ML20054L977
| ML20054L977 | |
| Person / Time | |
|---|---|
| Site: | Shoreham File:Long Island Lighting Company icon.png |
| Issue date: | 07/01/1982 |
| From: | Mcmurray C KIRKPATRICK & LOCKHART, SUFFOLK COUNTY, NY |
| To: | LONG ISLAND LIGHTING CO. |
| References | |
| ISSUANCES-OL, NUDOCS 8207090119 | |
| Download: ML20054L977 (25) | |
Text
'
00L:TED USNRC
- El J1 -8 C]G2 UNITED STATES OF AMERICA NUCLEAR REGULATORY CCMMISS GNa - .ac/ s)' .-
cnat&;I -
BEFORE THE ATOMIC SAFETY AND LICENSING BOARD
)
In the Matter of )
)
LONG ISLAND LIGHTING COMPANY ) Docket No. 50-322 0.L.
) (Emergency Planning (Shoreham Muclear Power ) Proceedings)
Station, Unit 1) )
)
)
SUFFOLK COUNTY'S RESPONSE TO LILCO's FIRST REQUEST TO SUFFOLK COUNTY FOR PRODUCTION OF EMERGENCY PLANNING DOCUMENTS Suffolk County hereby responds to LILCO's June 2, 1982 First Request to Suffolk County for Production of Emergency Planning Documents (the " Request") as follows:
CBJECTIONS Introduction On April 20, 1982, the Board held a Prehearing Conference to determine, among other things, the scope of the emergency planning issues that would be open to consideration by the Board. Recognizing that there was no County radiologi-cal emergency response plan in existence at that time (Tr. 744) and that "it is going to be a long time before we can litigate ..
8207090119 820701 PDR ADOCK 05000322 O PDR hS$b
. Ap7-offsite matters . . . the Board nevertheless declared that certain emergency planning issues were ripe for litigation (Tr.
744-746). It defined those issues as "the licensee's actions under its emergency plan whether those actions be onsite or -'
offsite . . . ." (Tr. 760; emphasis added).
Counsel for Suffolk County, SOC, and the NSC objected strenuously to the Board's effort to separate consideration of the licensee's emergency planning responsibilities from those
~
o f the County and State (Tr. 748-750, 770-775, 795-802). They argued that emergency planning was necessarily an integrated effort among the utility and affected governments and that the emergency plan of no particular party could be evaluated in isolation (Tr. 809-810). Therefore, they concluded, no emer-gency planning issue should be litigated prior to the comple-tion of the County's plan. Despite those objections, the Board d ir ec ted that the parties go forward with discovery and litiga-tion of LILCO's plan (Tr. 794, 802). Its Order of April 20, 1982, reiterated the narrow scope of emergency planning issues subject to ligitation, ordering that contentions " based on LILCO's emergency response plan must be received by June 22, 1982."
In accordance with the Board's guida.nce, Suffolk County submitted to LILCO on May 11, 1982, a request for documents seeking only those items relevant to the issues defined by the e
ll Board. In contrast, even a cursory review of LILCO's June 2, 1982 Request reveals that LILCO has virtually ignored the Board's explicit directives restricting the emergency planning issues to LILCO's plan. Instead, with few exceptions, LILCO has requested a broad range of documents having no relevance whatsoever to those limited emergency planning issues which are now before the Board.
LILCO's Request may be broken down into four general cate-
- gories:
- 1) Those documents pertaining to Suffolk County's emer-gency planning ef forts culminating in the compilation of certain emergency planning response materials dated March 10, 1982 (Requests 1, 6-12).
- 2) Those documents pertaining to Suffolk County's plans for emergencies not related to nuclear powcr (Requests 13-19);
- 3) Those documents pertaining to Suffolk County's plans for emergencies involving Brookhaven Laboratory and the Millstone Point Nuclear Power Station (Requests ,
20-31); and
- 4) Those documents pertaining to Suffolk County's devel-opment of its Padiological Emergency Fesponse Plan (Requests 32-39), .
e
.. . -r .
