ML20207C754
| ML20207C754 | |
| Person / Time | |
|---|---|
| Site: | Shoreham File:Long Island Lighting Company icon.png |
| Issue date: | 12/24/1986 |
| From: | Christman J HARMON & WEISS, LONG ISLAND LIGHTING CO. |
| To: | |
| References | |
| CON-#486-2003 OL-3, NUDOCS 8612300226 | |
| Download: ML20207C754 (6) | |
Text
.
IO LILCO, December 24,1986 UNITED STATES OF AMERICA flC NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSION
'86 DEC 29 P1 :35 Before the Atomic Safety and Licensing Board gm-C0C?t 7" i:r ; '
In the Matter of
)
)
LONG ISLAND LIGHTING COMPANY
) Docket No. 50-322-OL-3 4
) (Emergency Planning)
(Shoreham Nuclear Power Station,
)
- Unit 1)
)
i LILCO'S PROPOSED DISCOVERY AND HEARING SCHEDULE In the Board's Memorandum and Order of December 11,1986, the Board directed the parties to file their individual proposed discovery and hearing schedules no later than Christmas day. This is LILCO's response to that order.
Proposed Schedule LILCO still proposes the schedule suggested on page 8 of LILCO's Brief on the Reopening of the Reception Center Issue, dated December 1,1986. That schedule, in brief, consists of four consecutive periods:
4 weeks Discovery 2 weeks By end of this time, Intervenors submit testimony 2 weeks By end of this time, other parties submit testimony
__2 weeks At end of this time, hearing begins 10 weeks total Also, LILCO proposed that motions to strike testimony be filed within one week af ter the testimony is filed and that responses to such motions be filed three business days af ter the motions are filed. All service of pleadings should be by hand or overnight express.
8612300226 861224
{DR ADOCK 05000322 PDR CSo3
.y y
a ik-The starting date for this schedule, in LILCO's view, should be as soon as possi-ble. If, for example, the Board started the schedule running on January 2, the hearing would begin March 13,1986 (or, more sensibly, early the following week).
LILCO notes that this schedule, which the Intervenors will no doubt complain is too short, requires two and a half months just to get to the first day of hearing. The hearing itself will take more time, the proposed findings of fact and conclusions of law still more, and the writing of a decision still more, let alone the inevitable appeals.
Hence, it will take months, even with the above schedule, to resolve what is af ter all only one small part of the emergency planning issue, which in turn is only one small part of the health and safety issues that have had to be dealt with in this proceeding.
In light of the fact that Shoreham has been ready to operate for a long time, the LILCO proposed schedule is more than reasonable. Each day that Shoreham does not operate, notwithstanding that it is safely designed and constructed and that there is a good emergency plan in being, costs LILCO and its ratepayers and stockholders approxi-mately one million dollars.
Intervenors Should File Their Testimony First' The Intervenors have taken issue with LILCO's proposal that the Intervenors file their testimony first. Suffolk County, State of New York, and Town of Southampton Reply Brief on LILCO's Motion to Reopen Record, December 8,1986, at 11 n. 7. Con-trary to what the Intervenors claim, this proposal makes perfectly good sense and is eminently fair. The essence of LILCO's case has already been laid out in Revision 8 of the emergency plan. Intervenors know what the new relocation centers are and a good deal about them.
't LILCO, on the other hand, knows virtually nothing about the Intervenors' case;-
there are not even any contentions about the new reception centers. And it is no an-swer to say that LILCO will have discovery; experience has shown that discovery against the Intervenors produces a great deal of delay and not much information.M The only expeditious way to have the issues joined is to require the Intervenors to disclose their case, by filing testimony, and then to give LILCO the opportunity to rebut.
Summary Disposition LILCO would also like to reemphasize its request that summary disposition be made available for the reception center issues, as for others. Because the Commission's regulations allow a party 20 days to respond to a motion for summary disposition, unless such motions are filed very early (probably even before discovery is completed), the motions will still be unresolved at the time the hearing begins. This problem may be al-leviated by scheduling the issues to be heard so that those not subject to summary dis-position motions come first in the hearing. But all the issues may be the subject of summary disposition motions. Moreover, if the filing of testimony is delayed to await decision on a summary disposition motion, and if the motion is denied in whole or in part, then more delay becomes necessary while the parties subsequently file testimony on the denied part.
Unfortunately, it is impossible to solve these problems until they have arisen in more concrete form, and that will not happen until this case is further down the road.
