ML20206U293
| ML20206U293 | |
| Person / Time | |
|---|---|
| Site: | Shoreham File:Long Island Lighting Company icon.png |
| Issue date: | 04/21/1987 |
| From: | NRC COMMISSION (OCM) |
| To: | |
| References | |
| CON-#287-3263 OL-3, NUDOCS 8704230368 | |
| Download: ML20206U293 (23) | |
Text
0RIGilWa O
UN11ED STATES NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSION IN THE MATTER OF:
DOCKET NO:
LONG ISLAND LIGHTING COMPANY (Shoreham Nuclear Power Station, Unit 1) 0 LOCATION:
WASHINGTON, D. C.
PAGES: 17348 - 17368 DATE:
TUESDAY, APRIL 21, 1987 TR. o/
fpfuynfcrhCkk/n
/
rvic s
//?/-
St.
ACE-FEDERAL REPORTERS, INC.
OfficialReporters 444 North CapitolStreet Washington, D.C. 20001 0704230368 8704p1 (202)347 3700 PDR hoock 0 0003p; T
pC4 NATIONWIDE COVERACE
17348 CR30648.0 COX/sjg 1
UNITED STATES OF AMERICA zm
(
)
~
2 NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSION BEFORE THE ATOMIC SAFETY AND LICENSING BOARD 3
- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -x 4
In the Matter of:
5 LONG ISLAND LIGHTING COMPANY Docket No. 50-322-OL-3 6
(Shoreham Nuclear Power Station, Unit 1) 7
- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -x 8
9 Ace-Federal Reporters, Inc.
Suite 402 10 444 North Capitol Street Washington, D.
C.
11 Tuesday, April 21, 1987 13 The telephone conference in the above-entitled matter 14 convened at 2:05 p.m.
15 BEFORE:
16 JUDGE MORTON B. MARGULIES, Chairman Atomic Safety & Licensing Board 17 U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission Washington, D. C.
20555 18 JUDGE JERRY R.
KLINE, Member 19 Atomic Safety & Licensing Board U.S.
Nuclear Regulatory Commission Washington, D.
C.
20555 JUDGE FREDERICK J.
SIIO N, Member 21 Atomic Safety & Licensing Board U.S.
Nuclear Regulatory Commission 22 Washington, D. C.
20555 23
()
24 25 I
ACE. FEDERAL REPORTERS, INC.
202 347-3700 Nationwide Cmcrape No-3 % fM6
17349 1
APPEARANCES:
/L.)i 2
On behalf of the Applicant:
3 JAMES CHRISTMAN, ESQ.
DONALD P.
IRWIN, ESQ.
4 KATHY E.
B.
McCLESKEY, ESQ.
Hunton & Williams 5
707 East Main Street Richmond, Virginia 23212 6
On behalf of Suffolk County:
LAWRENCE COE LANPHER, ESQ.
8 KARLA J.
LETSCHE, ESQ.
CHRISTOPHER M. McMURRAY, ESQ.
9 Kirkpatrick & Lockhart South Lobby, Ninth Floor 1800 M Street, N.W.
10 Washington, D.
C.
20036-5891 11 On behalf of FEMA:
12 r^3 WILLIAM R.
CUMMING, ESQ.
(_)
13 Federal Emergency Management Agency 500 C Street, S.W.
14 Washington, D.
C.
20472 15 On behalf of teh State of New York:
16 RICHARD J.
ZAHNLEUTER, ESQ.
17 Deputy Special Counsel to the Governor Executive Chamber 18 Capitol, Room 229 Albany, New York 12224 20 On behalf of NRC:
21 EDWIN J.
REIS, ESQ.
U.S.
Nuclear Regulatory Commission Washington, D.
C.
20555 22 23 25 ace-FEDERAL REPORTERS, INC.
202 347 3700 Nationwide Cmerage 800-336-6646
30648.0 17350 e)cox L) 1 ERoCgED1NGE 2
JUDGE MARGULIES:
This is Judge Margulies.
With 3
me is Judge Kline.
This conference call is being reported 4
verbatim.
