ML20148Q922
| ML20148Q922 | |
| Person / Time | |
|---|---|
| Site: | Shoreham File:Long Island Lighting Company icon.png |
| Issue date: | 01/25/1988 |
| From: | Leugers M HUNTON & WILLIAMS, LONG ISLAND LIGHTING CO. |
| To: | Atomic Safety and Licensing Board Panel |
| References | |
| CON-#188-5444 OL-3, NUDOCS 8802020006 | |
| Download: ML20148Q922 (17) | |
Text
3YY o LILCO, January 25, 1988 i
DOCKCTED thNPC UNITED STATES OF A51 ERICA NUCLEAR REGULATORY C051511SSION E JAN 28 P4 :12 OFVici0 - . q :e 00CXEin.:.; 'U err Before the Atomic Safety and Licensing Board Mil "
In the 51atter of )
)
LONG ISLAND LIGHTING C051PANY ) Docket No. 50-322-OL-3
) (Emergency Planning)
(Shoreham Nuclear Power Station, ) (School Bus Driver Issue)
Unit 1) )
LILCO'S MOTION IN LIMINE AND MOTION TO SET A HEARING SCIIEDULE With this motion LILCO asks two things. First, LILCO asks that the Board rule that three school-related issues (namely the availability of buses, reception centers for schoolchildren, and evacuation time estimates) are not within the remanded "role con-filet" issue because they have already been decided in the Partial Initial Decision
("PID"), 21 NRC 644, 872-74 (1985), and Concluding Partl31 Initial Decision ("CPID"), 22 NRC 410, 43018 (1985), and are now outside the Board's jurisdiction. A motion i_n limine is an appropriate way to resolve evidentiary questions in advance of a hearing.M Second, LILCO asks that the Board set a schedule for hearing, again along the lines suggested below.
I. Scope of the "Role Conflict" Lssue The school bus drivers "role conflict" issue is the one remanded by ALAB-832,23 NRC 135,149-54 (1986). LILCO asks the Board to rule that the remanded issue does not include, and that evidence will not be taken, on the following issues:
1/ See, e.g., Order Granting LILCO's 510 tion in Limine (June 20, 1984) in the low-power portion (Docket No. 50-322-OL-4) of this proceeding.
8802020006 POR 880125 O ADOCK 05000322 PDR g
?
- 1. The avallanility of buses for evacuating schoolchildren (Contentions 71.B.1 and 71.B.2, CPID, 22 NRC at 430 1 7)
- 2. The identification of reception centers for school-children (Contention 24.N. CPID,22 NRC at 43018) '
- 3. Evacuation time estimates for schoolchildren (Conten- .
tion 71.B.2, CPID,22 NRC at 43018) !
These issues are no longer within the Board's jurisdiction and, in any event, are "Staff confirmation" matters to be closed by the NRC Staff without further adjudication.
The scope of the remanded issue neads the clarification called for by this motion (1) because the Board has raised a question about "any remaining . . . issues concerning the evacuation of school children," Memorandum and Order Ruling on Applicant's Mo-tion of October 22,1987 for Summary Disposition of Contention 25.C Role Conflict of School Bus Drivers ("Memorandum and Order"), at 6 (Dec. 30,1987), and (2) because the '
intervenors' answers to interrogatories suggest that the Intervenors may interpret the i remanded issue overbroadly.E 2/ In its answers to LILCO's interrogatories filed January 19, 1988, Suffolk County j included among the "Iactors (that] render LILCO's proposal to evacuate all schools . . .
in a single wave unworkable" the following:
- d. Neither the LILCO Plan, nor LILCO's school evacua-tion proposal, specifies the location of reloca-tion / reception centers to which LILCO proposes to transport school children; 1
- e. LILCO's proposal falls to indicate the amount of time
- necessary to accomplish an evacuation of school chil-dren out of the EPZ; . . . .