1/
See, for example, in the 50-322-OL-5 docket, LILCO's Motion to Compel Suffolk County, State of New York, and Town of Southampton to Respond to LILCO's Second Set of Interrogatories and Requests for Production of Documents, and Request for Ex-pedited Response and Disposition, Dec. 4,1986; LILCO's Supplement to Its Noven.ber 24,1986 Motion to Compel Discovery of New York State, December 18,1986.
a
^6' 4 At this point, LILCO simply repeats its request that (1) summary disposition be freely available to the parties and (2) summary disposition motions not be used as an excuse for delaying the presentation of testimony.
Respectfully submitted,
$t1L8U W/
$W
/
es N. Chris fnaT) '
/
Hunton & Williams 707 East Main Street P.O. Box 1535 Richmond, Virginia 23212 DATED: December 24,1986 1
n.-
0 0
. LILCO, December 24,1986 g'
L
.- ~
retst u r
'BWtC p
'86 DEC 29 P1 :37 CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE OFF R -
90ChiILE 3_
P!
In the Matter of N
LONG ISLAND LIGHTING COMPANY (Shoreham Nuclear Power Station, Unit 1)
Docket No. 50-322-OL-3 I hereby certify that copies of LILCO's Proposed Discovery and Hearing Schedule were served this date upon the following by first-class mail, postage prepaid.
l Morton B. Margulies, Chairman Atomic Safety and Licensing l
Atomic Safety and Licensing Board Panel l
Board U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission Washington, D.C. 20555 -
East-West Towers, Rm. 407 4350 East-West Hwy.
Bern:ird M. Bordenick, Esq.
Bethesda, MD 20814 Oreste Russ Pirfo, Esq.
Edwin J. Reis, Esq.
Dr. Jerry R. Kline U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission f
Atomic Safety and Licensing 7735 Old Georgetown Road l
Board (to mailroom)
U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission Bethesda, MD 20814 East-West Towers, Rm. 427 I
4350 East-West Hwy.
Herbert H. Brown, Esq.
Bethesda, MD 20814 Lawrence Coe Lanpher, Esq.
Karla J. Letsche, Esc.
l Mr. Frederick J. Shon Kirkpatrick & Lockhart Atomic Safety and Licensing South Lobby - 9th Floor Board 1800 M Street, N.W.
U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission Washington, D.C. 20036-5891 East-West Towers, Rm. 430 4350 East-West Hwy.
Fabian G. Palomino, Esq.
Bethesda, MD 20814 Richard J. Zahnleuter, Esq.
Special Counsel to the Governor Secretary of the Commission Executive Chamber Attention Docketing and Service Room 229 Section State Capitol U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission Albany, New York 12224 1717 H Street, N.W.
Washington, D.C. 20555 Mary Gundrum, Esq.
Assistant Attorney General Atomic Safety and Licensing 120 Broadway Appeal Board Panel Third Floor, Room 3-116 U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission New York, New York 10271 Washington, D.C. 20555 L
u o
-) Spence W. Perry, Esq.
Ms. Nora Bredes William R. Cumming, Esq.
Executive Coordinator Federal Emergency Management Shoreham Opponents' Coalition Agency 195 East Main Street 500 C Street, S.W., Room 840 Smithtown, New York 11787 Washington, D.C. 20472 Gerald C. Crotty, Esq.
Mr. Jay Dunkleberger Counsel to the Governor New York State Energy Office Executive Chamber Agency Building 2 State Capitol Empire State Plaza Albany, New York 12224 Albany, New York 12223 Martin Bradley Ashare, Esq.
Stephen B. Latham, Esq.
Eugene R. Kelly, Esq.
Twomey, Latham & Shea Suffolk County Attorney 33 West Second Street H. Lee Dennison Building P.O. Box 298 Veterans Memorial Highway Riverhead, New York 11901 Hauppauge, New York 11787 Mr. Philip McIntire Dr. Monroe Schneider Federal Emergency Management North Shore Committee Agency P.O. Box 231 26 Federal Plaza Wading River, NY 11792 New York, New York 10278 Jonathan D. Feinberg, Esq.
New York State Department of Public Service, Staff Counsel Three Rockefeller Plaza Albany, New York 12223
~
A k thy.B. Mcdid ef
'A 707 East Main Street P.O. Box 1535 Richmond, Virginia 23212 DATED: December 24,1986
- _ - = _
-