Would the parties participating please give their 5
names for the record.
We will start with the Applicants.
6 MR. CHRISTMAN:
Yes, sir this is Jim Christman for 7
the Applicant.
I believe also on the line is Don Irwin.
8 MR. IRWIN:
That's correct.
Kathy McCleskey is, 9
also with me, Judge Margulies.
10 JUDGE MARGULIES:
Fine.
Intervenors.
11 MR. MC MURRAY:
Yes, sir, for Suffolk County.
12 This is Christopher McMurray.
With me is Lawrence C.
J 13 Lanpher.
I believe also on the line is Karla J.
Letsche.
14 MR. ZAHNLEUTER:
This is Richard Zahnleuter 15 representing the state of New York.
16 JUDGE MARGULIES:
We can't hear you very well, 17 Mr. Zahnleuter.
Could you please speak up the next time or 18 attempt to.
19 MR. ZAHNLEUTER:
Okay.
I am pretty close to where 20 Judge Shon is.
Would it be all right if I tried to step out 21 and see what is the' problem?
22 JUDGE MARGULIES:
I would appreciate that.
23 MR. ZAHNLEUTER:
I will put the phone down now and 24 go try to find them.
25 JUDGE MARGULIES:
Thank you very much.
(
ACE FEDERAL REPORTERS, INC.
202-347-3700 Nationwide Coserage 80lb336-6M6
30648.0 17351 g Scox
(-)
1 MR. REIS:
This is Mr. Reis for the Staff, Edwin 2
Reis.
3 MR. CUMMING:
William Cumming for counsel for I
4 FEMA.
l l
5 JUDGE MARGULIES:
Thank you.
We have all of your l
6 appearances.
I got a call this morning from Mr. Reis.
He 7
advised me that the parties wanted to hold a conference call 8
on the matter of holding the hearing in regard to the 9
emergency planning OL-3 proceeding.
I mentioned to him that 10 we do have Suffolk County and the state of New York's motion 11 for rescheduling of location center hearing for completion of 12 the exercise of litigation.
The board does not take any p_('J 13 action on the motion, because there was no request for 14 expedited handling.
We were going to wait until we received 15 a response or responses in the normal time frame, in that it 16 is parties want a fast determination, we are prepared to hear 17 the matter and to dispose of it, possibly today.
18 MR. ZAHNLEUTER:
Excuse me, Judge Margulies, this 19 is Richard Zahnleuter.
Judge Shon is in the next room.
He 20 is waiting by a phone number and he is eager to participate.
21 I have a phone number where he can be reached back.
22 JUDGE MARGULIES:
Would you please give it to me.
23 MR. ZAHNLEUTER:
(516) 360-6538.
24 JUDGE MARGULIES:
That is the number that we r-25 attempted to get him at, and the operator said she could not
(
ACE FEDERAL REPORTERS, INC.
202-347-3700 Nationwide Coserage 800-336-M>46
30648.0 17352
,q cox v/
1 reach him at that number.
2 MR. ZAHNLEUTER:
Should I ask him to find another 3
phone and get back to you with another number?
j 4
JUDGE MARGULIES:
That would be helpful.
Thank 5
you.
j 6
MR. ZAHNLEUTER:
Would you please hold this 7
conference in abeyance, then, while I put the phone down?
8 JUDGE MARGULIES:
Yes.
9 MR. ZAHNLEUTER:
Thank you, I will be quick.
10 MR. MC MURRAY:
Judge Margulies, this is not a 11 substantive matter.
This is Chris McMurray.
I just wanted 12 to correct something.
In our cover letter to you of April
\\J 13 13, which accompanies our testimony, we did ask for expedited 14 consideration of our motion.
You are right, though, it l
15 wasn't in the motion, and I am sorry if there was any 16 confusion.
17 JUDGE MARGULIES:
That evidently explains it.
We 16 saw the motion directly didn't have anything in it and 19 decided to handle it the way we did.
20 MR. MC MURRAY:
Thanks.
21 JUDGE MARGULIES:
I do want to make mention to the 22 parties about something not concerning the matter we are to 23 discuss here today.
