ML20079G481
| ML20079G481 | |
| Person / Time | |
|---|---|
| Site: | Shoreham File:Long Island Lighting Company icon.png |
| Issue date: | 01/16/1984 |
| From: | Lanpher L KIRKPATRICK & LOCKHART, SUFFOLK COUNTY, NY |
| To: | Atomic Safety and Licensing Board Panel |
| References | |
| ISSUANCES-OL-3, NUDOCS 8401200132 | |
| Download: ML20079G481 (10) | |
Text
..
-w 1-000KETED USNRC
(
UNITED STATES OF AMERICA NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSION g g g y g4 d}TiriG & SE,rn."
OF SECI:f TA:
Before the Atomic Safety and Licensing B BRM:C!!
)
In the Mat.ter of
)
)
LONG ISIAND LIGHTING COMPANY
)
)
Docket No. 50-322-OL-3 (Shoreham Nuclear Power Station,
)
(Emergency Planning)
Unit 1)
)
)
)
SUFFOLK COUNTY RESPONSE TO LILCO'S REQUEST FOR LEAVE TO FILE OUT OF TIME A MOTION TO STRIKE LEON J.
CAMPO'S TESTIMONY ON CONTENTIONS 25.C AND 25.D Pursuant to the Board's Order Establishing Revised Sched-ule,. dated October 26, 1983, motions to strike Group I testimo-ny filed on November 18, 1983, were tlue on November 28, 1983.
On'that date, LILCO filed five motions to strike, relating to six out of 17 individual pieces of testimony filed by Suffolk County.
On November 28 LILCO also filed a Motion for Discovery on and Rebuttal to the Testimony of Jeffers and Rossi, Muto and Smith, Campo, and Petrilak on Centention 25.
LILCO filed no Motion to Strike the testimony of Leon Campo.
9401200132 840116 PDR ADOCK 05000322 0
PDR Q
i On January 11, 1984, LILCO asked the Board for " leave to file out of time a motion to strike in its entirety Leon J.
Campo's written testimony filed by Suffolk County on the issue of role conflict and its effect on early dismissals from schools."
LILCO's Request.for Leave to File Out of Time a Motion to Strike Leon J. Campo's Testimony on Contentions 25.C and 25.D (hereafter, the "LILCO Request"), at 1.
The cole basis offered by LILCO in support of its Request is that during Mr. Campo's deposition taken January 5, 1984, "LILCO obtained information not stated in Mr. Campo's testimony that, in LILCO's view, supports a motion to strike Mr. Campo's testimony as irrelevant and cumulative."
Id. at 2.
The LILCO Request provides no explanation of this single conclusory assertion, moreover, there is no factual or legal basis for the assertion proffered anywhere in the LILCO Re-quest.
A mere assertion of "LILCC's view" that unidentified information from a deposition " supports" a right to file a Motion to Strike a month and a half after the deadline set by the Board, is insufficient to meet the good cause requirement of 10 CFR S2.711.
Suffolk County submits, therefore, that LILCO has failed to establish good cause for its proposed late filing as required under the regulations, and that the LILCO Request should be denied. ___ -
l
Despite the fact, recognized by LILCO, that it is improper to submit an unauthorized motion before permission is granted to file such a motion, LILCO attached to its Request a copy of its proposed " Motion to Strike the Testimony of Leon J. Campo on behalf of Suffolk County Regarding Emergency Planning Con-tentions 25.C and 25.D" (hereafter, the " Proposed Motion").
It is clear from the Proposed Motion that it purports to rest on three grounds, each of which is addressed briefly below.
It must be stressed at the outset, however, that the factual premises for each of the LILCO arguments are contained in Mr.
Campo's November 18 testimony, and each of the arguments made by LILCO could have been made based solely on the content of that testimony.
None of the arguments asserted by LILCO in the Proposed Motion are, in fact, dependent upon information ob-tained during Mr. Campo's deposition.
