ML20215D706

Memorandum & Order (Ruling on Lilco Motion to Substitute Written Testimony).* Util May Suppl Prefiled Testimony by Addition of Kld TR-201A Rept & Intervenors Will Submit to ASLB by 870617 Proposed Discovery Schedule.Served on 870616

ML20215D706
Person / Time
Site:	Shoreham File:Long Island Lighting Company icon.png
Issue date:	06/12/1987
From:	Margulies M Atomic Safety and Licensing Board Panel
To:	LONG ISLAND LIGHTING CO., NEW YORK, STATE OF, SUFFOLK COUNTY, NY
References
CON-#287-3753 86-529-02-OL, 86-529-2-OL, OL-3, NUDOCS 8706190118
Download: ML20215D706 (4)

Text

i i

y DOCKETED thkEC

-" UNITED STATES OF AMERICA NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSION ,87 JUN /5 P3 :48 ATOMIC SAFETY AND LICENSING BOARD gpo a tu e Before Administrative Judges: M DOCML'igj Morton B. Margulies, Chairman .

Dr. Jerry R. Kline Mr. Frederick J. Shon SERVED JUN 161ggy In-the Matter of Docket No. 50-322-OL-3 (Emergency Planning)

LONG ISLAND LIGHTING COMPANY (ASLBPNo. 86-529-02-OL)

(Shoreham Nuclear Power Station, Unit.1) June 12, 1987 q MEMORANDUM AND ORDER (Rulino on LILC0's Motion to Substitute Written Testimony) ntroduction':

I On May 16, 1987, LILC0 filed a motion requesting leave to I

substitute KLD TR-201A for KLD TR-201 as attachment S to LILCO's written

.I testimony of March 30, 1987. KLD TR-201 is a capacity analysis of the i approach routes to the three LILC0 reception centers. It was prepared by Edward B. Lieberman and his firm KLD Associates, Inc. Applicant 1

asserts KLD TR-201A is a revision of KLD TR-201, prepared by Mr.

]

Lieberman that contains certain refinements and some additional data regarding background traffic and highway capacity not included in the original because of time constraints.

In addition, KLD TR-201A is said to contain a more refined capacity analysis as the result of obtaining data regarding activated traffic B706190118 870612 gDR ADOCK 05000322

""" 150y  ;

s-h' 2

signal controllers, which was sent to Applicant by New York State only five days before Applicant's testimony was due.

Applicant represents that in most respects the two reports are identical and that the results of the two reports are also the same.

LILCO claims that permitting the substitution will not prejudice  !

Intervenors considering its projection as to when the hearing is to take place.

Suffolk County and New York State filed a response on May 26, 1987 opposing the substitution. They state that Applicant's prefiled testimony (May 30,1987) not only contained one traffic analysis prepared by Mr. Lieberman, TR-192, but it contained an additional one, KLD TR-201 for which Intervenors were afforded no discovery. Underlying data was subsequently furnished to them. Intervenors assert Applicant wants a third opportunity to perfect its case.

Governments claim that KLD TR-201A is a substantial revision of the prior analysis and that the bases and origins of the revisions are f unexplained. They say that under the guise of substitution, Applicant is supplementing its direct testimony without demonstrating good cause.

Further, it is alleged Intervenors will be prejudiced by the proposed f 1

substitution because they will once again be required to devote substantial time and resources to analyze a study that LILC0 filed late.

Intervenors state that they have other matters to attend to in preparation for the hearing.

The Staff filed a response on May 21, 1987 in support of LIIC0. It considers the refinements to the original analysis, as well as the additional data contained in KLD TR-201A, to be information useful to

e i

3 the Board in compiling a complete record in this proceeding. The Staff ,

also agrees with LILC0 that, given the anticipated schedule of the OL-3 proceeding, the Intervenors will not be prejudiced by the proposed substitution.

Discussion:

If this were a wholly adversary proceeding, Intervenors might very well prevail on the motion. But this is not the case. The Board is charged with considering the public interest as concerns the matter of )

public health and safety. In so doing, it is important that the Board have available to it the most complete information possible. We would 3 not want to render a decision knowing that there may be more definitive information available, of which we had not availed ourselves. To the end of having a complete record in this proceeding, we shall allow the i

addition of KLD TR-201A to Applicant's testimony. {

A limited review of KLD TR-201 and KLD TR-201A by the Board does not show them to be as materially different from one another as ,

i Intervenors' claim. Intervenors will not be prejudiced by permitting 1 l

Applicant to supplement its testimony with KLD TR-201A report, if they ]

are.provided with the opportunity to conduct discovery and to submit rebuttal. The hearing schedule has not been fixed so that this is possible to accomplish. Concededly, this development is an inconvenience. Should this result in any delay, it is Applicant's responsibility for not acting in a more timely manner.

l i

l j

e-r, 4

4 To assure the development of a full and comprehensive record KLD TR-201A should be added to the existing record rather than being substituted for KLD TR-201. The Board has previously authorized the filing of rebuttal testimony to XLD TR-201. KLD TR-201 may continue to remain important to the development of Intervenors' case. KLD TR-201A shall be designated as attachment T to the LILC0 testimony.

ORDER Based upon all of the foregoing, it is hereby ordered:

1. That Applicant is permitted to supplement its prefiled testimony by the addition of the KLD TR-201A report, as attachment T.

2. That Intervenors shall submit to the Board by June 17, 1987 a proposed schedule for discovery and the filing of rebuttal testimony in regard to KLD TR-201A.

3. That responses to the proposed schedule shall be submitted to the Board by June 19, 1987.

FOR THE ATOMIC SAFETY AND LICENSING BOARD Morton B. Margulies gChairman  !

ADMINISTRATIVE LAW JUDGE Dated at Bethesda, Maryland this 12th day of June, 1987.

i