It's the matter of our telefax machine.
24 Our telefax machine is one floor below and at one time it 25 used to have someone to man it.
At the present time, there
{})
u ACE-FEDERAL REPORTERS, INC.
202-347-3700 Nationwide Coverage 800-336-6M6
30648.0 scox 17353
~ u.)
1 is no one to man it, and they put it in a room with some 2
Xerox machinery.
So for all intents and purposes, it isn't 3
working.
So it would appear that it is not really a viable 4
option in your filings with the board, and we are really 5
dependent upon hard copy.
We are trying to get the matter 6
straightened out as quickly as possible.
When it will occur, 7
I don't know, but we will let you know as soon as possible.
8 MS. LETSCHE:
Hello, this is Kit Letsche.
Russ 9
Pirfo just walked by and asked that I tell Mr. Reis, on his 10 behalf, that he is not on the line.
He couldn't find a 11
. phone.
12 MR. REIS:
Thank you.
13 MR. ZAHNLEUTER:
This is Richard Zahnleuter.
14 Judge Shon has another number to try.
15 JUDGE MARGULIES:
Okay.
16 MR. ZAHNLEUTER:
It's (516) 360-6539.
17 JUDGE MARGULIES:
Fine.
We will get started in 18 just a few seconds.
Judge Kline is giving that information 19 to my secretary, and she will try to get Judge Shon patched 20 in.
21 MR. ZAHNLEUTER:
This is --
22 JUDGE MARGULIES:
We will get spellings at the end 23 of the conference call and we will go on as Judge Shon gets 24 on the line.
Do Intervenors have anything they wish to add 25 to the motion as submitted?
O~.
ACE FEDERAt. REPORTERS, INC.
202-347-3700 Nationwide Coserage 20-336-M46
30648.0 17354
. f S)cox 1
MR. MC MURRAY:
Yes, Judge Margulies.
This is 2
Chris McMurray.
I just want to add one or two points.
Our 3
reasons for seeking the scheduling of the OL-3 proceeding are 4
set out.
There are a couple of things I want to bring out.
5 I won't restate them.
The board should be aware the County 6
will be ready to go forward with this proceeding when the 7
OL-5 litigation is completed.
It's very hard to say at this 8
time when the OL-5 proceeding will be completed.
I think the 9
most optimistic estimate we have right now is LILCO's, which 10 is that the OL-5 proceeding would be completed sometime in 11 mid-June.
We don't necessarily agree with that.
We think 12 it's going to take slightly longer.
13 MR. ZAHNLEUTER:
Judge Shon is on the line now, 14 Judge Margulies.
15 JUDGE MARGULIES:
Fine.
16 MR. MC MURRAY:
Assuming we don't go ahead on May 11 4, I think it's important we all be in close communication, 18 that is, the OL-5 and OL-3 attorneys be in touch with each 19 other.
This way we can all come to a common understanding 20 sometime in the near future about when the OL-5 proceeding is 21 going to be completed.
We have all been in these proceedings 22 before, we all have a good idea when they are coming to a 23 close, and I don't think*that's going to be any different 24 with the OL-5 proceeding.
I think it's likely that we will 25 be able to come up with a pretty good estimate of the closing O
ACE FEDERAL REPORTERS, INC.
202 347-3700 Nationwide Cmerage 800-336-(6:6
e 30648.0 co::
17355 a
1 date a couple of weeks before the OL-5 proceeding actually 2
terminates.
3 At that time, I think we can have a conference 4
with counsel, sit down, set a date for the OL-3 proceeding, 5
which, as we say, could begin right after the OL-5 proceeding 4
6 terminates, and then proceed to trial.
That's all we have to 7
say.
8 MR. ZAHNLEUTER:
This is Richard Zahnleuter.
I 9
have something to add that would not be repetitive.
10 JUDGE MARGULIES:
Please go ahead.
11 MR. ZAHNLEUTER:
I am sorry, I said I had nothing 12 to add.
13 JUDGE MARGULIES:
I am sorry, I thought you said 14 you had something to add.
