ML20196B386
| ML20196B386 | |
| Person / Time | |
|---|---|
| Site: | Shoreham File:Long Island Lighting Company icon.png |
| Issue date: | 06/24/1988 |
| From: | Irwin D HUNTON & WILLIAMS, LONG ISLAND LIGHTING CO. |
| To: | Atomic Safety and Licensing Board Panel |
| References | |
| CON-#288-6618 OL-3, NUDOCS 8806300263 | |
| Download: ML20196B386 (5) | |
Text
m hh[b LILCO, June 24,1988 0
000KETED UNITED STATES OF AMERICA UN NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSION
'88 JLN 27 P4 :47 Before the Atomic Safety and Licensing Board;. c. :h,ar.
00CXE i t'G ). M D VI!.i.
BRAHCH In the Matter of
)
)
LONG ISLAND LIGHTING COMPANY
) Docket No. 50-322-OL-3
) (Emergency Planning)
(Shoreham Nuclear Power Station,
)
Unit 1)
)
LILCO'S RESPONSE TO INTERVENORS' JUNE 23 STAY MOTION This is LILCO's preliminary answer to the "Motion for Stay of Junc 17 Orcer," re-ceived yesterday af ternoon from Intervenors Suffolk County and New York State. Be-cause of the need to prepare a response before today's conference call, there has not been time for anything except outlining basic arguments. LILCO does not believe, how-ever, that the positions taken here would change in any respect except detail if more time were available.
Intervenors' motion for a stay should be denied for the following reasons, i
l 1.
It is untimely. The Order which actually gave rise to the actions of which l
l they complain - determination to dismiss the realism /best efforts contentions while 1
l retaining jurisdiction over issues relating to discovery and the integrity of this l
proceeding - was issued June 10.A Intervenors recognized the significance of that order by having taken an appeal from it to the Appeal Board on June 20.2/ The Com-mission's regualtions require motions for stays to be filed within 10 days of issance of the order to which they relate.10 CFR S 2.788(a). The motion was filed on June 23,15 days af ter the June 10 order. It is out of time and should be summarily rejected.
l l
1/
See LILCO's Response to Intervenors' Motion to Vacate, June 23,1988, at 7-9.
2/
LILCO does not agree with Intervenors that the June 10 Order was of such a na-ture as to be appealable interlocutorily; but that is a different matter from Intervenors' l
recognizing that it is the pivotal order for purposes of today's issues.
3 8806300263 080624 pO PDR ADOCK 05000322 l
0 PDR
- % 0 2.
Intervenors have not satisfied the tests for a stay set forth in 10 CFR S 2.788(e).
A.
They have not made the required strong showing that they are likely to prevail on the merits. These matters are the subject of their June 20 motion to vacate and LILCO's June 23 Response, and will not be repeated here.
Intervenors' assertion that they have, "at a minimum, raised substantial ques-tions about the correctness" of the ruling they seek to stay"(Motion for Stay at 2)is not the test for a stay under the regulations _Se_e 10 CFR S 2.788(e)(1).
B.
There is no injury to Intervenors, beyond the mild inconvenience of the time of deponents. A group of approximately a dozen depositions, all of them of per-sonnel presently or formerly in the employ of Intervenors, is negligible in this case, where literally hundreds of depositions have been taken. Mere inconvenience in litiga-tion, especiatly where the party being "incanvenienced"is the one which has forced the issue into contention, is not irreparable injury.
More fundamentally, the matters LILCO is inquiring into - and more - would have to be inquired into in the event Intervenors prevailin their appeal, since then the real!sm/best efforts issues would then have to be tried. For this reason, Intervenors' "mooting of the appeal" argument is totally circular. Indeed, but for Intervenors' stonenlling of depositions for the past twn months, discovery on these issues would have been well underway by now anyway. Intervenors have never specified how disclo-sure of this information - all of it relating to emergency planning information pre-pared and maintained by public employees and their contractors - harms them at al',
much le. trreparably.
C.
