ML20209E975
| ML20209E975 | |
| Person / Time | |
|---|---|
| Site: | Shoreham File:Long Island Lighting Company icon.png |
| Issue date: | 04/23/1987 |
| From: | Margulies M Atomic Safety and Licensing Board Panel |
| To: | LONG ISLAND LIGHTING CO., NRC OFFICE OF THE GENERAL COUNSEL (OGC), SHOREHAM OPPONENTS COALITION |
| References | |
| CON-#287-3266 86-529-02-OL, 86-529-2-OL, OL-3, OL-5, NUDOCS 8704300166 | |
| Download: ML20209E975 (5) | |
Text
3 2.&h DOCKETED Uwc UNITED STATES OF AMERICA NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSION ATOMIC SAFETY AND LICENSING BOARD Before Administrative Judges:
jffh Yh 0C Morton B. Margulies, Chairman Dr. Jerry R. Kline Mr. Frederick J. Shon SERVED APR 271987 In the Matter of Docket No. 50-322-0L-3 (Emergency Planning)
LONG ISLAND LIGHTING COMPANY (Shoreham Nuclear Power Station, Unit 1)
April 23,1987 MEMORANDUM AND ORDER (Ruling on Intervenors' Motion for Rescheduling of Relocation Center Hearing)
On April 13, 1987, Intervenors filed a motion to reschedule the relocation center hearing set to commence May 4, 1987. They anticipate that the OL-5 emergency planning exercise hearing will extend beyond May 4, 1987 and do not want the two proceedings to run concurrently. The Governments requested that the Board postpone the commencement of the reception center hearing until the exercise litigation is completed.
They suggest that the Board call for a status report on the OL-5 trial in early May, after which it may be possible to establish a firm trial date.
The reasons Intervenors give for not holding both hearings concurrently were that Judge Shon, who is a member of both Boards, would not be able to be present at both proceedings; that there are witnesses bY$h$$$yy
}so 2-en
Ni O
2 in common to both proceedings, which situation would present scheduling difficulties; that New York State has a single counsel representing it in both proceedings, and that he cannot be present at the same time in both hearings; and that it is expected that the parties will file rebuttal testimony, which requires preparation time that would not be available if the hearings were held at the same time.
The parties want a resolution of the issue faster than the normal handling would afford. They requested the holding of a telephone conference call to expedite the disposition of the matter. The conference was held on April 21, 1987, with all parties participating.
Applicant did not oppose a delay in commencement of the relocation center hearing and preferred that it start inanediately after the close of the OL-5 proceeding.
It wanted Judge Shon to be able to hear the evidence in both proceedings. LILC0 did not favor Intervenors' approach of leaving the start of the reception center hearing open-ended, the commencement to be wholly conditioned on following the conclusion of the OL-5 trial. LILCO proposed a tentative date of June 15, 1987, to be set for the start of the OL-3 proceeding. Applicant believes the other proceeding will be concluded by then.
No other firm projection was presented by the parties. LILCO expects that the setting of an interim hearing date will assist in future scheduling.
Staff agreed with Applicant for setting a new hearing date in mid-June. New York State disagreed w'th the Applicant, and sided with the County concluding that the setting of a date would not be
Fs l
l l
e 3
meaningful. The State concurred with the other parties as to delaying the start of the OL-3 proceeding.
It also argued that it would be prejudiced as "a major participant in both proceedings" if the hearings were held concurrently.
After hearing the positions of all of the participants, including FEMA, the Board agreed with the parties of the need to postpone the May 4,1987 start of the OL-3 proceeding; and the participants were so advised. The Board also announced during the conference that this scheduling change would not affect the existing due dates for filing responses to motions to strike. The telephone conference obviated the need for Applicant to file a written response to Intervenors' motion and it was so advised.
In deciding that there was a need to postpone the commencement of the OL-3 hearing, the fact that New York State, a major participant in both proceedings, is represented by a single attorney, was not a factor in the determination.
It was previously called to the attention of the State of New York that it is its responsibility to commit adequate resources commensurate with the extent of the litigation it has undertaken. Each of the other parties similarly committed as New York State in both proceedings have some half dozen attorneys and upwards participating.
It is the responsibility of the State of New York to have adequate coverage and it must accept whatever consequences there may be if it does not do so.
\\
4 Following the telephone conference call of April 21, the Board considered the matter of whether or not an interim date should be set for scheduling of the OL-3 relocation center hearing.
We conclude that the setting of a tentative date should prove to be beneficial.
It will provide a mechanism to help guide and control the course of the proceeding and will be a useful management tool.
It could also be helpful in assisting parties to focus their resources, in scheduling witnesses, and in meeting interim filing dates, than would be the case if no date were set.
The Board is persuade.f that setting a target date for the start of this proceeding will have beneficial effects even if some uncertainty exists regarding the conclusion of the OL-5 hearing. No hardship will be caused to any party in taking such action. Accordingly, we set Jt.ne 15, 1987 as an interim date for the OL-3 hearing on reception center issues to begin.
The idea of the parties making a status report to this Board on the progress of the OL-5 proceeding and of their readiness to participate in the OL-3 proceeding on June 15, 1987 is a good one. We therefore require that each of the parties file such a report with the Board by May 20, 1987.
The parties will be notified today by telephone of this action.
ORDER It is hereby ordered that the May 4,1987 starting date for the OL-3 reception center hearing date is vacated and that June 15, 1987 is set as the interim date for commencing the hearing.
O 5
It is further ordered that the parties are to file with the Board, by May 20,1987, a status report on the progress of the OL-5 emergency planning exercise hearing and of their readiness to participate in the OL-3 hearing on June 15, 1987.
FOR THE ATOMIC SAFETY AND LICENSING BOARD tn mix L-> '
M6rton B. MarguYies, (f)GE airman ADMINISTRATIVE LAW JUD Dated at Bethesda, Maryland this 23rd day of April,1987 9
l