ML20214P230
| ML20214P230 | |
| Person / Time | |
|---|---|
| Site: | Shoreham File:Long Island Lighting Company icon.png |
| Issue date: | 05/29/1987 |
| From: | Christman J HUNTON & WILLIAMS, LONG ISLAND LIGHTING CO. |
| To: | Atomic Safety and Licensing Board Panel |
| References | |
| CON-#287-3631 OL-3, NUDOCS 8706030258 | |
| Download: ML20214P230 (13) | |
Text
h LILCO, MLy 29,1987 00tKETEl-UNITED STATES OF AMERICA USNPC NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSION
'87 JijN -1 P2 :03 Before the Atomic Safety and Licensing Board gggg.
.y 00CKETlW3 ?. 2 V'Cl BHANCH In the Matter of
)
)
LONG ISLAND LIGHTING COMPANY
) Docket No. 50-322-OL-3
) (Emergency Planning)
(Shoreham Nuclear Power Station,
)
Unit 1)
)
MOTION TO SET FIRM SCHEDULE Pursuant to the Board's " Memorandum and Order (Ruling on Intervenors' Motion for Rescheduling of Relocation Center Hearing)," dated April 23, 1987, all participants submitted status reports on the progress of the OL-5 proceeding and the availability of their witnesses for the OL-3 proceeding on the suitability of LILCO reception centers.
Those status reports, particularly the one proffered by Suffolk County, show the need for setting a firm schedule, and soon. Sound case management demands it.
The County status reports raise three issues that need to be decided soon:
1.
When will the hearing start?
2.
Should there be a firm schedule for the various witness panels?
3.
If so, what should that schedule be?
LILCO has requested that the hearing begin June 22, or earlier if the OL-5 schedule permits; Suffolk County apparently proposes June 29.II LILCO asked for a firm schedule; Suffolk County says a detailed schedule is premature. LILCO proposed a specific schedule; Suffolk County demonstrated that its witnesses already have many 1/
Suffolk County does not suggest a starting date. Rather, it suggests adding a week to the OL-5 schedule, making it end June 25. LILCO infers that Suffolk County would propose to start the hearing no sooner than the following Monday, June 29.
8706030258 870529 PDR ADOCK 05000322 h
G PDR 35
._ -O conflicts that will make scheduling difficult. Delaying the setting of a schedule will make matters worse.
L A Firm Beginning Date and A Firm ScharMe For The OL-3 Proceedhu Should Be Set All participants have expressed in their status reports a readiness to proceed with the OL-3 proceeding as soon as the OL-5 proceeding is concluded. The NRC Staff and LILCO have indicated their belief that the OL-5 proceeding will conclude no later than June 18. Suffolk County, on the other hand, argues that the Frye Board's proj-ected completion date of June 18,1987 likely.will not be met and that the OL-5 hearing.
may not end until sometime the week of June 22,1987.E In fact, Suffolk County states that an additional week should be added to the Frye Board's hearing schedule to accom-modate additional testimony from the NRC and possibly from the County, making the ending date Thursday, June 25.
The OL-3 proceeding has already been postponed; its original starting date of May 4,1987, was changed to a tentative date of June 15,1987 because of delays in the OL-5 proceeding. Due to continual problems with the length of cross-examination and witness availability, the Frye Board on May 11,1987 set a hearing schedule with a com-pletion date of June 18,1987,E making it likely that the OL-3 hearing cannot start l
2/
New York State notes in its status report to the Board that it has nothing to add to the information about the OL-5 proceeding presented by Suffolk County.
3/
Upon setting forth the schedule for the remainder of the hearing, the Board stat -
ed:
JUDGE FRYE: The Board has been very lenient with re-gard to scheduling and witnesses availability. The Board re-grets having been very lenient. We are not going to be le-nient any more. That's the schedule that's in effect and it will not be changed except for an exceptional showing of good cause, and that goes for everybody, LILCO and Suffolk County alike.
(footnote continued)
until June 22. Now Suffolk County contends (apparently) that the OL-5 hearing cannot.
begin before June 29,1987.
LILCO asks the Board to set a firm hearing schedule and a beginning date based on the information available at this time. The witnesses have other professional com-mitments already or are forgoing other professional opportunities to leave themselves available for the -03 hearing. A firm schedule is necessary not only out of fairness to the witnesses but also to prevent further delays from new conflicts arising in witnesses' schedules.
Already this problem is significant, as Attachment 1 to this Motion shows. A re-view of Suffolk County's status report on the availability of its witnesses from June 15 through July 24 shows that it has at least one witness unavailable on every business day during that period and at least two witnesses unavailable for 23 of the 30 weekdays of the period. Moreover, scheduling LILCO's witnesses starts to be a problem af ter the week of June 22. If the hearing is postponed until June 29, as the Intervenors suggest, LILCO's witness Richard Watts has a conflict the first week. Attachment 1 shows that scheduling the witnesses will be difficult even if done right now; it will become more difficult as time passes and the witnesses, most of them independent experts, commit their time to other matters that have specific schedules.M l
(footnote continued)
OL-5 Hearing Transcript at 5458.
