ML20148C997

Requests That Encl Corrected Page 7 Be Substituted in Place of Present Page 7 of 880114 NRC Response to Contention of Atty General Jm Shannon & Motion to Admit late-filed Contention & Reopen Record

ML20148C997
Person / Time
Site:	Seabrook
Issue date:	01/15/1988
From:	Berry G NRC OFFICE OF THE GENERAL COUNSEL (OGC)
To:	Moore T, Rosenthal A, Wilbur H NRC ATOMIC SAFETY & LICENSING APPEAL PANEL (ASLAP)
References
CON-#188-5387 OL, NUDOCS 8801250305
Download: ML20148C997 (2)

Text

. , ,

5387 -

h. r uo

/ oq'o, UNITED STATES

!" o NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSION

{. . ,E WASHINGTON, D. C. 20555 C' CE

\ .. f ..

'88 JAN 21 A1053

' t 5"r : 5e " q' 0FF icf. 0.: H.crtiar 00CKE!mG & 3Esvlu.

BPANCH Alan S. Rosenthal, Esq _., Chairman Thomas S. Moore, Esq., Administrative Judge Howard A. Wilbur, Administrative Judge Atomic Safety and Licensing Appeal Board U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission Washington, DC 20555 In the Matter of PUBLIC SERVICE COMPANY nF NEW HAMPSHIRE, ET AL.

(Seabrook Station, Units 1 and 2)

Docket Nos. 50-443, 50-444 Off-Site Emergency Planning 'Ob Gentlemen:

The Staff requests that the enc'esed corrected page 7 be substituted in place of present pace 7 of the "NRC Staff Response To Contention O/ Attorney General James M. Shannon And Motion To Admit Late-File-1 Contention And Reopen The Record", filed January 14, 1988. The Staff apologizes for any resulting inconvience to the Board and parties.

M:erely, '

l Gregory, an 1 [e ry l Counsel f r NF{ Staff l

l

Enclosures:

As stated cc: Service list l

l l

"o " /)9 1 1

Y "taking steps to provide alternative methods to notify residents of a plant emergency, as required by federal law." M. (empha:Is in original).

As of this writing, the Staff has not been informed by Applicants whether the "alternative methods" referred to above have been developed and ready to be reviewed by the Staff. When Applicants develop an alternative method to notify the residents of Newburyport in the event of an emergency at the Seabrook Station, the Staff will complete its review of that plan (including any provisions relating to the City of Newburyport) to ensure that the plan meets the requirements of 10 C.F.R. 6 50.47(b)(5). U At that time it can be ascertained whether the removal of the Newburyport sirens presents "a significant safety issue" as required by 10 C.F.R. 5 2.734 to warrant a reopening of the record. U The Appeal Board should therefore defer ruling upon the A C's motion to reopen the record until after Appilcants submit their l

l l 2_/ The Staff has been preparing a Supplemental Safety Evaluation l Report (SSER) addressing Applicants' Newburyport alert notification l

plan. However, in view of Applicants' announced intention to modify again their alert notification plans, the subject SSER no longer is germane to the proceeding and the Staff does not intend to issue it.

l y A reopening of the record would not in itself preclude the issuance of a low power ilcense. Under 10 C.F.R. 9 50.57(c), in determining whether low power operations should be authorized before all l contentions are resolved, the Board is to consider, inter alla, whether any of the admitted contentions are relevant to the "activity to be authorized" and whether there is reasonable assurance that low f power operations can be conducted without endangering the pub!!c health and safety. See also,10 CFR S 50.47(c)(1) and (d).

l l

r