ML20138B457

Response Opposing Motion of Suffolk County & State of Ny for Further Emergency Planning Briefing Extensions. Certificate of Svc Encl.Related Correspondence

ML20138B457
Person / Time
Site:	Shoreham File:Long Island Lighting Company icon.png
Issue date:	10/09/1985
From:	Irwin D HUNTON & WILLIAMS, LONG ISLAND LIGHTING CO.
To:	NRC ATOMIC SAFETY & LICENSING APPEAL PANEL (ASLAP)
References
CON-#485-765 OL-3, NUDOCS 8510150365
Download: ML20138B457 (7)

Text

,Y LILCQ, October 9, 1985 ETED CORRESPONDENCE ll@ATED CONHtbruhLcht,

u. u MED UNITED STAIES OF AMERICA -

NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSION

'65 FT l ' A10 :48

• E5 ri *

• pa6 47 Before the Atomic Safety and Licensl63Ehipela'1;hBhard

' I? At(Ci ,,

~

In the Matter of )

l .

3 LONG ISLAND LIGHTING COMPANY ) Docket No. 50-322-OL-3

) (Emergency Planning Proceeding)

(Shoreham Nuclear Power Station, )

Unit 1) )

LILCO'S OPPOSITION TO MOTION OF SUFFOLK COUNTY AND NEW YORK STATE FOR FURTHER EMERGENCY PLANNING BRIEFING EXTENSIONS LILCO opposes the latest, sixth request by attorneys for Suffolk County and New York State, set forth in a joint October 8 motion,1/ f or extension of the filing deadline on their briefs on emergency planning factual issues. LILCO als'o op-poses their request for a second extension of time to file their briefs on Nassau Coliseum issues. LILCO believes that l

i the Appeal Board's October 7 Order, which was issued in, light ,

of representations about the effects of Hurricane Gloria set forth in the October 4,1985 letter from Euguene R. Kelley, Chief Deputy Suf folk County Attorney, provided suf ficient addi-l l

tional relief to permit completion of any legitimately re-i maining work on the briefs. LILCO's reasons follow.

i l

1/ Suffolk County and State of New York Motion for Extension

, of Time for Filing Emergency Planning Appeal Briefs, October 8, l 1985.

k ou '

1. Suffolk, County has already teceived five extensions of the briefing deadline, totalling about three and a half months, for its brief on emergency planning factual issues. The ratio-nale for these extensions was the disruption, principally involving return of files and f-smiiliarization of lawyers in the County Attorney's office, occasioned by the dismissal of '

the firm of Kirkpatrick & Lockhart as counsel to the County early last sum.ne t . As LILCO indicated on October 2, it be-lieves that aufficient time to overcome these difficulties has l elapsed.2/ LILCO's belief is reinforced by the representations by counsel for the County, beginning in latter September,' that . . . . ,

their brief existed in draft form and that the remaining task was merely that of editing it down to the page limit. The two-plus additional weeks granted by the Appeal Board in recent days would seem adequate for such a task.

l

2. The only ground now advanced by the County is the of-1 fects of Hurricane Gloria. LILCO is not oblivious to the ef-1 fects of Hurricane Gloria. LILCO crews and hundreds of'other '

crews from states as far away as Wisconsin worked round-the-clock for over a week to restore service fully to Long Island in its wake. However, even in the storm's af termath, service i was not continuously disrupted to the County's facilities, in j part because the County has emergency backup generating l

l l

2/ Letter, Donald P. Irwin to the Appeal Board, October 2, f985, at 3.

.s equipment which performed most if not all of the time. While there were undoubtedly hardships for County workers as for all ,

others on Long Island, there is no claim that they were com-pletely immobilized,'and editing work could and presumably did continue. In any event, 11 full days remained for such editing' ,

as of the October 4 letter from Mr. Kelley, and the Appeal Board's-october 7 Order gave additional relief in light of Mr.

Kelley's October 4 representatives about the hurricane's ef-fects. The October 8 motion raises no new grounds, not even any substantial new allegations about the hurricane. .

\ . . . . .

! 3. New York State has never advanced any significant in-dependent reasons for needing extensions other than the con-flicting commitments of its counsel, Mr. Palomino. No reason supporting an extension for New York State beyond Octob'er 15 has been advanced, other than working out the logistics of fil-ing a joint 100-page brief. LILCO submits that several months have been available already for this process. , ,

1

4. The request for a second extension of time for the brief on the Nassau Coliseum 1/ comes so late as to strain credulity as to any meritorious explanation. It was not raised, to LILCO's recollection, at the off-the-record discus-sion of briefing issues at the September 24 oral argument,  ;

3/ The briefs were initially due on October 7 or 9, depending on the calculation used. On October 7, the Appeal Board re-I sponded to an October 4 request by Suf folk County and issued an l Order extending that deadline to October 15.

l s-I

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

l.

i

. despite the fact that it was due only a week after the general brief.on factual issues (October 7 v. September 30). Nor was this' deadline the subject of any papers by either the County or State prior to Mr. Kelley's October 4 letter. Nor were there any discussions between LILCO and attorneys for -Suf folk County or New York State on this brief before October 4. Further, the litigation in Nassau County does not show any signs of rapid

. disposition. Initial papers, including motions to dismiss and an answer, have been filed to the complaint. -However, no argu- i ment date been set on the pending papers. In short, ther,e is ,.

