ML20214N173
| ML20214N173 | |
| Person / Time | |
|---|---|
| Site: | Shoreham File:Long Island Lighting Company icon.png |
| Issue date: | 05/20/1987 |
| From: | Mcmurray C KIRKPATRICK & LOCKHART, SUFFOLK COUNTY, NY |
| To: | Kline J, Margulies M, Shon F Atomic Safety and Licensing Board Panel |
| References | |
| CON-#287-3549 OL-3, OL-5, NUDOCS 8706020088 | |
| Download: ML20214N173 (4) | |
Text
1 KIRKPATRICK & LOCKHART i-SOUTH lob 8Y 9TH h.coR E.XCHANCE Ft. ACE g,y g p' y 1800 M STREET. N.W.
fU WASHINGTON, D.C. 2CJE5891 stD 2274000
"'"^"
'87 MAY 27 P 1 :15 '* MIAMI ft.33ui TEI.EPHONE (202) 77&9000 0 05) 374 4112 N*
U H00 C N BULDO C Q[3 i, TEl.ECOPIER Q02) U&9100 gggg.
PITT394.5CH. PA 15222-5379 U
"ID 3" CHRISTOPHER M. McMURRAY
'202' "*"5' May 20, 1987 BY HAND Morton B.
Margulies, Chairman Dr. Jerry R.
Kline Mr. Frederick J. Shon Atomic Safety and Licensing Board U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission East-West Towers, Room 407 4350 East-West Highway Bethesda, MD 20814 Re:
Docket 30-322-OL-3 Status Report Gentlemen:
Pursuant to the Board's Memorandum and Order (Ruling on Intervenors' Motion for Rescheduling of Relocation Center Hearing) (April 23, 1987), Suffolk County offers this status report on the progress of the OL-5 proceeding and the availability of the County's witnesses for the hearing on the adequacy of LILCO's reception centers.
Status of OL-5 Proceeding In light of the current OL-5 hearing schedule, commencement of the OL-3 hearing on the projected June 15 date appears now to be infeasible.
Until very recently, the parties and the Frye Board have been projecting June 18 as the likely completion date for the OL-5 hearing.
However, circumstances which have recently surfaced indicate that the OL-5 hearing may not terminate until sometime during the week of June 22.
Specifically, the Frye Board has recently asked the NRC Staff to submit written testimony on certain contentions.
This new testimony has not yet been submitted, so it is impossible to determine precisely its impact on the OL-5 schedule.
Nevertheless, cross-examination, and possibly rebuttal, of the new Staff testimony, will require time not contemplated when the Board and the pertt.cs projected a June 18 conclusion.
i l O
)$
8706020088 870520 PDR ADOCK 05000322-G PDR
e KIRKPATRICK & LOCKHART Morton B. Margulies, Chairman Dr. Jerry R. Kline Mr. Frederick J. Shon May 20, 1987 Page 2 In addition, the Frye Board has indicated that it may request one of the County's witnesses to appear at a later date for further cross-examination on Contentions Ex 15, 16 and 50.
Thus, it is the County's view that for planning purposes an additional week should be added to the June 18 projected completion date in order to account for:
(1) the unanticipated presentation of additional written NRC testimony which must be cross-examined and, if necessary, rebutted; and (2) possible additional cross-examination of one of the County's witnesses.
In any event, it is now apparent that it is unreasonable to anticipate that the OL-5 proceeding will conclude in time to adhere to the June 15 interim OL-3 hearing date established in this Board's April 23 Memorandum and Order.
The Availability of the County's OL-3 Witnesses Suffolk County has polled its witnesses to determine their availability to participate in the OL-3 hearing between June 15 and the end of July.
At present, counsel has been able to determine the following:
(1 )
Dr. Johnson's current schedule presents no conflicting obligations for the duration of the period.
(2)
Dr. Mayer will be available from June 15 until July 13; he will be unavailable from July 13 through the 24th.
(3)
Dr. Harris will be available for afternoon testimony only on June 17-19, and June 25-26.
