ML20206M959
| ML20206M959 | |
| Person / Time | |
|---|---|
| Site: | Shoreham File:Long Island Lighting Company icon.png |
| Issue date: | 11/23/1988 |
| From: | Lanpher L, Latham S, Zahnleuter R KIRKPATRICK & LOCKHART, NEW YORK, STATE OF, SOUTHAMPTON, NY, SUFFOLK COUNTY, NY, TWOMEY, LATHAM & SHEA |
| To: | NRC ATOMIC SAFETY & LICENSING APPEAL PANEL (ASLAP) |
| Shared Package | |
| ML20206M964 | List: |
| References | |
| CON-#488-7570 OL-6, NUDOCS 8812020104 | |
| Download: ML20206M959 (6) | |
Text
i757s
+
i,%.
[ CL Ki:iED inNFC
[Jovembe r 'IR, Nir.999 P 2 :53 UNITED SfATES OF AMERICA N. [ ' [! " '""7 L
NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSION
. :, [.
Before the Atomic Safety and Licensino Acceal Board
)
In.the Matter of
)
)
LONG ISLAND LIGHTING COMPANY
)
Docket No. 50-322-OL-6
)
(25% Power)
(Shoreham Nuclear Power Station,
)
Unit 1)
)
)
QQVERNMENTS' MOTION FOR PAGE EXTENSION The Governments are today filing with the Appeal Board a motion to stay the OL-6 Licensing Board's November 21, 1988, Memorandum and Order.
Under the NRC's regulations, such a stay motion is supposed to be 10 pages or less.
10 CFR S 2.788(b).
The Governments' motion exceeds 10 pages.
The Governments hereby seek leave to file a stay motion in excess of 10 pages.
In support thereof, the Governments state as follows:
1.
The Governments could have chosen to file individual stay motions, each 10 pages in length.
This would have resulted in up to 30 pages of pleadings.
Given the fact that the Govern-By120p p
pso]
n t
e ments have chcaen to file a single consolidated' pleading, it is appropriate to permit the Governments to file'a stay motion somewhat-in excess of 10 pages.
Indeed, the Commission, albeit in a different context, has previously indicated that such a procedure is appropriate.
Egg NRC Order, January 7, 1985, at 2, i
n.1 (a copy of the Commission's Order is attached for convenience of the Appeal Board).
2.
In any event, goed cause exists for submission of a stay motion in excess of 10 pages.
The motion addresses a myriad of complex issues, which are alleged to have been decided improperly by the Licensing Board.
These issues involve not only the November 21 Order but also the Board's previous decision in LBP-88-24, which is relied upon in the November 21 Order.
Given l
the complexity of the matters, plus the fact that more than one decision needs to be addressed, there is good cause for allowing a stay motion in excess of 10 pages.
l The Governments do not object to any responsive pleadings l
being of equal length to that being filed by the Governments.
Respectfully submitted, E. Thomas Boyle Suffolk County Attorney Building 158 North County Complex Veterans Memorial Highway Hauppauge, New York 11788
-2~
L l
'a
'f w/
wam Lawrence Coe Lanph'er Karla J. Letsche David T. Case KIRKPATRICK & LOCKH4RT 1800 M Street, N.W.
South Lobby - 9th rioor Washington, D.C.
20036-5891 Attorneys for Suffolk County
_17 A )
A' ffh S D Fabian G.
oftino Richar hnleuter Special Counsel to the Governor of the State of New York Executive Chamber, Room 229 Capitol Building Albany, New York 12224 Attorneys for Mario M. Cuomo, Governor of the State of New York A/V f [f Stephen B.
Latham Twomey, Latham & Shea P.O.
Box 398 33 West Second Street Riverhead, New York 11901 Attorney for the Town of Southampton !
l i
7 I
UNITED STATES OF AMERICA NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSION f
COMMISSIONERS:
. S l' -7 P2 :31 o
Nunzio J. Palladino, Chaiman Thomas M. Roberts 7 Oi - ;va
, 3 E'u":;'% K.
James K. Asselstine O '.
Frederick M. Bernthal O-Lando W. Zech, Jr.
SERVED JAN 7 N In the Matter of LONG ISLAND LIGHTING COMPANY Docket No. 50-322 OL-4 TShoreham Nuclear Power Station)
_0RDER This matter comes before us on an imediate effectiveness review of a Licensing Board "Initial Decision" of October 29, 1984 which recom-mended the grant of an exemption, during low power testing, from 10 CFR Part 50, Appendix A, General Design Criterion 17. Normally, Licensing Board decisions on issues involving low power Itcenses are not subject to our effectiveness review (see 10 CFR 2.764(f)(i)), but due to the special circumstances of this proceeding, we advised in an Order of May 16, 1984 that "[a]ny initial decision authorizing the grant of an exemption shall not become effective until the Comission has conducted an'imediate effectiveness review." CLI-84-8',19 NRC b54,1156.
i In an*0rder of November 19, 1984, we invited the parties to submit i
coments of fifteen pages or less by November 29 on whether the Ex-emption Board's October 29, 1984 Initial Decision was a correct applica-tion of the criteria in eur May 16 Order.
Responses were subnitted on l
&&h0 l
I 2
g November 29,1 but Suffolk County and New York State have since filed unauthorized cements, one cast as an affidavit (December 5,1984),
ancther as a motion (Cace.ber 19,1984).
We have decided to disregard the unauthorized comments of the State and County submitted since November 29, but to pennit each party to this proceeding to respond to the Noyerrber 29 comments of the other parties.
The responses"oi licensee and NRC staff should in'clude specific discussions of the following arguments by the State and County:
(1) That the Board erred by excluding evidence. purporting to show that grant of the exemption would be economically disadvantageous to ratepayers and was not needed for adequate power supply, while admitting evidence on the economic advantages of granting the exemption.
(2) That the Board erred in excluding evidence, including PRA and functional systems comparisons, purporting to show that the alternate onsite A/C system was not as safe as a' fully qualified system, while admitting evidence on the reliability of the alternate system.
(3) That the Board misapplied the "as safe as".critei' ion listed in the May 16 order by using a'"cceparable protection" stand.trd.
Replies should be in the hands of the Office of the recretar the Comission no later than 5 p.m. on Monday, January 14, 1986 o t. '
Suffolk County and New York State submitted joint corrents of 31 pages.
Each is e party and was entitled to fifteen pages.
Thus, we see no significant violatien of cur page limit by these parties, contrary ::
L!LCO s assertions..
G
e t
Y, 3
should be limited to fifteen pages per party.
Coments other than those called for by this Order will not be considered.
It is so ORDERED.
L'y.r. tI:,,g A..
T.O For the Commission f
g a,'..,s
,., e ' G t
- n..
r s.
' :;, 4 ::..;..;. 4,7 dOHN C. H0YLE Ac g Secretuy of the Comission t
Dated at Washington, D.C.
A this 7 - day of January 1985.
I G
6 1
l i
i e
h 1
j e
e 4