ML20149D881
| ML20149D881 | |
| Person / Time | |
|---|---|
| Site: | Shoreham File:Long Island Lighting Company icon.png |
| Issue date: | 02/05/1988 |
| From: | Christman D HUNTON & WILLIAMS, LONG ISLAND LIGHTING CO. |
| To: | Atomic Safety and Licensing Board Panel |
| References | |
| CON-#188-5551 LBP-88-2, OL-3, NUDOCS 8802100068 | |
| Download: ML20149D881 (5) | |
Text
l $55/
LILCO, February 5,1988 DOCKETED U$NPC UNITED STATES OF AMERICA NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSION
'88 FEB -8 P3 :50 Before the Atomic Safety and Licensinst Board h.,C Ei NVI.
BRA 14CH In tt
'atter of
)
)
LONG ISLAND LIGIITING COMPANY
) Docket No. 50-322-OL-3
) (Emergency Planning)
(Shoreham Nuclear Power Station,
)
Unit 1)
)
LILCO'S RESPONSE TO THE INTERVENORS' FEBRUARY 4,1988 MOTION FOR POSTPONEMENT The Intervenors have filed yet another motion for delay of the "legal authority" litigation, this one entitled Governments' Motion for Immediate Conference Call to Dis-cuss Postponement of Filing February 10 Deadline Pending Consideration of Impact of LBP-88-2 on Matters Pending in this Proceeding ("Motion"). This Motion was telecopied to LILCO at about 1:43 p.m. on February 4,1988. It asks for a conference call to be convened the following day, February 5. It also asks that the Intervenors be relieved of the task of filing their answer to LILCO's summary disposition motions on the "legal au-thority" issues on February 10. They propose instead a filing on February 10 of all par-ties' "views concerning the impact of LBP-88-2 on all matters pending before this Board," with replies a week later. They do not propose any date for the filing of their response to the summary disposition motions.
l l
l ARGUMENT LILCO responds to the Intervenors' motion as follows.
1.
It is improper for the Intervenors to make a practice, as they have, of fil-ing motions requesting almost instant relief, in an obvious attempt to prevent the other parties from responding in writing. The Board will have noticed that the Intervenors l
es02]QO 1
3 PDR 46 0
7 l
~.
file such "hurry-up" pleadings only when the relief they seek is the further delay of this procealing; when the time comes for them to address the merits, particularly the facts, they are in no such hurry.M 2.
LILCO is willing to argue the Intervenors' motion by phone on February 5, particularly if doing so will minimize delay. But LILCO submits that instead the Board should simply deny the Intervenors' motion without argument.
3.
The Intervenors should be required to answer LILCO's summary disposition motions on February 10; they have already received a large extension of the time al-lowed by 10 C.F.R. S 2.749.
4.
The Intervenors should be able to address LBP-88-2 in their February 10 re-sponse. They say they are able to file on February 10 theh' views concerning the im-pact of LBP-88-2 on all matters before this Board. It would be better for them to ad-dress the impact, if any, of LBP-88-2 on the legal authority issues as part of their response to the summary disposition motions. Their views on the impact on other is-sues can be brought before the Board by them on proper request thereaf ter.
5.
The Intervenors claim (Motion at 4) that they do not have enough time to address LBP-88-2 in their February 10 answer to the motion for summary disposition.
Yet they discuss its purported impact in the Motion itself and have several more days to refine their discussion. That is time enough. It is obvious that they greatly overstate the impact of LBP-88-2. The issues decided by the Frye Board in LBP-88-2 are not dis-positive of the issues before this -03 Board. They are certainly not dispositive of the "legal authority" issues.
l 1/
This is at least the third recent request for delay. See Governments' Motion for Extension of Discovery in the Remanded Proceeding Regarding Role Conflict of School Bus Drivers (Jan. 27,1988) (asking for a conference call no later than January 29); Gov-ernments' Motion for Postponement of Briefing and Consideration of LILCO's Latest "Realism" Summary Disposition Motions Pending Issuance of Board Guidance (Dec. 21, 1987)(asking for a conference call"immediately""if the Board wishes to hear from ei-ther LILCO or the Staff").
1
- ~, - -
,y
-,,---_.-,,..,.,e-.,.
6.
It is fair to say that the Intervenors have made every effort to avoid con-fronting the factual issues involved in the "legal authority" contentions. Their most re-cent Motion is another such effort. It should not be allowed.
7.
