ML20247Q867

From kanterella
Jump to navigation Jump to search
Advises of Aslab Remand of Proceeding on 1988 Emergency Exercise to OL-5 Licensing Board
ML20247Q867
Person / Time
Site: Shoreham File:Long Island Lighting Company icon.png
Issue date: 09/22/1988
From: Reis E
NRC OFFICE OF THE GENERAL COUNSEL (OGC)
To: Murley T
Office of Nuclear Reactor Regulation
Shared Package
ML20245D636 List:
References
FOIA-89-100 ALAB-901, NUDOCS 8904070213
Download: ML20247Q867 (2)


Text

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

/g' "'ag of

'h, UNIT (D STA'TES i Y' y, [ 'g NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSION j

WASHINGTON, D. C. 2055$

s.

c

'~ - j Septenber 22, 1986 i

PEPORAtlDUM FOR:

Thomas fourley, Director fluclear Reactor Regulation FROP:

Edwin J. Reis Deputy Assistant General Counsel Reactor Licensing Branch SUSJECT:

APPEAL BOARD REMANO OF PROCEEDING ON 1988 SHOREHAM EliERGENCY EXERCISE TO OL-5 LICENSING BOARD (ALAB-901)

In a f4en randum and Order, dated September 20, 1988, ALAB-901, P8 NRC (attached), the Appeal Board granted in pcrt and denied in part a notion for the appointr.iert of a licersing board to hear issues in connection with the June 7-9, 1988 emergency exercise at Shoreham and remanded such i: sues to the OL-5 proceeding fcr disposition as " expeditiously as p;ssible."

Slip op, at 6-7, 10.

The rretion was filed by Suf#olk County. the State of New York and the Town of Southampton (" Interveners) as a result of a NRC Staff niotion filed in the OL-3 proceeding (realicm, etc.) that requested a schedule be estthlished for litigatior.

concerr.ing the 1980 Shoreham ercrgency exercise.

The Appeal Octro concluded that the OL-5 proceeding was not strictly. limited to issues concernirg the 1986 emergency exercise which prompted its beginning, but covered the broader issue of LILCO's compliance with "the Commission's requirement for a

pre-license

' full-ptrticipatirn' exercise." Slip op. at 3-4.

The Appeal Board fcund it had jurisdiction over new matters raised regarding LILCO's compliance with that requirement because the decision of the OL-5 Licensing Board, which fourc flaws in the 1986 exercise, was before it on appeal. Slip op.

Et 3-6.

The Appeal Board concluded it lacked the authority to grant

!nterverors' request that the ASLB Panel Chairman be directed to designate the previour OL-5 Licensing Board members to preside over litigetion of

~

the 1968 exercise and, insteed, left the designation of individual members for the OL-5 licersing board to the discretion of ASLB Parel Chairran.

1 e904070213 890406

$EAIR 100 PDR j

o

lhe Staff should prepare for litigation concerning the 1988 exercise consistent with e schedule to be established by the Licensing Board when designated.

. '.L. (.' m

' '/w <m Edwin J.' Reis Deputy' Assister,t General Counsel Reactor Licensing Branch Attachr.c nt as stated cc:

Victor Stello, EDO llillia n T. R u s s el, R e g. I A e m.

1