ML20212K619
| ML20212K619 | |
| Person / Time | |
|---|---|
| Site: | Shoreham File:Long Island Lighting Company icon.png |
| Issue date: | 01/22/1987 |
| From: | Christman J HUNTON & WILLIAMS, LONG ISLAND LIGHTING CO. |
| To: | Atomic Safety and Licensing Board Panel |
| References | |
| CON-#187-2298 OL-3, NUDOCS 8701290130 | |
| Download: ML20212K619 (6) | |
Text
T y ff 4-LILCO, January 22,1987 CCOMETED UNITED STATES OF AMERICA NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSION
'87 JAN 27 P2 :05-Before the Atomic Safety and Licensing Board hh a N.,,,,
In the Matter of
)
)
LONG ISLAND LIGHTING COMPANY
) Docket No. 50-322-OL-3
- ) (Emergency Planning)
(Shoreham Nuclear Power Station,
)
Unit 1)
)
LILCO'S MOTION FOR RECONSIDERATION OF THE BOARD'S JANUARY 14.1987 ORDER (SETTING DISCOVERY AND HEARING SCHEDULE)
In its order of January 14, 1987, the Board set the following schedule for hearing the reopened reception center issue:
1.
The time for discovery will commence immediately and conclude on March 6,1987.
2.
LILCO's prefiled testimony is due on March 23, 1987; Intervenors' on April 6,1987 and Staff's on April 13,1987.
- 3..
Motions to strike testimony are due April 20, 1987 and responses by April 27,1987.
4.
The due dates are the dates the documents are required to be in the hands of the Board and the parties.
5.
The hearing will commence on May 4,1987.
t LILCO hereby asks the Board to reconsider its January 14 order and to change it in the following respects:
1.
All prefiled testimony should be filed simultaneously. March 23,1987, is a suitable date for this purpose.
2.
Assuming a March 23 filing date for all testimony, motions to strike testi-mony should be due March 30 (instead of April 20 as in the Board's order);
responses should be due April 6.
3.
The hearing should commence about April 13, instead of May 4.
4.
A minor modification as to the requirements for service on the Town of Southampton should be made, as detailed below.
3 8701290130 870122 jfg6 PDR ADOCK 0500 2
G
_y
- 5.
Guidance is needed on summary disposition. In particular, the parties need to know whether filing motions for summary disposition will delay the be-ginning of the hearing.
DISCUSSIO 1.
Testimony should be simultaneously filed The Board has required LILCO to file its testimony first, notwithstanding the fact that the essence of LILCO's case is already laid out in the emergency plan. The justification for this is the Board's statement that "[t]he order requiring testimony to be prefiled was determined on the bases of the burden of the parties in the proceeding and the information that should be available." Order of January 14,1987, at 1-2.
As LILCO has recently argued to the -05 Board, the requirement that LILCO file its direct testimony first prejudices LILCO, is inconsistent with the practice in this proceeding, and virtually guarantees the need for a separate rebuttal phase.
In the J
past all parties have filed testimony simultaneously, on as many issues as were ready for
' hearing at any given time.M Then all parties have been heard in turn on each issue (or issue cluster) before turning to the next issue or cluster. On rare occasions, more than one party's witnesses have testified simultaneously, in order to facilitate the Board's l
ability to hear and contrast their experts' views. In a bench ruling on January 6,1987, l
the -05 Board agreed to simultaneous filing of all parties' testimony in the exercise liti-gation.
In this -03 proceeding the Intervenors recommended simultaneous filing. Indeed, counsel for Intervenors referred to the " consistent practice in these proceedings under which the parties have simulta'eously filed their testimony on emergency planning n
matters." Suffolk County, State of New Yorn and Town of Southampton Reply Brief on l
1/
LILCO originally proposed that the Intervenors file their testimony first. Having lost that argument, LILCO does not' renew it here but does request simultaneous filing by all parties, consistent with past practice.
-eeti
~-,r---- -
- n
--w,e.mn.,.--,-w,-.-
m--.-
n.
.,,,-m-.--.m,..%-_.m ww-
--,--e-,-
.%w,-,=4
- LILCO's Motion. to Reopen Record, Docket 50-322-OL-3 (Emergency Planning),
December 8,1986, at 11 n. 7. The NRC Staff did propose that LILCO file first. But counsel for FEMA has now authorized LILCO to say that FEMA would not object to having its testimony filed on March 23, at the same time as LILCO and the Intervenors'.2/
Also, the staggered filing of testimony, combined with a simultaneous filing of motions to strike, means that LILCO has two weeks to draf t its motions to strike while the Intervenors have twice as long. However much time is given should be the same for the applicant as for the Intervenors.
