ML20214Q717
| ML20214Q717 | |
| 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 8612050253 | |
| Download: ML20214Q717 (8) | |
Text
_
%h DOCKETED ust4RC December 1, 1986 UNITED STATES OF AMERICA NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSION
+.0FFICE Gi E W"a" '
00CKEift. i 'g ' E g
Before the Atomic Safety and Licensino Board 3
)
In the Matter of
)
)
j LONG ISLAND LIGHTING COMPANY
)
Docket No. 50-322-OL-5
)_
-(EP Exercise)
(Shoreham Nuclear Power Station,
)
2 Unit 1)
)
l
)
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" 4
l On November 10, 1986, Suffolk County filed a Motion for Order Compelling FEMA to Answer Interrogatories (hereinafter,
" Motion").
On November 13, FEMA responded to the Motion and on November 19, this Board issued a Memorandum and Order (Ruling on Suffolk County's Motion for Order Compelling FEMA to Answer Interrogatories) (hereinafter, " Order"), in which the Board i
essentially granted all aspects of Suffolk County's Motion.
LILCO filed a' response to the County's Motion on dovember 19,'but its response was not received by the Board until after the Board's Order had been issued.
LILCO now comes before i
t G
l I
i.
\\
the Board with a Motion for Expedited Reconsideration of the November 19 Order Compelling FEMA to Answer Interrogatories, dated November 25, 1986 (hereinafter, "LILCO's Motion").
LILCO points out in its Motion that its previous response had not been considered by the Board and that the Board, for the reasons stated in that earlier response, should reconsider its November 19 Order.
While the Governments are sympathetic with LILCO's problem of the Board issuing its Order prior to hearing from all the parties,1 the Governments believe that LILCO's Motion should be summarily denied.
LILCO states in its Motion that "[nlot all of the arguments advanced by LILCO, or their bases, were advanced in the opposi-tion filed by FEMA and rejected by the Board on (sic) its November 19. Order."
Egg LILCO's Motion at 2.
Thus, LILCO seemingly wants the Board to now deal with additional reasons why, in LILCO's view, the County's November 10 1
Prior to the Board's November 19 Order, the Governments filed a motion with the Board requesting that the Board not rule on motions without first providing the parties an opportunity to file a reply.
Egg Suffolk County, State of New York, and Town of Southampton Motion for Licensing Board to Follow the Rules of Practice in Ruling on Motions, November 10, 1986.
This latest instance, wherein LILCO's response to the County's Motion was not considered by the Board, is further reason for the Board to follow the Rules of Practice in ruling on motions.,
a.
\\
Motion should have been denied.
LILCO fails, however, to deal with what this Board in fact ruled in its November 19 Order.
LILCO also fails to articulate any reasons why its earlier filing would have changed the outcome reached by the Board on November 19.
For instance, one of the matters which LILCO appdrently wants the Board to reconsider is the status of FEMA as a party in NRC licensing proceedings.
Sgg LILCO's Motion at 2.
This is a matter which was dealt with specifically by this Board in its November 19 Order.
Egg Order at 2-4.
While LILCO's November 19 filing also addresses this matter, LILCO never identifies why the Board's ruling in this regard was incorrect or why, in its opinion, what LILCO asserted in its November 19 filing should have changed the result reached by the Board.
LILCO also indicates in its Motion that the Board, in recon-l sidering its Order, should address "[t]he attendant means availa-ble for pursuit of discovery against FEMA LILCO's Motion at 2.
LILCO never explains, however, how the so-called
" attendant means available to the parties for' pursuing discovery a
against FEMA are relevant to the matters presently being liti-gated before the Board.
Furthermore, the Board's November 19 Order makes clear that since FEMA has taken the lead on FEMA /NRC Staff discovery, it is completely appropriate for the iovern-ments' discovery to focus on FEMA.
- Egg, e.g., Order at 3-4.
3-n 1
\\
LILCO also requests the Board to address the appropriateness of the Governments' Interrogatories 9 through 11 in light of the fact that the Board has limited Contention Ex 19 to legal argu-ment only.
LILCO's Motion at 2.
However, in its November 19 Order, the Board specifically addressed this matter (agg page 6);
again, LILCO never identifies or explains how or why this Board's ruling allegedly was incorrect.
s Finally, LILCO requests the Board to reconsider the appro-priateness of allowing discovery relating to Contentions Ex 15 and 16 while those contentions are under reconsideration by the Board.
This request is frivolous:
this Board has stated on
+
numero'is occasions that its rulings are nct stayed pending motions for reconsideration or objections to the October 3 Prehearing Conference Order.
- Egg, e.g., Order at 5.
It is particularly inappropriate for LILCO to urge this position.
LILCO failed to object to any aspects of the Board's Prehearing Conference Order and it was not until November 10, when arguing in support of FEMA's October 27 motion for reconsideration of the Board's Prehearing Conference Order, that LILCO first suggested that a stay be granted as to discovery on certain issues.
