ML20093F623
| ML20093F623 | |
| Person / Time | |
|---|---|
| Site: | Shoreham File:Long Island Lighting Company icon.png |
| Issue date: | 07/19/1984 |
| From: | Earley A LONG ISLAND LIGHTING CO. |
| To: | Atomic Safety and Licensing Board Panel |
| References | |
| OL-4, NUDOCS 8407230031 | |
| Download: ML20093F623 (6) | |
Text
N.
LILCO, July' ~1{,'il98 4 T4 dl 19 TH :50 UNITED STATES OF AMERICA NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSION Before the Commission In the Matter of
)
)
LONG ISLAND LIGHTING COMPANY
)
Docket No. 50-322-OL-4
)
(Low Power)
(Shoreham Nuclear Power Station,
)
Unit 1)
)
LILCO'S MOTION FOR RECONSIDERATION OF THE COMMISSION'S JULY 18 MEMORANDUM AND ORDER i
On July 18, 1684, the Commission issued a Memorandum and Order concerning Suffolk County's " Motion for Directed Cer-tification of June 20 ASLB Order Granting LILCO's Motion in Limine."
The Commission's order neither granted nor denied the County's motion but rather provided guidance on security mat-ters to the Board and parties.
The Commission, however, expressed no views on whether, under the facts in Shoreham, any security issues should be litigated.
For the reasons stated below, we ask the Commission to reconsider its Memorandum and order.
8407230031 840719 4
DR ADOCK 0500032g gJ
\\
~
0 a)yfo 9.S
b On July 16, LILCO filed a response to SC's Motion for Certification by placing it in first class mail in accordance with applicable Commission regulations.
Long Island Lighting Company's Response to Motion for Directed Certification on Se-curity Issues (July 16, 1984).
LILCO had not been informed that the Commission intended to consider this matter on an ex-pedited basis.
As in the past, of course, the Company would have responded in an expedited fashion if the Commission had so desired.
On the morning of July 17, the Office of General Coun-sel (OGC) inquired as to whether LILCO intended to respond to the County's Motion for Certification because the Commission was considering the issue that morning.
LILCO indicated that it had filed a timely response by first class mail.
As a re-sult of the phone call, LILCO immediately made efforts to get a copy o. the pleading to the General Counsel on an expedited basis.
Although a copy of LILCO's pleading was provided to the General Counsel by approximately 11:00 am on the 17th, a com-plete version of the response, including its voluminous attach-ments, was not requested by OGC until approximately midday; it was delivered to OGC from Richmond later that afternoon.
LILCO was informed at approximately 9:30 the next morning, July 18, that the Commission had already issued an order on the County's motion.
From this sequence of events, it seems likely that the Commission was not able to consider fully LILCO's response to
I the County's motion.
Significantly, the order did not acknowl-edge LILCO's response nor did it address LILCO's arguments.
Thus, LILCO believes the Commission acted prematurely in issuing its Memorandum and Order on the 18th and should recon-sider it in light of LILCO's response in order to provide more definitive guidance for the conduct of these proceedings.
In particular, the Commission did not address the ef-fect of the comprehensive security settlement agreement on se-curity issues in the low power licensing proceeding.
The order states that it was the Commission's understanding that the Li-censing Board prevented the County from raising new security issues "because no contentions on security were currently be-fore the Licensing Board in the operating license proceeding."
Order at 1.
But this was not the only ground for the denial relied upon in the Licensing Board's order.
Order Granting LILCO's Motion in Limine at 2-3 (June 20, 1984).
As LILCO ar-gued in its response, the Final Security Settlement Agreement between LILCO and Suffolk County provided a separate and inde-pendent basis for excluding security issues.
LILCO Response at 23-26.
This agreement resolved all pending security matters and established a framework for resolving security disputes in the future.1/
Since the Commission's order makes no mention of 1/
LILCO's response recognized that the settlement agreement does not prevent the NRC Staff from engaging security matters as part of its continuing review responsibility.
By signing the agreement, however, the County waived the right to raise security issues in the future except as provided by the agree-ment.
LILCO Response at 19.
the agreement, presumably it was not considered.
We believe that if the Commission had fully considered LILCO's papers, it would have concluded that the settlement agreement was disposi-tive.
