ML20155E175
| ML20155E175 | |
| Person / Time | |
|---|---|
| Site: | Shoreham File:Long Island Lighting Company icon.png |
| Issue date: | 06/10/1988 |
| From: | Atomic Safety and Licensing Board Panel |
| To: | |
| References | |
| CON-#288-6556 OL-3, NUDOCS 8806160017 | |
| Download: ML20155E175 (20) | |
Text
<
b i
U v
O UNITED 3TATES NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSION l
In the Matter of:
l LONG ISLAND LIGHTING COMPANY
)
)
Docket No.
(Shoreham Nuclear Power Station,
)
50-322-OL-3 Unit 1)
)
Remand / Emergency Planning TELEPHONE CONFERENCE O
i l
Pages:
20845 through 20862 l
Place:
Washington, D.C.
Date:
June 10, 1988
-........... = = = = = = = = = = = = = =. - = = = = = = = = = = = = = = =
1e HERITAGE REPORTING CORPORATION O
owam 1229 L Street, N.W., Sake det WasMagtoe, D.C. 20005 l
l (282) 628-4888 8806160017 880610 PDR ADOCK 05000322 i
nrn
20845 1
UNITED STATES NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSION ATOMIC SAFETY AND LICENSING BOARD To Ttl 3
In the Matter of:
)
4
)
LONG ISLAND LIGHTING COMPANY
)
Docket Nos.
5 (Shoreham Nuclear Power
)
50-322-OL-3 Station Unit 1)
)
Remand / Emergency 6
)
Planning
.)
PLANNING 7
v'
)
TELECONFERENCE 8
9
- Friday, 10 June 10, 1988 11 Room 447 4350 East-West Towers, 12 Bethesda, Maryland 13 The above-entitled matter came on for hearing, 14 pursuant to notice, at 11:30 a.n..
r3 15 BEFORE:
HONORABLE JAMES P.GLEASON, Chairman k)
Atomic Safety and Licensing Board m
16 U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission Washington, D.C.
20555 17 JUDGE FREDERICK SHON, MEMBER 18 Atomic Safety and Licensing Board U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission l
19 Washington, D.C.
20555 20 JUDGE DR. JERRY KLINE, MEMBER Atomic Safety and Licensing Board l
21 U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission Washington, D.C.
20555 22 23 24 l
25 Heritage Reporting Corporation (202) 628-4888
b 20846 1
APPEARANCES:
gs 2
On behalf of the NRC Staff C
3 EDWIN J.
RESI, ESQ.
MITZI YOUNG, ESQ.
4 DICK BACHMANN, ESQ.
LISA CLARK, ESQ.
5 Nuclear Regulatory Commission Washington, D.C.
20555 6
On behalf of Long Island Lighting Company:
7 DONALD P.
IRWIN, ESQ.
8 K. DENNIS SISK, ESQ.
JAMES N. CHRISTMAN, ESQ.
9 Hunton and Williams 707 East Main Street, P.O. Box 1535 10 Richmond, Virginia 23212 11 On behalf of Suffolk County:
12 LAWRENCE COE LANPHER, ESQ.
CHRISTOPHER MCMURRAY, ESQ.
13 HERBERT BROWN, ESQ.
Kirkpatrick and Lockhart 14 South Lobby - 9th Floor 1800 M Street, N.W.
' ~g 15 Washington, D.C.
20036 (J
\\
16 On behalf of New York State:
17 RICHARD ZAHNLEUTER, ESQ.
Deputy Special Counsel to the Gorernor 18 Executive Chambers Capital, Room 229 19 On behalf of FEMA:
20 GEORGE WATSON, ESQ.
21 Federal Emergency Management Agency Washington, D.C.
20972 22 23 24 25 Heritage Reporting Corporation (202) 628.4888
20847 1
PROCEEDINGS 2
JUDGE GLEASON:
All right.
This is Judge Gleason.
3 We have a telephone conference which has been requested by 4
LILCO to be called in connection with a discovery dispute.
