ML20077L496
| ML20077L496 | |
| Person / Time | |
|---|---|
| Site: | Shoreham File:Long Island Lighting Company icon.png |
| Issue date: | 08/04/1983 |
| From: | Lanpher L KIRKPATRICK & LOCKHART, SUFFOLK COUNTY, NY |
| To: | |
| References | |
| ISSUANCES-OL, NUDOCS 8308090444 | |
| Download: ML20077L496 (33) | |
Text
~ w' y
pawd
' p%4 UNITED STATES OF AMERICA pyG 51983 >
C'
[)
NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSION 13 gee elthe %
Before the Atomic Safety and Licensing Board mQff5 ' '
.sgh/
p, In the Matter of
)
)
LONG ISLAND LIGHTING COMPANY
)
Docket No. 50-322 0.L.
)
(Emergency Planning)
(Shoreham Nuclear Power Station,
)
Unit 1)
)
)
SUFFOLK COUNTY RESPONSE TO ASLB REQUEST FOR PARTIES' VIEWS ON EMERGENCY PLANNING MATTERS On July 20, 1983, this Board issued its "First Prehearing Conference Order and Notice of Second Prehearing Conference" (the " Order").
Pursuant to the Order, the parties conferred by conference call on August 1, 1983 on proposed schedules and limitations relating to matters such as discovery and summary disposition motions.1/ See Order at 3-4.
The purpose of this filing is to provide the Board with the County's views regarding the matters raised in the Order.
The Town of Southampton, SOC, and NSC join in the views expressed herein by the County.
The County discusses in turn the matters raised by the l
Board in its Order:
l I
1/
Counsel for the Town of Southampton and NSC were unable to participate in the conference call.
However, counsel for i
Suffolk County discussed the scheduling matters with these other counsel and they concurred in the positions which were stated by the County.
8300090444 830804 PDR ADOCK 05000322
?"..
3$
Status of Informal Discovery.
The parties have vig-orously pursued informal discovery since the July 13 prehearing conference.
Little informal discovery in the form of interrogatories or document requests should remain to be com-pleted after August 9.
Future Discovery.
The County intends to conduct dep-osition discovery commencing as soon as it has received re-sponses to its informal discovery and has had a chance to review those responses with its consultants.
The_need for dep-ositions is particularly great in this proceeding because the parties are presented with the issues of first impression con-l i
cerning-the ability of a utility to create and in fact.imple-ment an entire offsite emergency planning infrastructure.
Thus, the County needs to depose LILCO's proposed witnesses, certain of the LERO workers and workers from volunteer organi-l zations, and the Staff / FEMA witnesses and plan reviewers.
Only l
by such discovery will the County and other parties be in a po-sition to address the crucial question whether the plan pro-posed by LILCO will in fact work.
i l
LILCO desires to limit formal discovery drastically --
r perhaps even prohibiting the taking of depositions at all.
However, LILCO has provided no reasoned basis for this position except for its obvious desire to proceed as fast as possible.
!~ !
_ _ _. =
I LILCO did not file its plan until late Spring 1983 and thus it is not surprising that a great deal of work remains to be done in order to understand fully the program which LILCO proposes for. compliance with the regulations.
If due process is to be preserved, a fair opportunity must be permitted for all parties to pursue their legitimate discovery needs.
Scheduling.
The County proposes a schedule which includes the following:
a brief period to complete and digest informal discovery; an intensive deposition schedule; a period i
for parties' summary disposition motions; and testimony and hearings to follow Board rulings on summary disposition.
This leads to a hearing in early 1984.
Other Matters.
The parties have agreed that it is premature to address matters such as stipuistians of fact, au-thenticity of documents, etc.,
It may be prudent, however, for the Board to schedule a conference of counsel after close of discovery where such matters may be discussed.
The County does support the requirements that trial briefs be submitted and that cross examination plans be prepared.
The parties also agree that the hearing should be on Long Island.
I.
Status of Ongoing Informal Discovery The Board advised the parties to expedite ongoing informal i
discovery.
See Order at 3-4.
The County sets forth below the l
1,
status of these efforts, which documents that informal
' discovery has proceeded rapidly.
~
(a)
LILCO Discovery.
LILCO has sent the County four sets of interrogatories coupled with document requests, dated June 29 and July 6, 13 and 25.2/
A total of 114 interrogatories have been propounded by LILCO to the County as of this date.
LILCO also served the County with 33 additional document pro-duction requests, dated July 21, 1983.
As of August 4, 1983, the County has responded to 109 of the interrogatories and expects to answer the remainder by August 8.
The County expects to answer the July.21 LILCO document requests by-August 12, 1983.
