ML20127A861

Forwards State of Ny & Suffolk County Motion for Stay of License for Facility,Per ALAB-810 & New York Supreme Court 850610 Order Prohibiting Action or Policies of Suffolk County Executive Order 1-1985

ML20127A861
Person / Time
Site:	Shoreham File:Long Island Lighting Company icon.png
Issue date:	06/20/1985
From:	Lanpher L KIRKPATRICK & LOCKHART, SUFFOLK COUNTY, NY
To:	Asselstine J, Palladino N, Zech L NRC COMMISSION (OCM)
Shared Package
ML20127A864	List: ML20127A861 ML20127A886 ML20127A893
References
CON-#285-511 ALAB-810, OL, NUDOCS 8506210279
Download: ML20127A861 (6)

Text

-  ! (

f KIRKPATRICK & LOCKHART

1900 M STREET, N.W.

WASHINGTON, D.C. 200M ONE BOSTON PLACE BOSTON, MA 02108 TELEPHONE 002) 452-7000 g17) 9715400 4402M M M 1428 BluCKELL AVENUE TE11 COPIER 002) 452-7052 M1AMI, FL 33131 0 05) 374 4112 1500 OLIVER BUILDING LAWRENCE CoE LANPHER PrTT58URCH. PA 15222 (202) 452-7011 et2n554500 June 20, 1985 00CHETED USNRC

'85 JJN 20 P2:38 BY HAND ~

CFFICE Cr SECMT:.6 00CXETING & SEPvia ERANCH Nunzio J. Palladino, Chairman Lando W. Zech, Jr.

James K. Asselstine Frederick M. Bernthal Thomas-M. Roberts U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission 1717 H Street, N.W., 11th Floor Washington, D.C. 20555 Re: Long Island Lighting Co.

(Shoreham Nuclear Power Station);

Docket No. 50-322-OL

Dear Mr. Chairman and Members of the Commission:

In accordance with ALAB-810, the State of New York and Suffolk County jointly submit the enclosed Motion for a Stay of a Phase III/IV License for Shoreham. We note the following:

1. The Commission voted yesterday not to supplement the Shoreham EIS. The Commission's rationale was not apparent from the discussion at yesterday's meeting and the Commission's Order was not made available to the County and State in time to be addressed in the enclosed stay motion (which must be filed by 5:00 p.m. to comply with ALAB-810). We will review the Commission's Order and, if necessary, will supplement the motion promptly to address this latest Commission statement.

2. The Commission is aware that the State and County have filed an Emergency Stay Motion with the United States Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia Circuit. We have, in effect, put that D.C. Circuit stay motion on " hold," by advising the Court not to rule until the NRC has had an opportunity to address the matters in the first instance. This is consistent with the Court of Appeals rules (Fed. R. App. P. 18) and exhaustion principles.

In the event the Commission denies the requested stay, the State and County intend immediately to activate their Court of 8506210279 850620 PDR ADOCK 05000322 G PDR NQ _ . . -

KIRKPATRICK & LOCKHART Nunzio J. Palladino, et al.

June 20, 1985 Page 2 Appeals Emergency Stay Motion. In order to avoid the necessity of the Court having to. rule in an ex parte or emergency context, we request that should the Commission decide to deny our stay motion, it immediately notify undersigned counsel. We request, further, that even if the Commission denies our stay motion, it nonethe-less, at a minimum, extend the interim stay announced by the Appeal Board until early July to provide sufficient time for the D.C. Circuit to obtain responding and reply briefs and to have several days thereafter to rule on our Emergency Stay Motion.

3. Finally, this morning the Appellate Division of the New York Supreme Court lif ted the stay of the June 10 Order issued by Judge Doyle of the New York Supreme Court in In re the Town of Southampton v. Cohalan, No. 85-10520. A stay of that order had been in effect as a result of the Suffolk County Executive's appeal of Judge Doyle's decision. A copy of Judge Doyle's Order is attached. Accordingly, Judge Doyle's Order, which " rescinded, annulled and set aside" Mr. Cohalan's Executive Order 1-1985, and which enjoins Mr. Cohalan, the Suffolk County Executive, the Suffolk County Planning Department, and others acting in concert with them, "from taking any action whatsoever to enforce, impleJ' ment or carry out the directions, policies or terms of Executive Order 1-1985," and "from modifying the policy and legal position of Suffolk County in any Shoreham-related proceedings as set forth in the [Suffolk County Legislature's] resolutions 262-1982, 456-1982, and 111-1983, and from communicating to the Nuclear Regulatory Commission . . . or to any federal or state judicial tribunal, administrative agency, department of government or official, either verbally or in writing directly or indirectly that such policy is other than as described in said resolutions or that such County policy has been changed," is in full force and effect.