And 5
we also have filed with us this morning a -- filed a pleading 6
by the Intervenors which is titled "Government's notice that 7
the Board has precluded continuation of the CLI-86-13 remand."
8 I have Judge Shon and Judge Kline with me.
The 9
conference, as I indicated, is being recorded and please make 10 your appearances noted for the record, starting with LILCO, 11 then the staff, then FEMA, and then Suffolk County and then the 12 State of New York, please.
13 MR. IRWIN:
Judge Gleason and members of the Board, 14 this is Don Irwin.
With me also are James Christman and Dennis 15 Sisk.
{}
16 MR. REIS:
This is Mr. Reis, NRC staff with me are 17 Mitzi Young, Richard Bachmann, and Lisa Clark.
18 MR. WATSON:
This is George Watson, I'm representing 19 FEMA, and I am here by myself.
20 MR. LANPHER:
Lawrence Lanpher representing Suffolk 21 County, Herbert H.
Brown and Christopher McMurray are present 22 also.
l 23 MR. ZAHNLEUTER:
This is Richard Zahnleuter l
24 representing Governor Cumono and the State of New York.
25 JUDGE GLEASON:
All right, gentlemen, I think, as I Heritage Reporting Corporation (202) 628-4888
20848 1
view the filing by the governments, by the Intervenors that 2
that filing takes kind of precedence over the matters of 3
discovery, because in effect as we interpret it, it's a motion 4
which consists of their indication of a refut+al to proceed with 5
the Board's orders on discovery of the realism issues.
6 Does that interpretation meet with your intent, Mr.
7 Lanpher?
8 MR. LANPHER:
This is Larry Lanpher, Judge Gleason.
9 Your interpretation does not meet with our staff, let me 10 clarify two things.
The filing does speak for itself in a 11 large part.
It is our view that the Board has structured the 12 proceeding in a manner so that the proceeding itself cannot go 13 forward.
We would like to clarify that it is our view that 14 none of the depositions on the so-called best effort matter i
15 should proceed.
{}
16 There might be some ambiguity with respect to 17 Executive Halpin and State Health Director Axelrad.
We believe 18 that ineofar as relevant to this proceeding they have been i
19 fully deposed, Judge Gleason.
20 They could be produced for further deposition, if 21 necessary, but we believe that --
22 JUDGE GLEASON:
Excuse me a minute.
Do we have l
i 23 another voice coming in here?
l 24 MR. LANPHER:
Not from our phone, Judge Gleason.
25 JUDGE GLEASON:
Well, is somebody else attempting to i
l Heritage Reporting Corporation l
(202) 628-4888 l
i l
20849 1
speak at this point?
f-2 (No response)
()g 3
JUDGE GLEASON:
All right, proceed, Mr. Lanpher.
4 MR. LANPHER:
I'm sorry, Judge Gleason.
5 So we do not agree with your characterization.
I 6
would like to clarify one other matter, that in our view thet 7
the so-called emergency broadcast system issue and the best 8
effort issue are separable matters, and at the appropriate time 9
I will address that EDS discovery matter unless you would 10 prefer me to go farward on that at this time as well.
11 MR. ZAHNLEUTER:
This is Richard Zahnleuter.
I agree 12 with the things that Mr. Lanpher has stated and reiterate that 13 Dr. Axelrad be produced for further deposition.
14 But I would like to state that it would not be 15 productive that the position on the LILCO, that is that the
{~'}
16 state does not interface with LILCO --
17 JUDGE GLEASON:
We can't hear you, Mr. Zahnleuter.
18 MR. ZAHNLEUTER:
This is Richard Zahnleuter, and I 19 will try to speak up again.
I stated that I am in agreement 20 with the things that Mr. Lanpher has stated.
And I would also 21 like to reiterate that Dr. Axelrad could be produced for 22 further deposition, although depositions would not be l
23 productive because, as stated -- as the Governor has stated 24 that the State of New York will not interface with LILCO.
j 25 But that Dr. Axelrad would be available for further l
l l
Heritage Reporting Corporation (202) 628-4888 l
C) i l
~.
