|
---|
Category:LEGAL TRANSCRIPTS & ORDERS & PLEADINGS
MONTHYEARML20093G4541995-10-18018 October 1995 Comment Supporting Proposed Rules 10CFR2,50 & 51 Re Decommissioning Procedures for Nuclear Power Reactors ML20058K7381993-12-0303 December 1993 Memorandum & Order CLI-93-25.* Commission Denies State of Nj Petition for Leave to Intervene & Request for Adjudicatory Hearing Filed on 931008.W/Certificate of Svc.Served on 931203 ML20058E0151993-11-14014 November 1993 Comment Opposing Proposed Rule 10CFR50 Re Exemptions in Accident Insurance for Nuclear Power Plants Prematurely Shut Down ML20059B0301993-10-22022 October 1993 NRC Staff Response to Commission Questions Posed W/Respect to State of New Jersey Petition for Leave to Intervene & Request for Hearing.* Denies Petition to Intervene & Request for Hearing.W/Certificate of Svc & Notice of Appearance ML20059B1111993-10-20020 October 1993 Philadelphia Electric Co Response to NRC 931014 Order.* State Failed to Demonstrate Entitlement to Hearing to Challenge Util Amend to Permit Util to Receive Shoreham Fuel ML20059B0621993-10-20020 October 1993 Long Island Power Authority Response to Nuclear Regulatory Commission Order of 931014.* Requests That NRC Reject State of Nj Filing.W/Certificate of Svc ML20057G2141993-10-14014 October 1993 Order.* Requests for Simultaneous Responses,Not to Exceed 10 Pages to Be Filed by State,Peco & Lipa & Served on Other Specified Responders by 931020.NRC May File by 931022. W/Certificate of Svc.Served on 931014 ML20059A4581993-10-14014 October 1993 Order Requesting Answers to Two Questions Re State of Nj Request for Immediate Action by NRC or Alternatively, Petition for Leave to Intervene & Request for Hearing. Operations Plans for Marine Transportation Withheld ML20059F0191993-10-0808 October 1993 Long Island Power Authority Reply to New Jersey Filing of 931020.* Licensee Requests That NRC Deny State of Nj Intervention Petition.W/Certificate of Svc ML20057F2191993-09-30030 September 1993 Exemption from Requirements of 10CFR50.54(q) Eliminating Licensee Requirement to Follow & Maintain in Effect Emergency Plans ML20059B1291993-09-14014 September 1993 Affidavit of Jh Freeman.* Discusses Transfer of Slightly Used Nuclear Fuel from Shoreham Nuclear Power Station to Limerick Generating Station.W/Certificate of Svc & Notice of Appearance ML20097C3241992-06-0303 June 1992 Petitioners Consented Motion to Dismiss Joint Opposition to Issuance of Decommissioning Order Prior to Hearing.* W/Certificate of Svc ML20097C2911992-06-0303 June 1992 Petitioner Consented Motion to Dismiss Appeal.* Dismisses 911203 Notice of Appeal W/Prejudice & W/Each Party Bearing Own Costs & Atty Fees Due to Encl Settlement Agreement. W/Certificate of Svc ML20097C2891992-06-0303 June 1992 Petitioner Consented Motion to Dismiss Appeals.* Appeals Being Dismissed Due to Encl Settlement Agreement.Nrc Should Dismiss Appeals W/Prejudice & W/Each Party Bearing Own Costs & Atty Fees.W/Certificate of Svc ML20097C1361992-06-0303 June 1992 Petitioners Consented Motion to Dismiss.* Petitioners by Counsel Move ASLB to Dismiss Petitioners as Petitioners for Leave to Intervene & Request for Hearing in Proceeding W/ Prejudice.W/Certificate of Svc ML20097C2631992-06-0303 June 1992 Petitioner Consented Motion to Dismiss.* NRC Should Issue Order Dismissing School District & Scientists & Engineers for Secure Energy,Inc as Petitioners in Proceeding.W/ Settlement Agreement & Certificate of Svc ML20097C1081992-06-0303 June 1992 Petitioners Consented Motion to Dismiss Appeal.* Petitioners Hereby Move to Dismiss 910628 Notice of Appeal in Matter W/Prejudice & W/Each Party to Bear Own Costs & Atty Fees.W/ Certificate of Svc ML20096A5921992-05-0707 May 1992 Motion to Withdraw Supplemental Filing.* Petitioners Urge NRC to Allow Withdrawal of Supplement for Good Cause Shown. W/Certificate of Svc ML20096A5311992-05-0606 May 1992 Long Island Power Authority Comments on SECY-92-140 & Response to Petitioner Joint Opposition to Decommissioning Order.* Util Urges NRC to Adopt Recommendation in SECY-92-140 & Approve Order.W/Certificate of Svc ML20096A5071992-05-0505 May 1992 Suppl to Joint Opposition to NRC Staff Recommendation for Issuance of Decommissioning Order Prior to Hearing & Contingent Motion for Stay.* Supplements Joint Opposition Prior to Hearing.W/Certificate of Svc ML20095K8991992-04-29029 April 1992 Joint Opposition to NRC Staff Recommendation for Issuance of Decommissioning Order Prior to Hearing & Contingent Motion for Stay.