ML20207R859
| ML20207R859 | |
| Person / Time | |
|---|---|
| Site: | Shoreham File:Long Island Lighting Company icon.png |
| Issue date: | 03/13/1987 |
| From: | Mcmurray C KIRKPATRICK & LOCKHART, SUFFOLK COUNTY, NY |
| To: | Atomic Safety and Licensing Board Panel |
| Shared Package | |
| ML20207R844 | List: |
| References | |
| OL-3, NUDOCS 8703180218 | |
| Download: ML20207R859 (14) | |
Text
- _ - _ _ _ _ _ _ - _ _ - _ _ _ _ _ _ _
l DOCKETED USNRC 1gf7MR 16 PS :54 March 13, 0FFICE CF 5grjg77;y UNITED STATES OF AMERICA 00CMETjp a, gcy;q NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSION "ANCH 1
Before the Atomic Safety and Licensina Board t
)
In the Matter of
)
)
LONG ISLAND LIGHTING COMPANY
)
Docket No. 50-322-OL-3
)
(Emergency Planning)
(Shoreham Nuclear Power Station,
)
Unit 1)
~)
)
SUFFOLK COUNTY
SUMMARY
RESPONSE TO LILCO MOTION TO STRIKE TWO NEWLY DESIGNATED SUFFOLK COUNTY WITNECSES Late in the afternoon on March 12, 1987, Suffolk County received "LILCO's Motion to Strike Two Newly Designated Suffolk County Witnesses" (" Motion").
For reasons listed below, LILCO's Motion should be summarily rejected.
Time clearly is of tha essence in ruling on this Motion.1 Accordingly, Suffolk County sets forth its response in summary form herein.
If the Board so requests, Suffolk County will file 1
Mr. Sholly, one of the witnesses, is available to be deposed next week.
His status in this proceeding, therefore, should be cleared up promptly.
l 8703180218 B70313 '~
PLR ADOCK 05000322 G
. a more detailed response, or, in the alternative, Suffolk County is prepared, at the Board's convenience, to participate in a conference call on this matter.2 1.
As indicated in the March 10 letter from the County's counsel, which is attached to LILCO's Motion, the NRC Staff did not provide a written designation of its new witness, Mr. Lewis Hulman, and the subject matter on which he would be testifying until Friday, March 6.
Egg Exhibit 1 hereto.
Before that time, Staff counsel had informed the parties only that the Staff's witnesses (of which Mr. Hulman was not one) intended to testify on the issue of the number of evacuees "for whom radiological monitoring decontamination might be performed."
See Exhibit 2 hereto.
On its face, this issue does not suggest the need to address probabilistic risk assessment (PRA) consequence analyses, or other such technical analyses.
This particularly is the case since, to the Governments' knowledge, prior to March 6 no witness for any other party planned to address such technical matters.
Upon receiving the Staff's March 6 designation of its new witness, the County became aware for the first time that the Staff might be raising PRA consequence analyses and similar analyses in their testimony.
This is not because the Staff 2
Shortly before filing this Response, the County was informed of the Board's intention to have a conference call on this matter on Monday morning, March 16.
The County will, of course, participate.
. expressly informed the parties on March 6 that this was so, but rather was implied by the types of documents, identified in the designation, which the Staff's new witness intended to rely upon.
The Staff's witnesses were deposed on Tuesday, March 10.
Their testimony confirmed their intended reliance on PRA conse-quence analyses for tr.eir testimony on the number of evacuees who might be expected to arrive at LILCO's reception centers.
Three hours later, the parties were informed by letter (hand delivered to LILCO and telecopied to the Staff) that the County intended to offer two witnesses to address the new issues raised by the NRC Staff.
One of those two witnesses, Mr. Minor, has already been designated as a witness in this proceeding.
2.
LILCO accuses Suffolk County of seeking to delay this proceeding by failing to designate Messrs. Sholly and Minor before March 10, 1987.3 LILCO has chosen to ignore the facts.
l The facts demonstrate that Suffolk County was surprised by the substance of the proposed NRC Staff testimony; the parties (except the Staff) had no way to know, in advance of March 10, of 3
LILCO also accuses the County of having earlier in this proceeding attempted to purposely delay this proceeding by designating witnesses late in the discovery period.
LILCO's attack is unbecoming and directly contrary to the Board's stated finding that the Governments were proceeding in good faith.
The Board should not countenance such attacks.
LILCO should be reminded simply to deal with the facts and the merits.
. the specific technical matters that the Staff intended to raise.
