ML20205F441

Memorandum & Order Ruling on Intervenors Request for Extension of Time.* Deadline for Filing Last Cluster of Testimony on Ex 15,16 & 21 Re Emergency Planning Exercise Extended from 870327 to 870406.Served on 870325

ML20205F441
Person / Time
Site:	Shoreham File:Long Island Lighting Company icon.png
Issue date:	03/24/1987
From:	Frye J, Paris O, Shon F Atomic Safety and Licensing Board Panel
To:	NEW YORK, STATE OF, SOUTHAMPTON, NY, SUFFOLK COUNTY, NY
References
CON-#187-2906 86-533-01-OL, 86-533-1-OL, OL-5, NUDOCS 8703310163
Download: ML20205F441 (4)

Text

_ __ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ - _ _ _ _ _ _ _ - _ _ _

1 UNITED STATES OF RIERICA ushfic NUCLEAR REGULATORY COPHISSION ATOMIC SAFETY AND LICENSING BOARD TI IWI 25 N0:25 Before Administrative Judges FFict 0F SEut.'iAn

• OCKETINti ). '31.F VUI John H Frye, III, Chairman BRANCH Dr. Oscar H. Paris Mr. Frederick J. Shon SERVED MAR 251987 In the Matter of Docket No. 50-322-OL-5 (EPExercise)

LONG ISLAND LIGHTING COMPANY (ASLBPNo. 86-533-01-OL)

(Shoreham Nuclear Power Station, .

Unit 1) March 24, 1987 f MEMORANDUM AND ORDER Ruling on Intervenors' Request for Extension of Time By a motion filed March 20, 1987, Suffolk County, the State of New York, and the Town of Southampton (Intervenors or Governments) requested that the Board extend the time for filing testimony on Contentions EX 15,16 and 21 by eighteen days, from March 27, 1978 to April 14, 1987. They requested that the Board either convene a conference call to obtain the other parties responses or else rule on the motion on March 23, 1987 when the hearing was expected to resume.1 1

Unfortunately the illness of the Chairman of the Board prevented resumption of the hearing on March 23, 1987 As a consequence LILCO and the NRC Staff filed written responses to the Governments' request on March 23, 1987.

[0 kOO $2 .

OY

l

]

The Governments set forth several reasons for their request. They stated that the prepcration of other testimony had required more resources than they had anticipated, as a consequence of which they have not had as much time to work on EX 15, 16 and 21 as anticipated. Also, Ms. Letsche, who was to assist with the EX 15, 16 and 21 testimony, was ill last week and unable to accomplish as much as was planned.

Intervener: Orgue further that the requested extension will not delay the hearing; to support this argument they reviewed the time required to hear testimony thus far and projected the times that will be required to hear testimony on the dozen or so contentions to be considered before the final three, EX 15, 16 and 21, are heard.

LILCO opposed the Governments' request on the grounds that the other parties would be prejudiced by an extension because they had been budgeting their time and resources to comply with the schedule set by the board on January 6. It argued that had it known that testimony on Contentions 15,16 and 21 would not have to be ready until mid-April it would have been allocating its sources differently. LILCO also argued that the requested extension could delay the proceeding by providing additional time to prepare testimony, which might broaden and delay the proceeding. Finally, it suggested that the Board's authority might be undermined if the request was granted, because it might appear that the Intervenors, not the Board, are in charge of the proceeding's schedule.

The Staff, which had originally opposed the requested extension, indicated that in light of the postponement of the hearing schedule this

I V

week it had no opposition to a one week delay in the filing of the final set of testimony.

The Governments have shown good cause for at least some delay in the deadline for filing testimony on Contentions EX 15,16 and 21.

Certainly the illness of Ms. Letsche and that fact that at least some extension of time should not delay the proceeding provide justification i

for the request. On the other hand, we are persuaded by LILCO's l

argument that it will be prejudiced by an eighteen day delay because it has budgeted its time and resources expecting to meet the March 27 deadline. We agree in general with the Staff. In light of this week's postponement at least some extension can be granted, but to minimize the prejudice to LILC0 a full eighteen days cannot be granted. Therefore we i are extending the deadline by ten days.

ORDER For the the foregoing reasons it is this 24th day of March,1987, ORDERED:

I

h

)

That the deadline for filing the last cluster of testimony, on EX 15,16 and 21 is extended from March 27 to April 6,1987.

THE ATOMIC SAFETY AND LICENSING BOARD

/A d 4 Dr. Oscar H. Paris g

ADMiti! ATIVE JU E Frederick J. Sh ADMINISTRATIV UDGE-Af AP Ac.g, ,

ohn H. Frye, Chairmajrf f ADMINISTRATIVE JUDGEv Bethesda, Maryland l

l L _ ____ __ ___ _ _ _ _ _ _ - _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ - _ _ _ - _ _ _ _ _ - . - - _ _ -- __ _ _ __-