Granting a stay would injure LILCO. In the event that this Board's rulings are sustained, the information being sought may have implications for the appropriate ultimate disposition of this matter. In the eent the Board is not sustained on its dis-missal of the realism /best efforts issue, the matten:, which are the subject of pending discovery will need to be inquired into anyway, since thea will need to be a trial on
~
them. Delay in allowing LILCO access to at least preliminary information on them /
3 will prejudice and delay LILCO's ability to prepare for a trial later.
D.
The public interest lies in the maintenance of the good order of proceedings and in obedience to the orders of properly constituted t.ibunals. Intervenors' current out-of-time motion is simply the latest in a long series of ploys designed to evade the responsibility of litigants to comply with discovery under the normal rules. It appears that Intervenors are trying, simultanteously, to keep this litigation going (and prevent ultimate licensing decisiond, pursue their contentions by all means possible, and avoid litigatants' discovery obligations. They cannot have their cake, eat it, and put it pub-lici:t on display, all at the same time. Intervenors are either in or out. The good order of this proceeding demands denial of their motion for a stay.
Respectfully submitted, 1
I-v Dohnld P. Irwin James N. Christman K. Dennis Sisk Counsel for Long Island Lighting Company Hunton & Williams 707 East Main Street P.O. Box 1535 Richmond, Virginia 23212 DATED: June 24,1988 l
l 1
3/
LILCO recognizes that there are currently limitations on the extent of depost-l tion discovery allowed it on realism /best efforts issues, given the Board's determination to dispose of them, and that further inquiry later may be necessary in the event of l
trial. But if the task is to be undertaken, it should be started upon.
(
r f
~
'd LILCO, Jun2 24,1988 00(Krir0 Unic
'88 JtN 27 P4 :47 CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE OFFr 5r,$ @ $-
00Cdfi, R A Nui.
e In the Matter of LONG ISLAND LIGHTING COMPANY (Shoreham Nuclear Power Station, Unit 1)
Docket No. 50-322-OL-3
. hereby certify that copies of LILCO'S RESPONSE TO INTERVENORS' JUNE 23 STAY MOTION were served this date upon the following by telecopier as indicated by ono asterisk, by Federal Express as indicated by two asterisks, or by first-class mail, postage prepaid.
James P. Gleason, Chairman
- Adjudicatory File Atomic Safety and Licensing Board Atomic Safety and Licensing 513 Gilmoure Drive Board Panel Docket Silver Spring, Maryland 20901 U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission Washington, D.C. 20555 Dr. Jerry R. Kline
- Atomic Safety and Licensing Richard G. Bachmann, Esq.
- Board U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission l
U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission Office of the General Counsel East-West Towers, Rm. 427 Washington, D.C. 20555 4350 East-West Hwy.
l Bethesda, MD 20814 Herbert H. Brown, Esq.
- Lawrence Coe Lanpher, Esq.
l Mr. Frederick J. Shon
- Karla J. Letsche, Esq.
Atomic Safety and Licensing Kirkpatrick & Lockhart Board South Lobby - 9th Floor U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission 1800 M Street, N.W.
l East-West Towers, Rm. 430 Washington, D.C. 20036-5891 l
4350 East-West Hwy.
l Bethesda, MD 20814 Fabian G. Palomino, Esq.
- Richard J. Zahnleuter, Esq.
Secretary of the Commission Special Counsel to the Governor Attention Docketing and Service Executive Chamber Section Room 229 U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission State Capitol 1717 H Street, N.W.
Albany, New York 12224 Washington, D.C. 20555 Atomic Safety and Licensing Assistant Attorney General Appeal Board Panel 120 Broadway U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission Room 3-118 l
Washington, D.C. 20555 New York, New York 10271 l
l
._ ~_.
. i George W. Watson, 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 Evan A. Davis, 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 Ycrk State Department of Public Service, Staff Counsel Three Rockefeller Plaza Albany, New York 12223 Donald P. Irwin Hunton & Williams
'407 East Main Street P.O. Box 1535 Richmond, Virginia 23212 DATED: June 24,1988
-