153-54 (Nov. 4,1987),- in which FEMA Counsel Flynn provided a partial explanation of FEMA's position, Indicating that my prior understanding of that position was in error.

Inasmuch as FEMA's position is unlikely to be fully elucidated until its testimony is presented and subjected to cross-examination, a determination as to whether and to what extent the Staff disagrees with FEMA's position and whether the Staff will submit rebuttal testimony on the beach shelter issue must await the conclusion of cross-examination of FEMA's witness on this issue. Accordingly, your informal request for discovery as to such potential rebuttal testimony is premature. For the same reasons, the Staff is unable to provide an updating of its responses to NECNP's previous discovery requests concerning the beach shelter issue at this time.

With respect to other issues in the proceeding as to which the Staff stated, in response to NECNP's discovery requests, that it has not developed a position different from that of FEMA, you may consider that those responses continue to be correct as stated. Your reference to cross-examination e712070029 B 43 PDR ADDCK O O PDR G

i conducted by the Staff does not alter this conclusion. The Staff's cross-examination of witnesses in the proceeding, and its future filing of proposed findings of fact and conclusions of law, relate to testimony presented in the ongoing evidentiary hearings -- which testimony was not and could not have been reviewed by FEMA 'and the RAC when FEMA filed its position on contentions in June 1987. In any event, I am sure you will agree that no updating of discovery responses is required by any party as to its view of the testimony ultimately presented in the evidentiary hearings.

Sincerely, Sherwin E. Turk Senior Supervisory Trial Attorney cc: Service !.ist OFC :OGC :OGC  :  :  :  :

_______: g __,:_______== =__.______________._____..________.____________

NAME :STurk %((,y ,,1 :EReish  :  :  :

DATE :11/25/87 11/25/87  :  :  :  :

-