LILCO also filed on June 29, 1983, interrogatories and document production requests directed to the Town of Southampton and SOC.
Aditional LILCO requests directed to SOC f
were filed.on. August 2, 1983.
(b)
County Discovery.
The County's informal discovery has been in two phases.
First, in June 1983, prior to submis-sion of its draft contentions, the County sent LILCO clarifying questions relating to specific statements, or confusing or 2/
The July 25 LILCO interrogatories sought clarification of earlier County responses. l
-n-,-
,~n- - --.,.s
..w.,a-.
an.,
.,.e-n-
,_,.--a-,..
.-,n-.
,.,r-
,,.-,,,,,,,,m,,n.,%,,,,,--,,
e-
.-,na,-
e-n,-.-,,,,m,,
inconsistent cross references, in the LILCO Plan.
These clarifying questions required short and relatively simple answers, which were provided promptly by LILCO.
Second, after the July 13 prehearing conference, the Coun-ty has:
On July 18, 1983, filed 95 interrogatories / document requests with LILCO.
Many of these requested LILCO to identify organizations and individuals with various responsibilities relating to the Plan.
As of August 3, 1983, the County had received answers to only one request (that pertaining to tentative trial witnesses) but LILCO has stated that it expects to answer them all by August 9, 1983.
On July 27, 1983, filed 8 interrogatories and document requests with the Staff.
The Staff as of August 4, 1983 has provided data orally concerning identification of witnesses and reviewers of LILCO plan documents.
The County awaits responses to the other requests.
On August 2, 1983, filed 8 additional interrogatories with the Staff, primarily requesting data concerning one identified Staff witness.
l - - -
,,._1
(c)
Other Discovery.
The County is informed that NSC on August 3 propounded discovery requests to LILCO.
II.
Future Discovery Regarding future discovery, it is appropriate to discuss separately interrogato.:les/ document requests and depositions.
The County addresses each below.
(a)
Interrogatories / Document Requests.
LILCO informed the County on August 1 that it would be sending additional interrogatories and/or document requests to the County on or before August 9.
The County does not intend to pursue further interrogatory or document request discovery except for
" follow-up" discovery based on LILCO or Staff responses to the County's already outstanding requests.
Further, there may be need for County discovery on Revision 1 to the LILCO Plan, which the parties just received this week.
The County has not yet had an opportunity to review Revision 1 in any detail. 3/
l (b)
Depositions.
An impass exists between LILCO and the County regarding the use of depositions.
LILCO has informed the County that it believes there should be few depositions or perhaps none at all.
During the conference call on August 1, 3/
Similarly, if there are further revisions to LILCO's Plan, there may be a need for further discovery related to those revisions.
f- -
i
~..
LILCO declined to indicate whether it planned to seek any depositions because it apparently had not decided that issue.
The County believes strongly that there must be a reason-able opportunity to depose essential persons.
The reasons are set forth below:
-(i)
First,.the LILCO Plan represents an unprecedented en-deavor by which the utility is attempting to demonstrate regu-latory compliance and hence adequate preparedness despite the decision by the County not to adopt or implement any plan.
The County does not believe LILCO can demonstrate regulatory com-pliance.
The Board has ruled, however, that LILCO must have the " opportunity" to attempt to show that it satisfies 10 C.F.R. S 50.47.
This ruling led to LILCO's May 1983 submission of the Transition Plan under which-LILCO attempts to create an entire offsite emergency response infrastructure which must be trained and prepared to respond to a serious accident.
To say that this Plan presents unprecedented issues of first impression, particularly related to the company's capability to implement this plan, is an understatement.
The issues are l
numerous, as reflected in the Revised Contentions.
- Further, I
the Plan itself merely asserts that certain things will be done.
It is the County's position, as reflected in the Conten-tions, that regardless of what is written on paper, the Plan l
l
..a.-
cannot and will not be implemented in a manner which satisfies mandatory legal requirements.
To. prove this point, and thus to test whether LILCO is in fact capable of implementing adequate protective actions in the event of a Shoreham emergency. the LILCO plan must be carefully analyzed and its bases fully un-derstood.
This requires a discovery process geared to gaining the necessary data.
(ii)
Second, depositions are the best means to obtain the
-necessary data.
Interrogatories are cumbersome and do not permit necessary follow up.
They are useful mainly to identify certain objective facts and persons and organizations relied upon for the emergency response effort but are not well suited to understanding the bases for a witness' position or for assessing whether LILCO in fact is capable of implementing essential portions of the plan.
Similarly, while document re-quests certainly may produce important data, the documents then i
must be understood, a process for which depositions are uniquely suited.
