ML20092P786

Response of Governor Mm Cuomo in Opposition to Lilco Motion to Admit Supplemental Testimony of Contention 24.R Re Ltrs of Agreement W/State of Ct.Certificate of Svc Encl.Related Correspondence

ML20092P786
Person / Time
Site:	Shoreham File:Long Island Lighting Company icon.png
Issue date:	06/29/1984
From:	Zahnleuter R NEW YORK, STATE OF
To:	Atomic Safety and Licensing Board Panel
References
OL-3, NUDOCS 8407090372
Download: ML20092P786 (9)

Text

'

t19%

ggg,TEcc m.EEF = DENCE O a UNITED STATES OF AMERICA NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSION E!' '",!i' ATOMIC SAFETY AND LICENSING BOARD Before Administrative. Judges 'C ', ~ _7 r, .;,

James A. Laurenson, Chairman ~ ' 'O Dr. Jerry R. Kline Mr. Frederick J. Shon i

)

In the Matter of )

) Docket No. 50-322-OL-3 LONG ISLAND LIGHTING COMPANY ) (Emergency Planning Proceeding)

)

1 (Shoreham Nuclear Power ) June 29, 1984 i Station, Unit 1) )

)

)

RESPONSE OF GOVERNOR MARIO M. CUOMO, REPRESENTING THE STATE OF NEW YORK, IN OPPOSITION TO "LILCO'S MOTION TO ADMIT LILCO'S SUPPLEMENTAL TESTIMONY ON CONTENTION 24.R (LETTER OF AGREEMENT WITH CONNECTICUT)"

The State of New York hereby opposes the LILCO motion identified above.

LILCO's motion should be denied for several reasons, the l most important of which is that LILCO's proposed supplemental testimony is unduly repetitious. LILCO's motion makes no l attempt to show that the proposed supplemental testimony is not cumulative with any other testimony in the record concerning Contention 24.R. LILCO's proposed supplemental testimony, which seeks to discuss the meaning of a letter of June 14, 1984 from the State of Connecticut, merely duplicates the contents of LILCO's direct testimony concerning Contention 24.R.

' Clo ' 0 S.. D 8407090372 880629 PDR ADOCK 05300322 PDR d<.hC@w h

C

. 1 The standard of 10 C.F.R. S2.743(c) should be applied to LILCO's motion: "Only relevant , materidl, and reliable evidence l

which is not unduly recetitious will be admitted." (Emphasis added). In additi'on, any other type of proffered evidence, especially evidence that is repetitious or cumulative, may be stricken. 10 C.F.R. 52.757 (b) . With respect to a showing of

" good cause," this Board also has required that the movant adequately show that proffered testimony is "not cumulative with any other testimony in the record." Board order of February 28, 1984 at 7. As shown below', LILCO's motion fails to meet these standards.

Besides the proffered letter of June 14, 1984 from the State of Connecticut, there are three other letters which need to be discussed within the context of testimony in the record concerning Contention 24.R. Mr. Mancuso, of the State of Connecticut's Office of Civil Preparedness, sent the first letter in this matter to the State of New York on December 15, 1983. LILCO incorporated that letter into its testimony concerning Contention 24.IL, and labeled that letter

" Attachment '28." Dr. Axelrod, on behalf of the State of New York, responded to the statements in the December 15, 1983 letter in a letter of March 30, 1984. The Board received the Q

m

March 30, 1984 letter into evidence and labeled it N.Y. Ex. EP-3, ff. Tr. 6598. Incidentally,,LILCO inaccurately refers to Dr. Axelrod's letter of March 30, 1984 as "Mr. Davidoff's letter." LILCO motion at 2, line 8. Mr. Mancuso sent the third letter in this matter to the State of New York on April 18, 1984. The April 18, 1984 letter purported to be a response to Dr. Axelrod's letter of March 30, 1984. Despite objections by the State and the County, the Board received the April 18, 1984 letter into evidence and labeled it LILCO Ex. EP-48, ff. Tr.