15 MR. ZAHNLEUTER:
I am sorry.
^
16 JUDGE MARGULIES:
That was the representative of 17 the state of New York, Richard Zahnleuter.
18 Is Applicant ready to state their position?
19 MR. CHRISTMAN:
This is Jim Christman.
We don't 20 oppose delaying the start of the 0-3 reception centers 21 proceeding.
We disagree with a lot of reasons in the 22 County's motion.
Our reason is that we, too, want Judge Shon 23 to be -- to hear the evidence.
Indeed, apart from 24 disagreeing with the reasons, though, we don't disagree very 25 much with what the County wants to do.
We are in favor of O
ACE-FEDERAL REPORTERS, INC.
202 347-3700 Nationwide Cmcrape 8m-346646
_.____...,__._____,__..._-_,.._..__.r_...,.
~
30648.0 17356 cox 1
postponing the start of the reception centers hearing, and we 2
would prefer that it start immediately after the close of the 3
0-5 hearings, provided that those 0-5 proceedings don't run 4
on too long.
5 We do not favor the County's approach of leaving 6
the start of the reception center hearings open-ended to hang 7
entirely on the schedule of the 0-5 proceedings.
We would 8
propose that a tentative beginning date for the reception 9
centers hearing be set and that that be set for June 15, 10 which is a Monday.
On the assumption, and the hope, that the 11 0-5 hearing would be done by then.
12 JUDGE MARGULIES:
Your position is that you would i
13 like to set a date certain?
14 MR. CHRISTMAN:
We would like a date as certain as 15 near as can be.
Now, obviously, if, as the date certain, 16 which I have proposed to be June 15 approaches, the 0-5 17 proceeding is still in session and appears it will run beyond 18 June 15, then I think we would have to reconsider that 19 starting date.
We would have to consider such things as 20 proceeding with the quorum rule, at least starting under the 21 quorum rule without Judge Shon being present.
But one would 22 hope that we wouldn't have to do that.
23 JUDGE MARGULIES:
What is Staff's position?
24 MR. REIS:
The Staff generally feels that the 25 hearing should not be deferred sine die.
The Staff believes i
ACE. FEDERAL REPORTERS, INC.
202-347 3700 Nationwide Cmerage Mn336-6646
30648.0 17357 Ocox 1
that a definite date should be set.
2 But, again, because of the considerations of Judge 3
Shon being on both, and the similarity of the witnesses being 4
on both boards, also favor a deferment.
But we certainly are 5
opposed to any deferment without having a date set.
6 I would just assume we go forward on May 4.
We 7
would suggest, we would like to go forward actually, on 8
Tuesday, June 16, rather than earlier for logistics reasons 9
here, on the 16th.
10 JUDGE MARGULIES:
Mr. Cumming, do you have a 11 position?
12 MR. CUMMING:
Yes.
I had earlier informed, I 13 didn't think there would necessarily be a conflict with the 14 Staff or the LILCO position, the OL-5, that we have a FEMA 15 panel on availability for the week of June 22 through 26.
16 Otherwise, they are basically going to be on standby for both 17 boards throughout the summer.
The only other thing is that I 18 notice that extensive motions to strike have been filed, and I
19 I would suggest that the board not necessarily consider 20 establishing a date until it has, in fact, reviewed those.
21 Some seem to be coming in almost daily, and has a feel for 22 what it might do with those.
Then when we do get a date, it 23 might be, in fact, more likely to hold up and everyone would 24 know the scope of what was being admitted.
25 FEMA, to be honest, did have difficulty with ace-FEDERAL REPORTERS, INC.
202 347 3700 Nationwide Coserage 8(x)-33MM6
30648.0 17358 g-cox
(/
1 respect to ascertaining exactly how the board would construe 2
-- how liberal or how conservative it would be with respect 3
to the reopened contention of 24.0, primarily because of the 4
fact that the board had incorporated into the real 5
contentions certain facts of which it took judicial notice 6
and also the other rulings of appeals boards that had 7
required the board, the OL-3 board, to consider how that 8
contention would be litigated.
