ML20081C131

Reply Supporting Suffolk County 831018 Motion for Extensions to File Brief Re Contention 7B.Page Limit Should Not Be Raised.Certificate of Svc Encl

ML20081C131
Person / Time
Site:	Shoreham File:Long Island Lighting Company icon.png
Issue date:	10/25/1983
From:	Irwin D HUNTON & WILLIAMS, LONG ISLAND LIGHTING CO.
To:	NRC ATOMIC SAFETY & LICENSING APPEAL PANEL (ASLAP)
References
ISSUANCES-OL, NUDOCS 8310310124
Download: ML20081C131 (8)

Text

. .

t y DOCMETED USNRC 53 MlT 28 R2:38 October 25, 1983 CFFICE OF SECRiTM <

00CKEilN3 & SERVit ERANCH UNITED STATES OF AMERICA NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSION Before the Atomic Safety and Licensing Appeal Board In the Matter of )

)

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

)

(Shoreham Nuclear Power Station, )

Unit 1) )

LILCO REPLY TO SUFFOLK COUNTY MOTION OF OCTOBER 18 I.

On September 19, 1983, the Licensing Board made avail-able to LILCO, the NRC Staff and Suffolk County printed, bound copies of its Partial Initial Decision (PID) in this proceed-ing. The PID was officially served by mail on all parties on September 21, 1983. Also on September 21, the Appeal Board ex-tended by 10 days the time otherwise avairne o'for filing ex-ceptions to the PID.

On October 11, LILCO filed several exceptions involving one aspect of the ASLB's decision on so-called Contention 7B.

On October 17, Suffolk County filed 422 exceptions concerning

, 8310310124 831025 C)

PDR ADOCK 05000322 9 C.

PDR Q_.

many aspects of the decision; 93 of these exceptions dealt with Contention 7B.

On October 18, the County moved "(1) that the time for filing the County's brief be extended from 30 days to 90 days (i.e., to January 16, 1984); and (2) that the page limit for briefs be extended from 70 pages to 200 pages." The County also indicated that it would, "of course, agree to a similar extension for LILCO and the Staff to file their briefs, if they believe such time is needed." Id. at 5.

II.

LILCO supports the present motion in part, and opposes it in part. LILCO believes that the appropriate time for fil-ing the County's brief is 60, not 90, days, and that its page limit should double not triple. LILCO also requests (1) that LILCO's time for respondisng to the County's brief, and the num-ber of pages permissible in LILCO's reply, be the same as those given to the County; (2) that the due dates for LILCO's brief as an appellant, and the County's brief in response, be the same dates as those for the County as an appellant and for LILCO in response, and that these dates be calculated from the date on which the County filed its exceptions,1/ thereby 1/ LILCO and the County filed their respective exceptions on different dates. Since LILCO, the Staff and the County all ac-(footnote cont'd) s

-3 producing uniform deadlines for appellants' briefs of December 16, 1983 and for appellees' briefs of February 14, 1984; and (3) that the normal 70-page limit remain for LILCO's brief as an appellant and the County's brief as an appellee. Our rea-sons follow.

III.

A.

Time and Page Limits for the County as an Appellant 1.

The County has raised issues in its exceptions to which it may well point as alleged grounds to stay Shoreham's fuel load if the issues remain unresolved by that time.2/ Thus, fairness dictates that the County get on with its appeal as (footnote cont'd) tually had copies of the PID before it was formally served by mail, LILCO did not extend its time for filing exceptions by the five days permitted when service is by mail. The County

, took the five days. It might be. prejudicial to LILCO to file i

its appellant's brief on Contention 7B five days before the County files its brief on that contention. This potential for prejudice is avoided by using October 17 as the common date from which to calculate future deadlines.

2/ If the County does seek to stay fuel load by pointing to

the pendency of its appeal of the PID, LILCO will strongly urge j in reply that the County's argument lacks merit because the l

County itself precipitated the extension of its appeal beyond the usual limits. '

l l

f

.- _4 quickly as is feasible. Sixty days in which to prepare its appellant's brief is feasible, given the County's extensive re-sources and' familiarity with the record.

2.

As to the space limit, the County has asked for 200 pages-in which to brief over 400 exceptions -- that is, it has asked for about a half page of brief per exception. A great many of the County's 422 exceptions cannot conceivably be treated so tersely; few of them, in fact, are susceptible of lucid treatment in a half page. In LILCO's view, accordingly, the County has not yet decided what it will actually argue on appeal; nor does it yet know how many pages will really be nec-essary. Thus, there seems to be nothing talismanic about the 200-page' request.

Having once asked for 140 pages from the Appeal Board and been given 70 after ;he brief was largely written, LILCO can attest that a stringent page limit does assist a party in identifying the essence of what it deems essential. Twice the normal page limit should be sufficient for the County to iden-tify and develop the essence of whatever it thinks is essential

~

error below.