In short, while informal discovery has been pursued actively (and hopefully will yield useful data when LILCO's responses are received), there remain a great deal of data to be developed via depositions before the parties can present their cases to the Board regarding the adequacy of LILCO's plan.3/
4/
LILCO suggests that little additional discovery needs to be pursued because parties have had a chance already to (Footnote cont'd next page) l.
The County has heard several arguments from LILCO as to why there should be few or no depositions.
First, LILCO stated on July 13 that its experience with depositions last summer on Phase I emergency planning leads it to think that depositions will not be very valuable.
See Tr. 81.
The County disagrees.
The prior depositions were very important to an understanding of the parties' positions.
Further, the depositions taken on other aspects of the case (such as the diesel generator deposi-tions which are ongoing) have been extremely valuable as means of focussing the issues.
In short, there is no reason to believe that the depositions proposed by the County would do anything but assist in the focussing of issues to be litigated.
Second, LILCO has suggested that not many depositions would be necessary because some of-..the discovery during Phase I addressed Phase II issues as well.
See Tr. 79-80.
However, as LILCO itself noted on July 13 (Tr. 79), the LILCO plan did not even exist last summer and thus the so-called Phase II (Footnote cont'd from previous page) pursue informal document discovery.
See Tr. 80.
- However, as noted above, there are clear limitations on the usefulness of such discovery.
The parties have been active in pursuit of available informal discovery, this cannot substitute for the deposition discovery which now is essential..-
discovery was not focussed on the issues which are now before the Board.5/
Finally, LILCO has suggested that it is the " plan" which is being litigated and thus this is more a " document" case, rather than a " deposition" case.
Tr. 81.
The Plan of course is an important part of this case but the plan is only paper.
The question which is crucial is whether the plan works --
whether it can in fact be implemented by LILCO and whether, if implemented, it will provide protection.
That is not something that can be discerned via review of papers.
Rather, that in-quiry involves an all-important human element which can only be pursued via depositions.
In short, LILCO has presented no good reason why deposi-tions should not be used.
Indeed, given the issues of first impression presented in this case and the clear limitations on the usefulness of interrogatories, this case presents a partic-ularly compelling need for depositions.
We address below those depositions which the County intends to pursue.
i 5/
LILCO also suggests that little discovery needs to be taken because the parties have been dealing with emergency planning for more than a year.
See Tr. 80.
However, the ongoing efforts prior to May 1983 did not deal at all with LILCO's new plan.
Thus, the County cannot discern how its prior efforts can even arguably be asserted to be a basis for depriving the County of discovery on LILCO's new plan.
l l
~, -.
. -~
In anticipation of the need for depositions, the parties, at the County's suggestion, exchanged tentative witness lists prior to August 1.
The County made this suggestion so that proposed deposition schedules could be discussed and the results could be conveyed to the Board.
The tentative witness lists, as of August 1, 1983, are attached as Appendix A hereto.
The County had identified 18 potential witnesses as of July 22, 1983; LILCO had identified 23 as of July 29, 1983;5/ and the Staff had identified 6 witnesses (including FEMA witnesses) as of August 1, 1983.1/
In terms of reaching any consensus on depositions, the August 1 conference was not fruitful.
The County spent consid-erable time prior to August 1 reviewing the tentative witness lists to assess which persons it wanted to depose and how long each deposition might last.
LILCO clearly had not done this.
LILCO merely expressed the view that discovery should be " lim-ited" but it was not prepared to identify even whether it 6/
By letter of August 2, 1983, LILCO identified an addition-I al witness related to public education and information, who had been inadvertently omitted from LILCO's earlier list.
2/
On August 2, Staff counsel informed the County that it ap-l peared more likely that there would be five Staff / FEMA l
witnesses.
l l
\\
i i
intended to take any depositions.
The Staff indicated that it intended to pursue no discovery.
The County accordingly reports below only the depositions r
which the County and other intervenors intend to take.
The depositions are divided into three groups:
persons listed by LILCO as prospective witnesses; persons listed by the Staff as prospective witnesses; and an allowance for depocitions of I
individuals not yet identified.
The time estimates, of course, are very tentative and to a large degree are based upon the number of different subjects which have been identified to be addressed by the prospective witness.
Until the County has received and reviewed the answers to its outstanding discovery requests, it will not be possible for the County to be more definite in this listing.
]
LILCO witnesses.
The County tentatively plans to depose 22 of LILCO's-24 identified witnesses as set forth below.
Subject Area of Responsi-Estimated Witness bility Identified by LILCO
- of Days Michael L. Miele Protective action recommenda-tion, radiological equipment, ingestion pathway, health effects of radiation 1
Edward B.
