ML20214N250
| ML20214N250 | |
| Person / Time | |
|---|---|
| Site: | Shoreham File:Long Island Lighting Company icon.png |
| Issue date: | 05/22/1987 |
| From: | Leugers M HUNTON & WILLIAMS, LONG ISLAND LIGHTING CO. |
| To: | Atomic Safety and Licensing Board Panel |
| References | |
| CON-#287-3564 OL-3, OL-5, NUDOCS 8706020113 | |
| Download: ML20214N250 (10) | |
Text
r }hh LILCO, May 22 1987 3
s j
UNITED STATES OF AMERICA p[
NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSION i
~87 MY 27 P12:03 Before the Atomic Safety and Licensing Board GCCM1)':
In the Matter of
) Docket No. 50-322-OL-3
) (Emergency Planning)
LONG ISLAND LIGHTING COMPANY
)
) Docket No. 50-322-OL-5 (Shoreham Nuclear Power Station,
) (EP Exercise)
Unit 1)
)
LILCO'S REPLY TO THE INTERVENORS' RESPONSES TO ITS MOTION TO LIMIT CROSS-EXAMINATION On May 5,1987, LILCO filed its " Motion to Limit Cross-Examination by New York State and Suf folk County" (hereinaf ter "LILCO's Motion") with the -03 and the -05 5
Boards to limit the Intervenors from cross-examining each other's witnesses and to consolidate the Intervenors with respect to Contentions EX 15 and 16 in the -05 pro M o LILCO's Motion.
ceeding. Both New York State and Suffolk County filed responses t
In its response, New York State confined its remarks to the OL-3 proceeding "(slince the Frye Board orally resolved the Motion during the OL-5 Exercise Proceeding on May
=
13,1987 by partially denying it and partially withholding judgment...." State Re-sponse at 1. Suffolk County did much the same, although it characterized the Frye Board's statements as a complete denial of LILCO's Motion. Suffolk County Response at 3.
In LILCO's view both of the Intervenors' responses mischaracterize the Frye Board's treatment of LILCO's Motion to consolidate the Intervenors on Contentions EX 1/
See " State of New York Response in Oppositon to LILCO's Motion to Limit Cross-Examination," dated May 15,1987 (hereinaf ter " State Response"), and " Response of Suffolk County to LILCO's Motion to Limit Cross-Examination," dated May 18,1987 (hereinaf ter "Suffolk County Response").
EM855R83888sa, PDR gb
15 and 16. The Board did not deny LILCO's Motion in whole or in part. Rather, a fair reading of the hearing transcript shows that the Board did not rule on the major issue of consolidation because it essentially had been mooted by the Intervenors' representation that they did not intend to cross-examine each other's witnesses on the panel.2/ OL-5 Transcript at 5958. As a matter of fact,it appears that the Board's inclination would have been to consolidate the Intervenors if the issue had not been mooted by the Inter-venors' representations.EI See Attachment I containing OL-5 Transcript at 5956-5960.
The only concern in LILCO's Motion directly addressed by the Board was argued orally by LILCO and concerned the situation where it may "ask a question finding one objection from Mr. Lanpher and another from Mr. Zahnleuter." OL-5 Transcript at
}
l 2/
In addition, Suffolk County represented that it would take the lead in cross-examining LILCO's witnesses, that Suffolk County and New York State would both make objections, and that the Intervenors could not at that time represent who would j
do redirect.
3/
The Board's initial remarks on LILCO's Motion support this conclusion:
JUDGE FRYE:... The State and the County have filed joint testi-Il' many on Contentions 15 and 16 in one package.
And, while the witnesses say that they are not exactly joint witnesses it seems to me they probably really are. They are being presented as a panel.
OL-5 Transcript at 5956.
l Later, af ter Suffolk County informed the Board that the Intervenors intended to l
I limit their cross-examination of each other's witnesses, the Board acquiesced in LILCO's characterization of the Intervenors' voluntary consolidation.