Suffolk County's Answer to LILCO'n First Set of Interrogatories and Document Requests
- Regarding Role Conflict of School Bus Drivers at 13 (Jan.19,1988). New York State's answers also raised the first of these issues. Response of the State of New York to j LILCO's First Set of Interrogatories and Requests for Production of Documents Re-j garding Role Conflict of Bus Drivers at 13 (Jan.19,1988). ,
(footnote continued) ;
I i <
1
9 A. LILCO Will Use the Arrangement for LILCO School Bus Drivers as Part of Its Evidence The definition of the remanded role conflict issue is in the December 30 Memo-randum and Order: "whether, in light of the potential for role conflict, a sufficient number of school bus drivers can be relied upon to perform emergency evacuation du-ties." Memorandum and Order al 5. "Role conflict," which refers to emergency workers protecting their families instead of doing their jobs, is an issue only for the regular non-LILCO school bus drivers, who are the subject of Contention 25.C. In con-trast, role conflict of "LILCO personnel" was litigated under Contention 25.A and re-solved in LILCO's favor, PID, 21 NRC at 674-75; the issue of Contention 25.A is no longer in the Board's jurisdiction.
As part of the remand issue, the Board lef t it to LILCO whether to address its arrangement for providing additional bus drivers, in the interest of expediting "any re-maining emergency plan issues concerning the evacuation of school children":
Both Staff and Intervenors, in their responses, have re-ferred to LILCO's motion as omitting mention of the avail-ability of buses issue, a matter previously found by the Licens-ing Board to be a defielency in LILCO's Emergency Plan (21 NRC at 874). As indicated heretofore, LILCO does refer to arrangements it is currently making to secure an adequate number of buses for a single wave evacuation. See LILCO Motion at 17 n.12. In the interests of expediting the resolu-tion of any remaining emergency plan issues concerning the evacuation of school children, if Applicant desires to address that arrangement in the context of the current proceeding, we believe it should be permitted to do so provided it presents the details of its plan to the parties in a timely manner and discovery with respect to it is arranged. See PID 21 NRC 844, 872-874 (1985).
(footnote continued)
As argued in this motion. LILCO believes these issues are not included in this re-mand proceeding. Other of the f actors asserted by the Intervenors may also be nonlitigable. For example, Intervenors assert that the training of the bus drivers is in-adequate. But LILCO's training program has already been litigated. See PID, 21 NRC at 744-56.
Memorandum and Order at 6 (Dec. 30,1987). Thus the Board has, quite properly, per-mitted LILCO as well as the Intervenors to adduce additional evidence on the "role con-filet" trdue.
LILCO does propose to use its arrangement to provide additional drivers as evi-dence. It relles on these additional drivers as additional assurance, over and above what is necessary to meet NRC requirements.E Because LILCO proposes to present evidence on the new arrangement, the Board has ruled that some analysis and review of it is required. See Memorandum and Order at 5 (Dec. 30,1987). Intervenors are apparently to be permitted to litigate reasons (other than role conflict, which, as noted above, is no longer in issue for LILCO employ-ees) why they claim the proposal to supply LILCO school bus drivers would not work.
Accordingly, LILCO is providing in discovery early this week documents related to the additional LILCO bus drivers.M Thus the Intervenors will have the opportunity to 3/ As stated in its motion for summary disposition of this issue LILCO believes that the remanded Contention 25.C could be decided in LILCO's favor without resort to the additional LILCO bus drivers. The record shows that "role conflict" has not been a problem in real emergencies in the past. See Tr. 918-21 (Dynes), 921-26 (Mileti),1135 (Sorensen). (To the contrary, the problem has been that too many people volunteered to help. See, el, Cordaro et al., ff. Tr. 831, at 17.) The arrangement for additional LILCO drivers was intended as a superfluous measure to remove all doubt, much like the emergency worker tracking system that was also proposed to address the "role con-flict"issue. See PID,21 NRC at 678-79; Cordaro et al., ff. Tr. 831, at 24-25.
Ilowever, by recruiting not merely enough drivers to "back up" the regular driv-ers but rather enough to evacuate all children in one wave, LILCO also solved the prob-lem of evacuation time estimates addressed in the CP!D at 43018. The evidence shows that all schoolchildren could be evacuated in the same time as the general public using two or even, in some cases, three waves. See Tr. 9460-62 (Lieberman) and Att. 4 to Cordaro et al., ff. Tr. 9154. But the time for a two-wave evacuation depends on where the reception centers are. By providing for a one-wave evacuation the location of the reception centers becomes noncritical, since the evacuation time is simply the time required to drive to the EPZ boundary.
4/ LILCO is producing documents on such subjects as training and recruiting of bus drivers even though it believes these are outside the scope of this remand. Likewise, (footnote continued)
litigate why they claim the arrangement will not work.