Lieberman Evacuability study, evacuation time estimates, traffic, evacuation shadow, driver behavior 2-3,
.-~,,,.i.,,,,.w_,,,
-...,.~.,-.,,,.m.m.,-m,w.,,,w,w..,,,
,.e,_,,_m.,c y r,
,.ry m.,
,eo,..-~
. Dennis E.
Mileti Role strain, evacuation shadow, social and psychologi-cal issues, surveys, credibility, public education, public information, driver behavior, command and control 1-2 Russell R.
Dynes Role strain, evacuation shadow, social and psychologi-cal issues, surveys, i
credibility, public education, public information, driver behavior, command and control 1-2 John A. Weismantle Command and control, role strain, protective action implementation, training, recovery, staffing 1
Charles A. Daverio Command and control, role strain, protective action implementation, training, recovery' 1
Anthony M.
Callendrello Protective action implementation 1
Elaine D. Robinson Non-LILCO support groups 1-2 Carol A. Clawson Public information, public education 1
William G. Shiffmacher-Communications, offsite power 1-2 Ronald A. Varley Training, drills and exercises 1-2 Gary J. Burger Training, drills and exercises 1-2 Thomas E.
Potter Radiological consequence analysis 1-2 1 i
- ~, -.-
Saul D.
Levine EPZ criteria 1
Brant Aidikoff Protective actions 1/2 G. Hoyt Whipple Health effects of radiation 1
Leonard Hamilton Health effects of radiation 1
William F.
Renz Communications, offsite power 1-2 Michael C. Cordaro Radiological equipment, ingestion pathway, health effects of radiation, traffic, role strain, command and control, training drills, exercises, recovery, staffing, non-LILCO support groups, probabilistic analysis, radiological consequence analysis, EPZ criteria, protective actions 1
William G. Johnson Surveys 1-3 David N.
Richardson Surveys 1-3 Darrell M. Lan'kford Public education and informa-tion 1-2 Staff / FEMA Witnesses.
The County intends to depose each of the Staff / FEMA witnesses:
Subject Area of Responsi-Estimated Witness bility Identified by Staff 5 of Days John Sears (Staff)
Onsite Issues and inter-1/2-1 face with offsite Thomas Urbanic (Staff consultant)
Evacuation time estimates 1-2 Roger B. Kowieski (FEMA)
?
1 _ _ _.
Fred Sharrocks (FEMA)
?
1 Unidentified Argonne Employee 8/
?
1-2 Other.
The County has still received virtually no re-sponses to its outstanding informal discovery requests.
When those responses are received and reviewed, the County estimates that additional individuals from LILCO (for example, the persons responsible for selecting LERO workers or for determining shielding factors or perhaps several LERO workers and/or workers from other organizations (like BNL or ARC))
would be deposed.
For purposes of these estimates, the County believes that approximately five additional depositions will be required, each lastin'g about one day.
The total number of deposition days (assuming t.he lower time estimates in each instance)9/ is 32 days.
8/
FEMA has indicated that 6-8 persons were involved in the Argonne review of the LILCO plan.
The Staff apparently intends to use only one Argonne person as a witness.
The County may wish, however, to depose several of the Argonne people, depending upon the responsibilities of the persons involved.
9/
It is hoped that some depositions might be obviated or shortened if it becomes clear that there is a knowledge-able person on a matter and thus that certain persons do not need to be deposed.
Thus, the County believes the 32 day estimate is realistic.,
-~-
.c-
J III.
Future Schedule As directed by the Board, the parties have discussed the schedule for future proceedings.
The periods for discovery and for subsequent proceedings are addressed separately below.
(a)
Discovery Schedule.
The LILCO proposed disc'overy schedule, as explained during the August 1 conference call, would last 4 1/2 weeks and would involve:
(a) an interim deadline, somewhere during the 4-1/2 week discovery period, for the sending out of all document discovery requests; (b) the re-quirement that all discovery responses, and document produc-tion, be completed by the end of the 4-1/2 week period; and (c) the completion of all depositions (if any are held) by the end of the 4-1/2 week period (i.e., prior to or during document production).
LILCO's counsel indicated that " massive" deposi-tions should not be undertaken and that discovery should proceed "at a brisk pace." LILCO counsel expressed the view that depositions should be " limited" either by being barred al-together, or by the imposition of an arbitrary limit on the number permitted (e.g.,
each party could take only 4 deposi-
-tions).
As noted earlier, counsel for LILCO declined to state whether LILCO planned to take any depositions of any witnesses.
During the conference call, the County presented a specific discovery schedule proposal, based upon the status of
. i i
ongoing linformal discovery and its review of the tentative witness lists provided by LILCO and the Staff.
