ML20148R049
| ML20148R049 | |
| Person / Time | |
|---|---|
| Site: | Shoreham File:Long Island Lighting Company icon.png |
| Issue date: | 01/28/1988 |
| From: | Atomic Safety and Licensing Board Panel |
| To: | |
| References | |
| CON-#188-5544 OL-3, NUDOCS 8802020082 | |
| Download: ML20148R049 (31) | |
Text
.
UNntD STATES O
NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSION BEFORE TIIE ATOMIC SAFETY AND LICENSING BOARD IN THE MATTER OF:
DOCKET NO: 50-322-OL-3 LONG ISLAND LIGHTING COMPANY (Remand / Emergency Planning)
(Shoreham Nuclear Power Station, Unit 1)
CONFERENCE CALL j
g l
LOCATION:
Bethesda, Maryland PAGES:
19250 through 19278 DATE:
January 28, 1988
......=............=...............................................................
\\
'h b 0 \\
Heritage Reporting Corporation Official Reporten 1220 L Strat. N.W.
Wufungton. D.C. 20005 O
l l
8802020082 800128 PDR ADOCK 05000322 PDR t
i
/
. _ - ~ _ _ _ _ _
19250
()
1 UNITED STATES OF AMERICA
'2 NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSION 3-BEFORE THE ATOMIC SAFETY AND. LICENSING BOARD 4
- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -x 5
In the Matter 2 of:
6 LONG ISLAND LIGHTING COMPANY
- Docket No. 50-322-OL-3 7
(shoreham Nuclear Power Station, t (Remand / Emergency Unit 1)
Planning) 8
- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -x 9
4
-10 11 Thursday, January 28, 1988 12 Room 427 4350 East-West' Highway 13 Bethesda, Maryland 20815
, O 14 The telephone prehearing conference in the 15 above-entitled matter convened at 4:45 p.m.
I 16 BEFORE:
17 JUDGE JAMES P. GLEASON, Chairman 18 Atomic Safety and Licensing Board i
U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission 19 Washington, D.C.
20 JUDGE JERRY R.
KLINE, Member Atomic Safety and Licensing Board I
21 U.S.
Nuclear Regulatory Commission Washington, D.C.
22 JUDGE FREDERICK J. SHON, Member 23 Atomic Safety and Licensing Board U.S.
Nuclear Regulatory Commission l
24 Washington, D.C.
25 O
Heritage Reporting Corporation (202) 628-4888
)
i t
i 19251 1
APPEARANCES:
2 On behalf of'the NRC Staff:
3 EDWIN J. REIS, ESQ.
U.S.
Nuclear Regulatory Commission 4
washington, D.C.
5 On behalf of the Intervenor Suffolk County:
-6 LAWRENCE C.
LANPHER, ESQ.
MICHAEL S. MILLER, ESQ.
7 Kirkpatrick & Lockhart 1800 M Street, N.W.
8 Washington, D.C.
20036-5891 9
On behalf of the;Intervenor State of New York:
10 RICHARD J.
ZAHNLEUTER, ESQ.
Special Counsel to the Governor 11 Executive ~ Chamber - Room 229 State Capitol 12 Albany, New York 12224 13 On behalf of LONG ISLAND LIGHTING COMPANY:
14 DONALD IRWIN, ESQ.
JAMES N. CHRISTMAN, ESQ.
15 Hunton & Williams 707 East Main Street 16 P.O.
Box 1535 Richmond, Virginia 23212 17 On behalf of FEMA:
18 WILLIAM R. CUMMING, ESQ.
19 Federal Emergency Management Agency Office of the General Counsel 20 500 C Street, S.W.
Washington, D.C.
20472 21 l
22 23 24 j
25 i
IIeritage Reporting Corporation (202) 628-4888 i
19252 (7) 1 PROCEEDINGS
/
2 JUDGE GLEASON:
This is Judge Gleason speaking.
We 3
are having a recorded telephone conference which is requested 4
by the Intervenors in connection with the Government's motion 5
to extend the period for discovery in connection with the bus 6
driver emergency planning issue.
The proceeding is Docket No.
7 50-322-OL-3.
And with me here, in addition to the recorder, is 8
Judge Shon and Judge Kline, the other judges on the Board.
9 If we could have the parties identify themselves, 10 please, starting with the Government, followed by LILCO, the 11 Staff, and FEMA, we will then proceed.
12 MR. LANPHER:
Judge Gleason, this is Mr. Lanpher for 13 Suffolk County.
Also with me is Michael S. Miller, Arla J.
14 Letsche.
15 MR. CHRISTMAN:
Judge Gleason, this is Jim Christman 16 for the Applicant, Long Island Lighting Company.
With me is 17 Mary Jo Leugers on Long Island and Don Irwin and Cathy 18 McCleskey are in Richmond, also, on the line.
19 MR. ZAHNLEUTER:
This is Richard Zahnleuter.
20 JUDGE GLEASON:
I can't hear you.
21 MR. ZAHNLEUTER:
Judge Gleason, can you hear me now?