Quite clearly, LILCO's Request, pertaining as it does almost exclusively to Suffolk County's radiological response plan and its responsibilities in the event of various emergencies are not within the scope of the issues defined by the Board at the -
Prehearing Conference and in its subsequent Order -- that is, LILCO's own plan and its actions pursuant to that plan. It appears instead that LILCO is endeavoring to roam through the County's emergency planning files before offsite planning be-comes an issue in these proceedings and before completion of the County's plan. Furthermore, LILCO's irrelevant and over-broad requests are not reasonably calculated to lead to disco-very of admissible evidence on the issues at hand. Thus, LILCO is seeking discovery outside the scope permitted by the Board and 10 CFR 52.740(b)(1). In light of LILCO's unwarranted and unpermissible document request, Suffolk County objects to Requests 1 and 6-39.
LILCO is not without previous notice of Suffolk County's objections. For the very purpose of avoiding numerous objec-tions to LILCO's request, Suffolk County noted the foregoing reservations in letters to LILCO's counsel on June 15 and again on June 22, 1982, and suggested that LILCO amend its Request in conformance with the Board's guidance. (See Attachments A and C hereto). LILCO responded by letter of June 17, 1982 stating ,
that Suffolk County's position was " unfounded" and, in essence,
. .. . . .. . I declined to limit the scope of LILCO's Request. (See Attachment B).
Complying with LILCO's Request at this time, insofar as
~
the Request calls for materials not remotely germane to LILCO's plan, would impose undue burden and expense on Suffolk County
-- particularly in view of the likelihood that the parties will engage in further discovery on Suffolk County's plan at a future stage of this proceeding. Moreover, given the breadth of the Request, a search of the County's records for responsive documents would require a considerable amount of time which would necessarily entail cascading delays in the orderly devel-opment of a record in this proceeding. The County is compel-led, therefore, to make the following objections which, to avoid unnecessary repetition, will be addressed to the four general categories outlined above, except as otherwise noted.
March 10, 1982, Materials
- 1. All documents pertaining to the "Suffolk~ County Radiological Emergency Pesponse Plan as of March 10, 1982," as supplemented by the letter of April 19, 1982, from Herbert H. Brown to the Atomic Safety and Licensing Board (the March 10 plan), if such documents are not covered by re-quests 2-12 below. .
G
. - - . . 2. - , ]
e
- 6. All documents analyzing, studying, or otherwise concerning the quality, adequacy, completeness, of effectiveness of the March 10 plan.
- 7. All documents to or from Mr. Frank R. Jones, Mr. -
. Lee E. Koppelman, and/or Mr. Robert C. Meunkle regarding the March 10 plan, including any docu-ments discussing the County's decision to aban-don preparation of that plan.
- 8. All documents regarding preparation of the March 10 plan, including any documents indicating the division of responsibility for preparing the plan, the' schedule by which the plan was to.be completed, and the persons, if any, who were to review the plan.
- 9. All documents used in preparing the March 10 plan, including any other local emergency re-sponse plans obtained by the County from other local governments.
- 10. All documents analyzing, studying, or critiquing
~
documents used in preparing the March 10 plan.
- 11. All documents describing additions or revisions to the March 10 plan since March 10, 1982.
- 12. All documents pertaining to additions or revi- .
sions to the March 10 plan since March 10, 1982, W
.. . . . . _ . . _ . .:.._. l including any documents indicating the division of responsibility for preparing the additions or revisions, the documents addressing the schedule
~
by which the additions or revisions were to be completed, documents relied upon in preparing the additions or revisions, and documents ana-1 lyzing, studying or critiquing the additions or l: revisions.
1 Response: Objected to as outside the scope of the emer-gency planning issues now under consideration by the Board (see Introduction). These requests are irrelevant and are not rea-sonably calculated to lead to discovery of admissible evidence 1
pertaining to LlLCO's plan. Furthermore, Request 7 seeks 1
intra-governmental correspondence (and other documents) regard- i 1
ing County policymaking decisions. Such materials are privile-ged and not subject to discovery.
