- - =-

.. .

b d%, e

_

+*

[mtKETED-s

to!PC

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA| NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSION '82 f5 20 P3 50

y . . . - . , rBEFORE THE ATOMIC SAFETY AND LICENSING" BOARD 'M.

i

i~

. )In the Matter of )

)i

LONG ISLAND LIGHTING COMPANY ) Docket No. 50-322 (OL)'

) (Emergency Planning(Shoreham Nuclear Power Station, ) Proceedings)Unit 1) -)

)

SUFFOLK COUNTY'S RESPONSE TO1 THE BOARD'S INQUIRY WITH RESPECT; TO INTEGRATED PLANNING!

!

! On August 4, 1982, the Board, while considering Suffolk;

County's Motion For Reconsideration of the Board's July 274

Order, inquired into the County's effort to integrate the

development of its emergency response plan with LILCO (Tr.

8904-8906). As the. county advised the Board in its Motion For

| Reconsideration, such integration is impossible, as a practical

matter,in the atmosphere of contentiousness in which the parties

must square off to contest " Phase I" issues. The County believes,

on the other hand, that harmonious integration can be attempted,

if consideration of all emergency planning issues were deferred;

until after the County's plan is developed. Indeed, if the

latter course were followed, the level of cooperation among the

parties would increase and, most likely, the issues in contention

would decrease in light of the non-adversarial atmosphere.

The County's goal in this matter is to create a plan

that'will assure the health and safety of its residents. This 1

820 8 %4 0 240 (a g- - - . . . -- - - _- . - - - -

e-

.

-2-

goal is best achieved through integrated planning. In this

spirit, and despite the litigious atmosphere into which it has

been thrust with respect to emergency planning issues, the

County has offered to cooperate with LILCO in an environment

free of contentious litigation. The pertinent communications

among counsel with respect to this matter are attached hereto.

Respectfully submitted,

David J. GilmartinSuffolk County Attorney

Patricia A. DempseyAssistant County Attorney

H. Lee Dennison BuildingVeterans Memorial HighwayHauppauge, New York 11788

.

.

Herbert pf BrownCherif SedkyChristohper M. McMurrayKIRKPATRICK, LOCKHART, HILL,

CHRISTOPHER & PHILLIPS1900 M Street, NW, Suite 800Washington, DC 20036(202) 452-7000

Attorneys for Suffolk County

Dated: August 20, 1982Washington, D.C.

. .

UNITED STATES OF AMERICANUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSION

BEFORE THE ATOMIC SAFETY AND LICENSING BOARD

)In the Matter of )

~

)LONG ISLAND LIGHTING COMPANY )

) Docket No. 50-322 (0.L.)(Shoreham Nuclear Power Station, )Unit 1) )

)

CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE

I hereby certify that copies of "Suffolk County's ResponseTo The Board's Inquiry With Respect To Integrated Planning" wassent on August 1982 by first class mail, except where,

otherwise noted, to the following:

Lawrence Brenner, Esq.* Ralph Shapiro, Esq.Administrative Judge Cammer and ShapiroAtomic Safety and Licensing Board 9 East 40th StreetU.S. Nuclear Regulatory' Commission New York, New York 10016Washington, D.C. 20555

Howard L. Blau, Esq.Dr. James L. Carpenter * 217 Newbridge RoadAdministrative Judge Hicksville, New York 11801Atomic Safety and Licensing BoardU.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission W. Taylor Reveley III, Esq.**Washington, D.C. 20555 Hunton & Williams

P.O. Box 1535707 East Main St.

| Mr. Peter A. Morris * Richmond, Virginia 23212Administrative Judge'

Atomic Safety and Licensing BoardU.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission Mr. Jay DunklebergerWashington, D.C. 20555 New York State Energy Office

Agency Building 2Edward M. Barrett, Esq. Empire State PlazaGeneral Counsel Albany, New York 12223Long Island Lighting Company250 Old Country RoadMineola, New York 11501 Stephen B. Latham, Esq.