' ' ' ' ~

every likelihood that the Nassau County litigation will not be .i soon resolved. October 15 should be adequate to finish this  :

brief, in LILCO's view. I i

LILCO believes that the time has come to say that enough  !

is enough,r and that the Intervenors should stop requesting ex- 4 tensions and get on with the business of perfecting the appeals '

they themselves initiated.

Respectfullysubkhtted, l t

. 'I A ll l

. /w * ' ' -%

f DoIald P. Irwin -

James N. Christman '

Counsel for Long Island Lighting Company  ;

Hunton & Williams 707 East Main Street  !

Richmond, Virginia 23212 r

DATED: October 9, 1985 I

r

LILCO, October 9, 1985 i

CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE In the Matter of l LONG ISLAND LIGHTING COMPANY (Shoreham Nuclear Power Station, Unit ?)

Docket No. 50-322-OL-3 i

! I hereby certify that copies of LILCO's Opposition to Mo-tion of Suffolk County and New York State for Further Emergency Planning Briefing Extensions were served this date upon the .

following by telecopy as indicated by one asterisk, or by first-class mail, postage prepaid.

Alan S. Rosenthal, Esq.,

• Morton B. Margulies, Chairman Chairman Atomic Safety and Licensing Atomic Safety and Licensing Appeal Board Board U.S. Nuclear Regulatory U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission Commission l Fifth Floor (North Tower) East-West Towers, Rm. 402X" *

! East-West Towers 4350 East-West Hwy.

[ 4350 East-West Highway Bethesda, MD 20814 i Bethesda, MD 20814 Dr. Jerry R. Kline Gary J. Edles, Esq.

• Atomic Safety and Licensing Atomic Safety and Licensing Board Appeal Board U.S. Nuclear Regulatory U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission Qommission East-West Towers, Rm. 427 Fifth Floor (North Tower) 4350 East-West Hwy.

East-West Towers Bethesda, MD 20814 4350 East-West Highway Bethesda, MD 20814 Mr. Frederick J. Shon Atomic Safety and Licensing e Dr. Howard A. Wilber

• Board Atomic Safety and Licensing U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Appeal Board Commission i l

U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission East-West Towers, Rm. 430 Fifth Floor (North Tower) 4350 East-West Hwy.

East-West Towers Bethesda, MD 20814 4350 East-West' Highway Bethesda, MD 20814 Secretary of the Commission l

U.S. Nuclear Regulatory I -

Commission Washington, D.C. 20555 i

4 l

l

i .

4 Atomic Safety and Licensing Spence W. Perry, Esq.

Appeal Board Panel Acting General Counsel U.S. Naclear Regulatory Federal Emergency

. Commission Management Agency Washington, D.C. 20555 501 C Street, S.W. .

Washington, D.C. 20472 Atomic Safety and Licensing ,

Board Panel MHB Technical Associates U.S. Nuclear Regulatory 1723 Hamilton Avenue Commission Susite K Washington, D.C. 20555 San Jose, California 95125 Bernard M. Bordenick, Esq. Mr. Jay Dunkleberger Oreste Russ Pirfo, Esq. New York State Energy Office Edwin J. Reis, Esq. . Agency Building 2 U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Empire State Plaza Commission Albany, New York.12223 7735 Old Georgetown Road . . . -

(to mailroom) Stewart M. Glass, Esq.

Bethesda, MD 20814 Regional Counsel Federal Emergency Management Donna Duer, Esq. Agency Attorney 26 Federal Plaza, Room 1349 Atomic Safety and Licensing New York, New York 10278 Board Panel .

U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Stephen B. Latham, Esq.

' Commission Twomey, Latham & Shea East-West (North Tower) 33 West Second Street 4350 East-West Hwy. P.O. Box 298 Bethesda, MD 20814 Riverhead, New York 11901 Fabian G. Palomino, Esq. Ralph Shapiro, Esq.

Special Counsel to the Cammer & Shapiro, P.C.

Governor 9 East 40th Street Executive Chamber New York, New York 10016 Room 229 State Capitol James Doughurty, Esq.

Albany, New York 12224 3045 Porter Street Washington, D.C. 20008 Mary Gundrum, Esq.

Assistant Attorney General Jonathan D. Feinberg, Esq.

2 World Trade Center How York State Department of Room 4614 Public Service, Staff Counsel New York, New York 10047 Three Rockefeller Plaza Albany, New York 12223

4 4

William E. Cumming, Esq. Gerald C. Crotty, Esq.

Associate General Counsel Consel to the Governor Federal Emergency Management Executive Chamber Agency State Capaitol 500 C Street, S.W. Albany, New York 12224 Room 840 Washington, D.C. 20472 Martin Bradley Ashare, Esq.

Suffolk County Attorney Ms. Nora Bredes H. Lee Dennison Building Executive Coordinator Veterans Memorial Highway Shoreham Opponents' Coalition Hauppauge, New York 11787 195 East Main Street Smithtown, New York 11787

) .

A s Dbnnld P. Irwin Hunton & Williams . . . . .

707 East Main Street Richmond, Virginia 23219 DATED: October 9, 1985 8 I

.