B. The Board's Reference to the Bus Availability 3
Issuo Does Not Mean that Issue Is Litigable in holding that LILCO's arrangement to provide drivers may be addressed, the Board referred to the "bus availability issue" addressed at 21 NRC 872-74. LILCO takes the Board's reference to 21 NRC 372-74, which addresses Contention 71.B.2, to be illus-trative only, since 71.B.2 is no longer within the Board's jurisdiction and, as argued below,is a Staff confirmation item anyway.
If there were no prior litigation of the "bus availability issue," then it might be i
litigable now insofar as the Intervenors claimed that the LILCO bus drivers would not have buses to drive. That would be an alleged reason why the iILCO arrangement would not work.
But in LILCO's view the issue of whether there are enough buses (as distinguished from drivers) to effect a single-wave evacuation has been litigated, addressed in the PID and CPID, and lef t, like the issues of school reception centers and evacuation time estimates, to the Staff to review. The reasons LILCO believes these issues to be Staff confirmation items are given below.
C. The Remaining SchoolIssues Are Staff Confirmation items Outside the Board's Jurisdiction The three school-related issues are listed in the CPID among twelve "additional defects of a lesser magnitude in the Plan."W CPID at 429-31. According to the Board, (footnote continued) without waiving its objections, LILCO is producing documents relating to bus contracts.
The bus contracts themselves are in Appendix B to tne emergency plan, the most re-cent revision of which war served last Friday.
5/ The Board referred to LILCO's lack of legal authority and the opposition of Suffolk County and New York State as "the significant deficiencies in LILCO's Plan . . . ." CPID at 431, implying, it appears to LILCO, that the other twelve defects were not "significant."
"[t]hese defects can be remedied and such corrections should be in place by the time the plant commences operations, should it be licensed." Id. at 429. The three0 school-related issues are (1) the identification of reception centets for schoolchildren, PID at 860, 872, (2) the provision of reasonable evacuation time estimates for nursery and all other schools, id. at 871-72, and (3) the availability of buses to evacuate those schools, id. at 814. As to those issues the Board said
- 7. The Plan is deficient and must be corrected because LILCO's agreements for obtaining buses for use in an emergency are subordinated to preexisting contracts for normal daily use by schools outside of the EPZ. S_ee Board Finding XII.22 (21 NRC at 872-74).
- 8. The Plan is defective and must be corrected because recep-tion centers have not been identified for schoolchildren. See Board Finding XII.6 (21 NRC at 860). Without the identifl6 tion of such a center, or centers, for schoolchildren it is im-possible to calculate how long it might take to evacuate these children. Since multiple bus runs may be necessary, we find that the time required to transport schoolchildren to their re-ception center must be calculated. This calculation cannot be made until LILCO has identified the location to which school-children will be taken. In addition, the Plan is considered de-ficient in that it has not been shown that the evacuation of schoolchlidren can be accomplished within about the same time as an evacuation of the general population. S_ee Board Finding XII.22 (21 NRC at 872-74).
CPID at 430.
LILCO has corrected these defects in Revision 9 of the LILCO Plan, which was served January 22,1988. These are, LILCO submits, Staff confirmation items, and evi-dence on them should not be presented in this remand proceeding. The reasons are as follows.
$/ Two other school items addressed in the PID and CPID were remedied in 1985 in l Revision 5 of the LILCO Plan. Those items are (1) the inclusion in the 10-mile EPZ of several additional schools located just beyond the EPZ bour.dary, PID at 874, and (2) "the alteration of early dismissal procedures to conform to the protective actions recom-mended for the general public," CPID at 430.
l 1
1
- 1. The Board's Findings Are Predictive l It has long been recognized that "[t }he Commission's emergency response regu- ,
lations . . . contemplate . . . predictive findings on emergency response planning so that operation of a facility need not be delayed unnecassarily by the hearing process." l Pacific Gas and Electric Co. (Diablo Canyon Nuclear Power Plant, Units 1 and 2),
ALAB 781, 20 NRC 819, 834 (1984) (footnote omitted). Furthermore, "'the findings on ,
e emergency planning required prior to license issuance . . . need not reflect the actual state of preparedness at the time the finding is made.'" Id., citing 47 Fed. Reg. 30,232 (1982). Rather, a "Board's licensing authorization may be appropriately conditioned on '
the completion of items found deficient at the time of the hearing." 20 NRC at 835 (footnote omitted). The NRC Staff is responsible for confirming that any remaining items are corrected before a plant commences operations. Louisiana Power & Light l Co. (Waterford Steam Electric Station, Unit 3), ALAB-732,17 NRC 1076,1103-07 (1983).