* Petitioners Urge Commission to Reject NRC Staff Proposal in SECY-92-140.W/Certificate of Svc ML20095H5611992-04-28028 April 1992 Affidavit of Lm Hill.* Affidavit of Lm Hill Supporting Util Position That Circumstances Exist Warranting Prompt NRC Action on NRC Recommendation That Immediately Effective Order Be Issued Approving Decommissioning Plan ML20094G3971992-02-26026 February 1992 Notice of State Taxpayer Complaint & Correction.* NRC Should Stay Hand in Approving Application for License Transfer as Matter of Comity Pending Resolution of Question as Util Continued Existence in Ny State Courts.W/Certificate of Svc ML20094G2261992-02-25025 February 1992 Petitioner Notice of Lilco/Long Island Power Authority Exaggeration & of Commencement of State Court Action.* NRC Should Await Ny State Decision Re Matter within Special Jurisdiction.W/Certificate of Svc ML20092K9021992-02-24024 February 1992 Petitioner Opposition to Ltr Request for Dismissal of Pages.* Suggests That Transfer of License Inappropriate at Present Time.W/Certificate of Svc ML20092K9511992-02-21021 February 1992 Response of Lilco & Long Island Power Authority to Petitioner Opposition to NRC Staff Recommendation for License Transfer Approval.* W/Certificate of Svc ML20092K8701992-02-20020 February 1992 Petitioners Opposition to NRC Staff Recommendation for Approval of License Transfer.* Urges Commission to Reject NRC Recommendation in SECY-92-041 & Remand Matter for Consideration in Normal Proceeding.W/Certificate of Svc ML20091E2661992-02-20020 February 1992 Petitioner Opposition to NRC Staff Motion to Dismiss.* Petitioners Urge NRC to Deny Staff Motion or Defer Action Until Petitioners Have Fully Developed Petitions & Supplied Detailed Contentions.W/Certificate of Svc ML20091E4011992-02-18018 February 1992 Answer of Long Island Power Authority to NRC Staff Motion to Dismiss Intervention Petitions.* Util Urges NRC to Grant Motion & Dismiss Intervention Petitions.W/Certificate of Svc ML20091E3161992-02-13013 February 1992 Lilco Response to NRC Staff Motion to Dismiss Intervention Petitions on Decommissioning Plan.* Requests That Petitions Be Struck & Petitioners Be Instructed of Possible Dismissal.W/Certificate of Svc ML20092D2931992-02-0606 February 1992 Answer Denying Petitions for Leave to Intervene & Request for Prior Hearing Re Decommissioning ML20091E2741992-02-0606 February 1992 Answer of Long Island Power Authority to Intervention Petitions Concerning Shoreham Decommissioning Plan.* Requests That Petitions for Leave & Requests for Hearing Be Denied.W/Certificate of Svc & Notice of Appearance ML20091E2941992-02-0606 February 1992 Lilco Opposition to Petitioner Request for Hearing on Shoreham Decommissioning Plan.* Informs That Util Opposes Both Requests for Hearing.W/Certificate of Svc ML20091E2831992-01-22022 January 1992 Shoreham-Wading River Central School District Petition for Leave to Intervene & Request for Prior Hearing.* Requests That Petition for Leave Be Granted & Hearing Held. W/Certificate of Svc & Notice of Appearance ML20091E2811992-01-22022 January 1992 Scientists & Engineers for Secure Energy,Inc Petition for Leave to Intervene & Request for Prior Hearing.* Requests That Petition Be Granted & Hearing Be Held.W/Certificate of Svc & Notice of Appearance ML20086T7231992-01-0303 January 1992 Motion of Long Island Power Authority for Leave to File Supplemental Matls.* Requests That Supplemental Memorandum & Supplemental Legislative History Matls Be Filed. W/Certificate of Svc ML20086T7541992-01-0303 January 1992 Memorandum of Long Island Power Authority Concerning Supplemental Legislative History Matls.* Supports Legislative History & Argues That License Not Subj to Termination Under Section 2828.W/Certificate of Svc ML20086Q9171991-12-30030 December 1991 Lilco Opposition to Petitioners Request for Stay & Suggestion of Mootness.* Suggests That Stay Request & Suggestion of Mootness Be Denied.W/Certificate of Svc ML20086Q9281991-12-30030 December 1991 Opposition of Util to Motion for Stay of License Transfer & to Suggestion of Mootness.* Concluded That Relief Sought in Petitioner Motion & Suggestion Should Be Denied. W/Certificate of Svc ML20091H8261991-12-19019 December 1991 Suggestion of Mootness Due to Long Island Power Authority Imminent Demise.