MR. IRWIN: No, sir. But, you've never had a panel like this -
JUDGE FRYE: That's true.
MR. IRWIN: - where they have voluntarily consolidated them-selves.
JUDGE FRYE: That's true.
OL-5 Transcript at 5959.
l
. 3 5959. To this Judge Frye responded "[t]f this gets.to be a problem in the course of this testimony, I will deal with it then." Id. In its response to LILCO's Motion, Suffolk l
County, however, quoted out of context this remark by Judge Frye (along with several following statements) to support its contention that the -05 Board denied LILCO's Mo-tion. Suffolk County Motion at 3, in. 2. Now, Suffolk County uses that 1
I mischaracterization in urging this Board to deny LILCO's Motion in this proceeding, j
Suffolk County and New York State should not be permitted to rely upon a 1
mischaracterization of the OL-5 Board's treatment of LILCO's Motion in support of
\\
their position. Rather, the relevant passages f rom the OL-5 hearing transcript should be taken for what they are, a recognition that the Intervenors have voluntarily consoli-j dated themselves on Contentions EX 15 and 16.
i i
l Respectf ully submitted,
//f7AM
_ dud /Aa Jambs N tj)d5g i
{
Mary Jo gers t
)
I Hunton & Williams j,
707 East Main Street i
P.O. Box 1535 Richmond, Virginia 23212 4
DATED: May 22,1987 i
l l
}
i i
i I
LILCO, Mafg((S87
'87 MAY 27 P12:03 GFF G =
CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE C0CX!Dr
. :x In the Matter of LONG ISLAND LIGHTING COMPANY (Shoreham Nuclear Power Station, Unit 1)
Docket Nos. 50-322-OL-3 and 50-322-OL-5 I hereby certify that copies of LILCO'S REPLY TO THE INTERVENORS' RE-SPONSES TO ITS MOTION TO LIMIT CROSS-EXAMIN ATION were served this date upon the following by telecopier as indicated by one asterisk by Federal Express or by hand as indicated by two asterisks, or by first-class mail, postage prepaid.
4 J
John H. Frye, III, Chairman **
Atomic Safety and Licensing Mr. Frederick J. Shon **
- j Board Atomic Safety and Licensing 4
U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission Board Vd East-West Towers U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission 4350 East-West Hwy.
East-West Towers, Rm. 430
~j Bethesda, MD 20814 4350 East-West Hwy.
Bethesda, MD 20814 l's Morton B. Margulies, Chairman **
j}
Atomic Safety and Licensing Secretary of the Commission
-?
Board Attention Docketing and Service 4
U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission Section East-West Towers, Rm. 407 U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission 4350 East-West Hwy.
1717 H Street, N.W.
B::thesda, MD 20814 Washington, D.C. 20555 Dr. Oscar H. Paris **
Atomic Safety and Licensing Atomic Safety and Licensing Appeal Board Panel Board U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission Washington, D.C. 20555 East-West Towers 4350 East-West Hwy.
Atomic Safety and Licensing Bethesda, MD 20814 Board Panel U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission Dr. Jerry R. Kline **
Washington, D.C. 20555 Atomic Safety and Licensing Board U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission East-West Towers, Rm. 427 4350 East-West Hwy.
Bethesda, MD 20814
s Richard G. Bachmann, Esq. "
Albany, New York 12223 George E. Johnson, Esq.
U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission Stephen B. Latham, Esq. **
7735 Old Georgetown Road Twomey, Latham & Shea (to mallroom) 33 West Second Street Bethesda, MD 20814 P.O. Box 298 Riverhead, New York 11901 1
Oreste Russ Pirfo, Esq. "
Edwin J. Reis, Esq.
