ML20107E277

Forwards Testimonies of L Campo,Jh Johnson,Ep Radford, Rc Roberts,Ce Kilduff,L Marsh & Sj Meyland Re Lilco 850111 Proferred Evidence.Related Correspondence

ML20107E277
Person / Time
Site:	Shoreham File:Long Island Lighting Company icon.png
Issue date:	02/19/1985
From:	Mark Miller KIRKPATRICK & LOCKHART
To:	Kline J, Margulies M, Shon F Atomic Safety and Licensing Board Panel
Shared Package
ML20107E279	List: ML20107E277 ML20107E291 ML20107E300 ML20107E318 ML20107E327 ML20107E343 ML20107E352 ML20107E399
References
CON-#185-696 OL-3, NUDOCS 8502250493
Download: ML20107E277 (4)

Text

_

l 4 namncomes- x i

KIRKPATRICK & LOCKHART 66L6t a u 1900 M STREET, N.W. U5haC WASHINGTON, D.C. 20036 oNs nosTON PLACE mrae*=nV5= E8 22 All :46 Tn"h"^ '"

1428 BluCKELL AVENLY "UNE GF SECREino Y$$$l2 February k hESWI;I- ,--

nmauncu.ta nsm 44fD 1154900 TitITERS DutECT DEAL NUMBER (202) 452-7022

^ O b ^~ 3 DOCKET MUWWER

.I BY HAND PROD & UT11. FAC..

Morton B. Margulies Jerry R. Kline Administrative Law Judge Atomic Safety and Licensing Atomic Safety and Licensing Board Panel Board Panel U.S. Nuclear Regulatory U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission Commission Washington, D.C. 20555 Washington, D.C. 20555 Frederick J. Shon Atomic Safety and Licensing Board Panel U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission Washington, D.C. 20555 Gentlemen:

As indicated on the enclosed certificate of. service, Suffolk County is today filing the following:

DIRECT TESTIMONY OF LEON CAMPO ON BEHALF OF SUFFOLK COUNTY REGARDING LILCO'S PROFFERED EVIDENCE OF ,

JANUARY 11 DIRECT TESTIMONY OF JAMES H. JOHNSON, JR. ON BEHALF OF SUFFOLK COUNTY REGARDING LILCO'S PROFFERED EVIDENCE OF JANUARY 11 DIRECT TESTIMONY OF EDWARD P. RADFORD ON BEHALF OF SUFFOLK COUNTY REGARDING LILCO'S PROFFERED EVIDENCE OF JANUARY 11-DIRECT TESTIMONY OF DEPUTY CHIEF INSPECTOR RICHARD C. ROBERTS ON BEHALF OF SUFFOLK COUNTY REGARDING LILCO'S PROFFERED EVIDENCE OF JANUARY 11

..8502250493 850219

, PDR ADOCK 05000322 i

' T . PDR _ _ .

. k

C KIRKPATRICK & LOCKHART Morton B. Margulies Jerry R. K'*ne Frederick u. Shon Page Two ,

February 19, 1985

'A,s an accommodation to New York State, the County is also filing the following State testimony:

DIRECT. TESTIMONY OF CHARLES E. KILDUFF ON BEHALF OF p NEW YORK STATE REGARDING LILCO'S PROFFERED EVIDENCE OF JANUARY 11 DIRECT TESTIMONY OF LANGDON MARSH ON BEHALF OF THE STATE-OF NEW RK REGARDING LILCO'S PROFFERED EVIDENCE OF JANUARY 11 DIRECT TESTIMONY OF SARAH J. MEYLAND ON BEHALF OF THE STATE OF NEW YORK REGARDING LILCO'S PROFFERED EVIDENCE OF JANUARY 11 The above testimony is submitted pursuant to the Board's

-January 28 Memorandum and Order Granting LILCO's Motion to Reopen Record (hereinafter, " Order"). In its Order, the Board required the' parties to " state specifically their positions concerning roffered] evidence" of January 11 on or before February LILCO's~[p/

18,-1985.1 Among other things, the Board required any. party

" assert [ingl-a need to submit direct testimony or other evidence on the merits of LILCO's designation of the [Nassaul Coliseum as a relocation center" totsubmit copies of all such testimony or other evidence.upon the' Board and other parties. . Order,'at 9.

l

-Suffolk County and New York State do assert a need to submit-s -testimony.concerning the~ merits of LILCO's designation of.the Nassau Colisg yThe , forCounty the-reasons set also and State forth"in.the asserttestimony

[] a need to filed today._/

cross-examine LILCO's witness on the substance of the designation p

h 'l/ ' LThe State.of New York is submitting a statement of Mr.: Marsh's?

qualifications'under separate cover..