The County's discovery schedule was based upon the following assumptions:
that responses to the County's outstanding discovery requests would be provided on or shortly before August 9; that these re-sponses would necessitate only a limited amount of " follow-up" discovery; that the responses would identify some individuals (in addition to the persons identified by LILCO as potential witnesses) whom the County would want to depose (e.g.,
the American Red Cross representative with whom LILCO has worked; the Brookhaven National Laboratory representative to be respon-sible for offsite dose assessment; a representative of the bus company upon whom the LILCO Plan relies); and that Revision 1 to the LILCO Plan, received by the County on August 1, might give rise to the need for some additional discovery or clari-fying questions.
The County's proposal as made to the other parties was as follows:
1.
All " document" discovery to end, and depositions to begin, on August 29, 1983.
The 20 days between August 9 and l
August 29 would be used: to complete any necessary " follow-up" or Revision 1 discovery; to review and transmit to technical consultants for their review and comment, the results of, and documents produced during, informal discovery; and to begin l
preparation for depositions.
l l
- = -
2.
Depositions to be taken up to five days per week be-ginning August 29, with the completion date depending upon the
. number of depositions each party desired to take.
Assuming no other party desired to take depositions, the formal discovery period proposed by the County would total about 73 days --
i.e.,
from August 10 through October 21.
10/ This is less than the 90 days initially suggested by the County at the July 13 i
prehearing conference (Tr. 78), but it takes into account both the informal discovery that will have taken place by August 9 and the County's best estimate of its deposition needs, based on the information currently available.
LILCO counsel was asked by County counsel on August I how LILCO proposed to reconcile its 4-1/2 week discovery period with the County's expressed desire to take depositions.
LILCO's counsel responded that it might.take the position that the County should be prohibited from taking all or some of the 10/
The schedule discussed during the August 1 conference call l
lasted 69 days.
The County has adjusted this schedule to 73 days in view of LILCO's addition of another witness and i
for other factors discussed below.
The 75-day schedule assumes a total of 32 days of depositions conducted on i
business days and an allowance of several business days spread over the deposition period for travel of consul-tants and attorneys and for preparation time.
It also takes into account that there are several special days within that period:. Labor Day, September 5; Rosh Hashana, September 8; and Columbus Day, October 10.
w k-4 depositions it has determined are necessary'or that the County should be required to take more than one deposition simulta-neously.
The County opposes both suggestions should they be made in-LILCO's filing today.
The proposal to limit dras-tically the number of depositions which the County may take (and thus probably to preclude the County from deposing some of the very witnesses LILCO intends to present) would be arbitrary and unjustified.
As documented already, there is a need for deposition discovery in this case.
The proposal that more than one deposition be taken simul-taneously is similarly unreasonable.
The County's emergency planning consultants who will assist counsel during depositions are frequently involved in more than one issue (as are many of LILCO's proposed witnesses), and cannot be in two or more places at the same time.
Neither can the County's attorneys who will be preparing for and taking the depositions.ll/The d'eposition schedule proposed by the County is already quite I
L grueling -- it assumes depositions will be conducted on all but a few business days over a period of seven consecutive weeks.12/ An additional requirement that more than one 11/
The other Intervenors (Southampton, SOC and NSC) would be even more prejudiced by a requirement of simultaneous dep-ositions because they have only one lawyer representing l
them, and they would thus literally be prohibited from l
participating in an entire set of depositions.
12/
The underlying assumptions of this schedule are obvious:
I that the very few extra days, and weekends, will be neces-(Footnote cont'd next page) _ -.
)
deposition be conducted simultaneously would impose an unneces-sary and unreasonable burden on all the parties and their con-sultants.
A final point on. discovery needs to be made.
In its July 20 Order, the Board stated that "upon completion of the process of admitting contentions, only a very limited period of discov-ery would be allowed."
Order at 3.
The County does not know the basis for the Board's tentative view.
The parties have proce_eded diligently on informal discovery.
Notwithstanding the progress to date, the County reiterates its view that there is deposition discovery which is essential to the County's preparation of its case.
Given the number of witnesses which LILCO and the Staff have proposed to use, it is essential for the County to know in advance the basic positions which will be taken.
Those depositions are necessary in order: (a) to understandhowLILCOandtheStaffinterprhtorintendtouse the Plan,and/or documents which will be produced by LILCO and the Staff; and (b) to learn how and on what basis LILCO and the
[
Staff intend to oppose the contentions submitted by the Intervenors.
l (Footnote cont'd from previous page) t sary for travel, and that the need for preparation time
.will require that several lawyers be involved in taking the depositions. -
l l
The LILCO proposal of 4-1/2 weeks for discovery is not based on any facts, any parties' actual discovery needs, or any rational theory insofar as the County can determine.