He will be unavailable June 22-24, and July 6-27.
(4)
Mr. Minor will be unavailable July 1 through July 7.
(5)
Dr. Saegert will be unavailable for approximately one week between June 18 and June 30.
The exact dates cannot be determined at this time.
(6)
Dr. Radford has an obligation in England from June 29 through July 1.
He must also. appear in Harrisburg for testimony in another matter on June 23 and July 14.
(7)
Professor Cole will be in Poland until approximately June 19.
I
r 6
g..
KIRKPARICK & LOCKHART Morton B. Margulies, Chairman Dr. Jerry R. Kline Mr. Frederick J. Shon May 20, 1987 Page 3 (8)
Mr. Sholly has no apparent scheduling problems at this time.
LILCO's Proposed Schedule In its May 16 Status Report, LILCO offers a proposed schedule.
The County agrees with some of LILCO's proposed schedule, but opposes other aspects of it.
a.
Suffolk County does not agree.that the hearing can necessarily commence on June 22, for the reasons set forth above.
b.
The County believes that the hearing schedule followed by the Frye Board should be adopted by this Board:. that is, hearings Monday through Thursday, from 9:00 a.m. to 5:00 p.m.
with 1 1/2 hours for lunch.
There is no need for evening, Friday or Saturday hearing sessions, nor has LILCO indicated how such sessions could feasibly be conducted given the need to prepare witnesses and prepare cross-examination, not to mention the unavailability of a hearing room.
c.
The County strongly opposes LILCO's rigid proposed schedule with fixed times and dates for particular panels to commence and terminate on dates certain, for a number of reasons.
First, such a detailed schedule is plainly premature.
Parties have yet to file rebuttal testimony, and the Board has not yet ruled on motions to strike.
Thus, the actual scope of testimony to be presented and cross-examined at the hearing is not yet known.
Furthermore, the times necessary'to conduct cross-examination of particular testimony cannot be arbitrarily mandated in a vacuum, or based simply on numbers of pages of testimony.
Counsel who will be conducting such cross-examination I
l should provide estimates of the amount of time required.
Any i
proposed or tentative schedules should be based on such estimates
-- which are meaningful and useful data -- and not simply l
arbitrarily pulled out of the air with no basis whatever.
Moreover, the type of arbitrary formula apparently used by'LILCO in deriving its proposed schedule does not account for the fact l
that LILCO's testimony has many detailed attachments, which, if l
allowed into the record, will require close scrutiny; nor does it account for such factors as the cooperativeness of witnesses, the size of witness panels, the complexity of_the testimony being cross-examined, the need to deal with procedural matters which inevitably arise during trials, etc.
Clearly, the adoption of such arbitrary, pre-established times for completion of cross-l
S i
't t
KIRKPATRICK & LOCKHART Morton B. Margulies, Chairman Dr. Jerry R.
Kline Mr. Frederick J. Shon May 20, 1987 Page 4 examination, in the total absence of meaningful cross-examination estimates or other data, would constitute an improper denial of the right to conduct effective and meaningful cross-examination.
While the County agrees that at some point a tentative schedule will be helpful in terms of scheduling witnesses and the like, the appropriate way to arrive at such a schedule is to obtain cross-examination time estimates from the parties after rebuttal testimony has been filed and all motions to strike have been resolved.
Using these estimates, a general schedule can be derived; then, as the trial begins and the actual pace of cross-examination and the proceeding can be meaningfully gauged, the parties should be able to agree on precisely when subsequent witness panels should be prepared to appear.
This has been the practice in all previous hearings and in general it has worked well.
d.
The County agrees generally with the order of the witness panels proposed by LILCO except that the County's witnesses should appear in three separate panels, the same way that their testimony was filed in three separate pieces covering distinct issues.
The three panels would appear after LILCO's witness panel.
The County believes it is premature at this time to propose an order for its three panels, as witness availability and the actual commencement date of the hearing (which is as yet uncertain) will play large roles in determining that order.
Respectfu 1y submitted, Chr stopher M. McMurray cc:
Service List