9 So, I think it might be helpful, to the 10 understanding of all parties, and FEMA, to have a feel for 4
i 11 how the motions to strike were going to go before we had the 12 date, even, i
13 MR. REIS:
The Staff disagrees with FEMA on that
+
14 ground.
We feel a date is more important.
We feel that have 15 the expedited schedule for replying to motions to strike, 4
16 with the regular rule, have the answers to the motions to 17 strike due, I believe, and that is on May 10, and that is the 18 only change, I believe.
19 MR. MC MURRAY:
Judge Margulies, this is Chris l
20 McMurray for suffolk County.
I would like to speak on this 21 if the other parties are finished with their initial 22 remarks.
23 JUDGE MARGULIES:
They apparently have.
You may 24 proceed.
25 MR. MC MURRAY:
Okay.
I think at this time, we 4
ACE FEDERAL REPORTERS, INC.
202-347-3700 Nationwide Coserage 8(n3364M6
30648.0 17359
( Scox U
1 find that a date certain for the OL-3 proceeding, would not 2
be a very useful exercise.
We don't really know when the 3
OL-5 proceeding will be completed, and using Mr. Christman's 4
words, the June 15 he proposes, would be nothing more than a 5
hope.
I think that what we should do is let a little time 6
pass and in the middle of May, maybe sometimes towards the 7
end of May, let's have a conference call.
At that time we 8
can all assess where the OL-5 proceeding is, and at that 9
time, if it's possible, set a date.
But I think now it just 10 doesn't make any sense to try to set a date.
It's nothing 11 more than a hope.
~12 MS. LETSCHE:
If I might interject, this is Kit C)
\\-
13 Letsche.
As I recall, in the exercise proceeding, there has 14 been an agreement that roughly a week before the FEMA panel 15 goes on, and right now the FEMA panel is the last panel 16 scheduled for cross-examination -- that roughly a week before 17 that time, the parties would know that so that FEMA could be 18 informed and be prepared to appear when they needed to.
19 That might be a pertinent time at which all the 20 parties would know if, near the end of the exercise 21 proceeding, that it might be an opportunity for everyone to 22 have this conference as Mr. McMurray is suggesting, to speak 23 and be in a position to determine fairly closely when the 24 exercise proceeding would, in fact, end.
25 MR. CHRISTMAN:
This is Jim Christman.
I think O
ACE FEDERAL REPORTERS, INC.
202-347 3700 Nationwide Coverage NO-3364646
30648.0 cox 17360 t.
I the setting of a date is not as useless as Mr. McMurray 2
suggests, for a couple of reasons.
One, I think the setting 3
of milestones is always useful and to give the parties I
4 something to shoot for and keeps a proceeding from unraveling j
5 and becoming uncontrolled and open-ended.
l l
6 Second, and perhaps even more important, there is 1
7 the matter of scheduling one's witnesses.
If you know when 8
you think, or even hope, that a proceeding will begin, you 9
can have your witnesses hold tlat date open so that they can 10 be available.
I know I already have witness availability 11 problems for certain weeks in June.
And if we simply wait 12 for weeks and weeks to decide when the hearing will start, 13 those witnesses will inevitably have other commitments that 14 will interfere with this proceeding.
I don't want to see 15 that happen.
16 In short, I haven't heard anything that makes me 17 change my mind about setting a date for the beginning of this 18 hearing, a date certain.
l 19 MR. MC MURRAY:
Judge Margulies, this is Chris 20 McMurray.
I think Jim Christman has brought up a point which 21 actually weighs in favor of our position.
I don't think it 22 makes any sense to set a date certain ano then go out and 23 tell witnesses to begin gearing up for that date and then 24 have that date be nothing but a hope that is not met and 25 maybe have the hearing start a week later, and you have ACE. FEDERAL REPORTERS, INC.
202 347-37(X)
Nationwide Cmerage Mn3346646
30648.0 17361 cox 1
geared people up for appearances a week too soon.
2 I.think the most expeditious and most efficient 3
way to proceed is for us to take stock in a few weeks, see 4
where things are, and then, if possible, set a date.