In the County's view, its only basis is LILCO's desire to obtain a Board ruling as soon as possible.
As was explained-during the July 13 prehearing conference, the subject of this litigation is a plan that is unprecedented, and under which LILCO not only 1-purports to create an organization and the necessary infra-structure capable to duplicate a functioning local government, but also purports to be able to implement a wide array of actions and protective actions using that organization.
The 1
suggestion that the Intervenors should be able to prepare tes-timony and to litigate'the adequacy and implementability of I
this Plan, based on a 4-1/2 week discovery period during which
(
documents and other informal request responses are reviewed, additional document production takes place, and either an arbi-l trary number of-depositions, or none at all is taken, is with-out any basis and is on its face unrealistic.
Accordingly, whatever discovery period finally is established, it must be sufficien't to permit the depositions which the County has ten-tatively decided to take.
(b)
Post-Discovery Schedule.
LILCO has proposed a 3-1/2 i
L week period after close of discovery for simultaneous l.
-. ~.
e.
-..--.,.-,._-..,-.,,n,
preparation of summary disposition motions and testimony.
The County schedule is-somewhat different:
Summary disposition motions to be filed two weeks after the close of discovery.
Responses to be filed pursuant to 10 CFR S 2.749(a).
Testimony to be filed two weeks after rulings on sum-mary disposition motions.
Hearings to begin approximately two weeks after fil-ing of testimony.
These schedules do not differ too substantially, other than LILCO's suggestion for the simultaneous submission of sum-mary disposition motions and testimony, and the County's view that the separate submission of testimony, following rulings on summary disposition motions, would be more efficient.13/
LILCO's proposal that summary disposition motions or testimony be filed 3-1/2 weeks after the close of discovery contemplates the parties' conferring before hand and agreeing on which con-tentions would be subject to motions, so the parties could 13/
See Tr. 90-91"where County counsel expressed the view that testimony and summary disposition motions do not necessar-ily address the same matters since testimony will often be of a panel and address several. issues, while summary dis-position pleadings necessarily only address the matters which are the subject of the motion.. -
prepare either affidavits or testimony on a given contention.
-LILCO apparently contemplates the submission of testimony fol-lowing rulings denying summary disposition motions.
The County agrees that a conference of the parties follow-ing the close of discovery would be a useful means of ensuring that the parties are aware of each others' intentions regarding summary disposition motions and of eliminating the potential for preparing testimony that may never have to be filed.
How-ever, in the County's view, using the time following submission of summary disposition motions to prepare testimony on issues 4
not subject to such motions, will result in better and more fo-cussed testimony that will produce a more efficient hearing,
.than would a requirement that all testimony be written and sub-mitted-at-the same time that summary disposition motions are prepared and submitted.
s 6-The County's proposal of two weeks after the close of dis-t covery for submission of summary disposition motions would have
'd 4
such motions submitted on November 4 (assuming only the County.
,v3 were taking depositions under the County's proposed schedule).
-Assuming the Board were to rule on the motions within 10 days i)) {
of the receipt of. responses (responses due on November 25 (10 fe;f <
JC'r
.C.F.R.
5 2.749(a)); Board rulings by December 5), under the County's proposed schedule testimony would be submitted on the
- P t
n%
/.,
6
~
l f / b'
\\;
c'
... 1.
remaining issues by December 19.
Hearings could begin on January 2 or 9, 1984.
IV.
Other Matters In response to the Board's suggestion that other items in the July 13 conference agenda be addressed in this filing, the County notes its belief, in which the other parties concurred during the August 1 conference, that it is premature to discuss the matters of exhibits, stipulations, admissions, authenticity of documents, prehearing motions (other than for summary dispo-sition), the order of hearing issues, and the estimated length of the hearing.
A further conference of counsel regarding these matters might be appropriate after the close of discov-ery.
The County notes that it favors the submission of trial briefs and cross examination plans as a useful means to focus the issues. 14/ Motions to strike testimony, and responses thereto, should be filed shortly before the hearing on such testimony.
14/
Trial briefs should be due 10 days after the filing of testimony; cross examination plans on a given issue should be filed a day or two before the commencement of cross ex-amination on that issue..
O y
-.---------.-.e,-
y
The lead intervenors on specific contentions were identi-fled in the Memorandum which accompanied the Revised Conten-tions filed on July 26, 1983.
The parties agreed that the hearing should be held on Long Island.
Respectfully submitted, David J. Gilmartin Patricia A.