22 JUDGE GLEASON:
Speak a little louder, if you can.
23 MR. ZAHNLEUTER:
I will try.
My name is Richard 24 Zahnleuter and I am the Deputy Special Counsel to the Governor, 25 representing Governor Mario Cuomo and the State of New York.
(J%
j Heritago Reporting Corporation (202) 628-4888
19253 I) 1 JUDGE GLEASON:
All right, i
2 MR. REIS:
This is Mr. Reis for the Staff.
3 MR. CUMMING:
William Cumming for FEMA.
4 JUDGE GLEASON:
All right.
I believe everybody has 5
been served with the Intervenor's motion.
There is no need for 6
the governments to orally summarize their motion.
We have all 7
read it and it's clear, I am sure. I would like to have t
8 responses, if we can, from first LILCO and then followed by the 9
Staff and then FEMA, if they have any.
And thea we will have 10 responses to that by the governments where it is requested.
11 MR. CHRISTMAN:
Thank you, Judge Gleason.
This is 12 Jim Christman for LILCO.
I appreciate the Board's 13 accommodating our discovery, our deposition schedule.
The O
14 deposition lasted a little bit longer than we had anticipated.
15 I would like to start by reminding everybody that-16 this is not a new proceeding.
This is a remand issue which 17 stems from the failure to admit a piece of evidence some three 18 or four years ago.
And the issue is about role conflict.
That 19 is what the contention is about and that's what we litigated 20 before in this proceeding.
21 So, when it came time to address this remand i
i 22 proceeding, LILCO was prepared to go forward basically on the 23 evidence that was in before; but, in addition, because of the i
i 24 remand and it is the end, we hope, the end of the road more or i
25 less for this proceeding, we said:
"Well, in the addition to
(:)
i Heritage Reporting Corporation (202) 628-4888 7
l
I 19254 1
the evidence that's already there, which we think is 2
sufficient, we are going to remove all doubt."
i 3
And we are going to do that by simply recruiting 4'
enough people, the role conflict of whom has already been 5
litigated.
And I mean LERO workers, LILCO employees, that 6
there are going to be enough people even if some of the bus 7
drivers, the regular bus drivers don't show up for whatever 8
reason.
And we did that.
9 And we revealed the nature of our case as I have just 1
10 stated it clear last October in a motion for summary 11 disposition in which we laid out in some detail what the 12 essence of our case was, as if it had not already been laid out 13 four years ago when we litigated this issue before.
[
O 14 Now, that was in October.
And, so, there has been a j
15 good long time for the people to know about our basic case.
16 And the case that we laid out in there is reflected more l'
17 recently in Rev. 9.
But there is nothing about the bus driver l
18 issue that is inconsistent in any significant way between j
19 Rev. 9 and what we submitted last October.
[
20 Now, we come to discovery on the remanded issue and 21 we find ourselves almost at the end of the discovery period set 22 by the Board, which I calculate around next Tuesday or
[
23 Wednesday, the middle of next week. And we now have bitter 24 complaints that for all sorts of reasons we have to at least 3
t 25 double the discovery period, which I take to be a totally
()
Heritage Reporting Corporation (202) 628-4888
._,_m
19255
()
1 unwarranted claim.
2 Let me discuss very briefly the five reasons that the 3
Intervenors say we have to greatly expand the time for 4
discovery.
5 One of those is that they haven't gotten any 6
information from the Staff and FEMA.
My understanding is that 7
the Staff and FEMA are not going to have any witnesses and 4
8 don't have any documents to speak of that aren't already 9
public.
And, so, that particular reason, it seems to me, is 10 groundless.
11 We have the argument that they have to review Rev.
9.
12 Well, they don't have to review all of Rev. 9 to address school 13 bus drivers, in particular since we revealed much of what would O
14 be in Rev. 9 last October.
15 We also have the argument which is always made that:
16 Everybody is working real hard.
We tcke that not to be a valid 17 reason for delay.
18 We have the reason, which was No.
4, I think, in the 19 Intervenors' pleading that the issues are not defined and that 20 LILCO's motion in limine is still being undecided is one reason 21 why wa should delay.
If that is the case, we are prepared to 22 bring on that motion right now and argue it.
If that is not 23 adequate, we will argue it tomorrow or we will argue it Monday.
24 But if that is holding up discovery, we need to resolve the 25 issues in that right away.
O Heritage Reporting Corporation (202) 628-4888
l k
19256
()
-1.
And,-finally, we come to the meat of the Intervenors' 2
complaint which is that LILCO has not been forthcoming with 3
discovery. And I take that, again, to be a totally ungrounded 4
claim.
5 Now, to argue this properly, we need to go into the I
6 details, I suppose, of the motion to compel that the j
7
.Intervenors filed a couple of days ago. -But let me summarized 8
the situation by sayingt By and large, there are very few 9
documents still left outstanding that the Intervenors have not j
4 10 already been given, i
11 We delivered some 780 pages of documents the other l
1 12 day, plus the resumes of our witnesses.