S*.cerely yours, a D

.$A R Lawrence Coe Lanpher Attorney for Suffolk County LCL:so Enclosure cc: Service List

e At a Special Term, Part I, of the Supreme Court of the State of New Yo rk , Suftolk County, held at the Courthouse, Griffing Avenue, Riverhead, New York, on the 10th day of June, 1985.

HON, ROBERT W. DOYLE Justice

---

X In the Matter of the Application of )

THE TOWN OF SOUTHAMPTON, THE TOWN OF)

EAST HAMPTON, THE TOWN OF SOUTHOLD )

and THE TOWN OF RIVERHEAD, )

Petitioners, )

)

For a Judgment under Article 78 of )

the Civil Practice Laws and Rules, )

)

-against- )

) ORDER PETER F. COHALAN, County Executive )

of the County of Suffolk, ) Index No.

Respondent. )

---

X 85-10520

---

X In the Matter of the Application of )

WAYNE PROSPECT, et al., )

Petitioners, )

)

For a Judgment under Article 78 of )

the Civil Practice Laws and Rules, )

)

-against- )

)

PETER F. COHALAN, County Executive )

of the County of Suffolk, )

Respondent. )

---

X Upon reading and filing the Petition of the Town

8 ot Southampton, et al., sworn to the 5th day or June ,

1985, the Petition ot Wayne Prospect, et al., sworn to the 5th day of June, 1985, the Respondent's Notice of Motion to Dismiss the Petition and disqualify counsel, and upon all the papers and proceedings herein, it is hereby ORDERED that respondent's Executive Order 1-1985 issued on the 30th day of May, 1985 is hereby rescinded, annulled and set aside, and it is further ORDERED:

(a) that the respondent, his~ attorneys, agents, servants, employees and all persons acting in concert with them including but not limited to those of the Suf folk County Planning Department, Suffolk County Police Department and Suf folk County Attorney are enjoined from taking any action whatsoever to enforce, gr -

implement or carry out the directions , policiespor terms dI l

i of Executive Order 1-1985 issued by Respondent on May i , 30, 1985 or any directive or instruction relating

[Aee,% sb//Nc/s/dd b rd4 ItuI

["f thereto; gffp n guymIdt@NaNrf (b) hm CW.;A /kd/act;nt LS  %

BVai/2ble that the respondent is enjoined from assigning r- TE

&Q 3,/suanW#

,j( or expending any funds or resources in contravention of SU]

Resolutions 262-1982, 456-1982 and 111-1983, or 14 l

Y P

~0 (/ directing any County personnel to review, test or l

implement the LILCO plan or any Radiological Emergency

J Response Plan (RERP), for the Shoreham nuclear plant j[k

\

without firrt praebatiag oc the SuffelP Co u r. ty

% 3'Il /cgiclatur^,b.: . :cd th...f d and securing a resolution dopted by the County Legislature and approved by the County Executivej In avuucuauuc wi ui. Llio es u v is iv..; cf-3g the LO::clECvuu Ly C1ortem oud oggl weble stetstes, ,

lec21 12"s 2 r.d regulaticrr[

J (c) that the respondent and the persons hereinabove (d described are enjoined from modifying the policy and

. legal position of Sutfolk County in any Shoreham related

$ proceedingsfccct;blishedby th Cecr.ty (;nd itc Specicl y- Ccunsc1, Kirkp; trick ar.d Ec ^ hart, Esqr , 2 r.d the Courity h polic as set forth in the resolutions 262-1982, y h 456-1982 and 111-1983, and from communicating to the 4 5 C Nuclear Regulatory Commission (NRC), the Public Service 6 Commission (PSC), or to any federal or state judicial tribunal, administrative agency, department of government or official, either verbally or in writing directly or indirectly that such policy is other than ds i

described in said resolutions or that such County policy hasbeenchanged[frsa that vi acing vpposed to the cper; tier er Sherch d-agg.

t (d) that the respondent is enjoined from l a,-,ned15 1 hi i withdrawing the County's opposition to the issuance by l

J<

l i

4 the NRC to LILCO of a 1OW Power operating license for Shoreham.

R:

.- _)v-i i

G

, - . . . _ . _ . . , . . . _ - . - , . . . . . - _ - - - . , . . - - - , . . - - - . - . . _ _ _ . _ _ - - . - - . . . _ . _ . . - _ _ - _ , . , . _ _ , _ _ _ _ _