* Concludes That If Commission Were to Transfer Shoreham Licenses to Lipa,Nrc Could Find Itself W/Class 103 Facility W/O Licensee.W/Certificate of Svc ML20091H8661991-12-18018 December 1991 Lilco Opposition to SE2 Appeal from LBP-91-26 & LBP-91-39. Concludes That Appeal Should Be Summarily Rejected or Be Denied on Merits.W/Certificate of Svc ML20086N1661991-12-17017 December 1991 Motion for Stay of License Transfer Pending Final Order on Petition to Intervene & Request for Hearing & for Addl or Alternative Stay.W/Certificate of Svc ML20086M0791991-12-16016 December 1991 Certificate of Svc.* Certifies Svc of Petitioner Notice of Appeal & Brief in Support of Appeal in Proceeding to Listed Individuals ML20086J6351991-12-0909 December 1991 Lilco Opposition to Petitioners Contentions on License Transfer Amend.* Concludes That License Transfer Amend Contentions Be Rejected & Petitioner Request to Intervene Denied.W/Certificate of Svc ML20086J3521991-12-0909 December 1991 Response of Long Island Power Authority to Petitioners Joint Supplemental Petition.* Board Should Dismiss Petitions to Intervene for Lack of Standing & Reject All Contentions Proffered by Petitioners.W/Certificate of Svc ML20094E1041991-12-0909 December 1991 Response to Long Island Power Authority to Petitioners Joint Supplemental Petition ML20091G2051991-12-0303 December 1991 Brief in Support of Appeal.* Commission Should Consider Appeal on Basis That Findings of Matl of Facts Clearly Erroneous.W/Certificate of Svc ML20091G1971991-12-0303 December 1991 Notice of Appeal.* Informs of Appeal of LBP-91-26 & LBP-91-39 in Facility possession-only License Proceeding ML20086C5381991-11-18018 November 1991 Petitioner Joint Supplemental Petition.* Petition Includes List of Contentions to Be Litigated in Hearing Re License Transfer Application.W/Certificate of Svc ML20086C5471991-11-18018 November 1991 App to Joint Supplemental Petition of Shoreham-Wading River Central School District & Scientists/Engineers for Secure Energy,Inc.* 1995-10-18
[Table view] Category:PLEADINGS
MONTHYEARML20059B0301993-10-22022 October 1993 NRC Staff Response to Commission Questions Posed W/Respect to State of New Jersey Petition for Leave to Intervene & Request for Hearing.* Denies Petition to Intervene & Request for Hearing.W/Certificate of Svc & Notice of Appearance ML20059B0621993-10-20020 October 1993 Long Island Power Authority Response to Nuclear Regulatory Commission Order of 931014.* Requests That NRC Reject State of Nj Filing.W/Certificate of Svc ML20059B1111993-10-20020 October 1993 Philadelphia Electric Co Response to NRC 931014 Order.* State Failed to Demonstrate Entitlement to Hearing to Challenge Util Amend to Permit Util to Receive Shoreham Fuel ML20059F0191993-10-0808 October 1993 Long Island Power Authority Reply to New Jersey Filing of 931020.* Licensee Requests That NRC Deny State of Nj Intervention Petition.W/Certificate of Svc ML20097C2631992-06-0303 June 1992 Petitioner Consented Motion to Dismiss.* NRC Should Issue Order Dismissing School District & Scientists & Engineers for Secure Energy,Inc as Petitioners in Proceeding.W/ Settlement Agreement & Certificate of Svc ML20097C2911992-06-0303 June 1992 Petitioner Consented Motion to Dismiss Appeal.* Dismisses 911203 Notice of Appeal W/Prejudice & W/Each Party Bearing Own Costs & Atty Fees Due to Encl Settlement Agreement. W/Certificate of Svc ML20097C1361992-06-0303 June 1992 Petitioners Consented Motion to Dismiss.* Petitioners by Counsel Move ASLB to Dismiss Petitioners as Petitioners for Leave to Intervene & Request for Hearing in Proceeding W/ Prejudice.W/Certificate of Svc ML20097C1081992-06-0303 June 1992 Petitioners Consented Motion to Dismiss Appeal.* Petitioners Hereby Move to Dismiss 910628 Notice of Appeal in Matter W/Prejudice & W/Each Party to Bear Own Costs & Atty Fees.W/ Certificate of Svc ML20097C2891992-06-0303 June 1992 Petitioner Consented Motion to Dismiss Appeals.* Appeals Being Dismissed Due to Encl Settlement Agreement.Nrc Should Dismiss Appeals W/Prejudice & W/Each Party Bearing Own Costs & Atty Fees.W/Certificate of Svc ML20097C3241992-06-0303 June 1992 Petitioners Consented Motion to Dismiss Joint Opposition to Issuance of Decommissioning Order Prior to Hearing.* W/Certificate of Svc ML20096A5921992-05-0707 May 1992 Motion to Withdraw Supplemental Filing.* Petitioners Urge NRC to Allow Withdrawal of Supplement for Good Cause Shown. W/Certificate of Svc ML20096A5311992-05-0606 May 1992 Long Island Power Authority Comments on SECY-92-140 & Response to Petitioner Joint Opposition to Decommissioning Order.