ML20212F760
| ML20212F760 | |
| Person / Time | |
|---|---|
| Site: | Shoreham File:Long Island Lighting Company icon.png |
| Issue date: | 03/02/1987 |
| From: | Irwin D HUNTON & WILLIAMS, LONG ISLAND LIGHTING CO. |
| To: | Atomic Safety and Licensing Board Panel |
| References | |
| CON-#187-2673 OL-5, NUDOCS 8703050150 | |
| Download: ML20212F760 (6) | |
Text
r 3f73 LILCO, M:rch 2,1987
.s g
CMKETEC
' "M C UNITED STATES OF AMERICA NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSION
'87 MR -4 All :11 Before the Atomic Safety and Licensinst Board
- .y
'.rt In the Matter of
)
)
LONG ISLAND LIGHTING COMPANY
) Docket No. 50-322-OL-5
) (EP Exercise)
(Shoreham Nuclear Power Station,
)
Unit 1)
)
LILCO'S OPPOSITION TO INTERVENORS' FEBRU ARY 27 MOTION FOR REVISION OF HEARING SCHEDULE On February 27, Intervenors served by telecopier a motion requesting a two-week postponement of the March 10 date for commencement of hearings on the
~
Shoreham emergency exercise. The basis for the motion is the Federal Emergency Management Agency's projection, in a February 26 letter from counsel, of a delay from February 27 until March 20 in the agency's ability to file its direct testimony because of the illness of one of its principal witnesses, Roger Kowleski.II There is no suggestion that such a revised date for filing FEMA's testimony would delay the appearance of FEMA's witnesses, who are scheduled to testify last in the proceeding.
Intervenors' argument bolls down to the contention that they cannot cross-examine LILCO's witnesses on LILCO's testimony without FEMA's direct testimony to guide them. The argument is flawed and should not be accepted, for severa1 reasons.
1/
The February 26 letter from FEMA counsel notifying the Board of Mr. Kowleski's illness and its effect on FEMA's ability to complete its testimony noted that Mr.
Kowleski had been taken ill as of February 18 and was still under a doctor's care, and attached physicians' certifications covering the period from February 18 through February 26. The letter also noted that completion of the agency's testimony would be hindered because of depositions scheduled for its personnel on March 6. The letter also enclosed under seal a draf t of the agency's testimony as of February 26.
l P A82 M8%
sos PDn
r n
's b 1.
The purpose of this proceeding, as all parties have frequently agreed, is to ascertain whether the performance of the LERO organization on February 13,1986 was suen as to indicate the existence of fundamental flaws in LILCO's basic offsite emer-gency plan for Shoreham.N That inquiry is based fundamentally on the events and other f acts from the date of the exercise. While the opinions of all observers with re-spect to those facts inform the decisional process, they are derivative of the basic in-quiry. Intervenors have not complained that their access to and knowledge of these baseline facts is insufficient to permit them to form their own views.
2.
This hearing has involved such massive document and deposition discov-U ery that evidentiary sessions are beginning barely 13 months af ter the completion of an exercise that lasted barely 10 hours1.157407e-4 days <br />0.00278 hours <br />1.653439e-5 weeks <br />3.805e-6 months <br />. Intervenors have largely controlled the pace of events toward hearing. The discovery process included, with respect to FEMA alone, examination of (1) the FEMA Post-Exercise Assessment, (2) all.draf ts of it. (3) all ob-server notes, (4) other inter-and intra-agency correspondence involving the exercise evaluation process,(5) examination of RAC panel members,(6) depositions of other fed-eral observers, (7) depositions of FEMA witnesses.M ntervonors cannot complain that I
2/
Certain contentions filed by Intervonors - particularly Contentions EX 15 and 16.-- also challenge the exercise as a basis for reaching decisions as to the existence of fundamental flaws in the LILCO offsite plan.
3/
Deposition discovery alone has involved 48 sessions to take the depositions of 57 individuals.
Of these, intervenors noticed the significant majority: 34 sessions involving 35 individuals. Of these,15 sessions involved 15 individuals associated with FEMA's evaluation of the exercise.
4/
The argument in Intervenors' motion (footnote 2) that the deposition testimony of FEMA witnesses failed to illuminate their views on the issues in the proceeding is misleading at best. The FEM A witnesses -- Messrs. Kowleski, Baldwin and Keller --
were subjected to three continuous days of deposition, from January 28 through January
- 30. During this deposition they testified at length on the events of the exercise and is-
~
(footnote continued)
4 their factual basis as to FEMA's work product is insufficient to permit them to be pre-pared for the hearing.
3.
The exact process which begins on March 10 is examination of LILCO wit-nesses on LILCO testimony. The bases for inquiry of that testimony are primarily formed by that testimony itself and the underlying events and records thereof. Not-withstanding Intervonors' generalized arguments about prejudice, the facts, data and views that are logically to be probed from LILCO witnesses are those elicited by the discovery process or held by LILCO experts. To the secondary extent that the knowl-edge and views of FEMA witnesses may be relevant to examination of LILCO, those views have been available in the protracted discovery process outlined in paragraph 2 and footnote 4 above. There is no prima facie need for further amplification of those views by FEMA's testimony before the proceeding starts with examination of testimony not sponsored by FEMA. Certainly, Intervenors have not even tried to show any specif-ic ba.cis on which to support such a need.
