ML20211F974
| ML20211F974 | |
| Person / Time | |
|---|---|
| Site: | Shoreham File:Long Island Lighting Company icon.png |
| Issue date: | 02/20/1987 |
| From: | Atomic Safety and Licensing Board Panel |
| To: | |
| References | |
| CON-#187-2620 OL-3, NUDOCS 8702250244 | |
| Download: ML20211F974 (13) | |
Text
gg\\G\\h UlNITED STATES C'
')
1 NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSION IN THE MATTER OF:
DOCKET NO: 50-322-OL-3 LONG ISLAND LIGHTING COMPANY (Shoreham Nuclear Power Station, Unit 1)
TELEPHONE CONFERENCE O
LOCATION: WASHINGTON, D.
C.
PAGES: 17284 - 17294 DATE:
FRIDAY, FEBRUARY 20, 1987
(
(0l op ACE-FEDERAL REPORTERS, INC.
Official Reporters l
444 Morth Capitol Street Washington, D.C. 20001
( 02)347-3M0
,o;>a a :
v;, <,
- o
,w i m.-.c.ao
- CR29 902.0 17284
'COX/dnw 1
UNITED STATES OF AMERICA
{
2 NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSION 3
BEFORE THE ATOMIC SAFETY AND LINCENSING BOARD 4
-x-5 In the Matter <of:
6 LONG ISLAND LIGIITING COMPANY Docket No. 50-322-OL-3 7
(Shoreham Nuclear Power Statior.,
g Unit 1) 9
x 10 Ace Federal Reporters, Inc.
11 Room 402 444 North Capitol Street, N.W.
12 Washington, D. C.
13 Friday, February 20, 1987
(}
14 The telephone conference in the above-entitled matter 15 convened at 1:35 p.m.
16 BEFORE:
17 JUDGE MORTON B. MARGULIES, Chairman Atomic Safety & Licensing Board Panel 18 U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission "9
19 DGE JERRY R.
KLINE, Member 20 Atomic Safety & Licensing Board Panel U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission 21 Washington, D. C.
22 JUDGE FREDERICK J. S!!ON, Member 23 Atomic Safety & Licensing Board Panel U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission 24 Washington, D. C.
()
25l-
-- continued --
ACE-FEDERAL REPORTERS, INC.
202 347-)?00 Natsonwide Cmerage sak336 6M6
17285 1
APPEARANCES: (Continued) 2 On behalf of the Applicant:
3 DONALD P.
IRWIN, ESQ.
Hunton & Williams 4
707 East Main Street P.O. Box 1535 5
Richmond, Virginia 23212 6
On behalf of Suffolk County:
es 7
CHRISTOPHER McMURRAY, ESQ.
8 Kirkpatrick & Lockhart South Lobby, Ninth Floor 9
1800 M Street, N.W.
Washington, D. C.
20036-5891 4
10 On behalf of Federal Emergency Management Agency:
11 WILLIAM R. CUMMING, ESQ.
12 Federal Emergency Mamagement Agency 500 C Street, S. W.
13 Washington, D. C.
20472
/
14 On behalf of the State of New York:
i 15 RICHARD J.
ZAHNLEUTER, ESQ.
Deputy Special Counsel to the Governor 16 Executive Chamber Capitol, Room 229 17 Albany, New York 12224 18 on behalf of the Nuclear Regulatory Commission Staff:
19 GEORGE E. JOHNSON, ESQ.
U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission 20 Washington, D. C.
20555 21 22 j
23 24
()
25 ACE-FEDERAL REPORTERS, INC.
JT!=
- ~ ~ ~ ~ ~
~ " ~
i 29778.0 17286
.cox
. in
(_)
1 ERoeggD1NGS 2
JUDGE MARGULIES:
This is Judge Margulies; with me 3
are Judges Kline and Shon.
4 We received this request from the applicants for a 5
telephone conference call regarding discovery and the hearing 6
date.
We understand that this request was agreed to by the 7
other parties.
We have received telecopier transmittals from 8
both the applicant and the intervenor.
This telephone 9
conference call is being recorded verbatim.
