ML20078S105
| ML20078S105 | |
| Person / Time | |
|---|---|
| Site: | Shoreham File:Long Island Lighting Company icon.png |
| Issue date: | 11/09/1983 |
| From: | Lanpher L KIRKPATRICK & LOCKHART, SUFFOLK COUNTY, NY |
| To: | Atomic Safety and Licensing Board Panel |
| References | |
| ISSUANCES-OL-3, NUDOCS 8311150405 | |
| Download: ML20078S105 (11) | |
Text
'
r a
00CKETED UNITED STATES OF AMERICA LISNRC NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSION Yb $$ 14 M0Q3 Before the Atomic Safety and Licensing Board LTfG ufftl))f'l rR :ilCH
)
In the Matter of
)
)
LONG-ISLAND' LIGHTING COMPANY
)
Docket No.'50-322-OL-3
)
(Emergency Planning)
(Shoreham Nuclear Power Station,-
)
Unit 1)-
)
)
SUFFOLK COUNTY REQUEST FOR CONFERENCE CALL An important matter has just. arisen concerning the testimony scheduled to be submitted on November 18 (Group I) and that scheduled to be submitted on January 18 (Group II).
Suffolk County requests a conference call with the Board and other parties at the Board's earliest convenience to address the matter.
An outline of the matter is set forth below.
During the past few weeks ~ the parties, on an informal and ongoing basis, have_been discussing changes-in witness lists, the order of presenting testimony, and other matters related to structuring the emergency planning litigation, particularly as that litigation has been divided into Groups I and II.
As part of that process, on November-3, 1983, Suffolk County sent the attached 4etter to counsel ~for all parties.
The letter indicates the County's intention to submit testimony by Messrs. Finlayson, Radford, and Minor concerning the potential consequences of an accident at Shoreham and the likely 8311150405 831109 PDR ADDCK 05000322 O
PDR 3
/
=-2--
z health' effects of an accident, concurrent with.the January 18
-submission of testimony on Group II issues.
This testimony will Lrelate directly andfprimarily to the protective action contentions
. that'are in Group II (i.e., Contentions 61, 64, 67, 69, 71, 72 and 73)..The County recognized in its November 3 letter that the referenced piece of. testimony will also relate to small portions of. contentions 23 and 65, which are Group I issues.b!
The County's November 3 letter explains that in order to keep repetition and cross-referencing to a minimum, the County intends to submit the Finlayson/Radford/ Minor testimony with the bulk'of the protective; action contentions -- that is with the Group.II issues.- The letter also notes our belief that the consequence
-analysis and health effects portion of Contentions 23 and'65'are easily severable -- in terms of trial -- from the remainder of those contentions,;and that they are not substantially different from the corresponding portions of the Group II contentions which
- also refer to accident consequences and health effects.
Accord-ingly, in the County's view, deferring submittal of that small portion of the testimony relating to Contentions 23 and 65 would
~
not affect the' planned hearing on the Group I issues.
The LCounty's November 3 letter was sent to.the other parties so they 1/
Prior to breakdown of issues into Group I and Group II, the
-County intended to submit one consolidated piece of testimony by Messrs. Finlayson, Radford, and Minor relating to consequences /
health effects.
.That testimony would relate to portions of Contentions 23 and 65, as well as to portions of Contentions 61, 64,-67, 69, 71, 72, and 73.
The essence of the County's November
-3 letter was to advise the parties that the County would file this
~
single block of testimony at the time it filed testimony on the bulk of the contentions to which it relates.
N s
_3_.
s could;~if they chose to do so, similarly structure the filing cf
- their; testimony.
On November 7, counsel for LILCO'(Ms. McClesky.and Mr.
l JChri'stman) telephoned to discuss'the November 3 letter.
