ML20214Q662
| ML20214Q662 | |
| Person / Time | |
|---|---|
| Site: | Shoreham File:Long Island Lighting Company icon.png |
| Issue date: | 12/01/1986 |
| From: | Lanpher L, Palomino F KIRKPATRICK & LOCKHART, NEW YORK, STATE OF, SUFFOLK COUNTY, NY |
| To: | Atomic Safety and Licensing Board Panel |
| Shared Package | |
| ML20214Q593 | List: |
| References | |
| OL-5, NUDOCS 8612050230 | |
| Download: ML20214Q662 (6) | |
Text
~
- r. -3.
A 00LKETED UMIRC December 1, 1986 UNITED STATES OF AMERICA NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSION CFFICE Of E Before the Atomic Safety and Licensina Boar @CKli 4'g NN
)
In the Matter of
)
)
LONG ISLAND LIGHTING COMPANY
)
Docket No. 50-322-OL-5
)
(EP Exercise)
(Shoreham Nuclear Power Station,
)
Unit 1)
)
)
SUFFOLK COUNTY, STATE OF_NEW YORK, AND TOWN OF SOUTHAMPTON RESPONSE TO LILCO MOTION RESPECTING SERVICE AND NOTIFICATION PROCEDURES On November 10, 1986, Suffolk County, the State of New York, and the Town of Southampton filed a. Motion'for Licensing Board to Follow the Rules of Practice in Ruling on Motions (" Governments' Motion").
On November 24,.1986, LILCO responded to the Govern-ments' Motion.
Egg LILCO's Response to_Intervenors' " Motion for Licensing Board to Follow the Rules of Practice in Ruling on Motions" and Motion Respecting Service and Notification Proce-dures ("LILCO's Motion").
In general, LILCO's Motion makes three points:
the incidents of which the Governments complained in their-Motion were " trivial"; LILCO had been substantially i
prejudiced because the Board had issued a ruling on a motion to compel filed by the Governments prior to the time a LILCO 8612050230 861201 ADOCK0500gg2 PDR 0
1 s
response to the motion had been received; and the Board should establish expedited service and notification procedures for all documents.
The Governments have several responses to LILCO's Motion re-specting the purported need for expedited service and notifi-cation procedures.
Other matters addressed in LILCO's Motion will simply be commented upon by the Governments.
To be brief, the Governments set forth their views in numbered paragraphs.
1.
It is not for LILCO to determine whether the Govern-ments' objections to particular Board actions are " trivial" or not.
When this Board fails to follow standard procedures in dealing with motions and fails to give notice to the parties that it is deviating from such standard procedures, such deviations are not " trivial."
If nothing else, such deviations by the Board prevent parties from being heard.
In a case such as Shoreham, where the parties have been extremely diligent in expressing their views, and where significant issues are often presented in the guize of procedural matters, it ill behooves anyone to char-acterize a failure by the Board to allow parties to be heard a trivial matter.
2.
The Governments agree that LILCO should have received notification from this Board prior to the time that a ruling was issued on the motion to compel FEMA to respond to interrag- <
9
\\
atories.1 Although the dispute at issue in the Board's ruling primarily involved the Governments and FEMA, all parties are entitled to respond to motions before the Board.
The Board, as a matter of fair practice, should notify the parties whenever it plans to shorten the time for responding to motions.
A simple telephone call by the Board's secretary to counsel for the various parties is all that is required.
i 3.
LILCO's Motion proposes an elaborate system for expedited service of every document that will henceforth be filed by the parties in this proceeding.
Egg LILCO's Motion'at 3-4.
LILCO again is attempting to change the rules in a manner that will not lead to fruitful results.
Earlier this year, at the outset of the Exercise proceeding, LILCO proposed an elaborate new summary disposition scheme.
The Margulies Board, subsequent to a July 8 prehearing conference, rejected that LILCO scheme with the admonition that it would follow the Rules of Practice pertaining to summary disposition motions.
Egg Memorandum and Order (Prehearing Conference, July 8, 1986), July 11, 1986, at 7-8.
1 For reasons set forth in a separate pleading filed December 1, the Governments demonstrate that even if LILCO's filing had been considered by the Board, no different result would have been likely.
Egg Suffolk, County, State of New York, and Town of Southampton Preliminary Response to "LILCO's Motion for Expedited Reconsideration of. November 19 Order Compelling FEMA to Answer Interrogatories."
r d
..-y-y-.
e--
1 i
The same basic ruling should be made by this Board.
There is no need for elaborate new schemes for service of documents with particular rules regarding required use of hand or overnight service, required confirmation of telecopy transmittal, etc.
Ege LILCO's Motion at 3-4.
The parties are all working extremely hard in this proceeding and do not need new rules or special procedures to further complicate the proceeding or their own work schedules.
As noted by LILCO's counsel, counsel for Suffolk County has endeavored to facilitate service of documents-through informal agreement.2 The County's counsel intends to continue working with LILCO and other counsel on an informal basis to ensure that this litigation proceeds as efficiently as possible.
With'due respect, the County's counsel believes that Board inter,-
vention to formalize such matters will be counterproductive.
4.
The Governments object to LILCO's proposal that service of a particular pleading on counsel for Suffolk Counsel shall constitute service on all the Governments except where the interests of any of the Governments plainly diverge on the face of the pleading.
This proposal constitutes a presumption by LILCO that it knows exactly what the Governments' particular views are on particular matters.
LILCO should not be so presump-tuous.
The State of New York, the Town of Southampton, and Suffolk County each have their particular views on matters.
2 Such informal accommodation has extended to one counsel for Suffolk County recently taking documents to his home in.Bethesda so'that LILCO's counsel, who was visiting relatives over the Thanksgiving holidays, could receive service of the documents. '
J 3.
1
.k While counsel for the County endeavors to coordinate those views, no one should presume in advance that they will always be identi-cal.
In conclusion, the Governments urge the Board to grant the Motion originally filed on November 10, 1986 by the Governments and to not-impose new rules, but rather to-follow the Rules of Practice as they presently exist.
If the Board believes that a shorter time for responding to motions is required in particular-instances,.the Board can simply have its secretary call the various parties to provide notification.3 In all cases, the parties should be notified if the Board intends to shorten the response time permitted under'the Rbles of Practice.
Otherwise, the parties to this proceeding may be prejudiced in a way presum-ably not intended by the Board.
Respectfully submitted, Martin Bradley Ashare Suffolk County Attorney ~
Building 158-North County Complex Veterans Memorial Highway Hauppauge, New York 11788 3
If multiple telephone calls cannot be made by the Board.
.given its resources, then a call to counsel for one party can be made with the attendant request that that counsel then' notify the other. parties.
The County's counsel is sure that all. counsel will undertake to accomplish such notification promptly and-efficiently.
9 e
I
r
-l L
M Herbert H.
Brown r
Lawrence Coe Lanpher Michael S. Miller KIRKPATRICK & LOCKEART 1900 M Street, N.W.,
Suite 800 Washington, D.C.
20036 Attorneys for Suffolk County de>e tNo Fabian G.
Palomino Special Counsel to the Governor of the State of New York Executive Chamber, Room 229 Capitol Building Albany, New York 12224 Attorney for Mario M. Cuomo, Governor of the State of New York Wh 8. oVE~ (8/
Stephen B.
Latham
~
Twomey, Latham & Shea P.O.
Box 398 33 West Second Street Riverhead, New York 11901 Attorney for the Town of Southampton Dated:
December 1, 1986 i
.