And we reiterate, prior to March 10 no other witnesses -- and 13 depositions had already been taken -- had so much as hinted that they would address PRA or consequence analyses.
3.
Suffolk County is also surprised by LILCO's accusa-tions, given the fact that LILCO's attornev, when informed on March 10 of Suffolk County's proposed designation of two new witnesses, said that he too was surorised about the Staff wit-nesses' testimony.
In light of this statement, LILCO's assertion that the County has engaged in purposeful delay is disingenuous.
The County will not recount for the Board how hard everyone has been working.
We are seeking no delay in this proceeding, but merely have designated two. additional witnesses in order to protect Suffolk County's rights.
We did so promptly upon learn-ing of the need.
Thus, the County's actions have been completely proper.
3.
If any party is to blame here for " delay", it must be the Staff, who failed to inform the parties of the unusual sub-stance of its witnesses' testimony prior to the events of March 6 and March 10.
If any witnesses should be stricken, it is the Staff's witnesses, not the County's.
The Board may consider this
. l l
response a motion to strike the Staff's witnesses.
If granted, the County will voluntarily withdraw Mr. Sholly and Mr. Minor as witnesses to address the Staff's testimony.
4.
It appears to Suffolk County that LILCO's Motion is, in fact, yet another LILCO attempt to reverse this Board's previous Order requiring LILCO to file its testimony first.
LILCO's efforts to have simultaneous filings of testimony in this pro-ceeding have been rejected more than once by this Board.
The Board should reject it again.
Suffolk County would not object to (but does not request) a reasonable delay in the schedule to address LILCO's concerns, with a day-for-day slip in all subse-quent dates, as well.
However, since LILCO has stressed in its Motion that it opposes any delay in the start of the hearing, Suffolk County respectively submits that LILCO's Motion should be summarily rejected.
If LILCO wishes to avail itself of the opportunity for discovery, which has been offered, it may do so.
Respectfully submitted, Martin Bradley Ashare Suffolk County Attorney Building 158 North County Highway Veterans Memorial Highway Hauppauge, New York 11788 l
Mm Ldwrence Coe Linpher
[
Christopher M. McMurray Kirkpatrick & Lockhart 1800 M Street, N.W.
South Lobby - 9th Floor Washington, D.C.
20036-5891 Attorneys for Suffolk County
we o
a EW WfS9100;n 8 9
Ex.hibit 1 l
March 8.1987 UNITED STATES OF AMERICA NUCLEAR REOULATORY COMMISSION BEFORE Tl!IB ATOMIC SAFETY AND LICENSING BOARD In the Matter of
)
)
LONG ISLAND LIOHTINO COMPANY
)
Docket No. 50-322-OL-3
)
(Emergency Planning)
(Shoreham Nuclear Power Station,
)
Unit 1)
)
s.
NRC STAFF 8ECOND SUPPLEMENTAL RESPONSE TO INTERVENORS' FIRST SET OP INTERROGATOR!ES AND REQUEST FOR
_PRODUCTIO_N OF_ DOCUMENTS TO FEMA AND THE NRC STAFF The NRC Staff hereby supplements its previous responses, dated February 17, 1987 and March 2,1987, to "Suffolk County, State of New York and Town of Southamptcn's First Set of Interrogatories and Request for Production of Documents to FEMA and the NRC Staff"
(" Discovery Request").
I.
RESPONSES TO_ INTERROGATOR 1FS INTERROGA_ TORY NO.1 Lewin O. Hulman has been designated by the Staff to testify on the j
mattera set forth in the Staff's response to Interrogatory No.1 of NRC Staff Supplemental Response to Intervenors' First Set of Interrogatories and Request for Production of Documents to FEMA and the NRC Staff, dated March 2,1987, Mr. Hulman replaces Mr. Soffer as a witness in this matter, and will be made available for deposition in place of Mr. Soffer at the time and ptwe previously arranged for deposition of Messrs. Kantor and Soffer.
e,--
--- --
a-,-,-m w
-...,,---r----,me
- e ewww----w*.-w+.w-e.-ve,.--,---e.-.,-,..,er---
.-eve, v-i-,w,,,,-y
,-,,r.r, a.--, - - -, -
en
wEPO/ TELECCPIER 495; 6-3-87; 3:42PM i
20.
100288
- g
-s-INTERROGATORY NO._2 Mr. Hulman's resume is attached to this response.