5 MR. IRWIN:
Judge Margulies, this is Mr. Irwin, 6
also from LILCo.
Let me add one or two items in support of 7
what Mr. Christman just said about the value of milestone 8
dates along the way.
9 We have, in the exercise proceeding, been 10 encountering the same kind of witness scheduling difficulties 11 that he was referring to as being a possibility in the OL-3 12 proceeding.
One of the reasons for them has been the lack of 13 certainty.
Although I recognize this, as everybody, that it 14 is very difficult to carve dates in stone, in the absence of 15 some bounding framework, it is very difficult to get busy 16 experts to plan.
17 The difference between LILCO's and Suffolk 18 County's estimates for the dates of termination of the 0-5 19 hearings, is probably, I would guess, at least four, perhaps 20 as much as eight weeks apart.
21 So unless we have some milestone dates and an 22 opportunity for a midcourse correction, I think we are going 23 to find ourselves losing time inevitably at the end, because i
24 our witnesses will have, understandably, made interim plans.
25 secondly, there are a number of interim working O
ACE-FEDERAL. REPORTERS, INC.
202 347 3700 Natior. wide Coserage MU-336446
30648.0 17362 Ocox 1
deadlines, such as those for filing of rebuttal testimony, 2
permission for which has already been requested by some 3
parties, motions to strike testimony and the like.
If we 4
have dates certain for those, we can get as much of the 5
prehearing preparation accomplished as much as possible and 6
then provide for the completion of the 0-5.
I think all of 7
those facilitate in favor of the Staff and LILCO's proposal 8
as what we have set for target dates.
9 MR. ZAHNLEUTER:
This is Richard Zahnleuter.
If 10 Mr. Irwin is finished I would like to reiterate that the 11 state's position is that the termination of the OL-3 12 proceeding to the end of the OL-5 proceeding is preferable.
~
13 Because if that date is not met, and it turns out that there i
14 is '. suggestion that both proceedings occur simultaneously as 15 of that date, the state of New York will be prejudiced 1
16 because the state of New York is a major participant in both l
17 proceedings, and there will be a legitimate schedule conflict i
18 for lawyers.
5 19 MR. IRWIN:
This is Mr. Irwin again.
If it's 1
j 20 necessary to allay Mr. Zahnleuter's fears on that score, I 21 don't think I have heard anybody this afternoon propose that 22 except as a last resort, in the event that the 0-5 proceeding 23 in extended well beyond current projections of a likely l
24 termination date, that the two proceedings will go l
25 simultaneously.
Our whole exercise this afternoon is to Ace FEounAi. RuronTuns, INC.
i i
202-347-37m Nationwide cmerage tu n 33 s M 6
I 30648.0 17363 Ocox I
avoid that but, at the same time, avoid the highly 2
prejudicial delay which would almost inevitably ensue if we 3
don't take some target steps and plan for the joint 4
arrangement of the two proceedings.
5 Secondly, we have said it before, we will have to 1
6 say it again at some point, but New York state is a big state 7
and they have more than one lawyer.
It is not -- there is no 8
point in resolving on the merits today if we don't have to, 9
but if worse comes to worst, the eventuality Mr. Zahnleuter 10 fears can be accommodated.
That's all I have to say.
11 MR. ZAHNLEUTER:
This is Richard Zahnleuter.
I l
12 won't add very much except that I disagree obviously.
13 JUDGE MARGULIES:
Judge Kline and I want to l'
14 consult for a short period.
4
}
15 (Discussion off the record.)
16 JUDGE MARGULIES:
This is Judge Margulies again.
17 The nature of the topic is such that it wouldn't be critical 18 for the parties to get a determination this afternoon.
Judge i
j 19 Kline and I would like to confer with Judge Shon, and we 20 could do that by telephone later today, and get a decision 21 out to you in the next day or two.
As they say, we don't see 22 that there is anything critical and this afternoon we should 23 be able to get a decision to you sometime this week.
24 MR. REIS:
Judge Margulies, this is Mr. Reis.
