ML20155G919

Memorandum & Order.* Lilco 881003 Motion to Reconstitute Licensing Board Designated on Remand to Conduct Proceedings in Connection w/1988 Emergency Exercise Denied.Served on 881006

ML20155G919
Person / Time
Site:	Shoreham File:Long Island Lighting Company icon.png
Issue date:	10/06/1988
From:	Cotter B Atomic Safety and Licensing Board Panel
To:	LONG ISLAND LIGHTING CO.
References
CON-#488-7226 89-580-01, 89-580-1, ALAB-901, OL-3, OL-5, NUDOCS 8810180094
Download: ML20155G919 (3)

Text

$. $2 h 50 - 3n -oL-3

'* onummen Ono0. & UTIL FAC,m b M g D:(HETED UNITED STATES OF AMERICA NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMISSION

'88 0CI -6 P3 :53 BEFORECHIEFADMINISTRATIVEJUpGE:

B. Paul Cotter, Jr. 'g[ . 4 , , ,

tw' In the Matter of: UO ~

LONG ISLAND LIGHTING COMPANY ASLBP No. 8S-580-01 Misc.

MOTION TO RECONSTITUTE LICENSING BOARD (Shoreham Nuclear Power Station, October 6, 1988 Unit 1)

MEMORANDUM AND ORDER By Motion dated October 3,1988, the Long Island Lighting Company

("LILC0") moved the Chief Administrative Judge to reconstitute the Licensir.g Board designated on remand to conduct proceedings in connec-tion with the 1988 emergency exercise related to LILCO's Shoreham facility. LongIslandLightingCompany,28NRC___(ALAB-901, September 20,1988). LILCO's motion notes that the remand decision states that i

the Licensing Board in Docket 50-322-OL-5 "may be reconstituted by the Chairman of the Atomic Safety and Licensing Board Panel in his discre-tion". id.,SlipOpinion,atp.10. Relying on this language, LILCO has asked the Chief Administrative Judge to exercise his discretion and '

1 reconstitute that Board with certain specified members of the Licensing Panel.

l In support of its request LILCO argues that the members it seeks to j

have appointed are most knowledgeable about the emergency plan and are c

availt.ble for work. LILC0 recites the six-year history of the Shoreham proceeding and the boards that have heard issues during that period.

The motion is denied for two reasons. First, on September 23, 1988 a decision was issued which dismissed all intervenors from the Shoreham case. Long Island Lighting Company, 28 NRC (LBP-88-24, September 23,1988). Although that decision has been appealed, there is, at this juncture, no proceeding pending for which to appoint a board. It would ill serve the interests of efficient litigation and the efficient administration of the limited personnel resources of the Atomic Safety and Licensing Board Panel to appoint a board of judges to hear a case

! which does not exist. See "Statement of Policy on Conduct of Licensing i

, Proceedings," 13 NRC 452 (CLI-81-8,1981).

i Secondly, the appointment of individual licensing board members to a particular proceeding "is coninitted to the discretion of the ...

Chainnan of the Licensing Board Panel. See 10 CFR li 1.15, 2.704, l 2.721, 2.785". Long Island Lighting Company (ALAB-901), supra, slip i opinion at 7; Suffolk Co. and State of New York Motion to Rescind j Reconstitution of Board By Chief Administrative Judge Cotter, 24 NRC l 726,728-29(LBP-86-37A,1986). Under the Administrative Procedure Act i and our regulations, the judges of this agency, within their legal, safety and environmental disciplines, are fungible. Assignments to l individual cases must remain within the Chief Administrative Judge's discretion in order to maximize the efficient administration of all b

litigation before this Panel, particularly in light of the conflicting demands of budget, personnel resources, and the needs of a particular

! case in the context of all pending litigation. That discretion and i

! judgment will be exercised only if and when there are matters to be adjudicated in connection with the Shoreham plant within the jurisdic-i tion of this Panel, but not on motion of the parties in this or any other proceeding.

Accordingly, the motion is denied.

.go B. Paul Cotter J r.

CHIEF ADMINISTRATIVE JUDGE I

October 6, 1988

]

] Bethesda, Maryland i

t n