ML20196B395: Difference between revisions

From kanterella
Jump to navigation Jump to search
(StriderTol Bot insert)
 
(StriderTol Bot change)
 
Line 17: Line 17:


=Text=
=Text=
{{#Wiki_filter:}}
{{#Wiki_filter:4
  ,  ' 43 6 /9 00CMETEF UNITED STATES OF AMERICA                  USNRC NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSION ATOMIC SAFETY AND LICENSING APPEAL BOARD    88 JLN 27 Pl2:11 Administrative Judges:                                  OFRCE OF Ucstudy 00CKETmG & E aym/'
Christine N. Kohl, Chairman                June 27, 19V8 NCH Alan S. Rosenthal Dr. W. Reed Johnson SERVED JUN 2 71988 In the Matter of                  )
                                                  )
LONG ISLAND LIGHTING COMPANY      )    Docket No. 50-322-OL-3
                                                  )      (Emergency Planning)
(Shoreham Nuclear Power          )
Station, Unit 1l                )    Docket No. 50-322-OL-5
                                                  )          (EP Exercise)
ORDER
: 1. On June 20, 1988, in the OL-3 phase of this proceeding, the intervening Governments (Suf folk County, the State of New York, and the Town of Southampton) filed a          _
notice of appeal from what they claim is a Licensing Board "order" made during a June 10, 1988, conference call and "reconfirmed" a week .'.ater during another call. Citing the l              transcript of those teleconferences, the Governments assert that the Board has resolved certain of their contentions in applicant LILCO's favor.
The transcripts of the two conference calls are l              confusing and hard to follow, but the dispute seems to concern the Governments' asserted failure to comply with I
certain discovery orders. See Tr. 20,845-62; 20,863-93.
Some comments suggest that the Licensing Board may have reached a conclusion on the disposition of the contentions here at issue. Any such conclusion, however, appears to be
                                                                                      '  i e806300265 080627                                                          $9)Le PDR  ADOCK 0S000322 o              PDR
 
s
    \
2 tentative, for the Board has not yet determined the actual scope of and rationale for its "conclusion."      It also intends to "issue an order as soon as possible to deal with this situation."  1r. 20,872, 20,862. Indeed, given the nature of the dispute and the Board's consideration of the serious sanction of dismissal of contentions (see Tr.
20,862), we would expect no less than a written order fully describing the background of the dispute and explaining the reasons for whatever action the Board may ultimately take.
See generally Philadelphia Electric Co. (Limerick Generating Station, Units 1 and 2), ALAB-819, 22 NRC 681, 727 n.61 (1985), aff'd in part and review otherwise declined, CLI-86-5, 23 NRC 125 (19dC). Thus, in the circumstances, the Governments' appeal is premature and is dismissed i
withoit prejudice. The issuance of the Licensing Board's decision in this regard will trigger the time for seeking appellate review via the copropriate means under the Commission's Rules of Practice (i.e. , appeal or directed certification).
: 2. Pending before us are separate appeals by LILCO from two Licensing Board partial initial decisions in the OL-5 phase of the proceeding.      See LBP-87-32, 26 NRC 479 (1987); LBP-88-2, 27 NRC 85 (1988). Both decisions and appeals concern the adequacy of a February 1986 emergency exercise at Shoreham. Earlier this month another such exercise was conducted at Shoreham, as required by 10 C.F.R.
L
 
I
        \
3 Part 50, Appendix E,  S IV.F.1. In light of this event, we request the parties' views on the disposition of LILCO's two appeals. Specifically, the parties are directed to address whether the appeals should be dismissed and the two challenged partial initial decisions vacated on the ground of mootness. See, e.g. , Philadelphia Electric Co. (Limerick Generating Station, Units 1 and 2), CLI-85-16, 22 NRC 459 (1985); Commonwealth Edison Co.    (Braidwood Nuclear Power Station, Units 1 and 2), ALAB-874, 26 NRC 156 (1987).                                                                            The parties shall file their comments no later than July 11, 1988.
It is so ORDERED.
FOR THE APPEAL BOARD l
O_0-h$
C. qan Sr.oemaker
:-kb Secretary to the Appeal Board Dr. Johnson did not participate in this order.
t                                              - - - - - - - - _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ - . - _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _
                                                                                                                                                ;}}