]
25 There is only one matter.
That is the reply to motions to i
Ace FnonRAL REPORTnRS. INC.
202-347 37(X)
Nationwide Cmcrage 8(sk 33MM4
=
30648.0 cox 17364 1
strike.
They are presently due next Monday, the 27th.
2 JUDGE MARGULIES:
Yes.
3 MR. REIS:
If they were due within the regular i
4 time frame set up to reply to motions --
5 JUDGE MARGULIES:
I don't get your question.
6 MR. REIS:
We would like a little relief from 7
that, and.that in some way puts some pressure on knowing we 8
won't go forward on May 4.
But we would like a little relief 9
answering the motionr to strike.
In other words, we would i
10 like the relief to be the normal time to reply to motions, 11 which would make our response to those motions to strike due 12 on May 5.
13 MR. MC MURRAY:
Judge Margulies, this in Chris i
14 McMurray from Suffolk County.
I agree with Mr. Reis.
There 15 have been about five LILCO motions to strike.
They are about 16 50 pages long.
They do seek to strike a substantial portion 17 of the government's testimony.
So we would also ask for some i
~
18 relief, assuming that the schedule is set back for the 19 beginning of the trial.
20 MR. Z AllN LEUTER :
This is Richard Zahnleuter.
I 21 also have received one LILCO motion to strike testimony by 22 Dr. Hartkin and Mr. Milobaugh.
That motion seeks to strike i
l 23 basically the entire testimony but on a, basically, 24 page-by-page basis.
I am going to be in a proceeding this i
25 week so I would, too, ask for relief.
i Act! Fl!Dl!RAL Ill!PORTliRS, INC.
I 202 347.)?00 Nationode Coserag Nn))MM6
T 30640.0 17365 Ocox 1
MR. CHRISTMAN:
By the way, I just informed 2
Mr. Zahnleuter there is another's motion to strike by other 3
of his witnesses, which he apparently has not yet received.
4 MR. ZAHNLEUTER:
That is a surprise to me.
I have 5
not received any such motion.
6 MR. CHRISTMAN:
They were Federal Expressed out on 7
Friday, Rick.
They are in your office I am sure.
O MR. ZAHNLEUTER:
LILCO knows I am in a proceeding 9
and to send it to my of fice doesn't d > much good.
10 MR. IRWIN:
They were properly served.
11 MR. CHRISTMAN:
Judge Margulies, since everyone is 12 asking for the standard 10 days' motion to start, and since 13 no one appears to be in favor of starting the reception 14 hearings on May 4, it does seem to me that you might as well 15 give people the standard time under the regulations to answer 16 the motions to strike, because it appears to me that some 17 postponement in the start of the hearing would be 18 appropriate.
And so far the disagreement seems to be only as 19 to whether we set a date certain, say June 15 or 16 or 20 whether we leave it completely open-ended.
1 21 I should add, however, that there was also an item 22 raised in the County's motion to change the schedule about 23 the schedule for rebuttal testimony.
I trust that the board 24 in going to hold that matter in abeyance yet for a while 20 longer.
No matter what it doen on setting the date for the O
Acit.171!DI!RAl. Riivon rlins. INC,
]
M 9717m Nationwide cmerage m atoua6
30640.0 17366 Ocox 1
start of the hearing.
It seems to me it may be premature to 2
set a schedule for rebuttal testimony, particularly since we 3
don't know the disposition of the various motions to strike 4
on the original testimony and what is stricken or is not 5
stricken in the individual testimony, may determine what the 6
shape of the rebuttal testimony will be.
7 Finally, I assume that from the board's indication 8
that it's going to confer by phone and rule on the schedule 9
in the next few days, that it's not necessary for LILCO to 10 file a written answer to the County's motion to change the 11 schedule on Thursday when we would otherwise have been 12 required to file our answer.
l 13 MR. MC MURRAY:
Judge Margulies, this is Chris I
14 McMurray again.
In light of the volume of the motion to 15 strike, we would also like until May 5, which was Mr. Reis' 16 suggested date, to respond to LILCO's motion to strike.