They 1
-stated that.although ~(a) LILCO does not itself intend to submit I
any direct; testimony on Contentions 23'and 64 relating'to the consequences or health effects of an accident, and (b) LILCO Lintends to file a-motion to strike portions of the County's I
testimonyLon those subjects on relevance grounds, it may also file a motion-to strike 1such testimony on-the grounds of untimeliness if'such testimony were submitted on January 18 rather-than on i
November.18.
The stated basis'for.LILCO's position was that in.
Lthe view of LILCO's counsel, all testimony related to' Group I
- =
)
i issues must be filed by-November 18 in order'to bel timely, and I
that if.'the' County believed any'of its testimony filed on Group II issues related to Group I issues, it would be " untimely"'to file that Group II testimony on January 18. _On November 8, we received i
_the. attached letter from Ms. McClesky, which-briefly sets forth
- LILCO's: position.
The County' disagrees.with the LILCO.v'.
The submittal of the Finalyson/Radford/ Minor testimony in January is. appropriate and,..indeed, ' teful to orderly hearing procedure since it will avoid unnecessary repetition and relate most.directly to the Group II issues.
^
lie had not intended to bring this matter to the Board, since s
I it appeared.until recently to be a scheduling question which the
_4_
parties could resolve among themselves.
Unfortunately, although we_believe that LILCO's position is incorrect -- and that after hearing from the parties the Board would deny a LILCO motion to strike on the grounds of untimeliness -- we nonetheless do not wish to risk the possibility _of any of the County's testimony
-being stricken as untimely..
We discussed the County's position with Mr. Bordenick, counsel for the NRC Staff.
Although'he indicated that he wished to review the County's November 3 letter and consult with Mr.
Repka, his co-counsel, Mr. Bordenick stated that he did not believe the County's pro, posed order of filing presented any difficulties for the Staff.
Accordingly, his preliminary view was that the Staff would have no objection.
Therefore, we request that the Board schedule a telephone conference call as soon as possible so we can discuss and obtain the Board's view on this matter.
. Respectfully submitted, David J. Gilmartin Patricia A. Dempsey Suffolk County Department of Law Veterans Memorial Highway Hauppauge, New York 11788 M
Herbert H.
Brown Lawrence Coe Ganpher Karla J. Letrche KIRKPATRICK, M Cl'. HART, H '. L L,
CHRISTOPHER f EHILLIPF 1900 M St reet, N W.,
Su te 800 Washington, D.C.
20f36 Attorneys for Suffolk County November 9, 1983 t
b 4
w
,w.-
m---
wn
= +
w
- =,
><e-,-
=y.-
r
-cev*-
.e r-
r w
e e-
'+~w---
-- =---
mr--
Krnvwxrnrcx, LOCKHART, HILL, CHnIsroPHEn 8c PHILLIPS A Paarnasser Incunizo A PaormeeronAL ConsonArsow 1900 M STREET, N. W.
WAsuzxo row, D. C. 2000s a
TE1,1PEROwE (308) 488 7000 IF raaa--wawE
""^" uwwuauf JOENSON & EVIM1 SON C.ABLE: 351PR1 S
1900 GI2TRE BUILDDr$
TELEX eeeeOG RIPM UZ Noyember 3, 1983
" "'" 7 7 d '"***
" " " ' ' ' ' ' ~
452-7064 e
Donald P.
Irwin, Esq.
Hunton & Williams P.O. Box 1535 707 East Main Street Richmond, Virginia 23212 Eernard M.
Bordenick, Esq.
U.S.
Nuclear Regulatory Commission Washington, D.C.
20535
Dear Don and Bernie:
This letter constitutes a further update of the Suffolk County witness list for the upcoming emergency planning hearings?
We previously advised you of our intention to submit testimony by Fred Finlayson, Greg Minor and Dr. Edward Radford concernin.g the potential consequences of an accident at Shoreham and the likely health effects of an accident.
Such testimony will relate to contentions in both Group I (i.e.,
the November 18 group) and Group II (i.e., the January 1987 group): Contention 23 (see subparts D and H) and Contention 65 (see preamble and introductory paragraph) in Group I; and most of the Protective Action contentions that are not inGroupIk(i.e., Contentions 61, 64, 67, 69, 71, 72 and 73).