l The Board in the CPID did not conditionally authorize the licensing of the Shoreham p! ant. The defects that prevented the Board from licensing Shoreham, how-
) ever, were not the twelve "additional defects" that tne Board said were remediable. I l
See CPID at 429-31. Rather, the "f atal flaws" were LILCO's lack of "legal authority" to b I
implement the Plan and the opposition of Suffolk County and New York State to the Plan. Id. at 431. The Board reasoned that these two defects were f atal, since they ;
! could not be corrected in the near term. '
) -
l On the other hand, the Board said that the twelve "lesser defects" could be
} remedied. Ld at 429. In keeping with the "predictive nature" of a board's findings, the 4
Board said that the corrections of these defects "should be in place by the time the plant commences operations, should it be licensed." Id. The implication of this i
j ,
1
statement is that the corrections do not require litigation; rather, the defects must be remedied before Shoreham opens and that the Staff should oversee these corrections.
As the Appeal Board in the Limerick case explained, post-hearing verification items that are proper subjects for Staff oversight are essentially details "relating to the implementation of the emergency plan, rather than a basic ingredient of the plan itself." Philadelphia Electric Co. (Limerick Generating Station, Units 1 and 2),
ALAB-836, 23 NRC 479, 495 (1986), citing Louisiana Power and Light Co. (Waterford Steam Electric Station, Unit 3), ALAB-732,17 NRC 1076,1103-09 (1983). In Limerick, the designation of 17 additional traffic control points was considered to be an imple-mentation detail. In the Waterford case,17 NRC at 1103-09, the Board decided that the implementation and testing of the siren warning system, the execution of formal letters of agreement for additional vehicles and drivers, and details concerning the communication system for emergency support organizations were implementing details appropriately lef t to Staff confirmation. In another case,- the development and initiation of a bus driver training program was made a licensing condition. Southern California Edison Co. (San Onofre Nuclear Generating Stations, Units 2 and 3),
ALAB-717,17 NRC 346,382 (1983).E It appears to LILCO that the 12 lesser defects found by the Board in this case, including the school-related ones, are Statf confirmation items like the examples given above from other cases. Six of the 12 were expressly lef t to Staf f confirmation 0 A 7/ Other einergency planning issues that have been lef t for Staff confirmation are whether informational material for the general public should be printed in English and Spanish, Southern California Edison Co. (San Onofre Nuclear Generating Station, Units 2 and 3), LBP-82-39,15 NRC 1163,1216 (1982); whether certain emergency equipment has been purchased and delivered to the offsite response organizations, i_d.; ana the testing of warning sirens and arrangements for alternate means of public notification in any area of deficient performance, Southern California Edison Co. (San Onotre Nuclear Generating Station, Units 2 and 3), LBP-82-46,15 NRC 1531,1532,1537 (1982).
!/ These are items 1 (including additional schools in the EPZ, PID at 874),2 (adding a statement to the informational brochure, id. at 770), 3 (including a summary of the (fcotnote continued) f
seventh (item 12) involves a licensing condition that clearly was not intended to require further adjudication (see PID at 894-95).
The remaining five defects are also Staff confirmation items,E including items 7 and 8, the remaining school issues. These also concern "details relating to the imple-mentation of the emergency plan, rather than a basic ingredient of the Plan itself," 23 NRC at 495, and are similar to the post-hearing verification items discussed in the Limerick and Waterford decisions. For example, the Board found that the LILCO Plan was defective because school relocation centers had not yet been identified. PID at 860, 872. According to the Waterford decision, as noted above, letters of agreement are a Staff confirmation detail. Indeed, the NRC Staff recently took this position in its Response to LILCO's Motion for Summary Disposition of the Hospital Evacuation Issue (January 15,1988)("Staff Response"), at 10.
(footnote continued) results of the evacuation time estimate sensitivity analysis, Ld. at 795),4 (incorporating estimates of uncertainty in evacuation times and corrections of traffic control strategies identified by Suf folk County Police, Ld. at 809),5 (obtaining a letter of agree-ment from Central Suffolk Hospital, Ld. at 834), and 9 (altering early dismissal proce-dures, Ld. at 863).
