ML20077P000

From kanterella
Revision as of 06:17, 27 September 2022 by StriderTol (talk | contribs) (StriderTol Bot change)
(diff) ← Older revision | Latest revision (diff) | Newer revision → (diff)
Jump to navigation Jump to search
Forwards Contentions on 15 Local Emergency Response Plans. Intervenor Contained Clerical Mistake.Contention 1 Reworded,Not Contention 10.W/o Encl.Related Correspondence
ML20077P000
Person / Time
Site: Seabrook  NextEra Energy icon.png
Issue date: 09/09/1983
From: Curran D
HARMON & WEISS, NEW ENGLAND COALITION ON NUCLEAR POLLUTION
To: Harbour J, Hoyt H, Luebke E
Atomic Safety and Licensing Board Panel
References
NUDOCS 8309130267
Download: ML20077P000 (2)


Text

p --

HELATED CORRESPONIH;xcp II ARMON & WEISS chgO 172 5 4 STR E ET, N. W.

A 9 @,c,,,,,

WAS IIING , .C_.ao000 (202J (333 90 7o

' LLYN E ss WILLf AM S. JO RDAN, til LE E L. BISHOP- 0FFICE OF SEClit1Av <

o'AsE cuRR^N 00CKETING & SERVICE LaJCIA S. CRTH .

BRANCH DEAN R. TOUSLE Y September 9, 1983 Helen F. Iloyt , Esq. DOCMET NUMBER - ;( L~

Dr. Emmeth A.Luebke PROD A UTIL FAC.. .v.

Dr. Jerry liarbour Administrative Judges Nuclear Regulatory Commission Washington, D.C. 20G55

Dear Administrative Judges:

Enclosed are NECNP's contentions on 15 New Ilampshire local emergency response plans. They have been served on the other parties-to this proceeding.

We would also like to bring to the Board's attention the fact that, due to a previous clerical error by NECNP, the Board's August 30 order did not address NECNP's contention 10 on the New IIampchire state plan or rule on the reworded language of Contention 1.

In a letter of August 8, 1983, NECNP erroneously stated that it had reworded Contention 10 on-the New Hampshire state plan, and submitted new wording. The new wording was actually for Contention 1. Contention 1 should state that:

The New Ilampshire RERP violates 10 CFR S 50.47 (a) (1) in that it does not comply with NUREG-0654,Section II.P.7.

This new wording is not reflected in the Board's August 30 order.

As submitted in NECNP's June 27 filing, Contention 10 states that:

The New Ilampshire RERP does not provide a

" reasonable assurance that adequate protective measures can and will be taken in the event of a radiological emergency," as required by 10 C.P.R.

S 50.47 (a) (1) in that the plan does not provide reasonable assurance that sheltering is an

" adequate protective measure" for Seabrook.

8309130267 830909 PDR ADOCK 05000443 g

PDR 13

~.

}I ARMON & WEISS Administrative Judges September 7, 1983 Page Two Because of the confusion created by NECNP's clerical error, the Board substituted the new wording of Contention 1 as the proper wording for Contention 10, and did not rule on the actual contents of Contention 10.

We apologize for the inconvenience created by this clerical error, and ask that the Board issue a ruling on the new language of Contention 1 in its proper context; and on the language of Contention 10 as submitted June 27.

Sincerely,

{&  !'^

iane curran DC/cpk Enclosure cc: Seabrook Service List

\