ML20094D467
| ML20094D467 | |
| Person / Time | |
|---|---|
| Site: | Shoreham File:Long Island Lighting Company icon.png |
| Issue date: | 08/06/1984 |
| From: | Christman J HUNTON & WILLIAMS, LONG ISLAND LIGHTING CO. |
| To: | Atomic Safety and Licensing Board Panel |
| References | |
| OL-3, NUDOCS 8408080408 | |
| Download: ML20094D467 (6) | |
Text
.
- Mk y;
LILCO, August 6, 1984-Y H-g%
u
+
gin t..
00cgkED UNITED STATES OF AMERICA usy NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSION n
g Before the Atomic Safety and Licensing Board c N.Ef%
'l (l
In the Matter of
)
' NC9
)
c
'LONG ISLAND LIGHTING COMPANY
)
Docket No. 50-322-OL-3
)
(Emergency Planning
"('
(Shoreham Nuclear Power Station, )
Proceeding)
Unit'1)
)
~
LILCO'S ANSWER F
OPPOSING SUFFOLK COUNTY'S
" MOTION TO COMPEL LILCO TO PRODUCE FRANK M.
RASBURY, A LILCO WITNESS, FOR DEPOSITION" By its " Motion to Compel LILCO to Produce Frank M.
[
Rasbury, a LILCO Witness, for Deposition" of August 3.
- 1984, Suffolk County asks that Mr. Rasbury, the Executive Director of L
the Nassau County Chapter of the American Red Cross, be made available for deposition.
LILCO opposes the motion, for the reasons recited below.
In response to the County's motion, LILCO has three ob-4
.servations to make, two of them specific to this situation involving relocation center testimony and the third a more gen-eral.one.
First, LILCO too will have to cross-examine on this issue without the benefit of depositions.
On June 26, 1984, I-U the County produced, not surprise witnesses, but surprise hear-I say evidence consisting of letters from Messrs. Cipriani and Hines, New York State officials on whose words the County Gy$
s
..[ wmmum 4IQ Pon g
k[
..{ n..
intends to rely.
After attempting to reach agreement on dis-r
-.covery of these witnesses, and being faced with the County and
! State's flat refusal to produce them, LILCO asked the Board to
' order discovery and was turned down as untimely.
LILCO be-lieves that:the solution to the County's problem is to afford it the same relief that LILCO has been given, which is the right to cross-examine the new witnesses at the hearing.
+
s Second, the reason for designating a new witness at this
~
. late date is simply that both times LILCO has submitted testi-mony on relocation centers in the past, the State and County
.have met it with letters newly drafted for the occasion by em-lployees of the State and County saying that they will not make their facilities available,tx) help members of the public in an emergency.
LILCO has then had to adjust its plan to solve the
-problems created by the State and County.
Thus the present h
situation of a new witness being produced shortly before hear-i ing is of the County's own making.
L g
Third, the County does not, as it seems to believe, have an absolute right to depose every LILCO witness.
The County obviously thinks it does have an absolute right, because it maids no attempt to justify its need for a deposition,l/ and 1/
Section 6-2.740(b)(1) of 10 C.F.R.
says that "in such a proceeding, no discovery shall be had after the beginning of the'prehearing conference held pursuant to $ 2.752 except upon y
11 eave of the presiding officer upon good cause shown."
The County has not shown " good cause" unless the designation of a i
.new witness, in response to another party's obstructionist tac-tics, is automatically good cause.
k k
Y Q
e
[N_ the legal authority it cites on pages 5 and 6 of its motion is unpersuasive, standing for the simple proposition that the pur-pose of discovery is to enable each party prior to hearing to become aware of the positions of each adversary party on the various' issues in controversy.
But that is the purpose of pre-filed written testimony as well, and Suffolk County has LILCO's prefiled written testimony.
Likewise, Suffolk County's resort to "the practice in this proceeding" is misplaced, since wit-nesses on both sides have been produced at hearing without having been deposed first.
Mr. Rasbury sponsors, by himself or in combination with other witnesses, about six and a half pages of testimony all told, and there appears to be no compelling reason why Suffolk County cannot develop the facts it needs at hearing.
For the above reasons, LILCO opposes Suffolk County's motion to compel the production of Mr. Rasbury.
The County's alternate proposal, that Mr. Rasbury be stricken from the wit-ness panel, is extreme, to say the least.
