ML20151F012

Responds to Lilco Response to Govt Motion for Extension of Time to Respond to Realism Discovery Requests & to Extend Discovery Schedule & Request for Addl Relief.Conference Call Not Warranted

ML20151F012
Person / Time
Site:	Shoreham File:Long Island Lighting Company icon.png
Issue date:	04/08/1988
From:	Lanpher L KIRKPATRICK & LOCKHART, NEW YORK, STATE OF
To:	Gleason J, Kline J, Shon F Atomic Safety and Licensing Board Panel
References
CON-#288-6043 OL-3, NUDOCS 8804180042
Download: ML20151F012 (3)

Text

I.}9p3 KIRKPATRICK & LOCKHART soum LOBBY. 9m no0R D C W M ct 12 M $TRIET. N.W.

li sTAn stuit gg TASHINoTON, D c. M4 sr91 Tjj"

'88 APR 12 P5:24 "TA'R,^#,"

m'atam=

i m, mm m oonu nuuce l

"""**""inghTI$bu up umas twer om een OCK

. W ev!N.

""*04'A""*

BRANCW M 85HW (202) 778-9011 April 8, 1988 t

i BY TELECOPY James P. Gleason, Chairman Dr. Jerry R. Kline Frederick J.

Shon i

Atomic Safety and Licensing Doard U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission j

Washington, D.C.

20555 j

Re:

Docket No. 50-322-OL-3

Dear Mr. Chairman and Members of the Board:

Late yesterday Suffolk County received "LILCO's Response to

' Governments' Motion for Extension of Time to Respond to Realism i

Discovery Requests, and to Extend Discovery Schedule' and Request for Additional Relief" ("LILCO's Response").

LILCO's Response raises several new issues (such as a baseless sanctions

-suggestion) which require written response.

The County also intends to respond to LILCO's April 5 Motion.1/

Suffolk County i

can file both such responses early next week.

At this time, the i

County can make the following observations, however.

First, LILCO's Response is one sided in the extreme.

LILCO is itself to blame for the impasse over the depositions LILCO noticed for next week.

notice depositions for 10, people during the week of AprilLILCO waited until late on 11.2_

It is neither reasonable nor fair to assume that the 10 deponents could be contacted, prepared for the depositions, and deposed, all by next Friday -- particularly given the significant amount of other work (schools, EBS, and hospital testimony and OL-5 appeal 1/

LILCO's Motion to Impose Witness Designation Cutoff (April 5, 1988),

2,/

LILCO's deposition "schedulo," announced on April 5, called for deposing two people on April 11, three on April 12, two on April 13, one on April 14, and two on April 15.

8804100042 880408 gDR ADOCK 0500032p j fc3 PDR

e" i

V KIRKPATRICK & LOCKHART i

James P. Gleason, Chairman j

LDr. Jerry R. Kline l

Frederick J. Shon April.8, 1988 Page 2 brief, just t performed.1/ o mention a couple of items) which must be

['

Second,- in a flurry of accusations and rhetoric, LILCO attempts to obscure the one salient fact that most compels the Governments' i

requested discovery extension:

the extension, if granted, is unlikely to affect the completion of hearings significantly, if at all.

The hearings on the other romand issues would still begin on May 16; the Board already has built in a hiatus of at least one week between completion of those hearings and the legal authority / realism hearing;-thus, it is likely that the schedule changes urged by the Governments can be effectuated with no prejudice to any party.

Accordingly, there are good reasons to grant the Governments' requested extension, and there i

is no reason to deny it.

Third, the Board has several options available to it in resolving the present impasse, including the conference call suggested at page 13 of LILCO's Response.

As previously noted, the County believes it would be preferable to file their written response to LILCO's Response prior to the scheduling of a conference call, assuming one is to be held.

Such a response can be filed early next week.

In addition, New York State and Suffolk County intend to file early next week a comprehensive pleading which will address the affirmative case they wish to present on the legal authority / realism issues, and which will place LILCO's discovery-related motions in proper context.

The County believes that, given the fact that a brief delay until next week in ruling on the dispute will certainly have no impact on the ultimate

(

resolution of the legal authority / realism issues, the best course would be for the Board to await the filings early next week before a conference call is held or any rulings are issued.

Accordingly, the County does not believe a conference call should i

i i

l i

d/

The County emphasizes that it does not concede that any of

[

i the depositions noticed by LILCO are proper.

The County does not i

intend to call any of the noticed persons as witnesses.

Indeed, Mr. Guido, whose deposition was noticed for April 11, is the new Suffolk County Police Commissioner.

However, he will not even be I

sworn in as Police Commissioner until April 11, the very day of j

his noticed deposition.

Under these circumstances, it is difficult even to imagine what possible benefit could be derived from such a deposition.

i

o KIRKPATRICK & LOCKHART

=

James P. Gleason, Chairman Dr. Jerry R. Kline Frederick J. Shon April 8, 1988 Page 3 be held today, or prior to the filing of responses to LILCg's Response and April 5 Motion, if one is to be held at all.1/

Sincerely, M KCL C904/2 Lawrence Coe Lanpher cc:

Donald P. Irwin, Esq. (by telecopy)

Edwin J. Reis, Esq. (by telecopy)

Richard J. Zahnleuter, Esq. (by telecopy)

Stephen B. Latham, Esq.

William R. Cumming, Esq.

Docketing and Service ASLB Panel 1/

In any event, the County would not be able to participate in a conference call today until af ter 4:00 p.m. due to prior out-of-the of fice obligations of the pertinent attorneys.

We are also aware that Mr. Zahnleuter, counsel for New York State, is scheduled to be in his office today.

not

_