ML20127G010

Order Granting Suffolk County & State of Ny Motion to Change Oral Argument Date to 850812.Served on 850520

ML20127G010
Person / Time
Site:	Shoreham File:Long Island Lighting Company icon.png
Issue date:	05/20/1985
From:	Shoemaker C NRC ATOMIC SAFETY & LICENSING APPEAL PANEL (ASLAP)
To:	NEW YORK, STATE OF, SUFFOLK COUNTY, NY
References
CON-#285-074, CON-#285-74 OL-3, NUDOCS 8505200631
Download: ML20127G010 (2)

Text

l09,*

UNITED STAiES OF AMERICA NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSION ATOMIC SAFETY AND LICENSING APPEAL BOARD Administrative Judges:

DOCKETEC Alan S. Rosenthal, Chairman May 20, 1985 Gary J. Edles Howard A. Wilber 15 MAY20 Pl2:21 7El~ 0F SECRt'1A8v OOCK ING & SEFvicf In the Matter of BRANCH

)

LONG ISLAND LIGHTING COMPANY ) Docket No. 50-322-OL-3

) (Emergency Planning)

(Shoreham Nuclear Power Station, )

Unit 1) )

M M 20 M ORDER For good cause shown, the Suffolk County and State of New York Motion for Change of Oral Argument Date is granted.

The oral argument of the appeal of the Long Island Lighting Company (LILCO) from the Licensing Board's April 17, 1985' 1

partial initial decision will be heard at 2:00 p.m. on August 12, 1985, in Bethesda, Maryland. This Board will address in a future order such matters as time allocations.

In all other respects, the terms of this Board's May 15, 1985 order remain unaltered.2 1

LBP-85-12, 21 NRC .

2 Although, by virtue of this order, the argument has been postponed twelve days from the date established in our May 15 order (July 31), it nonetheless is still being expedited: in normal circumstances, the LILCO appeal would not-be heard before September. In this connection, it should be noted that LILCO did not expressly request an '

(Footnote Continued) 8505200631 850520 h PDR ADOCK 05000322 0 PDR

4-j> ;

2 n.

It is so ORDERED.

FOR THE APPEAL BOARD 1

0.0-4& = kb C. J)an Shoemaker Secretary to the Appeal Board F

(Footnote Continued) expedited oral argument when it sought a severance of its appeal from that taken by the County and State from the portions of the April'17 partial initial decision adverse to them. Rather, the July 31 date was selected by us without the' suggestion of any party that the argument take place at such a relatirely early time.

.