ML20077G196
| ML20077G196 | |
| Person / Time | |
|---|---|
| Site: | Shoreham File:Long Island Lighting Company icon.png |
| Issue date: | 06/04/1991 |
| From: | Mcgranery J DOW, LOHNES & ALBERTSON, SCIENTISTS & ENGINEERS FOR SECURE ENERGY, SHOREHAM-WADING RIVER CENTRAL SCHOOL DISTRICT, NY |
| To: | NRC COMMISSION (OCM) |
| References | |
| CON-#291-11834 91-621-01-OLA, 91-621-1-OLA, OLA, NUDOCS 9106250058 | |
| Download: ML20077G196 (8) | |
Text
.
tillM
, ;t nJi D l
UNITED STATES OF AMERICA NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSION
'91 J"r -7 P 3 :43 Before Administrative Judges:
Morton B. Margulies, Chairman Dr. George A.
Ferguson Dr. Jerry R.
Kline
)
In the Matter of
)
Docket No. 50-322-OLA
)
LONG ISLAND LIGHTING COMPANY
)
ASLb. No. 91-621-01-OLA
)
(Shoreham Nuclear Power Station, )
(Confirmatory Order Modifica-Unit 1)
)
tion, Security Plan Amendment
)
)
Amendment)
MOVANT-INTERVENORS' MOTION FOR CHANGE OF VENUE OF THE PREHEARING CONFERENCE The Movant-Intervenors Shoreham-Wading River Central School District
(" School District") and Scientists and Engineers for Secure Energy, Inc. ("SE "), by counsel, hereby move the Atomic 2
l Safety and Licensing Board ("ASLB") to change the venue' for the prehearing conference currently scheduled for July 23, 1991 in the above-captioned matter from Haupauge, New York, to the Washington, D.C.
area for the convenience and economy of the participants and the ASLB itself since Nuclear Regulatory Commission ("NRC") policy does not indicate that such hearings must, or even should, be held in the vicinity of the licensed activity.
Undersigned counsel for 1/
The ASLB has wide discretion in establishing the vent e of the hearing pursuant to 10 C.F.R. S 2.718(e) (1991).
The Commission will only reverse the ASLB's choice of venue fer the hearing if it believes "that the board has abused its discretion in" the choice of the venue for a hearing.
Consolidated EdisoD Cgppany of New York (Indian Point, Unit 2) et al.,
CLI-82-15, 16 NRC 27, 37-38 (1982).
9106250050 910604 p
PDR ADOCK 05000322 O
G PDR
-2 1
the School District and SE is informed (1) by NRC counsel Mitzi A.
2 Young, Esq., that the NRC Staff takes no position on this motion and (2) by the licensee's counsel Donald P.
Irwin,.Esq. and amicus curiae Long Island Power Authority's ("LIPA") lead counsel Carl R.
- Schenker, Jr.,
Esq., that they will inform the ASLB of their positions af ter reviewing the motion in writing.2/
The School District and SE recognize that "[i]t is the 2
Commission's policy and practice to beain tne evidentiary hearing in the vicinity of the site of the proposed facility."
10 C.F.R. Part 2, App. A.I.(a) (1991) (emphasis added).
That statement suggests that this NRC " policy and practice" does not apply to any hearings except the (a) initial ("begin"), (b) " evidentiary" hearing on a (c) " proposed facility."
The prehearing conference is not an evidentiary hearing, much less an initial evidentiary l
l hearing, and, in this case, it does not address issues related to a l
" proposed facility," but a fully licensed facility.
Thus, the i
policy does not indicate that the prehearing conference should be held in the vicinity of the Shoreham facility.
The prehearing conference is not an " evidentiary" i
hearing, but will consist of merely legal argument.
In denying a petition for rulemaking to require, among other things, that "all i
hearings and NRC-licensee / applicant meetings be held at a site and at times which will maximize attendance by'a majority of the l
2/
Others identified on the service list were not contacted because they have not participated in proceedings before the ASLB in these matters.
l
I 3 -
persons potentially affected," the Commission noted that
"[a]ppellate oral arguments in adjudicatory proceedings are, however, generally heard in Washington, D.C. area."
