ML19347F024
| ML19347F024 | |
| Person / Time | |
|---|---|
| Site: | Shoreham File:Long Island Lighting Company icon.png |
| Issue date: | 05/13/1981 |
| From: | Bordenick B NRC OFFICE OF THE EXECUTIVE LEGAL DIRECTOR (OELD) |
| To: | Atomic Safety and Licensing Board Panel |
| References | |
| NUDOCS 8105150102 | |
| Download: ML19347F024 (5) | |
Text
__
]
05/13/81 e
UNITED STATES OF AMERICA s
NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISS10tl B
I'IAY j 4 ISS7g
~
- E ~'
BEFORE THE ATOMIC SAFETY AND LICENSIrlG BOARD u.,,
h Ew%.g In the Matter of
-)
LONG ISLAllD LIGHTIrlG COMPAllY Decket No. 50-322
)
(Shorehan fluclear Power Station,
)
Unit 1)
)
HRC STAFF'S OPPOSITI0t1 TO S0C REQUEST FOR LEAVE TO FILE RESPONSE OF APRIL 30, 1981 BAC GROUND Intervenor Shorehan Opponents Coalition (SOC) in a filing dated April 28, 1981M seeks leave to file a " response" to answers filed by Applicant and the NRC Staff. These answers supported in part and opposed in part SOC's " Motion * *
- for Acceptance of Particularized Contention 19."2_/
For the reasons noted belos, the flRC Staff urges the Board to reject SOC's latest filing.
DISCUSSION SOC's filing requests leave of the Board, pursuant to 10 C.F.R. 2.730(c) to submit its " response" [ reply] to Applica' t and Staff answers y
The cover letter accompanying the S0C filing is dated April 30, 1981.
-2/
SOC's Motion for Acceptance of Contention 19 was filed on March 18, 1981. Apolicant answered the Motion on April 2,1981 and the Staff answered on April 7,1981.
8 1 05 15 0 D 7_
2-L._
to its motion _regarding Contention 19 based on what it asserts are "* *
- certaia mischaracterizations and other improper arguments contained in the LILC0 and Staff answers [to its motion] * * * *" (SOC response, p.'1).
As recognized by SOC, 10 C.F.R. 2.730(c) provides that a " moving party shall have no right to reply [to answers to its motion] except as permitted by the [ Board]."3.f As noted above, SOC's sole basis for seeking leave to file the reply in question is that, in its view, Applicant's and Staff's answers to its motion contain certain "mischaracterizations and other improper arguments." SOC's attempted
" reply" demonstrates why the Coaaission's rules do not provide for an automatic reply in these circumstances and why the Board should not grant SOC leave to file such a " reply."O The positions of the respective parties are adequately and fully set forth in their previous filings regarding Contention 19. While S0C may characterize its attempted
" reply" as addressing "certain mischaracterizations and other improper arguments advanced by Applicant and Staff, it is clear from a reading of SOC's " reply" that it simply disagrees with the argunents advanced by 3f See also Detroit Edison Company (Enrico Ferui Atomic Plant, Unit 2), ALAB-469, 7 NRC 470, 471 (1978).
y It could be said that the " reply" has been improperly placed before the Board at this time.
One Licensing Board has stated that where permission to file a " reply" is sought, "* *
- the reply brief should not be attached to the motion but should only be submitted after permission to file is granted." Public Service Company of Oklahona et al. (Black Fox Station, Units 1 and 2), LBP-76-33, 4 NRC 435, 441 (1976). The Staff does not, however, urge rejection of Intervenor's " reply" filing on this basis.
e
C
~k i
Applicant and Staff.
Such disagreement between parties is not unusual and should not fom the basis for allowing a maving party to file & reply to the other parties answers to its earlier motion.
If the Board grants SOC's request for leave to submit a response, Staff and we presume Applicant would seek leave to respond to the reply. This, in turn, could set up a further " ping pong" effect whereby S0C might seek to " reply" to the " response" to the " reply" and so on.