We recently designated 13 our last witness on Tuesday of this week and the documents
, 0-14 underlying his study will be delivered tomorrow.
So, we have j
15 pretty much delivered the documents, the background documents 16 to our case to the extent the background was not already 17 revealed back in October.
l 18 The documents that are withheld, as near as I can i
i 19 tell -- and I might say that many of the things that the i
20 Intervenors demand in their motion to compel simply do not 21 exist or have been turned ovor.
Things that I can see that we l
22 are withholding tend to go to a couple of issues which we think l
23 are clearly not litigable now which go to evacuation time 24 estimates and the location of identity of school reception i
l 25 centers.
There is about a one inch of calculation documents
[
r
(:)
i Heritage Reporting Corporation l
(202) 628-4888
, -., ~ _ _
1-19257
()
1 for the time estimates.
We think that is outside the scope, as you know, from our motion in limine.
There are perhaps 12 2
3 documents on school reception centers which, again, we take to 4
be outside the scope of this remand issue.
We are also 5
withholding the identities of the LILCO bus drivers, as we 6
have always done through this proceeding for very sound 7
reasons.
8 There are a number of documents that have been 9
claimed as privileged under both attorney-client and work 10 product.
And there is quite a list of those.
But they are in 11 the nature of drafts of pleadings, drafts of contracts and 12 things which reflect legal advice.
And those have all been 13 listed for the Intervonors in a list that Ms. Lougers sent the
,,b)
(
.14 other day.
15 Finally, there is some material, perhaps a half inch 16 of documents on the routine training for Class 2 driver's 17 licenses.
I say about a half an inch of documents.
And the 18 reason those are withheld is, once again, we take the position 19 that training is not within the scope of this remand issue. And 20 let me tell you why.
It is because the school bus drivers, 21 hired by LILCO, are trained to be bus drivers.
And they get 22 the training, the same training that the drivers for the public 23 get, except the school bus drivers don't get Module 14, which 24 has te do with the general public as opposed to special 25 populations.
All of this, by the way, would be clear to the 4
O Heritage Reporting Corporation (202) 628-4888
19258 m(,)
1 Intervenors if they would look at OPIP 5.1.1 in Rev. 9 of the 2
plan which tells what training they get.
3 In short, they get the standard training.
To the 4
extent they are going to get drills and exercises and table 5
tops, those start later on in the spring. They haven't been 6
done yet.
7 And, so, what I am trying to say to the Board is_that R
we have a lot of pleading papers here filed on the proposition 9
that LILCO has mountains of papers that it is hiding and, as 10 near as I can tell, there is hardly anything that LILCO has got 11 to reveal that the Intervenors don't already know about.
12 Now, that is the type of thing that we would have 13 said in more detail had we had time to respond to the motion to O
14 compel which we got, I think, a couple of days ago.
15 JUDGE GLEASON:
Thank you, Mr. Christman.
16 Mr. Reis?
17 MR. REIS:
Your Honor, we oppose the motion.
We see 18 no good reason for it. The motion says we have not answered 19 discovery.
Indeed, we sent out our response to discover on the 20 22nd of January.
We do have an outstanding request from the 21 State of New York which will be answered within a day or so, 22 but that requcst was not received by us until the 22nd of 23 January.
So, we are quite timely in responding to that.
As 24 far as the Staff goes, it sees and knows of no reason why 25 discovery should be continued and, particularly, discovery O
Heritage Reporting Corporation (202) 628-4888
19259 g)
'(_
1 against it.
2 JUDGE GLEASON:
In other words, what you are saying 3
is you are denying the allegation in the motion that there is 4
information that you said you would supply that has not been 5
supplied yet.
6 MR. RF.IS:
Correct.
7 JUDGE GLEASON:
All right, Mr. Cumming?
8 MR. CUMMING:
Judge Gleason, this is the first time I 9
have spoken to you personally.
Welcome to the proceeding.
I 10 have been reading the -- because I haven't spoken to you, I 11 don't want ycu to think that we haven't been reading the many 12 pieces of paper you have issued in response to various motions 13 and whatever.
\\
14 Basically, since we understood this conference call 15 to deal with the request for extension of time for discovery, 16 on that issue, we would defer to Staff.
We would like to make 17 a couple of comments.
And that is that Mr. Christman 18 accurately characterized our position.
19 Basically, the issue of emergency worker role 20 conflict has been resolved as far as this proceeding is 21 concerned.
In our judgment, and I guess to that extent we felt 22 that there was a very narrow issue here on remand.
- Also, 23 Mr. Miller had given me an extension of 48 hours5.555556e-4 days <br />0.0133 hours <br />7.936508e-5 weeks <br />1.8264e-5 months <br /> to respond 24 after Staff had responded.
And, basically, our response is (1) 25 to indicate that we don't have a witness to designate unless it (a~)
Heritage Reporting Corporation (202) 628-4888
19260
()
1 is somehow brought to our attention that some other issue was 2
involved in this remand.