2/ These remaining items are item 6, that a defect existed in LILCO's Plan because relocation centers for nursing and adult homes had not been designated, Ld. at 840; item 7, that the deficiency concerning the availability of buses to evacuate school children could be corrected by a showing that LILCO has enough buses committed to evacuating school children, Ld. at 874; item 8, that LILCO's plan was defective because school "re-ception ceMers have not as yet been identified," id. at 860, and thus evacuation time estimatec could not be calculated, id. at 872; item 10, that LILCO must plan for moni-toring all rriving evacuees at reception centers and not just those who seek shelter, CPID at 430-31: and item 11, that LILCO should provide more detail concerning the fa-cilities at the Nassau Coliseum for monitoring evacuees and 'how that relates to the number of people that must be processed " i_d. at 419.
The designation of reception centers for the general public (items 10 and 11) re-quired not just one but twc hearings. But reception centers for schoolchildren are dif-ferent under the LILCO plan from reception centers for the public, because monitoring and decontamination are not done at the school reception centers; they are simply places, outside the EPZ, where children are reunited with their f amilies.
1 I
O In addition, the Board found the LILCO plan defective because time estimates for evacuating schoolchildren could not be calculated without knowing the locations of I the school reception centers. Id. at 872. Since school relocation centers are now iden-tified in Revision 9 of the plan, evacuation time estimates can be calculated. In fact, Revision 9 contains evacuation time estimates for all EPZ schools, it is sufficient that the Staff confirm that reasonable evacuation time estimates are in place.El ;
Finally, the PID states that the deficiency concerning the availability of buses ,
could be corrected "by a showing that multiple bus runs will accomplish evacuation of schoolchildren in approximately the same time as a general population evacuation or that LILCO has received commitments for release of buses from schools outside the EPZ, thus eliminating the need for multiple bus runs." PID at 874. This defect can be corrected by obtaining enough contracts for first commitment buses to transport all schoolchildren out of the EPZ in a single wave. Again, according to the Waterford de- ,
cision, obtaining letters of agreements for vehicles is a Staff confirmation item. [
i LILCO presently has contracts for enough first-commitment buses to evacuate all l schools in the EPZ in a single wave.UI Those contracts are part of Appendix B in Re-l vision 9. A review of LILCO's bus contracts by the NRC Staf f will,"by a showing," con-firm that there are enough buses to evacuate all schools in the EPZ in a single wave, t This detail does not require litigation.
t 1_0/ The NRC Staff also said in its answer to LILCO's Motion for summary disposition I on the hospital issue that hospital evacuation time estimates in the LILCO Plan are !
Staff verification items. Staff Respcase at 14. By the same token, school evacuation time estimates should also be Lsf t for Staff verification.
M/ LILCO also has enough first call buses to meet its commitment to provide trans-portation to those members of the general population who do not have their own means of evacuating.
Undoubtedly the Intervenors wil! argue, as they did in their answer to LILCO's summary disposition motion on school bus drivers, that the Board cannot delegate to the Staff the authority to oversee the corrections of Ciese defects. See Answer of Suffolk County, the State of New York and the Town of Southampton to LILCO's Motion for Summary Disposition of Contention 25.C ("Role Conflict" of School Bus Drivers)
(November 13,1987) ("Answer"), at 46-47. In their Answer, the Intervenars claim that' the Board can leave for Staff confirmation only matters "limited" to procedural deficiencies or issues where on-the-record proceedings would not be helpful for resolu-tion of the issue. I_d. at 47.
But the caselaw cited by the Intervenors (in footnote 24 of their Answer) is not helpful here. The cases cited predate the Three Mile Island accident and the present emergency planning regulations and concern quality assurance, not emergency plan- j
(
ning. Indeed, the Appeal Board in the Waterford decision distinguished the cases cited by the Intervenors precisely becadse they did not concern emergency planning.NI What the Commission requires is that "there should be reasonable assurance prior to 11-cense issuance because there are no b'arriers to emergency planning implementation or to a satisfactory state of emergency preparedness that cannot feasroly be removed."
Waterford, ALAB-732,17 NRC at 1104, quoting 46 Fed. Reg. at 61,135.