That 17 is a little beyond the allotted time under the regulation.
la Given the volume of the motion to strike I think 19 he made a reasonable request.
20 MR. CllR1STM AN :
We oppose that.
We have had to 21 live with the schedule so far.
We had to file our testimony
?2 early.
We had to file our motion to strike within one week.
23 We object to, now the delay in the 0-5 proceeding has 24 succeeded in postponing the 0-3 proceeding; we object to 25 having the County's deadline just slip and slip and slip.
O Aci!.Fliolinai. Rimonnius, INC, 202 347 3700 Nationwide Oncrage Min))MM6
30640.0 cox 17367 u
1 JUDGE MARGULIES:
Judge Kline and I will confer 2
shortly.
3 (Discussion off the record.)
4 JUDGE MARGULIES:
I would like to hear from Judge 5
Shon if he differs with Judge Kline and myself.
But Judge 6
Kline and I have agreed that we will not go forward with, the 7
0-3 hearing on May 4.
Whether we cet a date certain or come O
to a conclusion, that should follow on the 0-5 proceeding.
9 That we will decide at a later time.
But for purposes of the 10 parties' preparation, they should be accured that the 0-5 11 proceeding will not go ahead on May 4.
12 In terms of the time to respond, we will give the 13 parties the standard time provided for in the Commicolon's 14 rules of practice.
15 As to LILCO needing to file a response to 16 Intervenor's motion on the scheduling of the hearing of April 17 13, 1987, it would serve no purpose to file a written 18 response, and we will not require it.
19 JUDGE S110N:
Can everyone hear me?
This in Judge 20 Shon.
21 JUDGE MARGULIES:
Yes, we can hear you.
22 JUDGE Silon:
I have difficulty hearing certain 23 people but not others.
I would prefer to confer with you, 24 all right?
i 25 JUDGE MARGULIES:
Finn.
Can you give un a i
Ac.!.FliDl!RAI Ri!Poimins. INC.
x n.nm NabonwMe Omaag MOM M46
i 30640.0 l
cox 17360 1
telephone number after we conclude?
4 2
JUDGE SHON:
Why don't I call you.
I am virtually 3
certain I can do that.
4
. JUDGE MARGULIES:
Is this one of these situations, 1
5 don't call us, we will call you?
(
l 6
JUDGE SHON:
I think it must be.
I am not sure i
7 which of the phones in this place work and which don't.
I I
O sat next to 'one that didn't ring for about 20 minutes, and I 9
would rather call you, because I know your phone does ring.
a 10 JUDGE MARGULIES:
Do the parties have anything 11 further?
4 4
12 MR. IRWIN:
No, sir.
13 MR. ZAHliLEUTER:
No, sir.
14 MR. MC MURRAY:
No, sir.
15 MR. CHRISTMAN:
No, sir.
j 16 JUDGE MARGULIES:
Thank you very much.
We will l
17 get back to you as soon as possible.
I 10 (Whereupon, at 2:40 p.m.,
the telephone conference 19 was concluded.)
l j
20 i
21 i
l i
22 23 i
24 t
i O i
1 i
Acit Filimnat. Riironitins, INC.
202 347 3701 Nationwide Cmerag xm.))MMA f
CERTIFICATE OF OFFICIAL REPORTER
/~T 4
(/
I This is to certify that the attached proceedings before f
the UNITED STATES NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSION in the 2
matter of i
NAME OF PROCEEDING:
LONG ISLAND LIGHTING COMPANY (Shoreham Nuclear Power Station, i
Unit 1)
'l i
l l
l DOCKET NO.:
50-322-OL-3 i
PLACE:
WASHINGTON, D. C.
l ()
TUESDAY, APRIL 21, 1987 DATE:
I were held as herein appears, and that this is the original
(
transcript thereof for the file of the United States Nuclear f
j Regulatory Commission.
l i
i (sigt J
di
__ M
[
[df
]
(TYPED)
WENDY S. COX s
Official Reporter t
ACE-PEDERAL REPORTERS, INC.
i Reporter's Affiliation i
l i
()
{
[
i