Dempsey Suffolk County Department of Law Veterans Memorial Highway Hauppauge, New York 11788 W_v-
- Herbert H.
Brown Lawrence Coe Lanpher Karla J.
Letsche KIRKPATRICK, LOCKHART, HILL, CHRISTOPHER & PHILLIPS 1900 M Street, N.W.
Washington, D.C.
20036 Attorneys for Suffolk County August 4, 1983 i
l.
j -
I a
I APPENDIX A f
1 i
NOTE:
No. listing of Staff / FEMA witnesses is attached.
Such-listing has only been conveyed orally.
t I
+
i 4
e 6
i 4
I E
z 4
4 k
I i
<-,sm
,s..,,
n--,-,.
e,-.
4,
,~.,a,4,,-
.,.,.,w, a.,
s
,,,e
,.--,-.--.---,-,~,-,,,-,--,v,_,,,
--n,,.,--n-,e n,,-e--,
i
Response to Suffolk County Informal.Lis'covtry-Recuests of Jul5 18. 19S3 Suffolk' County Request 1:
Identify each person whom LILCO expects to call as an expert or non-expert witness during the emergency
-planning-hearings and state the subject matter on which each is expected to t'stify.
e i
Response
Michael L. Miele:
Protective action recommendation, raciological equipment, ingestion pathway,
~ health ~ effects of radiation.
. Edward B. Lieberman:
Evacuability study, evacuation
. time estimates, traffic, evacuation shadow, driver behavior.
Dennis E. Mileti:
Role strain, evacuation shadow, social and psychological issues, surveys, credibility, public education, public information, driver. behavior, co==and;and control.
Russell R.
Dvnes: Role strain, evacuation shadow, social and psychological issues, surveys, credibility, public education', public information, driver behavior, command and control.
John A. Weismantle:
Command and control, role strain, protective action implementation, training, recovery, staffing.
Charles A.
Daverio:
Command and control, role strain, protective action implementation, training, i
recove-"
Anthenv M.
Callendrello:
Protective action implementation.
Elaine D. Robinson: Non-LILCO support groups.
Carol A.
Clawson:
Public information, public education.
William G. Schiffmacher:
Communications, offsite_ power.
Ronald A.
Varleyi Training, drills and exercises.
i O
Gary J. Burner:
Training, drills and' exercises.
Edward T. Burns:
Probabilistic analysis.
9 Vojin Joksimovich:
Probabilistic analysis.
Thomas E. Potter:
Radiological consequence analysis.
Saul D.
Levine:
EPZ criteria.
Brant Aidikoff:
Protective actions.
G. Hovt Whionle:
Health effects of radiation.
Leonard Hamilton:
Health effects of radiation.
- William F. Renz:
Communications, offsite power.
Matthew C. Cordaro:
Radiological equipment, ingestion patnway, health effects of radiation, traffic, role strain, command and control, training, drills, exercises, recovery,~ staffing, non-LILCO' support groups, probabilistic analysis, radiological consequence analysis, EPZ criteria, protective actions.
Willian G. Johnson:
Surveys.
David N. Richardson:
Surveys.
Darrell M.
Lankford:
Public education, public'information.
I e
w y
-m+-.
ger
y+---
w-u-
-3 y
--e y
e-.
gcaiwm-y
SUFFOLK COUNTY TENTATIVE WITNESS LIST 1.
Response
Fred Finlayson:
EPZ, consequence analyses, dose projection, dose assessment.
Philip B.
Herr:
emergency planning, traffic, evacuation time estimates.
Kai Erikson:
role conflict, evacuation shadow, social and psychological issues, surveys, public education, credibility.
James H.
Johnson:
evacuation shadow, public education, role conflict, social and psychological issues, traffic, surveys, credibility.
Donald J.
Zeigler:
evacuation shadow, public education, role conflict, social and psychological issues, traffic,,
surveys, credibility.
Susan Saegert:
evacuation shadow, public education, social, role conflict and psychological issues, surveys, credibility, command and control, driver behavior.
Edward P.
Radford:
health effects of radiation.
Stephen Cole:
surveys.
Inspector' Richard C.
Roberts, SCPD:
command and control, traffic,-security, mobilization.
i Inspector Joseph J.
Monteith','SCPD:
command and control, traffic, security, mobilization.
Deputy Inspector fiichael Turano, SCPD:
command and control, l
traffic, security, mobilization.
Captain Ed Michaels, SCPD:
traffic, command and control.
i l
L
2.
1 -
Captain Peter Cosgrove, SCPD:
training.
Lt. John Fackler, SCPD:
training.
Captain Snow, SCPD:
communications.
Deputy Inspector Regensberg, SCPD:
communications.