* Util Urges NRC to Adopt Recommendation in SECY-92-140 & Approve Order.W/Certificate of Svc ML20096A5071992-05-0505 May 1992 Suppl to Joint Opposition to NRC Staff Recommendation for Issuance of Decommissioning Order Prior to Hearing & Contingent Motion for Stay.* Supplements Joint Opposition Prior to Hearing.W/Certificate of Svc ML20095K8991992-04-29029 April 1992 Joint Opposition to NRC Staff Recommendation for Issuance of Decommissioning Order Prior to Hearing & Contingent Motion for Stay.* Petitioners Urge Commission to Reject NRC Staff Proposal in SECY-92-140.W/Certificate of Svc ML20094G2261992-02-25025 February 1992 Petitioner Notice of Lilco/Long Island Power Authority Exaggeration & of Commencement of State Court Action.* NRC Should Await Ny State Decision Re Matter within Special Jurisdiction.W/Certificate of Svc ML20092K9021992-02-24024 February 1992 Petitioner Opposition to Ltr Request for Dismissal of Pages.* Suggests That Transfer of License Inappropriate at Present Time.W/Certificate of Svc ML20092K9511992-02-21021 February 1992 Response of Lilco & Long Island Power Authority to Petitioner Opposition to NRC Staff Recommendation for License Transfer Approval.* W/Certificate of Svc ML20092K8701992-02-20020 February 1992 Petitioners Opposition to NRC Staff Recommendation for Approval of License Transfer.* Urges Commission to Reject NRC Recommendation in SECY-92-041 & Remand Matter for Consideration in Normal Proceeding.W/Certificate of Svc ML20091E2661992-02-20020 February 1992 Petitioner Opposition to NRC Staff Motion to Dismiss.* Petitioners Urge NRC to Deny Staff Motion or Defer Action Until Petitioners Have Fully Developed Petitions & Supplied Detailed Contentions.W/Certificate of Svc ML20091E4011992-02-18018 February 1992 Answer of Long Island Power Authority to NRC Staff Motion to Dismiss Intervention Petitions.* Util Urges NRC to Grant Motion & Dismiss Intervention Petitions.W/Certificate of Svc ML20091E3161992-02-13013 February 1992 Lilco Response to NRC Staff Motion to Dismiss Intervention Petitions on Decommissioning Plan.* Requests That Petitions Be Struck & Petitioners Be Instructed of Possible Dismissal.W/Certificate of Svc ML20091E2941992-02-0606 February 1992 Lilco Opposition to Petitioner Request for Hearing on Shoreham Decommissioning Plan.* Informs That Util Opposes Both Requests for Hearing.W/Certificate of Svc ML20091E2741992-02-0606 February 1992 Answer of Long Island Power Authority to Intervention Petitions Concerning Shoreham Decommissioning Plan.* Requests That Petitions for Leave & Requests for Hearing Be Denied.W/Certificate of Svc & Notice of Appearance ML20091E2811992-01-22022 January 1992 Scientists & Engineers for Secure Energy,Inc Petition for Leave to Intervene & Request for Prior Hearing.* Requests That Petition Be Granted & Hearing Be Held.W/Certificate of Svc & Notice of Appearance ML20091E2831992-01-22022 January 1992 Shoreham-Wading River Central School District Petition for Leave to Intervene & Request for Prior Hearing.* Requests That Petition for Leave Be Granted & Hearing Held. W/Certificate of Svc & Notice of Appearance ML20086T7231992-01-0303 January 1992 Motion of Long Island Power Authority for Leave to File Supplemental Matls.* Requests That Supplemental Memorandum & Supplemental Legislative History Matls Be Filed. W/Certificate of Svc ML20086Q9281991-12-30030 December 1991 Opposition of Util to Motion for Stay of License Transfer & to Suggestion of Mootness.* Concluded That Relief Sought in Petitioner Motion & Suggestion Should Be Denied. W/Certificate of Svc ML20086Q9171991-12-30030 December 1991 Lilco Opposition to Petitioners Request for Stay & Suggestion of Mootness.* Suggests That Stay Request & Suggestion of Mootness Be Denied.W/Certificate of Svc ML20091H8261991-12-19019 December 1991 Suggestion of Mootness Due to Long Island Power Authority Imminent Demise.* Concludes That If Commission Were to Transfer Shoreham Licenses to Lipa,Nrc Could Find Itself W/Class 103 Facility W/O Licensee.W/Certificate of Svc ML20091H8661991-12-18018 December 1991 Lilco Opposition to SE2 Appeal from LBP-91-26 & LBP-91-39. Concludes That Appeal Should Be Summarily Rejected or Be Denied on Merits.W/Certificate of Svc ML20086N1661991-12-17017 December 1991 Motion for Stay of License Transfer Pending Final Order on Petition to Intervene & Request for Hearing & for Addl or Alternative Stay.W/Certificate of Svc ML20086J3521991-12-0909 December 1991 Response of Long Island Power Authority to Petitioners Joint Supplemental Petition.