ML20212N652
| ML20212N652 | |
| Person / Time | |
|---|---|
| Site: | Shoreham File:Long Island Lighting Company icon.png |
| Issue date: | 03/04/1987 |
| From: | Irwin D HUNTON & WILLIAMS, LONG ISLAND LIGHTING CO. |
| To: | Atomic Safety and Licensing Board Panel |
| References | |
| CON-#187-2747 OL-5, NUDOCS 8703130104 | |
| Download: ML20212N652 (6) | |
Text
'
- I
- 2 W7 '
ULCO, March 4,1987 UNITED STATES OF AMERICA 000KrTED NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSION USN"PC Before the Atomic Safety and Licensing Board EE Off tCE OF RCRt.1AAY In the Matter of
)
McKEiggf P'llCf.
LONG ISLAND LIGHTING COMPANY
) Docket No. 50-322-OL-5
) (EP Exercise)
(Shoreham Nuclear Power Station,
)
Unit 1)
)'.
- LILCO'S OPPOSITION TO INTERVENORS' MOTION -
TO DELAY FILING TESTIMONY ON CONTENTION EX 50 LILCO opposes the March 3,1987 request of Intervenors to delay the filing of direct testimony on Contention EX 50.I! For the reasons stated in the letter of that date from Mr. Irwin to Mr. Lanpher (attached to Intervenors' motion and also attached hereto), LILCO does not believe that Intervenors have shown good cause for this, the second delay requested by them this week. In addition, LILCO notes the following on the basis of review of Intervenors' motion:
1.
Intervenors' reference (motion at 2) to the length of their intended testimo-ny is interesting but not dispositive. This is a finite world, and all actors, whether par-ties in litigation or participants in other activities, are liable for tailoring their efforts to the surrounding circumstances. This proceeding, established as an expedited one, cannot be accused of having been rushed precipitously toward hearing, and there has been adequate time for all parties to scope their testimony to meet schedules once set (which they have been for several weeks). There is yet time to do that, particularly given the number of lawyers available to Intervenors to finish their testimony.
2.
LILCO will be substantially prejudiced if the Board finds itself without issues to be heard on any given week because of a one-week delay in the filing of 1/
Intervenors would extend the filing deadline for LILCO as well as themselves.
While fairness dictates this parallelism, the true party in interest is the Intervenors.
8703130104 870304 i DR ADOCK 0500 2
4.
,,g a
.4
-A..
4 m
W u:
.aam
. 2-4
. testimony on Contention EX 50. Independent of this event - whose likelihood Interve -
nors can plainly l influence by the pace of their cross-examination (motion at 2) -
LILCO is troubled by the prospect of erosion of a carefully constructed, hard-bargained
' hearing schedule in a proceeding that was, and remains, structured as an expedited one.
This was one of the principal concerns expmssed in the attached March 3 letter from LILCO counsel. -Notably, Intervenors make no representations at all in their motion about their intentions with respect to seeking (or abstaining from seeking) further de-lays as opportunities present themselves in this proceeding. Five years of continuous
- experience in the various phases of this docket shows tha't if a practice of delay is ever permitted to be established, it will be resorted to continually thereaf ter under the guise of the " practice in this proceeding" or even the " law of the case." The only time to nip it is in the bud.
LILCO strongly urges the Board to deny the requested delay.2/
Respectfully submit h, Donald P. Irwin James N. Christman Le B. Zeugin Kathy E.B. McCleskey Counsel for Long Island Lighting Company
~ Hunton & Williams 707 East Main Street P.O. Box 1535 Richmond, Virginia 23212 DATED: March 4,1987
Attachment:
March 3,1987 letter, Donald P. Irwin to Lawrence Coe Lanpher 2/
In the event the Board grants the delay sought, LILCO requests it do so solely on the condition that the parties benefiting from it understand that they will not receive any further extensions of schedules, either as to the filing dates for testimony or as to the conduct of hearings.
{
3, TK L.(;
, s' j
);
5 j
.)
"~
.d 1 s
' Huwrow Sc MLLIAus
^
707 EAsr MAIN sTRas?
P.O.. Beir 1535 s.oo.em sv6w.
ws. m. w.
..Racumown. V2morw A soele ioo a.a= ave =us o..on.
=cw vona. =sw von
.oo.,,
w.animeron. o c. aoos.
Trusaaoas ais se.. coo -
.vAa.woas aos..es. sco.
. Tatenieous 304 73s.e3o0 -
n6s. 4a.o v=, we.
risc,via.m.
.vowsm Tatsu 6844a51 omt.nwoven sou e
/
wooro$. s".f=.*.". ass.i.
as+sion. E=..vw c"Ib*. e,.h;'
a n u. o..o.
nu o.
..... %.o March 3, 1987 r..., n
- a. n
!.u l
, sec.o e.-
c
- t o....
r.
.....,6u. n
.un
.,.o.
m.
o.,..
no.o o...
.=o n u o.......,....
,o a,a
.o.
o e,o,
.o..o.....
LawrenceCoeLanpher,Nsq.
Kirkpatrick & Lockhart BY TELECOPIER l,
South Lobby;- 9th Floor 1800-M Street, N.W.
. Washington, D.C.
20036-5891 s
D_ocket No. 50-322-OL-5 (Exercise Proceeding),
Dear Larry:
This is in response to;your telephone request thi.s morning' j
-for a week's extension, from~ March 13.to March 20, to file Inter.
venors' testimony on' Contention EX 50.