Mr. Philip McIntire U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission -
Federal Emergency Management j
7735 Old Georgetown Road Agency (to mallroom) 26 Federal Plaza 1
Bethesda, MD 20814 New York, New York 10278 l
- Htrbert H. Brown, Esq. **
Jonathan D. Feinberg. Esq.
l Lawrence Coe Lanpher, Esq.
New York State Department of j
Karla J. Letsche, Esq.
Public Service, Staff Counsel Kirkpatrick & Lockhart Three Rockefeller Plaza South Lobby - 9th Floor Albany, New York 12223 1800 M Street, N.W.
Washington, D.C. 20036-5891 Ms. Nora Bredes Executive Coordinator Fabian G. Palomino, Esq. "
Shoreham Opponents' Coalition Richard J. Zahnleuter, Esq.
195 East Main Street Special Counsel to the Governor Smithtown, New York 11787 Executive Chamber i
Room 229 Gerald C. Crotty, Esq.
j' 14 State Capitol Counsel to the Governor Albany, New York 12224 Executive Chamber 1
State Capitol Mary Gundrum, Esq.
Albany, New York 12224 4
l Assistant Attorney General l
120 Broadway Martin Bradley Ashare, Esq. "
i Third Floor, Room 3-116 Eugene R. Kelly, Esq.
J New York, New York 10271 Suffolk County Attorney H. Lee Dennison Building Spence W. Perry, Esq. "
Veterans Memorial Highway i
William R. Cumming, Esq.
Hauppauge, New York 11787 Federal Emergency Management Agency Dr. Monroe Schneider i
{
500 C Street, S.W., Room 840 North Shore Committee l
Washington, D.C. 20472 P.O. Box 231 i
Wading River, NY 11792 j
Mr. Jay Dunkleberger i
New York State Energy Office Agsney Building 2 j
Empire State Plaza i
flA d h.
/h14 j
James,19iChristnyin f Mary Go Ieugers j
Hunton & Williams l
707 East Main Street P.O. Box 1535
)
Richmond, Virginia 23212 DATED: May 22,1987
5956 i
0707 hish j
.Y their background.
3 JUDGE FRYE:
Okay.
Let's -- we've still got the 2
pr blem of the LILCO motion to consolidate.
Have you 3
reviewed that?
4 J
MR. LANPHER:
I have not reviewed whatever the j
NRC Staff filed on that, Judge.
6 MR. IRWIN:
The Staff just supported our --
7 JUDGE FRYE:
I think the Staff just supported g
it.
9 MR. LANPHER:
I'm not saying that there is to anything in there that I need to read.
3, JUDGE FRYE:
Let me go through this very 12 quickly, because I don't want to take any more time on
,3 arguing this.
We have witnesses out there.
My recollection, from having reviewed this 15 earlier, was that I didn't see or I didn't envision, 16 although I'm probably wrong about this because I usually am, if that there was anything that looked to me like it would la create very much of a problem.
The State and the County jg have filed joint testimony on Contentions 15 and 16 in one 7g package.
{
g l
And, while the witnesses say that they are not l
3 exa tly joint witnesses it seems to me they probably really
}
23 l
They are being presented as a panel.
g are.
2J I
Do you have any substantial problems with Point 25 t
5957 i
i 707
}
18h j
3 in LILCO's motion?
MR. LANPHER:
Let's be precise.
Where are you?
l 2
JUDGE FRYE:
Page 9.
3 MR. LANPHER:
Judge, Mr. Zahnleuter and I have talked about this.
He will speak for himself.
5 I would rather not address only Point 3.
I do 3
believe that they are different.
You know, the REPG 7
witnesses in particular --
a
\\
JUDGE FRYE:
The which witnesses?
q MR. LANPHER:
The REPG, excuse me.
R-E-P-G, to call caps, witnesses appearing on behalf of New York State y
bring a different perspective and interest frankly than the 12 Suffolk County witnesses.
I can only --
f
,3 i
JUDGE FRYF,:
Well, I'm not denying the fact --
u MR. LANPHER:
Okay.
l 33 JUDGE FRYE:
-- that the State and the County's 16 interests may not always completely coincide.
