ML20099L276

Motion to Exceed 15-page Limit for Comments,Per NRC 841119 Order.Limit Should Not Be Considered Applicable to Joint Filing by State of Ny & Suffolk County

ML20099L276
Person / Time
Site:	Shoreham File:Long Island Lighting Company icon.png
Issue date:	11/29/1984
From:	Brown H, Palomino F KIRKPATRICK & LOCKHART, NEW YORK, STATE OF, SUFFOLK COUNTY, NY
To:	NRC COMMISSION (OCM)
Shared Package
ML20099L278	List: ML20099L276 ML20099L292 ML20099L308
References
CON-#484-373 OL-4, NUDOCS 8412010072
Download: ML20099L276 (3)

Text

e b~)}

4' l

11/29/84

, 7 q y-

^ '

UNITED STATES.OF AMERICA NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSION.

. . '34 E! 30 A10:45 Before the Commission u, ~.v.

Cg;,4

, 5E m '

iw?

)

In the Matter of )

)

LONG ISLAND LIGHTING COMPANY- ) Docket No. 50-322-OL-4

) Low Power (Shoreham Nuclear Power Station, )

Unit 1) )

)

SUFFOLK COUNTY AND STATE OF NEW YORK

~ MOTION TO EXCEED PAGE LIMIT By Order dated November 19, 1984, the Commission authorized the parties to submit commants on the Miller Board's October 29, 1984 low power Initial Decision. The comments were to be no more than 15 pages. Suffolk County and the State of New York are sub-mitting their joint comments simultaneously with submission of this Motion. Our comments exceed 15 pages and we hereby seek ieave to file comments which exceed the specified.page limit.1/

Gcod cause exists to exceed 15 pages. First, as the Commis-sion will discern when it-reviews the County / State comments, l there are multiple defects with the Miller Board's Decision.

1/ LILCO has used the same procedure recently: it submitted its substantive comments with the NRC on the ALAB-788 remand

! issues at the same time that it moved the NRC for leave to file

! those comments. See LILCO's Notice to the Commission of Report on Issues Remanded by ALAB-788 and Motion for Leave to File, November 14, 1984. Further, the Commission accepted LILCO's unauthorized filing of November 9 (commenting on the ASLB's low power decision), even though LILCO had not even submitted a motion for leave to file such comments. See NRC October 19 Order

- at 2, n. 1.

1

~

B412010072 341129 /-

=

gDRADOCK05000 (f} L oCk

a. .1 q~ -

These defects include repeated: instances where the Miller Board

. denied the. County"and State due process-of law and.other in-stances where the Board plainly ignored the mandatory guidance

~

established by the Commission's May 16. Order and other NRC precedente.. Given the multiplicity of errors ~ committed by the;

~

-Miller Board, it was--impossible even in'a summary fashion to address these matters in just 15 pages.-

Second, the LILCO exemption request presents unprecedented

-issues of first impression,.particularly concerning the proposal-

to operate.a nuclear plant with no safety grade onsite power system. The case further involves a proposal to exempt a utility.

from fundamental safety requirements despite the undisputed fact t

that Shoreham's power is not needed for at least 10 years and despite the fact that the representatives of the public -- the

State of New York and Suffolk County -- strongly oppose any low power operation. It requires more than 15 pages to address these~

various points and to identify the public interest and policy factors which the Commission must consider in its review of the LILCO exemption request.

Third, contrary to the implication of LILCO's. November'9

comments, the Commission cannot

merely undertake af limited " stay" or "immediate effectiveness" review pertaining to LILCO's exemp-tion request.. Rather, only the Commission can grant the Section 50.12(a) exemption (see Southern California-Edison Co. (San i .

Onofre Nuclear Generating Station, Units 2-and 3),fLBP-77-35, 5-NRC 1290 (1977)), and thus the Commission must undertake a-

\

, . , - - - . - - ~ - - ---,,,--,,---y, --* + , = ,,-e - r --v +r -c wr-, +- +-*o,- ,a 3 -- - *w-~we w- - -*

6- i f

careful review of the entire exemption' proceed'ing record. To '

address matters in a format appropriate to such a review requires more than 15 pages.

Finally, the State of New York and Suffolk County are each entitled to file 15 pages of comments under the NRC's October 19 Order. To present our views in a coordinated fashion which will simplify Commission review, the State and County have submitted their comments in a single joint filing. Therefore, the 15 page limit applicable to separate filings should not be considered applicable to such a joint filing.

Respectfully submitted, Martin Bradley Ashare Suffolk County Department of Law Veterans Memorial Highway Hauppauge, New York 11788

/H'erbert H. Brown' Lawrence Coe Lanpher Karla J. Letsche KIRKPATRICK & LOCKHART 1900 M Street, N.W., Suite 800 Washington, D.C. 20036 Attorneys for Suffolk County kr e ff Fabian G. Palomino Special Counsel to the Governor of the State of New York Executive Chamber, Room 229 Capitol Building Albany, New York 12224 Attorney for Mario M. Cuomo Governor of the State of New York November 29, 1984

_