Overall, the Finlayson/ Minor /Radford testimony probably relates most'directly'to the Group II issues.
The recent division of issues into Group I and Group II has necessitated our rethinking the presentation of testimony to keep repetition at a minimum.
To avoid having to repeat or continually refer back to Group I testimony in the Group II testimony, we will I
be submitting the testimony of Finlayson, Minor and Radford in January with the/ estimony on the bulk'of the contentions to which t
it relates.
Thi's deferral has additidnally become necessary because, as you know, Ted Radford is currently doing resecr-h in Japan and commtinicating with him to complete testj mnny is difficult.
' Those portions of Contentions 23 and 65 that will be'.
addressed in the Finlayson/ Minor /Radford testimony are easily separated from the remainder of those contentions, and are not substantially different from the portions of the Group II
4
. KinxFATRICK, LOCMMART, Htz.z., CumxsToFuza & Puzz.r.rrs Donald P..Irwin, Esq.
Bernard M. Bordenick, Es,q.
November 3, 19.83 Page 2
~
contentions to which that testimony also relateA.
Therefore, the submission of that testimony with Group II should not affect the hearing on'the Group I issues, and we can reflect its
~
applicability to the Group-I issues in our proposed findings submitted after the Group _II testimony.
I wanted to inform you of our intentions with respect to the foregoing matters so you can, if you choose, similarly structure the filing of your testimony.
Sincerel l
Letsche Kar a
'~
.cc:
Stephen B..Latham, Esq.
James.B. Dougherty, Esq.
Ralph'Shapiro, Esq.
Stewart M. Glass, Esq.
O b
1+
e O
6 9
e 4
m,
' ~
HuxTox & WILLIAMS 707 East MA N STREET P. o, Box is35 RICHMOND. VIRGINIA 23212 isie etnwsvLvania Avenut, N. W.
0 0 & T sueLosmo a a somice
- p. o. som seaso wasminaron, a c. aoose mattitw, montM camouma 27.oa TELEPHONE 804-788-820O co*ecca. ears aca.aas-asso ricc? vemosmia namn towsm
,ac wo. 24 56 6. 00 0 0 0 3
...o 3...
N iMLa, VimOINsA.3Si.
' " ' * ' a * * + 7a - 8701 os......,.o' November 7, 1983 Karla J.
Letsche, Esq.
Kirkpatrick, Lockhart, Hill, Christopher & Phillips 8th Floor 1900 M Street, N.W.
Washington, D.C.
20036
Dear Tip:
For the reasons Jim Christman and I discussed with you during our. telephone conversation today regarding your letter of November 3 to Don Irwin and Bernie Bordenick, LILCO objects to your plan to file Group I-related Finlayson/ Minor /Radford testimony on January 15, 1984.
As we stated during our discus-sion, your putting off testimony on portions.of the Group I contentions constitutes, in our view, a change in the schedule about which the Board should be consulted.
Barring a ruling from the Board, LILCO may very well choose to file a motion to strike any Group I testimony filed out of time.
~ Sincerely, 301/869 Kathy E.
B.
McCleskey cc:
Bernard M.
Bordenick, Esq.
Stewart M. Glass, Esq.
UNITED STATES OF AMERICA' NUCLEAR 1 REGULATORY COMMISSION--
Before the ' Atomic Safety and Licensing" Board
)
- Inlthe Matter of
).
)
LONG-ISLAND. LIGHTING: COMPANY
)
Docket No.'50-322-OL-3
)
(Emergency Planning)
(Shoreham" Nuclear Power Station,
)
-Unit 1)
)
')..
CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE I hereby certify that copies of SUFFOLK COUNTY REQUEST FOR CONFERENCE CALL,-dated November 9, 1983, have been served to the following1this 9th day of November-1983 by U.S. mail, first class,
- except as otherwise noted.