Suffolk County Plans for Non-Nuclear Emergencies
- 13. All documents pertaining to the County's organi-zation for coping with emergencies that do not involve nuclear power.
- 14. All documents pertaining to the County's proce-dures for coping with emergencies that do not involve nuclear power. ,
m O
e
~ _ . _ . - .- - . _ l
- 15. All documents analyzing, studying or critiquing the County's plan or plans for dealing with emergencies that do not involve nuclear power.
- 16. All documents relied upon in preparing the -
County's plan or plans for dealing with emergen-cies that do not involve nuclear power.
i
- 17. All dccuments analyzing, studying, or critiquing I any documents relied upon in preparing the County's plan or plans for dealing with emergen-cies that do not involve nuclear power.
- 18. All documents indicating the division of respon-sibility for preparing the County's plan or plans for dealing with emergencies that do not involve nuclear power, the schedule by which the plan or plans were to be completed, and the per-sons, if any, who reviewed the plan or plans.
- 19. All other documents pertaining to the County's plan or plans for dealing with emergencies that '
do not involve nuclear power.
1 i
Response: Objected to as outside the scope of the emer- -
t gency planning issues now under consideration by the Board (see l
i Introduction). Suffolk County's plans and procedures for cop-ing with non-nuclear accidents are not pertinent to LILCO's -
plan or its actions to be taken in the event of a radiological 4
~
l i
I
~v -- - e
- I emergency. Furthermore, the requests seek documents pertaining to Suffolk County policymaking which are privileged. LILCO's requests are thus irrelevant and are not reasonably calculated to lead to discovery of admissible evidence pertaining to the 7 emergency planning issues now before the Board.
Suffolk County's Plans For Emergencies Involving Brookhaven National Laboratory and the Millstone Nuclear Power Stations
- 20. All documents pertaining to the County's organi-zation for coping with emergencies involving the Brookhaven National Laboratory.
- 21. All documents pertaining tc the County's proce-dures for coping with emergencies that involve the Brookhaven National Laboratory.
- 22. All documents analyzing, studying or critiquing the County's plan for dealing with emergencies that involve the Brookhaven National Laboratory.
- 23. All documents analyzing, studying, or critiquing any documents relied upon in preparing the ,
County's plan for dealing with emergencies that involve the Brookhaven National Laboratory.
- 24. All documents indicating the division of respon-sibility for preparing the County's plan for dealing with emergencies that involve the Brookhaven National Laboratory, the schedule by 2
m r w - t
- -. . Y l
which the plan was to be completed, and the persons, if any, who reviewed the plan.
- 25. All other documents pertaining to emergency planning for emergencies involving the -
Brookhaven National Laboratory.
4 .
- 26. All documents pertaining to the County's organi-zation for coping with emergencies involving the Millstone Point Nuclear Power Station.
- 27. All documents pertaining to the County's proce-dures for coping with emergencies involving the Millstone Point Nuclear Power Station.
- 28. All documents analyzing, studying or critiquing the County's plan for dealing with emergencies involving.the Millstone Point Nuclear Power Station.
- 29. All documents analyzing, studying, or critiquing any documents relied upon in preparing the County's plan for dealing with emergencies invo- '
lving the Millstone Point Nuclear Power Station.
- 30. All documents indicating the division of respon- -
sibility for preparing the County's plan for dealing with emergencies involving the Millstone Point Nuclear Power Station, the schedule by which the plan was to be completed, and the persons, if any, who reviewed the plan. .
O e
t
- 31. All other documents pertaining to emergency planning for emergencies involving the Millstone Point Nuclear Power Station.