I can imagine i7 that they --
18 MR. LANPHER:
Our bottom line position on this
,9 is, you oug'tt to deal with things as they come up, number
- g
' one.
73 7UDGE FRYE:
Yeah.
22 "R.
LANPHER:
In terms of defending this panel 23 when it appears, we both need to be in a position -- both g
j 24 Mr. Cahnieutor and I need to be in a position to make 25
>l l
I.
O l
l 1
1 5958 hg:01 objections.
1 I
With respect to the LILCO panel, which is about Jl to come up here, I am proposing to take the lead on cross-l l
3' examination.
Mr. Zahnleuter, if he has any questions that l
l aren't repetitive, as he has done before, will pursue it.
I 4
51 there has been no abuse whatsoever in this proceeding
- And, 6;
like that.
7 With respect to the last point, we are not l
g proposing to do any cross-examination of each other's l
\\
l witnesses on this panel.
And, I understand we are only 10 talking 15 and 16 here in the OL-5 proceeding.
We cannot represent at this time who would do i
12 l
)
redirect and maybe depending on the nature of the inquiry by
,)
LILCO or the Staff or the Board we would both need to do
l redirect, you know, to particular witnesses.
That's getting 15 into the area of speculation at this point.
g MR. IRWIN:
Judge Frye, may I be heard on this i7 one minute?
,g l
JUDGE FRyE:
- Sure, l
g l
MR. IRWIN:
We've had a lot of experimentation 20 i
with lawyers going back and forth and the County and State j
7, l
l mutual participation in witness panels.
Mr. Lanpher says l
g i
!I let's not deal with things until we get to them.
i 1
,3 i
As a general matter, I agree with that 3l 3
h l
h proposition.
The difficulty is, we've gotten to it on this 3
(
r\\
I I
5959 l
i.:0101 is'ph
\\
I; piece of testimony.
We have dozens of answers that are i
l literally sponsored by witnesses from New York State and 2
Suffolk County.
3 Now, I can imagine the situation if I or Mr.
4 Zeugin ask a question finding one objection from Mr. Lanpher 5
and another from Mr. Zahnleuter, l
6 JUDGE FRYE:
If this gets to be a problem in the i
7 l
course of this testimony, I will deal with it then.
But, so g
i far it has not been a problem.
9 MR. IRWIN:
No, sir.
But, you've never had a j
jo I
is panel like this --
JUDGE FRYE:
That's true.
12
\\
~
MR. IRWIN:
-- where they have voluntarily 33 consolidated themselves, u
JUDGE FRYE:
That's true.
So, we will just hold j
33 i'
this for now.
If it becomes a problem while we are going 16 through the testimony, we will pick it up at that time.
i7 l
But, I am confident, or I am hopeful anyway, l
gg that having set through a number of weeks that it's not ig I
going to be a problem.
j 20 2
MR. ZAhMLEUTER:
Again, I want to note for the l
l 21 i
record that my silence should not be construed as no 22 p sition.
And, I have plenty to say.
Dut, if I understand j
23 I
things right there is no need to say anything now.
24 JUDGE FRYE:
Do you envision that there might be 25 l
I l
F==*--
5960 1
/g10
/gsh a problem arising?
{j MR. ZAHNLEUTER:
I don't envision any problems.
2 And, I think that the suggestion that Mr. Lanpher just made
)
is reasonable and we haven't encountered problems in the past.
And, I think that I have especially orchestrated my l
j 5i conduct to avoid such problems.
i 6
JUDGE FRYE:
I think you have.
7 MR. ZAHNLEUTER:
And, I will continue to do 3
I that.
9 i
JUDGE FRYE:
Okay.
Fine.
Let's bring the to witnesses in.
12 13
~
l 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 '
i 21 l
22 23 2,
i 1
25,
P
. -. -. - -