ML20205C540
| ML20205C540 | |
| Person / Time | |
|---|---|
| Site: | Shoreham File:Long Island Lighting Company icon.png |
| Issue date: | 08/06/1986 |
| From: | Latham S, Letsche K, Zahnleuter R KIRKPATRICK & LOCKHART, NEW YORK, STATE OF, SOUTH HAMPTON, NH, SUFFOLK COUNTY, NY, TWOMEY, LATHAM & SHEA |
| To: | NRC ATOMIC SAFETY & LICENSING APPEAL PANEL (ASLAP) |
| References | |
| CON-#386-272 OL-5, NUDOCS 8608120353 | |
| Download: ML20205C540 (8) | |
Text
.-.
)])J DOCKETED USNRC Auoust 6, 191[
56 NE 11 P3:57 UNITED STATES OF AMERICA
~
NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSION OFF:CE OF SECFt:An /
Before the Atomic Safety and Licensino Anneak N Ed) [ N In the Matter of
)
)
LONG ISLAND LIGHTING COMPANY
)
Docket No. 50-322-OL-5
)
(EP Exercise)
(Shoreham Nuclear Power Station,
)
Unit 1)
)
)
RESPONSE OF SUFFOLK COUNTY, THE STATE OF NEW YORK, AND THE TOWN OF SOUTHAMPTON TO LILCO'S MOTION FOR EXTENSION OF TIME TO_R_ESPOND TO EXERCISE CONTENTIONS INTRODUCTION Suffolk County, the State of New York, and the Town of t
i Southampton (" Governments"), hereby respond, in a summary fashion, to LILCO's Motion for Three-Day Extension to Respond to Intervenors' Ev"rcise Contentions, filed by telecopier August 5, 1986.
This brief response is being submitted on an expedited l
basis in order to permit the Board and parties to review it prior
]
to the conference call which the Board has scheduled for 10:00 a.m. on August 6, 1986.
Counsel for Suffolk County will be prepared to expand upon the points outlined in this response during that conference call.
DISCUSSION 1.
According to conversations with LILCO's counsel and the LILCO Motion, the premise of the Motion and the reason LILCO 8608120353 860806 PDR ADOCK 05000322 G
)
bb
l needs three additional days to prepare its response to the exercise contentions, is the fact that the exercise contentions filed August 1, 1986 are lengthier and more " complex" than had been anticipated when the response schedule was originally set on July 8, 1986.
Accordingly, LILCO believes it will be necessary to perform additional analysis and to prepare a lengthier response than previously had been anticipated; therefore, additional time is required for such additional analysis and preparation.
LILCO has suggested that three additional days would be sufficient
- i.e.,
an extension of the filing deadline from close of bu Aness on August 11 to close of business on August 14.
2.
As noted in LILCO's Motion, particularly paragraph seven, the Governments have no objection to LILCO's proposed three day extension, assuming that the Governments are provided the equivalent extra three days to respond to LILCO's papers.
Thus, since LILCO's response will be lengthier, and presumably more " complex" than anticipated (due to the additional length and
" complexity" of the exercise contentions, Egg LILCO Motion at 2),
the Governments will need additional time to analyze that response and to prepare a reply.
The time necessary for the Governments to prepare a response is increased as a result of the logistics involved in coordinating the responses of the three Government Intervenors, one located in Eastern Long Island, one l
in Albany, and one in Washington.
4 --
-w.
-,F-
- -,e-ya
3.
Under the original schedule, the Governments were to file their reply to LILCO's response on August 18, seven days after receipt of LILCO's papers.
With LILCO's proposed extension and the seven days allotted under the original schedule, the Governments' reply would be due August 21.
Providing the Governments an additional three days, as provided to LILCO under LILCO's proposed extension, would have the Governments' reply due by close of business on Sunday, August 24.
Thus, in discussions with LILCO's counsel prior to the filing of LILCO's Motion, the Governments agreed not to oppose LILCO's three day extension, provided the Governments could file their reply on the morning of Monday, August 25.
The Governments also offered to agree to LILCO's filing its response by noon on August 15, should LILCO so desire, in return for LILCO's agreement to the Governments' proposal to file their reply by noon on August 25.
4.
The Governments' offer to deliver their reply no later than noon on Monday, August 25 (rather than by close of business on that day) was made in order to accommodate LILCO's desire that the prehearing conference not be postponed beyond August 29, 1986.
The Governments have no objection to a rescheduling of the prehearing conference to any date during the week of August 25th, including August 28 or 29, should the Board believe that in light of the proposed extensions, additional time is necessary to review the parties' filings prior to that conference.
The
Governments also have no objection to rescheduling the conference for September 2, 3 or 5 in the following week, or for the week of September 8.1 5.
The Governments agree with LILCO counsel's observation that the existing schedule appears to permit the extensions proposed by the parties in the LILCO Motion, including a brief postponement of the prehearing conference should the Board deem that necessary.
The Governmtnts submit, however, that it would be unfair to grant the additional time for analysis and response preparation requested by LILCO, without providing the equivalent extension to the Governments, since the asserted need for the additional three days -- iag2, lengthy documents requiring analysis, research, and lengthy replies -- applies identically to the Governments as well as to LILCO.
