ML20091Q690
| ML20091Q690 | |
| Person / Time | |
|---|---|
| Site: | Shoreham File:Long Island Lighting Company icon.png |
| Issue date: | 01/31/1992 |
| From: | Irwin D, Schenker C HUNTON & WILLIAMS, LONG ISLAND LIGHTING CO., LONG ISLAND POWER AUTHORITY, O'MELVENY & MYERS |
| To: | Curtiss J, Remick F, Rogers K, Selin I, The Chairman NRC COMMISSION (OCM) |
| References | |
| CON-#192-12547 OLA-3, NUDOCS 9202050075 | |
| Download: ML20091Q690 (3) | |
Text
.
~..
1
/25+7
~
aun nNr(
'92 JAN 31 p5:25 w
lanuary 31, 1992 J'4L
- Qj %.
.c BY FAX The lion. Ivan Selin, Chairman Commissioner Kenneth C. Rogers Commissioner Forrest W. Remick Commissioner James W. Curtiss Commissioner E. Gail de Planque United States Nuclear Regulatory Commission 11555 Rockvill: Pike Rockville, Maryland 20852 Long Island Lighting Company (Shoreham Nucler.r Power Station) OCM d NRC Docket 50-322:
RCqtLCSL&tTimfetn10rrating i icenw t
Dear Chairman Selin and Members of the Commission:
We write, as counsel for the Long Island Lighting Company (LILCO) and the Long Island Power Authority (LIPA), in responu to th: January 22 letter from counsel for the Shoreham-Wading River Central School District (SWR) and for Scicatists and Engiacers for Secure Energy (SE2)J That letter attempts to place onto others responsibility for " disproving" SWR /SE2's facially implausible, and by now obwiously false, assertion that LIPA's legal existence terminated automatically on January 15, 1992.
SWR /SE2's gambit is all the more remarkable since this is a matter which SWR and SE2 themselves sougri to inject into this proceeding, and whici, F already caused more than a month's additional delay in the transfer of the Shercham ojerr 2ng license, now in POL form, from LILCO to LIPA. The January 22 letter der anstrates yet again the purely dilatory intent of SWR /SE2's participation in the process of the unwinding of Shoreham.
We respectfully request the Commission to prevent further obstruction of its process in this fashion. Specifically, we request that the transfer of the Shoreham operating license, which w;s filed with the Commission nineteen months ago - June 28,1990 and as to which there are no outy.anding issues, be approved at the next available op;>onuaity.
- I etter, James P. McGranery, Jr. to Charles E. Mullins, Esq., January 22, 1992.
p) l 9202050075 920131 FDR ADOCK 05000322 g
9 PDRz 1
1
.:. v.
u u.--
=-.
2 Further, we request that the Conunission not butden the eficeuveness of the license transfer with a housekeeping stay of excessive length, if the Comtmssion determines that one is warranted at all,* Counsel for SWlUSE2 previously requested a month long stay from tne Commission to seek a judicial stay pending appeal from any Commission decisien approving transfer of tbc Shoreham license) While I.lPA and LILCO hase not objected to a housekeeping itay of reasonable length,8 the recent iciter from counsti fe z SWR /SE2 illustrates that SWR /SE2's request is excessively long.
The issues presented by SWlVSE2's proposed appeal are not complex and have been presented to the Commission already; it will not require two weeks for SWR /SE2 to put them to a reviewing Court. Further, under established Comtnission and decisional law,r the Commission would be justified in denying a stay altogether. For reasons amply spread on the record before the Cotnmission, SWR /SE2 have not shown a substantial likehhm! of success on the merits on appeal. They are not prejudiced by a transfer of authority under a POL. By contrast, LILCO and LIPA are damaged by delay. The annual cost of maintaining an inoperable Shoreham is still on the order of $150,000,000, of ahich some 582,000,000 goes to local taxes (of this amount, $29,200,000 goco to the Shoreham4 ading River Ceau:d Schcol District). Thus caeh day of unnecessary delay in the path towatd approval of decommissioning costs over
$400,000 Finally, the public interest does not lie either in rewarding dilatory abuse of the NRC's pre ess or in delaying the removal from bervice of a plant u hich has no operating future.
LILCO and LIPA respectfully request that if the NRC issue > a housekeeping stay, it be for no longer than a total of twelve calendar days: five days for SWR /SE2 to request a stay, and i Housekeeping stays are not automatic. Of the ten license amendments and exemptions granted since LILCO's decision not to operate Shoreham, only one -- that for the POL _-- was i
I-accompanied by a housekeeping stay.
F Couched in terms of ten' working days [11, two calendar weeks] to file papers seeking an injunction pending appeal, plus ten more working days [ir, two calendar weeks) for opponents i
of a stay to file and thc court to decide the stay request, this mechanism amounts to a month-l long stay 1 request, of which half is given to the appellant to repeat arguments already made below. This is both too long an overall period, and allots too much of its total Ume to the appellant.
t l
Opposition of the I ong Ishmd Power Authority to Motion for Stay of License Transfer and r
to Suggestion of Mootness, December 30, 1991; LILCO's Opposinon to Petitioners' Request for Stay and Suggestion of Mootness, December 30, 1991.
I See 10 C.F.R. j 2,78S(e); reomo v NRC, 772 F.2d 972, 9N W.C. Cir. 1985);
Wampon Area wtrntvlitan Transi'fumm'n x Holiday _Twrs, M9 F.2d 841, 843 (D.C.
Cir.1977); Vireinia Petr0]evn) Jebbers_Auttv FPC, 259 F.2d 921,92: (D.C Cir.1958).
~.
... ~. --
4 3
the balance of time for response and decision by the Court? The ;;oal would be to permit the license transfer to take effect, unless stayed by the Coun of Appeals, by late February.
Sincerely yours, f,
ffS hY
,/
Donald P. Irwin Carl R. Scher ker, Jr.
r Hunton & Williams O'Melveny & h!yers 951 East Byrd Street 55513th Street Richmond, Va. 23219 Washington, D.C. 20(XM Counsel for long Island Counsel for Long Isl.'nd Lighting Company Power Authority oTt-L t
9>
f i (_> l-Iri N
~
ec:
James P. hicGranery, Jr., Esq. (by fax)
Edwin J. Reis, Esq. (by fax)
Charles E. Mullins, Esq. (by fax)
Samuel J. Chilk Nicholas S. Reynolds, Esq.
Stanley B. Klimberg,- Esq.
Samuct A. Cherniak, Esq.
El FA T, AMRATJ Alit #MTA Y,Opl s.m u..m As with all expedited process, this presumes service in fact (by hand or telecopy) on the day of filing; and the final day of each segment, if a weekend or holiday, would carry over to the -
next business day.
4
. - -