4.
If, contrary to the record and all expectation, FEMA witnesses substantially alter their views in a way which prejudicially affects the other parties' presentation of their cases, Intervenors have well-known remedies, beginning with impeachment of (footnote continued) sues raised by it. During that deposition, they stated repeatedly that they stood by their basic evaluation of the exercise as stated in the Post-Exercise Assessment; and that while they had not yet tried to fit those views into the exact rubric of the specific contentions filed by Intervenors, their expert views remained what they had been since they were published on April 17, 1986. See, e.g., Dep. Tr. of Jan. 30,1987 at 60, 63, 66-68, 76, 78, 88, 113-114. Whatever shortcomings intervenors may have felt existed in the FEMA witnesses' articulation of their views during the three days of deposition, In-tervenors did not feel strongly enough about them to seek to continue the deposition until such time as the witnesses had formulated their views in Intervenors' terms. The short of it is that intervenors are well on notice of the actual views of the FEMA ex-perts.
. g FEMA's witnesses and continuing, if justified, to seeking to file supplemental testimony or to reopen such aspects of the record as they can show good cause for.
5.
Intervenors' argument is irreconcilable with the history of the litigation on the Shoreham offsite emergency plan which took place in 1983-84. There, on the major group of issues in the case -- the so-called " Group 11 issues - the other parties filed their testimony and were examined on it before - in some cases months before --
FEMA filed its direct testimony. All participants other than FEMA filed their direct testimony on these issues on March 2,1984 and hearings on it began on March 20 with issue-by-issue examination of LILCO and Intervenor witnesses. FEMA did not file its basic testimony until April 18,1984, wellinto the examination of other parties; and was not examined on it until beginning in the second week of July 1984. Thus the time lag which FEMA now requests is merely consistent with, and less than, that in the previous history in this case, and there is no basis to believe that any party was prejudiced by the practice observed previously.
For the foregoing reasons, Intervenors' request to delay the start of this proceed-ing yet further should be denied.
/
Respc.ctfully submitted l
DonTd P. Irwin James N. Christman Lee B. Zeugin Kathy E.B. McCleskey Counsel for Long Island Lighting Company ifunton & Williams 707 East Main Street P.O. Box 1535 Richmond, Virginia 23212 DATED: March 2,1987
, 's LILCO, March 2,1987
,c
. hk b.b b n pret CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE
.g7 ggg.4 gjj ;)j m 1W in the Matter of LONG ISLAND LIGHTING COMPANY
- . d,- 7 W-(Shoreham Nuclear Power Station, Unit 1)
~
Docket No. 50-322-OL-5 I hereby certify that copies of LILCO'S OPPOSITION TO INTERVENORS' FEBRUARY 27 MOTION FOR REVISION OF HEARING SCHEDULE were served this date upon the following by telecopy as indicated by an asterisk, by Federal Express as indicated by two asterisks, or by first-class mall, postage prepaid.
John H. Frye, Ill, Chairman
- Atomic Safety and Licensing Atomic Safety and Licensing Board Panel Board U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission Washington, D.C. 20555 East-West Towers 4350 East-West Hwy.
Oreste Russ Pirfo, Esq.
- Bethesda, MD 20814 Edwin J. Reis. Esq.
U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission Dr. Oscar H. Paris
- 7735 Old Georgetown Road Atomic Safety and Licensing (to mallroom)
Board Bethesda, MD 20814 U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission East-West Towers flerbert H. Brown Esq.
- 4350 East-West Hwy.
Lawrence Coe Lanpher, Esq.
Bethesda, MD 20814 Karla J. Letsche, Esq.
Kirkpatrick & Lockhart Mr. Frederick J. Shon
- South Lobby - 9th Floor Atomic Safety and Licensirig '
1800 M Street, N.W.
Board Washington, D.C. 20036-5891 U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission East-West Towers, Rm. 430 Fabian G. Palomino, Esq.
- 4350 East-West Hwy.
Richard J. Zahnleuter, Esq.
Bethesda, MD 20814 Special Counsel to the Governor Executive Chamber Secretary of the Commission Room 229 Attention Docketing and Service State Capitol Section Albany, New York 12224 U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission 1717 H Street, N.W.
Mary Gundrum, Esq.
Washington, D.C. 20555 Assistant Attorney General 120 Broadway Atomic Safety and Licensing Third Floor, Room 3-116 Appeal Board Panel New York, New York 10271 U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission Washington, D.C. 20555
g 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 Pub!!c Service, Staff Counsel Three Rockefeller Plaza Albany, New York 12223 f
1 NbN DWnald P. Irwin Hunton & Williams 707 East Main Street P.O. Box 1535 Richmond, Virginia 23212 DATED: March 2,1987 s
.