~ '
Response: Objected to as outside the scope of the emer-gency planning issues now under consideration by the Board (see t
Introduction). Suffolk County's plans or procedures for emer-gencies at Brookhaven National Laboratory or the Millstone 4
Point Nuclear Power Station are not pertinent to LILCO's plan or the actions it will take in the event of an emergency at Shoreham. LILCO's requests are thus irrelevant and are not reasonably calculated to lead to discovery of admissible evi-dence pertaining to the emergency planning issues now before I the Board. j Suffolk County's Radiological Emergency Response Plan
- 32. All documents regarding preparation of the county-wide Radiological Emergency Response Plan (Response Plan) now being developed under Resolution No. 262-82, including any documents -
indicating the person or persons preparing the plan, the division of responsibility for prepar-ing the plan, the schedule by which the plan ,
will be completed, and the persons who will re-view the plan.
e e
9
- 33. All documents that outline, describe, summarize or contain drafts of the Response Plan or parts of it.
- 34. All documents analyzing, studying, or critiquing ,
any descriptions, outlines, summaries, or drafts i
of the Response Plan or parts of it. !
- 35. All documents being used to prepare the Pesponse Plan, including but not limited to: ,
1 (a) consultants' reports.
i (b) studies or analyses of the topographic area i
surrounding Shoreham.
(c) studies or analyses of the population sur-l rounding Shoreham.
i (d) other emergency response plans.
I
- 36. All documents analyzing, studying, or critiquing documents being used to prepare the Response Plan.
- 37. All documents to or from the County's t
Radiological Emergency Response Plan Steering Committee, or individual members of that -
i Committee, including but not limited to: l' (a) directions or guidelines to be followed by the Committee. ,
- s
(b) schedules for the Committee's work.
(c) documents addressing the division of re-sponsibility among Committee members.
- 38. All documents reflecting any meeting or contacts .f involving suffolk County officers, personnel, -
contractors, subcontractors, consultants, or other representatives and pertaining to emer-gency planning. ,
- 39. All other documents pertaining to the prepara-tion of the Response Plan or parts of it.
Response: Objected to as outside the scope of the emer-gency planning issues now under consideration by the Board (see Introduction). Suffolk County's own emergency planning efforts are not presently at issue. The requests are therefore irrele-vant and are not reasonably calculated to lead to discovery of admissible evidence pertaining to the issues now under consi-deration by.the Board. Furthermore, as noted above, even assuming arguendo that LILCO Requests 32-39 are relevant, the -
production of responsive documents would be extremely burden-some. Suffolk County is expending exhaustive efforts to deve-lop an emergency response plan by October 1, 1982. A massive amount of material is continuously being developed and refined on a daily basis for inclusion in the proposed plan. A records-search and production of all responsive material would 9
~
9
. i distract the County and its consultants f rom their ef forts to complete the plan in time. Moreover, even if the Board deter-mines that Requests 32-39 are required to be produced by e
Suffolk County, the Board should defer requiring tee County to produce responsive materials until the completion of the County's plan.
LILCO's REMAINING REQUESTS
- 2. All maps, drawings or other documents concerning placement of tone-activated radios within the Prompt Notification System network.
Response: Provided. See also the March 10, 1982, materi-als previously provided to LILCO.
- 3. All documents analyzing, studying or otherwise concerning the basis for placement of the tone-activated radios and the effectiveness of such radios.
Response: Provided. See response to Request 2.
- 4. All documents describing procedures fcr use of '
the Prompt Notification System including: (a)
(b) how it is activated. who may activate it.
> Response: Provided. See response to Bequest 2.
- 5. All documents analyzing, reviewing or other-wise concerning under what emergency conditions the Prompt Notification System should be used,
7 __
. l including documents concerning use of the system early in an emergency for notification of areas where sheltering may not be a viable option.
Response: Provided. See also response to Request 2. .-
- 40. All documents pertaining to emergency planning on which Suffolk County will rely in the NRC operating license proceeding for Shoreham.
Reseonse: Suffolk County has not yet made a determination as to the documents to be relied upon. Such documents will be furnished promptly af ter Suffolk County has made the requisite determination. .