10 I would like to know who is appearing for the 11 various parties.
12 MR. IRWIN:
Judge Margulies, this is Don Irwin for O'
13 Long Island Lighting Company.
Jim Christman has been patched 14 in from our Washington office as well.
15 MR. MC MURRAY:
J"dge Margulies, this is Chris 16 McMurray representing Suffolk County.
17 At this time, Judge Margulies, I would like to 18 point out an error in our letter to you; it's on the fourth 19 page of our letter, in the first full paragraph, the second I
20 line, the word " acceptable" should be "not acceptable."
21 JUDGE MARGULIES:
We picked that up.
22 MR. MC MURRAY:
Thank you, sir.
23 MR. ZAHNLEUTER:
This is Richard Zahnleuter 24 representing New York State.
25 MR. CUMMING:
William R.
Cumming representing i
ace-FEDERAL REPORTERS, INC.
I 202-347-3700 f,4ationwide Coserage 800-3364M6
I l
29778.0 17287 cox O
1 FEMA.
2 MR. JOHNSON:
This is George E.
Johnson 3
representing the NRC staff.
4 JUDGE MARGULIES:
All right.
The parties who 5
submitted the documents, do you have anything different to 6
offer?
There is no point in going over the written 7
submittals.
We have read them.
If there is nothing 8
different or further, then we will go to the other parties 9
for comments.
10 MR. MC MURRAY:
Judge Margulies, this is Chris j
11 McMurray.
12 I think we stated our position in the letter.
O 13 Unless there is anything to respond to stated by the other 14 parties, I don't think we have anything more to say.
15 MR. IRWIN:
Judge, this is Don Irwin for Long 16 Island Lighting Company.
17 I think I agree with Mr. McMurray.
We stated our 18 position in our letter.
19 JUDGE MARGULIES:
Mr. Zahnleuter.
20 MR. ZAHNLEUTER:
This is Richard Zahnleuter.
The 21 State's position is much the same as stated by Mr. McMurray.
P 22 I think the schedule, the hypothetical schedule of 23 depositions speaks for itself and points out that the State's 24 nine witnesses that were designated have been broken down 25 into four panels, and two of those depositions are only half 1
ace Fl!DERAL REl'ORTERS, INC.
I 202447 Mm Nationwide Cmcrage 8m h uar.
29778.0 cox 17288 O
V 1
day depositions.
So the burden on the schedule represents 2
three days of depositions, and one of those depositions is 3
for the REPG panel, R-E-P-G, representing Baranski, Papile 4
and Czech, is appearing on the same day as another deposition 5
in OL-5.
6 All I would like to add, that as the schedule 7
shows, the designation of nine witnesses by the State of New 8
York, constitutes less than three days of deposition time.
9 JUDGE MARGULIES:
Could you tell us why this late 10 notification of all these witnesses?
11 MR. ZAHNLEUTER:
Well, as you know, I represent 12 the State of New York in the OL-5 proceeding; ever since the O
13 January 14 order, and the subsequent order that you issued, 14 the proceedings before Judge Frye have been going on 15 continuously.
Looking over my calendar, I can see that there 16 have been conflicts everyday there have been depositions 17 scheduled, much the same as they have been in this j
18 proceeding, throughout the last month and a half.
And I have 19 been traveling, and I have to say that I did my best to try 20 to keep up with both proceedings.
7
'21 I have contacted the witnesses, and I wouldn't 22 neceusarily agree that it's a late designation.
The i
4 23 designation was made 16 days before the deadline of the 24 discovery period, and I know that in the OL-5 proceeding, 25 LILCO has has even designated witnesses after the expiration Acti FlilXiRAl. RiironTiias, INC.
I 202 ma7m N.aionwide emerage mam(M6
29778.0 cox 17289 OV 1
of the deadline.
2 At the time that the state witnesses were 3
designated, there were only, I think, one or two firm dates 4
between February 18 and March 6 tied up with scheduled 5
depositions.
So basically these witnesses were added into 6
the pool of depositions just like everyone else's witnesses 7
were.
