ML20196F721

Memorandum & Order.* Commission Grants Staff Motion Only in Part.Staff Responses to Both Govt & Lilco Motions Requested by 881207.Replies of Other Parties Remain Due as Specified in 881128 Memorandum & Order.Served on 881201

ML20196F721
Person / Time
Site:	Shoreham File:Long Island Lighting Company icon.png
Issue date:	11/30/1988
From:	Shoemaker C NRC ATOMIC SAFETY & LICENSING APPEAL PANEL (ASLAP)
To:	LONG ISLAND LIGHTING CO., NRC OFFICE OF THE GENERAL COUNSEL (OGC), SUFFOLK COUNTY, NY
References
CON-#488-7597 OL-6, NUDOCS 8812140080
Download: ML20196F721 (4)

Text

m l1617 [

I U. P l iLO UNITED STATES OF AMERICA M NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSION ATOMICSAFETYANDLICENSINGAPPEALBOkkD EC 'l A9 24 1 Administrative Judges: rr ,g,, ,

ir:'  ! a ta -

Christine N. Kohl, Chairman November"3'O,*1988 g Alan S. Rosenthal p Dr. W. Reed Johnson  !

SERVED DEC -l 1989 i 3

In the Matter of )

) ,

LONG ISLAND LIGHTING COMPANY ) Docket No. 50-322-OL-6 I l

) (254 Power)

(Shoreham Nuclear Power Station, )

Unit 1) )

__)

.t MEMORANDUM AhD ORDER i i

In a memorandum and order issued November 28, 1988, we  !

stated our intent to dispose of two pending motions in this  !

t proceeding -- the intervening Governments' motion for a stay of the Licensing Beard's November 21 decision authorizing f t

the issuance of a 254 power operating license to LILCO, and LILCO's motion for directed certification of the same Licensing Board decision to the Commission -- at the same time and as expeditiously as possible. We established a f receipt date vf December 5 for replies to both motions. The i

NRC staff, oy motion filed November 29, seeks an enlargement  !

i of that time, until December 8. The staff lists a number of  !

l other matters pending in this proceeding and states that the due date for its responses to t:e two instant motions  !

i adversely affects its ability to respond and to allocate resources to these other pending matters. The staff also f r

8812140080 001130 ADOCK0500gg{2 O l#

gDR l

4 2

asserts that there is little cause for the "degree of expedition" ordered in this matter.

Under the Rules of Practice, the due date for the staff's reply to the Governments' motion for a stay is December 5 and, thus, our order did not deprive the staff of 4

any time to which it would ordinarily be entitled.1 It is also our long established practice, given the nature of the request involved, to rule on stay motions as promptly as possible and to deny requests for enlargement of time to a respond. Similarly, we rule on motions for certification (like LILCO's) promptly, and note that, here, LILCO asked for both expedited replies to its motion and an expedited ruling on our part.2 1

)

l 1

l 4

I i The Governments' motion for a stay was filed and j served on the staff by hand on November 23, 1988. See 10 J C.F.R. $$ 2.788 (d) , 2.710, 2

4 In light of LILCO's request for expedition and the fact that the staff's motion for more time necessarily

' requires immediate attention, the staff should have attempted to ascertain if LILCO or the Governments object to its request and advised us of their views. We have undertaken to learn the other parties' views in this 1

instance. (LILCO has no objection, and the Governments also i

' do not object, providing unforeseen circumstances do not require a more expeditious ruling on their stay motion.)

The staff and others, however, are on notice that disposition of similar requests in the future will simply await the receipt of replies -- which may, of course, be too late to aid the movant.

3 The staff has not fully supported its request for more time to respond to the two motions pending before us.3 Moreover, in light of the extraordinary circumstances of this proceeding and the issues raised by both motions, it remains our judgment that the two motions must be considered together and promptly. We therefore grant the staff's motion only in part. The staff's responses to both the Governments' and LILCO's motions are to be received by us no later than 4:00 p.m. on December 7, 1988.4 The replies of the other parties remain due as specified in our November 28 memorandum and order.

3 Specifically, the staff has failed to particularize its claim of adverse impact on the allocation of its resources. See Public Service Co. of New Hampshire (Seabrook Station, Units 1 and 2), ALAB-889, 27 NRC 265, 270 (1988).

4 In this instance, the staff should not send its reply to Dr. Johnson in Charlottesville; it shouTH be delivered or transmitted to the Appeal Panel's office along with the other Board members' copies. LILCO and the Governments, however, should still send their replies to Dr. Johnson at his Charlottesville address by express mail on December 5.

oc 8

4 I

It is so ORDERED.  ;

FOR THE APPEAL BOARD f i

f Q ,b - -hN __- ml  !

C. San Shoemaker ,

SecMtary to the i Appeal Board i Dr. Johnson concurs in this order but was unavailable to ,

review the final draft. ,

t f

r b

i i

f I

L I,

e i

9

- .- . -  :