3 So, basically, our response will parallel that of the 4
Staff. We don't have a designated witness that we would 5
indicate because, basically, we would have nothing to give 6
- estimony on reference this particular narrow remanded issue.
7 And that is where we stand.
8 JUDGE GLEASON:
Mr. Cumming, then I gather that you 9
do not have information that has been requested by the 10 governments that you are holding back at this particular point?
11 MR. CUMMING:
That is correct.
Basically, the issue 12 of role conflict to the extent of controls was still within 13 regional contentions 23, 25, and 65 in the original partial 14 initial decision back in '83 and I gu.ess '84 and '85.
15 JUDGE GLEASON:
All right.
Mr. Lanpher, do you care 16 to respond at this point?
17 MR. LANPHER:
Judge Gleason, Mr. Miller will respond 18 on behalf of Suffolk County.
19 JUDGE GLEASON:
All right.
l 20 MR. MILLER:
Judge Gleason, I will keep this snort.
21 It seems to me that essentially what LILCO and FEMA and the 22 Staff, to a lesser extent, attempt to argue that there is no 23 further information to be provided to the governments in the 24 context of discovery in the school issues that are before the 25 Board.
I would have to disagree with the representations that O
Heritage Reporting Corporation (202) 628-4888
r 19261 O)
(_
I have been made to some extent by Mr. Christman on behalf of 2
LILCO.
3 Mr. Christman concedes that there are some documents 4
which have not been provided to the governments.
He says that 5
those documents, in LILCO's opinion, are not particular 6
relevant to the issues of the proceedings. We would take a 7
contrary position. But I think, Judge Gleason, probably the 8
Doard would miss the point if it got hung up on the issue of 9
whether or not LILCO or FEMA or the Staff, for that matter, 10 have further information by way of documents to produce that 11 that is really not the issue here in the governments' opinion.
12 The issues here are what is left to be done in the 13 context of discovery, what needs to be done in that context for O
14 all the parties to have a fair opportunity to decido upon the 15 issues and what their case will be and what the case of the 16 other parties will be.
17 Judge Gleason. what is left to be done at a minimal 18 in the context of discovery is that the governments must be 19 given an opportunity to review and to analyze the discovery 20 responses that have been made including documents that have yet 21 to be produced by Mr. Christman's own admission by LILCO.
22 Those documents, once they are provided, will be reviewed 23 promptly by suffolk County, tiew York State. But that will take 24 time.
25 Mr. Christman indicates there have already been over Heritage Reporting Corporation (202) 628-4888
19262 rh
(_)
1 700 pages of documents produced.
There are more to be 2
produced.
I have been informed that more are supposed to come 3
in tomorrow.
Mr. Christman has indicated that others will be 4
forthcoming.
5 In addition, Judge Gleason, depositions started today 6
in this proceeding.
Next week, there are currently scheduled 7
depositions for every day, except for Monday, Tuesday, 8
Wednesday, Thursday and Friday of next week.
All those of 9
local witnesses.
It is very possible, obvi.ously, that in the 10 cource of deposing LILCO's witnesses, additional witnesses may 11 need to be identified for deposition.
Additional witnesses may 12 need to be designated by the governments to testify in their 13 behalf.
It depends on what will be said in the course of those O
14 depositions.
15 From the limited review we have had thus far of the 16 documents produced by LILCO, other names have surfaced of LILCO 17 employees that may have to be deposed in this case.
Those 18 people have been intimately involved in the school bus driver 19 issues and, therefore, more time than next week will be needed 20 for depositions in this case.
Of that, I am confident.
21 FEMA has said that they do not anticipate having 22 witnesses in this case.
I am surprised to hear that since FEMA 23 had witnesses from the role conflict issues last time.
But 24 that is FEMA's decision to make, i
t 25 Staff indicates that there is no discovery left for
()
lieritage Reporting Corporation (202) 628-4888
19263 i
O()
I the Staff to provide in this case.
That, I believe, is just 2
not correct based upon the Staff's discovery responses which 3
they may have been filed on January the 22nd, according to Mr.
4 Reis, but they were received by the governments, at least by 5
Suffolk County, yesterday afternoon only.
6 Staff indicates they have not received Revision 9 of 7
LILCO's plan and therefore had not reviewed LILCO's school 8
proposal.
It now, apparently, has received Revision and now, 9
apparently, will review that proposal and, therefere, the Staff 10 will need to modify their discovery responses.
11 In addition, Judge Gleason, there are discovery 12 requests that have just recently been made by LILCO which in 13 and of themselves extend the discovery period well beyond next O
14 week.
Last night, by telecopy, LILCO sent to the government a 15 new set of interrogatories and a new set of requests for 16 documents which will, of course, under the rules, takes -- we 17 have up to 30 days to respond to those document requests.
We 18 have up to 14 days to respond to those interrogatories.
19 LILCO, by its own actions, therefore, has extended 20 discovery well beyond the February 3rd date that LILCO has at 21 this time in place in this case.
22 Therefore, Judge Gleason, to summarize, there is time 23 needed for additional discovery, additional depositions, time 24 to review documents.