.~ _ _ _ _ _ - - - .

. __ ~ - - _ . - - _ _ __ _

i 1 B.

Time and Page Limits for LILCO as an Appellee As indicated above, the County's 422 exceptions are so sweeping as to provide no meaningful guidance concerning the actual focus and supporting argument of its ultimate position.

Thus, effective work on responding to the County's position cannot be begun by LILCO until the County's appellant brief is filed. Sixty days to reply will tax LILCO no less than 60 days to file initially will tax the County. By the same token, if 140 pages are needed for the essence of the County's direct case on appeal, the same will be needed for the heart of LILCO's rebuttal.

C.

Time and Page Limits for LILCO as Appellant and the County as Appellee As indicated in note 1 above, LILCO filed its excep-tions before the County did. Since all of LILCO's exceptions and a significant portion of those of the County concern Con-tention 7B, fairness indicates that both appellant briefs should be due on the same day. Thus, as requested above, LILCO asks that the deadlines for all appellant briefs be calculated from October 17, the date on which the County filed its exceptions.

i

_4 The County.has not asked that the normal 70-page limit be extended for briefs concerning LILCO's exceptions. Nor does LILCO.

Respectfully 3 submitted, i

1 -

2 ( .M W PTaylor Reveley, III T. S. Ellis, III Donald P. Irwin Anthony F. Earley, Jr.

Hunton & Williams-P. O. Box 1535 Richmond, Virginia 23212 DATED: October 25, 1983 I.

e T

..,-,.w.--rer-+,- -r .r,-.-,-r.- , - - < - -e -

,- ----w t- +- - - - - -+-

LILCO, October 25, 1983

'4 CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE In the Matter of LONG ISLAND LIGHTING COMPANY (Shoreham Nuclear Power Station, Unit 1)

Docket No. 50-322 (OL)

I hereby certify that copies of LILCO REPLY TO SUFFOLK COUNTY MOTION OF OCTOBER 18 were served this date upon the following by first-class mail, postage prepaid, or by hand as indicated by an asterisk (*).

Lawrence Brenner, Esq. Secretary of the Commission Administrative Judge U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Atomic Safety and Licensing Commission Board Panel Washington, D.C. 20555 U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission Atomic Safety and Licensing Washington, D.C. 20555 Appeal Board Panel U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Dr. Peter A. Morris Commission Administrative Judge Washington, D.C. 20555 Atomic Safety and Licensing l Board Panel Atomic Safety and Licensing U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Board Panel Commission U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Washington, D.C. 20555 Commission Washington, D.C. 20555 Dr. George A. Ferguson Administrative Judge David J. Gilmartin, Esq.

l Atomic Safety and Licensing Attn: Patricia A. Dempsey, Esq.

i Board Panel County Attorney School of Engineering Suffolk County Department of Law Howard University Veterans Memorial Highway 2300 6th Street, N.W. Hauppauge, New York 11787 Washington, D.C. 20059 l

l

y a

Bernard M. Bordenick, Esq.* Stephen B. Latham, Esq.

David A. Repka, Esq. Twomey, Latham & Shea U.S. Nuclear Regulatory 33 West Second Street Commission P. O. Box 398 Washington, D.C. 20555 Riverhead, New York 11901 Herbert H. Brown, Esq.* Ralph Shapiro, Esq.

Lawrence Coe Lanpher, Esq. Cammer and Shapiro, P.C. I Karla J. Letsche, Esq. 9 East 40th Street Kirkpatrick, Lockhart, Hill, New York, New York 10016 Christopher & Phillips 8th Floor James Dougherty, Esq.

1900 M Street, N.W. 3045 Porter Street Washington, D.C. 20036 Washington, D.C. 20008 Mr. Marc W. Goldsmith Howard L. Blau Energy Research Group 217 Newbridge Road 4001 Totten Pond Road Hicksville, New York 11801 Waltham, Massachusetts 02154 Jonathan D. Feinberg, Esq.

MHB Technical Associates New York State 1723 Hamilton Avenue Department of Public Service Suite K Three Empire State Plaza San Jose, California 95125 Albany, New York 12223 Mr. Jay Dunkleberger Alan S. Rosenthal, Chairman

• New York State Energy Office Atomic Safety and Licensing Agency Building 2 Appeal Board Empire State Plaza U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Albany, New York 12223 Commission Washington, D.C. 20555 Gary J. Edles*

Atomic Safety and Licensing Howard A. Wilber*

Appeal Board Atomic Safety and Licensing U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Appeal Board Commission U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Washington, D.C. 20555 Commission Washington, D.C. 20555 i

Donald P. Irwin Hunton & Williams 707 East Main Street P.O. Box 1535 Richmond, Virginia 23212 DATED: October 25, 1983