ML20150C534
| ML20150C534 | |
| Person / Time | |
|---|---|
| Site: | Seabrook  |
| Issue date: | 03/17/1988 |
| From: | Shoemaker C NRC ATOMIC SAFETY & LICENSING APPEAL PANEL (ASLAP) |
| To: | NEW ENGLAND COALITION ON NUCLEAR POLLUTION |
| References | |
| CON-#188-5851 OL-1, NUDOCS 8803210073 | |
| Download: ML20150C534 (2) | |
Text
.-
,6 2,S/
DQL KE TET-UNITED STATES OF AMERICA NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSION ATOMIC SAFETY AND LICENSING APPEAL BOARD Administrative Judges:
[0 N f Y][h' BRANCw Alan S.
Rosenthal, Chairman March 17, 1988 Howard A. Wilber 3
SERVED MAR 171988 In the Matter of
)
)
PUBLIC SERVICE COMPANY OF
)
Docket Nos. 50-443-OL-1 NEW HAMPSHIRE, ET AL.
)
50-444-OL-1
)
(Seabrook Station, Units 1
)
(Onsite Emergency Planning and 2)
)
and Safety Issues)
)
ORDER The March 3, 1988 motion of the New England Coalition on Nuclear Follution to defer the briefing of its pending appeal from the Licensing Board's February 17, 1988 1
memorandum and order is denied.
The time for the filing of the Coalition's brief in support of that appeal is extended sua sponte to and including April 8, 1988.
I LBP-88-6, 27 NRC By virtue of our March 11, 1988 order, the NRC staff's response to the motion was due in our hands no later than 4:00 p.m. yesterday.
In point of fact, however, it was not received until shortly after 9:00 a.m. this morning as part of a routine mail delivery by personnel in the Commission's Mail and Messenger Branch.
The Secretary to this Board was informed by staff counsel that he had dispatched the response at noon yesterday.
Although he apparently assumed that the delivery process would consume no more than four hours, our own experience with intra-agency 1 ail transmitted between the (Footnote Continued) 8G03210073 880317 I
PDR ADOCK 05000443 0
PDR ybc1' l
2 It is so ORDERED.
FOR THE APPEAL BOARD
- b. bdb Secre$ary to the C. Je Sh6emaker t
Appeal Board (rootnote Continued)
NRC's new White Flint facility in Rockville, Maryland (where staff counsel is located) and Bethesda (where the Appeal Panel has its offices) suggests that there was no basis for any such assumption.
While we have accepted the untimely filing in this instance, in the future the staff should endeavor to obtain an absolute assurance from the Mail and Messenger Branch that papers due to be in our hands by a certain time will be delivered by that time.
In the absence of such assurance, the staff will be expected to make other delivery arrangements.
_