2.
The time from filing of testimony until the hearing begins is unreasonably long LILCO believes the time allowed by the Board's schedule before hearing begins is too long, particularly in a case in which the power plant is ready to operate and is costing the applicant approximately a million dollars a day in overhead and carrying charges. LILCO does not complain here about the seven and a half weeks allowed for discovery, though LILCO originally proposed four weeks.
The remainder of the schedule, however, is too lengthy. If there is simultaneous filing of testimony (addressed above), the time between filing testimony and the start of the hearing should be three weeks, as the Intervenors proposed. (The NRC regulation, i
C.F.R. S 2.743(b), says that testimony should be served at least 15 days before it is pres-ented at hearing.) This would allow one week for motions to strike, one week to answer them, and another week before the hearing begins. In light of the cost of delay, plus i
the late stage of this proceeding, the Board should begin the hearing three weeks af ter the testimony is (simultaneously) filed.
j i
2/
The NRC Staff's ability (as distinguished from FEMA's) to meet a March 23 filing date may be affected by the Commission's resolution of LILCO's petition to review ALAB-855, which addresses the issue of how many people would have to be monitored at the reception centers. But this uncertainty need not prevent the Board from recon-sidering the schedule.
N 3.
A special case for service should be made for the Town of Southampton The Board has provided that the due dates are "the dates the documents are re-quired to be in the hands of the Board and the parties." This is a desirable requirement, which LILCO applauds. However, a minor exception should be made in the case of the Town of Southampton, because its counsel does not have a telecopier. Each of the fil-ing dates for testimony and pleadings in the Board's order, is on a Monday. Since plead-ings cannot be telecopied to the Town of Southampton, they will have to be given to Federal Express the preceding Saturday. This in effect cuts two days off LILCO's times, though not the Intervenors'.
Instead, service on the Town of Southampton should be deemed adequate if the document is delivered to an express service (like Federal Express) on the duo date, for.
delivery the following business day.
4.
The need for summary disposition The Board marie no mention of summary oisposition in its schedule. Since the Frye Board recently indicated that filing motior.s for summary disposition would delay the -05 hearing, LILCO, and perhaps the other parties, need to know whether a similar consideration applies in this proceeding as well.
For these reasons, LILCO requests that the Board reconsider and modify its Order of January 14,19'i7.
Respectfully submitted,
.Pt4A -
James N. Christpan Hunton & Williams 707 East Main Street P.O. Box 1535 Richmond, Virginia 23212 DATED: January 22,1987
3:
LILCO, Jtnuary 22,1987 6
J0L V it
'liNuc CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE OFFI;
- In the Matter of 4
LONG ISLAND LIGHTING COMPANY (Shoreham Nuclear Power Station, Unit 1)
Docket No. 50-322-OL-3 I hereby certify that copies of LILCO's Motion for Reconsideration of the Board's January 14,1987 Order (Setting Discovery and hearing Schedule) were served this date upon the following by by Federal Express as indicated by one asterisk, or bj first-class mail, postage prepaid.
l Morton B. Margulies, 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, 'Im. 407 4350 East-West Hwy.
Bernard M. Bordenick, Esq.
- j Bethesda, MD 20814 Oreste Russ Pirfo, Esq.
Edwin J. Reis, Esq.
Dr. Jerry R. Kline
- U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission Atomic Safety and Licensing 7735 Old Georgetown Road Board (to mailroom) l U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission Bethesda, MD 20814 l
East-West Towers, Rm. 427 l
4350 East-West Hwy.
Herbert H. Brown, Esq.
- Bethesda, MD 20814 Lawrence Coe Lanpher, Esq.
l Karla J. Letsche, Esq.
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 l
East-West Towers, Rm. 430 l
4350 East-West Hwy.
Fabian G. Palomino, Esq.
- Bethesda, MD 20814 Richard J. Zahnleuter, Esq.
Special Counsel to the Governot 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.
i Washington, D.C. 20555 Mary Gundrum, Esq.
Assistant Attorney General Atomic Safety and Licensing 120 Broadway l
Appeal Board Panel Third Floor, Room 3-116 U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission New York, New York 10271 Washington, D.C. 20555 l
t -.
't t 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 g,,,
!A
, dames N. Christ' man Hunton & Williams 707 East Main Street P.O. Box 1535 Richmond, Virginia 23212 DATED: January 22,1987
-- -