I
- 41. All testimony on emergency planning given by any of Suffolk County's consultants, officials, em-playees, consultants, or representatives in any proceeding, be it administrative, legislative, or judicial. Such consultants include, but are not limited to, the following:
PRC Voorhees Prof. Philip B. Herr Dr. Kai T. Erikson Dr. James H. Johnson Dr. Donald J. Ziegler Dr. Walter C. Farrel, Jr.
Dr. David Stevenson Dr. Fred Ci nlayson Dr. Robert J. Budnitz Dr. Edward P. Rad fo rd
Response: Provided with respect to the written testimony of Andrew C. Kanen of PRC Voorhees, Dr. Kai T. Erikson, and Dr.
James H. Johnson. Any written testimony on emergency planning given by Dr. Edward P. Pad ford Dr . Donald J. Ziegler, Dr. ,
Walter C. Farrel, Jr., and Dr. David Stevenson will be forth-coming shortly if such testimony exists.
The oral testimony of the above consultants may be found in the following transcripts of ASLB proceedings:
Andrew C. Kanen In the Matter of The Detroit Edison Company, Enrico Fermi Atomic Power Plant Unit 2. Docket No. 50-341.
Dr. James H. Johnson In the Matter of Pacific Gas and Electric Company, Diablo Canyon Nuclear Power Plant Units No. 1 and 2.
Docket No. 50-275, 50-323.
Dr. Kai T. Erikson In the Matter of Pacific Gas and Electric Company, riablo Canyon Nuclear Power
?lant Units No. 1 and 2.
Docket No. 50-275, 50-323.
In the Matter of Metropolitan Edison Co.
Three Mile Island Unit One -
Docket No. 50-289.
To the extent that there exists oral testimony regarding emer-gency planning given by Dr. Edward P. Radford, Dr. Donald J.
Ziegler, Dr. Walter C~. Farrel, or Dr. David Stevenson, such ,
- r -e - -,
testimony will be identified shortly. In addition, Dr. Erikson was deposed in the present proceedings regarding Indian Point.
Suffolk County objects to Request 41, insofar as it per-
~
tains to the remaining consultants, in that such consultants .-
are working solely on development of Suffolk County's plan, are not presently providing services regarding litigation of LILCO's plan, and are not presently expected to testify on the issues at hand. Therefore, the testimony sought is not rele-vant to LILCO's plan, nor is it reasonably calculated to lead to admissible evidence on that issue. In the event that Suffolk County decides to utilize one of the remaining named consultants as a witness on LILCO's plan, any prior testimony of that witness will be provided.
Respectfully submitted, DAVID J. GILMARTIN Suffolk County Attorney PATRICIA A. DEMPSEY Assistant Suffolk County Attorney -
Suffolk County Department of Law i Veterans Memorial Highway
. Hauppauge, New York 11788 l'
3erber( H. Brown Lawrence Coe Lanpher Christopher M. McMurray KIRKPATRICK, LOCKHART, HIL ,
- CHRISTOPHER & PHILLIPS i 1900 M Street, NW, Suite 800 Washington, DC 20036 (202) 452-7000 ,
j Attorneys for Suffolk County .
z - < <
l e-UNITED STATES OF AMERICA- ~
NUCLEAR PEGULATORY CCMMISSION 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, ) i Unit 1) ) I'
) i
- CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE I hereby certify that copies of Suffolk County's Response
~
to LILCO's First Pequest to Suffolk County For Production Of: _
Emergency Planning Documents were sent on July 1, 1982, by U.S.
Mail, first class, to the following: .
t Lawrence Brenner, Esq. Ralph Shapiro, Esq.
Administrative Judge Cammer and Shapiro Atomic Safety and Licensing Board 9 East 40th Street :
U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission New York, New York 10016 Washington, D.C. 20555 Howard L. Blau, Esq.
Dr. James L. Carpenter 217 Newbridge Road Administrative Judge Hicksville, New York 11801 Atomic Safety and Licensing Board U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission W. Taylor Reveley III, Esq.*
Washington,-D.C. 20555 Hunton & Williams P.O. Box 1535 707 East Main St.
