ML20041G458
| ML20041G458 | |
| Person / Time | |
|---|---|
| Site: | Shoreham File:Long Island Lighting Company icon.png |
| Issue date: | 03/15/1982 |
| From: | Reveley W HUNTON & WILLIAMS, LONG ISLAND LIGHTING CO. |
| To: | Atomic Safety and Licensing Board Panel |
| Shared Package | |
| ML20041G455 | List: |
| References | |
| ISSUANCES-OL, NUDOCS 8203220330 | |
| Download: ML20041G458 (7) | |
Text
-
March 15, 1982 7:ym ri
'82 E917 Aia:15 UNITED STATES OF AMEPICA NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSION Before the Atomic Safety and Licensing Board In the Matter of
)
)
LONG ISLAND LIGHTING COMPANY
)
Docket No. 50-322 (OL)
)
(Shoreham Nuclear Power Station,
)
Unit 1)
LILCO'S OBJECTIONS TO SOC'S DISCOVERY REQUEST AND MOTION FOR A PROTECTIVE ORDER I.
On March 2, 1982, LILCO received SOC's Fourth Set of Interrogatories and Request for Production of Documents to Long Island Lighting Company.
For the reasons set out below, LILCO objects to some of the discovery requested in whole or r
in part.
l II.
l SOC Contention 3 l
Questions 1, 2, 3, 4, 15, 18 and 19 ask for information related to all instrunentation referenced in l
Reculatory Guide 1.97.
As currently admitted by the Board, this contention is limited to eleven specific categories of instrumentation.
To the extent that discovery seeks information outside the scope of an admitted contention, it is not permitted.
Allied General Nuclear Serv.
(Barnwell Fuel
(
8203220330 820315 PDR ADOCK 05000322 C
Receiving and Storage Station), LBP-77-13, 5 NRC 489, 492 (1977), held that:
10 CFR 9 2.740 (b) (1) only permits discovery of information or documents " relevant to the subject matter involved in the proceeding,"
and then further qualifies and limits the term " subject matter" to the contentions admitted by the presiding officer in the proceeding.
LILCO will limit its answers to the instrumentation included in SOC Contention 3.
LILCO also objects to Question 8, which asks the Company to "[i]dentify all equipment located in the secondary containment which is classed as important to safety, or (b)
Class IE, or (c) Class I."
In FSAR Section 7.1, LILCO sets out the regulatory classification of Shoreham systems.
From the information provided there plus the appropriate system diagrams, SOC can answer Question 8 on its own.
If SOC is requesting anything more, LILCO objects.
SOC 6 (a) (1) l SOC dropped its Contention 6 (a) (i) at the prehearing conference on March 10 in favor of SOC's adoption of Suffolk County's Contention 12.
As pointed out in LILCO's objections to SCC s discovery also filed today, LILCO believes that there has already been ample opportunity for discovery.
Despite this fact, LILCO has agreed to respond to a large number of Suffolk County's OA I
requests.
In view of the lateness of the hour and SOC's l
l l
P adoption of County Contention 12, LILCO believes that SOC i
should rely on the results of the County's discovery to minimize the burden on LILCO.
Where that discovery involves making documents available for inspection, counsel for SOC will be allowed to participate.
These arrangements seem particularly appropriate since the County and SOC share a common OA consultant.
Thus, to the extent that SOC's discovery request exceeds that to which LILCO has already agreed with the County, LILCO objects.
SOC 19 LILCO will answer the specific discovery request related to SOC Contention 19(a) but objects to the general discovery request related to each part of SOC Contention 19.
SOC Contention 19 alleges that LILCO has failed to comply with various regulatory guides.
The objectionable interrogatories essentially ask LILCO to undertake SOC's hearing preparation, by asking the Company to show in minute detail whether or not SOC has any basis whatsoever for claiming that the guides have been violated.
While it night have been acceptable for SOC to ask LILCO questions about specific provisions of particular guides that SOC believed to be unmet, it is unreasonable to expect LILCO to analyze for SOC the extent of Shoreham's compliance with every provision 1
of every guide.
1
Furthernore, to the extent that LILCO is currently conducting the type of analysis SOC wants, it is being done in preparation for the evidentiary hearings.
Thus, it is not discoverable absent the special showings required by 10 CFR S 2.740 (b) (2).
LILCO does not believe SOC can show "a substantial need of the material in the preparation of [ SOC's]
case and that [ SOC) is unable without undue hardship to obtain the substantial equivalent of the materials by other means."