* Board Should Dismiss Petitions to Intervene for Lack of Standing & Reject All Contentions Proffered by Petitioners.W/Certificate of Svc ML20086J6351991-12-0909 December 1991 Lilco Opposition to Petitioners Contentions on License Transfer Amend.* Concludes That License Transfer Amend Contentions Be Rejected & Petitioner Request to Intervene Denied.W/Certificate of Svc ML20091G2051991-12-0303 December 1991 Brief in Support of Appeal.* Commission Should Consider Appeal on Basis That Findings of Matl of Facts Clearly Erroneous.W/Certificate of Svc ML20086C5381991-11-18018 November 1991 Petitioner Joint Supplemental Petition.* Petition Includes List of Contentions to Be Litigated in Hearing Re License Transfer Application.W/Certificate of Svc ML20086C5471991-11-18018 November 1991 App to Joint Supplemental Petition of Shoreham-Wading River Central School District & Scientists/Engineers for Secure Energy,Inc.* ML20082G8971991-08-0909 August 1991 Lilco Responses to Petitioner Filings of 910805 & 06.* W/Certificate of Svc ML20082G8441991-08-0707 August 1991 Motion for Offical Notice to Correct Representation.* Moves Board to Take Official Notice of Encl NRC Records to Correct Representation Made at Prehearing Conference. W/Certificate of Svc ML20082G8571991-08-0707 August 1991 Petitioners Response to Lilco Re Physical Security Plan.* Petitioners Suggest That Util post-hearing Filing Does Not Dispose of Any Issue as to Util Compliance W/Settlement Agreement.W/Certificate of Svc ML20076D0721991-07-22022 July 1991 Petitioners First Emergency Motion for Stay.* Movants Urge Commission,In Interest of Justice,To Enjoin Lilco from Taking Any Actions Under possession-only License Which Might Moot Renewed Application for Stay.W/Certificate of Svc ML20076D1541991-07-22022 July 1991 Lilco Response to Petitioner Emergency Motions.* Believes Petitioner Emergency Motions Should Be Denied to End Frivolous Pleadings & Burdens of Time & Resources of Nrc. W/Certificate of Svc ML20076D0841991-07-21021 July 1991 Petitioners Second Emergency Motion for Stay.* Petitioners Urge Commission,Ex Parte,To Enjoin Lilco,From Any & All Acts W/Respect to Shoreham Which Would Be Inconsistent W/Nrc Representation in Court.W/Certificate of Svc ML20076D2071991-07-15015 July 1991 Lilco Opposition to Shoreham-Wading River Central School District (Swrcsd) Appeal from LBP-91-26.* Appeal Should Be Denied Due to Listed Reasons.W/Certificate of Svc ML20082D4051991-07-12012 July 1991 Lilco Opposition to SE-2s Contentions on Possession Only License Amend.* Concludes That Contentions Should Be Rejected & Request for Hearing on Possession Only License Amend Should Be Denied.W/Certificate of Svc ML20082D4001991-07-12012 July 1991 Movant-intervenors Motion for Change of Venue of Prehearing Conference.* Intervenors Request Change of Venue of 910730 Prehearing Conference from Hauppauge,Ny to Washington DC Area.W/Certificate of Svc ML20082D3891991-07-10010 July 1991 Lilco Support of NRC Staff Motion for Reconsideration of LBP-91-26.* for Reasons Listed,Nrc 910625 Motion Should Be Granted & Request for Hearing & Petition to Intervene in Amend Proceeding Should Be Denied.W/Certificate of Svc ML20082B4311991-07-0303 July 1991 Lilco Opposition to Petitioner Contentions on Confirmatory Order,Physical Security Plan & Emergency Preparedeness License Amends.* Petitioner Contentions Should Be Rejected & License Amends Denied.W/Certificate of Svc ML20082B3531991-07-0202 July 1991 Unopposed Motion for Variance in Svc Requirements.* Informs That Filing & Svc Requirements Presents No Obstacle to Filing W/Aslb or Svc Upon Any Parties.W/Certificate of Svc. Served on 910702.Granted for Licensing Board on 910702 ML20082B2461991-06-28028 June 1991 Movant-Intervenor Brief in Support Accompany Notice of Appeal.* School District Urges Commission to Reverse & Remand Dismissal Order W/Appropriate Guidance.W/Ceritifcate of Svc ML20082B2571991-06-28028 June 1991 Unopposed Motion for Variance in Svc Requirements.* Petitioners Urge ASLB to Grant Variance in Svc Procedures Requested to Allow Svc of Judge Ferguson.W/Certificate of Svc 1993-10-08
[Table view] |
Text
- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - ----- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - ------
v--------- -
. ~ .. i
~ ~ - . , .