9945. Now, LILCO proposes to introduce the instant letter of June 14, 1984, along with the accompanying proposed supplemental testimony, into evidence. It must be noted that the June 14, 1984 letter is the fourth letter in this seri.es and merely is a response to a solicitation by LILCO.

LILCO's motion asserts on page ; that good cause exists for the admission of the June 14,19:'. _tter, and the accompanying proposed supplemental testimony, into evidence. However, a thorough analysis of the June 14, 1984 letter, and the accompanying proposed supplemental testimony, reveals that good cause does not exist because the proffered documents are cumulative and repetitious of evidence already in the record.

H

4 For example, LILCO's motion asserts that the June 14, 1984 letter stands for the following proposition:

[T]he State of Connecticut has agreed to implement protective actions for the portion of the Shoreham 50-mile ingestion exposure pathway EPZ within Connecticut.

LILCO motion at 3, lines 6-8.

Interestingly, LILCO's motion also asserts that the Decemoer 15, 1983 letter stands for the same proposition:

[T]he State of Connecticut has agreed to assume responsibility for impinmenting protective actions for the portion of the Shoreham 50-mile ingestion exposure pathway EPZ within Connecticut.

LILCO motion at 1, last 4 lines. LILCO's proposed supplemental testimony at 2, lines 17-20, is in accord.

A comparison of the letter of June 14, 1984 to the letter 1

of December 15, 1983 reveals that the letters are duplicative.

The substance of the June 14, 1984 letter is in the third t

paragraph. That paragraph conveys the same message as the second sentence of the second paragraph, and the first sentence of the third paragraph, of the December 15, 1983 letter.

Such repetition is not surprising since LILCO wrote to the State of Connecticut to " confirm" LILCO's understanding of the December 15, 1983 letter. L1LCO motion at 2, lines 12-14; LILCO t

a

e f proposed supplemental testimony at 3, lines 1-3. The letter .

which Mr. Renz wrote to Mr. Mancuso to policit such a

" confirmation" even states:

Although I believe your letter of December 15, 1984 [ sic]

states this oosition clearly, I would be grateful if you would send us a letter reconfirming this information.

(Emphasis added); LILCO proposed supplemental testimony, att.

1, at 2, lines 3-6. Clearly, LILCO solicited and received a repetition of the December 15, 1983 letter.

When the Board explained the basis of its ruling concerning the admission of the April 18, 1984 letter, the Board cited the fact that the letter was written in response to Dr. Axelrod's letter of March 30, 1984. Tr. 10,028, lines 1-3 and lines 23-

25. It should be noted that that circumstance does not pertain to the case of the June 14, 1984 letter. The June 14, 1984 -

letter does not respond to material already in evidenca; it only responds to a solicitation by LILCO.

In addition, the Board stated that the reason for admitting the April 18, 1984 letter was "to complete the record."

(Emphasis added); Tr. 10,027, lines 19, 20. LILCO's motion is inconsistent with the Board's ruling. The State submits that M

e w - - -- - - - ,

i

• i l

l i once the record is deemed to be complete, the record should be .

complete. No further " reconfirming" letters should be entertained by the Board.

, LILCO's motion should be denied.

Respectfully submitted, MARIO CUOMO, Governor of State of New York l

FABIAN G. PALOMINO, ESQ.

Special Counsel to tne Governor of the State of New York l m BY. b

' RICHARD J. U ER, ESQ.

Assistant t h pecial Counsel to the Governor of the State of New York Albany, New York e

e

t *

<* 1d l UNI'IED STATES OF AMERICA l NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSION I

ATOMIC SILFETY AND LICENSING BOARD - , ,___

Before Administrative Judges James A. Laurenson, Chairman

]' 1 ~ -

Dr. Jerry R. Kline Mr. Frede, rick J. Shon '04 J[ -p an).y a.,

)

In the Matter of ) 1 3 ,. .

