ML19276E505

Responds to NRC Motions to Compel Responsive Answers & for Protective Order.Responses Dtd 781130 Are Adequate, Especially at This Stage.Related Correspondence & Certificate of Svc Encl

ML19276E505
Person / Time
Site:	Shoreham File:Long Island Lighting Company icon.png
Issue date:	02/07/1979
From:	Like I SUFFOLK COUNTY, NY
To:
Shared Package
ML19276E506	List: ML19276E505 ML19276E509
References
NUDOCS 7903140424
Download: ML19276E505 (8)

Text

'

_ , , c f 'O .

.gruT Y.~

UNITED STATES CF A:! ERICA N U C L E A R R E G U L A T O R Y C O: "I I S S I O:1 BEFORE THE ATO'4IC SAFETY A ID LICE!!SI:!G BOARD In the Matter of )

)

LONG ISLAND LIGHTING CO!PANY ) Docket !c. 50-322

)

(Shoreham :Tuclear Power Station, ) <* D Unit 1) )

d' \

~

Il-C eh,Nf V #

b 3

COUNTY OF SUFFOLK's RESPONSE TO gh "NRC STAFF MOTION TO COMPEL {

RESPONSIVE A:ISWERS" & g MOTION FOR A PROTECTI7F ORDE3 g on Staff filed its "First Set of NRC Staff Interrogatories to the County of Suffolk" on May 15, 1978. Staff and the County subsequently agreed to defer specific response to these interrogatories. Informal discovery efforts were then under-way between the parties and their technical consultants, which, it was hoped, would cit through the formal discovery process and produce further particularized contentions.

On November 30, 1978, the County submitted a pleading entitled " County of Suffoll:'s Particularized Contentions" and therein detailed the factual basis, as far as it was presently ascertainable, for each contention raised. The contention status was reviewed under the following subpart headings:

Statement of Contention; Contention Chronology; Basis for Centention; 3eferences; and Summary and Conclusion.

T O ~ 's l ' D 4

_2_

e #

Staff now files the instant motion to compel more responsive answers. In this motion Staff reviews each of its interrogatories and sets forth its analysis of the ade-quacy of the County response thereto. Staff breaks down the County's responses to interrogatories into three broad cate-gories - adequate, inadequate but no particularization re-quired until issuance of SER, and inadequate. It is with respect to this latter category of responses that Staff seeks to compel more responsive answers. At issue is the adequacy of County response to the following Staff interrogatories:

1; 2 (Contention 3a(iii)); 4 (Contention Sa); 5 (Contention 5b); 6 (Contention 5c(iii)(iv)); 7 (Contention 6a(1)(iii)(iv));

9 (Contention 8a(ii); 15 (Contention 12a(1-iii), (v-viii));

16 (Contention 13a(ii-vi)); 18 (Contention 13c).

The County believes that its responses to inter-rogatories are generally adequate, especially in view of the present posture of these proceedings. That is, the formal discovery period for these proceedings does not begin to run until the Shoreham SER issues, and the County is not obliged to further particularize its contentions until seventy days thereafter. But. Staff, through its interrogatories and motion to compel, seeks to force the County to fully particularize its contentions permaturely. Given the thoroughness of the County's previcus responses to interrogatories posed by both Staff and Applicant, the instant motion to compel represents an abuse of the discovery process.

The County is nindful of its obligations to supple-ment its responses to interrogatories with information sub-sequently acquired. (10 CFR, Sec. 2.740(e)). This rule has particular significance here. As Staff (and this Board) is aware, there has been for the past year considerable uncertainty at the political level concerning the scope of the County's participation in these proceedings. This situation has limited counsel's ability to affirmatively develop the County's case.

However, the County will shortly formalize its retention of a new technical consultant, Energy Research Group, Inc., which, in turn, will permit the County to frame discovery requests on technical issues, the responses.to which will add further basis for the County's contentions.*

In sum, the County contends that its responses to Staff's interrogatories are generally adequate. This is particularly apparent when one considers the procedural stage at which this proceeding sits. Moreover, to the ex-tent that certain interrogatories have not been fully res-ponded to, the County recognizes its obligation to supple-ment responses on the basis of information subsequently ob-tained during the discovery phase of these proceedings. On the basis of all the foregoing, Staff's motion to compel is premature and unwarranted. Accordingly, the County seeks a

• For example, with respect to Staff's motion to compel responses to interrogatories directed to Contention 3a(iii),

the County already has taken steps to ga'.n access to the Reed Report (See, Letter of Irving Like dated 2/6/79, attached as Ex. A). Additionally, as soon as ERG has had an opportunity to familiarine itself . i - h t he ': anty 's contentions and to assign work tasks, resa.nse to Staff's interrogatory #1 will be possible.

protective order, pursuant to 10 CFR, Sec. 2.740(c) relieving it of any responsibility to further respond to Staff's interro-gatories.

Respectfully Submitted,

___/lbi yL ib('Aq Irving Like Special Counsel to the County of Suffolk Dated: February 7, 1979

Exhibit "A" REILLY, LIxt AND SCHNEIDER COUNSEI.LORS AT LAW 200 WEST MAIN STREET DABYLON, N. Y.11702 gg g E RN A RD J. R EI LLY WILBUR H. SCHNEIDER GEORCE HOFFM AN EDWARD A. B ROOMS.JR.

