ML20100G624

Response to Suffolk County & State of Ny Motion to Exceed Page Limit.Motion Should Be Denied & Extraneous Comments & Voluminous Attachments Should Be Disregarded.Certificate of Svc Encl

ML20100G624
Person / Time
Site:	Shoreham File:Long Island Lighting Company icon.png
Issue date:	12/05/1984
From:	Rolfe R HUNTON & WILLIAMS, LONG ISLAND LIGHTING CO.
To:	NRC COMMISSION (OCM)
References
CON-#484-474 OL-4, NUDOCS 8412070338
Download: ML20100G624 (6)

Text

-- - . .. . - -- _. _- _ - _ _ _

N.h L LILCO, Dsccmbar 5, 1984 UNITED STATES OF AMERICA NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSION

1. DCCKETED Before the CommissBon1- -

'84 DEC -5 P4 :56 In the Matter of )

) CFF;CE F E Aii V "

LONG ISLAND LIGHTING COMPANY )

)

Docket(Low No.0$b PoweYy) p" FJ.

(Shoreham Nuclear Power Station, )

Unit 1) )

LILCO'S RESPONSE TO SUFFOLK COUNTY AND STATE OF 1 NEW YORK MOTION TO EXCEED PAGE LIMIT By Order of November 19, 1984, in response to Intervenors' broad request of October 31, the Commission permitted the parties to submit written comments, limited to 15 pages in-length and ad-dressed solely to "the correctness of the Board's application of

the criteria in our Order of May 16 to Phases III and IV of low power operation." Notwithstanding the November 19 Order, the In-i tervenors have filed 31 pages of comments with voluminous attach- -

ments, not limited as the Commission directed but rather extending-l l to physical security contentions and raising a panoply of proce-dural arguments about the Licensing Board proceedings. In addi-tion, Intervenors have filed a separate five-page Request for Re-consideration of Commission Denial of Opportunity for Oral i Arguments, containing further argument concerning the Initial De-cision.. Intervenors have sought to justify all of these ex-tramural filings with a three page Motion to Exceed Page Limit.

g2070338841205 CNdC.ocAT501 e

i!J"

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

, , LILCO opposes the Motion to Exceed Page Limit and the request to reconsider the denial of oral argument, for the following rea-1 sons:

1. Intervenors are, in e'ffect, seeking a full-scale legal

, and factual review on the merits of the low-power proceeding at the immediate-effectiveness review stage, prior to any Appeal

' Board' review. This is inconsistent with the Commission's regula-tions. The very concept of immediate effectiveness review at the low power stage is a departure from normal Commission practice.

Even at full power, it is a narrow, fail-safe stay-type review fo-cusing at the outset on "the cravity of substantive issue [s]" al-t leged to have been wrongly decided. 5 2.764(f)(2)(i). Interve-i nors make no serious effort to fit their complaints into a S 2.764(f)(2)(i) rubric. Moreover, while Intervenors' complaints

( are legion, they are overwhelmingly procedural: only on page 29 of their " Comments" do they ever get around to allegations (merely i

listed, not argued) that their complaints have any safety signifi-cance.1/ Even there, Intervenors do not allege that low power testing at Phases III and IV would result in any substantive haz-ard to the public health and safety. In short, the proper forum for the kind of arguments being advanced by Intervenors is not immediate-effectiveness review but normal appellate review, which t

l 1/ Item J.2, " Failure to Consider Factual Evidence Concerning the Safety of Operation With the Alternative Configuration,"

pp. 29-30.

1

1 l

l they have initiated with a Notice of Appeal filed November 13,.

1984.

2. The bulk of Intervenors' comments are premised'on the as-sertion that because they, governmental entities, have refused to participate in emergency planning, the licensing process must

stand still pending ultimate resolution of emergency planning is-1-

sues, on the theory that their opposition so alters the probabili-

! ty of LILCO's obtaining a full power licence that the Commission's normal rules should not apply. The Commission has already re-jected the principle underlying this argument in a reasoned opin- .

ion refusing Suffolk County's earlier contention that its refusal to participate in emergency planning rendered its successful im-plementation impossible, and the conduct of emergency planning j hearings an exercise in futility. Lono Island Lichtino Company (Shoreham Nuclear Power Station, Unit 1), CLI-83-17, 17 NRC 1032 i

(1983). The Commission's rejection of governmental hostility on emergency planning as a basis for pre-emptive abridgment of par-ties' rights under its regulations is equally applicable in the present context.2/

2/ Intervenors' argument also totally overlooks the fact

.that the only basis for immediate-effectiveness review at the low power stage -- the need for an exemption from GDC 17 --

will be mooted by the licensing of qualified diesels, i.e., by

factors totally unrelated to emergency planning. Thus the question before the Licensing Board was not, as Intervenors

[ would suggest, whether a low power license ought to issue at all, but merely one of timing -- whether low power testing i should proceed before completion of the hearings involving the TDI diasels.

