ML20137W664

Order Confirming 850515 Order Denying Suffolk County & State of Ny Motion for Enlargement of Existing Limitation of Length of Brief in Support of Appeal from 850417 Partial Initial Decision.Served on 851003

ML20137W664
Person / Time
Site:	Shoreham File:Long Island Lighting Company icon.png
Issue date:	10/03/1985
From:	Shoemaker C NRC ATOMIC SAFETY & LICENSING APPEAL PANEL (ASLAP)
To:	NEW YORK, STATE OF, SUFFOLK COUNTY, NY
References
CON-#485-665 OL-3, NUDOCS 8510040361
Download: ML20137W664 (2)

Text

. _ . _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _

l l

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSION , EC ATOMIC SAFETY AND LICENSING APPEAL BOA l Administrative Judges: P3:gg Alan S. Rosenthal, Chairman Gary J. Edles Oc hId Stj 85 Howard A. Wilber

$h0 rk

) SERVED OCT 31985 In the Matter of )

)

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

) (Emergency Planning)

(Shoreham Nuclear Power Station, )

Unit 1) )

)

ORDER In an unpublished May 15, 1985 order, we addressed, inter alia, the motion of intervenors Suffolk County and the State of New York for an enlargement of the existing limitation on the length of the brief in support of their appeal from the Licensing Board's April 17, 1985 partial initial decision.1 10 CFR 2.762 (e) imposes a 70-page limit on appellate briefs; the County and State sought leave to file a 165-page consolidated brief. Upon consideration of the motion, we denied it in large measure. Our May 15. order provided ' (at p. 2) that "[w]ith respect to their appeal, the County and State may file separate briefs not to exceed 70 pages in length or a consolidated brief not to excced 100 pages in length."

1 LBP-85-12, 21 NRC 644.

8510040361 851003 PDR O ADOCK 05000322-PDR gsol

h l

L 2 Because of a number of briefing extensions, the County and State have not as yet filed their brief(s). With our leave, however, those parties have now orally moved for, in effect, reconsideration of the May 15 order. Specifically, they each desire to file a brief not in excess of 100 pages in length (although counsel for the County indicated in a telephone conversation this morning with one of the Secretaries to this Board that the County and State would be prepared to settle for a 90-page limitation on each brief) .

In this connection, counsel noted that the County and State had divided the issues raised by their appeal between them; i.e., the County's brief would address some of the issues and the State's brief the remainder.

We agree with~the applicant and the NRC staff that the County and State have given us insufficient reason to alter our previous determination that all significant issues presented by their appeal can be adequately discussed in two r well-focused briefs without the enlargement of the Section

2. 762 (e) limitation now sought by them. Accordingly, the oral motion is denied.

It is so ORDERED.

FOR THE APPEAL BOARD Q,b %Y - ,, h t C. J4lpn Shoemaker Secretary to the Appeal Board

_ _ . _ _ _ _