Consequently, LILCO requests that the Commission recon-sider its July 18 Memorandum and Order in light of LILCO's sub-mittal of July 16.
Respectfully submitted, LONG ISLAND LIGHTING COMPANY
'hWW
!Y's
+1 Donald P. // win f/
Anthony F VEarley, Jr.
Lee B. Zeugin HUNTON t. WILLIAMS 707 East Main Street Richmond, Virginia 23219 DATED:
July 19, 1984
LILCO, July 19, 1984 CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE In the Matter of
'g4
'f O $!1 :5()
y, LONG ISLnND LIGHTING COMPANY (Shoreham Nuclear Power Station, Unit 1)
Docket No. 50-322-OL-4 (Low Power)
I hereby certify that copies of LILCO'S MOTION FOR RECON-SIDERATION OF THE COMMISSION'S JULY 18 MEMORANDUM AND ORDER dated July 19, 1984 were served this date upon the following by U.S. mail, first-class, postage prepaid, and in addition by hand (as indicated by one asterisk) or by telecopier (as indi-cated by two asterisks).
Chairman Nunzio J.
Palladino*
Judge Marshall E. Miller
- U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Atomic Safety and Licensing Commission Board 1717 H Street U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Washington, D.C. 20555 Commission Fourth Floor Commissioner James K. Asselstine*
East West Towers (West Tower)
U.S. Nuclear Regulatory 4350 East-West Highway Commission Bethesda, Maryland 20814 1717 H Street, N.W.
Washington, D.C.
20555 Judge Glenn O.
Bright
- Atomic Safety and Licensing Commissioner Lando W. Zech, J r.
- Board U.S. Nuclear Regulatory U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission Commission 1717 H Street, N.W.
Fourth Floor Washington, D.C.
20555 East West Towers (West Tower) 4350 East-West Highway Commissioner Frederick M. Bernthal*
Bethesda, Maryland 20814 U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission Judge Elizabeth B. Johnson **
1717 H Street, N.W.
Oak Ridge National Laboratory Washington, D.C.
20555 P.O.
Box X, Building 3500 Oak Ridge, Tennessee 37830 Commissioner Thomas M. Roberts
- U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Eleanor L.
Frucci, Esq.*
Commission Atomic Safety and Licensing 1717 H Street, N.W.
Board Washington, D.C.
20555 U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission Fourth Floor East West Towers (West Tower) 4350 East-West Highway Bethesda, Maryland 20814 L
-____.___________.-___S
I
, Honorable Peter Cohalan Jay Dunkleberger, Esq.
Suffolk County Executive New York State Energy Office County Executive /
Agency Building 2 Legislative Building Empire State Plaza Veterans Memorial Highway Albany, New York, 12223 Hauppauge, New York 11788 Edwin J. Reis, Esq.*
Fabian G. Palomino, Esq.**
Office of the Executive Special Counsel to the Legal Director Governor U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Executive Chamber, Room 229 Commission State Capitol Maryland National Bank Building Albany, New York 12224 7735 Old Georgetown Road Bethesda, Maryland 20814 Herbert H. Brown, Esq.*
Attn:
NRC lst Floor Mail Room Alan R. Dynner, Esq.
Lawrence Coe Lanpher, Esq.
Stephen B.
Latham, Esq.
Kirkpatrick, Lockhart, Hill, Twomey, Latham & Shea Christopher & Phillips 33 West Second Street 1900 M Street, N.W.,
8th Floor P. O. Box 398 Washington, D.C.
20036 Riverhead, New York 11901 Mr. Martin Suubert Martin Bradley Ashare, Esq.
c/o Congressman William Carney Suffolk County Attorney 113 Longworth House Office Bldg.
H. Lee Dennison Building Washington, D.C.
20515 Veterans Memorial Highway Hauppauge, New York 11788
~
James Dougherty, Esq.
3045 Porter Street, N.W.
Docketing and Service Branch Washington, D.C.
20008 office of the Secretary U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission Washington, D.C.
20555 b
f -/ /
- P-Anthony
~ Earley, Jr////
Hunton & Williams 707 East Main Street Post Office Box 1535 Richmond, Virginia 23212 DATED: July 19, 1984