Twomey, Latham & SheaMr. Brian McCaffrey Attorneys at LawLong Island Lighting Company P.O. Box 398175 East Old Country Road 33 West Second StreetHicksville, New York 11801 Riverhead, New York 11901

*By Hand **By Federal Express

t

. .

Marc W. Goldsmith Mr. Jeff SmithEnergy Research Group, Inc. Shoreham Nuclear Power Station400-1 Totten Pond Road P.O. Box 618Waltham, Massachusetts 02154 North Country Road

Wading River, New York 11792

Joel Blau, Esq. MHB Technical AssociatesNew York Public Service Commission 1723 Hamilton AvenueThe Governor Nelson A. Rockefeller Suite K

Building San Jose, California 95125Empire State PlazaAlbany, New York 12223 Hon. Peter Cohalan

Suffolk County ExecutiveDavid H. Gilmartin, Esq. County Executive / LegislativeSuffolk County Attorney BuildingCounty Executive / Legislative Bldg. Veterans Memorial HighwayVeterans Memorial Highway Hauppauge, New York 11788Hauppauge, New York 11788

Ezra I. Bialik, Esq.Atomic Safety and Licensing Assistant Attorney General

Board Panel Environmental Protection BureauU.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission New York State Department ofWashington, D.C. 20555 -Law

2 World Trade CenterDocketing and Service Section New York, New York 10047office of the SecretaryU.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission Atomic Safety and LicensingWashington, D.C. 20555 Appeal Board

U.S. Nuclear RegulatoryBernard M. Pordenick, Esq.* CommissionDavid A. Repka, Esq. Washington, D.C. 20555U.S. Nuclear Pegulatory CommissionWashington, D.C. 20555 Matthew J. Kelly, Esq.

Staff Counsel, New YorkStuart Diamond State Public Service Comm.Environment / Energy Writer 3 Rockefeller PlazaNEWSDAY Albany, New York 12223Long Island, New York 11747

Cherif Sedky, Esq.Kirkpatrick, Lockhart,

Johnson & Hutchison1500 Oliver BuildingPittsburgh, Pennsylvania 15222

Cherif pedky /KIRKPATRICK, LOCKHART, HILL,

/ CHRISTOPHER & PHILLIPSg yj/ }7DATE: 1900 M Street, N.W., 8th Floor

Washington, D.C. 20036

-. ._. -- -

.

,. -.

.

H uxTox & WILLIAns707 EAsr M AIN STREET P.o . Box 1535

Wac Movi A Gamm SulLosNG RIcIIx oNo, VIRGINIA 20 212 seis PEN N s?LVAN4A AVE NUE , N.W.p .o. som iOs

P.o.80x es230RALEiGM , NO RT M C AROLIN A 27602

SIS - 828 * 9 378g 4,7g , WASHINGTO N,0.C. 20 036

202=223-8650FIRST veRGsN8A SANN TOWER#01 St. PAUL'S SO U L E va R D FaLE No.NORFOLa,vlRGibsIA 23510

August 7, 1982.O.. 2....o. o.NEc7 Di.L No. . OA 7..-

Herbert Brown, Esq.Cherif Sedky, Esq.Christopher M. McMurray, Esq.Kirkpatrick, Lockhart, Hill,Christopher & Phillips

1900 M Street, N.W.Washington, D.C. 20036

Gentlemen:

At our meeting Tuesday, August 3, you suggested that

emergency planning ought really to be the product of coopera-tion between the County and LILCO. We agree. You suggested

that one way to effect this cooperation would be to try to per-suade the Board to postpone the litigation of the Phase Iissues. We of course can't agree to that unless cooperation is

first resumed and shows signs of producing emergency arrange-

ments acceptable to both the County and Company. We do think

cooperation rather than antagonism is the right way to go aboutemergency planning. LILCO is willing and able to cooperate

with the County at any time.

Coincidentally, on Wednesday, August 4, Judge Carpenter

expressed an interest in knowing what arrangements are being

made to include LILCO, and others, in the County's planning

. - -

. .ow. ..s

,

.

IIUNTON 8e W I L LI A M S

-2-

efforts. We suggest that one or two LILCO people be made a

part of the Steering Committee that is overseeing the County's,

present emergency planning work.