Officer Vincent Stiles, SCPD:
communications.
Deputy Inspector Philip McGuire, SCPD:
traffic, security, command and control,. mobilization.
4 l
l l~
l-l.
I e
I
. 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
)
(Emergency Planning)
(Shoreham Nuclear Power Station,
)
Unit 1)
)
)
CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE I hereby certify that copies of SUFFOLK COUNTY RESPONSE TO ASLB REQUEST FOR PARTIES' VIEUS ON EMERGENCY PLANNING MATTERS,-dated August 4, 1983, have been served to the following this 4th day of August,:1983 by U.S. mail, first class, except as otherwise noted.
(*) James A.
Laurenson, Chairman Ralph Shapiro, Esq.
(#)
Atomic Safety and Licenbing Board Cammer and Shapiro U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission 9 East 40th Street Washington, D.C.
20555 New York, New York 10016 l
(*) Dr.-Jerry R.
Kline Howard L.
Blau, Esq.
Atomic Safety and Licensing Board 217 Newbridge Road U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission Hicksville, New York 11801 Washington, D.C.
20555 W.
Taylor Reveley, III, Esq.
(g**)
(#) Dr. M.
Stanley Livingston Hunton & Williams 1005 Calle Largo P.O. Box 1535 l
Santa Fe, New Mexico 87501 707 East Main Street Richmond, Virginia 23212 Edward M. Barrett, Esq.
General Counsel Mr. Jay Dunkleberger Long Island Lighting Company New York State Energy Office 250 Old Country Road Agency Building 2 Mineola, New York 11501 Empire State Plaza Albany, New York 12223 Mr. Brian McCaffrey Long Island Lighting Company Stephen B.
Latham, Esq.
(#)
175 East Old Country Road.
Twomey, Latham & Shea Hicksville, New York 11801 33 West Second Street Riverhead, New York 11901
Nora Bredes Docketing and Service Section Executive-Director Office of the Secretary Shoreham Opponents Coalition U.S. Nuclear _ Regulatory Comm.
195 East Main Street Washington, D.C.
20555 Smithtown, New York 11787 Hon. Peter Cohalan Marc W. Goldsmith Suffolk County Executive Energy Research Group, Inc.
H. Lee Dennison Building 400-1 Totten Pond Road Veterans Memorial Highway Waltham, Massachusetts 02154 Hauppauge, New York 11788 MHB Technical Associates Eleanor L.
Frucci, Esq.
1723 Hamilton Avenue Atomic Safety and Licensing Suite K Board Panel
~
San Jose, California 95125 U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Comm.
Washington, D.C.
20555 Joel Blau, Esq.
New York Public Service Comm.
Ezra I.
Bialik, Esq.
The Governor Nelson A.
Rockefeller Assistant Attorney General Building Environmental Protection Bur.
Empire State Plaza New York State Dept. of Law Albany, New York 12223 2 World Trade Center New York, New York 10047 David J. Gilmartin, Esq.
Suffolk County Attorney Atomic Safety and Licensing H. Lee-Dennison Building Appeal Board Veterans Memorial Highway U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Comm.
Hauppauge,.New York 11788 Washington, D.C.
20555 Atomic Safety and-Licensing Jonathan D. Feinberg, Esq.
E Board Panel Staff Counsel, New York State U.S. Nuclear. Regulatory Commission Public Service Commission Washington, D.C.
20555 3 Rockefeller Plaza Albany, New York 12223
~(*)
Bernard M.
Bordenick, Esq.
David A. Repka, Esq.
Stewart M. Glass, Esq.
U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission Regional Counsel Washington, D.C.
20555 Federal Emergency Management Agency Stuart Diamond 26 Federal Plaza, Room 1349 i
Environment / Energy Writer New York, New York 10278 NEWSDAY Long Island, New York 11747 James B.
Dougherty, Esq.
(*)
3045 Porter Street, N.W.
Washington, D.C.
20008 _ _,. _.
a
.o i
Spence Perry, Esq.
Associate General Counsel Federal Emergency 14anagement Agency Washington, D.C.
20472 Mr. Jeff Smith Shoreham Nuclear Power Station P.O. Box 618 North Country Road Wading River, New York 11792 fd M.!--l-2 W-.;Mt*Q M---
Lawrence Coe Lanpher KIRKPATRICK, LOCKHART, HILL, CHRISTOPHER & PHILLIPS 1900 M Street, N.W.,
Suite 800 Washington, D.C.
20036 DATED:. August 4, 1983
(*)
8/4/83 By Hand Delivery
(#)
8/4/83 By Federal Express
(**)
8/4/83 By Computer. -.
.-