1 00CMgTED UNITED STATES OF AMERI'Cy C NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSION ,
13 lef 30 N1:01 Before the Atomic Safety and Licensing Board Of FiC5 0F EEuit ih -
00CXETING A SEfn" I l 3 RANCH i
)
l In the Matter of )
)
LONG ISLAND LIGHTING COMPANY ) Docket No. 50-322-OL-3
)
(Shoreham Nuclear Power Plant, )
Unit 1) )
)
Suffolk County Motion to Strike Portions of LILCO Testimony on Contentions 25, 23 and 65 Pursuant to 10 CFR S 2.730 and 2.743(c), Suffolk County hereby moves to strike the following portions of the LILCO testi-p- mony on Contentions 23, 25 and 65:
- 1. Cordaro et al. on Contention 25 (Role Conflict),
Question and Answer 37, pages 39-40.
- 2. Cordaro et al. on Contention 25 (Role Conflict),
Question and Answer 38, pag'e 41.
- 3. Cordaro et al. on Contention 25 (Role Conflict),
second, third and fourth paragraphs of Answer 65, pages 78-79 (i.e., the portion of the answer labeled "second"). -
- 4. Cordaro et al. on Contention 25 (Role Conflict), last portion of Answer 82 (third full paragraph on page 106 through first full paragraph on page 108).
- 5. Cordaro et al. on Contention 23 (Shadow Phenomenon),
Question and Answer 72, pages 135-136.
- 6. .Cordaro et al. on Contention 65 (Evacuation Time Esti-
-mates), last portion of Answer 5 (last paragraph of 5 Answer, beginning on page 16 and continuing to Question 6 on.page 17).
7.. Cordaro et al. on Contention 65 (Evacuation Time Esti- ~
mates), Question and Answer 20, pages 46-47.
h ' .0C 70 4 74 831128 hDkE&K05000322 0
PDR . S0b
U l
The basis for this Motion is that the referenced portions of
- LILCO testimony are not relevant or material to the contentions being discussed, and they provide no probative or reliable evi-dence or data upon which the Board could base a finding relevant to Contentions 23, 25 or 65. Each of the referenced portions of the LILCO testimony is discussed separately below.
- 1. Cordaro, et al. on Contention 25 (Role Conflict)
Question and Answer 37, pages 39-40 This testimony by LILCO witnesses Dynes and Mileti appears to be a generalized discourse on stories, rumors, anecdotes, moral tales, oral tradition and lore. The discussion is not particularized in that the " emergencies," " individuals," " role t - obligations," " anecdotes," and " stories" that are referenced are not identified, nor are any of these items related or tied to this proceeding or the issues addressed by Contention 25.
Indeed, Question 37 does not even seek testimony relevant to this proceeding since it merely asks "Why do people seem to accept so' readily the notion that ' role conflict' will be a problem in emergencies?" (Emphasis added.) The response does not provide any basis to connect the general discourse by Messrs. Dynes and Mileti to the opinions or conc 1_usions of the County's witnesses on Contention 25,'nor does it allege that any of the evidence relied upon by the County is " rumor" or " lore." The discussion is not probative of the issue presented in Contention .
e a
. ~ ..
8***** ,_
3-
. 25 -- that is, whether the LILCO Plan adequately takes role con-
- flict into account. Thus, the testimony is irrelevant to Conten-tion 25 and has no probative value and should be stricken.
- 2. Cordaro, et al. on Centention 25 (Role Conflict)
Question and Answer 38, page 41 Question 38 asks the very general question "Do most of the people who have studied disasters agree with Suffolk County, or with you?" on whether role conflict "could be a real problem in a radiological emergency." The responses by LILCO witnesses Mileti -
and Dynes are equally generalized and not probative on Contention 25.
Dr. Mileti begins his response by noting that he only knows
- v. the opinions of "some disaster researchers," which he subsequent-ly identifies as being some attendees at one session of a confer-ence held some time last summer. He then characterizes what he calls the " consensus" of these attendees. First, this response does not answer the question asked; even if the question seeks probative evidence, the answer does not provide it. Second, the response is so general and undefined that it has no probative value whatsoever. The session " attendees" are not identified; the substantive content of the " session" is not identified (i.e.,
what was the context and content of the " role conflict" that was discuased?); the " consensus" is not defit.2d; there is no basis for Mileti's assertion that role conflict " implies" role abandon-ment for the individuals comprising the " consensus"; "a real issue" is not defined; and " human-made emergencies" are not -
, , , ,- . - - - . - - m
)
1 defined. Third, the statement is gross hearsay, and no basis is l
l
- provided to support its reliability. Dr. Mileti's answer is not probative, not material, and not reliable, and should be stricken.