LILCO, itself, has extended discovery. We 25 will need time, for certain, to designate our witnesses after O
Heritage Reporting Corporation (202) 628-4888
19264
.,)
1 discovery has been completed and we have had the chance to 2
analyze the documents and the information we ascertain through 3
discovery.
4 (Continued on next page.)
5 6
7 8
9 10 11 12 13 O
14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 i
I 23 l
24 l
l 25 1O i
Heritage Reporting Corporation l
(202) 628-4888 1
19265
(~Y
\\_/
1' MR. CHRISTMAN:
Judge Gleason, may'I respond?
This
.2 is Mr. Christman.
3 JUDGE GLEASON:
Why don't we wait until we hear from 4
Mr. Zahnleuter, and then I'll let you respond.
5 MR. CHRISTMAN:
Okay, that would be great, thanks.
6 JUDGE GLEASON:
Mr. Zahnleuter?
7 MR. ZAHNLEUTER:
Thank you very much, Judge Gleason.
8 I hope that you can hear me better now?
9 JUDGE GLEASON:
Yes, I can.
10 MR.-ZAHNLEUTER:
Thank you.
11 LILCO, the Staff and FEMA would lead the Board to 12 believe that discovery is all but completed or will be all but 13 completed before the end of the thirty-day period designated in 14 the Board's December 30th Order.
But I submit that the board 15 should not be persuaded by this fallacy.
The State of New York 16 has filed a.first set of interrogatories and document requests 17 to LILCO, FEMA and the NRC Staff, and neither LILCO nor FEMA 18 nor the NRC Staff have responded at all to those t
19 interrogatories and requests yet.
And those interrogatories and requests seek different 20 I
21 information than what the county sought in its request so that l
22 information is still out there.
23 MR. CHRISTMAN:
Excuse me.
This is Jim Christman.
24 We may have been cut off.
Can anyone hear me?
25 JUDGE GLEASON:
Yes, I can, l
l (2) l Heritage Reporting Corporation (202) 628-4888 l
u
2 4
2+
a.
19266 m) 1 MR, CHRISTMANe-I couldn't hear Mr. Zahnleuter.
2 MR. ' Z AHNI.EUTER:
Hello.
3 JUDGE GLEASON:
Can you hear me, Mr. Christman?
4 MR. CHRISTMAN - Yes, loud and clear.
It's the 5
State's lawyer that I'm having trouble with.
He completely 6
blanked out for awhile.
7 JUDGE GLEASON:
I don't want to speak for him, and if 8
he has anything to add, -tua 'can do it.
But the fundamental 9
point that he's made-is that !?ew York State has.just filed a
~
10 series of interrogatories with the' parties, and of-course 11 responses have not come in and those interrogatories are 12 different in kind from the ones filed by Suffolk-County.
So 13 he's making the point that discovery is not near completion as O
14 is one of the arguments he alleges is being made by LILCO.
15 Does that f.airly summarize your point, 16 Mr. Zahnleuter?
17 MR. ZAHNLEUTER:
That's correct, Judge Gleason.
18 JUDGE GLEASON:
All right.
19 MR. ZAHNLEUTER:
Except that I would like to add that 20 the State's interrogatories and document requests were filed.
21 January 22nd, approximately a week ago, and there is the matter 22 of LILCO's filing of LILCO's third set of interrogatories and 23 requests for documents which was filed, as Mr. Miller said, by 24 telecopy yesterday evening.
25 Those are still outstanding, of course, and I (G/
Heritage Reporting Corporation (202) 628-4888
~
9 19267
(
'l
. calculate that a response by the State of New' York to those 2
third-interrogatories will be due February 10th and a response
~
3 to the document' request portion would be due February 26th.
So 4
in that regard, LILCO has extended in a de facto way the 5
discovery peri ~od until as late as February 26, 1988.
6 And that's why 1 submit that'the Board should not be 7
persuaded by the fallacy that the discovery is all but 8
complete.
Much still remains to be done.
9 Thank you.
10 JUDGE GLEASON:
Mr. Christman, did you gatner his 11 last remarks there?
12 MR. CHRISTMAN:
Yes, no problem.
13 JUDGE GLEASON:
All right, well it's time for you to
.O 14 respond, then.
s 15 MR. CHRISTMAN:
Thank you.
I can-hardly wait.
16 Let me start with the last two points, well, the 17 State's point.
The State's request, as he says, were filed on 10 January 22nd, which is what, five or six days ago.
We will 19 certainly respond to those before the end of the originally 20 Board-ordered discovery period.
Indeed we are getting ready to 21 do that.
That seems to me to have nothing to do with extending l
l 22 the discovery period.
l 23 As for those requests that were sent last night to 24 the State, some of those were simply following up on phone L
25 requests that were agreed to on the phone earlier this week.
- O Heritage Reporting Corporation (202) 628-4888
i i
19268 k_s)
'l Moreover, in our judgment, those follow-up requests were 2
necessary because there was not a full response to our first 3
~ set of interrogatories to the State'.
4 Now, let me circle around and start.back with what
- 5 Mr. Miller said.
