ML20155F728

Order (Granting Applicant Motion for Leave to Reply).* Applicant 880609 Motion for Leave to File Reply to NRC & New England Coalition on Nuclear Pollution Responses to Applicant Suggestion of Mootness Granted.Served on 880613

ML20155F728
Person / Time
Site:	Seabrook
Issue date:	06/10/1988
From:	Wolfe S Atomic Safety and Licensing Board Panel
To:	NEW ENGLAND COALITION ON NUCLEAR POLLUTION, NRC OFFICE OF THE GENERAL COUNSEL (OGC), PUBLIC SERVICE CO. OF NEW HAMPSHIRE
References
CON-#288-6510 88-558-01-OLR, 88-558-1-OLR, OL-1, NUDOCS 8806170029
Download: ML20155F728 (2)

Text

l65/6 s

s DCLKiiE:

N' UNITED STATES OF AMERICA NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSION ATOMIC SAFETY AND LICENSING BOARD Before Administrative Judges: OFF!n .

.o ,w<

Sheldon J. Wolfe, Chairman 00ChEipo5 E r mt Emmeth A. Luebke Jerry Harbour S[gyggjUN1Jl988 Docket Nos. 50-443-OL-1 In the Matter of 50-444-0L-1

)

PUBLIC SERVICE COMPANY ) (On-Site Emergency Planning 0F NEW HAMPSHIRE, et al,. ) and Safety Issues)

)

) (ASLBP No. 88-558-01-0LR)

(Seabrook Station, Units 1 and 2) )

) June 10, 1988 ORDER (Granting Applicants' Motion For Leave to Reply)

On June 9,1988, Applicants filed a motion for leave to file a reply on or before June 17 t3 the Staff's and NECNP's responses to 1

Applicants' Suggestion of Mootness.

Previously, in the Order of May 23, we had requested that NECNP and Staff comment upon the Applicants' Suggestion of Mootness and the Respmse submitted on May 19. On June 2, the Staff filed its response and on June 9, NECNP filed its response.

Having been informed by telephone that NECNP's response would oppose Applicants' Suggestion of Mootness, the instant motion states that "Applicants believe that the Board's resolution of this matter one way or the other would be facilitated by a further reply by the Applicants to the Staff and NECNP filings." While Applicants do not 8806170029 880610 PDR ADOCK 05000443 G PDR DJ O 2-

1 state whether or not the Staff and/or NECNP cppose the instant motion, upon our own motion and without awaiting responses to the instant motion, we grant the motion. It would be very helpful to the Board to have before it a final written response of the Applicants. Neither the Staff nor NECNP will be prejudiced by the granting of the instant motion since the Board will not resolve this matter solely upon the written submissions to us -- instead, upon prior notice to the parties, we will schedule and conduct a telephonic conference call sometime on June 23 or

24. At that time, the Board will hear any additional comments and/or arguments of the parties upon the procedures to be followed. At the conclusion of the conference, or as soon as is possible thereafter, the Board will decide upon the procedures to be followed in order to resolve the environmental qualification issue.

It is so ORDERED.

FOR THE ATOMIC SAFETY AND LICENSING BOARD hw h_

Sheldon J. WoM4, Chairman ADMINISTRATIVEfUDGE Dated at Bethesda, Maryland 1 this 10th day of June, 1988. l l

l l

Hereaf ter, before filing such motions, the movant must informally contact counsel for the other interested parties, advise in the l motion whether said parties do or do not oppose the granting of the motion and, if there is opposition, advise whether or not responses will be filed setting forth reasons for the opposition.

_ _ - _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _