ML20066C270
| ML20066C270 | |
| Person / Time | |
|---|---|
| Site: | Shoreham File:Long Island Lighting Company icon.png |
| Issue date: | 11/08/1982 |
| From: | Brown H KIRKPATRICK & LOCKHART, SUFFOLK COUNTY, NY |
| To: | NRC ATOMIC SAFETY & LICENSING APPEAL PANEL (ASLAP) |
| References | |
| ISSUANCES-OL, NUDOCS 8211090433 | |
| Download: ML20066C270 (8) | |
Text
{{#Wiki_filter:.... e' - s s 00tKETED 'J1NP.C UNITED STATES OF AMERICA 32 EN ~b 1 40 NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSION .
- FKE 1F SECili.* RY BEFORE THE ATOMIC SAFETY AND LICENSING BOARD C4il!;3 & SERVICE BRANCH
) In the Matter of ) ) LONG/ ISLAND LIGHTING COMPANY ) Docket No. 50-322 (O.L.) 1 ) (Shoreham Nuclear Power Station, ) Unit 1) ) ^ ) SUFFOLK COUNTY RESPONSE TO LICENSING BOARD PROPOSAL OF NOVEMBER 2, 1982 This filing responds to the Board's request that the parties present their views on the Board's authority to utilize private question-and-answer sessions (" evidentiary depositions") in lieu of the public hearing normally held in licensing proceedings'. Tr. 12,586. Suffolk County's position is (1) that the Board's proposed procedure is unlawful, i and (2) that the County's experts and consultants have been instructed by the County Executive not to participate in the l l Board's proposal. l I. The Board's Ruling On November 2, 1982, the Licensing Board tentatively ruled that Phase I emergency planning issues will not be ndjudicated in a customary public hearing before the Licensing Board.
- Instead, citing " efficiency" as its reason, the Board ruled that the 8211090433 821108 PDR ADOCK 05000322 0
PDR 3s03 l
L. emergency planning issues will be examined through " evidentiary depositions" taken privately among the parties. The Licensing Board will not be present at these sessions. Appearance before the Board on Phase I emergency planning issues will be conducted at a later date, with the hearing scope restricted to Board questions (if any) and to limited questions by the parties. Tr. 12,565-617. Such an appearance will be brief, perhaps lasting only one day. Tr. 12,542, 12,566, 12,577-79. The Board has ordered a similar procedure for considering the quality assurance issues addressed in the recent Torrey Pines report. Tr. 12,559. II. The County's Position On November 2, the Board was informed by County counsel b~ that County officials, when informed of the Board's proposal, would likely be highly dissatisfied. Tr. 12,582. That is the case. The Suffolk County Executive, Peter F. Cohalan, has written to Chairman Palladino and the Commissioners to express the County's view. A copy of Mr. Cohalan's letter is attached hereto. It informs the Commission of Mr. Cohalan's instruction that the County's experts and counsel not participate in the Board's proposed procedures.. Section 189 of the Atomic Energy Act provides parties with an opportunity for a " hearing" in any proceeding for a license to operate a nuclear power plant. The NRC has consistently implemented Section 189 to require adjudication of evidentiary disputes in public hearings before the Commission or the Boards
v, i to which it has delegated its authority. Depositions are used in NRC practice, just as they are in Federal court practice, as proper pre-trial discovery devices. To the County's knowledge, depositions have never been used as a substitute, in whole or in part, for a public adjudicatory hearing before a Licensing Boarg. The Licensing Board's proposal is at odds with the norm andjpractice of NRC licensing. proceedings. The Licensing Board ,has no authority in this proceeding to depart from the settled adjudicatory practice of the NRC. If a change is to be made in the adjudicatory process, that change can be effected only by the Commission through a properly noticed rulemaking proceeding or, if necessary, by Congress through legislation. The Board made clear on November 2 that i't believes it has authority to order its proposed change in procedure. Surprisingly, the Board declined to provide its reasoning for 1/ this position.~ Suffolk County Counsel: Judge Brenner, it would be very helpful from our standpoint if we were to understand the Board's reasoning. l 1/ The Board suggested that the use of prefiled testimony. provides an analogy for the " evidentiary depositions" proposed in this case. Tr. 12,582. The County disagrees. First, the prefiled testimony approach is explicitly authorized by Secti.on 2.743(b). Second, even with prefiled testimony, cross-examination is conducted before the Board in a public hearing. Obviously, in nuclear licensing cases -- where the vast complexity and weight of the direct testimony requires extensive preparation by counsel before the public hearing -- counsel and their experts have to receive the testimony before coming before the Board. Similarly, the Board needs it to prepare for trial.
W. From our perspective, we don't understand how a discovery tool can become a substitute for a hearing, and we might be ourselves persuaded not to pursue the argument if we understood where the Board was coming from. So if that were possible, we would appreciate the Board's reasoning, prior to the time we were asked to put forth our own analysis. Judge Brenner: No, sir. You're telling us we can't do it and we're telling you we can. You tell us why we can't. It's that simple. We stated our reasons. It is for efficiency. Tr. 12,564-65. The County acknowledges that the Board has broad discretion to control the course of a proceeding. See 10 C.F.R. S2.718. The Board's discretion, however, does not embrace the power to eliminate in substance and effect the very public hearing it is charged by law to conduct. h For the foregoing reasons, Suffolk County urges this Board to rescind its November 2 ruling. Respectfully submitted, David J. Gilmartin Patricia A. Dempsey Suffolk County Department of Law Hauppauge, New York 11788 N g -- Herbert H. Brown Lawrence Coe Lanpher Alan Roy Dynner KIRKPATRICK, LOCKHART, HILL, CHRISTOPHER & PHILLIPS 1900 M Street, N.W. November 8, 1982 Washington, D.C. 20036 l l
v DOCKETED Mf D ? UNITED STATES OF NHERICA NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSION '82 NOV -8 N1 :40 Before the Atomic Safety and Licensing Board LTit.'E OF SECRtTARY DOC 4Eilh3 & SERVICE BRANCH ) In the Matter of ) ) LONG ISLAND LIGHTING COMPANY ) Docket No. 50-322 (OL) ) (Emergency Planning (Shoreham Nuclear Power Station, ) Proceedings) Unit lj ) ) s ,ERTIFICATE OF SERVICE C ~ / I hereby certify that copies of "Suffolk County Response To Licensing Board Proposal of November 2, 1982" were sent on November 8, 1982 by first. class mail, except where otherwise ~ noted, to the following: Lawrence Brenner, Esq.* Mr. Brian McCaffrey Administrative Judge Long Island Lighting Company Atomic Safety and Licensing 175 East Old Country Road Board Hicksville, New York 11801 U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission Washington, D.C. 20555 Ralph Shapiro, Esq.** Cammer and Shapiro Dr. James L. Carpenter
- 9 East 40th. Street Administrative Judge New York, New York 10016 Atomic Safe'ty and Licensing Board Howard L.
blau, Esq. U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission 217 Newbridge Road Washington, D.C. 20555 Hicksville, New York 11801 Dr. Peter A. Morris
- W.
Taylor Reveley, III, Esq.** Administrative Judge Hunton & WilliPms Atomic Safety and Licensing 707 East Main Street Board' Richmond, Virginia 23212 U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission Washington, D.C. 20555 Mr. Jay Dunkleberger New York State Energy Office ' Edward M. Barrett, Esq. Agency Building 2 General Counsel Empire State Plaza l Long Island Lighting Company ' Albany, New York 12223 l 250 Old Country Road Mineola, New York'll501 By Hand By Fe.deral Express i- ~
s. Stephen B. Latham, Esq. Mr. Jeff Smith Twomey, Latham & Shea Shoreham Nuclear Power Station Attorneys at Law P.O. Box 618 33 West Second Stree t North Country Road Riverhead, Naw York 11901 Wading River, New York 11792 Marc W. Goldcmith MHB Technical Associates Energy Research Group, Inc. 1723 Hamilton Avenue 400-1 Totten Pond Road Suite K Waltham, Massachu.setts 02154 San Jose, California 95125 Hon. Peter Cohalan Joel Blau, Esq. New York Public Service Suffolk County Executive Commission County Executive / Legislative The Governor Nelson A. Building Rockefeller Building Veterans Memorial Highway Empire State Plaza Hauppauge, New York 11788 Albany, New York 12223 Ezra I. Bialik, Esq. David H. Gil. martin, Esq. Assistant Attorney General Suffolk County Attorney Environmental Protection Bureau County Executive / Legislative New York State Department of Law Building 2 World Trade Center Veterans Memorial Highway New York, New York 10047 Hauppauge, New York 11788 p Atomic Safety and Licensing Atomic Safety and Licensing Appeal Board Board Panel U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission Washington, D.C. 20555 Washington, D.C. 20555 Matthew J. Kelly, Esq. ' Docketing and Service Section* Staff Counsel, New York State Office of the ' Secretary Public Service Commission U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission 3 Rockefeller Plaza Washington, D.C.~20555 Albany, New York 12223 t Bernard M. Bordenick, Esq.* Daniel F. Brown, Esq.* l David A. Repka, Esq. U.S.' Nuclear Regulatory Commission i U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commissicn . Washington, D.C. 20555 Washington, D.C. 20555 I Stuart Diamond Environment / Energy Writer NEWSDAY Long Island, New York 11747 j' gl gy-7 l l Ax -< 1u /Me / e Christopher M'. McMurray- ~ KIRKPATRICK, LOCKHART, HILL, CHRISTOPHER & PHILLIPS 1900 M Street, N.W., Suite 00 DATED: November 8, 1982 Washington, D.C. 20036 Washington, D.C. (202) 452-7000
7,0.u-r m ;; ; r'n P P "I i' {' i i. j. i; We==es==wsurv4vyw'W. . T -r c t1: c.t.$.il:[5 4 P ah f:-$ TT ] ' [ f i.. r. i- ~ e - o ' L.i ' Di 2 l i ;i 11 L--t-- t--f-H --F-- l---- ;-. ~ !- l 6- -+- +.6 y
- t..q. ;.-4-*.}- p r - nn g
i I ~~ ~ ' L i '"1 i- ?. - - ---- 4 L ' = i - -
l.
u n '. a _ _i _ EL ~ 2 a-i u } i
- I!
i i p - i : b c r rT-a n_ o r- .r a OFMCE OP' THE COUNTY EXECUTIVE ]:
- M
- .i :s i
O t ~ c* Prr a F. Cuentas - f mzse C.GauAener o,sium,rv - 9 emmam canner, sumourwe -.i. i 4 November 8, 1982 4 4 ) 1. E /. I -l j j! i-l. di, 'f ..I j., !'
- !'E 1 ~A
$1 i, i t The Honorable Eunzio'J. dalladino. The Sonorable Victor Gilinsky 'l li The Hoecrable ~ James K. Asselstine - i
- a
. The Boocrable Jchn F. Ahearne ."'I The Honorable Thomas Roberts. -h, ., _ f U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission ( j, .' q Namesington,;D.C.20555i j
- t
~ il ~ $.. Dost.,Meests.: Chairman and cr==issionerse i I' i ,y
- f J D$*.
on' behalf of the Nitizens of Suffolk County,,I.-am writing: to inform yr,u.thati the hearing on the safety of the Shoreham' i a nuclear power plant is beina marred by the procedural, It irreamlarity of your Licensing Board. I ask that you promptly f y intercede' to exercise the Co:cuission's supervisory authority Ol over:the condact of the hearing. o -, m L.. g f si .j ti "Last week, the Licensino Soard tentatively decided to discaerd nortaal hearing. procedures on certain critical. issues of l 4 ..] emergency. preparedness and quality assurance. The Board stated'.' its intention not to preside ~over the cross-evamination of. l 'q;i ' cxpert witnesses-and, thus, in effect not to exercise. Its ,( 'f ' 4 important role of helping to shape the development of: probative i T evidence 1.n the adversarial framework established by law. 3 4 I l .Instead, the Board directed the parties to sch'e.iule l e questioning among therssehes by the invention of so-called 3}y ~, " evidentiary depositions," outside the public hearing rocar and in the absence of the Board Members. The Board indicated ~ that .i .l it wowld later rule on - the admissibility of portions of the parties' ' question-and-answer transcripts at a brief public i session and ask the witnesses any questions the Board might then have. i e N ""_98$3894 F p NA&ME, RY. I TM D F9't GB mm ~
W -- --- m m --- m r ----=.. =.v -======= w, 3, a m.. t r :.c n. .-. r.. 7.. a rv
- t..,. -., : :
e. _% _-e.. .u n -m. ;. -re ~.: -n. z h_= u _c .i a.:,t
- =._2
- 2 %.. a.e___.
=
- ,..;;,, R.u, m,._ 5 a;;. ;
3 = .=, n.-m:.~; p.:: ,.a_n. _.n ir21_: ,__=n.3._a a_ ~ ~. =. i UCCCm.'.IC':^~2_H GI .:ik=- "t ; CR.- _UF'IGTE;; L'I;II.zi-.*I EM=2 - _.... _.. H.. n._U r: = : =_ =: " r t. W-i --i = 2 -- M, m: _', '.M. --. p_;._;r. 3 %.. M d-E Q. m,. edEar.d:: d: .f r4 ._ a. _:..J. "~T.2~$ O lNd M M N.=e h
r 4 -a
i' ? 3, ? i i l ! The Board
- s ' proposal ' displays ; either ignorance.of or
!i { J I ' indifference! to the meaning.armi importance of' a public bearing.!' i i: ! I ' ' usaccep tab le l; to suffo lk. CountT'.The 'propesal is a gross departure from I fI' '3
- accordinaly.. I;am Instructing i j ;-{.:l l-l a
! - '. tae..Caunty's counsel and expert consultants:_not :to participate : 0 "In.the naard'. s proposed procedtzres.: l t f e t t e. i i. -E p.lBy ja M be the -NRC's Shoreham bearing,.Suffolk Oaanty, i 1 1 i i i i '.'p assomed and accepted,the applicability of.eseablisbedt rules a'ad... 'I 1 EW-icuat maard preceenyed. ': Me sow insist thst.your Licensing Boars !" U lijf ~ A1%e!"I.I$. h; 8 .?',i ' appl those rhles; add 'procedores. En: SaffoIR Ccianty; a " li theth noqhingi. rore and riothingl.lessi.! p Ei :l h; bas . smeans just: }f. right and priirilege in, which to develop. g. p [ * [. ;, is b $ortas o H p' if bear $n? l. facts. i The, personal ihvoIvement, of. attentive adindicators _is 3.: ; t ' '. ~ L 1 4 i=M spensablel. YounF; r.lcensing see rd's invention :of so-e n M 1 - "d 1 ['
- edi5entitry depositicisi as a substitute for thd normal- { ' i.
O ;!I 1 i.h
- jdearing
! }, !..!: R[ !..h j ~ } @p adjwilca}procedbres} n6t 'onlyi does Yiolence toithe 'settledtory fIramew q i a *.- 4 hothjthe..moard; ams the. parties to the. proceeding. :, ji, S ,9;' i ; i.. N i ok. th Coinnty wh6 are 'affe tel byk ,,M i.h IN
- L. j.
- Cuoretieur' a'. safety, the 1.ssees being Beard by the Eicensing Bo t:
pefform its jodicial functio's with care, tem 5erament, and' ' ?". n t. i' maturity befitting the high public responsibility with 'which it. 1 has been ertruste5. '. "'be Board's proposal to discard normal !';.j. heariseg precedure s in this case is an issult - a suggestiert i.,;'. j!_.!. '.C[ I. that the NFC does 'not censider the public's ' safety concerns at": P. 1: } j ! $cordam to he hrtant encragh. to jnef fy, followingr the i - arrctinary course.- } i. i i 1 i i i i 1 i i I ask that you provptly act to terminate this potentially-I ; i; } i i ! divisi re centroversy.by instrui: ting the Licensine Board ' to use 1 normal public hearing precedures in the shoreham proceeding.. ! 1 Suf folk Cocnty is not willing to permit the Shoreham safety ' heartag to become a laboratory for experirments in regulatory procediare. S rely yours, t f.. a ER F.. COHALAN i i SUITOLK COUNTY EXECUTIVE [ T-l 1 cc: Lawrecca Brenner, Esq.. Dr. Pete r A. Morris l Dr. Jasmes [.. Cr. rp te r ' i}}