It sounds to me like the argument now is 6
simply that the intervenors need more time, and that all of these arguments, the five points made in the Motion have been 7
8-collapsed into that one essential proposition.
They aren't 9
ready to go forward and they need more time.
10 And that translates, I think I hear, into they have 11 additional witnesses they want to name, or they will be naming 12-additional witnesses.
Well, that's probably true.
We just 13 deposed Stephen Cole who is to date the only witnesses who has O
14 been designated for any of the intervenors.
And Professor Cole 15 said that he'd been contacted two or three weeks ago, that he 16 hadn't thought about his testimony yet, he hadn't thought about 17 doing any additional work, he may do additional work, but he 18 hasn't thought about it.
19-Meanwhile, the discovery from the intervenors has 20 totaled seven pages which we have received, which is the resume 21 of Professor Cole.
And let me say that the first time we asked l
22 him about his resume, he said, that's not my most recent 23 resume.
That's not a big deal bacause it was almost the same, 24 but the point is, I believe that notwithstanding the fact that 25 this proceeding started four years ago, the reason we're here l
Heritage Reporting Corporation l
(202) 628-4888 l
i
V' 19269 l
t3 i/
1 cnl. remand is because of some evidence that Suffolk County m
2 wanted to put in and should have been ready to put in four 3
years ago.-
We're now told that Suffolk County wants to, I 4
think, create a whole new case with new witnesses that it 5
hasn't even talked to yet.
6 I think that's improper.
I.think it's time to close 7
discovery and at the very least, to mandate that no further 8
witnesses will be named this late in the discovery period when 9
it's really too' late to do any discovery.
Depositions are all 10 scheduled.
By agreement with the County, we extended the 11 discovery period a couple of days so that they could depose 12 next Friday, our most recently designed and we think our last 13 witness, and I see no reason to extend the discovery period for O
14 thirty days so that one party can create a whole new case with 15 new witnesses that they haven't even thought about hiring yet, 16 apparently.
17 Finally, there was the point made by the County now, 18 as well as the State, that by filing some requests last night, 19 LILCO has extended the discovery period.
Well, you know, it's 20 LILCO who is not going to get the information that we need 21 until later on in the process.
We believe that the process can-22 go forward, preparing testimony and going to hearing, and those 23 requests that we put in last night, if they're answered, can be 24 answered according to the regulations, and we'll take whatever 25 harm results to us from getting those late in the day, too late O
Heritage Reporting Corporation (202) 628-4888 1
e I
19270 1
to follow up on.
But that's our problem, and we're' ready to go 2
forward notwithstanding the fact that they won't answer those 3
questions until some time from now.
4 Also, by the way,-I heard the County say that we were 5
going to be forthcoming with more documents.
The documents we 6
are going to produce will be the ones related to Mr. Kelly, our 7-latest witness, and they will be delivered tomorrow.
Other 8
than that, I did not offer to produce any more documents.
e 9'
MR. CUMMING:
Judge Gleason, this is Bill Cumming.
I 10 have a couple comments when it's my turn.
11 MR. CHRISTMAN:
I'm through, Judge Gleason.
I 12 appreciate your listening.
13 JUDGE GLEASON:
All right, why don't you proceed, 14 Mr. Cumming?
15 MR. CUMMING:
With respect to Mr. Zahnleuter's 16 comments, his interrogatories did come in to us on the 23rd and 17 he had given the same professional courtesy, responding 48 18 hours2.083333e-4 days <br />0.005 hours <br />2.97619e-5 weeks <br />6.849e-6 months <br /> after the Staff.
His questions are in fact different
~
19 than those of Suffolk.
However, they go to with respect to 20 comparison analysis with other plans, and since the State of 21 New York is the submitter of plans within the region that's 22 concerned, they would be the best source of the information, 23 rather than ourselves with respect to many of these questions.
24 In fairness to Mr. Miller and Mr. Zahnleuter, though, 25 you should be aware of the fact that on the 27th of January, O
Heritage Reporting Corporation (202) 628-4888
t 19271 l'
1988, FEMA was-requested to review revision 9 of the Shoreham 2
Plan, and we do intend to conduct that review, and we have
- 3 always considered interrogatories to be'in the nature of
4 continuing so should in fact we at some point generate 5
information on this, we would of course make the Board aware of 6
it and all parties.
But at this time, we.just do-not have 7
information that's pertinent on the remanded issue, in our 8
judgment.
9 JUDGE GLEASON:
A111right.
10 MR. REIS:
This is the Staff.
The Staff only has two 11 things.to add.
One is if the State is prejudiced by their late 12 filing of discovery that was within their control and certainly 13 is not a reason to extend discovery.
Discovery opened some O
14 time ago.
They did not file their interrogatories until the 15 22nd of this month.
16 Secondly, as Mr. Cumming indicated, there is a 17 continuing duty on the Staff, on the parties to supplement 18 discovery.
And as far as answering questions in the future, as 19 things change, of course that will be done.
20 MR. MILLER:
Judge Gleason, this is Mr. Miller.