Later that morning, af ter finalizing the schedule the Board added: "That is the schedule, and we will not entertain any requests to change it in the absence of an ex-treme showing of good cause." OL-5 Hearing Transcript at 5507-5508.
4/
Already it appears likely that some witnesses may not be able to testify as part of a panel, as their sponsors intended, but rather separately as their schedules permit.
e
The events of the OL-5 proceeding demonstrate that a firm hearing schedule is a necessary tool for managing this proceeding. There a significant amount of time has been spent almost every week discussing how long cross-examination of each panel would take and when witnesses would or would not be available. For example, see OL-5 Hearing Transcript at 2825-55, 2955, 2975-85, 3458-69, 3581-87, 3763-72. As a result, the hearing has been delayed, not only because of these discussions, but because of wit-ness unavailability. Recently the OL-5 Board was forced to shuffle witness panels around because Suffolk County informed the Board on a Friday that its witnesses on Contention EX 50 would not be available the following week. See OL-5 Hearing Tran-script at 5447-5461. That problem prompted the OL-5 Board to set the hearing sched-ule mentioned above. If efforts are not made now to set a schedule for the OL-3 pro-ceeding, similar problems will surface here.E II. Proposed Hearing Schedule In its May 16,1987 status report LILCO proposed a hearing schedule for the OL-3 proceeding starting June 22, 1987. That schedule essentially divided the hearing into two parts, with all issues except traffic issues heard first. According to that schedule, LILCO would present its nontraffic testimony first, followed by Suffolk County, New York State, the NRC, and FEMA. LILCO would then present its traffic testimony, with New York State and the NRC following thereaf ter. Rebuttal testimony would be heard -
along with the direct testimony. LILCO's proposed schedule was developed using the four page per-hour,24 pages per-day minimum guideline for cross-examination used by the -05 Board.
!/
Suffolk County's status report lends support to the proposition that a starting date should be fixed, because on page 4 of the report the County says that it is prema-ture to establish the order of the County's three panels,in part because of uncertainty over when the hearing will start. Setting a starting date would solve this part of the County's problem.
i,
Upon review of all the status reports, LILCO still believes that the OL-3 pro-ceeding should begin no later than June 22, 1987, for several reasons. First, the Frye Board has stated that its schedule is a firm one, and LILCO believes it can be met.E!
Second, even if it should slip, FEMA witnesses will not be available the week of June 22 in either the OL-3 or the OL-5 proceeding; thus the week should be available for the OL-3 hearing to begin. Third, all of LILCO's witnesses are available that week. Since LILCO presents its testimony first, the week of June 22 would be ideal for starting the proceeding. Fourth, according to the status report filed by Suffolk County it appears that the best time to hear its witnesses would be on June 25, 29, and 30, as set forth in LILCO's original proposed schedule. Although Suffolk County has witnesses unavailable for part of each of these days (as it does on every day of the six-week period) the par-e ticular witnesses unavailable during this time are available at least for one or two of the remaining days Suffolk County would be testifying.II LILCO therefore believes that its originally proposed hearing schedule should be adopted, with a few minor changes to accommodate the Fourth of July holiday and the j
j rebuttal testimony filed May 27,1987. The revised proposed schedule is as follows:
0 i
g/
One of the reasons the County gives for delaying the completion of the -05 hear-ing is that the NRC Staff still has to testify on Contentions EX 15 and 16. But the Staff has indicated that its written testimony will be brief and has proposed that its witness-es be heard on June 11. This proposal, if adopted, would avoid having the EX 15 and 16 i
testimony delay the -03 hearing.
0 1/
According to Suffolk County's status report, Dr. Saegert may be unavailable on any one of these days. She would be available, however, on July 1. Therefore, if it be-comes necessary, she could testify then.
)
l Prnnamad Sebadula for Reception Center Hearing
\\
DATES ISSUES / WITNESSES /PAGES June 22-24 LILCO witnesses { excluding Mr. Lieberman) on planning basis, monitoring, decontamination, etc. (53 pages)
June 25,29-30 Suffolk County witnesses on planning basis, evacuation shad-ow, monitoring, decontamination (direct and rebuttal testi-many,128 pages)
July 1 New York State witnesses on monitoring, decontamination, planning basis (31 pages)
July 2 NRC witnesses on monitoring (17 pages)
)
July 6 Fourth of July holiday observed i
July 7 FEMA witnesses on all of their testin'.ony (19 pages)
July 8-9,13 LILCO witness (Mr. Lieberman) on traffic (direct and rebut-tal testimony,51 pages)
July 14-16 New York State witnesses on traffic (direct and rebuttal tes-timony, 91 pages)
July 20 NRC witness on traffic (direct and rebuttal testimony,11 I
pages)
As with LILCO's first proposed schedule, the new schedule was developed using the i
OL-5 Board's guidelines for cross-examination. For the most part, the times allotted for cross-examination are quite generous. (As with LILCO's first proposed schedule, LILCO has proposed less time for its cro{3-examination of other parties' witnesses, since LILCO typically takes less time.)