Dr. Dynes' answer is similarly not responsive to the ques-tion,'is generalized and is non-probative. The " scholars,"
" researchers" and " emergencies" discussed in the first three sentences of his response are not defined, described, or identi-fied. The final sentence of his response: " Researchers who have had extensive experience in observing emergency behavior (Quarentelli, Dynes, and Drabek) have indicated that role con-flict is a non-problem," is so generalized'that it has no proba-tive value. The answer is not related to the issue presented in Contention 25 -- that is, whether the LILCO Plan adequately addresses the problem of role conflict, nor is his discussion even related to radiological emergencies.
- 3. Cordaro, et al. on Contention 25 (Role Conflict),
second, third and fourth paragraphs of Answer 65, (i.e., the portion of the response labeled "second")
pages 78-79 This testimony by LILCO witness Mileti is practically iden-tical to that discussed in paragraph 1 above, with an additional discussion of an " example" of a " myth" involving a man arrested for " looting" his own house. This testimony has no relevance to Contention 25 and has no probative value for the reasons set forth in paragraph 1 above.
L --..._...
. 4. Cordaro et al. on Contention 25 (Role Conflict), last portion of Answer 82 (third full paragraph on page 106 through first full paragraph on page 108).
LILCO witnesses Cordaro and Weismantle assert that some LILCO en.ployees have gone "beyond the call of duty" in performing certain tasks and that this " constitutes empirical evidence" that LILCO employees are capable of performing in emergencies. This assertion is neither relevant nor probative of the issues raised in Contention 25. Even if the referenced LILCO employees have performed as described in the LILCO Testimony, there is no basis for asserting that the LILCO employees who will be members of LERO will perform the duties assigned to them in the event of an emergency at Shoreham. The described actions by LILCO employees
?
did not involve the kind of role conflict chat would be experi-enced in a radiological emergency. The safety and welfare of the families of the LILCO employees were not at risk in the incidents described, and the LILCO employees were therefore not confronted with choosing between caring for their families or responding to the emergency at hand. Indeed, most of the incidents described in the LILCO Testimony did not require the LILCO employee to risk his or her own safety. Thus, while admirable, such responses are not probative of the role conflict concerns raised by Suffolk County in this pr.oceeding and do not constitute " empirical evi-
-dence" that LILCO employees would respond as required under the LILCO Plan to an emergency at Shoreham. Further, there is no 4
s.
evidence that the LILCO employees who have performed the rescue tasks described by LILCO are even members of LERO. This testi-mony has no probative value.
- 5. Cordaro et al. on Contention 23 (Shadow Phenomenon),
Question and Answer 72, pages 135-136).
LILCO witnesses Cordaro and Weismantle assert that the Intervenors in this proceeding have put forth "the most deroga-tory possible picture of the people of Long Island, alleging that the public will be panicky, hysterical, irrational, selfish, accident-prone, larcenous, and defiant of law and authority."
This assertion is not relevant, material or probative and should be stricken. The statement is also false. At no time has
?- Suffolk County characterized the people of Long Island as alleged by LILCO witnesses. There is no factual basis for the witnesses' assertion, nor is any asserted in the LILCO testimony. The words used to describe the people of Long Island in the LILCO testimony are LILCO's; they are not the words of the County. The County takes sharp exception to this gross mischaracterization of its position. This LILCO testimony, which is, in essence, a personal accusation and deliberate mischaracterization of the County's position, is inappropriate, and should be stricken.
V e
+ . - . . . ,
- 6. Cordaro et al. on Contention 65 (Evacuation Time Esti-mates), last portion of Answer 5 (last paragraph of Answer, beginning on page 16 and continuing to Question 6 on page 17).
LILCO's witnesses state that LILCO's commitment of resources to emergency planning was only made necessary by Suffolk County's
- refusal "to allow its resources to be used for radiological emer-gency planning." The paragraph goes on to state that in the opinion of LILCO's witnesses, suffolk County police officers and other County personnel will "probably" be available to assist in the event of a radiological emergency at Shoreham. This testi-mony is irrelevant to this proceeding.
As stated in the Board's June 10, 1983 Order Limiting Scope
>- of Submissions, this litigation is to focus upon the so-called LILCO Transition Plan. That Plan calls for LILCO to assume the command and control of a Shoreham emergency and to provide all necessary offsite response through "LERO," which is composed almost entirely of LILCO personnel. No Suffolk County agencies or personnel belong to LERO; nor, pursuant to Resolutions 456-1982 and 111-1983, will they be made available to assist LILCO in implementing its Plan. Indeed, it was precisely because the l
1 County and other governmental agencies have stated they will not participate in emergency planning for Shoreham that the Board narrowed the scop'e of this litigation to the LILCO Transition Plan. Thus, the only relevant question before the Board is 4
4
l whether LILCO can implement that Plan. Furthermore, LILCO states that it can implement that Plan and that it can do so without County involvement.