Thus, even if the Board were to go beyond the LILCO Request in searching for a basis for "LILCO's view" that a late filing is justified, the Pro-posed Motion itself contains no showing of good cause.
Accord-ingly, the LILCO Request should be denied.1/
1/
In this response Suffolk County addresses LILCO's Proposed Motion only insofar as assertions in that document could be read to " explain" or " justify" the need for the pro-posed late filing by LILCO.
Although Suffolk County believes that none of the arguments contained in the Pro-posed Motion justify the granting of the Proposed Motion, the County does not in this filing respond to the merits (Footnote cont'd next page) 1 j
The ficst argument LILCO advances in the Proposed Motion is that the Campo testimony "does not address whether role conflict will be experienced by school personnel within the 10-mile EPZ."
Proposed Motion at 5.
LILCO concludes from-this that the relevance of the Campo testimony cannot be established based on discussion of t'he likelihood of the occurrence of role
. conflict.
Id.
In support of this argument, LILCO cites nothing other than statements contained in Mr. Campo's November 18 testimony.
LILCO does not refer to Mr. Campo's deposition or to any other information it obt.ined after November 18, 1983.
Thus, LILCO clearly could have made this argument within the time set by the Board for filing Motions to Strike.
The second argument in LILCO's Proposed Motion is that Mr.
Campo's testimony "does not describe early dismissal plans-for any school district within the EPZ."
Proposed Motion at 6.
This obvious fact is readily discernible from even a cursory reading of Mr. Campo's November 18 testimony.
There are no early. dismissal plans attached to his testimony and -- as LILCO (Footnote cont'd from previous page) of the Motion to Strike.
The County requests that if the Board grants LILCO's Request for leave to file its Pro-posed. Motion out of time, that the Board at that time set a date for the County to file its opposi~ tion to the Motion and notify County Counsel of such date. '
correctly observed -- the text of the testimony does not include a detailed description of the particulars of plans for any district.
Although it is possible that-during Mr. Campo's
- deposition LILCO learned what it may consider to be relevant information that arguably goes to the weight of Mr. Campo's l
testimony, it nonetheless is clear that no new information about the actual content of Mr. Campo's November 18 testimony came'to light during that deoosition.
Thus, the second LILCO argument also provides no justification for LILCO's failure to file its Proposed Motion on the date set by the Board.
LILCO's third argument in the Proposed Motion is that "to the extent the Campo testimony represents early dismissal plans generally, it is cumulative."
Proposed Motion at 10.
Once again, the basis offered by LILCO for this argument is citation to Mr. Campo's November 18 testimony.
Thus LILCO quotes Mr.
Campo's written testimony as follows:
[F] rom my years as a school administrator,-
1 am quite familiar with the logistical factors which must be considered in any early dismissal.
Campo Test. 2.
Proposed Motion at 6.
Moreover, as LILCO itself observed, it is clear from the text of Mr. Campo's November 18 testimony that he did not address the plans of any specific districts other than in one instance, where he made clear he was -.....
referring to the early dismissal plan for the East Meadow l
School District.
The remainder of his testimony is, on its face, " general" to use LILCO's term.
The important fact for purposes of this Board's ruling on the LILCO Request, however, is that the allegedly " general" natute of Mr. Campo's November l
18 testimony is apparent to any r'eader of that testimony.
Thus, information from Mr. Campo's deposition does not provide the basis for the third LILCO argument.
The foregoing makes clear that nothing prevented LILCO from filing its Proposed Motion before the Board's November 28, 1983 deadline.
LILCO had all the information necessary to frame the three-part argument contained in its Proposed Motion, not only before Mr. Campo's deposition, but before the November 28 deadline for filing motions to strike, because the' written testimony, not any subsequent discovery, reve,aled all the basic facts on which LILCO relies in its Proposed Motion.
- Thus, LILCO has offered no justification or good cause, as required by 10 CFR S2.711, for its failure to" file its Proposed Motion in a timely manner.