Also, LILCO's emergency planning people are ready to

resume meeting with your emergency planning people, whether

they be the County's outside consultants or County employees,

to coordinate the County's planning with LILCO's.

We look forward to hearing from you about the optimum

means for the County and LILCO to get together anew on emer-

gency planning. The Company remains very interested in doing.

so.

Yours very truly,

'

W. Taylor Reveley, IIIJames N. ChristmanKathy E. B. McCleskey

79/765

,

s

- - - ~ , -- r- - - -.

. .

)

KIRKPATRICK, LOCKHART, HILL, CunisTornza & PHILLIPS

A Paarwansurr IncLunano A Paorssarosat Concomarion*,

19o0 M Srazzr, N. W.

WASHINGTON, D. C. 20006

TELEPHONE (809) 483 +7000 IN FTTTSBL10E

CAELE: HIPHI EIREFAIRIG,1OGEART, JOHNSON & ECTCE!$0N

TELEX 440909 HIPM UI 8600 OIJYER 3CI12)INGWRITETj$ DIEECT DIAL NUMBER FITTBBCROM, FENNSTLTANIA ISSSS

(das) 366*6600

August 16, 1982

(202) 452-7027

W. Taylor Reveley, III, Esq.James N. Christman, Esq.Kathy E. B. McCleskey, Esq.Hunton & Williams707 East Main StreetP.O. Box 1535 ,

Richmond, Virginia 23212 ,

Gentlemen and Ms. McCleskey: "

We are writing in response to your letter of August 7,1982 concerning certain matters which we' discussed with JimChristman and Kathy McCleskey on August 3, 1982.

We had hoped to have been able to respond to your August 7letter sooner. However, in light of the schedule, theimmediate requirements of document production, attending andpreparing for depositions, and drafting revised contentionsmust take priority over responding to the almost daily letterswe receive from you on other matters.

Turning to the substance of your August 7 letter, we ap-preciate the spirit in which it was written. We assume that itwas prompted, at least in part, by your realization, which weshare, that the letter-writing battles and procedural wranglingin which we are engaged are not the most productive means ofpursuing the real concerns about emergency planning. As wehave stated in the past, we share your desire to shift thefocus of emergency planning from the contested ligitation con-text to a cooperative ef fo;t designed to integrate the respec-tive planning efforts of LILCO and Suffolk County.

As you know, Suffolk County is devoting substantial re-sources to develop an emergency plan for submittal to theCounty Executive and the County Legislature. The County wantsits plan to be the best one possible to protect the herlth andsafety of its citizens. The County would welcome the

.

- -

.. .

KIRKPATRICk, LOCXHART, HILL, CHRISTOPHER Sc PnILLIPs

-. .

.

opportunity, suggested by Judge Carpenter and alluded to inyour letter, of sharing with LILCO its thoughts on the emer-gency planning undertaking in an environment which is conduciveto the development of emergency plans which are complementaryin all respects. As we are sure you are aware, however, theexisting litigation environment between the parties is not onlynot conducive to such cooperation, it, in fact, forces the par-ties into positions of possibly needless antagonism.

8

You can well appreciate, we are sure, the practical impos- :sibility of beginning to integrate emergency planning efforts 1

when the parties are engaged in acrimonious fights over what'

documents have to be prodeced and when, which depositions mustbe taken, how they are to be taken and when, and while the par-ties are threatening their respective lawyers and witnesseswith sanctions over discovery disputes. Accordingly, we pro-pose that the parties agree to a " cease fire" in the hostili-ties -- at least temporarily -- to provide an opportunity topursue serious integration discussions. We bel,ieve that /cooperative discussions would be more productive of a complete .,

and well-considered emergency planning effort than are the |litigation activities in which we are presently engaged. '

If we can agree to a halt'in the e'mergency planning liti-gation activities, we propose that one or more LILCO represen-tatives meet immediately with one or more County representa-tives so that LILCO can learn first-hand how the County's plan-ning efforts are proceeding, what issues are being considered

','

that might need to be addressed in LILCO's planning efforts, (and what modalities might be established to further true plan-ning integration. Of course, if at any time the parties'cooperative efforts break down, we can always resume our re-spective litigation postures.

| We recognize that, in light of the schedule, it may be.

necessary to complete the current round of discovery before we| can begin the discussions we have proposed. We look forward to| hearing from you soon, however, so we can discuss our proposal

and the related logistical matters.