I'll l
21 keep my comments very brief.
22 JUDGE GLEASON:
All right.
I wish you would.
23 MR. MILLER:
I will do so, sir.
j 24 I think at the outset, we have to put to rest this t
25 notion by LILCO that this proceeding started four years ago.
l l
)
Heritage Reporting Corporation (202) 628-4888 1
i 19272
.O l,/ -
1
'This proceeding started on January 4th, when we received the s
2 Board's Order of; December 30th, denying LILCO's motion for 3
summary disposition on the school bus driver issue. 'That's 4
when this proceeding started.
5 Discovery started at that same time.
I think 6
everyone must recognize that the 30-day discovery period 7
initially set by the Board was simply too short.
More time is S
needed for depositions.
More time is needed to retiew 9
documents.
Some of those documents are not yet produced by the 10 other parties.
More time is needed to prepare an affirmative 11 case, and for parties to identify witnesses.
12 I will not attempt, Judge Gleason, to respond to 13 Mr. Christman's characterizations about Professor Cole's O
14 deposition.
I was not at that deposition.
15 But I will respond to the fact that Mr. Christman is 16 indicating that Suffolk County and New York State have not been 17 working hard enough in attempt to go forth on this proceeding, 18 and in attempt ~ to identify witnesses.
We have'been working, 19 hard.
We will continue to work hard. 'Much needs to be done 20 and has been done in this proceeding.
21 I will not go through all those things.
They are set 22 forth in our Motion for Extension of Time.
But we have been 23 attempting and will continue to attempt to identify witnesses i
24 in the school bus driver issue, and we have not been sitting on 25 our hands in this proceeding.
O Heritage Reporting Corporation (202) 628-4888
t a
h 7,'
19273
)
'l Lastly, Judge Gleason, the comment by Mr. Christman 2
that it's LILCO who will not be getting information and LILCO 3
swill run that risk, with the implication but we would still be 4
obligated to provide such information clearly indicates that 5
Mr. Christman wants it both ways.
He wants discovery cut off 6
as of February 3rd.
He wants a hearing schedule. set.
He wants 7
a testimony schedule set.
8 But he still wants us'to respond to interrogatories 9
and document requests that were filed last ' night.
And he 10 cannot have it both ways.
11 JUDGE GLEASON: 'All right.
12 Hold with me a few -- I think we've heard enough, 13 gentlemen.
Hold with me just a minute, please.
O
\\~#
14 Gentlemen, are you all there?
15 (Chorus of yes'-).
16 JUDGE GLEASON:
While the Board does some conferring 17 among itself here, I would like you, on the part of the 18 Governments and on the part of LILCO to cogitate together and 19 to give us some kind of a feeling as to when you can respond, 20 respectively, and I should say the Staff, as well, to the 21 Motions to Compel and the Motion in Limine.
And if we could 22 get that when we come back, I'd appreciate it.
23 All right?
Do you understand what I'm asking?
24 MR. CHRISTMAN:
Yes.
25 JUDGE GLEASON:
All right, thank you.
Heritage, Reporting Corporation (202) 628-4888 l
l-s
i '
19274
,-m k-)
1 MR. LANPHER.
This is Larry Lanpher.
I'm going to 2
put you on mute for a second, so we can chat, and why don't we 3
all come back in about a minute?
4 JUDGE GLEASON:
I'm going to come back in about two 5
minutes.
6 (Conference held off the record.)
7 (Continued on following page.)
8 9
10 11 12 w
13 f_
'~'
14 15 16 17 f
18 i
l 19 20 l
1 21 22 23 24 25 Heritage Reporting Corporation (202) 628-4888 l
l 1
a s
5 19275
).; '
~.
fJUDGE'GLEASON:
This is Judge Gleason, again.
Can I 1
,a 2
get a response from the governments an'd from the Staff on 3
responding to the motion ilimine, please?
4 MR. REIS:- Yes.
The Staff contemplates its response il
'5 will be_on February lith.
t 6
MR. LANPHER:
Judge,Gleason, this is.Mr. Lanpher.
-7
_The governments contemplate their response to be on 8
.Pebruary 8.
9 JUDGE GLEASON:
All right. Can I get a response from=
10 LILCO on the motion to compel?
11 MR. CHRISTMAN:
Yes.
We will answer that in hand 12 delivery by noon on Monday, this coming Monday.
'13 MR. IRWIN:
Judge Gleason, this is Mr. Irwin, also.
O 14 for LILCO.
We would hope that the Intervenors and Staff could 15
'Get their responses on the motion in limine a little sooner i
16 than the 8th and the lith.
I think that the answers to those 17 motions in a lot of respects ought to come in simultaneously I'
18 because they cut along sort of opposite sides of the same 19 issues.
20 The motion in limine provides reasons why,.in.our 21 view, a number of the discovery requests are not pertinent to i
22 issues under litigation.
And, obviously, the motion to compel 23 reflects exactly the flip side of that view.
So, it is 24 probably to the Board's advantage to consider them both 25 simultaneously.