INTERROGATORY NO. 3 Documente which Mr. Hulman has identified to date as documents upon which he intends to rely are:
(1)
Technical Guidance for Siting Criteria Development, NUREG/CR-2239, SAND 81-1549, December 1982 (2)
Demographic Statistics Pertaining to Nuclear Power Reactor Site 8, NUREG-0348 October 1979 (1)
Calculations referenced in Testimony of Fred C.
Finlayson and Edward P.
Radford, insofar as relevant, in this proceeding, Wednesday, July 11,
- 1984, pp.12317, g seq.
(4)
Shoreham, DBS, FES, and SER (5)
Review and Evaluation of the Indian Point PrcbabiHatic Safety
- Study, NUREG
/CR-2934, S AND82-2929, December 1982 (6)
Reassessment of the Technical Rases for Estimating Source Terma.
NUREG-0956 (Draft), July 1988 (7)
Sandia Report: Estimates of the Financial Consequences of Nuclear Power Reactor Accidents, David R.
Strip,
NUREG/CR-2723, SAND 82-1110, September 1982 (8)
FES Related to the Operation of Limerick Generating
- Station, Units 1 and 2, NUREG-0974, April 1984 (9)
NUREG-0854-REP-1, Rev.1 (10)
Planning Basis for the Development of State and Local Government Radiological Emergency Response Plana in Support of
g 5-
. Light Water Nuciaar Power
- Plants, NUREG-0396, EPA 520/1-78-016 December 1978 INTERROGATORY NO. 4 Mr. Hulman testified in the
- Limerick, Midland, and Byron proceedings on mattere related to accident
- analyses, accident I
risks, and accident consequences.
INTERROGATORY NO. 5 Mr. Hulman has not authored any documents within the scope of this interrogatory.
RESPONSES TO DOCUMENT REQUESTS All documenta identified in answers to the above interrogatories are available in the NRC Public Document Room.
Res ectfully submitted, 3
b r
E.
son Counsel to RC Staff Dated at Bethesda, Maryland this 6th day of March,1987 i
/
~
mm? Os=2 0 02/87
/
l Exhibit 2 UNITED STATES OF AMERICA j
NtICLEAR REOULATORY COMPISSION BEFORE Tile ATOMIC SAFETY AND LICENSING BOARD in the Matter of
)
)
LONG ISLAND LIGHTIMG COMPANY
)
Docket No. 50-322-OL-3
)
(Emergency Planning)
(Shoreham Nuclear Power Station,
)
Unit 1)
)
NRC STAFF SUPPLEPIEllTAL RESPONSE TO INTERVENORS' FIRST SET OF INTERROGATORIES AND REQUEST FOR PRODUCTION OF DOct'MENTS TO FEMA AND THE NRC STAFF On January 28, 1987, Intervenors Suffolk County ej al. I# filed interrogatories and document requests on the Staff-and FEMA. II The Staff resporded to the Discovery Reouest on February 17 1987. E The Staff hereby supplements its Response to the Discovery Request in accordance with 10 C.F.R.1*2.740(e)(1)(fi).
The Staff has designated the following witnesses to provide testimony and be available for oral examination at the hearfr.g:
1.
Falk Kantor and Leonard Soffer.
The subject matter of their expected testimony concerna the number of persons for whom radiological monitoring / decontamination might be performed, in accordance with the
),/
Suffolk Count State of New York and Town of Southampton
("Intervenora")y, 2/
"Suffolk County, State of New York and Town of Southampton's E'irst Set of Interrogatories and Request for Production of Documents to FEMA and the NRC Staff" (" Discovery Requeet").
3,/
"NRC Staff Response to Suffolk County, et al.
First Set of Interrogatories and Request for Production of Documents to FEMA and the NRC Staff" (" Response").
~
1 L~~E M C;*1:
.... guidance provided in the Licensing Daard's Orders of December 11, 1986 O ary 9,1987 ), and ALAB-855, 24 HRC _ (December 5
and Feb 12, 1986).
A copy of the professional qualifications of Mr. Kantor was previously provided in the initial Staff Response dated February 13,1987; A copy of Mr. Soffer's professional qualifications is attached to this response.
With respect to the specific questions propounded in interrogatorfea 3 4 and 5 further information will be provided as it becomes available.
2.
Dr. Thomas Urbanik.
It is expected that Dr. Urbanik win testify regarding traffic and transportation problems at the reception centers.
In support of his testimony, Dr. Urbanik will rely the September 26, 1986 analysis prepared by 1(L7 Associates. Inc., NUREG-0654, and the gereral body of literature in traffic and transportation, including papers listed in his Curriculum Vitae, a copy of which is attached to this response.
