ML20211E067
| ML20211E067 | |
| Person / Time | |
|---|---|
| Site: | Shoreham File:Long Island Lighting Company icon.png |
| Issue date: | 06/10/1986 |
| From: | Lanpher L KIRKPATRICK & LOCKHART |
| To: | Asselstine J, Palladino N, Roberts T NRC COMMISSION (OCM) |
| References | |
| CON-#286-547 OL-3, NUDOCS 8606130216 | |
| Download: ML20211E067 (4) | |
Text
A A
KIRKPATRICK & LOCKHART 1900 M STREET, N.T.
WASHINGTON, D.C. 20036 ONE BOSTON PLACE Boston. ua 02:0e TEIIPHOSE (202) 45LM00 517) 97kS400 U
1428 BRICKELL AVENUE TEIECOPEA (202) 452,M52 MIAMI FL 33131 0 05) 374 4112 1500 OUVER BUILDINO LAWRENCE CoE LANPE PrTT58URGH PA 15222 June 10, 1986 A
7 )'c
(..;
6q@
sl 6,
2 Qt,7 Nunzio J. Palladino, Chairman C
v'gc /
Commissioner Thomas M. Roberts T/
T% - { '
Commissioner James K. Asselstine Commissioner Frederick M.
Bernthal Commissioner Lando W.
Zech, Jr.
U.S.
Nuclear Regulatory Commission 1717 H Street, N.W.
Washington, D.C.
20555 Re:
Long island Lighting Co. (Shoreham Nuclear PBser Stat.M
- Docket No. 50-322-OL-3 (Emergy y fianning)
Dear Ph. Chaireun and Members of the Commission:
S c olk County is in receipt of your Memorandum and Order
( CT1-8 6-11 ), dated June 6, 1986.
The Commission therein states its intention to issue a decision shortly on the " realism" and
" immateriality" issues.
In its filings in this proceeding, LILCO has relied upon a June 26, 1985, letter from Peter F. Cohalan, Suffolk County Executive, to W. Taylor Reveley, Jr., counsel for LILCO, as support for its " realism" argument.
- See, e.g.,
LILCO's Reply Brief on the Legal Authority, Conflict of Interest and State Plan Issues submitted to the Atomic Safety and Licensing Appeal Board and dated July 24, 1985.
On January 30, 1986, Mr. Cohalan advised LILCO's counsel that LILCO's prior references to his June 26 letter were misleading, and he clarified his position with respect to the issue of emergency responses.
We are enclosing herewith a copy of Mr. Cohalan's January 30, 1986, letter in view of the Commission's stated intention to address, without further briefing, the " realism" 8606130216 860610 PDR COMMS NRRC CORRESPONDENCE PDR J
.lSd3
KIRKPATRICK & LOCKHART Mr. Chairman and Members of the Commission June 10,1986 Page 2 issue presented by LILCO's appeal from ALAB-818 and in view of the prior references to Mr. Cohalan's June 26, 1985, letter in the filings in this proceeding.
Sincerely yours, Lawrence Coe Lanpher Enclosure cc:
Shoreham Service List l
i 1
Y COUNTY OF CUFFCLK
,, r
~,
OFFICE OF THE COUNTY EXECUTIVE PETER F. CONALAN FRANE R. JONES surrous couwer Execuma ca.e,oE,ur, Jassumuj 30, 1986 W. Taylor Reveley, III, Esq.
Hunton in Williams 707 East Main Street Richmond, VA 23212
Dear Mr. Reveley:
In the Shoreham proceeding, your firm on LILCO'S behalf has referred to my letter to you dated June 26, 1985, in ways that are misleading.
Several points should be clear:
1 1.
County resolutione prohibit the County from testing or i
implementing any emergency response plan that has not been duly approved and adopted by the Coun'ty Legislature.
- See, l
e.g.,
County resolution nos. 262-1982, 456-1982 and lil-1083.
2.
The Su f folk County Legislature has not approved or adopted any emergency plan for Shoreham.
3 Th e County ' s emergency planning resolutions have been upheld as valid governmental actions: those Resolutions are binding upon all County personnel, including the County Executive.
See Citizens for an Orderly Energy Policy et al.
v.
County of Su f fo Lk, 604 F.
Supp. 1084 (E.D.N.Y.
1985) and In re Prospect v.
Cohalan (N.Y. Sup.
Ct.,
June 10, 1985),
aff'd, 10 9 A. D. 2d 210, 490 N.Y.S.
2d 795, aff'd, 65 N.Y.
2d 867, 493 N.Y.S.
2d 867 (1985).
The New York Supreme Court's vtTEmapet estasORIAL MiGMwAv e
maupeauGE.8eT 98700 e
S ' Gi 380 4000 j
6 t-I s
Page 2 W. Taylor Reveley, III, Esq.
Order, affirmed by the Court of Appeals In re Prospect v.
Cohalan, by its terms, prohibits the County Executive "from assigning or expending any funds or resources in contravention of Resolutions 262-1982, 456-1982, and 111-1983 or directing any County personnel to... implement the LILCO plan."
LILCO asked the New York Court of Appeals to reconsider its affirmance of the Supreme Court's order and asked, in particular, that the above quoted portion of the Order be deleted.
The Court of Appeals refused to do so and the New York Supreme Court's Order of June 10, 1985 remains in effect.
4.
Your letter of June 17, 1985, addressed to the County Attorney asked whether "the County Executive will respond fully, in cooperation with LERO, to protect the public health and safety in the event a radiological accident occurs at Sho reh am. "
In response,. I stated that I would
" respond to the best of my' ability and in accordance with the duties obligations placed upon me by Article 2-b of the Executive Law."
I did not commit the County to act in concert with LERO in the event of a radiological accident at Shoreham nor have I ever committed the County to implement the LILCO plan in such an event.
In fact, as you know, County Law prohibits me and othat County employees from implementing the LILCO plan.
Absent a change in Su f folk County law, the LILCO plan can never be tmplemented by Suf folk County pe rsonnel.
Ve ry truly yours, L kd 4
PETER F.
COHALAN SUFFOLK COUNTY EX ECUT IVE PFC/tk J
.