ML20246B988
| ML20246B988 | |
| Person / Time | |
|---|---|
| Site: | Seabrook  |
| Issue date: | 08/17/1989 |
| From: | Sherwin Turk NRC OFFICE OF THE GENERAL COUNSEL (OGC) |
| To: | Bollwerk G, Rosenthal A, Wilber H NRC ATOMIC SAFETY & LICENSING APPEAL PANEL (ASLAP) |
| References | |
| CON-#389-9062 LBP-88-32, OL, NUDOCS 8908240149 | |
| Download: ML20246B988 (2) | |
Text
y s
b5
-[
'o,,
UNITED STATES
~ r :, T NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSION
' 'fM o
V.
ap WASHINGTON, D. C. 20555
/
89 NG 18 P 3 43
....+
August 17, 1989 m
cm: b.
wo lum y
G. Paul Bo11werk, III, Chairman Alan S. Rosenthal, Esq.
Administrative Judge Administrative Judge.
j Atomic Safety and Licensing Atomic Safety and Licensing Appeal Board Appeal Board U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission U.S.
Nuclear Reg ulatory Commission Washington, DC 20555 Washington, DC 20555 Mr. Howard A. Wilber Administrative Judge l
Atomic Safety and Licensing Appeal Board U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission Washington, D.C.
20555 In the Matter of PUBLIC SERVICE COMPANY OF NEW HAMPSHIRE, et al.
(Seabrook Station, Units I and 2)
Docket Nos. 50-443, 50-444 (Off-Site Emergency Planning)
E
Dear Administrative Judges:
]
During the oral argument of Interveners' appeals from the Licensing Board's Partial Initial Decision of December 30,1988(LBP-88-32),
Ms. Curran, Counsel for NECNP, was granted leave to provide by letter a l
citation to a Licensing Board decision in which, she asserted, the Board j
had rejected a reception center planning basis contention "on the basis of the 20% limitation" (Tr. 205).
By letter dated August 2, 1989, I
Counsel for NECNP has now indicated that her prior statement was erroneous,andthat"the[ Licensing)Boarddidnotrejectanycontentions on the basis of FEMA's 20% assumption." M.at3.
j i
Having clarified this' misapprehension, Counsel for. NECNP proceeded to devote the balance of her letter to an argument that the Licensing Board's "various inconsistent rulings left unclear the question of j
whether and to what extent it intended to allow the litigation of the size of the EPZ population that should be accommodated [ sic] by reception centers." M.
1 Ms. Curran's further arguments in this regard should be rejected as an unauthorized extension of her remarks at oral argument.
Further, it j
should be noted that no party has appealed from any of the Licensing Board's rulings-on reFe'ption center contentions and, as Counsel for 1
~
8908240149 890817 gDR Q
ADOCK 050 3
L
l NECNP now apparently concedes, no party was ever precluded from filing a contention attacking (or otherwise litigating) the 20% planning basis.
'for these reasons,.there is no reason for the Appeal Board to consider further the arguments of either NECNP or the Applicants-(submitted by letter dated August 10,1989), as to the effect of the Licensing Board's rulings on reception center contentions.
Sincerely, Sherwin E. Turk Senior Supervisory Trial Attorney cc: Service List 1
1 1
_ _ _ _ _ _ _. _ _ _ _ _. _ _ _ _ _ _ _. _