ML20090E565
| ML20090E565 | |
| Person / Time | |
|---|---|
| Site: | Shoreham File:Long Island Lighting Company icon.png |
| Issue date: | 07/17/1984 |
| From: | Earley A HUNTON & WILLIAMS, LONG ISLAND LIGHTING CO. |
| To: | Atomic Safety and Licensing Board Panel |
| References | |
| OL-4, NUDOCS 8407190510 | |
| Download: ML20090E565 (7) | |
Text
,
liELAIED CC1
?CNDENCE y;
LILCO, July 17, 1984 09FnU5:
w>n.u UNITED STATES OF AMERICA NUCLEARREGULATORYCOg1ISgIg Before the Atomic Safety and L'icensing Board
~
In the Matter of
)
)
LONG ISLAND LIGHTING COMPANY
)
Docket No. 50-322-OL-4
)
(Low Power)
(Shoreham Nuclear Power Station, )
Unit 1)
)
LILCO RESPONSES TO SUFFOLK COUN"Y REQUEST FOR CLARIFICATION LILCO objects to the County's request for additional cross-examination of the LILCO witnesses that appeared during the hearings in this proceeding on April 24-25.
The reasons are as follows:
1.
Contrary to the County's assertion, cross-examination of LILCO's witnesses had been completed when the hearing was suspended.
County counsel, assisted by a technical consultant, had been given the opportunity to examine each of LILCO wit-nesses.
See Tr. 259 (SC has no further questions of Messrs.
Rao, Eckert, Dawe and Kascsak); 470 (SC has no further ques-tions of Messrs. Schiffmacher and Gunther); 542 (SC has no fur-ther questions of Mr. Museler).
The record demonstrates that the County was not " preparing to commence examination of Mr.
Museler when the hearing was halted."
Request for i
l 8407190510 840717 l J' PDR ADOCK 05000322 (LGU.
g PDR a-d. b C ft d gg O'3 s
o ot
o e
~ h' Clarification at 1.
The County had, in fact, completed its questioning.
Tr. 542.
Mr. Museler was excused by the Board subject to recall.
Tr. 552.
Messrs. Rao, Eckert, Dawe and Kascsak were excused not subject to recall, Tr. 262-63, and Messrs. Schiffmacher and Gunther were excus_d subject to recall on one specific matter.1/
Tr. 469, 477.
In no instance had the County's cross-examination been curtailed by the Board.
Thus, the County had full and fair opportunity to probe the testimony of LILCO's witnesses.
The County's suggestion that the Temporary Restraining Order supports their position that further cross-examination is justified is without merit.
In-deed, in the face of pleadings filed by LILCO and the URC de-monstrating that a preliminary injunction should not issue, the County dismissed the action.
At that time, the NRC had only agreed to hear argument on the matter; it had not revised the schedule.
2.
LILCO does not intend to offer any additional testi-mony from Messrs. Rao, Eckert, Dawe and Kascsak.
The County did not seek to depose these or any of LILCO's original wit-nesses during the re-opened discovery period.
And none of the lj/
In fact, presentation of and cross-examination on LILCO's case was complete.
The only remaining issue was to determine whether LILCO would present an additional witness to clarify some previous testimony.
Tr. 579.
During a short recess to consider the matter, counsel for LILCO and the County agreed that an additional witness would be unnecessary.
That agree-ment, however, was not-communicated to the Board because notice of the temporary restraining order intervened.
Tr. 580.
i i
i 4
p County's consultants have expressed any opinions or the intent to express any opinions en the subject matters addressed by these LILCO witnesses.
Thus, the County has shown no good rea-son to recall them.2/
To do so would be burdensome to LILCO.
Most notably, Messrs. Rao and Eckert of General Electric would have to travel from California.3/
3.
LILCO also does not intend to offer any additional testimony from Mr. Museler.
Although he was excused subject to recall, the County has made no specific showing on why he should be recalled.
The Board apparently contemplated that there would have to be "some development" to justify recall.
See Tr. 552.
4.
New York State's support of the County's request lends no weight to the arguments.
The suggestion that the State " rightfully did not cross-examine any of the witnesses presented" is patently absurd.
The State had ample opportunity to cross-examine LILCO's witneses and made absolutely no effort to do so.
Indeed, counsel for the State chose to leave the proceeding at the luncheon recess on April 24 never to return.
