ML20054L295
| ML20054L295 | |
| Person / Time | |
|---|---|
| Site: | Shoreham File:Long Island Lighting Company icon.png |
| Issue date: | 07/02/1982 |
| From: | Lanpher L KIRKPATRICK & LOCKHART, SUFFOLK COUNTY, NY |
| To: | Atomic Safety and Licensing Board Panel |
| References | |
| ISSUANCES-OL, NUDOCS 8207070354 | |
| Download: ML20054L295 (7) | |
Text
O o
UNITED STATES OF AMERICA NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSION Before the Atomic Safety and L'icensing Board a7 (nh\\1
)
In the Matter of
)
)
LONG ISLAND LIGHTING COMPANY
)
Docket No. 50-322 0.L.
)
(Shoreham Nuclear Power Station,'
)
Unit 1)
)
)
SUFFOLK COUNTY RESPONSE TO "LILCO'S MOTIONS TO SUPPLEMENT WITNESS PANELS, PLUS SEVERAL RELATED MATTERS" On June 24, 1982, LILCO served Suffolk County with a
" Motion to Supplement Witness Panels, Plus Several Related Matters."
Attached to the Motion were separate motions to add one, two or three witnesses on 11 different pieces of pre-filed testimony.
Thus, LILCO has sought to add witnesses on all but one item of testimony which had been filed by June 2, 1982, the date on which the Board made its statements regarding witness supplementation.-1/
Suffolk County hereby opposes the grant of these motions for the reasons stated below.
i First, the County opposes the 11 specific motions to supple-ment because LILCO does not state any need or other reason that would justify LILCO's drastic action.
The Board did invite
~1/
See June 2, 1982 Transcript, pp. 3136-38.
LILCO did not move to supplement its testimony on SC Contention 20 (Simulators).
8207070354 820702
] 7' C; JD PDR ADOCK 05000322 G
j PDR i
5 parties to consider supplementation.of witnesses.
(Tr. 3136-38).
However, the Board's statements on this matter were in the con-text that supplementation would be proper only when the correct witnesses had not sponsored the prefiled testimony.
We do not believe that the Board intended to extend a blanket for LILCO or any other party to enroll a new cast of witnesses as a matter of routine trial practice.
To the contrary, it is our view that the Board limited the supplementation of witnesses to cases where a definite need for such supplementation was demonstrated.
LILCO, however, has not attempted to justify its unusual action, but appears to have simply taken for granted the right to add witnesses on nearly every contention (one witness in two instances, two witnesses in five instances, and l
three witnesses in four_ instances).
The County believes that LILCO has failed in each instance to demonstrate why the proffered supplementation of witnesses is necessary or proper.
There is no explanation by LILCO of why in each instance the original witnesses were not correct sponsors 7
{
of the testimony.
Thus, from LILCO's motions, it is impossible to i
j determine whether LILCO is seeking to supplement because the original witnesses could not fully sponsor the testimony (which would arguably be within the Board's invitation to add witnesses, i
if it were clear LILCO had erred in the first place), or because LILCO is instead seeking to bolster a panel which could sponsor the testimony (outside the Board's invitation).
In short, LILCO's
(
i
' motions are deficient for failing to give any reason why the supplementation is necessary.
Second, as previously stated by Suffolk County counsel orally, the County opposes LILCO's supplementation of prefiled testimony because it is an after-the-fact action which disrupts orderly pretrial procedures and prejudices Suffolk County.
LILCO, like Suffolk County, was required to profile testimony on April 14, May 4, May 25, June 8 and June 22 pursuant to the schedule mandated by the Board.
Suffolk County objected to the schedule as not permitting sufficient time, but the Board, urged by LILCO to establish an expedited schedule, ordered the tight schedule stated above.
LILCO, accordingly, like the County, was required to file its testimony, sponsored by the correct witnesses, 4
i in accordance with the Board's schedule.
It would be unfair to allow LILCO at this late date (after LILCO has had an opportunity to review the County's testimony on each issue) to supplement its witness panels in the manner pro-posed.
LILCO's technical resources have been available to LILCO counsel all along, particularly given their access to experts i
from General Electric and Stone & Webster.
The County believes that LILCO's counsel should be held to the same burdens as the County's counsel, who have sought to establish witness panels with correct experts from the outset.
Accordingly, if the Board l
l believes supplementation by LILCO should be permitted, the Board should suspend the proceeding for a reasonable time in order to 1
permit the County to consider and seek new experts.
If this i
iI.
action is not taken, the County submits that it will be pre-judiced.~2/
It has been suggested by the Board and LILCO that because LILCO has the burden of proof in this proceeding, LILCO should have leeway to supplement witnesses.
The County disagrees.
It bears repeating that it was LILCO which stated that it was ready to go forward on the very expedited schedule which the Board imposed.
LILCO surely knew at that time that it, just like every other applicant in NRC proceedings, had the burden of proof.
If LILCO now needs additional witnesses, it should be permitted to add them only (1) if LILCO justifies the need for such supplementa-tion; and (2) LILCO does so under conditions which do not prejudice the County -- namely, af ter an adjournment to provide the County a reasonable opportunity to supplement its own witness panels.
Respectfully submitted, David H. Gilmartin Patricia A. Dempsey Suffolk County Department of Law Veterans Memorial Highway Haupo uge, New York 11788 W
l Herbert H.
Brown Lawrence Coe Lanpher Karla J. Letsche KIRKPATRICK, LOCKHART, HILL, CHRISTOPHER & PHILLIPS 1900 M Street, N.W.,
8th Floor Washington, D.C.
20036 (202) 452-7000 f
July 2, 1982 Attorneys for Suffolk County
~2/
It would be no answer that the County allegedly has had time since the initial filing of testinony to seek new experts. %c County's present l
exoerts, who are essential in the search for additional exoerts, have been engaged in the hering process or in preparing testinony on alnest a full-tine basis. The Board's schedule has permitted them no tire to undertake such a search. The County, ho'suver, wishes to seek additional experts.
f
UNITED STATES OF AMERICA NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSION BEFORE THE ATOMIC SAFETY AND LICENSING BOARD
)
In the Matter of
)
)
LONG ISLAND LIGHTING COMPANY
)
Docket No. 50-322 0.L.
)
(Shoreham Nuclear Power Station,
)
Unit 1)
)
)
l NOTICE OF APPEARANCE Please note the appearance of the undersigned, who has been admitted to practice law before the District of Columbia Court of Appeals and the U.S.
Supreme Court,- as counsel for Suf folk County in the above-captioned docket.
Mr. Sedky is in the-firm's Pittsburgh office.
Please separately add his name and address to the Shoreham service list:
Cherif Sedky j
Kirkpatrick, Lockhart, Johnson & Hutchison 1500 Oliver Building Pittsburgh, Pennsylvania 15222 l
1
'?
1
,,/
/
h./ h h/
July 2,
1982 1
UNITED STATES OF AMERICA NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSION Before the Atomic Safety and Licensing Board
)
In the Matter of
)
)
LONG ISLAND LIGHTING COMPANY
)
)
Docket No. 50-322 (OL)
(Shoreham Nuclear Power Station,
)
Unit 1)
)
)
CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE I hereby certify that copies of the "SUFFOLK COUNTY RESPONSE TO 'LILCO'S MOTIONS TO SUPPLEMENT WITNESS PANELS, PLUS SEVERAL RELATED MATTERS,"' and the " NOTICE OF APPEARANCE" for Cherif Sedky, both dated this 2nd day of July, 1982, have been served to the following by U.S. Mail, first class, except as otherwise indicated.
Lawrence Brenner, Esq.
(*)
Ralph Shapiro, Esq.
Administrative Judge Cammer and Shapiro Atomic Safety and Licensing Board 9 East 40th Street U.S.
Nuclear Regulatory Commission New York, New York 10016 Washington, D.C.
20555 Howard L.
Blau, Esq.
Dr. James L. Carpenter (*)
217 Newbridge Road Administrative Judge Hicksville, New' York 11801 Atomic Safety and Licensing Board U.S.
Nuclear Regulatory Commission W.
Taylor Reveley III, Esq.
(*)
Washington, D.C.
20555 Hunton & Williams P.O.
Box 1535 Dr. Peter A.
Morris I*)
Richmond, Virginia 23212 Administrative Judge Atomic Safety and Licensing Board U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission Mr. Jay Dunkleberger Washington, D.C.
20555 New York State Energy Office l
Agency Building 2 Edward M.
Barrett, Esq.
Empire State Plaza General Counsel Albany, New York 12223 Long Island Lighting Company 250 Old Country Road Stephen B.
Latham, Esq.
Mineola, New York 11501 Twomey, Latham & Shea l
Attorneys at Law I
Mr. Brian McCaffrey P.O.
Box 398 Long Island Lighting Company 33 West Second Street 175 East Old Country Road Riverhead, New York 11901 Hicksville, New York 11801
e e' Marc W.
Goldsmith Mr. Jeff Smith Energy Research Group, Inc.
Shoreham Nuclear Power Station 400-1 Totten Pond Road P.O. Box 618 Waltham, Massachusetts 02154 North Country Road Wading River, New York 11792 Joel Blau, Esq.
New York Public Service Commission MHB Technical Associates The Governor Nelson A.
Rockefeller 1723 Hamilton Avenue Building Suite K Empire State Plaza San Jose, California 95125 Albany, New York 12223 Hon. Peter Cohalan David H. Gilmartin, Esq.
Suffolk County Executive Suffolk County Attorney County Executive / Legislative County Executive / Legislative Bldg.
Building Veterans Memorial Highway Veterans Memorial Highway Hauppauge, New York 11788 Hauppauge, New York 11788 Atomic Safety and Licensing Ezra I.
Bialik, Esq.
Board Panel Assistant Attorney General U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission Environmental Protection Bureau Washington, D.C.
20555 New York State Department of
'aw Docketing and Service Section 2 World Trade Center Office of the Secretary New York, New York 10047 U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission Washington, D.C.
20555 Atomic Safety and Licensing Appeal Board Bernard M.
Bordenick, Esq. (*)
U.S. Nuclear Regulatory David A.
Repka, Esq.
Commission U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission Washington, D.C.
20555 Washington, D.C.
20555 Stuart Diamond i
Matthew J. Kelly, Esq.
Environment / Energy Writer Staff Counsel, New York State NEWSDAY Public Service Commission Long Island, New York 11747 3 Rockefeller Plaza
~
Albany, New York 12223 i
l Cherif Sedky, Esq.
Kirkpatrick, Lockhart, Johnson & Hutchison 1500 Oliver Building Pittsburgh, Penn. 15222 Runse_v
' Lawrence Coe Lanphdt KIRKPATRICK, LOCKHART, HILL, CHRISTOPHER & PHILLIPS 1900 M Street, N.W.,
8th Floor Washington, D.C.
20036
(*) By hand on July 6, 1982 L