2/ .The F'ebruary 18 date was later changed to February 19'upon motion of the1NRC Staff. Tr. 15',804-05.

r<.

.The. testimony submitted by-Suffolk County-and New York; State y ~ 3j(

<- 'is. responsive.to:LILCO's'profferedfevidence.of January llL Jand is also within the scope of the relocation ~ center con-

! tentions - proviously: admitted and litigated before the -Board,:

l '. e . ,1 Contentions.24.0,'24.P,.-74,' 75,'andn77.

l d

[

i-

.4

9- -KIRKPATRICK & LOCKHART 4- ,

-Morton B. Margulies i- ~ Jerry R. Kline Frederick J. Shon f 'Page Three ,

February 19, 1985 1.

4 -

Order, at 9.

i. of the (Nassau Coliseum] as a relocation center."

' Accordingly, they are filing with the Board cross-examination plans which indicate, as required by the Board's Order, the sub-stanceofwhatisexpectedpobeaskedandprovedbycross-examination. Order, at 9.4 With the filing of their testimony regarding LILCO's proffered evidence, the County and State also make the following observations and. comments. First, particularly as a result of the Board's decision precluding discovery concerning LILCO's proposed use of'

.the Nassau Coliseum (Tr . 15,804 ) , it likely will be necessary to seek subpoenas compelling.the attendance of non-parties at any

-hearing; ordered by the Board. For example, Frank M. Rasbury,-the

. Executive Director of the Nassau County Chapter.of the American Red Cross, provides the basis for LILCO's assertion that Red Cross

_ personnel will provide information and assistance to evacuees as they. arrive at the Coliseum, and will coordinate with LILCO's personnel in the Nassau Coliseum monitoring and decontamination

. functions. See Robinson Affidavit, Attachment 3. Similarly,-LILCO relies on E.B. Sumerlin, Jr., the General Manager of~the Nassau-Coliseum,-for its assertion that LILCO would be permitted to use and have reasonable Robinson access toAffidavit, the Coliseum in the event of a Attachment.l.- Thus, Shoreham emergency.

should the Board decide to accept LILCO's pr f er ed evidence,into the. record, thereby necessitating a hearing,g it may be necessary to' cross-examine witnesses other than LILCO's-witness, Elaine Robisson.

.Second, the County and State are aware that, under.the Board's.

Order, LILCO is given one week to respond to.the testimony. filed today. Order, at'10. It is not appropriate in today'sisubmission to speculate about the. contents;of such_a LILCO' response,~ parti-

'cularly given the-specific items!which parties were to address 4/J Counsel 1for.Suffolk County understands that the_ cross-

- Lexamination plan for-New York: State will be telecopied-

' directly1to the Board.

e ,

'5/i zThe_ County and' State have previously noted that should the' Board, decide to accept LILCO's proffered evidencelinto the

evidentiarygrecords the'other. parties have an absolute"right -

' toicross-examine that evidence,-unless itris determined that-Lthere-areino genu'ine: issues of material fact in dispute._ See.

~Suffolk: County and New York. State _ Response to LILCO's Opposi--

tion to Nassau' Coliseum Discovery Requests, dated Februaryi4,-

1985,Jat'8. The testimonyffiled-today-conclusively demonstrates

,that:there'are many-material' facts-in dispute. -Accordingly,'a hearing to-permit: cross-examination willibe necessary.

=

r KIRKPATRICK & LOCKHART Morton B. Margulies

' Jerry R. Kline Frederick J. Shon Page Four

+ February 19, 1985 pursuant to the Board's Order. Depending upon the content of LILCO's response, however, the County and State may find it necessary to respond, in turn, to LILCO's response, and hereby

. expressly reserve their right to do so. Any such response will

be filed as expeditiously as possible.

We have been authorized by counsel for the State of New York to state that the State of New York agrees with and endorses the contents of this letter.

Sincerely, Michael S. Miller Enclosure cc: Shoreham Service List ,

i i

f i.

l ,

l ...

/

L