Sincerely yours,y

h:

Cherif S ,ky '4

Christop.,er M. McMu ray

,

-2-.

'I

.

'

- ~ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _

-.;g ;-

3~. .-. 1

.. N , \1,

~') I,

*, si I

$ g ;}', '3 .f (

r 9,,

0 L,

Hdnrox & WILLIAM S*'+ 9 a 2

|] , ' ./ 7o7 EAsr Wd Sinccr P.o. Box 1535y

3-

i 1 Rrcir.kown, VinorvrA 2 3212e a a.T sv mseeo ....,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,me Smonnoe N , * o..onIoasonas,be, monin c4=oWN A 27602 -h'$, Tc LE p w oN t ao4-788-8200 waswiuovow,o,c.,oo3.*

c43.caa sars (3 y e oa-a a s- e a s o

Y, krease v ac .. ..a n rowe =K -[ '

(August 17, 1982 "' c ~o-o.co=2...~omeota, vino =ia am+ q

,ge o. .. . . .. o. - o .ccr o,.c . .o. 7..-

pa. tt

-.

>

Cherif Sedky, Esq.>

Christopher M. FcNurray,/Esq.Kirkpatricki Lockh h t,, Hill,

./ Christopher & Phillipsa 8th Floor * '

j 1990 M Street, N.W. '

Washington, D.C. 20036..->

9 9"

/ ' Cooperation on Emergency Planningts

.,

I*; .

*,,

'Gantlemen: " '

i<

y This will reply to your letter of August 16, 1982,i

responding to our proposal that Suffolk County and LILCO,

resume cooperation on emergency planning. Your. letter,while; politely phrased, simply refuses to consider such

7

J ccoperation' unless LILCO . agrees to "a halt in the emergencyplanning litigation activities."

1-'

U If by " litigation activities" you mean discovery, thenwe,might-be able to reach an agreement to halt or curtail,

taose activities. After all, it was we who originallyi saggested to'. you on the phone that we would prefer to

/ ( \ kproceed with discovery informally and that possibly no,

'

depositions at all would be necessary, and Kathy in her

( letter to you of July 13 expressed her hope that the number'

o'f depositions would be minimal. You, on the other hand,'

insisted 1on having a large number of depositions.!s

##4" But'we do not believe you are talking about discovery;the'believeyouaretalkingaboutdelayingthefilingoftestimony and the litigation of the contentions. As we said

j in our letter-of Atigust 7, we cannot agree to any delay ofthe hearings unless we see signs of progress in producing,

,d[ emergencyvarrangements acceptable: to both the County and'

LILCO. We cre therefore planning to file testimony on thePhase.I issues on' September 14 as ordered by the Board.Your Aucusti16 letter sounds as though you thinkthat no hdrm,will be done if this proceeding is delayed; youo

( say that wb can always resume our respective " litigation,

postures" if cooperative efforts break down. Yet you knowi

9ery well that'the cost, to LILCO and its ratepayers, of'

- delaying the operation of a nuclear power plant is enormous.

4,

, ,,

V

- 1.

i . - - , - y-

-

. .

,

<

II U N T O N & WILLI AMS

Cherif Sedky, Esq.'

Christopher M. McMurray, Esq.August 17, 1982Page 2

Our offer on August 7 was without qualification; LILCOis ready to resume meetings on emergency planning with theCounty planners. We repeat that offer. We see no reasonwhy meetings among the planners can't resume regardless ofwhat the lawyers are doing in the litigation. Your positionseems to be that the present " litigation environment" mayrender the meetings unproductive. We are willing to takethat risk. Given the importance of emergency planning, wesee no reason to refuse to give the meetings a chance.

cerely,.

ames N. ChristmanKathy E. B. McCleskey

126/821

.

8

_ , - - -- .