ML20127A802
| ML20127A802 | |
| Person / Time | |
|---|---|
| Site: | Shoreham File:Long Island Lighting Company icon.png |
| Issue date: | 06/19/1985 |
| From: | Margulies M Atomic Safety and Licensing Board Panel |
| To: | Rosenfeld S LONG ISLAND COALITION FOR SAFE LIVING |
| Shared Package | |
| ML20127A806 | List: |
| References | |
| CON-#285-520 OL-3, NUDOCS 8506210265 | |
| Download: ML20127A802 (2) | |
Text
_
4 d
l l
June 19, 1985 ils. Susan Rosenfeld gatggtp l
l Long Islard Coalition For Safe Living UWC i
Post Office Box 1355 l
l Massapequa, hew York 11758
'85 JM 20 P2:28 Re:
Long Island Lighting Compa y l
(SherehamNuclearPowerStation, Unit 1, Docket.gggNhMA's"EN,,'
a sp i
No. 50-322-OL-3 (Emergency Planning Proceeding) DOC BRMCH
Dear Ms. Rosenfeld:
This is in response to ycur letter of May 25, 1985 requesting the i
opportunity to make limited appearance staterrents at the reopened hearing in the captierrd proceeding, now scheduled for Jur.e 25, 1985, at Hauppauge, flew York. A copy of your letter is attached in order that it will be served on the parties of record to the proceeding.
You ask for the opportunity for three merrbers of the Long Island Cealition for Safe Living to each make five minute statements. We are responding to ycur i
request at this time because rulin on your Motier; to Intervene took precedence.
That matter was resol ed by Memorandum and Order, dated June 14, 1985.
The reopened hearing of June 25, 1985, is for the limited purpose i
of determining whether the Nassau Veterans Memorial Coliseun is t
functionally adequate to serve as a relocation center for the i
anticipated general evacuees, resulting from a radiological errergency at l
Shoreham.
The hearing is close to completion. Hoarings on the ersergency planning phase of the Shorcham caso ccerenced in December 1902 and closed in August 1984, after a record of sorc 22,000 pages was compiled.
?!umerous limited appearance statements were heard at various l
times. The Licensing Board issued a 417 page )artial initial cccision l
on April 17, 1985, which treats with most of tie issues in the proceeding.
i As a matter of policy, we would not be able to tako limited r
appearance statements only from your three members. Me carnot proceed on such a restrictive basis.
There would have to be a general taking of statements.
We do not believe it warranted under the circumstances of the posture of the case and the nature cf your request.
There are i
active parties in the case who are concerr;ed with the interests of state and county residents and are expected to tdc an active part in the i
proceeding on relevant issues. Considerirg all of the foregoing, the
'i 30ard will not be taking limited appearance statorents at the reopened proceedir.g.
l yr 1
0
?
9 l
7
-