ML20236T147
| ML20236T147 | |
| Person / Time | |
|---|---|
| Site: | Shoreham File:Long Island Lighting Company icon.png |
| Issue date: | 11/19/1987 |
| From: | Irwin D HUNTON & WILLIAMS, LONG ISLAND LIGHTING CO. |
| To: | Atomic Safety and Licensing Board Panel |
| References | |
| CON-#487-4919 OL-3, NUDOCS 8712010044 | |
| Download: ML20236T147 (7) | |
Text
'NN
~
LILCO, November 19,1987 a
.Y-00CKETED UNITED STATES OF AMERICA V5NRC NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSION
'87 NOV 23 All :25 Before the Atomic Safety and Licensing Board 0FFICE CF ^ECRt in V 00CKEliNG A SE4VlCf.
BRANCH In the Matter of
)
)
LONG ISLAND LIGHTING COMPANY
)
Docket No. 50-322-OL-3
)
(Emergency Planning)
(Shoreham Nuclear Power Station,
)
Unit 1)
)
LILCO'S OPPOSITION TO INTERVENERS' MOTION FOR EXTENSION OF TIME i
LILCO opposes Interveners' request of yesterday afternoon to more than double their stipulated time - expanding it from 7 days to 17 - to respond to LILCO's s
November 17 brief on the effect of the Commission's new emergency planning rule on the disposition of legal authority issues now before this Board. The reasons for LILCO's opposition are as follows:
1.
LILCO's brief contains nothing to engender an extraordinary response time.
It merely addresses the issues set out irt the Board's November 9 Order: the effect of I
i the Commission's new emergency planning rule on the legal-authority arguments now before it. The mere fact that it illustrates LILCO's views with specific substantive ex-amples, based on public-domain and record materials, for the benefit of the Board and the parties is hardly a shortcoming.
)
2.
The substantive arguments in LILCO's brief are not new to Interveners.
1 Most of them are based directly on documents prepared by Interveners themselves over time, since LILCO's basis for estimation of the response of Suffolk County and the State of New York is predicated largely on the official plans and documents of those govern-ments.
[7d"AB8M"5550H2
.+
l I -
l 3.
The precise question now before the Board - the adequacy of anticipated i
governmental response to an accident at Shoreham with offsite consequences -- has never been ruled on by this Board because its previous decisions, LBP-85-12, 21 NRC I
644(1985) and LBP-85-31, 22 NRC 410 (1985), did not accept the realism doctrine.
l They therefore' did not substantively address issues of governmental response to an emergency at Shoreham even though pertinent material existed in the record. Never-l theless, arguments using virtually the same facts as are now being recited by LILCO have been made, and responded to, previously at this Board's instance. Exactly three i
years ago, on November 19, 1984, the parties filed briefs responding t6 three questions i
posed by the Board on legal authority-related issues. The third of those questions was the following, which raises factual issues virtually identical to those now before this j
l Board (though without the guidance of the new rule):
In connection with LILCO's " realism" argument, what effect would an unplanned response by the State or County have and would such a response result in chaos, confusion and disorga-nization so as to compel a finding that there is no " reasonable assurance that protective measures can and will be taken in the event of a radiological emergency" at Shoreham?l/
)
LILCO's November 19, 1984 Brief on Contentions 1-10 addressed this question in detail at pages 42-67, using much of the same information as is set forth in its submission of two days ago. Ten days later, on November 29,1984 (with an intervening Thanksgiving I
holiday) each of the parties filed responsive briefs;2/ no party asked for an extension.
Interveners' reply brief, again addressing all three questions posed by the Board, was 39 pages long.3/ Thus factual information on this set of issues is already a matter of 1/
Memorandum and Order Deferring Ruling on LILCO Motion for Summary Disposi-tion and Scheduling Submission of Briefs on the Merits, October 22, 1984, at 3-4.
j l
2/
LILCO's Reply Brief on Contentions 1-10 (November 29, 1984); Suffolk County l
and State of New York Reply Brief on Contentions 1-10 (November 29,1984).
l a
3/
Interveners' November 19, 1984 brief also addressed the issue, though urging summary rejection of the realism argument rather than attempting to describe the an-(footnote continued) 1
i
. i record in this proceeding and is known to and has been dealt with by Interveners.
4.
The delay requested by Interveners threatens severe prejudice to LILCO.
While the responsive date requested by Interveners is before the end of the moratorium
)
'on "new" filings imposed by this Board's reported November 15 Order,M it delays the time by which the Board will have before it the parties' views on this important matter.
Given the number of other hsues already before this Board, delay in the Board's receipt f
of the parties' views on this central subject will delay the further progress of this pro-l ceeding. Interveners' November 17 brief clearly envisions a radically longer remainder j
i of this proceeding than is contemplated by LILCO. If past is prologue, Interveners' con-
)
struct, which would begin with the framing of yet another round of contentions on these long-familiar issues, can hardly permit the Board to reach a decision in less than 1
the better part of a year. Any unnecessary delay in the completion of this proceeding, i
now over four years old, will be highly prejudicial to LILCO, whose very existence is threatened by a combination of actions presently being taken under the aegis of New York State,M as well as to its Long Island ratepayers and shareholders, whose power supply becomes daily more precarious.