Citizens i
Advisory Board of the Metropolitan Area Plannino Council for Opaha.
Rebraska, and Council Bluffs. Iowa, DPRM-81-1, 13 NRC 429, 441 (1981).
Since the prehearing conference will be devoted solely to legal argument, it is much more akin to appellate oral argument 1
l then an evidentiary hearing.
Thus, the site of the prehearing 1
3 conference' is more appropriate to the Washington, D.C.
area than 1
to Haupauge, New York.
l And there is ample precedent for conducting prehearing I
conferences in the Washington, D.C.
area rather than near the I
reactor site even in the case of " proposed" facilities.
E.c.,
Houston Lichtino and Power Company, et al., ALAB-86-15, 23 NRC 595, l
609 (Phase II), 610 (Phase III) & 680 (Phase II) I1986); Publip Service Company of New Hampshire, et al. (Seabrook Station, Units 1 j
and 2), ALAB-488, 8 NRC 187, 1889-89 & n.4 (1978).
t Further, since there is no compelling reason to hold the hearing near the facility in question, "the governing consideration in determining the place of this hearing both can and should be the convenience of those who will play a direct role in it Philadelphia Electric Company, et al. (Peach Bottom Atomic Power Station, Units 1 and 2) et al.,
A LA B-5 5 6, 10 NRC 527, 531 (1979) 3/
Prehearing conferences can even be conducted by telephone.
E.o.,
Philadelphia Electric Company, et al. (Peach Bottom Atomic Power Station, Units 2 and 3) et al., ALAB-562, 10 NRC 437, 448 (1979).
-4 (where another consideration was the fact that the hearing involved four different plants).
Given that the service addresses for two members of the ASLB are Washington, D.C.,
and the third member's address is j
Columbia Beach, Maryland, it appears that the Washington, D.C.
area would be significantly more convenient for all ASLB members than Hatpauge, New York.
In addition, counsel for the NRC Staff, lead counsel for amicus curiae LIPA, and counsel for the School District
)
and SE also maintain their offices in the Washington, D.C.
area; 2
\\
and lead counsel for the licensee, Long Island Lighting Company
("LlLCO") is located in Richmond, Virginia and has offices in Washington, D.C.
Thus, it would appear that the convenience of all persons concerned with the prehearing conference would be much better served by holding that prehearing conference in the Washington, D.C.
area than in Haupauge, New York.
And holding that prehearing conference in the Washington, D.C.
area would accomplish a significant economic savings for the licensee, the United States Government, the state political subdivision intervenor School District, and the non-profit organization intervenor SE as well as amicus curiae LIPA (which 2
has had its State funding totally eliminated) by eliminating costly travel, housing and related expenses, as well as allowing the more efficient utilization of time by all concerned, including both the elimination of travel days that would otherwise be spent in useful Government service and a reduction in legal fees that would
5-otherwise be incurred during travel time for the non-federal government participants.
Although the School District and SE recognize that such 2
i expenditures may ' be necessary if the ASLB decides to hold evidentiary hearings on Long Island, New York, in the future, travel and related expenses for a prehearing conference in Haupauge would constitute an economic hardship for the School District and SE without serving a substantial public interest.
2 1
A/
The School District and SE emphasize "may" because even 2
evidentiary hearings on " proposed" nuclear power-plants may be held in the Washington, D.C.
area rather than near the site of a proposed plant.
E.a.,
Duke Power Company (Perkins Nuclear Station, Units 1,
2, and 3), LBP-78-34, 8 NRC 470, 482 (1978);
Duauesene Licht Company, gt al. (Beaver Valley Power Station, Unit No. 1), LBP-78-16, 7 NRC 811, 814 (1978); Consolidated Edison Company of New York, Inc., gt al. (Indian Point, Units 1, 2,
and 3), ALAB-436, 6 NRC 547, 550 (197o) (six days of hearings); Washinaton Public Power Supolv System (WPPSS Nuclear
~
Project Nos. 3 & 5), LBP-77-49, 6 NRC 257, 260 (1977);
Commonwealth Edison Company (Byron Station, Units 1 and 2 and Braidwood Station, Units 1 and 2), LBP-75-74, 2 NRC 972, 974 (1975).
