ML20053D209

Discusses Status of Matters Raised in 820510 & 12 Ltrs to Rockland Citizens for Safe Energy & Parents Concerned About Indian Point,In Response to 820525,request

ML20053D209
Person / Time
Site:	Indian Point
Issue date:	05/27/1982
From:	Czaja R SHEA & GOULD
To:	Carter L Atomic Safety and Licensing Board Panel
References
ISSUANCES-SP, NUDOCS 8206040184
Download: ML20053D209 (4)

Text

.

. 8 - .

SHEA & GOULD 330 MADISON AvcNUE

[ '.,i *,{:*:[ "

wou a. A. ..c. wi6To s.oou6o Ncw YoR Ke New YqR K 10017 c.vec4..cC.r. ee sau.= ma Tek **s a'meTom. o.C. oFriC r sA=3ss.A.oauseaca e r==aac o. F esCa w." trial sto sooo a ''""'""*-

czamanos.muosisme maaTimi.sacLTom .a

• e *2 was-iwo Tom. o. C. a'c oos seAn no s.6T To= scTuou . =6c = Tgggx:.e3oT3 C f. i.'s ~l Q **' 3 saani s as. ees o svua= .mus= wi=C r =T o. e ooN=s u Cas t a : ...so AkbAN J. DaA R E R Aakpee L.EkktB TELECopV;6 61*2364 coelm? s. muegw stonor or etwaeo ,, g g y , ,, ,, , g g .

• • • • w===6

.. .no saCoe som e==uc6 w. i= enau.sa.

sa ckoon o. CA--T weuia= a. amoaa. sa.

c,ogg:,ogo. a [n usseeksk moTee OAvio aLTen i manso v. minamt6kt

• u.1-ac6LesC. n u v.= . . Tee tuosoma.ocu6oa

• cow p. so6e wineau C. Fia n c ===.sa. wiu.a. A. n c Lso .

.e=Cgw? w. owimw. sa. Auam m. TessLes cowano n. FomooTeoN .

ROceako M. ALENSTEIN MCRMaN A. auA S RT etsestofpamfetas A2seos. S. JACos t TMoeems C. Cose5TaeeC f II A 6'o sT E L NATseceeD e.seanoINo gu4opEaN OFFICE L3573m Taar m? monge? w. ChatsoM eT steng6ET scuant Jo!L 3. Par t n es s a STuamT Measurigbo Lose.oes wem sos Egk3Em CuRRas oasettb L. CammoLL E ssS h&No JOS3pH F E m m adte towam o s. MARTIN of.ee3

• e ssa ibtCMaAP E.esakpCR.N estCesaEb CuRLET TELER: RSeeee CTRATFom o C. wakLAC E wekkaans R.ouMLop C3emotT.seuTToM peelber R. esaN N otomet E. soss

• EeCMano L.spiseooaTTB LoseN A. TaoET messerse? pantage KOIZ8t? ooko oavto a.CUTNER MAD @ko A.an E L oavio e. 8eawowtTZ ALeaNT OFFICE A2TMuA s. RauF ed*N CMa ALE S M. maNT E L gig wagweesofoes avtesWC C.AMb EL E rom AN ERNt s? J. eERTokoTTl . ALease?. estw Toma tasio nT . .. sT c.o... . -a-o . "'

esseric? rebosCumsiera s c FF.c f saacs z.ra*= ark MaY 27' 1982 '**' ~* *>'o

- ma = '. ra'< o -*~ .. .e,.e8. . 70.. ,

By Federal Express wnircus eincer uur  ;

-ete. r.-.oo abo

..uk .. .T crr 370-8494 '

anNoLD romsTEm 0F Cousestk Honorable Louis J. Carter Atomic Safety and Licensing Board j 7300 City Line Avenue  ;

Philadelphia, Pennsylvania 19151 l i

Re: Consolidated Edison Company (Indian Point, Unit 2); Power Authority of the State of i New York (Indian Point, Unit 3); Docket ,

Nos. 50-247-SP; 50-286-SP j 4

1

Dear Judge Carter:

This letter will respond to your telephone request of  !

May 25 for a report on the present status of the matters raised l in my letters of (1) May 10, 1982 to Ms. Judith Kessler of  !

