ML20093L075

Opposes County Request to Defer Completion of Piston Testimony Because Matter Might Be Settled.Problematic Prospect of Settlement Should Not Dictate Schedule Adjustment Re Testimony.Related Correspondence

ML20093L075
Person / Time
Site:	Shoreham File:Long Island Lighting Company icon.png
Issue date:	10/11/1984
From:	Twana Ellis HUNTON & WILLIAMS, LONG ISLAND LIGHTING CO.
To:	Brenner L, Ferguson G, Morris P Atomic Safety and Licensing Board Panel
References
CON-#484-553 OL, NUDOCS 8410180293
Download: ML20093L075 (3)

Text

15 9 ') I T * "'~" " "

l Huw rON $c WILLIAMS

• 707 EAST MAew Stric P.O. Box 1535 aooo c...,6v. ..va uc.=.w. Rzcatxown. VsstotNIA 20212 ase**== ve=uc acw vo =cw vo== iom

. p. o n

w. ..o..on.easo aoo.. ..m -o .a.a......,oo 4f h h is6temont roa.es..isoo T g g.c ss ug TELtz 7s.7os TWX . 7 s o . 9 5 6. Q O 6 8 m a a t suito.wo p o. som eos P.ast vino.=.. e.wa towsm e o,so1se.t m.a.oa. NoaTM camoum, ateoa swon.osa,w.mo=.. ass (Jr{g . , . - vettemont oe. eae.esti

" " q y,*,;;;,',' " ' CAE7pjclitp?;. .. . ., . . u u . . u.a>. .

og- . o .o . ..

<o . ...oocao.o October 'lrl;y, 1984 -~~~c. v=~~ c un 3 7.o.

n a .-o.a . . . . . ,,..,,

... ..a .. ... .. n o, o nu..o -o.-s u.noo . , .a -o. 24566.3 o...cv .m.... .... 8453

'BY TELECOPIER Lawrence Brenner, Esq.

Dr. Peter A. Morris Administrative Judges Atomic Safety and Licensing Board U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission

>  : Washington, D.C. 20555 Dr. George A. Ferguson School of Engineering Howard University.

2300 6th Street, N.W.

Washington, D.C. 20059 Shoreham Nuclear Power Station Docket No. 50-322-OL

Dear Judges:

Mr. Dynner has advised the Board that the County wishes to defer the completion cf the piston testimony

~

because the matter might be settled. LILCO disagrees; the problematic prospect of a settlement should not dic-tate another schedule adjustment that involves taking

-more testimony out of substantive. order. The Board has already heard substantial piston testimony and for the sake of continuity, the piston contention testimony should be completed before taking up.yet another conten-tion, especially one that may last more than a few days.

Further, "it is certain," Mr. Dynner states, that no settlement can be reached by October 22. Again, LILCO disagrees. There is no reason a settlement cannot be

-reached prior to October 22 provided the parties make a ,.

8410180293 841011 PDR ADOCK 05000322 G ,

PDR ( )

g[$ s pwt R- ._-

. Hux row & WILLI AMS -

October'11, 1984 Page Two.

goo'd faith, concerted effort to'do so. Execution of an

' agreement--in -final form need not be accomplished by -

October 22, but there is no' doubt that - the parties , if they set theirf minds to it, ,could ' reach . essential agree-ment on all -important points prior to this time and be'

, 3 prepared.to so advise.the Board. By the same token, the~

, _c Lparties could well conclude prior to October 22. that

there is no likelihood of a. settlement. As often happens in this proceeding and elsewhere, I' am again reminded - -

(as I hope the Board is also reminded) of Dr. Johnson's

-remark to the effect that the prospect of hanging wonder-

. fullyLcencentrates the. mind. The same, I think, is true here; thenpros'ect-of p having to deal with oistons on October-22 would wonderfully concentrate the minds of LILCO and the. County to the end of settling this matter.

I should also note that I_have today telecopied.to Mr.

-Brigati a proposal for settlament together with a request thatLI receive a: response by October 16.

- Finally,hhr. Dynner correctly notes that LILCO is-considering : filing additional testimony: regarding -the boss .

area.ofithe R-5 AE piscons. The Board will recall that

.Dr.. Harris testified that the boss area of the AE pistons was not' polished, but was "as cast." >The Board indicated

that in light

cf previous testimony

, it would-requira

further testimony on this matter before it'_could draw cer-

tain inferences favorable to LILCO. My present intention 1 isito prepare a brief,? joint affidavit to' be executed by.

=- Ethe: appropriate additional witnesses and. then , to avoid taking.any7 additional hearing time, to offer these' wit-nesses to the County.for appropriate cross-examination.

'Following this,Jthe affidavits or' testimony, together with

.the deposition transcripts , would be submitted to the

~

. Bo ard .- Mr.-Dynner.has indicated that he would prefer to cross-examineithese witnesses in front of the Board and LILC01has no objection to this, but merely. suggests the-other procedure in the-interest of economy. LILCO also L hasino objection to having this~ testimony precede the

. cross-examination'of the County's panel on pistons. At

- :presentb I.would estimate that the cross-examination of the County's panel.on pistons and the cross-examination of.whatever additional-testimony.LILCO offers on the boss area of the fAE pistons could be completed in a day.

n-

.g P

J h

m e - -

• - , , . , y %. .w., , .m._ ,, . - . _ - _ . ..- ..__.- --...,- ..-- -- .-r- -~m . -

Huwrow & WILLIAMS October-ll, 1984 -

. ~Page Three This estimate is based.on the fact that Dr. Harris has already been examined and cross-examined and the County has deleted substantial portions of its piston testimony.

Needless to say, I should.be glad to furnish the Board with any additional information it may require in connection with this scheduling issue, es ully,

/

11is, III

/.

75/403-cc: Service List Ob 4

D e-O

_ . - . . . . - . . - . _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ ~

.w,, .me-,

_ _ _ _