20850 1
depositions.
2 JUDGE GLEASON:
Well, Mr. Lanpher, I really don't
^
3 understand your comments.
It seems to me, and it seems to the 4
members of the Board that you're really rearguing or attempting 5
to reargue the interpretation of the new rule which was given 6
guidance to you by the Board on February 28th and April the 7
6th, I believe, or April the 8th.
8 But it clearly seems to us that this is a motion that 9
says you do not intend to proceed with discovery.
And you say 20 that that's not your intent and I just don't understand that.
11 So maybe you could elucidate a bit more for me.
12 MR. LANPHER:
Judge Gleason, I have attempted to be 13 as clear as I can be.
I think iou are right in one of the 14 things you say in that, this impasse this meeting is in at this
{}
15 time does result from the Board's application of the new rule.
16 It does result from the Board's seeming willingness to proceed 17 with discovery in other matter regarding what this so-called 18 LILCO interface procedure.
And the testimony of Mr. Halpin and 19 affidavits going back several years make absolutely clear that 20 there will be no interface, Judge Gleason.
21 And it would be inconsistent with the sovereign 22 decision of the government for this proceeding to go forward in 23 the context of the Board's structuring it to ignore the 24 decision of the government.
25 JUDGE GLEASON:
Well, let me hear from you, Mr.
lieritage Reporting Corpcration (202) 628-4888
t W,
- 20051 1
Irwin, please.
4 2
MR. IRWIN:
Judge Gleason, LILCO understands the 3
paper filed this morning by Intervenors in much the same way 4
the Board does.
I should note parenthetically that about 20 5
minutes ago we sent a very brief letter to the Board from the 6
parties by telecopier which may not have arrived.
It simply is 7
an agenda, item one of which was that, we understand the county 8
and state pleading as apparently indicating that they do not 9
intend with respect to Messrs. Halpin and Axelrad to proceed 10 with the discovery ordered by the Board.
11 We believe that the county and state have exactly two 12 choices in this proceeding.
One is to proceed under rules and 13 orders which are ordered by the presiding tribunal or to 14 dismiss their own contentions with prejudice.
We don't think 15 they can have it both ways.
We frankly think they're trying to
{}
16 and trying to put the onus on the Board for enforcing the 17 orders that is issued and tne rules of the Commission.
18 We don't think that the position outlined in their i
19 paper this morning has anything new.
We agree that it is an 20 attempt to reargue arguments they have made and lost twice 21 before since the issuance of the new rule.
22 So we're prepared, if the county wish to proceed, 23 with taking the depositions which we have requested and which 24 the Board has ordered and to do it promptly.
If they don't, we 25 think that there is -- different censequences will follow which l
lieritage Reporting Corporation (202) 628-4888 m
c
,,w--
,,. - - - - - - -, ~ - - +,
-,p,,
-w
.-e--
-e---e 4m,-----,
20852 1
we should explore, as the county illuminates the case, r~S 2
JUDGE GLEASON:
Well, if I understand Mr. Lanpher he L'
3 refuses to proceed with those depositions.
Isn't that correct, 4
Mr. Lanpher?
5 MR. LANPHER:
What I stated, Judge Gleason, is we do 6
not believe any of the depositions can go forward at this time.
7 However, with respect to Mr. Halpin and Mr. Axelrad, since they 8
have sponsored testimony in the proceeding, and we believe that 9
they have been thoroughly questioned on the issues that are 10 pertinent, those depositions could be scheduled.
11 MR. ZAHNLEUTER:
This is Richard Zahnleuter.
And I 12 agree with Mr. Lanpher's statement.
13 JUDGE GLEASON:
All right.
14 MR. IRWIN:
This is Mr. Irwin.
Obviously, we do not
{}
15 agree with county and state.
There's a production of the 16 Suffolk County emergency operations plan, among other things, 17 made undoubtedly clear that there is a county plan which is 18 very much like a directory of services, which our plan can be 19 plugged in.
