ML20246B988

Requests That Curran,Counsel for Necnp,Further Arguments in Be Rejected as Unauthorized Extension of Remarks Made at 881230 Oral Argument on Reception Ctr Contentions

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,,

o UNITED STATES NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSION

~ r :, T

' 'fM V.  ;; ap WASHINGTON, D. C. 20555

....+

/ 89 NG 18 P 3 43 i August 17, 1989 m wo lum b. y cm:

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 l

. Appeal Board U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission i 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 3 gDR ADOCK 050 Q 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

_ _ _ _ _ _ . _ _ _ _ _ _ _ . _ _ _ _ _ . _ _ _ _ _ _ _ . _