ML20072P037

Disputes Alleged 830707 Agreement Not to Request Addl Time to Revise Response to 830623 Contentions.Related Correspondence

ML20072P037
Person / Time
Site:	Shoreham File:Long Island Lighting Company icon.png
Issue date:	07/12/1983
From:	Mcleskey K HUNTON & WILLIAMS
To:	Letsche K KIRKPATRICK & LOCKHART
References
ISSUANCES-OL, NUDOCS 8307180213
Download: ML20072P037 (3)

Text

- - - - .

.. - - - , = . ,,_- - -

i. 4 lA

,, , : p p r n * 'mi"!CP H u x rox & WILLIAM S 707 East MAIN Starct P. o. Box 1535 ,

4 0 0 4 ? eveLoi.o Ricsosown,VamotxtA aseia .........,6...c.uc,....

m e. som eos p.o.comesaso a.ts.o., e,o tn c..ou.. et.oe "' '"* *" "'"****

Tt Lc ono NE *O'-788 8200 co.cs. est. ,

eoe."sa s.'.e s' o r.co,v...... .... , ..

=esos..... ,,,,,,o.

o.m ... . .n

• • • -'""*' 5 **"''"****'**-

July 12, 1983 .,

4* 't ys>( p~.i s\

Karla J. Letsche, Esq,.

Kirkpatrick, Lockhart, Hill, g i4GO7 %2 Christopher & Phillips 1900 M Street, N.W.

• cie($.

8th Floor Washington, D.C. 20036 D /% #

Dear Karla:

, . .v.

This letter responds to your letter to the Board dated

[

I July 7, 1983, which we received on July 8.

j In the fourth paragraph of your letter you state:

During the July 1 meeting, counsel for LILCO requested that the County provide them with a copy of the final consolidated contentions, _

as revised, prior to July 7 -- the date set

by the Board for the filing of such conten-tions by the intevenors. Counsel for LILCO stated that if they received the revised con-tentions by Tuesday evening or. Wednesday morning (July 5 or 6), they would be able to include their comments on the revisions in the LILCO response which would be filed on Thursday,' July 7.

Jim Christman and I did not " request" the revised contentions in the sense you see'm to mean; as we told you, we think the Board's order requiring simultaneous ' filing of the final con-I tentions and our response obliged the intervenors to provide us with a set of revisions in response to our comments, prior to the filing of our response. We were surprised that you thought you were under no obligation to do so.

' i'J07180213 830712 PDR ADOCK 05000322

..G ._. PDR

@SO3

. . . . . - - . . ..z . ..

o l f

Howrox & WILLIAMS 1 Karla J. Letsche, Esq.

July 12, 1983 Page 2 l Your suggestion that we had somehow agreed not to re-quest more time is unjustified. We dio urge you to send us your revisions on Tuesday or Wednesday so that we could be re-sponding to a current rather than an outdated document. But at the time, you were telling us that your revisions would not be extensive; indeed, we understood that with only a rew excep-tions (you mentioned, tentatively, a probable renumbering of 3.B.3-5), you did not plan to renumber the contentions, despite our feeling that a renumbering was necessary. We did not agree that we would not ask for more time.

We left the meeting with the impression (1) that your revisions would not be extensi've and (2) that while you would f

try to get them to us before July 7 you were making no guaran-t4es. With that understanding, we prepared our response using the draft contentions we had received on June 23. The next word we had was your letter of July 5 advising that you would, after all, be sending us revised contentions that night. If r .

you felt at that point that there was an agreement that we would not ask for additional time, that letter would huve been a goo? opportunity to make that agreement explicit.

, As it turned out, contrary to your assertions during i

s our July 1 meeting, the contentions we received the night of l July 5 were revised extensively from the first draf t provided us on June 23. As we noted in our letter requesting the one-day extension, some of those revisions responded to our com-ments. Many other changes, however, were made at the interve-nors' own instance. Even had.we come to some agreement regarding our filing, and we did not, the extensive changes to the contentions would have warranted a change in that agreement.

^

. - - . . ~ . . . --

HuxTox & WILLIAxs Karla J. Letsche, Esq.

July 12, 1983 Page 3 Finally, I suggest that it was in your interest as well as ours for us to spend an extra 24 hours2.777778e-4 days <br />0.00667 hours <br />3.968254e-5 weeks <br />9.132e-6 months <br /> conforming our re-sponses to your revised and renumbered contentions. The alter-native would have been for us either to file responses keyed to your June 23 draft, which would have confused everyone, or to do a hurried revision to match the later draft and have it quite possibly contain errors, which would also have been con-fusing. The extra day enabled us to provide the parties and the Board with objections that matched in form and substance the latest version of the contentions, no small benetit when one considers the length of the contentions.

Sincerely, Kathy E. B. McCleskey 301/586 cc. James A. Laurenson Dr. Jerry R. Kline .

Dr. M. Stanley Livingston All Parties e

8 O