C0l4CLUSION SOC's filing dated April 30, 1981, which attempts to reply to Applicant and Staff answers to its " Motion * *
- for Acceptance of Particularized Contention 19" should not be accepted for consideration by the Board.
In the event the Board determines that it will accept the
" reply", Applicant and Staff should be granted fif teen days within which to substantively respond to the new arguments set forth by SOC in its April ' 30,1981 " reply."
Respectfully submitted, W
4 Ber.n d M. Bordenick Couiisel for NRC Staff Dated at Bethesda, Maryland
- this 13th day of May,1981.
-e, e
, -.a
h b'
UNITED STATES OF A'tERICA NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMilSSION BEFORE THE ATOMIC SAFETY AND LICENSING BOARD in the !!atter of
)
)
LONG ISLAND LIGHTING COMPANY Docket No. 50-322 (Shoreham Nuclear Power Station, Unit 1)
CERTIFICA_TE OF SER_V_ ICE I hereby certify that copies of "NRC STAFF'S OPPOSITION TO S0C REQUEST FOR LEAVE TO FILE RESPONSE OF APRIL 30, 1981" in the above-captioned proceeding have been served on the following by deposit in the United States mail, first class, or, as indicated by an asterisk, through deposit in the Nuclear Regulatory Commission's internal mail system this 13th day of May, 1981:
Louis J. Carter Ralph Shapiro, Esq.
Administrative Judge Cammer and Shapiro 23 Wiltshire Road No. 9 East 40th Street Philadelphia, PA 19151 New York, NY 10016 B
Dr. Oscar H. Paris, fiember*
Howard L. Blau, Esq.
Atomic Safety and Licensing Board 217 flewbridge Road U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission Hicksville, NY 11801-Washington, DC 20555 W. Taylor Reveley III, Esq.
Mr. Frederick J. Shon, itember*
Hunton & Williams Atomic Safety and Licensing Board P.O. Box 1535 U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission Richnond, VA 23212 Washington, DC 20555 Jeffrey Cohen, Esq.
Edward M. Barrett, Esq.
Deputy Commissionar and Counsel General Counsel New York State Energy Office Long Island Lighting Company Agency Building 2 250 Old County Road Erpire State Plaza
!!ineola, NY 11501 Albany, NY 12223 Edward-J. Walsh, Esq.
Irving Like, Esq.
Long Island Lighting Company Railly, Like and Schneider 250 Old County Raad 200 West Main Street 11ine01a, NY 11501 B3bylon, NY 11702 1
_ ia Stephen B. Latham, Esq.
t'r. J. P. Novarro, Pro.iect ibnager
.Tuomey,;Latham & Schmitt Shoreham Nuclear Power Station Attorneys at Law P.O. Box 618 P.O. Box 398 f: orth Country Road
_33 West Second Street Wading River, NY 11792 Riverhead, NY 11901
!;HB Technical Associates Energy Research Group, Inc.
1723 Hainilton Avenue 400-1 Totten Pond Road Suite K
!!al tham, !!A 02154 San Jose, CA 95125 Joel Blau, Esq.
Hon. Peter Cohalan New York Public Service Commission Suffolk County Executive The Governor Nelson A. Rockefeller County Executive / Legislative Pldg.
Building Veteran's itemorial liighway Empire State Plaza-Hauppauge, NY 11788 Albany, NY 12223 Ezra I. Bialik, Esq.
David H.- Gilmartin, Esq.
Assistant Attorney General Suffolk County Attorney General Environmental Protection Nreu g
County Executive / Legislative Bldg.
New York State Department of Las Veteran's Memorial liighway 2 World Trade Center Hauppauge, NY 11788 New York, NY 10047 Atomic Safety and Licensing Atomic Safety and Licensing Board Panel
- Appeal Board
- ti.S. Nuclear Regulatory Coonission U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Comission 1.'ashington, DC 20555
!!ashington, DC 20555 Docketing and Service Section*
Office of the Secretary ll.S. Nuclear Regulatory Connission Washington, DC 20555
/
/
m w/-
dienry J. McGurren Coun el for NRC Staff l