Mr. Peter A. Morris Richmond, Virginia 23212 '
Administrative Judge Atomic Safety and Licensing Board U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission Mr. Jay Dunkleberger Washington, D.C. 20555 New York State Energy Office Agency Building 2 Edward M. Barrett, Esq. Empire State Plaza t General Counsel Albany, New York- 12223.
Long Island Lighting Company 250 Old Country Road Mineola, New York 11501 Stephen B. Latham, Esq.
Twomey, Latham & Shea ;
Mr. Brian McCaffrey Attorneys at Law Long Island Lighting Company P.O. Box 398 175 East Old Country Road 33 West Second Street Hicksville, New York 11801 Riverhead, New York 11901 ,
- By Federal Express -
- -, q w-- , ,m , - ., m - - - --
. i ,
Marc W. Goldsmith Mr. Jeff Smith Energy Research Group, Inc. Shoreham Nuclear Power Station 400-1 Totten Pond Road P.O. Box 618 Waltham, Massachusetts 02154 North Country Road Wading River, New York 11792 Joel Blau, Esq. MHB Technical Associates New York Public Service Commission 1723 Hamilton Avenue The Governor Nelson A. Rockefeller Suite K Building San Jose, California 95125 Empire State Plaza -
Albany, New York 12223 Hon. Peter Cohalan Suffolk County Executive David H. Gilmartin, Esq. County Executive / Legislative Suffolk County Attorney Building 1 County Executive / Legislative Bldg. Veterans Memorial Highway I Veterans Memorial Highway Hauppauge, New York 11788 i Hauppauge, New York 11788 Ezra I. Bialik, Esq.
Atomic Safety and Licensing Assistant Attorney General
- Board Panel Environmental Protection Bureau U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission New York State Department of Washington, D.C. 20555 Law 2 World Trade Center Docketing and Service Section New York, New York 10047 Office of the Secretary ,
U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission Atomic Safety and Licensing Washington, D.C. 20555 Appeal Board ,
U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Bernard M. Bordenick, Esq. Commission David A. Repka, Esq. Washington, D.C. 20555 U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission Washington, D.C. 20555 Matthew J. Kelly, Esq.
Staff Counsel, New York Stuart Diamond State Public Service Comm.
Environment / Energy Writer 3 Rockefeller Plaza NEWSDAY Albany, New York 12223 Long Island, New York 11747 Cherif Sedky, Esq.
Kirkpatrick, Lockhart, Johnson & Hutchison 1500 Oliver Building .
Pittsburgh, Pennsylvania 15222 l
hristopher M. McMurray '
KIRKPATRICK, LOCKHART, HILL, CHRISTOPHER & PHILLIPS DATE: /, /f 25 1900 M Street, N.W., 8th Floor
' Washington, D.C. 20036 fr j/
=
, . - . . .. .. -. . - . . . . - . . . . . . - - . . . . - - - ; . .. - . ... . .- - ]
" * (
b ATTACHMENT A HIRxPATRIcx, Locxzr.Anr, HILL. C1-rarsrorazn & PIIILI, Irs A PAmtsswawir fact.nesso A 1%orr.eao**b Come'omartow 1900 }i 3rauzT, N.' W.
WAsursorox, D. C. eooos TTI.SPMONE (208) A32
- FOOO IN ,IT';tatmog cms: m,n ',
June 15, 1982 ==="r== ===a araoe.o= ac=*=
ru a x nien or isoo o m == .Cn.no,0 WRITEA's DraECT DIAL 31DCSSR !
FFTTW3CMGH. ,3rNgtsvAyya 4.see
< w s...