20 And I would like Mr. Sisk to address for the record 21 the nature of the effort we have undertaken which led to this 22 impasse, just so they're clear on the record this morning.
23 JUDGE GLEASON:
Mr. Sisk?
24 MR. SISX:
Yes, Judge Gleason, I just wanted to 25 indicate 'rery briefly, I don't think there's any point in Heritage Reporting Corporation (202) 628-4888
20853 1
rehashing all of the correspondence that we have sont to'the 2
Board.
But it is LILCO's position, as Mr. Irwin stated, that 3
the Intervenors' choices are two.
They any either withdraw 4
their contentions with prejudice which they decline to do in 5
the pleading this morning or they must comply with the Board's 6
orders.
7 The Board's orders date back to the beginning of the 8
realism remand, and the orders ordering many of the depositions 9
we have noted date back to April 11.
They were reconfirmed on 10 April J3.
Partially reconfirmed of the Halpin and Axelred on 11 May 10.
Reordered again, in the Board's order of I believe May 12 24 or 26.
13 And it is our view that the onus is on the county to 14 say either they will comply with those Board's orders or they
(]}
15 refuse to comply with those Board's orders.
We need a straight 16 answer to that question.
And we don't believe that the county 17 and the state could shift that on the Board to provide that 18 answer.
19 JUDGE GLEASON:
A31 right.
Could we hear from you, 20 Mr. Reis, please.
21 MR. REIS:
Yes.
I think we have already heard from 22 the county and they have said what they would do.
We before 23 said that the action in cutting off the depositions of Halpin 24 and Axelrad were contzary to the rules of this agency and its 25 Licensing Board.
Heritage Reporting Corporation (202) 628-4888 O
ca
ry 20854 1
'We have also said what relief should be given to 2
that.
They have now offered to make them available again, but 3
refuse to go forward with other discovery which has been asked-4 for, which this Board indicated was proper.
5 I think in these circumstances the Board is faced 6
with a situation of applying the Commission's guidance, 13 NRC 7
with a statement of policy on the conduct of Licensing 8
hearings.
And at this point it is incumbent upon the Board to 9
take action under that guidance of the Commission.
10 Thank you.
11 JUDGE GLEASON:
All right.
12 Mr. Watson, do you care to get into this record?
13 MR. WATSON:
No, sir, I have no comment at this time, 14 Your Honor.
I
()
15 MR. BROWN:
Judge Gleason, this is Herbert Brown, I l
ss 16 would like to respond and actually to make clear our position 17 in the face of what I've just heard.
18 JUDGB GLEASCN:
All right.
19 MR. BROWN:
The word "refusal" is not an appropriate 20 one, Judge Gleason, nor is it a matter of our speaking to shift 21 burdens and the whole conversation about who's trying to blame 22 whom; it's not appropriate at this point.
23 Our position is simply this, the position of the 24 government of Suffolk County, and I believe tr New York shares 25 the same one, it's categorically that there will not be an t
1 i
Heritage Reporting Corporation (202) 628-4888 S
20855 1
interface with the Long Island Lighting Company.
That there t'
2 categorically, absolutely will not be an interface which has t
3.
been expressed repeateoly in legally sustained documents upheld 4
by NRC, the fed 7ral courts, Second Circuit Court of Appeals, 5
the highest court of the State of New York.
We cannot.
We are 6
categorically and inherently precluded from having witnesses 7
sit on -- in a deposition or on a witness stand explaining how 8
there will be such an interface and providing substance to the 9
interface which categorically will not be.
10 It's just an application of logic, that it is 11 absolutely impossible and we are precluded from going forward, t
12 So we're not speaking to blame the Board for anything.
We're 13 not speaking to blame LILCO or anybody else.
We're speaking to 14 bring just a simplicity of reason to bear and to put before the i
f')
15 Board the fact that we cannot put our people to discuss how v
16 they will do that which they categorically will not do.
17 And the effort and suggestions of LILCO, that this is 18 some matter of simplicity and forcing some rule or sanction l
19 against us is completely out of place.