Latest revision as of 08:56, 13 November 2020

Order.* Requests Parties Views on Disposition of Lilco Two Appeals from Licensing Board Partial Initial Decision in OL-5 Phase of Proceeding.Comments Should Be Filed No Later than 880711.Served on 880627
ML20196B395
Person / Time
Site: Shoreham File:Long Island Lighting Company icon.png
Issue date: 06/27/1988
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-#288-6619 OL-3, OL-5, NUDOCS 8806300265
Download: ML20196B395 (3)
v • d • e


Text

4

, ' 43 6 /9 00CMETEF UNITED STATES OF AMERICA USNRC NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSION ATOMIC SAFETY AND LICENSING APPEAL BOARD 88 JLN 27 Pl2:11 Administrative Judges: OFRCE OF Ucstudy 00CKETmG & E aym/'

Christine N. Kohl, Chairman June 27, 19V8 NCH Alan S. Rosenthal Dr. W. Reed Johnson SERVED JUN 2 71988 In the Matter of )

)

LONG ISLAND LIGHTING COMPANY ) Docket No. 50-322-OL-3

) (Emergency Planning)

(Shoreham Nuclear Power )

Station, Unit 1l ) Docket No. 50-322-OL-5

) (EP Exercise)

ORDER

1. On June 20, 1988, in the OL-3 phase of this proceeding, the intervening Governments (Suf folk County, the State of New York, and the Town of Southampton) filed a _

notice of appeal from what they claim is a Licensing Board "order" made during a June 10, 1988, conference call and "reconfirmed" a week .'.ater during another call. Citing the l transcript of those teleconferences, the Governments assert that the Board has resolved certain of their contentions in applicant LILCO's favor.

The transcripts of the two conference calls are l confusing and hard to follow, but the dispute seems to concern the Governments' asserted failure to comply with I

certain discovery orders. See Tr. 20,845-62; 20,863-93.

Some comments suggest that the Licensing Board may have reached a conclusion on the disposition of the contentions here at issue. Any such conclusion, however, appears to be

' i e806300265 080627 $9)Le PDR ADOCK 0S000322 o PDR

s

\

2 tentative, for the Board has not yet determined the actual scope of and rationale for its "conclusion." It also intends to "issue an order as soon as possible to deal with this situation." 1r. 20,872, 20,862. Indeed, given the nature of the dispute and the Board's consideration of the serious sanction of dismissal of contentions (see Tr.

20,862), we would expect no less than a written order fully describing the background of the dispute and explaining the reasons for whatever action the Board may ultimately take.

See generally Philadelphia Electric Co. (Limerick Generating Station, Units 1 and 2), ALAB-819, 22 NRC 681, 727 n.61 (1985), aff'd in part and review otherwise declined, CLI-86-5, 23 NRC 125 (19dC). Thus, in the circumstances, the Governments' appeal is premature and is dismissed i

withoit prejudice. The issuance of the Licensing Board's decision in this regard will trigger the time for seeking appellate review via the copropriate means under the Commission's Rules of Practice (i.e. , appeal or directed certification).

2. Pending before us are separate appeals by LILCO from two Licensing Board partial initial decisions in the OL-5 phase of the proceeding. See LBP-87-32, 26 NRC 479 (1987); LBP-88-2, 27 NRC 85 (1988). Both decisions and appeals concern the adequacy of a February 1986 emergency exercise at Shoreham. Earlier this month another such exercise was conducted at Shoreham, as required by 10 C.F.R.

L

I

\

3 Part 50, Appendix E, S IV.F.1. In light of this event, we request the parties' views on the disposition of LILCO's two appeals. Specifically, the parties are directed to address whether the appeals should be dismissed and the two challenged partial initial decisions vacated on the ground of mootness. See, e.g. , Philadelphia Electric Co. (Limerick Generating Station, Units 1 and 2), CLI-85-16, 22 NRC 459 (1985); Commonwealth Edison Co. (Braidwood Nuclear Power Station, Units 1 and 2), ALAB-874, 26 NRC 156 (1987). The parties shall file their comments no later than July 11, 1988.

It is so ORDERED.

FOR THE APPEAL BOARD l

O_0-h$

C. qan Sr.oemaker

-kb Secretary to the Appeal Board Dr. Johnson did not participate in this order.

t - - - - - - - - _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ - . - _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _

Retrieved from "https://kanterella.com/w/index.php?title=ML20196B395&oldid=2987450"