CONCLUSION Accordingly, for the reasons outlined above, the Governments submit that if LILCO's requested three day extension is granted, the Governments' reply to LILCO's contention response should similarly be extended until noon on Monday, August 25, 1986.
Should the Board determine that it is necessary to change the date of the prehearing conference, the Governments would be available on any date during the week of August 25, any date during the following week other than September 4, 1986, and any date during the week of September 8, 1986.
l 1
Counsel for Suffolk County have an unavoidable conflict on September 4, 1986. ;
l w
m -
e--
Respectfully submitted, Martin Bradley Ashare Suffolk County Attorney Building 158 North County Complex Veterans Memorial Highway Hauppauge, New York 11788 0
Herde::t H. Browf V Lawren'ce Coe Ldpher Karla J. Letsche Kirkpatrick & Lockhart 1900 M Street, N. W.
Washington, D. C.
20036 Attorneys for Suffolk County
/
F' 6ian G. Palomind
/
a Richard J. Zahnleute fr Special Counsel to the Governor of New York State Executive Chamber Two World Trade Center New York, New York 10047 Attorneys for Governor Mario M.
Cuomo and the State of New York
/Stephb6 B. Latham
/
Twomey, Latham & Shea P.O.
Box 398 33 West Second Street Riverhead, New York 11901 Attorney for the Town of i
August 6, 1986 Southampton i l
(
,,.._.=
000KETED USNRC 16 AUG 11 P3 :57 August 6, 1986 0FFICE OF 5H.ALTAny UNITED STATES OF AMERICA 00CKEllH3 4 SERVICf, NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSION BRANCH Before the Atomic Safety and Licensina Board
)
In the Matter of
)
)
LONG ISLAND LIGHTING COMPANY
)
Docket No. 50-322-OL-5
)
(EP Exercise)
(Shoreham Nuclear Power Station,
)
Unit 1)
)
)
)
Certificate of Service I hereby certify that copies of the RESPONSE OF SUFFOLK COUNTY, STATE OF NEW YORK, AND TOWN OF SOUTHAMPTON TO LILCO'S MOTION FOR EXTENSION OF TIME TO RESPOND TO EXERCISE CONTENTIONS have been served on the following this 6th day of August 1986 by U.S. mail, first class, except as otherwise noted.
- Morton B. Margulies, Chairman Joel Blau, Esq.
Atomic Safety and Licensing New York Public Service Comm.
Board Panel The Governor Nelson A.
U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission Rockefeller Building Washington, D.C.
20555 Empire State Plaza Albany, New York 12223
- Jerry R.
Kline
- Stewart M. Glass, Esq.
Atomic Safety and Licensing Regional Counsel Board Panel Federal Emergency Management U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission Agency Washington, D.C.
20555 26 Federal Plaza New York, New York 10278 l
l 1
- Frederick J. Shon Anthony F.
Earley, Jr., Esq.
Atomic Safety and Licensing General Counsel Board Panel Long Island Lighting Company U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission 175 East Old Country Road Washington, D.C.
20555 Hicksville, New York 11801 Mr. William Rogers
- W.
Taylor Reveley, III, Esq.
Clerk Hunton & Williams Suffolk County Legislature P.O. Box 1535 Suffolk County Legislature 707 East Main Street Office Building Richmond, Virginia 23212 Veterans Memorial Highway Hauppauge, New York 11788 Mr. L. F. Britt
- Stephen B.
Latham, Esq.
Long Island Lighting Company Twomey, Latham & Shea Shoreham Nuclear Power Station 33 West Second Street North Country Road Riverhead, New York 11901 Wading River, New York 11792 Ms. Nora Bredes Docketing and Service Section Executive Director Office of the Secretary Shoreham Opponents Coalition U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Comm.
195 East Main Street 1717 H Street, N.W.
Smithtown, New York 11787 Washington, D.C.
20555 Mary Gundrum, Esq.
Hon. Peter Cohalan New York State Department Suffolk County Executive of Law H.
Lee Dennison Building 2 World Trade Center, Rm. 4614 Veterans Memorial Highway New York, New York 10047 Hauppauge, New York 11788 MHB Technical Associates Dr. Monroe Schneider 1723 Hamilton Avenue
. North Shore Committee Suite K P.O. Box 231 San Jose, California 95125 Wading River, New York 11792
- Martin Bradley Ashare, Esq.
- Fabian G. Palomino, Esq.
Suffolk County Attorney Special Counsel to the Governor Bldg. 158 North County Complex Executive Chamber, Rm. 229 Veterans Memorial Highway State Capitol Hauppauge, New York 11788 Albany, New York 1222e
i Atomic Safety and Licensing
- Bernard M. Bordenick, Esq.
Appeal Board U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Comm.
U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Comm.
8th Floor, Room 8704 Washington, D.C.
20555 7735 Old Georgetown Road Bethesda, Maryland 20814 David A. Brownlee, Esq.
Kirkpatrick & Lockhart 1500 Oliver Building Pittsburgh, Pennsylvania 15222 C4b
/4 I.ol __ A-Lawrence Coe Lanpher /~
KIRKPATRICK & LOCKHART 1900 M Street, N.W.
Suite 800 Washington, D.C.
20036 Date:
August 6, 1986 By Telecopy
- By Federal Express
.-