452-8391 5
James Christman, Esq. I Hunton & Williams P.O. Box 1535 707 East Main Street Richmond, Virginia 23212
Dear Jim:
j' i
I am in receipt of "LILCO's First Request to Suffolk ;
County for Production of Emergency Planning Documents" dated l June 2, 1982. It appears from my review of that request that
[
the vast majority of items sought pertain to Suffolk County's !
emergency response planning efforts and related matters, rather ,
than LILCO's own actions in the event of an emergency. In tnis !
respect, LILCO's discovery request far exceeds the scope of the <
emergency planning issues which the Board has indicated are presently subject to litigation.
At the pre-hearing conference of April 14, 1982, the '
Board specifically outlined the area of emergency planning :
"on which we can proceed to litigation. " That area was defined as "the licensee's actions under its emergency pl n whether '
these actions be onsite or offsite...." Tr. 86". In its '
order of April 20, 1982, the Board reiterated that er ergency i planning contentions " based on LILCO's emergency plan must be received by June 22, 1982." Order at 7. In light of the Board's explicit statements, it would appear that LILCO's discovery request seeks documents not relevant to the present scope of permissible emergency planning issues. For instance, documents pertaining to Suffolk County's radiological emergency .
planning documents as of March 10, 1982 (Requests 1, 6 -12 ) ,
the County's plans for emergencies not related to nuclear pcwer (Requests 13-19), the County's plans for emergencies at 3rookhaven National Laboratory (Requests 20-25), and the County's plans for emergencies involving the-Millstone Point -
Nuclear Power Station (Request 26 -31) do not fall within the -
/
6 ,
..,.m . - _ , - - g ,- -
- - - - - ,s- ' " - "
,: : _ .. .= . . . . . :.2.= r- J. . _z: - .-...
.-= - -- - i
,?-
(-
ErnxrArwrcx, LocxTrART, Hir.L, Cantsroenza Sc PirrLLrrs James Christman, Esq.
June 15, 1982 Page Two scope of relevant issues provided by the Board. In addition, ;'
the requests (32-39) seeking discovery of documents pertaining to Suffolk County's Radiological !?mergency Response Plan are far beyond those that are permissable in light of the Board's guidance. i I am indicating these concerns to you at this time in the interest of avoiding numerous formal objections to the breadth of your request at a later date. Suffolk County is prepared to respond to any reasonable discovery request regarding the issues on which discovery is presently open.
Please notify me promptly should you desire to amend your discovery request in accordance with the Board's guidance.
Yours truly, Christopher M. McMurray e
t t
i i
i f
. .., = -.- .=. - ==u = . .- - - - . . .- -- a 1
~ ;. -
ATTACHMENT 3 HUNTON & WILLIMIS 7o7 Cast MAm Staccr P.o. Box 1535 e e . , .v.w..o RIcnxown, VInoIxxA 2 0 212 .... ..,,,,,, ,,,,,, ,,, ,,, o .
o.o.somice mattion, asomew camousea afoos e o.aoa seamo g4e. ea .- sa tt TE LE p m on C 804-788-8200 ***"'"***"***E"'****
aca-asa-..so asser visessna sa=n towen ,
= o..o=2... a '* "o-oue u.. .. .o. 42... June 17 i 1982 .-
- --<==.o. ...cc,o,.s.o....
.... 8368 Christopher M. McMurray, Esq.
Kirkpatrick, Lockhart, Hill, Christopher & Phillips 1900 M Street, N.W.
Washington, D.C. 20036
Dear Chris:
Thanks for your letter of June 15, 1982, which I received yesterday by the telecopier. As I understand it, you are going to refuse to answer at least 35 of our 41 document requests dated June 2, and maybe more. Although you might have mentioned this to me over the last ten or so days, I do appreciate your not waiting until any later to spring the news.
I gather your position is that the ASL3, in its S 2.752 prehearing conference order, has somehow ordered the parties not to conduct discovery on those parts of the emergency planning
- issue other than emergency planning functions that are the responsibility of LILCC, rather than, for example, the County. I must say I can't find anything in the Board's order that says such a thing. What the Board did was to cut off document production requests relating to LILCO's plan as of June 22; try '
as I might, I cannot conceive of any way that can be converted into a sort of protective order shielding your client frcm discovery on other parts of the emergency planning issue. Nor do I know of anything in the NRC regulations that would have that effect.