2/
The County's vague assertion that the Commission's May 16, 1984, Order injected new matters pertinent to the testimony of LILCO's prior witnesses is insufficient to justify-recalling them.
In fact, the County can only point to the standard set by the Commission for judging LILCO's application.
The stan-dard, however, is for the Board to apply to the facts presented 4
by_the witnesses.
The County has failed to give any reason to revisit the facts presented April 24-25.
3/
At a minimum, if these witnesses are recalled, the County should pay for their travel expenses and the time they are re-quired to be at the hearings.
L
%. 5.
LILCO will offer supplemental testimony sponsored by Messrs. Gunther and Schiffmacher and make these witnesses available for cross-examination.
To the extent this supplemen-tal testimony bears upon matters already in evidence, the Coun-ty will undoubtedly be permitted to cross-examine on it'.
LILCO will urge the Board, however, to limit cross-examination to new material that could not have been inquired into during the original proceeding.
Conclusion-The County's request for additional cross-examination of LILCO's original low power witness panels is but another in a long line of attempts to delay this. proceeding.
SC has failed to point to any specific facts or opinions about which it could not have inquired at the April 24-25 hearing.
Therefore, for the reasons stated above, cross-examination of LILCO's witness-es should be limited to any new or supplemental' testimony sub-mitted on July 16 when the low power proceeding resumes on July 30.
Respectfully submitted, LONG ISLAND LIGHTING COMPANY 0
}12.- '
. Robert (J Rolfo d'. J[/ /
Anthony T. Earley, r.
Jessine A. Monaghan L
3 e
-s-HUNTON & WILLIAMS 707 East Main Street Richmond, Virginia 23219 DATED:
July 17, 1984 k_
LILCO, July 17, 1984 CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE In the Matter of LONG ISLAND LIGHTING COMPANY (Shoreham Nuclear Power Station, Unit 1)
Docket No. 50-322-OL-4 (Low Power)
I hereby certify that copies of LILCO'S RESPONSES TO SUFFOLK COUNTY REQUEST FOR CLARIFICATION were served this date l
upon the following by first-class mail, postage prepaid, or by I
telecopier, as indicated by an asterisk:
Judge Marshall E.
Miller,*
The Honorable Peter Cohalan Chairman Suffolk County Executive Atomic Safety and Licensing County Executive / Legislative Board Building U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Veterans Memorial Highway Commission Hauppauge, New York 11788 Washington, D.C.
20555 Judge Glenn O.
Bright
- Edwin J.
Reis, Esq.*
Atomic Safety and Licensing Bernard M.
Bordenick, Esq.
U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Office of the Executive Legal Commission Director i
Washington, D.C.
20555 U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission i
Washington, D.C.
20555 Judge Elizabeth B. Johnson
- Oak Ridge National Laboratory Fabian G.
Palomino, Esq.*
-P.O.
Box X, Building 3500 Special Counsel to the Governor Oak Ridge, Tennessee 37830 Executive Chamber, Room 229 State Capitol Albany, New York 12224 Eleanor L. Frucci, Esq.*
Docketing and Service Atomic Safety and Licensing Branch (3)
Board Office of the Secretary U.S. Nuclear Regulatory U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission Commission Washington, D.C.
20555 Washington, D.C.
20555
6 I
Herbert H. Brown, Esq.*
Jay Dunkleberger, Esq.
Alan R.
Dynner, Esq.
New York State Energy Office Lawrence Coe Lanpher, Esq.
Agency Building 2 Kirkpatrick, Lockhart, Hill, Empire State Plaza Christopher & Phillips Albany, New York 12223 8th Floor 1900 M Street, N.W.
Mr. Martin Suubert Washington, D.C.
20036 c/o Congressman William Carney 1113 Longworth House Office James Dougherty, Esq.
Building 3045 Porter Street Washington, D.C.
20515 Washington, D.C.
20008 Martin Bradley Ashare, Esq.
Stephen B.
Latham, Esq.
Suffolk County Attorney John F.
Shea, Esq.
H.
Lee Dennison Building Twomey, Latham & Shea Veterans Memorial Highway 33 West Second Street Hauppauge, New York 11788 Riverhead, New York 11901' I
M, A.
L85 AnthonfjF. Earl (Jl @ r /
Hunton & Williams 707 East Main Street P.O.
Box 1535 Richmond, Virginia 23212 DATED:
July 17, 1984 k