M/ In the section of ALAB-732 entitled "Reliance on Predictive Findings and Post-Hearing Verification" the Appeal Board noted that "[wlith respect to emergency plan-ning . . . the Commission takes a slightly different course." 17 NRC at 1103. And while the Appeal Board was referring to a regulation that was challenged successfully in L U_njon of Concerned Scientists v. NRC,735 F.2d 1437 (D.C. Cir.1984), the UCS decision addressed emergency preparedness exercises and did not weaken the Appeal Board's treatment of review of details of emergency plans.
l l
- 2. The Commission, Not the Board, Has Jurisdiction Over Any Remaining Issues If any of the 12 defects did require litigation, jurisdiction over them would rest with the Commission.N A licensing board retains jurisdiction "at least until the issu-ance of its initial decision, but no later than either the filing of exceptions or the expi-ration of the period during which the Commission or an Appeal Board can exercise its right to review the record." Metropolitan Edison Co. (Three Mile Island Nuclear Sta-tion, Unit No.1), ALAB-699,16 NRC 1324,1326-27 (1982) citing 10 CFR SS 2.717(a),
2.718(j), and 2.760(a); see also Georgia Power Co. (Vogtle Electric Generating Plants, Units 1 and 2), ALAB-859, 25 NRC 23, 27 (1987). In this proceeding, the Board did not retain jurisdiction over any of the remaining issues. Generally, whenever a licensing board retains jurisdiction, it does sc explicitly. See, eg, Southern California Edison Co. (San Onofre Nuclear Generating Station, Units 2 and 3), LBP-82-39,15 NRC 1163, 1290 (1982).
Instead, here the Board said that the CPID constituted the final decision of the Commission unless a timely appeal was taken or the Commission decided otherwise.
CPID at 432. Thus, the only issue before the Board now is the narrow remand issue of whether, given'the potential for role conflict, there will be a sufficient number of bus drivers available to evacuate schools in the EPZ. This issue concerns only "role con-flict" of school bus drivers and LILCO's arrangement to provide additional bus drivers.
The Appeal Board's remand order did not grant the Licensing Board jurisdiction to haar other issues.
l 13/ Cf. Memorandum and Order (Intervenors' Motion to Reopen Record) (Nov. 5, 1986), disclaiming jurisdiction over WA LK Radio, Red Cross, and congregate care issues.
Thus, if there were to be any further litigation of the bus avallaallity, school re-ception centers, or school evacuation time estimates, it would have to be pursuant to a reopening of the record by the Commission, not this Board. Moreover, since these is-sues are Staff confirmation items, it is up to the Intervenors (not LILCO) to raise to the
. Commission any concerns about LILCO's Revision 9 remedies to the litigated defects.
As 'he Appeal Board in the Diablo Canyon case noted, there is "no unfairnew" in this.
system, "for just as one party can demonstrate that a planned course of action will re-solve an identified deficiency, an opposing party can establish that the deficiency can-not be resolved by that planned action." 20 NRC at 835 n. 58. Supervision of a party's compliance is lef t to the NRC Staff. I_d. If a party is dissatisfied with hcw a deficiency is corrected, "the matter may, in appropriate circumstances, be brought back to the 11-censing board or become a subject of a petition under 10 C.F.R. 2.206." Id.
In short, LILCO submits that the 12 "defects of lesser magnitude" listed at 22 NRC 430-31, including the issues of bus availability, school reception centers, and school evacuation time estimates, are (1) issues for NRC Staff confirmation and (2) is-sues beyond the Board's jurisdiction. Accordingly, LILCO asks the Board to rule h}
limine that no evidence on those issues will be presented in this remand proceeding.
II. Proposed Schedule Since the discovery period set by the Board ends in a little over a week, on February 3,N it is appropriate (and, LILCO submits, necessary) to set a schedule for further proceedings.
M/ The Memorandum and Order of December 30,1987 allowed for discovery 30 days commencing with official receipt of the Order. Adding five days for mall service means that discovery ends February 3,1988.
l l
Document discovery is underway. LILCO is producing documents early this week, well before the end of the 30 days it is permitted by the regulation,10 CFR S 2.741(d). The Intervenors indicate, in essence, that they have no documents to pro-duce.
A total of four witnesses have been designated, only one of them (Professor Cole) by the Intervenors. His deposition is scheduled for January 28. It should be possible to complete depositions of all named witnesses by February 3. All parties have said they may designate additional witnesses, but LILCO, at least, expects to decide by tomorrow, January 26, whether additional witnesses will be added to its witness panel. At present, there seems to be no reason why discovery cannot be completed or essentially complet-ed by February 3.