) Docketi;No. 50-322-OL-3 LONG ISLAND LIGHTING C(EPANY ) (Emergency Planning Proceeding)

)

(Shoreham Nuclear Power Station, )

Unit 1) )

June 29, 1984

)

)

CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE I hereby certify that one copy of the RESPONSE OF GOVERNOR MARIO M. CUOMO, REPRESENTING THE STATE OF NEW YORK, IN OPPOSITION TO "LILCO'S MOTION TO ADMIT LILCO'S SUPPLEMENTAL TESTIMONY ON CONTENTION 24.R (LETTER OF AGREEMENT WITH CONNECTICUT) "

has been served to each of the following this 29th day of June 1984 by U. S. Mail, first class, except as otherwise noted:

James A. Laurenson, Chairman ** Ralph Shapiro, Esq.

Atomic Safety and Licensing Board Cammer and Shapiro U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission 9 East 40th Street Washington, D. C. 20555 New York, New York 10016 Dr. Jerry R. Kline ** Howard L. Blau, Esq.

Administrative Judge 217 Newbridge Road Atomic Safety and Licensing Board Hicksville, New York 11801 U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission Washington, D. C. 20555 W. Taylor Reveley III, Esq. **

Hunton & Williams Mr. Frederick J. Shon ** P. O. Box 1535 Administrative Judge 707 East Main Street Atomic Safety and Licensing Board Richmond, Virginia 23212 U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission Washington, D. C. 20555 e

1 '* . / -

Mr. Jay Dunkleberger Marc W. Goldsmith -

New York State Energy Office Energy Research, Group, Inc.

Agency Building 2 ,

400-1 Totten Pond Road Empire State Plaza Waltham, Massachusetts 02154 Albany, New York 12223 l '

MHB Technical Associates l Mr. Brian McCaffrey 1723 Hamilton Avenue, Suite K Long Island Lighting Company San Jose, California 95125 Shoreham Nuclear Power Station P. O. Box 61E Honorable Peter F. Cohalan North Country Road Suffolk County Executive I Wading River, New York 11792 H. Lee Dennison Building Veterans Memorial Highway Martin Bradley Ashare, Esq. Hauppauge, New York 11788 Suffolk County Attorney H. Lee Dennison Building Ezra I. Bialik, Esq.

Veterans Memorial Highway Assistant Attorney General Hauppauge, New York 11788 Envirommental Protection Bureau New York State Department of Law Atomic Safety and Licensing 2 World Trade Center Board Panel New York, New York 10047 U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission Washington, D. C. 20555 Atomic Safety and Licensing Appeal Board i l

Docketing and Service Section U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission Office of the Secretary Washington, D. C. 20555 U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission 1717 H Street, N.W. Stewart M. Glass, Esq.

Washing ton, D. C. 20555 Regional Counsel Federal Emergency Management Bernard M. Bordenick, Esq. ** Agency David A. Repka, Esq. 26 Federal Plaza, Room 1349 U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission New York, New York 10278 Washington, D. C. 20555 Nora Bredes Stuart Diamond Executive Director Environment / Energy Writer Shoreham Opponents Coalition NEWSDAY 195 East East Main Street Long Island, New York 11747 Smithtown, New York 11787 Stephen B. Latham, Esq. Eleanor L. Frucci, Esq. **

Twomey, Latham & Shea Atomic Safety and Licensing P. O. Box 398 Board Panel 33 West Second Street h.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission Riverhead, New York 11901 Washington, D. C. 20555 O

e

fl. "

,r . ; ,.l . ..

l l -

Herbert h. Brown, Esq. ** .

• James B. Dougherty, Esq.

Lawrence Coe Lanpher, Esq. 3045 Porter Street, N.W.

Karla J. Letsche, Esq. Washington, D. C. 20008 1900 M Street, N. W., Suite 800 Washington, D. C. 20036 Spence Perry, Esq.

Associate General Counsel Federal Emergency Management Agency Washington, D. C. 20472

/

RICHARD J. AH UTER Assistant o e ecial Counsel to the G rnor of the State of New York Executive Chamber )

State Capitol l Albany, New York 12224  !

• By Hand

• • By Federal Express

• • • By Telecopier

• • • • By U.S. Express Mail Albany, New York M

e

--s,