LILCO's time estimates were not " art itrarily pulled out of the air" nor developed "in a v teuum," as Suffolk County contends. See Suffolk County Status Report, dated May 20i 1987 at 3. Rather, as noted above, LILCO's estimates were developed using the 1
?
OL-5 Board's guidelines, which in turn were based on that Board's experience hearing weeks of testimony in the OL-5 proceeding. There, once the guidelines were in place, sross-examination proceeded inpaccordance with them. The OL-3 proceeding should 4
?
i
o...
i have a similar experience if the OL-5 guidelines are adopted. The prefiled testimony on the suitability of LILCO reception centers is not unique. As with the written testi-mony in the OL-5 proceeding, the OL-3 testimony contains both technical and non-technical materials with a variety of attachments.II These factors have not signifi-cantly altered the OL-5 Board's enforcement of its guidelines.E Suffolk County's concern about the " cooperativeness of witnesses" affecting the -
pace of cross-examination is readily resolvable. If such a problem arises, the OL-3 Board can handle it, as the OL-5 Board did. During cross-examination of witnesses on 1
Contentions EX 38 and 39 the OL-5 Board instructed the witnesses to answer the ques-tions put to them and only add explanations af ter they had answered yes, no, or I don't know. See OL-5 Hearing Transcript at 3464-3465. Cross-examination on those issues was completed within the time set by the Board. It is within the OL-3 Board's power to exert controls if the " cooperativeness of witnesses" becomes a concern.
Suffolk County suggests that rather than set a firm schedule, the Board should
]
wait until cross-examination time estimates have been filed and motions to strike have f
been resolved. LILCO's proposed schedule is based on its time estimates, as well as on the -05 guidelines. The Intervenors are free to offer their own time estimates but have not. Moreover, time estimates have not proven to be an effective method of control in j
1/
While the traffic issues are more complex than some of the other issues in this j
proceeding. LILCO's proposed schedule reflects this by allotting additional time for j
cross-examination of the traffic issues and by scheduling the traffic testimony last so 4
as not to hinder the rest of the hearing schedule if its complexity slows down the pace i
of cross-examination.
2/
Indeed, Suffolk County complained about the guidelines being strictly enforced as to its cross-examination on Contentions EX 15 and 16 because of the length of LILCO's i
attachments the same way it has protested here in its status report. That testimony was 50 pages long and contained numerous attachments. Nonetheless, the Board allot-
)
ted Suffolk County 21/2 days to cross-examine LILCO's witnesses on those issues.
Here, LILCO's testimony has fewer attachments than its testimony on Contentions EX i
15 and 16.
L
_.. _.. _ =
. - _,, ~ _ _
O 9 the OL-5 hearing, and there is no reason to think they will be any more helpful here.
As for motions to strike, their only effect would be to shorten the time needed for cross-examination and improve the prospects of meeting any schedule the Board sets now.EI III. Conclusion The Board should decline the County's invitation to delay setting a schedule.
Given the significant number of conflicts in witnesses' schedules already, it is impor-tant that the Board set a firm hearing schedule so that the witnesses can set aside the blocks of time when they must be available for hearings. While it is true that several factors may alter the schedule somewhat, the adjustments are likely to be minor and can be made when the need arises.
Respectfully submitted,
!N ames N. Chdstman Mary Jo Leugers Hunton & Williams 707 East Main Street P.O. Box 1535 Richmond, Virginia 23212 DATED: May 29,1987 10/
Leaving aside rebuttal testimony, the only motions to strike now outstanding are LILCO's motions to strike Intervenor testimony. Since LILCO has allowed itself rela-tively little time for cross-examination, shortening its cross-examination still further w6uld have little effect and, at most, result in perhaps a half-day of time in which no hearing was held. The Intervenors traditionally have not complained if a hearing had to i
be adjourned early on a particular day.
r Unavailability of Witnesses In The OL-3 Proceedina The days that witnesses are unavailable to testify in the OL-3 proceeding are indicated below.
Mon Tues Wed Thur Fri 6/15 6/16 6/17 6/18 6/19 Cole Cole Cole Cole Cole (S.Co.)
(S.Co.)
(S.Co.)
(S.Co.)
(S.Co.)
Harris (a.m.)
Harris (a.m.)
Harris (a.m.)
(S.Co.)
(S.Co.)