4 i

L

Intervenors' motions to exceed page limits and to reconsider denial of oral argument should be denied and their extraneous com-ments and voluminous attachments disregarded.2/

- Respectfully submitted, LONG ISLAND LIGHTING COMPANY By

!CAfM

~

W. Taylor Reveley,/III -

Donald P. Irwin Robert M. Rolfe Anthony F. Earley, Jr.

Hunton & Williams Post Office Box 1535 Richmond, Virginia 23212 DATED: December 5, 1984 4

1 1/ LILCO believes that Intervenors' arguments are baseless on the merits and intends so to demonstrate on the normal merits review which will begin before the Appeal Board. Only in the event that the Commission determines to take up these issues at the immediate-effectiveness stage would LILCO request leave to file further. If the Commission so determines, however, LILCO requests the opportunity to reply on the merits to the ex-tramural aspects of Petitioners' November 29 paper.

LILCO, Dsccmbsr 5, 1984 CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE In the Matter of LONG ISLAND LIGHTING COMPANY (Shoreham Nuclear Power Station, Unit 1) C0t gr:

Docket No. 50-322-OL-4 (Low Power) yhh I hereby certify that copies of LILCO'S RESPON E Ta_

SUFFOLK COUNTY AND STATE OF NEW YORK MOTION TO EXCEm Mr5 P4:56 LIMIT were served this date upon the following by U.S. mail, first-class, postage prepaid or by hand (as indicaggd 3yyo,nen a,..

. asterisk) or by Federal Express (as indicated by tWMCA8 tars SERVICI.

isks). BRANCH 4

Chairman Nunzio J. Palladino* Judge Glenn O. Bright **

United States Nuclear Atomic Safety and Licensing Regulatory Commission Board, United States 1717 H Street Nuclear Regulatory Commission Washington, DC 20555 Washington, DC 20555 Commissioner James K. Asselstine* Judge Elizabeth B. Johnson **

United States Nuclear Oak Ridge National Laboratory Regulatory Commission Building 3500 1717 H Street, N.W. P.O. Box X Washington, DC 20555 Oak Ridge, TN 37830 4

Commissioner Frederick M. Bernthal* Eleanor L. Frucci, Esq.**

United States Nuclear Atomic Safety and Licensing Regulatory Commission Board, United States 1717 H Street, N.W. Nuclear Regulatory Commission Washington, DC 20555 Washington, DC 20555 Commissioner Thomas M. Roberts

• Edwin J. Reis, Esq.**

United States Nuclear Bernard M. Bordenick, Esq.

Regulatory Commission Office of the Executive 1717 H Street, N.W. Legal Director l Washington, DC 20555 United States Nuclear Regulatory Commission

. Commissioner Lando W. Zech, Jr.* Washington, DC 20555 United States Nuclear Regulatory Commission Herbert H. Brown, Esq.**

1 1717 H Street, N.W. Alan R. Dynner, Esq.

Washington, DC 20555 Lawrence Coe Lanpher, Esq.

Kirkpatrick & Lockhart

. Judge Marshall E. Miller,** 8th Floor Chairman, Atomic Safety 1900 M Street, N.W.

and Licensing Board Washington, DC 20036 United States Nuclear Regulatory Commission Fabian Palomino, Esq.**

Washington, DC 20555 Special Counsel to the Governor Executive Chamber, Room 229 State Capitol Albany, NY 12224

(

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

9.

James B. Dougherty, Esq.** Jay Dunkleberger, Esq.

3045 Porter Street New York State Energy Office Washington, DC 2000S Agency Building 2 Empire State Plaza Martin Bradley Ashare, Esq. Albany, NY 12223 -

Suffolk County Attorney H. Lee Dennison Building Mr. Martin Suubert Veterans Memorial Highway c/o Congressman William Carney Hauppauge, NY 11788 1113 Longworth House Office Building Stephen B. Latham, Esq.** Washington, DC 20515 John F. Shea, Esq.

Twomey, Latham & Shea Docketing and Service

• 33 West Second Street Branch (3)

Riverhead, NY 11901 Office of the Secretary United States Nuclear The Honorable Peter Cohalan Regulatory Commission Suffolk County Executive Washington, DC 20555 County Executive /

Legislative Building Veterans Memorial Highway Hauppauge, NY 11788 W^

g Robert M. Rolfe, Hunton & Williams Post Office Box 1535 Richmond, Virginia 23212 DATED: December 5, 1984 i

l l

+