James A.,Laurenson, Chairman'*
Ralph Sliapiro, Esq.
Atomic Safety and. Licensing Board Cammer and Shapiro U.S. Nuclear-Regulatory Commission 9 East 40th' Street-
-Washington, D.C.
20555 New York, New York 10016 Dr. Jerry R. Kline *-
Howard'L. Blau, Esq.
Administrative Judge 217 Newbridge Road Atomic Safety and Licensing Board Hicksville,-New York 11801
-U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission Washington, D.C.
20555 W. Taylor Reveley,-III, Esq.#
Hunton & Williams-P.O.
Box 1535 707 East Main Street Mr.. Frederick J..Shon-*
Richmond, Virginia 23212 Administrative Judge
' Atomic _' Safety and. Licensing Board Mr. Jay Dunkleberger
- U.S.
- Nuclear Regulatory Commission New York State Energy Office Washington, D.C.
20555 Agency Building 2 Empire State Plaza
-Edward'M. Barrett,-Esq.-
Albany, New York 12223 General Counsel Long Island Lighting Company James.B. Dougherty, Esq.
250 Old Country Road.
3045 Porter Street, N.W.
Mineola, New York' 11501 Washington, D.C.
'20008
.--__m.
.m
' Mr. Brian McCaffrey Stephen B.
Latham, Esq.
Long Island Lighting Company Twomey, Latham & Shea 175 East Old Country Road P.O.
Box 398 Hicksville, New York-11801 33 West Second Street Riverhead, New York 11901 Jeff Smith Marc W.
Goldsmith Shoreham Nuclear Power Station Energy Research Group, Inc.
P.O.
Box 618 400-1 Totten Pond Road North Country Road Waltham, Massachusetts 02154 Wading River, New York 11792 Joel Blau,-Esq.
MHB Technical Associates New York Public Service Commission 1723 Hamilton Avenue
.The Governor Nelson A. Rockefeller Suite K Building San Jose, California 95125 Empire State Plaza Albany, New York 12223 Hon. Peter F. Cohalan Suffolk County Executive David J. Gilmartin, Esq.
H.
Lee Dennison Building Suffolk County Attorney Veterans Memorial Highway H. Lee Dennison Building Hauppauge, New York 11788 Veterans Memorial Highway Hauppauge, New York 11788 Atomic Safety and Licensing Board Ezra I.
Dialik, Esq.
Panel Assistant Attorney General U.S.
Nuclear Regulatory Commission Environmental Protection Washington, D.C.
20555 Bureau New York State Department Docketing and Service Section of Law Office of the Secretary 2 World Trade Center U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission New York, New York 10047 1717 H Street, N.W.
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 Jonathan D.
Feinberg, Esq.
Stuart Diamond Staff Counsel
-Environment / Energy Writer New York State Public NEWSDAY Service Commission Long-Island, New York 11747 3 Rockefeller Plaza Albany, New York 12223
- * ' Stewart M.. Glass, Esq.
Regional Counsel Federal Emergency Management Agency 26 Federal Plaza, Room 1349 New York, New York 10278 Nora Bredes Executive Director-Shoreham Opponents Coalition 195 East Main Street Smithtown, New York 11787-Eleanor.L. Frucci, Esq.*
Atomic-Safety and Licensing Board Panel U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission
. Washington, D.C.
20555 Spence Perry, Esq.
Associate General Counsel Federal: Emergency Management Agency Washington, D.C.-
20472 A
am e v=a --
Lawrence Coe Lanpher~
KIRKPATRICK, LOCKHART, HILL, CHRISTOPHER & PHILLIPS
.1900 M Street, N.W.,
Suite 800 Washington, D.C.
20036 DATE:
November 9, 1983 By Hand By Telecopier s
1
-.w.--
c--.-_.
--c----,
4.___,
-4
-r e-
.v v
t-
-m-
-.