N J
Richard O. Bachmann Counsel for NRC Staff Dated at Dethesda, Maryland this 2nd day of Ptarch,1987 4I
" Memorandum and Order (Rulings on LILCO Motlon to Roopen Record and Remand of Coliseum Issue)".
5)
" Memorandum and Order (Ruling on LILCO's and Intervenors' Motion for Reconalderation of Schedulo)".
00LKETEC USNRC March 13, 1987
'87 HN116 P5 34 UNITED STATES OF AMERICA NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSION OFFICE CF hitIAsi 00CKEilNG /. 5EPVICf.
BRANCH Before the Atomic Safety and Licensino Board
)
In the Matter of
)
)
LONG ISLAND LIGHTING COMPANY
)
Docket No. 50-322-OL-3
)
(Emergency Planning)
(Shoreham Nuclear Power Station,
)
Unit 1)
)
)
s CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE I hereby certify that copies of Suffolk County Summary Response To LILCO Motion to Strike Two Newly Designated Suffolk County Witnesses and Suffolk County and State of New York Opposition to LILCO's Motion To Compel have been served on the following this 13th day of March, 1987 by U.S. mail, first class, except as otherwise noted.
s Morton B. Margulies, Esq., Chairman
- Joel Blau, Esq.
Atomic Safety and Licensing Board Director, Utility Intervention U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission N.Y. Consumer Protection Board Washington, D.C.
20555 Suite 1020 Albany, New York 12210 Dr. Jerry R.
Kline*
William R. Cumming, Esq.
Atomic Safety and Licensing Board Office of General Counsel U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission Federal Emergency Management Agency Washington, D.C.
20555 500 C Street, S.W.,
Room 840 Washington, D. C.
20472
- By Hand
- By Federal Express
i w
., s.
\\
\\
t Mr. Frederick J. Shon*
Anthony F. Earley, Jr., Esq.
Atomic Safety and Licensing Board General Counsel U.S. Nuclear _ Regulatory Commission Long Island Lighting Company Washington, D.C.
20555 175. East Old Country Road Hicksville, New York 11801 Ms. Elizabeth.Taibbi W. Taylor Reveley, III, Esq.**
Clerk Hunton & Williams Suffolk County Legislature P.O. Box 1535 Suffolk County Legislature 707 East Main Street j-Office Building Richmond, Virginia 23212 Veterans Memorial Highway Hauppauge, New' York 11788 Mr. L. F. Britt Stephen B. Latham, Esq.
Long Island Lighting Company Twomey, Latham & Shea Shoreham Nuclear Power Station 33 West Second Street North Country Road Riverhead, New York 11901 Wading River, New York 11792 i
rs. Nora Bredes Docketing and Service Section Executive Director Office of the Secretary Shoreham Opponents Coalition U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Comm.
195 East Main Street 1717 H Street, N.W.
Smithtown, New York 11787 Washington, D.C.
20555 Mary M. Gundrum, Esq.
Hon. Michael LeGrande York State Department of Law Suffolk County Executive 120 Broadway, 3rd Floor H.
Lee Dennison Building Room 3-116 Veterans Memorial Highway New York, New York 10271 Hauppauge, New York 11788 MHB Technical Associates Dr. Monroe Schneider 1723 Hamilton Avenue North Shore Committee Suite K P.O.
Box 231 San Jose, California 95125 Wading River, New York 11792 j
Martin Bradley Ashare, Esq.
Richard J. Zahnleuter, Esq.**
l Suffolk County Attorney Special Counsel to the Governor l
Bldg. 158 North County Complex Executive Chamber, Rm. 229 Veterans Memorial Highway State Capitol Hauppauge, New York 11788 Albany, New York 12224 Mr. Jay Dunkleburger Richard Bachmann, Esq.*
New York State Energy Office George E. Johnson, Esq.
Agency Building 2 U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Comm.
Empire State Plaza Office of General Counsel Albany, New York 12223 Washington, D. C.
20555
.w.w-s,
.w David A. Brownlee, Esq.
Mr. Stuart Diamond Kirkpatrick & Lockhart Business / Financial 1500 Oliver Building NEW YORK TIMES Pittsburgh, Pennsylvania 15222 229 W.
43rd Street New York, New York 10036 Christoph(r M. McMur' ray KIRKPATRICK & LOCKHART 1800 M Street, N.W.
Suite 900 - South Lobby Washington, D.C.
20036 Date:
March 13, 1987 l
l t
?
A e
1
..................