Rockland Citizens for Safe Energy ("RCSE") and (2) May 12, 1982 to Ms. Kathy Toscani of Parents Concerned about Indian Point

(" Parents").

Notwithstanding the untimely filing of the RCSE inter-rcgatories as described in my le'tter to Ms. Kessler, licensees on May 24 served a response to the interrogatories. We therefore consider the "RCSE Response to Licensees' May 10, 1982 Communi-cation Re Timely Service of RCSE Interrogatories; Request for Board. Ruling Re Licensees' Compliance with RCSE Interroga-tories," dated May 18, 1982 to be moot.

With regard to the subject of document production dis-cussed in my letter to Ms. Toscani, in view of licensees' desire 8206040184 820527 PDR ADOCK 05000247 h

O PDR ///

SHEA ScGourn

. I Honorable Louis J. Carter .

May 27, 1982 ,

Page Two 1

to expedite discovery to the extent possible, given the tremen-dous volume of discovery requests directed to them, licensees divided the document production into two categories.

First, documents cited in licensees' interrogatory answers have already beep made available to intervenors by one or a combination of the following means:

(1) When the documents are not voluminous, by physically annexing the documents to the li-censees' interrogatory responses (e.g., in the case of licensees' responses to RCSE and WESPAC interrogatories);

(2) By arrangement with UCS/NYPIRG, by making -

the documents cited regarding methodology used by Parsons, Brinckerhoff, Quade and Douglas, Inc. available to UCS/NYPIRG for inspection and copying on May 17, 1982. A representative of FOE /Audubon also attended this inspection; (3) Making copies of the documents cited in the licensees' responses to the UCS/NYPIRG interrogatories available for inspection and copying at the offices of Shea & Gould on May 21, 1982; and (4) Forwarding copies of the documents described in (3) above to the White Plains Public Library and the Public Documents Room of the Nuclear Regulatory Com-mission in Washington, D.C.

Second, with respect to the remaining requests by inter-venors for document production, licensees will serve a response to these requests on or before June 1, and licensees will produce for inspection and copying by the parties all requested documents l

not objected to, on June 1, 1982 at 9:30 a.m. at the offices of l Shea & Gould, all in accordance with 10 CFR S2.741.

SHEA & Gourn .\

l Honorable Louis J. Carter .

l May 27, 1982 Page Three We.also discussed licensees' objection to the un-  :

timely service of West Branch Conservation Association's

("WBCA's") " Request to NRC Staff to Expedite Replies and Second Set of Interr'ogatories to Staff, Licensees and State of N.Y."

Approximately simultaneously with our telephone conversation, a letter to Ms. Fleisher from me dated May 25 was mailed.*

I I

I have reviewed this letter in light of our conversa-tion. Licensees continue to submit that the positions taken therein and in the licensees' letter to the Board of May 14, 1982 are correct. However, licensees will attempt to respond to WBCA's second set of interrogatories to the extent time is available to do so. As the relevant personnel are now fully involved in preparing direct testimony to meet the Board's deadline for filing.such testimony, it is unlikely that licen-sees will be able to begin to address themselves to these interrogatories prior to June 7.

Licensees, however, continue to submit that WBCA's Second Set of Interrogatories is improper under any interpreta-tion of the Board's order of April 23, 1982 and mailgram of May 12, 1982. The interrogatories were served nearly two weeks after the Board's deadline, and there is absolutely no reason why these interrogatories could not have been served in com-pliance with the deadline established by the Board. Licensees

- have already responded to over 180 interrogatories dealing with every conceivable aspect of Commission questions three and four, and a response to WBCA's second set of interrogatories will not contribute to the Board's task of answering these questions.

• A copy of this letter was previously transmitted to the Board, but another copy is enclosed for your reference.

I

SuzA & dotyLD Honorable Louis J. Carter May 27, 1982 Page Four Finally, I should emphasize that this letter sets forth the status of questions regarding dates of service of interrogatories. Licensees have substantial objections to the substance of intervenors' responses to licensees' interrogatories.

These objections will be the subject of appropriate applications.

I have discussed the text of this letter with counsel for con Edison, who concurs with the statements herein.

Very truly yours,

- A x.

Richard F. Czaja RFC:may cc: Hon. Oscar H. Paris Hon. Frederick J. Shon Service List

.