There's an l
l 20 impossibility that we're all confronting at this point.
I 21 MR. SISK:
Judge Gleason, if I may, this is Mr. Sisk 22 again, respond very briefly.
I have been involved in and in 23 fact have been the lead litigator on virtually all of the cases 24 that we, Mr. Brown is referring to in the state and federal l
25 court.
l l
Heritage Reporting Corporation fg (202) 628-4888 U
l
20856 1
I categorically disagree with his suggestion that the 2
county and state are legally precluded from implementing the V,e s 3
LILCO plan or interfacing with LILCO in responding to an 4
emergency.
5 I will not, unless the Board requests it, elaborate 6
on my reasons for that, but I believe that is categorically 7
incorrect.
8 MR. BROWN:
Well, I simply want to respond to say 9
that the Second Circuit Court of Appeals found that the 10 resolutions to the county in which we determine not to follow i
11 including the LILCO's plan would fall in that category, were 12 constitutional within our bellof and power.
13 And since that was the finding of the government, and 14 those governments control what they do for themselves, they are
[}
15 bound by their own law.
And the employees 4 the government l
16 are bound by that law.
17 And accordingly, when I say the employees of this 18 government of Suffolk County, and in the case of the state, the l
19 state government cannot do this.
I'm speaking correctly.
20 JUDGE GLEASON:
Well, Mr. Brown, let me ask you, are 21 they bound by the emergency plan that surfaced last week i'n 22 these proceedings which is titled "The Suffolk County Emergency
(
j 23 Plan?"
24 MR. BROWN:
Oh, Judge Gleason, the resolution of 25 Suffolk County is that there is no emergency plan whatsoever Heritage Reporting Corporation (202) 628-4888 g-)s
'u i
i
20857 '
1 for the Shoreham Nuclear Powerplant.
The Suffolk County 2
decided after its census analyses, which I won't restate here 3
because they have been before the Board for some time, that 4
they would neither adopt nor implement our plans for Shoreham 5
because they found that it would not be possible.
6 JUDGE GLEASON:
Mr. Brown, you're answering a 7
question I didn't ask.
I asked you a simple question, are the 8
Suffolk County employees bound to comply with that Suffolk 9
County emergency plan that surfaced in these proceedings last 10 week.
11 MR. BROWN:
The answer with respect to Shoreham is 12 no.
13 MR. REIS:
Mr. Chairman.
14 JUDGE GLEASON:
Who is this?
Who just indicated Mr.
15 Chairman.
16 MR. REIS:
Mr. Reis.
17 JUDGE GLEASON:
All right.
Ye, have to identify 18 yourself.
Proceed, Mr. Reis.
i 19 MR. REIS:
I want to say that I just heard the county e
20 say we will categorically not do this and it is an 21 impossibility.
When I look at discovery and the discovery that l
l 22 they had refused to allow us to go forward, a testing of l
23 whether those statements are so.
24 Currently the statements and the background for it of 1
25 what can be done and what can't be done borders that should be Heritage Reporting Corporation (202) 628-4888
20858 1
examined in discovery.
And it is that which they are refusing 2
to do.
3-Therefore, whether ultimately -- categorically cannot 4
do it or whether there is an impossibility is a question we're 5
not faced with right now.
We're faced with a question of 6
whether discovery should go forward and their refusal to have l
7 discovery go forward.
You don't have to get to the merits of l'
l 8
this, it's strictly a procedural mat'er.
9 JUDGE GLEASON:
All right.
Just hang with us a
- 1. 0 minute, I'm going to discuss with members of the Board.
.)
11 MR. ZAMNLEUTER:
Excuse me, Judge Gleason.
12 JUDGE GLEASON:
Yes.
\\
13 MR. ZAHNLEUTER:
This is Richard Zahnleuter, and I i
14 feel compelled to state for the record that the State of New 15 York takes the same position as stated by Mr. Brown.
(' }
l 16 JUDGE GLEASON:
Mr. Zahnleuter.
l 17 MR. ZAHNLEUTER:
Yes.