8 I have proceeded diligently, and I have done the 9
best I could under the situation where we have two 10 administrative proceedings going on before the NHC at the 11 same time.
12 JUDGE MARGULIES:
I can appreciate that you as an O
O 13 individual were working very diligently, Mr. Zahnleuter, but 14 wouldn't it be more responsible on the part of New York State 15 to devote more resources to this proceeding, considering its 16 present posture?
17 MR. Z AllNLEUTEH :
Well, that decision is not up to 10 me.
I think, though, that we have been proceeding as 19 responsibly an we can; and, in fact, the burden in this OL-3 20 proceeding does not represent much of a burden.
I think that 21 as the schedule shows, the only necessary extension is 22 approximately one week, 23 JUDGE MARGULIIS Thank you.
24 Mr. Cumming, do you have any comment?
25 MR. COMMING:
I have no comment.
O Acii 17 niinAI. IttiponTiins, INC.
ti 202 147 4 70I)
Nalioriwide Cinerage lun.31 mal 6
29778.0 e
17290 cox (D
V 1
JUDGE MARGULIES:
Mr. Johnson.
2 MR. JOHNSON:
Yes, sir, your Honor.
The Staff has 3
just received Mr. McMurray's submittal, and I was just 4
looking over it very quickly.
5 I had received previously Mr. Irwin's.
The Staff 6
essentially supports the position of Long Island Lighting 7
Company in its position.
I believe that the only substantial 8
question would be whether the delay of filing prefiled 9
testimony one week by Long Icland Lighting Company would 10 prejudice the preparation of Suffolk County.
I am not sure 11 that a substantial showing has been made, although I must 12 question I naven't had a chance to fully study their part.
O 13 We would be prepared to fully support Long Island Lighting.
14 JUDGE MARGULIES:
Do any of the parties wish to 15 make any other comment?
16 MR. MC MURRAY:
Judge Margulies, this is Chris 17
- McMurray, 10 You rained the issue of the dates identifying some 19 witnesses thin week.
I just want the board to be aware that 20 the NRC Staff also identified some witnesses this week, three 21 of them, and 1,ILCO did as well, and, frankly, the County 22 identified two additional witnennen this week as well.
23 I don't think that you can characterize thene as 24, late designationn.
I think everyone han been working as hard 25 au possible; a lot of activity going on, and 1 thiiik everyone Aci Fliotinal. Ittii>onriins. INC.
202 347.noo Naionwide Cmcrage m D6 tou,
29778.0 17291 cox 1
has been diligent.
I wouldn't say there's been bad faith on 2
anyone's part.
I think the Board contemplated, when it set 3
the schedule -- the bottom line is, I think what we are 4
asking for, an additional week, is reasonable given the 5
circumstances.
It's only a week.
6 In that week, the County believes that we would be 7
able to prepare our testimony, respond to LILCO's testimony.
8 We can't do it in any shorter time.
It's just impossible.
9 MR. IRWIN:
Judge Margulies, this is Mr. Irwin, 10 Let me add a couple of quick things.
11 The designation of nine witnesses by New York 12 State changes the structure of the proceeding substantially, O
13 since New York at that point, until that point, has not 14 indicated any indication to sponsor an independent case.
15 Secondly, the fact that LILCO has chosen to try to 16 depose these witnesses in fewer chan three days merely 17 reflects LILCO's desire to expedite this proceeding rather 18 than anything else, because they usually have designated 19 these witnesses individually in the past for depositions, or 20 have full-length depositions.
21 Third, the fact that LILCO designated two 22 witnesses this weekend was in response only to surprise new 23 material discovered during a deposition last Thursday.
24 I think the important structural changes come 25 about in the designation of 11 out of 16 new witnesses this O
Actt FEDERAL. RitvonTEns, INC.
202-347 3700 Nationwide Coserage mwh33M646
w 29778.0 17292 cox
/ \\
(m)
I week by intervenors in a case where the issues haven't really 2
changed in months.
.That's the problem LILCO has with the 3
designation at this point.
We are not in a position of being 4
willing to acquiesce in a further delay of these hearings, 5
because we tast -- it's gone on long enough.