WE MN E R B. 2CM BRt*NN RICHARD ti. HAN D zMRicOa. CON =rAN m o February 6, 1979 PATRICIA A. DEM FSET Case Whittemore, Esq.

Hunton & Williams P.O. Box 1535 Richmond, Virginia 23212 Re: In the Matter of Long Island Lighting Company (Shoreham Nuclear Power Station, Unit 1)

Docket No. 50-322

Dear Mr. Whittemore:

Forwarded as an attachment to your letter of October 4, 1978, was a modified " Agreement Regarding Disclosure of Confidential Commercial Information". This disclosure agree-ment, when executed, would permit County inspection of the following G.E. documents:

1. List of Items from the Nuclear Reactor Study (Reed Report) identified in 1975 by Safety and Licensing for Consideration as " Reportable Deficiencies" under Section 206 of the Energy

, Reorganization Act of 1974 (dated March 22, 1978). .

2. Summary of Status of Items from the Nuclear Re-actor Study (Reed Report) identified in 1975 by Safety and Licensing (prepared May, 1978).

3 Topical Report NED-21021-P: " Test Program for Collet Retainer Tube".

With regard to Items 1 and 2 relative to the Reed Report, we note that a protective order recently was en-tered in another NRC licensing proceeding (In the Matter of Public Service Company of Oklahoma, et al (Black Fox Station, Units 1 and 2), Docket Mos. 50-556 & 557) pro-viding the intervenors access to verbatim extractions of the Reed Report, plus the sub-task reports which were prepared under Dr. Reed's auspices, insofar as these

Case 'dhittemore , Esq.

February 6, 1979 ,

Page 2

'4 documents relate to the Intervenors' contentions. A procedure was also provided for in the Board's order which allowed counsel for the intervenors to verify the accuracy of these extractions. A copy of the Black Fox protective order appears as an attachment to NRC staff's January 12, 1979 " Motion to Compel Responsive' Answers" directed to the County.

The County will shortly formalize the retention of its new technical consultants for the Shoreham case, Energy Research Group, Inc., which action will then enaule it to execute the disclosure agreement referred

~

to above. However, in view of the scope of discovery afforded intervenors in the Black Fox proceedings on the Reed Report, it seems appropriate to first deter-mine whether the Applicant and the General Electric Com-pany are willing to grant the County,without necessity of a formal application to the Licensing Loard, a similar range of discovery in this case. If there is a willing-ness to proceed in similar fashion here, then we would, of course, once again have to modify the proposed dis-closure agreement.

Please let me have your thoughts on this at your earliest opportunity.

Sincerely,

/ .

hl'#h(E)

I Irvin Like Special Counsel for the County of Suffolk IL/jg CC: To all Parties

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA NUCLEAR REGULATORY COIF 4ISSION BEFORE THE ATOMIC SAFETY & LICENSING BOARD In the Matter of )

)

LONG ISLAND LIGHTING COMPANY ) Docket No. 50-322

)

(Shoreham Nuclear Power Staion, )

Unit 1) )

CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE Ihereby certify that on February 7, 1979, copies of COUNTY OF SUFFOLK'S RESPONSE TO "NRC STAFF MOTION TO COMPEL RESPONSIVE ANSWERS" were sent by postage pre-paid, first-class mail, to the following:

Elizabeth S. Bowers, Esq. Edward M. Barrett, Esq.

Chairman General Counsel Atomic Safety & Licensing Board Long Island Lighting Company U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Comm. 250 Old Country Road Washington, D.C. 20555 Mineola, New York 11501 Dr. Oscar Paris, Member Edward J. Walsh, Esq.

Atomic Safety & Licensing Board Long Island Lighting Company U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Comm. 250 Old Country Road Washington, D.C. 20555 Minaola, New York 11501 Frederick J. Shon, Member W. Taylor Reveley, III, Esq.

Atomic Safety & Licensing Board Hunton & Williams U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Comm. P.O. Box 1535 Washington, D.C. 20555 Richmond, Virginia 23212 Docketing and Service Section Jeffrey C. Cohen, Esq.

Office of the Secretary N.Y. State Energy Office U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Comm. Swan Street Bldg. - Core 1 Washington, D.C. 20555 Empire State Plaza Albany, New York 12223 Atomic Safety & Licensing Appeals Board Howard L. Blau, Esq.

U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Comm. Blau & Cohn, P.C.

Washington, D.C. 20555 217 Newbridge Road Hicksville, New York 11301 Richard Hoefling, Esq.

Atomic Safety & Licensing Board U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Ccmm.

Washington, D.C. 20555

T.J. Burke, Project : Tanager Shoreham Nuclear Power Station P.O. Box 618 North Country Road Wading River, New York 11742 Energy Research Group, Inc.

400-1 Totten Pond Road

'ialtham, Mass . 02154 Ralph Shapiro, Esq.

Cammer & Shapiro, P.C.

9 East 40th Street New York, New York 10016

/ # , .

!h 'p $E) f $l[ sh" U Irving Like