(:)
Heritage Reporting Corporation (202) 628-4888 l
l l.
J 19276
...()
1 MR..LANPHER:
Judge Gleason, this is Mr. Lanpher.
2 Just in brief response to Mr. Irwin.
I understood you just 3
. wanted a date and that is why I didn't provide explanation in 4
response to yecr initial question.
5 JUDGE GLEASON:
Well, I did want a date and I 6
probably could have said and should have said that I wanted the 7
earliest date that we could get.
8 MR. LANPHER:
Judge, we want it to be understood that 9
in normal circumstances we do our best before that.
But there 10 is so much to be filed next week and the following week that is 11 in process that we simply cannot move that up.
We have four 12 filings that are due this coming Monday, February 1.
We have a 13 hospital evacuation response.
We have an -- we have to respond 14 to;LILCO's motion for summary disposition on immateriality.
We 15 have a good faith response in response to the Staff's support 16 for LILCO's motion for summary disposition.
And we have a 17 response to LILCO discovery request. The following Wednesday --
18 JUDGE GLEASON:
Well, Mr. Lanpher, everybody is 19 working very hard in this case and everybody is handling a lot 20 of things.
21 MR. LANPHER:
That is the reason I just want it to be 22 understood that we cannot move up that response without 23 prejudicing our ability to respond thoroughly to the matters 24 which are presented in LILCO's motion absent relief from those l
25 other filing dates.
i ()
Heritage Reporting Corporation (202) 628-4888 l
19277
(_)
1 JUDGE GLEASON:
How about the Staff?
2 MR. REIS:
The Staff doesn't have personnel or staff 3
or attorneys to move up the date.
Again, we just have too much 4
on our plate and with budgetary cuts and such, we cannot move 5
it up.
6 JUDGE GLEASON:
All right.
We are going to go mute 7
here for a few minutes.
8 (The Board confers.)
9 JUDGE GLEASON:
All right. Gentlemen, can you all 10 hear me?
11 MR. LANPHER:
Yes, sir.
12 MR. CUMMING:
Yes, sir.
13 MR. CHRISTMAN:
Yes, sir.
\\>#
14 JUDGE GLEASON:
The members of the Board have put our 15 heads together here a little bit. And it appears to us that a 16 number of factors, particularly the late filing by LILCO, the 17 review of Revision 9 and Revision 9 was just delivered several 18 days ago, and then the filings of the motions to compel and the 19 motion in limine both actually being on file on January 25th 20 are just, frankly, complications in this whole proceeding or at 21 least in connection with discovery schedule.
And that, I 22 guess, we do have to recognize because we are there ourselves.
23 There is a very heavy work schedule on the part of everybody.
24 That it does just fly when you put all those together, there is 25 a compelling reason for some extension.
Heritage Reporting Corporation (202) 628-4888
19278
().
1 However, we don't believe that it justifies because 2
of the issue, itself, an extension of-30 days. So, we grant the 3
- extension of time for discovery until the 19th of February.
4 The close of business on the 19th.
So, that is, in effect, a 5
two-week' extension.
6 We do expect the motions to be responded to that we 7
asked about before on the 1st and on the 8th and on the lith, 8
respectively, because what we will probably do -- I don't want 9
to be held to this, but we will probably give an oral decision 10 on the 12th with respect to those motions and then follow it up 11 with a written memorandum and order.
12 So, does everybody understand what the decision is?
13 MR. REIS:
Yes, Your Honor.
14 JUDGE GLEASON:
There has been a delay by the Board 15 in its PID.on the reception center issue. And, obviously, we 16 are not meeting the January 15th deadline.
And at this time, I 17 just can't provide the date when that decision will be ready.
18 But we recognize that we are behind time limit.
19 All right. That's about all that we care to discuss 20 at this time.
Thank you all.
21 (Whereupon, at 5:35 p.m.,
the telephone conference 22 was concluded.)
23 24 25 O
Heritage Reporting Corporation (202) 628-4888
l' CERTIFICATE 2
OO 3
This is to certify that the attached proceedings before the 4
United States Nuclear Regulatory Commission in the matter of:
5 Name:
ATOMIC SAFETY AND LICENSING BOARD LONG ISLAND LIGHTING COMPANY (Shoreham Nuclear Power Station 6
Unit 1) telephone prehearing conference 7
Docket Number:
50-322-OL-3 8
Place:
Bethesda,. Maryland 9
Date:
January 28, 1988 10 were held as herein appears, and that this is the original 11 transcript thereof for the file of the United States Nuclear 12 Regulatory Commission taken stenographically by me and, 13 thereafter reduced to typewriting by me or under the direction 14 of the court reporting company, and that the transcript is a 15 true and accurate reco/d of th.e fo,regoing /~% proceedings.
{}
16
/S/
1hAA A
2frdM6C Ke'nt Andrews J
17 (Signature typed):
18 Official Reporter 19 Heritage Reporting Corporation 20 21 22 23 24 25
()
Heritage Reporting Corporation (202) 628-4888
--