We believe it's 6
time to leave the schedule as it is.
-?.
7 MR. ZAllNLEUTER:
Judge Margulies, this is Richard,
8 Zahnleuter.
May I address briefly three points.
9 The first is if LILCO has assumed that the Statd~
10 of New York intends to sponsor an independent case, then 11 LILCO's assumption is wrong, because that's the nature of the 12 State's participation in this proceeding, and it has always 13 been.
We have always intended to be an independent party and 14 present an independent case.
15 Second of all, it's misleading to describe _'
16 witnesses for the New York State as nine witnesses.
17 Mr. Baranski, Mr. Papile and Mr. Czech are three witnesses 18 but they are combined into one panel.
Dr. Ilartgen, 19 Mr. Kilduff, Mr. Acquario and Mr. Millspaugh are four 20 witnesses, but they are combined into one panel.
Mr. Marsh
,.m 21 is one person, that's true, and Ms. Meyland, M-e-y-1-a-n-d, i
22 is one person.
23 Like I said before, though, that represents less' 0"
24 than three days of actual depositions and none of these 25 people are new to LILCO.
i
/
ace FEDERAL REPORTERS, INC.
202-347 370)
Nationwide Cowerage m)-33M6t6
29778.0 17293 cox k_)
1 Also, the third point that I would like to raise 2
is that the extension of approximately a week that we speak 3
of is not an open-ended extension of a week.
We can see from s
4 the schedule that we have in Mr. McMurray's letter, that week 5
will be filled up with depositions, and there probably will 6
not be an extension of time after that.
We have a tentative 7
plan for what to do in that week.
That's all that I have to s
8 say.
Thank you.
9 JUDGE MARGULIES:
We have heard enough.
We will
' ' 10 go off the record and come back and give you our decision.
11 Thank you.
12 (Discussion off the record.)
O/
13 JUDGE MARGULIES:
The Board is now back to give 14 its decision.
We have carefully considered this matter.
We 15 find that all of the parties have been acting very diligently 16 and are very impressed with the proposed schedule.
The 16
^
17 proposed new witnesses do present the problem, and it would 18 not be unreasonable to slip each of the due dates by one 19 week.
20 That is our ruling.
But in so doing, we wish to
/
21 make it clear to the parties that we do not expect to
/
22 entertain any other motions for any other requests for any
- n 23 delays.
That is our ruling.
24 Are there any questions?
ib 2S MR. IRWIN:
Thank you, Judge Margulies.
Will a fT 0
.c 4
ACE FEDERAL REPORTERS, INC.
202-347-3700 Nationwide Cmerage 800-3364M6 r
.e i
e s
29 902.0 17294 l<~, cox V
1 written order to that effect follow?
2 JUDGE MARGULIES:
Yes.
We will get out a written 3
order'to that effect.
4 There being nothing further, the conference call 5
is over.
Thank you.
6 (Whereupon, at 1:55 p.m.,
the telephone conference 7
was concluded.)
8 9
10 11 s
s4
- ' -12 i
)
'J t3 14
.i
)
15 16 17 18 19 20 l
21 22 i'
[
23 24 t
I l
- g 25 i (V l
l i
l
. ace FEDERAL REPORTERS, INC.
202-347-3?00 Nationwide Coverage 804336-6M6
)
I
. =-
CERTIFICATE OF OFFICIAL REPORTER C/.
This is to certify that the attached proceedings before the UNITED STATES NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSION in the matter of:
NAME OF PROCEEDING:
LONG ISLAND LIGHTING COMPANY (Shoreham Nuclear Power Station, Unit 1)
TELEPHONE CONFERENCE DOCKET NO.:
50-322-OL-3 PLACE:
Washington, D.
C.
DATE:
Friday, February 20, 1987 were held as herein appears, and that this is the original transcript thereof for the file of the United States Nuclear Regulatory Commission.
1 (sigt)
/) OM 3
(TYPED)
\\
WENDY S COX official Reporter ACE-FEDERAL REPORTERS, INC.
Reporter's Affiliation O
._