ML20027D159
| ML20027D159 | |
| Person / Time | |
|---|---|
| Site: | Byron  |
| Issue date: | 10/27/1982 |
| From: | Goldberg S NRC OFFICE OF THE EXECUTIVE LEGAL DIRECTOR (OELD) |
| To: | Atomic Safety and Licensing Board Panel |
| References | |
| NUDOCS 8210280347 | |
| Download: ML20027D159 (5) | |
Text
.-
- m. SAL Certum -s ]
L 10/27/82 UNITED STATES OF AMERICA NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSION BEFORE THE AT0 HIC SAFETY AND LICENSING BOARD 6
In the Matter of COMM0KWEALTH EDISON COMPANY Docket Nos. 50-454
)
50-455 (Byron Station, Units 1 and 2)
)
NRr STAFF RESPONSE TO DAARE/ SAFE Mb, ION FOR LEAVE TO FILE REPLY I.
INTRODUCTION On October 18, 1982, DAARE/ SAFE filed a motion for leave to submit an attached reply to Applicant and Staff responses to its September 23, 1982 motion for reconsideration of the Licensing Board's summary disposition of DAARE/ SAFE's contention 1(h) on quality assurance and quality control. The instant motion and reply purport to address two "new matters" raised in the Applictnt and Staff responses in question to which DAARE/ SAFE claims " fairness" entitles it to reply. These "new matters" are identificd as the timeliness of DAARE/ SAFE's original reconsideration motion and the declared intention of the Staff to conduct a special inspection on the allegations raised in several affidavits accompanying DAARE/ SAFE's reconsideration motion. The Staff objects to the present motion and reply on the ground that it is neither authorized nor justified.
II. DISCUSSION Under the Commission's motion practice, a moving party cannot file a reply to the response of other parties to its motion unless otherwise authorized by the licensing board.
10 CFR 5 2.730(c). The present motion to reply provides no good cause to warrant a departure from this general prohibition.
8210280347 821027 PDR ADOCK 05000454 G
a^.
DAARE/ SAFE's complaint that the Applicant and Staff responsive plead-ings raise "new matters" to which it should be afforded an opportunity to reply is difficult to understand. The matter of timeliness of DAARE/ SAFE's motion to reconsider is raised by the reconsideration motion itself and DAARE/ SAFE reasonably should have anticipated that the timeliness of the reconsideration motion would be the subject of the other parties' responses thereto. Similarly, DAARE/ SAFE clearly could have and should have anticipated that when it proffered new allegations of quality assurance / quality control problems, the Staff, in carrying out its own regulatory responsibility, would undertake an investigation of such i
allegations. DAARE/ SAFE's failure to anticipate these elements of the other parties' responses provides no justification for allcwing a further round of pleadings by DAARE/ SAFE in support of its motion to reconsider.
It is elementary under the Comission's regulations that the grounds for a particular motion should be fully explicated in the motion itself. 10 CFR 5 2.730(b). Responsive pleadings beyond those authorized by the Comission's motion provisions should not ordinarily be necessary nor are they in the present instance. fioreover, nothing in the proffered DAARE/ SAFE reply addresses the central legal objection raised by both the ApplicantIl and Staff ] to the 2
reconsideration motion; namely, its impermissible reliance or new facts and l
1/
Applicant opposition to DAARE/ SAFE motion to reconsider, dated October 8, 1982, at 6-7.
2]
NRC Staff response to DAARE/ SAFE motion to reconsider, dated October 12, 1982, at 5.
I 1
e-
. e arguments not presented in the sumary disposition papers upon which the complained of Licensing Board decision was based. DAARE/ SAFE has provided no basis for departing from the established rule that a movant may not respond to other parties' responses to its motion.
III. CONCLUSION In light of the foregoing, the NRC Staff opposes DAARE/ SAFE's l
motion to reply to party responses to its reconsideration motion.
Respectfully submitted, Steven C. Goldberg Counsel for NRC Staff Dated at Bethesda, Maryland this 27th day of October, 1982.
C.
.1, '
a UNITED STATES OF AMERICA NUCLEAR REGULATORY C0fMISSION BEFORE THE ATOMIC SAFETY AND LICENSING BOARD In the Matter of p
1 h
Docket Nos. 50-454 COMMONWEALTH EDISON COMPANY 50-455
)9 (Byron Station, Units 1 and 2)
CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE I hereby certify that copies of "NRC STAFF RESPON on the following by deposit in the United States mail, fir internal mail system, this 27th dey of October, 1982:
Region III
- Ivan W. Smith, Chairman U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Comission Administrative Judge Office of Inspection & Enforcement Atomic Safety and Licensing Board 799 Roosevelt Road U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Comission Glen Ellyn, IL 60137 Washington, DC 20555 Mrs. Phillip B. Johnson Dr. A. Dixon Callihan 1907 Stratford Lane Administrative Judge Rockford, IL 61107 Union Carbide Corporation P. O. Box Y Ms. Diane Chavez Oak Ridge, TN 37830 326 H. Avon Street Rockford, IL 61103
- Dr. Richard F. Cole Administrative Judge Dr. Bruce von Zellen Atomic Safety and Licensing Board c/o DAARE U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Comission P. O. Box 261 Washington, DC 20555 DeKalb, IL 60015 Paul M. Murphy, Esq.
Doug Cassel, Esq.
Isham, Lincoln & Beale Jane Whicher, Esq.
Three First National Plaza 109 N. Dearborn Street l
Chicago, IL 60602 Chicago, IL 60602 Myron M. Cherry, Esq.
Joseph Gallo, Esq.
Cherry & Flynn Isham, Lincoln & Beale Suite 3700 Suite 840 Three First National Plaza 1120 Connecticut Avenue, NW i
i Chicago, IL 60602 Washington, DC 20036
......_....m_l."~~~~~~~~
,i-2
- Atomic Safety and Licensing Board Panel U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Comission Washington, DC 20555
- Atomic Safety and Licensing Appeal Board Panel U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Comission Washington, DC 20555
- Docketing and Service Section Office of the Secretary of the Commission U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Comission Washington, DC 20555 l
1 l
l
?
. - - - _ _.,