Thus, the School District and SE hope that the ASLB 2
will also give serious consideration to holding future hearings in the Washington, D.C.
area.
. WHEREFORE, the School District and SE urge the ASLB to 2
change the venue of the scheduled prehearing conference to the
-Washington, D.C.
area.
Respectfully submitted, mA i
~
.-C a jj June 4, 1991
- / '* A-
~ 251
\\
Ja'mes P. McGranery /$r.
, bow, Lohnes & Alb4 tson Suite 500 1255 Twenty-Third St.,
N. W.'
Washington, D.C.
20037 (202) 857-2929 Counsel for Movant-Intervenors Shoreham-Wading River Central School District and Scientists and Engineers for Secure Energy, Inc.
.
- L :i {
UNITED STATES OF AMERICA 3d NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSION BEFORE THE ATOMIC SAFETY AND LICENSING BOARD 91 JJJ -7 P 3 :43 asi o t
)
Docket No. 50-322-OLAi In the Matter of
)
)
ASLBP No. 91-621-01-OLA LONG ISLAND LIGHTING COMPANY
)
)
(Confirmatory Order (Shoreham Nuclear Power Station,
)
Modification, Security Plan Unit 1)
)
Amendment and Emergency
)
Preparedness Amendment)
CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE I hereby certify that copies of the foregoing Movant-Intervenor's Motion for Change of Venue of the Prehearing Conference in the above-captioned proceeding have been served on the following by first-class
(
mail, postage prepaid on this 4th day of June, 1991:
1 Morton B.
Margulies, Chairman George A.
Ferguson Administrative Judge Administrative Judge Atomic Safety & Licensing 5307 Al Jones Drive Board Panel Columbia Beach, MD 20764 U.S.
Nuclear Regulatory Commission Washington, D.C.
20555 Jerry R.
Kline Stephen A.
Wakefield, Esq.
Adminsitrative Judge General Counsel Atomic Safety & Licensing U.S.
Department of Energy Board Panel 1000 Independence Avenue U.S.
Nuclear Regulatory Commission Room 6A245 Washington, D.C.
20555 Washington, D.C.
20585 W.
Taylor Reveley, III, Esq.
Samuel A.
Cherniak, Esq.
Donald P.
Irwin, Esq.
NYS Department of Law Hunton & Williams Bureau of Consumer Frauds Riverfront Plaza, East Tower and Protection 951 East Byrd Street 120 Broadway Richmond, Virginia 23219-4074 New York, New York 10271 Michael R.
Deland, Chairman Gerald C.
Goldstein, Esq.
Executive Office of the Presideat Office of General Counsel Council on Environmental Quality New York Power Authority 722 Jackson Place, N.W.
1633 Broadway Washington, D.C.
20603 New York, New York 10039
l
, 1 Stanley B. };11mberg, Esq.
Nicholas S. Reynolds Executive Director &
David A. Ropka General Counsel Winston & Strawn i
Long Island Power Authority 1400_L Street, N.W.
200 Garden City Plaza, Suite 201 Washington, D.C.
20005 Garden City, New York 11530 i
Carl R. Schenker, Jr., Esq.
John T. Hull, Esq.
O'Melveny & Myers Office of General Counsel 555 13th Street, N.W.
U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Washington, D.C.
20004 Commission Washington, D.C.
20555 Atomic Safety & Licensing Appeal Board U.S.
Nuclear Regulatory Commission Washington,-D.C. 20555
$7
('
.- )(A b)-]vr7 June 4, 1991 gades P. McGranery,/Ar.
Counsel for MovantyIntervonors Shoreham-Wading River Central School District and Scientists and Engineers for Secure Energy, Inc.
?
i
?
9
..,,. - -, -, ~.., _,. -
-.-....,...w.
~-.,..,,-.._.,.,_,,-.,,_,_.n
-n,--
,, - - -, -.