SOC's experts have access to information about Shoreham's design and are familiar with the regulatory guides in question.
Rcouest for a Site Visit LILCO objects to SOC's request for a site visit because it would be a burdensome repetition of site visits conducted in the past by SOC's attorney and consultants.
Furthermore, in response to a similar request from Suffolk County, LILCO conducted a plant inspection for SC's attorneys and consultants on March 11, 1982.
One of those consultants is also a consultant for SOC.
LILCO's attorneys informed l
l counsel for SOC on March 5 that he could contact LILCO to arrange to participate in this tour.
No contact was made.
In view of past site visits, the participation of a SOC consultant in the March 11 site visit, and the opportunity to visit the site when the Board does so, LILCO believes no further site tours are warranted.
III.
For the reasons stated above, LILCO requests that a protective order be issued (1) limiting discovery on SOC Contention 3 as noted above; (2) limiting SOC's discovery on OA natters to that to be had by SC; (3) denying the discovery on SOC Contention 19 as indicated above; and (4) denying further site visits by SOC except for the visit to be conducted by LILCO for the Board.
Respectfully submitted, LONG ISLAND LIGHTI!
COMPANY
/ / N/MV W. Tay1
( Reveley, III Anthony
. Earley, Jr.
Hunton & Williams 707 East Main Street P. O. Box 1535 Richmond, Virginia 23212 l
DATED:
March 15, 1982 l
)
. o
'82 WR 17 D0:15 In the Matter of LONG ISLAND LIGHTING COMPANY (Shoreham Nuclear Power Statios', Unitel)
"k Docket No. 50-322 (OL)
CERTIFICATI OF SERVICE l
I hereby certify that copies of LILCO's Objections
~
to Suffolk County's Discovery Requests and Motion for a Protective Order an'd L,ILCO's Objections to SOC's Discovery Request and Motion for a Protective Order were served upon the following people by first-class mail, postage prepaid, w
on March 15, 1982p except for,the asterisked people, who will 1
be served by haidlorlFederal Express on March 15, 1982:
"x
~
Lawrence;Brenner,USq.,*
Secretary of the Commission Administrative Judgec \\.
U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission Atomic Safety and Licensing Washington, D.C.
20555 Board Panel.
'-s U.S. Nuclear Regula ory(
Atomic Safety.and Licensing Commission AppealcBoard Panel Hudlear. Re Commission,'gulatory Washington, D.C.
420555 U.S.
Mr. Frederick J.
Shon*
Washington, D.C.
20555 Administrative Judge
' Atomic Safety and Licensing Atomic-Safety and Licensing Board Panel Board Panel U.S. Nuclear Regulatory U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission Commission g'
s.
Washington, D.C.'
20555 Washington,' D.C.
20555 Ns Dr. James H. Carpenter
- Bernard M.
Bordenick, Esq.*
L, Administrative Judge David A.
R6pka, Esq.
Atomic Safety anG Licensing U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Board Panel
)*-
Commission 20f55 U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Washington, D.C.
Commission Washington, D.C.~ 20935
)*
, g
.g i
s#
A
~
p-
h
" i i
i David J. Gilmartin, Esq.
Ralph Shapiro, Esq.
Attn:
Patricia A.
Dempsey, Esq.
Cammer and Shapiro, P.C.
County Attorney 9 East 40th Street Suffolk County Department of Law New York, New York 10016 Veterans Memorial Highway Hauppauge, New York 11787 Howard L.
Blau, Esq.
217 Newbridge Road Herbert H. Brown, Esq.*
Hicksville, New York 11801 Lawrence Coe Lanpher, Esq.
Karla J.
Letsche, Esq.
Jeffrey C. Cohen, Esq.
Kirspatrick, Lockhart, Hill, New York State Energy Office Christopher & Phillips Swan Street Building, Core 1 8th Floor Empire State Plaza 1900 M Street, N.W.
Albany, New York 12223 Washington, D.C.
20036 Mr. Jay Dunkleberger Mr. Mark 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 MHB Technical Associates 1723 Hamilton Avenue Suite K San Jose, California 95125 Stephen B.
Latham, Esq.*
Twomey, Latham & Shea 33 West Second Street P. O. Box 398 Riverhead, New York 11901
/
k k'
ff f
W.
Tiylbr eveley, IIIj Hunton & Williams 707 East Main Street P. O. Box 1535 l
Richmond, Virginia 23212 I
DATED:
March 15, 1982 l
l l
l