Accordingly, LILCO asks that all parties be required to file testimony on February 18, 1988. Motions to strike should be filed a week later, on February 25; an-swers should be filed by March 3; and the hearing should begin March 7 or March 8, 1988. LILCO believes that this schedule is a reasonable one. The remand issue is not complicated and addresses only a very small portion of LILCO's emergency plan.
III. Request for Expedited Consideration and Conference Call of Counsel Prompt resolution of the above issues will better focus what is lef t of the discov-ery process, eliminate much of the need for motions to strike testimony, and reduce delay. Therefore, LILCO requests that the Board give this motion expedited considera-tion and, if necessary, convene a conference phone call of counsel.
l , - -
s Respectfully submitted, Al'A? i L'at? f C ""' d &
Hunton & Williams 707 East Main Street P.O. Box 1535 Richmond, Virginia 23212 DATED: January 25,1988 t
1 O
t 1
l i i
k k
I r
I
LILCO, January 25,1988 D3LKETED UsNkt 3 JAN 28 P4 :12 CERTIFIC ATE OF SERVICE OFFICL (6 Watihe
00CKEliN'J A SEHVICf.'
BRANCH In the Matter of LONG ISLAND LIGHTING COMPANY (Shoreham Nuclear Power Station, Unit 1)
Docket No. 50-322-OL-3 I hereby certify that copies of LILCO'S MOTION IN LIMINE AND MOTION TO SET A HEARING SCHEDULE were served this date upon the following by telecopier as indicated by one asterisk, by Federal Express as indicated by two asterisks, or by first-class mail, postage prepaid.
James P. Gleason, Chairman ** Atomic Safety and Licensing Atomic Safety and Licensing Board Board Panel 513 Gilmoure Drive U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission Silver Spring, Maryland 20901 Washington, D.C. 20555 Dr. Jerry R. Kline ** George E. Johnson, Esq. **
Atomic Safety and Licensing Richard G. Bachmann, Esq.
Board Of fice of the General Counsel U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission East-West Towers, Rm. 427 Washington, DC 20555 4350 East-West Hwy.
Bethesda, MD 20814 Herbert H. Brown, Esq. **
Lawrence Coe Lanpher, Esq.
Mr. Frederick J. Shon ** Karla J. Letsche, Esq.
Atomic Safety and Licensing Kirkpatrick & Lockhart l Board South Lobby - 9th Floor U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission 1800 M Street, N.W.
East-West Towers, Rm. 430 Washington, D.C. 20036-5891 4350 East-West Hwy.
Bethesda, MD 20814 Fabian G. Palomino, Esq. **
Richard J. Zahnleuter, Esq.
Secretary of the Commission Special Counsel to the Governor Attention Docketing and Service Executive Chamber Section Room 229 U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission State Capitol 1717 H Street, N.W. Albany, New York 12224 Washington, D.C. 20555 Alfred L. Nardelli, Esq.
Atomic Safety and Licensing Assistant Attorney General Appeal Board Panel 120 Broadway U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission Room 3-118 Washington, D.C. 20555 New York, New York 10271
a o
Spence W. Perry, Esq. ** Ms. Nora Bredes William R. Cumming, Esq. Executive Coordinator Federal Emergency Management Shoreham Opponents' Coalition Agency 195 East Main Street 500 C Street, S.W., Room 840 Smithtown, New York 11787 Washington, D.C. 20472 Gerald C. Crotty, Esq.
Mr. Jay Dunkleberger Counsel to the Governor New York State Energy Office Executive Chamber Agency Building 2 State Capitol Empire State Plaza Albany, New York 12224 Albany, New York 12223 E. Thomas Boyle, Esq. **
Stephen B. Latham, Esq. " Suffolk County Attorney Twomey, Latham & Shea Building 158 North County Complex 33 West Second Street Veterans Memorial Highway P.O. Box 298 Hauppauge, New York 11788 Riverhead, New York 11901 Dr. Monroe Schneider Mr. Philip McIntire North Shore Committee Federal Emergency Management P.O. Box 231 Agency Wading River, NY 11792
?6 Federal Plaza New York, New York 10278 Jonathan D. Feinberg, Esq.
New York State Department of Public Service, Staff Counsel Three Rockefeller Plaza Albany, New York 12223 f, 8 James N. Christman Hunton & Williams 707 East Main Street P.O. Box 1535 Richmond, Virginia 23212 DATED: January 25,1988