ML20154A045
| ML20154A045 | |
| Person / Time | |
|---|---|
| Site: | Shoreham File:Long Island Lighting Company icon.png |
| Issue date: | 08/30/1988 |
| From: | Christman J HUNTON & WILLIAMS, LONG ISLAND LIGHTING CO. |
| To: | NRC ATOMIC SAFETY & LICENSING APPEAL PANEL (ASLAP) |
| References | |
| CON-#388-7005 OL-3, NUDOCS 8809120030 | |
| Download: ML20154A045 (6) | |
Text
74d5 ULCO, August 30,1988 6
DOCKETED U#
UNITED STATES OF AMERICA NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSION
'88 SEP -1 P139 Before the Atomic Safety and Licensing Appeal Board GFrc g q
,;~.
00Cht n'6 ; e. Sc;ri.
E R r.wi In the Matter of
)
)
LONG ISLAND LIGHTING COMPANY
) Docket No. 50-322-OL-3
) (Emergency Planning)
(Shercham Nuclear Power Station.
)
Unit 1)
)
LILCO'S ANSWER TO SUFFOLK COUNTY'S LETTER MOTION OF AUGUST 25 By letter of August 25,1988,Intervenor Suffolk County forwa:tled to the Appeal Board (as did LILCO) the recent state court decision Town of Hempstead v. LILCO. On page three of the County's letter the County asks the Appeal Board to vacate the deci-sion below:
In light of this ruling (Town of Hempstead v. LILCO),
the Licensing Board's decision should be vacated and any fur-ther proceedings on the reception center issue should be held in abeyance until LILCO comes forward with a new reception center plan.
Letter from Da Id T. Case, counsel for Suffolk County, to the Appeal Board, August 25, 1988, at 3. Since Suffolk County's letter amounts to a motion, LILCO answers as fol-lows.
There is no reason to vacate the Licensing Board's decision or to suspend the re-ception centers proceeding, as Suffolk County requests. The issues raised by the Inter-venors on appeal are still live ones no matter how the state court litigation over the Bellmore f acility turns out. The issues raised on appeal are
$$0
$O0
$2 o
S I
f
' 1.
The acceptability of the federal guliance prescribing a 20 percent planning
- basis, 2.
The absence of FEMA "findings,"
3.
The "LULU" (local unwanted land use) issue, and 4.
New York State's stricken testimony on registering uncontaminated per-sons.
None of these issues is mooted by the Town of fiempstead decision; all of them will have to be decided no matter how Town of liempstead turns out. In short, Town of fiempstead provides no excuse either for delaying oral argument September 14 or for delaying decision on the issues raised on appeal.
In addition, four other factors argue against delay of the case:
1.
Even without the Bellmore reception center (assuming it were unavailable in a real emergency), LILCO's other two reception centers could accommo-date over 20 percent of the EPZ population.I Therefore, LILCO would comply with federal guidance, as expressed in the Krimm Memoraadum and the Licensing Board's decision, even if Bellmore did not exist.
2.
Both as a matter of common sense and as a matter of law under the Com-mission's regulation, 'O C.F.R. S 50.47(c)(1) (1988), the Appeal Board must recognize that state and local officials would use their "best efforts" to care for evacuees in a real emergency. Also, under New York State law the covernor has the authority to suspend specific provisions of any statute, 1/
As can be seen from LILCO's testimony, the lilcksville f acility alone has the per-sonnel and equipment to monitor almost 24 percent of the EPZ population. See LILCO Ex.1 (Crocker et al. prefiled testimony) at 32, 42 and Att. J.
a
' local law, or ordinance if compliance with such provisions would prevent, hinder, or delay action necessary to cope with a disaster. N.Y. Executive Law 5 29-a.1 (McKinney 1982). One cannot conclude, therefore, that Town of Hempstead v. LILCO would prevent or hinder emergency response in a real emergency.
3.
The Town of Hempstead v. LILCO litigation is not over. While it is true that the plaintiffs have asked for very broad relief, the court's order has not been entered. The plaintiffs have proposed a form of order, but LILCO will offer a proposed counter-order, because in LILCO's view some of the plaintiffs' requests for relief are outside the scope of the state court litiga-tion and some raise significant constitutional questions.2/ Moreover, any judgment entered by the state court will be subject to appeal.
4.
Town of Hempstead does not foreclose all possibility of using the Bellmore facility in LILCO's plan, because LILCO may apply for an amendment to its special use permit to allow the use of the facility as a reception center in an emergency.
LILCO is willing to brief this issue, as the County suggests, so long as briefing does not delay oral argument on September 14. But if briefing is to occur, it should await the state court's judgment, which has not yet been entered. Suffolk County can then, if it sees fit, move for whatever relief it deems appropriate.