(footnote continued) ticipatable details of a state or county response. Suffolk County and State of New York Response to ASLB Memorandum of October 22,1984, November 19,1984, at 88-99.
4/
LILCO has not yet received this order but has learned of it through the courtesy of Interveners' counsel.
I 5/
A Long Island Power Authority was created by the New York Legislature in 1986 and empowered to attempt to take control of LILCO and assure that Shoreham never operates, if in its judgment it could provide cheaper electric service to customers than does LILCO. Similarly, the New York Public Service Commission, in a November 5, 1987 Order, has pronounced the " deadlock and uncertainty" over Shoreham to be
" debilitating," has ordered LILCO to begin to plan for an energy future without Shoreham, and has indicated its intent to revisit this matter in April 1988. The longer licensing issues remain unresolved, the more vulnerable LILCO becomes to collateral threats of this sort.
f f'
y g (')
~
g f,
l,h ;
E A{.,1
)g tv
.\\1 1
2 l
Interve irs h ve not mad.t-in
. bave not even at pted - any. t 5.
U 3,
showing'of good cause foh an. ex'tka.lr,n,[6bf time,' to'res%m L$
[
- generalized references t,o ts I ngtib and allegedly "mishtN g" nature. Inde Irtterve-nors' motion candidh Nnps ihat.Inte enors have-r.ot determined how to reply to
. LILCO's brief.E! 'But th dr.e length I (rtt ekt'eme, particularly glNn th ' dtillari-r
~~
y ty of the subject nutter; anV if Interven ls bcil. eve that LILCO,' us'hg gtMic sources i
available to it, has mischh acterized the ab't'w([Ity of state af d$ou
/'$$
nty vses to an s
7t, A emergency, they can so~ state since,they are uniquely in control of the relevu(ut iacts.
l y
7
,,t*
y,[\\
w, s
k CONCLUSION
', l
(>
i s
s For the reasons utaMI above, Interveners' motion for h ten-day extesion of time /
t i
i 9
\\'
(
i to respond to LILCO's November 17 brief siould be denied
}e,s'
,s
['
sg f
i 1
t: j' s.
p Respectfully submitteu, /'
e p
i Doiiald P. Irwin James N. Christman c
Counsel for Long Island Lighting Cep.pany Hunton & Williams
/
l 707 East Main Street
[
f /
gc P.O. Box 1535
'Ni
/
Richmond, Virginia 23312 i
s DATED: November 19,1987 t
i by i
'l s/
However, Suffolk County's attorneys, at least, may have developed thir virys.
[
further than Interveners' pleading ind\\ cat,es. In an article in this morning's Newm}g,
)
l Herbert Brown, one of Suffolk County'shcbrseb quoted as having "saiu [LILCQQ
. ing is ' absolute nonsense' and LILCC knots itt N't w3 day,11/19/87, page 6 (Dit /d*').l1.-
hl-e 8 y
$j
\\
s-
\\
j
\\
m,pmnemsbm! Im U-19-17 ncO% LILCO: Shoreham DbstacERemoved )
- "^
!ESO anties also questianed the company's sin. l By Sinaast Baalral====, cerity in nesociations with the state over whether { The Lens laland Ig' irlw Co. has told a fbderal there are inoontives the state could offer the com-selhey heard that a new Nuelser Regulatory Comunie. p'.s:y in eschange for abandonment of the plant. sien rule will allow k to euminste the laruust lasue 'l think that if LI!40 wem serious about nep. stui remaining in toenmes pressedings ihr the Shore-tiet!9na, it t resist moves like this, in which has nuelser pmet plant. it's se blatan flauntingits power and disregard Attorneye ihr tan stehe and GuiRalk County enued for the public, said Nora Bredes, a Shoeeham op-MLCO's brist, filed late Tuesday in Wasidneten, "ab. ponent and power authority trustee, asiuto neessann" and Alad their awn sesers The state and Suffolk County have argued that the new rule,Agg,3@gpijngqqupsthei LtLCO does not have the legal authority to carry out certain provisions ofits emer evacuation same. LIICO amid the new sule wiB $llow b to chasinate plan, such asalisestingtraffic, obstructions, arguments over winsther it has the " legal sueerity" sounding sirens and keeping out of con. to tasplement its own ovesuetion plan taminated areas. The state an ffolk County rather than one developed parHalpelaa of have argued that local officials would not follow state andleonigovernments. the utility plan and the result would be chaos rath. U140's W essess less than three wonks aAer Bu a$1 a sedNNRC Oct.29 allowsita the NRC edepeed tan new rule, whielt aDoes the 11 lleenalng boat to assume that state and local af plants desphe state and looni speemaments' governments 'wiu make their "best afforta" to co. gto eart@btha wasussion plans. NBC Chair. I te and said the tr anis "may presume" that maalandeSu p@artkunanknous vees.tta the 7sovernm'ents would follow the utility's plan. It mio thatit was adr to spnd thelienneng of did not direct them to make that assumption. $bershimior sipy plant. In its brief, however, LILCO argued that "this Herbert H. Brown an representing'Buf-presumption must guide the board in deciding the .N County said the is " tononsense and mmaining issues in this case." The ta pt40 knows it. and the state intend to fBe said,however,that theNRC told "may" w gpeal et the rule change la the US Circuit Court make that ption on a case by.caos ,';efAppenis. The NR tly named a new chiefjudge to I u!A0 "has done h to show the Gnancial semesu. the case, James P. Oleason, to replace Morton - mk and not enorteur wounded by Margulies, who left earlier.this month for health %ythatkis@dng down their rate increase PSC desimon utn masons. Gleason's interpretation of the new rule is expected to be a key determinant in the outcome and that it's not intimidated by LtPA and wul son-of the case, tinue to pursue ita intention to a Ueenas, the bue be damama " Brown said, to the d Power Authority's so ~ ofa U takeover and the afusal of thestate Public Service Commission to grant LILCO a rete hike this year, j
e LILCOc Movember 19,1987 00LKETED U5HRC '87 NOV 23 All :26 CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE OFFICE CF EHf gry 00CKETING + SEHVlCf, BRANCH In the Matter of LONG ISLAND LIGHTING COMPANY (Shoreham Nuclear Power Station, Unit 1) Docket No. 50-322-OL-3 I hereby certify that copies of LILCO'S OPPOSITION TO INTERVENERS' MOTION FOR EXTENSION OF TIME were served this date upon the following by hand as indicated by one asterisk, by telecopy as indicated by two asterisks, by Federal Ex-press as indicated by three asterisPs, or by first-class mail, postage prepaid. James P. Gleason, Chairman
- Atomic Safety and Licensing Atomic Safety and Licensing Board Board Panel 513 Gilmoure Drive U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission Silver Spring, Maryland 20901 Washington, D.C. 20555 Dr. Jerry R. Kline
- George E. Johnson, Esq. **
Atomic Safety and Licensing Richard G. Bachmann, Esq. Board U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission 7735 Old Georgetown Road East-West Towers, Rm. 427 (to mailroom) j 4350 East-West Hwy. Bethesda, MD 20814 i Bethesda, MD 20814 Herbert H. Brown, Esq. ** Mr. Frederick J. Shon
- Lawrence Coe Lanpher, Esq.
Atomic Safety and Licensing Karla J. Letsche, Esq. Board Kirkpatrick & Lockhart U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission South Lobby - 9th Floor East-West Towers, Rm. 430 1800 M Street, N.W. 4350 East-West Hwy. Washington, D.C. 20036-5891 Bethesda, MD 20814 Fabian G. Palomino, Esq. *** Secretary of the Commission Richard J. Zahnleuter, Esq. Attention Docketing and Service Special Counsel to the Governor Section Executive Chamber U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission Room 229 1717 H Street, N.W. State Capitol Washington, D.C. 20555 Albany, New York 12224 Atomic Safety and Licensing Mary Gundrum, Esq. i Appeal Board Panel Assistant Attorney General l U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission 120 Broadway 1 Washington, D.C. 20555 Third Floor, Room 3-116 New York, New York 10271 i ii
9 .. i Spence W. Perry, Esq. ** Ms. Nora Bredes William R. Cumming, Esq. Executive Coordinator Federal Emergency Management Shoreham Opponents' Coalition Agency 195 East Main Street 500 C Street, S.W., Room 840 Smithtown, New York 11787 Washington, D.C. 20472 Gerald C. Crotty, Esq. Mr. Jay Dunkleberget Counsel to the Governor New York State Energy Office Executive Chamber Agency Building 2 State Capitol Empire State Plaza Albany, New York 12224 Albany, New York 12223 Martin Bradley Ashare, Esq. Stephen B. Latham, Esq. *** Eugene R. Kelly, ':sq. Twomey, Latham & Shea Suffolk County Attorney 33 West Second Street H. Lee Dennison IJuilding P.O. Box 298 Veterans Memorial Highway Riverhead, New York 11901 Hauppauge, New York 11787 Mr. Philip McIntire Dr. Monroe Schneider Federal Emergency Management North Shore Committee Agency P.O. Box 231 26 Federal Plaza Wading River, NY 11792 New York, New York 10278 Jonathan D. Feinberg, Esq. New York State Department of Public Service, Staff Counsel Three Rockefeller Plaza Albany, New York 12223 WQ Donald P. Irwin l Hunton & Williams 707 East Main Street P.O. Box 1535 Richmond, Virginia 23212 DATED: November 19,1987 _}}