Even on November 10, owever, LILCO never purported to address the criteriafork.' stay (andFEMAalsohasneverdoneso), making LILCO's Motion 5o this point all the less persuasive.
t 1
1 N
\\
4
\\
i s.
j A
s
\\
The foregoing constitutes merely a summary response to LILCO's November 25 Motion.
At this time, the Governments do not perceive the,need for a more detailed response, given the nature and scope of!the Board's November 19 Order, which rejected not only FEMA's arguments in opposition to the County's November 10 motion to compel, but also, in essence, all of the arguments made by LILCO in its November 19 response.
If the Board is inclined to give substantive attention to any particular matter raised in LILCO's Motion, however, the Governments respectfully request that the Board provide telephonic notification to the Governments in advance, so that they may promptly file a more substantive reply.
Respectfully submitted, Martin Bradley Ashare Suffolk County Attorney Building 158 North County Complex Veterans Memorial Highway Hauppauge, New York 11788 N
~
Herbert H.
Brown Lawrence Coe Lanpher Michael S. Miller KIRKPATRICK & LOCKHART 1900 M Street, N.W.,
Suite 800 Washington, D.C.
20036 Attorneys for Suffolk County
4 t
FL & M~,(R9' 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 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
. )
1 I
.s 1
'JOL KE l E P
'nNK December 1, 1981 f
'86 DEC -4 All :25 UNITED STATES OF AMERICA NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSION s
0FF M.
/
...rr Ar-g[pg[E 00 Before the Atomic Safety and Licensino Board
)
In the Matter of
)
)
LONG ISLAND LIGHTING COMPANY
)
Docket No. 50-322-OL-5
)
(EP Exercise)
(Shoreham Nuclear Power Station,
)
Unit 1)
)
)
CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE I hereby certify that copies of SUFFOLK COUNTY RESPONSE TO "LILCO'S MOTION FOR PROTECTIVE ORDER IN RESPONSE TO SUFFOLK COUNTY'S MOTION TO COMPEL"; SUFFOLK COUNTY, STATE OF MEW YORK, AND TOWN OF SOUTHAMPTON RESPONSE TO LILCO MOTION RESPECTING SERVICE AND NOTIFICATION PROCEDURES; and 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" have been served on the following this 1st day of December, 1986 by U.S. mail, first class, except as otherwise noted.
John H. Frye, III, Chairman
- Dr. Oscar H. Paris
- Atomic Safety and Licensing Board Atomic Safety and Licensing Board U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission Washington, D.C.
20555 Washington, D.C.
20555 Mr. Frederick J. Shon*
William R. Cumming, Esq.
Atomic Safety and Licensing Board Spence W. Perry, Esq.
U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission Office of General Counsel Washington, D.C.
20555 Federal Emergency Management Agenci 500 C Street,'S.W., Room 840 Washington, D.C.
20472
hr t
t Anthony F. Earley, Jr., Esq.
Bernard M. Bordenick, Esq.
General Counsel U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Cornission Long Island Lighting Company Washington, D.C.
'20555 175 East Old Country Road Hicksville, New York 11801 Mr. William Rogers W. Taylor Reveley, III, Esq.**
l Clerk Hunton & Williams-Suffolk County Legislature P.O. Box 1535 Suffolk County Legislature 707 East Main Street Office Building Richmond, Virginia 23212 Veterans Memorial Highway Hauppauge, New York 11788
~
Mr. L. F. Britt Stephen B._ Latham, Esq.
Long Island Lighting Company Twomey, Latham & Shea Shoreham Nuclear Power Station' 33 West Second Street North Country Road Riverhead, New York 11901 Wading River, New York 11792 Ms. Nora-Bredes Docketing and Service Section Executive Director Office of the Secretary l
Shoreham Opponents Coalition U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Comm.
195 East Main Street 1717 H Street, N.W.
Smithtown, New York 11787 Washington, D.C.
20555 MHB Technical Associates Hon. Peter Cohalan 1723 Hamilton Avenue Suffolk County Executive Suite K H.-Lee Dennison Building San Jose, California 95125 Veterans Memorial _ Highway Hauppauge, New York 11788 Martin Bradley Ashare, Esq.
Fabian G. Palomino, Esq.
Suffolk~ County Attorney Special Counsel _to the Governor Bldg. 158 North County Complex.
Executive Chamber, Rm. 229 Veterans Memorial Highway State Capitol Hauppauge, New York 11788 Albany, New York 12224 David A. Brownlee, Esq.
Mr. Philip McIntire Kirkpatrick & Lockhart Federal-Emergency Management 1500 Oliver Building Agency Pittsburgh, Pennsylvania 15222 26 Federal Plaza j
New York, New. York 10278
)
l Q~
j' ',(
[
By Hand Karla)J. Letschy '
i By Federal Express KIRKPATRICK & UOCKHART 1900 M Street, N.W.
Suite 800 R
Washington, D.C.-
20036
(
,