18 JUDGE GLEASON:
May I suggest in the future, because, 19 you know, I really view you parties as having identity of 20 interest, unless there's somethino you want to add that is 21 different than what Suffolk County attorneys represent, you 22 really don't have to add in your concurrence to it, it is just 23 assumed.
24 MR. ZAHNLEUTER:
I feel compelled to do that because 25 if all we have, an identity of interest, we do not have an i
I i
l Heritage Reporting Corporation (202) 628-4888 l
l l
20858 1
examined in discovery.
And it is that which they are refusing rm 2
to do.
)%.)
3 Therefore, whether ultimately -- categorically cannot 4
do it or whether there is an impossibility is a question we're 5
not faced with right now.
We're faced with a question of 6
whether discovery should go forward and their refusal to have 7
discovery go forward.
You don't have to get to the merits of 8
this, it's etrictly a procedural matter.
9 JUDGE GLEASON:
All right.
Just hang with us a 10 minute, I'm going to discuss with members of the Board.
11 MR. ZAHNLEUTER:
Excuse me, Judge Gleason.
12 JUDGE GLEASON:
Yes.
'13 MR. ZAHNLEUTER:
This is Richard Zahnleuter, and I 14 feel compelled to state for the record that the State of New
{}
15 York takes the same position as stated by Mr. Brown.
16 JUDGE GLEASON:
Mr. Zahnleuter.
17 MR. ZAHNLEUTER:
Yes.
18 JUDGE GLEASON:
May I suggest in the future, because, 19 you know, I really view you parties as having identity of 20 interest, unless there's something you want to add that is 21 different than what Suffolk County attorneys represent, you 22 really don't have to add in your concurrence to it, it is just 23 assumed.
24 MR. ZAHNLEUTER:
I feel compelled to do that because 25 if all we have, an identity of interest, we do not have an Heritage Reporting Corporation (202) 628-4888 i
20859 L
1 identity of counsel; and Mr. Brown is not permitted to speak on rT 2
behalf ~of the State of New York unless I so cuthorize.
And in U
3 this case I have not done that.
4 But I would also like to add that the people who 5
LILCO seek tc depose who are state employees are indeed bound 6
by the policy established by the governor, and the governor 7
through Dr. Axelrad is the only person who is lawfully 8
authorized to formulate t' Tat kind of a policy.
9 JUDGE GLEASON:
All right.
Proceed as you will.
I 10 tried to advise you, but you proceed as you want to.
11 Just stay with us a minute and we'll be back.
12 MR. SISK:
Judge Gleason.
13 JUDGE GLEASON:
Yes.
14 MR. SISK:
I'm sorry, this is Dennis Sisk.
I wish to
()
15 make just one further note, if I might, in response to Mr.
16 Brown and specifically to the decision of the Second Circuit 17 that he referred to.
That decision was in the form of a case 18 called Orderly Energy Policy versus Suffolk County.
The 19 holding of the case was that the County was not compelled by 1
20 federal law to adopt a specific emergency plan for Shoreham.
21 That's the limitation of the holding.
l 22 There was nothing in that holding that precludes the 23 county from doing anything in response to an emergency when it 24 actually occurs.
And there is nothing in that opinion that t
25 addresses state law.
I Heritage Reporting Corporation (202) 628-4888 3
l
~)
l
20060 1
In fact, state law under Article 2(b), section 25 2
specifically requires the county executive to use all resources 3
and capabilities of the county at his disposal to respond to 4-any emergency in the county including radiological --
5 JUDGP, GLEASON:
Mr. Sisk, the Board has read those 6
cases.
It's familiar with the state law.
And please, can the 7
Board push the mute button here so it can talk to each other, 8
Thank you.
9 (Board conferring.)
10 JUDGE GLEASON:
Mr. Lanpher or Mr. Brown, we're back; 11 are you all there.
12 MR. BROWN:
Yes, sir.
13 JUDGE GLEASON:
The Board really would like an answer 14 to a very simple question.
