ML20236T148

Memorandum & Order.* Time for Responses to Intervenors 871118 Motion for Extension of Time to File Reply Brief in CLI-86-13 Proceeding Should Be Extended to 871130 as Recommended by Board.Served on 871124

ML20236T148
Person / Time
Site:	Shoreham File:Long Island Lighting Company icon.png
Issue date:	11/23/1987
From:	Gleason J Atomic Safety and Licensing Board Panel
To:
References
CON-#487-4920 86-535-04-OLR, 86-535-4-OLR, CLI-86-13, OL-3, NUDOCS 8712010045
Download: ML20236T148 (4)

Text

_-_- - _ - _ _ _ - .. .

ffl8 n

00CMETED USNRC UNITED STATES OF AMERICA NVCLEAR REGULATORY. COMMISSION 87 NDV 24 A10:55 ATOMIC SAFETY AND LICENSING BOARD Before Administrative Judges: OFFICE OF SECfiEiteY 00CKEilNG t. S[Ryic[

BRANC6i James P. Gleason, Chairman Dr. Jerry R. Kline Mr. Frederick J. Shon ERVED NOV 2 41987

)

In the Matter of ) Docket No. 50-322-0L-3

) (Emergency Planning)

LONG ISLAND LIGHTING COMPANY (ASLBP No. 86-535-04-OLR)

(Shoreham Nuclear: Power Station, .

Unit _1) November 23, 1987 MEMORANDUM AND ORDER On November 18, 1987 Interveners submitted a motion for extension j of time which requested that the time to file a reply brief in the CLI-86-13 proceeding be extended by 10 days from November 24, 1987 to l

December 4, 1987. Interveners sought prompt action on their motion and l

requested a ruling no later than Friday, November 20 and that counsel be advised of the Board ruling by telephone as soon as possible. LILC0 and the NRC Staff responded with filings dated November 19, 1987.

Interveners base their motion on the fact that LILC0's supplemental l brief on the new emergency planning rule filed November 17, 1987 was significantly more extensive than they anticipated when the briefing schedule was proposed; it went far beyond what other parties submitted; they will need substantial time to decide on an appropriate response.

[?d"AE8MSM!!!" y'

A 2

LILCO opposed the motion and requests that it be denied. The bases for its opposition are

1. Its reply simply illustrated with substantive examples its views on the effect of the new rule and that does not engender an extraordinary response time.

2. LILC0's arguments are not new to Interveners. ,

3. The precise question now before the Board--adequacy of government, response--has never been ruled on previously, even though pertinent material existed in the record.

4. Delay requested by Interveners threatens LILC0 with severe prejudice because of collateral actions being taken by New York State.

The NRC Staff does not advise an extension of time by 10 days because there is much in LILC0's brief that repeats earlier argument and contrary to Interveners assumption the mere length of LILC0's pleading does not automatically require a reply of similar length. The Staff f d pet:3t the filing date to be extended to November 30 to permit issues te be addressed thoroughly.

DECISION The Commission's rules governing licensing proceedings are of generic applicability. When we ordered the parties to brief us on the impact of the new emergency planning rule on the CLI-86-13 remand proceeding, we expected (but did not order) responses outlining the generic effects of the new rule in this proceeding. Short, L _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ __ _ _ __ _ ___ _ __ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ . _ . _ _ . _ _ _

ab 3

well-reasoned brieft were all that were necessary to assist us in determining how the rule affected the proceeding. We did not intend that this briefing become an opportunity to litigate the substantive issues in the case. LILCO however chose to illustrate its views by showing how it believes the rule impacts each of the substantive issues in dispute. Nothing prohibited LILC0 from doing that even though it is ,

not what was expected. Given the purpose of these briefings however, and the fact that they are not an opportunity to litigate substantive issues, we conclude that Interveners are incorrect in their assumption that they must now reply to LILCO with point for point rebuttal. We intend to do nothing more with this series of briefings than determine the impact of the new emergency planning rule on this proceeding. We l want briefings that will assist us.

The experienced counsel in this proceeding have already had a substantial opportunity to ponder the implications of the new rule.

Most of the implications have already been set forth on the record and it should not be a difficult or lengthy task to respond to the few matters remaining. Moreover LILC0 has informed the parties that it will shortly move for sunnary disposition of the legal authority issues based l

l on its view of the new rule. If that comes to pass, Interveners will have their opportunity to respond to substantive issues, and if not they can address them in hearing, but in any event there is no need to respond to substantive issues now.

I

u<

4 J.

e l 4 In view of the foregoing, the Board was first inclined to deny Interveners' motion, however, the Board was not able to act on this motion on November 20 as requested. We therefore conclude that the time for responses should be extended to November 30 as recommended by Staff.

I ORDER ,

In consideration of all of the foregoing, it is ORDERED: i The time for submitting replies in the realism remand is extended to November 30, 1987.

FOR THE ATOMIC SAFETY AND LICENSING BOARD W

j ames P. Gleason, Chainnan C k)/ j

% ADMINISTRATIVE JUDGE l

Dated at Bethesda, Maryland this 23th day of November, 1987.

- _ _ - - _ _ _ _ _ _ - - _ - _ - _ _ - -- - _ _ - _ _ - _ _ _ - . - --__-_ _ __ _ _ _ _ _ _ - _ - _ _ _ _