ML20205N268
| ML20205N268 | |
| Person / Time | |
|---|---|
| Site: | Shoreham File:Long Island Lighting Company icon.png |
| Issue date: | 11/01/1988 |
| From: | Matt Young NRC OFFICE OF THE GENERAL COUNSEL (OGC) |
| To: | Chilk S NRC OFFICE OF THE SECRETARY (SECY) |
| References | |
| CON-#488-7411 ALAB-902, LBP-88-24, OL-3, NUDOCS 8811040023 | |
| Download: ML20205N268 (2) | |
Text
_ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ - _ _ _ - _ - _ - _ - - _ - _ - _. _. - - _ _ _ _
ot*"8to 9lo UNITED STATES l
[g g
NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSION y,
a
- ,73.n p WASHINGTON, D. C,20$$5 jgi; tlovember 1,1908
,j q g.g
. r m-Samuel J. Chilk h cK 4..
Office of the Secretary E A' '
U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission Washington, D C 20555 In the Patter of LONG ISLAND LIGHTING COMPANY (Shoreham Nuclear Power Station, Unit 1) pn.cket No. 50-3?2-OL-3,(Energency Planning)
Dear Mr. Chilk:
In the "NRC Staff Answer to LILCO Pequest for Pesumption of Immediate Effectiveness Review" filed before the Cocynissien yesterday, the Staff mistakenly states (at page 8) that Intervenors have asked for a stay cf ALAB-902 in their ingnediate effectiveness coments to the Cortnission.
As is clear from the certext Intervenors asked for a stay of LBP-88-04, net ALAB-907. Attached for your convenience are corrected copies of page 8 for insertion in the Staff's filing.
Sincerely.
M zi
. Yeung Cc el for tiRC Staff
Enclosures:
As stated cc w/ enc 1:
Service List 8811040023 081101 PDR ADOCK 05000322 C
)60
8-difficult to estimate under these circumstances the harm LILCO my suffer, if any, as a result of any delay in the completion of the Comission's imediate effectiveness review.
LILCO's failure to address these unique circumstances undemines its argurent that it will be hamed unless a stay is granted.
Thus, this factor should be accorded little weight in determining whether a stay should be granted, j
3.
Ham to Other Parties
)
The granting of a stay pending review of ALAB-902 will not result in i
substantial harm to either the Intervenors or the Staff.
A stay will not result in the issuance of a full power license for Shoreham, October 18 Order at 6, and Intervenors have previously indicated an intention to file i
their cwn stay motion, see Request at 5.
In addition, if the license authorization is reinstated, the Comission would still have to cceplete i
its inmediate effectiveness review and would be faced with Intervenors' 4
request for a stay of LPB-88-24 and their assertion that their dismissal was irproper in the corrents they provided to the Commission. 5/
A stay of the effer.tiveness of ALAB-902, without a stay of LBP-88-?A, would result in the Interverors not being able to actively litigate, for exanple, their proffered exercise contentions in the OL-5 proceeding. See Energency Planning Contentions Relating to the June 7-9, 1988 Shoreham Exercise, October 24, 1988.
If the dismissal sanction is upheld, 6/
See Suffolk County, New York State, and Town of Southampton Corrents toiicerning Imediate Effectiveness Review. October 3, 1988.
The
~
o Comission also has before it the matters in the imediate effec-tiveness concents filed by LILCO as well as the jurisdiction issues raised in LILCO's petition for review.
See LILCO's Conants on the
! mediate Effectiv? ness of LBP-88-24, October 3,1988; long Island Lighting Corpany's Petition for Raview of ALAB-902, October 21, 1988.