Accordingly, the Board should deny the LILCO Feguest.
l Finally, the County submits that granting LILCO's Request a week before the witness at issue is scheduled to appear at
the hearing would prejudice the County.
If LILCO's Request were granted, the County would be required to. prepare a re-sponse to the merits of the motion during the ongoing hearing and in the midst of the tight Group I and Group II schedules set by the Board.
Those schedules do not contemplate, and include no time.for parties responding to or the Board's ruling upon such additional, untimely filings.
For this additional reason, the Board should deny the LILCO Request.
Respectfully submitted, Martin Bradley Ashare Suffolk County Attorney Suffolk County Department of Law H.
Lee Dennison Building Veterans Memorial Highway Hauppauge, New York 11788 i_.
Lawrence Coe Ld6pherr Karla J.
Letsche John E.
Birkenheier KIRKPATRICK, LOCKHART, HILL,
)
CHRISTOPHER & PHILLIPS I
1900 M Street, N.W.
Washington, D.C.
20036 Attorneys for Suffolk County Dated:
January 16, 1984 '-
UNITED STATES OF AMERICA NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSION O LFEIED Before the Atomic Safety and Licensing Board T4 JM 19 P12::34
)
I
'In the Matter of
)
'[0 G
bF
)
BRANCH LONG ISLAND LIGHTING COMPANY
)
Docket No. 50-322-OL-3~
)
(Emergency Planning) i (Shoreham Nuclear Power Station,
)
l Unit 1)
)
(
)
CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE I hereby certify that copies of Suffolk County Response to l
LILCO's Request for Leave To File Out of Time a Motion To l
Strike Leon J. Campo's Testimony on Contentions 25.C and 25.D l
hcve been served on the following by U.S. mail, first class, oxcept where noted, this 17th day of January, 1984.
- James A.
Laurenson, Chairman
- Ralph Shapiro, 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.
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.
- Mr.
Frederick J.
Shon Hunton & Williams Atomic Safety and Licens ng Board P.O.
Box 1535 U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Ctmmission 707 East Main Street Washington, D.C.
20555 Richmond, Virginia 23212 Edward M.
Barrett, Esq.
Mr. Jay Dunkleberger General' Counsel New York State Energy Office Long Island Lighting Company Agency Building 2 250 Old Country Road Empire State Plaza Mineola, New York 11501 Albany, New York 12223
- By Hand
- By Federal Express s
1 Mr. Brian McCaffrey
- Stephen B.
Latham, Esq.
Long Island Lighting Company Twomey, Latham & Shea 175 East Old Country Road 33 West Second Street Hicksville, New York 11801 Riverhcad, 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.
20,555 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
- Martin Bradley Ashare, 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.
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, Esc.
- Stewart M.
Glass, Esc.
U.S.
Nuclear Regulatory Commission Regional Counsel Washington, D.C.
20555 Federal Emergency Management Agency 26 Federal Plaza, Room 1349 New York, New York 10278 2-
~
Stuart Diamond
- James B.
Dougherty, Esq.
Environment / Energy Writer 3045 Porter Street, N.W.
NEWSDAY Washington, D.C.
20008 Long. Island, New York 11747
' Gerald C.-Crotty Spence Perry, Esq.
Counsel to the Governor Associate General Counsel Executive _ Chamber Federal Emergency Management Agencf State Capital Washington, D.C.
207.72 Albany, New York 12224 Ben Wiles, Esq.
Mr. Jeff Smith Assistant Counsel to the Governor Shoreham Nuclear Power Station Executive Chamber P.O. Box 618 State Capital North Country Road Albany, New York 12224 Wading River, New York 11792 0 Fabian Palomino, Esq.
Special Counsel to the Governor Executive Chamber Room 229 State Capitol Albany, New York 12224
% f BEA-, -
John E.
Birkenheier KIRKPATRICK, LOCKHART, HILL, CHRISTOPHER & PHILLIPS 1900 M Street, N.W.,
Suite 800 Washington, D.C.
20036 DATED:
January 17, 1984 l t
-