Testimony attacking the County for determining that it is impossible to protect the people of Suffolk County in the event of an emergency at Shoreham is not relevant to the admitted con-tentions in this proceeding. Similarly, speculation by LILCO's witnesses about whether County personnel will or will not obey the law is equally irrelevant. LILCO has devised a Plan which it asserts can be implemented by LILCO and the others relied upon in the Plan. Therefore, the Board should restrict the testimony in this proceeding to the issue of whether LILCO can and will be L ..
capable of implementing the Plan as written, and bar testimony speculating on whether other individuals may or may not be avail-able to assist.
- 7. Cordaro et al. on Contention 65 (Evacuation Time Estimates), Question and Answer 20), pages 46-47.
The LILCO witnesses address ho'w the Shoreham time estimates compare with evacuation time estimates for other facilities.
This testimony, including Attachment 7, is irrelevant to the issue of whether LILCO's evacuation time estimates for Shoreham are accurate and reliable. There is no admitted contention in this proceeding that deals with time estimates, or evacuation, from other plants. Nor is there'any evidence before this Board
^
that estimates from any other plant have any relationship to the issues addressed in the Contentions at issue in this case.
W e a -
Witness Lieberman's answer notes that the time estimates for
- Shoreham are " comparable" to time estimates for other plants.
However, neither this broad conclusory statement nor Attachment 7 explains how any of the time estimates for other plants were 6erived, or how such time estimates in their methodology or underlying assumptions relate to the Shoreham plant, the Long Island area, or the contentions in this proceeding. If this irrelevant testimony is not stricken, the County will be com-pelled to examine LILCO's witnesses on the details of the com-parisons addressed in Question and Answer 20 and Attachment 7, the validity of such comparisons, and their pertinence, if any, to-the issues raised in contentions 65 and 23.
L.
Respectfully submitted, David J. Gilmartin, Esq.
Patricia A. Dempsey, Esq.
Suffolk County Department of Law H. Lee Dennison Building Hauppuage, New York 11788 Lawrence C. Langher, Esq.
Karla J. Letsche, Esq.
Christopher M. McMurray, Esq.
Michael S. Miller, Esq. ,
KIRKPATRICK, LOCKHART, HILL, CHRISTOPHER & PHILLIPS 1900 M Street, NW, Suite 800 Washington, DC 20036 1
Attorneys for Suffolk County Dated: November 28, 1983
I .
[
UNITED STATES OF AMERICA NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSION Before the Atomic Safety and Licensing Board' s )
In the 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 liotion to Strike Portions of LILCO Testimony on Contentions 25, 23 and 65 have been sent to the following this 28th day of November, 1983 by U.S. mail, first class, except as otherwise noted.
- James A. Laurenson, Chairman Ralph Shapiro, Esq.
Atomic Safety and Licensing Board Cammer.and Shapiro
,. U.S. Nuclear Reguistory 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 Cummission Hicksville, New York 11801 Washington, D.C. 20555
- W. Taylor Reveley, III, Erc.
- Mr. Frederick J. Shon Hunton & Williams Atomic Safety and Licensing Board P.O. Box 1535 U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission 707 East Main Street
. Washington, D.C. 20555 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 By Hand on' 11/29/83 By Telecopier and I'9deral Express on 11/28/33
l =
~~ .
j ~ . . _ ,
Nora Bredes Docketing and Service Section Executive Director .
Office of the Secretary Shoreham Opponents Coalition U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Comm.
' 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 MBB Technical Associates
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. Dialik, Esq.
The Governor Nelson A. Rockefeller Assistant Attorney General Building Environmental Protection Bur.
Empire State P.laza 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.
L Hauppauge, New York 11788 Washington, D.C. 20555 i
Atomic Safety and Licensing Jonathan D. Feinberg, Esq.
Board Panel Staff Counsel, New Yor;t State
! U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission Public Service Commission Washington, D.C. 20555 3 Rockefeller Plaza Albany, New York 12223
l Bernard M.
David A. Repka, Esq. Stewart M. Glass, Esq.
U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission Regional Counsel
. Washing ton, D.C. 20555 Federal Emergency Management i
l Agency
) Stuart Diamond 26 Federal Plaza, Room 1349
! Environment / Energy Writer New York, New York 1.0278 NEWSDAY l Long Island, New York 11747 James B. Dougherty, Esq.
3045 Porter Street, N.W.
l Washington, D.C. 20008
,~ _
e-i Spence Perry, Esq.
Associate General Counsel Federal Emergency Management Agency '
, Washington, D.C. 20472 Mr. Jeff Smith Shoreham Nuclear Power Station P.O. Box 618 North Country Road '
Wading River, New York 11792 s /2
__h Ka a_ "J . Letsc
'IRKPATRICK, K LOCKHART, HILL, CHRISTOPHER & PHILLIPS 1900 M Street, N.W., Suite 800 Washington, D.C. 20036 DATED: November 23, 1983 e
6 6
,