You know, we're reaffirming, l
l
(}
15 although there's no necessity for us to do so, our previous 16 order with respect to discovery.
And the question is, are you 17 or are you not going to comply with that discovery order of the 18 Board; that is the question and it's either a, yes a no.
19 MR. BROWN:
That you will get a, yes or no, Judge 20 Gleason, with all due respect the characterization of the 21 question is one that doesn't reflect the reality of the fact 22 for this reason.
23 JUDGE GLEASON:
Well, that is the reality of my 24 question, though.
The Board has an order.
l l
25 MR. BROWN:
You will get an answer, but I have to Heritage Reporting Corporation (202) 628-4888 e-bg l
l
20861 1
frame the situation.
It is not one of the -- an issue of the r~
2 Board issuing an order and our standing before the Board and V) 3 saying, we don't like the order of the Board and thus we won't 4
respond.
It's that the order is asking us to do that which is 5
impossible to do.
We cannot, given the legal fouridation --
6 JUDGE GLEASON:
Mr. Brown -- this~1s Mr. Brown, isn't 7
it, that's just been talking?
8 MR. BROWN:
That's correct.
9 JUDGE GLEASON:
Well, you know, we interpret that as 10 saying you're not going to comply with our order, so let us go 11 off the record here for another minute and we'll be back.
12 Thank you.
13 (Board conferring.)
14 JUDGE GLEASON:
All right, this is Judge Gleason back
(]}
15 again.
Is everybody in attendance?
16 MR. REIS:
NRC here.
17 MR. IRWIN:
Long Island here, t
18 MR. LANPHER:
Suffolk County.
19 MR. ZAHNLEUTER:
State is here.
20 MR. WATSON:
FEMA here.
21 JUDGE GLEASON:
All right.
Did I hear from Mr.
22 Zahnleuter?
23 MR. ZAHNLEUTER:
Yes, I should have spoken up later, 24 I think.
The State is present.
25 JUDGE GLEASON:
Just teasing.
Heritage Reporting Corporation
~)
(202) 628-4888
~-
20862 1
The Board interprets the Intervenors' motion as a
(-)
2 refusal to proceed with the Board's orders on discovery of the U
3 realism issues.
Discovery goes much beyond interface.
4 It will issue an order as soon as possible to deal 5
with this situation.
Under the Commission's policies for the 6
conduct of License proceedings, the Board will have no 7
alternative except to impose appropriate sanctions against the 8
Intervenors.
That sanction will consist of either dismissing 9
the realism contentions from the proceeding with or without 10 prejudice or find the Intervenors in default and rule on tiv 11 contentions in LILCO's favor.
l 12 In either of that, the Board intends to retain 13 jurisdiction over the discovery issues concerning the recent 14 availability of the so-called Suffolk County Emergency Plan.
l
[]}
15 However, prior to issuing its orders on this matter, 16 the Board will receive from the parties responses to its 17 proposed action by the close of business on June 15th.
18 And that's the Board's finding, gentlemen.
And we can'tsayanythingfurther,sowewillconc1hdetheconference l
19 l
20 at this point.
l 21 Thank you.
l 22 (Whereupon, at 12:05 p.m.
the telephone conference i
23 was concluded.)
24 25 l
Heritage Reporting Corporation l
(202) 628-4888 l
l
[
1 CERTIFICATE 2
g3 V
3 This is to certify that the attached proceedings before the 4
United States Nuclear Regulatory Commission in the matter of:
5 Name:
LONG ISLAND LIGHTING COMPANY (Shoreham Nuclear Power Station, Unit i) 6 7
Docket Number:
50-322-OL-3 8
Place:
Washington, D.C.
.F Date:
June 10, 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 1
()
15 true and accurate record of the foregoing proceedings.
16
/S/
h h
17 (Signature typed):
Joan Rose 18 Official Reporter 19 Heritage Reporting Corporation 20 21 22 23 l
l 24 25 O
Heritage Reporting Corporation (202) 628-4888 l
_