ML20206M365
| ML20206M365 | |
| Person / Time | |
|---|---|
| Site: | Seabrook  |
| Issue date: | 04/10/1987 |
| From: | Sherwin Turk NRC OFFICE OF THE GENERAL COUNSEL (OGC) |
| To: | Atomic Safety and Licensing Board Panel |
| Shared Package | |
| ML20206M370 | List: |
| References | |
| CON-#287-3137 OL, NUDOCS 8704200094 | |
| Download: ML20206M365 (2) | |
Text
.
i 3/37
}
4/10/87 C
')
UNITED STATES OF AP! ERICA NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSION BEFORE THE ATOMIC SAFETY AND LICENSING BOARgp KETED In the Matter of
)
- U P4 :20
)
Docket Nos. ti0 44 O PUBLIC SERVICE COMPANY OF
)
50-444 OL NEW HAMPSIIIRE, et al.
)
Off-site Emegglj1anning,{
)
DRi m~
(Seabrook Station, Units 1 and 2)
)
NRC STAFF'S RESPONSE TO "APPLICAMTS' MOTION TO FILE A REPLY TO MASSACHUSETTS RESPONSE TO APPLICANTS' PETITION UNDER 10 CFR 2.758" On March 26, 1987, the Applicants filed a " Motion To File A Reply To Massachusetts' Response To Applicants' Petition Under 10 CFR 2.758"
(" Motion"), referring to the Massachusetts Attorney General's response to Applicants' petition for waiver of NRC regulations requiring an EPZ in excess of one mile, filed on January 26, 1987. O For the reasons set forth below, the Applicants' Motion should be denied.
l First,10 C.F.R I 2.758 does not contemplate the filing of replies to responses to petitions for waiver.
Rather, that rule indicates that the presiding officer's determination is to be made "on the basis of the petition, affidavit and any response thereto."
The Applicants' Reply argues a minor point of law, and fails to provide good cause to support a 1/
" Attorney General James M. Shannon's Memorandum in Opposition to Applicants' Petition Under 10 C.F.R. 5 2.758 and 10 C.F.R.
l 5 50.47(c) V'ith Respect to the Regulations Requiring Planning for a l
Plume Exposure Pathway Emergency Planning Zone in Excess of a l
One-Mile Radius," filed January 26, 1987 (Mass AG's Response").
l l
i
_ /
2_/
departure from the procedure established in 10 C.F.R.
I 2.758.
Second, the Applicants' reply is untimely, having been filed fully two months after the Attorney General's response to Applicants' petition was filed. Accordingly, the Applicants' Motion should be denied.
Respectfully submitted, MN Sherwin E. Turk Senior Supervisory Trial Attorney Dated at Bethesda, Maryland this 10th day of April,,1987 2/
Similarly, replies are generally not permitted to be filed with respect to responses to motions filed under 10 C.F.R. I 2.730.
That rule provides, "[t]he moving party shall have no right to reply, except as permitted by the presiding officer See, eg.,
Public Service Co. of New Hampshire (Scabrook Station, Units 1 and 2), Docket Nos. 50-443-OL-1 and 50-444-OL-1 (On-Site Emergency Planning and Safety Issues), " Order (Denying Biass.' Motion to File Limited Reply)," dated March 24,1987 (" Mass, has not shown good cause in support of its motion.
The Board itself is quite capable of discerning misrepresentations, if any, and whether apparent or not. ").
_ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _