ML20024E404
| ML20024E404 | |
| Person / Time | |
|---|---|
| Site: | Shoreham File:Long Island Lighting Company icon.png |
| Issue date: | 08/04/1983 |
| From: | Christman J HUNTON & WILLIAMS, LONG ISLAND LIGHTING CO. |
| To: | |
| References | |
| ISSUANCES-OL, NUDOCS 8308100364 | |
| Download: ML20024E404 (13) | |
Text
-.
- LILCO, August 4, 1983
- n. /
W R, s
,/
9
- tcento
'S UNITED STATES OF AMERICA I
NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSION k-UE 1983 s 'i.-
T 8
p I
T
- fy, L
Before the Atomic Safety and Licensing Boar g
p ?'
s j
i In the Matter of
)
)
LONG ISLAND LIGHTING COMPANY
)
Docket No. 50-322 (OL)
)
Emergency Planning (Shoreham Nuclear Power Station, )
4 Unit 1)
)
LILCO'S RECOMMENDATIONS TO THE BOARD FOR PREHEARING AND HEARING PROCEDURES In its First Prehearing Conference Order and Notice of Second Prehearing Conference of July 20, 1983, the Board directed the parties to confer with each other and thereafter to file in writing, on or before August 4, 1983, their recom-mendations, proposed schedules, and limitations for each of the following:
a.
Techniques or methods of discovery which should be permitted, limited, or precluded; b.
Amount of time to complete all discov-ery; c.
Time for filing motions for summary disposition; d.
Combining affidavits in connection with summary disposition motions and prefiled testimony; e.
Date(s) for filing testimony; f.
Place (s) of hearing; B308100364 830804 PDR ADOCK 05000322 C
PDR 4
V
g.
Date for commencement of hearings; h.
Estimated length of hearing; and i.
All other items listed as prehearing or hearing procedures on the Agenda of the First Prehearing Conference.
This documen't constitutes LILCO's recommendations on these sub-jects.
Proposed Schedule Counsel for Suffolk County, SOC, the NRC Staff, and LILCO discussed scheduling by conference call on August 1, 1983.
LILCO's proposed schedule for future proceedings is as follows.
It is much the same as LILCO proposed orally at the July 13 prehearing conference, except all the dates are displaced by about a month so as to begin the schedule with the August 9 conference instead of the July 13 conference.
The NRC Staff agrees with the format of this schedule but recommends slightly different dates; the Staff's (and FEMA's) recommendations are included in brackets following LILCO's recommendations.
P
- 4, k
Date Event August 9 Second prehearing conference August 23 Last date to make document requests August 30 Report to Board on settlement efforts 1
pate Event September 9 Last day to produce documents Last day for depositions September 16 Parties report to Board, dividing the
[ Sept. 23) contentions into three categories:
1.
Issues susceptible to settle-ment; 2.
Issues on which one or more parties plan to file summary disposition motions; and 3.
Issues that must be litigated.
a September 30 Parties file written testimony on issues j
[Oct. 21) in category 3 (the " litigate" cate-gory)
Parties jointly file settlement agreements on category 1 issues that have been settled; for category 1 l
issues that have not yet been set-tied, parties advise Board whether further settlement efforts would be useful and if not, why not Parties file summary disposition motions on category 2 issues October 7 Parties file answers to summary dis-t
[Oct. 28]
position motions Parties file motions to strike test-imony October 17 Hearing begins on category 3 issues
[Nov. 14]
I
! J
-,-,-n.---
.,n_
c..,,_,,,
- - -.., -,, - - - - -, - - -,, - - -, -.. - ~
r-
4 Date Event Two (three]
Parties file written testimony on con-weeks after tentions that were not summarily Board's rul-disposed of in whole or in part ing on sum-mary disposi-tion motions Discovery Methods i
The above schedule is quite demanding, given the large number of the contentions that must be resolved.
Despite its rigor, it results in the beginning of the public hearing no earlier than October 17, later than when LILCO anticipates that Shoreham will be ready to load fuel.
And that is only the beginning of the hearing.
Given the number of contentions on offsite emergency planning, which far exceed the number of is-sues litigated during the past year or more of this proceeding, the hearing itself could take months.
Consequently, LILCO believes that discovery in this case must be limited.
There are several good reasons, apart from the demands of the schedule, for doing so.
First, document discovery was conducted last summer on both onsite and offsite emergency preparedness.
To be sure, both the County consul-tants' draft emergency plan and the LILCO Transition Plan were completed after that time, but nevertheless the documents produced last summer got out of the way a good deal of the basic emergency planning discovery. -
i d
Second, the parties have been dealing with emergency planning for a long time, and both sides have laid out their positions in oral testimony and document filings before various l
bodies, for example, the Governor of New York's Fact Finding i
Panel and the Subcommittee on Oversight and Investigations of the Interior and Insular Affairs Committee of the U.S.
House of Representatives.
Perhaps most important, the Suffolk County 4
{
Legislature conducted hearings on emergency planning this past January, and both LILCO and the County consultants made presen-tations.
On the basis of these hearings Suffolk County saw fit to determine that adequate emergency preparedness is impossi-4 i
ble.
From LILCO's perspective, the hearings were an opportuni-I ty for both sides to hear the other's position on the signifi-l l
cant issues.
Accordingly, LILCO believes that the Board should set a 4
cut-off date for discovery; we have proposed September 9 as j
that date.
This cut-off may well require Suffolk County and l
LILCO to assign several lawyers to taking and defending deposi-i tions, but that is one of the prices of conducting complex lit-l l
igation.
l In-discussions with the intervenors, the NRC Staff, and r
LILCO, LILCO has learned that LILCO and the intervenors are far apart on the question of how much time is needed for discovery, especially depositions.1/
Generally speaking, Suffolk County t
1/
LILCO would prefer that all the parties forego the taking l
of depositions altogether.
But if the intervenors insist on (footnote continued)
_5_
~
i 1
I wishes to have a great deal more time than LILCO thinks neces-sary, and it appears that the Board will simply have to set some reasonable schedule and expect the parties to adhere to it.
In deciding what that schedule should be, LILCO believes that the Board could take the following into account.
Suffolk County spent almost a year, from the spring of 1981 until February 1983, in its own internal deliberations on emergency l
planning, from which it excluded LILCO at least until the time of the County Legislature's hearings in February 1983.
Only at the end of that period did the County announce that it believed emergency planning to be impossible and that the entire year of licensing proceeding up until that point, not to mention over a decade of construction permit hearings and construction, had been a waste of time.
At that point LILCO was compelled to produce an unprecedented offsite plan without the cooperation, 1
and indeed against the resistance, of the local government.
i LILCO did this in only about three months of time between the-County Legislature's decision on emergency planning in February l
and the date the Transition Plan was filed, May 26.
All this 1
(footnote continued)
I taking depositions, LILCO will find it necessary to take a num-ber of depositions as well.
This might require the Board to issue subpoenas to allow-LILCO to depose certain people who have not been included on the County's witness list, for exam-ple, members of the County's emergency planning Steering Com-mittee and certain of the County's traffic consultants.
,,,n
..----.,n.
. - - -.., ~.
,,-,---,.-.------,,n-,
n r-n.-. -, - - - -,, -. ~ - -. - - - - -.
suggests that Suffolk County has itself created the schedule situation that we all now face, and that any doubts about scheduling should be resolved in favor of a shorter, rather than a longer, schedule.
After all, Suffolk County always has the option, which is much more effective than litigation, of resolving its emergency planning concerns by simply participating in the emergency planning process.
Indeed, if it had done so before now, many of the contentions it raises in this proceeding.would undoubtedly have been resolved satisfac-torily to everyone.
Place of Hearing LILCO believes the hearing should be held on Long Island.
Dividing the time between Riverhead and Hauppauge would proba-bly be the most satisfactory.
Estimated Length of Hearing LILCO is unable to make any reasonably reliable estima-tion of the time the hearing will consume.
The time consumed l
by the hearing process is largely a function of the amount of time the intervenors decide to spend on cross-examination, and for that very reason it may be necessary to limit cross-i examination in this case.
It is quite clear, however, that the length of the contentions (177 pages) presents the potential for a protracted hearing.
7-i
~
2 m
y e-e>-
---wm
-g
-#--r-------r--
m4y
-ws-3 y
w,vt-e g--
-y w-
-w-
Other Procedures In the Prehearing Conference Agenda of July 13, 1983, the Board listed several "Prehearing Procedures" and " Hearing Pro-cedures," on which the Board has solicited the views of the parties.
LILCO has attempted below to make whatever comments it thinks might be helpful to the Board on some of these mat-ters.
Identification of Hearing Witnesses The County, NRC Staff, and LILCO have exchanged prelim-inary witness lists.
LILCO has designated 24 people.
Depend-ing on what contentions are ruled inadmissible and what conten-tions are resolved by summary disposition, the list of witness-es may grow smaller, but this seems unlikely.
More likely, ad-ditional witnesses will have to be added as the case develops.
Exhibits to Be Offered LILCO's basic evidentiary exhibit will be the LILCO Tran-sition Plan, including the " Appendix A" evacuation plan, and probably also some or all of the plan implementing procedures.
LILCO's evidence on the issues of human behavior, which are an important part of the intervenors' case, will likely be supported mainly by prefiled written testimony of Drs. Dynea. - _.
and Mileti.
A recent survey of the opinions of Long Isranders commissioned by LILCO will probably also be offered into evi-dence.
Certain analyses of LILCO's traffic consultant, Mr.
Lieberman, will undoubtedly be used to respond to the interve-nors' contentions about traffic congestion'.
And the training contentions may require that LILCO submit the training materi-als it uses to prepare emergency workers for their roles in the Transition Plan.
Stipulations and Admissions of Facts LILCO believes that, as a part of the settlement process, the parties will want to try to narrow the areas of disagree-ment by stipulating as many facts as possible.
LILCO also hopes to use requests for admissions as a means of narrowing the issues.
Authenticity of Documents LILCO expects there to be little or no disagreement about the authenticity of documents.
It is hoped that the parties l
will be able to agree in advance on the admissibility of most exhibits.
l i
i l l 1
l
=.
4 Trial Briefs LILCO does not expect there to be much need for trial briefs.
The facts of the case ought to be sufficiently laid out in the exhibits and prefiled written testimony.
If briefs on issues of law are required, they can be requested by the Board as the occasion arises.
Order of Hearing Issues
)
LILCO is not yet able to advise the Board as to the order the issues should be tried.
We do believe that the " legal au-thority" issues and the other issues involving the State of New York, such as the contentions about the 50-mile ingestion path-way EPZ, will have to await the report of the Governor's Shoreham Fact Finding Panel and any action by the Governor in response to it.
Designation of Lead Intervenor The intervenors should designate a lead intervenor for each contention.
(This was done in their draft contentions, and contention 97 is still designated " SOC.")
Only the lead intervenor (Suffolk County in most instances) should cross-examine on each contention. :
- _, _ - ~. - - - -, -, - -
. _ ~.
l Counsel for the NRC Staff has authorized LILCO to report, as noted above, that the Staff supports the format of the schedule set out above, but with the modifications shown in brackets.
The Staff is in general agreement with the other ar-guments, observations, and recommendations ~above.
Respectfully submitted, LONG ISLAND LIGHTING COMPANY By James N.
Christman i
Hunton & Willidms P.O.
Box 1535 1
707 East Main Street Richmond, VA 23212 e-DATED:
August 4, 1983 i
1 1
1 I
4 4
4 i
_11_
f
LILCO, August 4, 1983 CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE In the Matter of LONG ISLAND LIGHTING COMPANY (Shoreham Nuclear Power Station, Unit 1)
Docket No. 50-322 (OL)
I hereby' certify that copies of LILCO's Recommendations to the Board for Prehearing and Hearing Procedures were served this date upon the following by first-class mail, postage prepaid, or (as indicated by one asterisk) by hand, or (as indicated by two asterisks) by Federal Express.
James A.
Laurenson, Atomic Safety and Licensing Chairman
- Board Panel Atomic Safety and Licensing U.S.
Nuclear Regulatory Board Commission U.S.
Nuclear Regulatory Washington, D.C.
20555 Commission East-West Tower, Rm. 402A Bernard M.
Bordenick, Esq.*
4350 East-West Hwy.
David A.
Repka, Esq.
Bethesda, MD 20814 Edwin J.
Reis, Esq.
U.S.
Nuclear Regulatory Dr. Jerry R.
Kline*
Commission Atomic Safety and Licensing 7735 Old Georgetown Road Board (to mailroom)
U.S.
Nuclear Regulatory Bethesda, MD 20814 Commission East-West Tower, Rm. 427 Herbert H.
Brown, Esq.*
4350 East-West Hwy.
Lawrence Coe Lanpher, Esq.
i Bethesda, MD 20814 Christopher McMurray, Esq.
Kirkpatrick, Lockhart, Hill, Dr.
M.
Stanley Livingston**
Christopher & Phillips 1005 Calle Largo 8th Floor, 1900 M Street, N.W.
Sante Fe, New Mexico 87501 Washington, D.C.
20036 Secretary of the Commission David J.
Gilmartin, Esq.
U.S.
Nuclear Regulatory Attn:
Patricia A. Dempsey, Esq.
Commission County Attorney Washington, D.C.
20555 Suffolk County Department of Law Atomic Safety and Licensing Veterans Memorial Highway Appeal Board Panel Hauppauge, New York 11787 U.S.
Nuclear Regulatory Commission Washington, D.C.
20555
. Eleanor L.
Frucci, Esq.*
Stewart M. Glass, Esq.**
Attorney Regional Counsel Atomic Safety and Licensing Federal Emergency Management Board Panel Agency U.S.
Nuclear Regulatory 26 Federal Plaza, Room 1349 Commission New York, New York 10278 East-West Tower, North Tower 4350 East-West Highway Spence W.
- Perry, Esq.**
Bethesda, MD 20814 Associate General Counsel Federal Emergency Management Mr. Marc W. Goldsmith Agency Energy Research Group 500 C Street, S.W.
4001 Totten Pond Road Room 840 Waltham, Massachusetts 02154 Washington, D.C.
20472 Mr. Jay Dunkleberger Ralph Shapiro, Esq.**
New York State Energy Office Cammer and Shapiro, P.C.
Agency Building 2 9 East 40th Street Empire State Plaza New York, New York 11901 Albany, New York 12223 Howard L.
Blau MHB Technical Associates 217 Newbridge Road 1723 Hamilton Avenue Hicksville, New York 11801 Suite K San Jose, California 95125 Jonathan D.
Feinberg, Esq.
New York State James B.
Dougherty, Esq.*
Department of Public Service 3045 Porter Street Three Empire State Plaza Washington, D.C.
20008 Albany, New York 12223 Stephen B.
- Latham, Esq.**
Ms. Nora Bredes Twomey, Latham & Shea Executive Coordinator 33 West Second Street Shoreham opponents' Coalition P.O.
Box 398 195 East Main Street Riverhead, New York 11901 Smithtown, New York 11787 James N.
Christman Hunton & Williams P.O.
Box 1535 707 East Main Street Richmond, Virginia 23212 DATED:
August 4, 1983
-