2/
Plaintiff's requests include removal of utility connections, a prohibition against drills and exercises at the Bellmore site, and removal of all referance to the Bellmore site as a reception center from emergency planning documents submitted to federal agencies. LILCO believes that these matters are outside the scope of the litigation pending before the court and that the latter two raise serious First Amendment and other constitutional issues.
P
_4 For these reasons, LILCO opposes Suffolk County's letter motion to vacate the Licensing Board decision and to hold this proceeding in abeyance. Oral argument should tal<e place September 14 as scheduled.
4 Respectf ully submitted.
T.0As<Mma.a onald P. Irwin 1 James N. Christrkn Counsel for Long Island Lighting Company Hunton & Williams 707 East Main Street P.O. Box 1535 Richmond, Virginia 23212 DATED: August 30,1988 i
i l
l l
l l
l I
^
LILCO, August 30,1988 DOLKEir.D i
U)NRC CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE
'N SEP -1 P1 :59 QV' ICE bi ?i t it n <
l In the Matter of e0CKritic 4,.ifVIf1 LONG ISLAND LIGHTING COMPANY (Shoreham Nuclear Power Station, Unit 1)
Docket No. 50-322-OL-3 I hereby certify that copies of LILCO'S ANSWER TO SUFFOLK COUNTY'S LET-TER MOTION OF AUGUST 25 were served this date upon the following by Federal Ex-press as indicated by one asterisk, or by first-class mall, postage prepaid.
Thomas S. Moore, Chairman
- Mr. Frederick J. Shon Atomic Safety and Licensing Atomic Safety and Licensing Appeal Board Board U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission East-West Towers Washington, D.C. 20555 4350 East-West Highway Bethesda, MD 20814 Secretary of the Commission Attention Docketing and Service Alan S. Rosenthal, Esq.
- Section Atomic Safety and Licensing U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission Appeal Board 1717 H Street, N.W.
U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission Washington, D.C. 20555 East-West Towers 4350 East-West Highway Atomic Safety and Licensing Bethesda, MD 20814 Appeal Board Panel U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission Mr. Howard A. Wilber
- Washington, D.C. 20555 Atomic Safety and Licensing Appeal Board Adjudicatory File U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission Atomic Safety and Licensing East-West Towers Board Panel Docket 4350 East-West Highway U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission Bethesda, MD 20814 Washington, D.C. 20555 James P. Gleason, Chairman Richard G. Bachmann, Esq.
- Atomic Safety and Licensing Board U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission 513 Gilmoure Drive One White Flint North Silver Spring, Maryland 20901 11555 Rockville Pike Rockvillo, MD 20852 Dr. Jerry R. X11ne Atomic Safety and Licensing Board U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission Washington, D.C. 20555
3 s Herbert H. Brown, Esq.
- Mr. Philip McIntire Lawrence Coe Lanpher, Esq.
Federal Emergency Management Karla J. Letsche, Esq.
Agency Kirkpatrick & Lockhart 26 Federal Plaza South Lobby - 9th Floor New York, New York 10278 1800 M Street, N.W.
Washington, D.C. 20036-5891 Jonathan D. Feinberg, Esq.
New York State Department of Fabian G. Palomino, Esq.
- Public Service, Staff Counsel Richard J. Zahnleuter, Esq.
Three Rockefeller Plaza Special Counsel to the Governor Albany, New York 12223 Executive Chamber Room 229 Ms. Nora Bredes State Capitol Executive Coordinator Albany, New York 12224 Shoreham Opponents' Coalition 195 East Main Street Alfred L. Nardelli, Esq.
Smithtown, New York 11787 Assistant Attorney General 120 Broadway Evan A. Davis, Esq.
Room 3-118 Counsel to the Governor New York, New York 10271 Executive Chamber State Capitol George W. Watson, Esq.
- Albany, New York 12224 William R. Cumming, Esq.
Federal Emergency Management E. Thomas Boyle, Esq.
Agency Suffolk County Attorney 500 C Street, S.W., Room 840 Building 158 North County Complex Washington, D.C. 20472 Veterans Memorial Highway Hauppauge, New York 11788 Mr. Jay Dunkleberger New York State Energy Office Dr. Monroe Schneider Agency Building 2 North Shore Committee Empire State Plaza P.O. Box 231 Albany, New York 12223 Wading River, NY 11792 Stephen B. Latham, Esq.
- Twomey, Latham & Shea 33 West Second Street P.O. Box 298 Riverhead, New York 11901 Jiimes N. Christ nan Hunton & Williams 707 East Main Street P.O. Box 1535 Richmond, Virginia 23212 DATED: August 30,1988
~