ML20207N679

From kanterella
Jump to navigation Jump to search
Advises That Suffolk County Will Not File Formal Response to NRC 861201 Motion for Clarification of ASLB 861119 Order Compelling FEMA to Answer Certain Interrogatories.County Position Adequately Set Forth in 861110 Motion for Order
ML20207N679
Person / Time
Site: Shoreham File:Long Island Lighting Company icon.png
Issue date: 01/07/1987
From: Lanpher L
KIRKPATRICK & LOCKHART, SUFFOLK COUNTY, NY
To: Frye J, Paris O, Shon F
Atomic Safety and Licensing Board Panel
References
CON-#187-2186 OL-5, NUDOCS 8701140352
Download: ML20207N679 (2)


Text

I __ _ . , _ . _ _ . . ._m _

~

4

]/Sb KIRKPATRICK & LOCKHART e! -

SOUTH Lo88Y ffH FLOOR 9 specstAHos ytaca 150 M STREET, N.T. 53 STATS traarr

  • ^"" * * *"97 JAN 13 All :50 Hag narretI" AVsNUE '"'

b4And. pl. 33isi TEMPHOPE 0o4 M .

gag 37443g2 Tuux anoe c.oc ut 50CP '

ison ouvaa summee TEUCOPER god Nico FITTELECH, PA 15222 5379 LAWRENCE CoE LANPHER 1414 ass 4sso

<2cn 77po" January 7, 1987 BY TELECOPY John H. Frye, III, Chairman Dr. Oscar H. Paris Mr. Frederick J. Shon Atomic Safety and Licensing Board U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission Washington, D.C. 20555 Re: NRC Docket No. 50-322-OL-5 (EP Exercise)

Dear Mr. Chairman and Merabers of the Board:

At yesterday's conference of counsel, the Board Chairman inquired whether Suffolk County intended to file a response to the December 1, 1986, "NRC Staff Motion for Clarification of the Licensing Board's Order of November 19, 1986 Compelling FEMA to Answer Certain Interrogatories." The Board requested that the County inform the Board today regarding its intention and that in the event the County intended to file a response to the Staff Motion, that such a response be in the Board's hands no later tha.1 the morning of January 8, 1987.

By this letter, Suffolk County hereby informs the Board and other parties that it does not intend to file a formal response to the Staff Motion.1 The County's position is adequately set forth in its November 10, 1986, Motion for Order Compelling FEMA to Answer Interrogatories (see particularly footnote 5) which was

, ruled upon by the Board in its November 19, 1986, Order I compelling FEMA to answer the Suffolk County interrogatories. In addition, Suffolk County agrees with the thrust of the Board's November 19 Order, that in this case, FEMA has acted in a manner l In the future, the County will endeavor to inform the Board and other parties in writing when it does not intend to file a formal response to motions which are filed.

l l 8701140352 870107 PDR ADOOK 05000322 l

Gr PDR $3

3-KIRKPATRICK & LOCKHART John H. Frye, III, Chairman Dr. Oscar H. Paris Mr. Frederick J. Shon January 7, 1987 Page 2 which has the effect of making FEMA amenable to discovery like other parties. The Board itself is in the best position to determine whether any clarification.

any of its words as used in that Order require The County does offer two comments, however. First, the County perceives no possible need for the Board to clarify foot-note 3 of its November 19 Order, since the Board made clear that the statement made in that footnote played no part in the Board's decision. Second, while the County understands the Board's Order to be limited to its view of the realities of FEMA's partici-pation in the instant proceeding, the County does note that FEMA has recently filed an appeal with the Appeal Board related to FEMA's objection to the admission of Contentions EX 15 and 16.

See FEMA Petition for Leave to Appeal, Appeal Memorandum, Request for Expedited Consideration of Appeal of December 11, 1986 Order (ASLB No. 86-01-OL), and Request for Stay of that Order with Respect to Discovery Concerning Contentions EX 15 and 16 or Directed Certification to the Commission, December 31, 1986. The taking of such an appeal by an alleged "non-party" seems incon-sistent with the NRC Staff's arguments that FEMA is not a party in this case. Similarly, FEMA's Motion in mid-December to bifur-cate the proceeding also seems inconsistent with alleged non-party status, particularly given the fact that the NRC Staff (for whom it sometimes has been suggested that FEMA acts as a consult-ant) opposed the FEMA Motion. These FEMA actions may be some-thing the Board will wish to consider in the event that it decides to clarify any aspects of its November 19 Order.

Sincerely yours, N

Lawrence Coe Lanpher cc: Service List (LILCO and NRC Staff by telecopy)

. .. -