Finally, as an aside, LILCO responds to a flagrantly incorrect piece of legal analysis contained in footnote 4 on pages 4-5 of the Motion. There the Intervenors claim that LILCO does not comply with 10 C.F.R. S 50.47(c)(1)(1), which calls for a showing that a failure to comply with S 50.47(b) is wholly or substantially the result of governmental nonparticipation. Intervenors claim that some open issues are unrelated to governmental nonparticipation. Their argument misses the point. LILCO's summary
{
disposition motions address only the claim that LILCO lacks "legal authority"; lack of l
"legal authority" is purely the result of the nonparticipation of the State and local gov-ernment. It cannot be argued otherwise.
REQUEST FOR RELIEF For the above reasons, LILCO asks the Board to deny the Intervenors' February 4 Motion. LILCO also requests that the Board act to deter the disniptive and prejudicial practice of filing hurry-up motions for delay by requiring parties requesting any post-ponement of filing deadlines to (1) notify other parties, before filing, of their intent to file the request and of their reasons for requesting a delay and (2) represent the other parties' summary positions in the motion itself.
Respectfully submitted,
?s onald P. IrwVi James N. ChriStman Counsel for Long Island Lighting Company i
Hunton & Williams l
707 East Main Street P.O. Box 1535 Richmond, Virginia 23212 DATED: February 5,1988
LILCO, February 5,1988 DOLKETED lbNRC
'88 FEB -8 P3 :50 CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE OFFICE D? SEGrit1AnY 00CKEliNG & SEifvlCf.
BRANCH In the Matter of LONG ISLAND LIGHTING COMPANY (Shoreham Nuclear Power Station, Unit 1)
Docket No. 50-322-OL-3 I hereby certify that copies of LILCO'S RESPONSE TO THE INTERVENORS' FEBRUARY 4, J.988 MOTION FOR POSTPONEMENT were served this date upon the fol-lowing by hand ortelecopier as indicated by one asterisk, by Federal Express as indi-cated by two asterisks, or by first-class mail, postage prepaid.
James P. Gleason, Chairman
- Atomic Safety and Licensing Atomic Safety and Licensing Board Board Panel 513 Gilmoure Drive U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission Silver Spring, Maryland 20901 Washington, D.C. 20555 Dr. Jerry R. Kline
- George E. Johnson, Esq.
- Atomic Safety and Licensing Richard G. Bachmann, Esq.
Board U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission One White Flint North East-West Towers, Rm. 427 11555 Rockville Pike 4350 East-West Hwy.
Rockville, MD 20852 Bethesda, MD 20814 Herbert H. Brown, Esq.
- Mr. Frederick J. Shon
- Lawrence Coe Lanpher, Esq.
Atomic Safety and Licensing Karla J. Letsche, Esq.
Board Kirkpatrick & Lockhart l
U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission South Lobby - 9th Floor l
East-West Towers, Rm. 430 1800 M Street, N.W.
4350 East-West Hwy.
Washington, D.C. 20036-5891 Bethesda, MD 20814 Fabian G. Palomino, Esq.
- Secretary of the Commission Richard J. Zahnleuter, Esq.
Attention Docketing and Service Special Counsel to the Governor Section Executive Chamber l
U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission Room 229 1717 H Street, N.W.
State Capitol l
Washington, D.C. 20555 Albany, New York 12224 l
l Atomic Safety and Licensing Alfred L. Nardelli, Esq.
Appeal Board Panel Assistant Attorney General U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission 120 Broadway Washington, D.C. 20555 Room 3-118 New York, New York 10271 l
Spence W. Perry, Esq.
- Ms. Nora Bredes William R. Cumming, Esq.
Executive Coordinator Federal Emergency Management Shoreham Opponents' Coalition Agency 195 East Main Street 500 C Street, S.W., Room 840 Smithtown, New York 11787 Washington, D.C. 20472 Gerald C. Crotty, Esq.
Mr. Jay Dunkleberger Counsel to the Governor New York State Energy Office Executive Chamber Agency Building 2 State Capitol Empire State Plaza Albany, New York 12224 Albany, New York 12223 E. Thomas Boyle, Esq.
Stephen B. Latham, Esq. **
Suffolk County Attorney Twomey, Latham & Shea Building 158 North County Complex 33 West Second Street Veterans Memorial Highway P.O. Box 298 Hauppauge, New York 11788 Riverhead, New York 11901 Dr. Monroe Schneider Mr. Philip McIntire North Shore Committee Federal Emergency Management P.O. Box 231 Agency Wading River, NY 11792 26 Federal Plaza New York, New York 10278 Jonathan D. Feinberg, Esq.
New York State Department of Public Service, Staff Counsel Three Rockefeller Plaza Albany, New York 12223 f.
,/ James N. Christman Hunton & Williams 707 East Main Street l
P.O. Box 1535 Richmond, Virginia 23212 DATED: February 5,1988 l
l l
1
__