Respectfully submitted, LONG ISLAND LIGHTING COMPANY BY _.nes N. Christman Hunton & Williams P.O. Box 1535 707 East Main Street Richmond, VA 23219 DATED:
Augst 6, 1984
+;Q p.
w h) yt-r 55'
' w
+
8 c
e, LILCO, August 6, 1984 j
SfiGff% ' :
V - ';-
...g 4
5:4-1 I
-(
' CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE m.
k
- j$
/*
.In the Matter of LONG ISLAND-LIGHTING COMPANY
~
'(Sh'reham Nuclear Power Station, Unit 1) o
~
Docket No. 50-322-OL-3
- ,y
- {,_
g n-
[
I[hereby certify that copies of LILCO'S ANSWER OPPOSING au, w._ m, a__SUFFOLK_ COUNTY'S." MOTION TO COMPEL LILCO TO PRODUCE FRANK M.
g3,
.m RASBURY, A;LILCO WITNESS, FOR DEPOSITION" were served this date s
- upon:the following by tirst-class mail, postage prepaid or, as 1
n
. indicated by-an= asterisk, by Federal. Express, or, as indicated T
byitwo asterisks; by telecopier:
~
./L H'
James - A. : Laurenson, *
- Secretary of the Commission Chairman-U.S. Nuclear Regulatory
. 1
- AtomicLSafety.and Licensing Commission
. Board Washington, D.C.
20555
- U.S.. Nuclear Regulatory y' ' '
' Commission Atomic Safety and Licensing East-West Tower, Rm. 402A' Appeal Board Panel o
?W=V
'4350 East-West: Hwy.
U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Bethesda,lMD-20814-Commission 8
Washington, D.C.
20555 p~
LDr;! Jerry R..Kline**.
~
LAtomic Safety and Licensing Atomic-Safety and Licensing E w.
. Board Board Panel 6
~U.S., Nuclear. Regulatory
~U.S.
Nuclear Regulatory
- 'p@
Commission-
- Commission East-West Tower, Rm. 427 Washington, D.C.
20555
'4350 East-West Hwy.
E;
- Bethesda, MD 20814 Bernard M. Bordenick, Esq.**
o David A. Repka, Esq.
Mr.. Frederick J.,
Sh'on**
Edwin J.
Reis, Esq.
Atomic Safety.and Licensing U.- S.' Nuclear Regulatory Board Commission
.i
,U.S. Nuclear Regulatory 7735 Old Georgetown Rord y~
..V Commission (to mailroom)
East-West Tower, Rm. 430 Bethesda, MD 20814
- ?W(,
4350 East-West-Hwy.
LBethesda, MD 20814 h_
x e
(
t I
,[
1 v
y U
t i
{
- !m 'w i'
p.
Y-Y; < :
~2
-: i:1 :
Eleanor.: L. Frucci, Esq.**
Stewart M. Glass, Esq.*
b
' Attorney-
~
Regional Counsel F~
. Atomic Safety and Licensing Federal Emergency Management Board Panel Agency
.U.
S. Nuclear Regulatory 26 Federal Plaza, Room 1349
- .4350. East-West Highway
' Stephen B.
Latham, Esq.*
Bethesda, MD 20814 Twomey, Latham & Shea
~
33 West Second Street
' Fabian G.' Palomino, Esq.*
P.O.
Box 398 Special-Counsel to the; Riverhead, New York 11901 Governor-ms
' ~ "~
' Executive Chamber Ralph Shapiro, Esq.*
! Room 229 Cammer & Shapiro, P.C.
- State Capitol 9 East 40th Street
. Albany, New York-12224 New York, New York 10016 Herbert H. Brown, Esq.**-
James Dougherty, Esq.
Lawrence Coe Lanpher, Esq.
3045 Porter Street
. Christopher McMurray, Esq.
Washington, D.C.
20008 Kirkpatrick, Lockhart, Hill Christopher.& Phillips Jonathan D.
Feinberg, Esq.
8th Floor New York State Department of
-1900 M Street, N.W.
Public Service, Staff Counsel Washington, D.C.
20036 Three Rockefeller Plaza Albany, New York 12223 MHB Technical Associates 1723 Hamilton Avenue Spence W.
Perry, Esq.
Suite K Associate General Counsel San Jose, California 95125 Federal Emergency Management Agency EMr.' Jay Dunkleberger 500 C Street, S.W.
New York State Energy Office Room 340 Agency Building 2 Washington, D.C.
20472 Empire State Plaza Albany, New York 12223 Ms. Nora Bredes Executive Coordinator Shoreham Opponents' Coalition 195 East Main Street Smithtown, New York 11787
r
.I ri
( s.W Gerald C. Crotty, Esq.
Martin Bradley Ashare, Esq.
Counsel to the Governor Suffolk County Attorney Executive Chamber H.
Lee Dennison Building State Capitol Veterans Memorial Highway Albany, New York 12224 Hauppauge, New York 11788 fl 74 H James N.
Christman Hunton & Williams 707 East Main Street P.O. Box 1535 Richmond, Virginia 23212 DATED:
August 6, 1984 6
L_