I understand that Mike Miller is working on both this and traffic issu'es, and that l
Intervenors would~be prepared to file their testimony on Conton-
.tions EX 38, 39, 40.CJ&nd 49.C on March 13, as presently sched-y l
l uled..
l LILCO has, as you know, an abiding interest'in expediting the conduct of the exercise proceeding. so as to avoid further costly delay.
The thirteen months it has tar.en to get to the point of evidentiary-hearings has been longer than the company thinks desirable or ascessary.
The schedule for the actual filing of testimony and conduct
.of hearings has been set ever since the preheering conference,of l
February 10, over thre'e weeks ago, and I think it should hhve
'been possible, given tne number of lawyers appear $n's for Interve-I.
nors in this case, to have fine-tuned at least from that time which lawyers' resources and time should be deployed on which issues so as to meet deadlinus.
Your belief is that there will be no prejudice to any party from the requested extension since you expect that there will o
still be testimony left to be heard by the time ~ postponed testi-mony on Contention EX 50 is filed.
I cannot agree.
This argu-ment is akin to an issue that was decided by t'ac Board on w '
7 y
, SgJj;w f
o I
i F
,j[hh Huwrow 6c WILLIAMS gs-r 4
c ' N$'
~
Lawrence Coe Lanpher, Esq.
. March 3,'1987 Pa,ge 2 ' /'
c 5.
ib
?"
jy if l3 -
February 10, when" it rejected. the concept that 'merely ~enough tes-
-/ : timony ought to b41"in the can" at any time to' prevent a lapse in l'
hearings,.and instead required testimony to be filed in three a
,I'"-
, groups..The _ basic i_ntegrity of the proceeding is imperiled if
)the parties volunt'ar11y, depart at their convenience from consid-f
',cced schedules 4 hat'have been arrived atL af ter hard - negotiation
'and argument.
Further,'though you expect that a-delay in filing 4'
/
'tes'timony on Contention EX 50 will not delay. the conduct of hear-ings,.that-cannot be' predicted with absolute confidence; and LILCO has, as you know,.a vital. stake in avoiding the prejudice that accompanies any further delay in this already protracted p
g W
proceeding.
I do 'not think that good cause exists for depart-l/
In shor't, 44 ing' from the present schedule.
LILCO would, however, consider acceding to your.re(uest on the following terms, which~would avoid the possibility of the longer-term prejudice I fear:
.l.
On agreement that none of Intervenors will seek any-A further extensions in connection with the -05 pro-caeding; (l'
2.. An agreem?nt to join with LILCO in promoting the 4
presently ardered conduct of the -05 hearings con-s.
tinuously from start to, finish, except for' weekends t
and the one-week break the Board has indicated it t
1 intends to take; and i
i i
3 ~.
An agreement to join with LILCO in seeking simulta-l
'9 neous conduct of hearings before the -05 and -03 boards, when the -03 issues are ready for trial.
i Please' let me know if this'is acceptable to you.
/
Sinetrely yours, D.-
L h
Donald P.
Irwin
+
l N
' ' 91/730 N
O i
- - + -.
...,...,..-. ~,-,
w
!n.
w u
~
gg.o:
Hr LILCO, March 4,1987:
't y
^
}
d.
j-S -%
, sy CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE
' 1 In the Matter of
. LONG ISLAND LIGHTING COMPANY -
y
' 3-
>(Shoreham Nuclear Power Station, Unit 1)
Docket N6. 50-322-OL-5 Y
' & y f li I heceby? certify that copies of LILCO'S - OPPOSITION TO - INTERVENORS' '
MOTIONSTO DELAY ~ FILING TESTIMONY ON CONTENTION-EX 50 were served.this s
s
- date upori fthe following by telecopy as indicated by an asterisk, by. Federal Express as indicated by two asterisks, or by first-class mail, postage prepaid.
i John'H. Frye, III, Chairman
- 4 Atomic Safety and Licensing Atomic Safety and Licensing.
Board Panel
. U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission Board U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission Washington, D.C. 20555 East-West Towers l'
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 mailroom)
Board Bethesda, MD 20814 U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission L
East-West Towers
' Herbert H. Brown, Esq.
- 4350 East-West Hwy.
Qg Lawrence Coe Lanpher, Esq.
Karla J. Letsche, Esq.
Bethesda, MD 20814 ss
-5 Kirkpatrick & Lockhart
/
Mr. Frederick J. Shon
- South Lobby - 9th Floor (D#,
Atomic Safety and Licensing 1800 M Street, N.W.
' Board Washington, D.C. 20036-5891 (4
U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission L'
East-West Towers, Rm. 430 Fabian G. 9 lera 10, Esq.
- L 4350 East-West Hwy.
Richarj 1 Lib. uter, Esq.
L Bethesda, MD.20814 Specia16ounx 9 the Governor
/
Executive Chamber s
= Secretary of the Commission Room 229
~,
L Attention Ddeketing 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
- g Assistant Attorney General 120, Broadway Third Floor, Room 3-116
~ Atomic Safety and Licensing 4,
l Appeal Board Panel New York, New York 10271 U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission 1
Washington, D.C. 20555 I~
L 1
E
8
-b,%
4 fj;
)=
m
. 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 P.O. Box 231 Agency e
26 Federal Plaza Wading River, NY 11792 New York, New York 10278 J,
Jonathan D. Feinberg, Esq.
New York State Department of Public Service, Staff Counsel Three Rockefeller Plaza Albany, New York 12223 i
f Donald P. Irwin l
Hunton & Williams 1
707 East Main Street 4
P.O. Box 1535 Richmond, Virginia 23212 DATED: March 4,1987 i.
t:
t
.