(S.Co.)
Saegert?l/
Saegert?
(S.Co.)
(S.Co.)
Lindell Lindell Linnemann (LILCO)
(LILCO)
(LILCO)
Hulman Hulman Hulman Hulman Hulman (NRC)
(NRC)
(NRC)
(NRC)
(NRC) 6/22 6/23 6/24 6/25 6/26 Harris Harris Harris Harris (a.m.)
Harris (a.m.)
(S.Co.)
(S.Co.)
(S.Co.)
(S.Co.)
(S.Co.)
)
Saegert?
Saegert?
Saegert?
Saegert?
Saegert?
(S.Co.)
(S.Co.)
(S.Co.)
(S.Co.)
(S.Co.)
Radford (S.Co.)
FEMA FEMA FEMA FEMA FEMA Urbanik Urbanik Urbanik Urbanik Urbanik (NRC)
(NRC)
(NRC)
(NRC)
(NRC) 1/
According to Suffolk County's status report, Dr. Saegert will be unavailable for approximately one week between June 18 and June 30.
Since the exact dates are unknown, this schedule indicates that fact by a
(?) by her name for that time period.
\\
Mon Tues Wed Thur Fri 6/29 6/30 7/1 7/2 7/3 saegert?
saegert?
Minor Minor Minor (s.co.)
(s.co.)
(s.co.)
(s.co.)
(s.co.)
Radford Radford Radford (s.co.)
(s.co.)
(s.co.)
Watts Watts Watts Watts Watts 2/
(LILCO)
(LILCO)
(LILCO)
(LILCO)
(LILCO)
Urbanik Urbanik Urbanik Urbanik Urbanik (NRC)
(NRC)
(NRC)
(NRC)
(NRC) 7/6 7/7 7/8 7/9 7/10 Harris Harris Harris Harris Harris (s.co.)
(s.co.)
(s.co.)
(s.co.)
(s.co.)
Minor Minor (s.co.)
(s.co.)
Donaldson Donaldson Donaldson (LILCO)
(LILCO)
(LILCO)
Kantor Kantor (NRC)
(NRC)
Papile, g Papile, R Papile, el a.l_. (NYs) al. (NYs) al. (NYs)
J 7/13 7/14 7/15 7/16 7/17 Harris Harris Harris Harris Harris (s.co.)
(s.co.)
(s.co.)
(s.co.)
(s.co.)
Mayer Mayer Mayer Mayer Mayer (s.co.)
(s.co.)
(s.co.)
(s.co.)
(s.co.)
Radford (s.Co.)
2/
As indicated in LILCO's status report, Richard Watts has several ccheduling conflicts throughout July that are not indicated here. -
9 Mon Tues Wed Thur Fri i
Kantor Kantor Kantor Kantor Kantor (NRC)
(NRC)
(NRC)
(NRC)
(NRC)
Millspaugh Millspaugh Millspaugh (NYs)
(NYs)
(NYs) 7/20 7/21 7/22 7/23 7/24 Harris Harris Harris Harris Harris (s.co.)
(s.co.)
(s.co.
(s.co.)
(s.co.)
Mayer Mayer Mayer Mayer Mayer (s.co.)
(s.co.)
(s.co.)
(s.co.)
(s.co.)
7/27 7/28 7/29 7/30 7/31 Papile, et Papile, et Papile,.et Papile, et al. (NYs) al. (NYs)
M. (NYs)
M. (NYs)
Harris (s.Co.)
l l
l 4
l _
e LILCO, May 29,1987 4
00LKETE(-
u%n CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE 87 JUN -1 P2 :03 QFFIL. :; _,
x, y uGCKETw3i.'.
n In the Matter of BRANO!
LONG ISLAND LIGHTING COMPANY (Shoreham Nuclear Power Station, Unit 1)
Docket No. 50-322-OL-3 I hereby certify that copies of MOTION TO SET FIRM SCHEDULE were served this date upon the following by hand or telecopier as indicated by one asterisk, by Fed-eral Express as indicated by two asterisks, or by first-class mail, postage prepaid.
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, Rm. 407 4350 East-West Hwy.
Richard G. Bachmann, Esq.
- Bethesda, MD 20814 George E. Johnson, Esq.
U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission Dr. Jerry R. Kline
- 7735 Old Georgetown Road Atomic Safety and Licensing (to mailroom)
Board Bethesda, MD 20814 U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission East-West Towers, Rm. 427
_ Herbert 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 Licensing 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 j
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 Atomic Safety and Licensing 120 Broadway Appeal Board Panel Third Floor, Room 3-116 U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission New York, New York 10271 Washington, D.C. 20555 i
1 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 l
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
~ James N. Christman Mary Jo Leugers Hunton & Williams 707 East Main Street P.O. Box 1535 Richmond, Virginia 23212 DATED: May 29,1987 t
,