I might add that I find it hard to understand your client's motive for refusing to produce docur nts. Whatever the Board meant, it is inconceivable that it would object to your providing us with the documents we requested. And since we will repeat the same requests in the future, if they are not satisfied new, you -
will have to produce in due course anyway. I can, in short, think of no good reason why your client would refuse to produce.
If you find the request burdensome t meet in the allotted time, we can of course discuss it and try to find a solution to the .
problem; but you haven't indicated that you can't produce, only that you won ' t. .
I might add that your client's position is particularly strange in light of the large number of documents that we
- ___ .. .3- ____.'._..-. . : _u - c -
- i
~ -
i HuxTox & WILLI Axs Christopher M. McMurray, Esq.
June 17, 1982 Pace 2 provided for you on Monday, at no small sacrifice in time and effort by LILCO people. Your client's somewhat grudging response to our document production request, which was far less burdensome than your request to us, hardly seems to be in the same spirit,-
and certainly not within either the spirit or the letter of the NRC regulations.
In short, I guess I would have to say that I find your position both unfounded and hard to understand. I believe you should produce the documents we've requested in the interest of avoiding delay later on.
C'7cerely, :
1' fv . .i
~
/ ;,
J mes N. Christman
~
126/740 I
o e
~
I f ATTACHMENT C EIRKPXrRICK, LOCKHART, HIu.. CanzsroPHER & PnIn. Irs A Puerwansen, Ima.unu o A P= ors ==so=As. Coaronarson isoo M SrnanT, N. W.
WASHOOTON D. C. 20006 T.rttrerons (aoen 4as.rooo June 22, 1932 '" 'rrr**'raa= -
32REPATRIG,tema37.Jospecs a MUTGIsow ;"
Tzias *nomoe ntPir et isoo o2Jvun scu.Deto WRITI2 8 DIRECT Djal. NUMBRE FTTTESU3oN. MWYLVANrA 18338
{4as) 3ss.eece i
4 James N. Christman Hunton & Williams 717 East Main Street p.O. Box 1535 Richmond, VA 23212
Dear Jim:
I am in receipt of your letter of June 17, 1982. It appears that we have a fundamental difference of opinion concerning the permissible scope of discovery on the emer-gency planning issues in this proceeding.
~
As I stated in my letter, and in subsequent telephone conversations with you and Kathy McClesky, it is Suffolk County's position that the only emergency planning issues that have been defined by the Board for litigation, and there-fore the only issues on which there may be discovery, are those pertaining to LILCO's actions, both onsite and offsite.
It seems to be your position that discovery may be had on issues related to the County's emergency planning efforts, which issues are as yet undefined and for which the relevant '
scope of discovery cannot yet be determined. We do not agree, particularly in light of the Board's explicit statements in the record and the fact that there will be no County plan in existence until later this year.
Despite your suggestion to the contrary, our client has no motive for refusing to produce documents pertaining to the County's emergency planning efforts other than to adhere to litigation of the issues that the Board has indicated are presently open to consideration. Furthermore, while we of course are cognizant of your efforts in complying with Suffolk -
County's first document discovery request, you will note that that request fell well within the permissible scope of discovery.
Therefore, your compliance with that request was mandatory, not magnanimous.
O w
em -
(" - {~
4
- Jamac N. Christman June 22, 1982 Page Two Despite our continuing belief that your request exceeds the permissible scope of discovery, we are open ,
to further discussion of this matter with you, particu- .-
larly in light of the statement in your June 17 letter that our position is " unfounded. "' I would appreciate learning the basis for your conclusion and encourage you to contact me on this point. We are prepared to recon-sider your request if there is something new brought to our attention.
Yours truly, Christopher M. McMurray CMM:rs I
1 O
e e
c - - -=-p +- t- -,+ w -
-- , _,