ML20154D684
| ML20154D684 | |
| Person / Time | |
|---|---|
| Site: | Vermont Yankee File:NorthStar Vermont Yankee icon.png |
| Issue date: | 09/13/1988 |
| From: | Bechhoefer C Atomic Safety and Licensing Board Panel |
| To: | MASSACHUSETTS, COMMONWEALTH OF, NEW ENGLAND COALITION ON NUCLEAR POLLUTION, NRC OFFICE OF THE GENERAL COUNSEL (OGC), PUBLIC SERVICE CO. OF NEW HAMPSHIRE |
| References | |
| CON-#388-7064 87-547-02-LA, 87-547-2-LA, OLA, NUDOCS 8809160057 | |
| Download: ML20154D684 (3) | |
Text
_ _ _ _ _ _
f;
- '0L EiL D m.W C UNITED STATES OF AMERICA
- 2 SEP H A9 :M NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSION 4 -
ATOMIC SAFETY AND LICENSING BOARDGFf at.
s
.w-00CML & ; 4 ieery Oh'U "
Before Administrative Judges Charles Bechhoerer, Chairman Glenn O.
Bright SERVED SEP { 41988 Dr. Jares H. Carpenter In the Matter of
)
)
VERMONT YANKEE NUCLEAR
)
Docket No. 50-271-OLA POWER CORPORATION
)
)
l (Vermont Yankee Nuclear
)
ASLBP No. 87-547-02-LA Power Station)
)
l
)
September 13, 1988 MEMORANDUM AND ORDER IJteniv Re!
Pronosed Contentions)
On September 6, 1988, the New England Coalition on Nuclear Pollution (NECNP) and the Commonwealth of Massachusetts (hereinafter, Intervenors) filed a Joint Motion for leave to reply to the Applicant's and Staff's responses to the late-filed contentions submitted by the Intervenors on August 15, 1988.
The Intervanors assert that f
the Applicant has raised several issues, both technical and legal, requiring response; the Joint Motion was filed prior to receipt of the Staff response.
Intervenors propore to i
i submit their reply by September 14, 1988.
l Through telephone inquiry, we ascertained that the Applicant, although disagreeing with the basis stated for the Joint Motion as well as the need for any reply, offers no objection to the filing by Intervenors of a reply, as 8809160057 800913 DR ADOCK O 2 1 y
(p t
b l
o 2
i long as it is provided an opportunity to respond to any new material.
on the other hand, the Staff advised us by telephone that it objects to the filing of a reply, on the ground that the Intervenors have stated that they intend to include in their reply certain additional technical material, which the Staff porceives as evidence, and that it is not appropriate to take evidence into account in ruling on the admissibility of proposed contentions. The Staff thus finds no "good cause" for the filing of a reply by the Intervanors. (Under NRC rules, 10 C.F.R. 2.730(c), there is no automatic right to file a reply.)
The Staff is correct to the extent it is asserting that we cannot evaluate the validity of evidentiary material in
. ruling on the adequacy of proposed contentions.
The Intervenors, however, have indicated that they intend to pursue legal as well as technical arguments, and they also have not ir.dicated whether their technical arguments will necessarily be confined to the filing of evidentiary claims.
That being so, and given the complexity of certain of the proposed contenti
- s, we will permit the Intervenors to file l
their reply.
The Applicant and Staff may file responses to new material set forth in the reply.
i The reply is to be filed (mailed) by Wednesday, j
i September 14, 19881 it should be either hand delivered or j
served by express mail or equivalent to the other parties, i
I
_______./_,---
N i
3 The Applicant should file its response by Monday, September 26, 1988 (but should advise this Board, by telephone no later than September 21, 1908, whether it intends to file such a response).
The Staff should file its response by Friday, September 30, 1988 (but should advise this Board no later than September 23, 1988 whether it intends to do so).
FOR THE ATOMIC SAFETY AND LICENSING BOARD l )i s /$ u hd s) x Cha~ rte ~s Bischhoef er, C. *iirman ADMINISTRATIVE JUDGE <
Dated at Bethesda, Maryland, this 13th day of September, 1988.
l
..