ML20062A633

Motion in Opposition to Intervenor Suco 780919 Motion Seeking Indefinite Extension of Time to Respond to Applicant 771208 Interrogatories.If Motion Granted,Deadline of No Later than 781016 Requested

ML20062A633
Person / Time
Site:	Shoreham File:Long Island Lighting Company icon.png
Issue date:	10/02/1978
From:	Whittemore F HUNTON & WILLIAMS
To:
References
NUDOCS 7810160201
Download: ML20062A633 (5)

Text

. . - - . , -. - - . . . . -_

C DOCU n yy goog Q,334 10/2/78 2

9 *"w h9 ~

9 5+ UNITED STATES OF AMERICA

. Q Dg1 } NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSION e (F hm)

Ni le Before the Atomic Safety and Licensing Board

~~lb O W -

In the Matter of ) h 78[Ol[,

) .~

LONG ISLAND LIGHTING COMPANY ) Docket No. 50-322

) E  !

(Shoreham Nuclear Power Station, ) ..

Unit 1)

) .

APPLICANT'S OPPOSITION TO SUFFOLK COUNTY'S ' '

MOTION FOR EXTENSION

. ., , , r

1. Suffolk County (SC or County) in its Motion for Extension of Time to Respond to Interrogatories (Motion for Extension), dated September 19, 1978, requests an inde-finite amount of additional time to answer certain interro-gatories from Applicant's second set, dated December 8, 1977.

For the reasons set out below, the Applicant opposes SC's Motion for Extension; but if that motion is granted, then the Applicant requests that the Board set a deadline of not later than October 16, 1978 for the County's response to the still-unanswered interrogatories.

2. The Motion for Extension should be denied for the following reasons:

a. The County has been in default of the Board Orders of March 2 and April 4, 19781I for more than six and 1/Th e Motion for Extension failed to acknowledge the April 4, 1978 Order, which granted the Applicant additional relief be-yond that in the Order dated March 2, 1978, 18"Ioike W f

i

~

'l five months,2/ respectively. No further delay can be justi-4i fied, i

$ b. SC's failure to respond to the unanswered interrogatories inhibits the Applicant's preparation of its case on the underlying contentions.

t

c. The County attempts to create the illusion that it has " timely and fully answered" the " vast majority of the Applicant's interrogatories." Motion for Extension l at 4. First, regarding SC's claim of timeliness, to the ex-tent that the interrogatories were answered on January 31, 1978, those arawers came approximately five weeks after the fourteen-day deadline. See 10 CFR S 2.740(b) . And as to the answers' fullness, the great majority of the responses were statements that further discovery and/or analysis of discovered material was necessary before the questions could be answered. See Applicant's Motion to Compel, dated Febru-

]) ary 10, 1978, at 1. Although such statements may have been legally sufficient near the beginning of the County's dis-covery effort, they were not " full answers." Nor have any additional answers been supplied in the subsequent eight months.

d. The Motion for Extension provides no assurance that responses to the unanswered interrogatories will be forth-coming any time soon. The County indicates that responses to A

l These periods are based on the assumption that the Board in-l tended SC to comply with its orders within three weeks after l issuance, as it expressly required the Oil Heat Institute and the North Shore Committee against Thermal and Nuclear Pollution to do in its April 25 and June 19, 1978 Orders.

,o p oe - -m . . m o e,,s eem .,.e. w- ~

~

those interrogatories may be included in an MHB report, which l

it describes as " relative [ly] imminen[t]." Motion for Exten-sion at 4. Although no firm completion date for the MHB report is specified in the Motion for Extension, the Applicant under-stands that a deadline of October 10, 1978 has been set. How-ever, even if the report is completed by then, there is no guarantee that it will answer the outstanding interrogatories.

See Applicant's August 31, 1978 letter to Mr. Hand at 1.

e. If the County had been serious about using the MHB report to answer the outstanding interrogatories, it would have obtained MHB's agreement to include the answers in the report.

f. The County claims that it lacks the technical capability to provide meaningful responses to the unanswered interrogatories. Motion for Extension at 4. However, it is

, obvious from the Applicant's second set of interrogatories, that they only seek to learn precisely what SC's contentions mean (and what issues they raise), as well as the bases for the contentions. Counsel for the County should be able to answer the outstanding interrogatories for the following reasons:

(1) Counsel ought to be able to explain the meaning of its own contentions.

(2) Counsel framed numeroes contentions in the Jamesport NRC proceeding while relying only on the technical expertise c5 certain County employees -- a source which still should be available.

l (3) The Applicant's interrogatories do not call for any in-depth or complicated technical analysis.

3. If the Board grants the Motion for Extension, the Applicant requests that any such action specify a deadline of not later than October 16, 1978. As indicated in 1 2.d above, SC has not committed to answering the outstanding in-terrogatories by any date certain. Thus, this request is made to ensure that the County's delay is not further protracted.

Respectfully submitted, LONG ISLAND LIGHTING C0lGANY F. Case Whittemore W. Taylor Reveley, III, Esq.

Hunton & Williams P. O. Box 1535 707 East Main Richmond, Virginia 23212 DATED: October 2, 1978 i

In the Matter of LONG ISLAND LIGHTING COMPANY

(Shoreham Nuclear Power Station, Unit 1)

Docket No. 50-322 CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE I hereby certify that copies of APPLICANT'S OPPOSITION TO SUFFOLK COUNTY'S MOTION FOR EXTENSION were served upon the following by first-class mail, postage prepaid, on October 2, 1978:

Elizabeth S. Bowers, Esq. Richard K. Hoefling, Esq.

Atomic Safety and Licensing U.S. Nuclear Regulatory

. . . Board Panel Commission

(~ U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission Washington, D.C. 20555 Washington, D.C. 20555 Jeffrey C. Cohen, Esq.

Mr. Frederick J. Shon New York State Energy Office Atomic Safety and Licensing Swan Street Building - Core 1 '

Board Panel Empire State Plaza U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission Albany, New York 12223 Washington, D.C. 20555 Howard L. Blau, Esq.

Dr. Oscar H. Paris 217 Newbrid Atomic Safety and Licensing Hicksville,geNew Road York 11801 Board Panel U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission Irving Like, Esq.

Washington, D.C. 20555 Reilly, Like & Schneider 200 West Main Street Secretary of the Commission Babylon, New York 11702 i'

U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission Washington, D.C. 20555 MHB Technical Associates 366 California Avenue Atomic Safety and Licensing Suite 6 Board Panel Palo Alto, California 94306 U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission Washington, D.C. 20555 Attn: Dale G. Bridenbaugh Richard B. IIubbard Atomic Safety and Licensing -

Appeal Board U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission I

Washington, D.C. 20555 SAL. -

F. Case Whittemore Hunton & Williams P.O. Box 1535 707 East Main Street DATED: October 2, 1978 Richmond, Virginia 23212