ML20063B190
| ML20063B190 | |
| Person / Time | |
|---|---|
| Site: | Shoreham File:Long Island Lighting Company icon.png |
| Issue date: | 08/23/1982 |
| From: | Mcclesky E HUNTON & WILLIAMS, LONG ISLAND LIGHTING CO. |
| To: | Atomic Safety and Licensing Board Panel |
| References | |
| ISSUANCES-OL, NUDOCS 8208250264 | |
| Download: ML20063B190 (28) | |
Text
.-
4 g
.,e LILCO," August 23, 1982.
00CKETE0 USflRC UNITED STATES OF AMERICA
+82
'c" P4 : 1 NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSION 4
Before the Atomic Safety and Licensing Board r
In the Matter of
)
)
~-
LONG ISLAND LIGHTING COMPANY
)
Docket No. 50-322 (OL) r'
)
(Shoreham Nuclear Power Station, )
Unit 1)
)
LILCO'S MOTION TO COMPEL PRODUCTION OF EMERGENCY PLANNING DOCUMENTS In accordance with 10 C.F.R.
5 2.740(f), the appli-cant, Long Island Lighting Company (LILCO), hereby moves the presiding officer in this proceeding for an order compelling Suffolk County (the County) to produce the documents requested in "LILCO's First Request to Suffolk County for Production of Emergency Planning Documents" and in "LILCO's Second Request to Suffolk County for Production of Emergency Planning Documents."
In support of this motion LILCO hereby states as folllows:
1.
On June 2, 1982, LILCO served on intervenor Suffolk County a request for documents entitled "LILCO'a First Request to Suffolk County for Production of Emergency Planning Documents."
On June 22, 1982, LILCO served on intervenor Suffolk County a request for documents entitled "LILCO's Second Request to Suffolk County for Production of Emergency Planning Documents."
8208250264 820023 PDR ADOCK 05000322 O
PDR m..
9503
s 2.
On July 1, 1982, the County served "Suffolk County's Response to LILCO's First Request to Suffolk County for Production of Emergency Planning Documents" (First Response).
On August 4, 1982, the County served " Response of Suffolk County to LILCO's Second Request to Suffolk County for Production of Emergency Planning Documents" (Second
- Response).1/
3.
In its response to the first request, the County objected to producing documents, arguing that the documents requested were irrelevant to the limited Phase I emergency planning issues before the Board and were therefore not discov-erable.
First Response at 3.
These documents included any materials connected to the development of Suffolk County's emergency plan, the County's plans for emergencies not related to nuclear power, and the County's plans for emergencies involving Brookhaven Laboratory and Millstone Point Nuclear Power Station.
The County'also argued that responding to LILCO's first request would be burdensome, First Response at 5 and 13 and that at least some documents sought were intra-govermental correspondence protected by privilege.
First Response at 7 and 9.
1/ The County's second response was filed out of time.
Under 10 C.F.R.
Il 2.710 and 2.741(d), the County had thirty-two days within which to file a response.
. 4.
LILCO filed a motion to compel production of the documents on July 9, 1982; the County responded on July 19, 1982, opposing th'e motion.
The Board ruled at the hearings on July 20, confirming the ruling in its July 27 Order, that the County was to produce "all existing emergency planning docu-ments, whether they related to LILCO's or Suffolk County's planning efforts."
July 27 Order at 23; see Tr. 7404-05.
The County was to produce documents in its " direct possession and control" by July 26, and " documents in the possession of con-sultants and expert witnesses" by August 3.
Tr. 7416-17; July 27 Order at 25.
This schedule was tied in part to LILCO's request that documents be produced prior to the taking of depo-sitions.
Tr. 7414-15.
5.
On July 26, LILCO received a letter (attached) from the County stating the County was on that day "beginning the process of producing documents relevant to [LILCO's] dis-covery requests of June 2 and 22, 1982."2/
The County also noted it was asserting an attorney-client privilege and an intra-governmental communications privilege with respect to certain unnamed documents.
l r
2/ Documents responsive to the First Request were due on July 26, pursuant to the Board's Order; documents responsive to the l
Second Request were due July 24.
See footnote 1, above.
i
. l 6.
L.ILCO requested in its letters of July 30 and August 5 (attached) that the County provide a list of the docu-ments being withheld under claims of privilege, and the basis for the claims.
(LILCO's first and second document requests also asked that the County in its responsts identify documents withheld as privileged, and state the grounds for claiming privilege.)
The County responded on August 11 with a list of documents being withheld (letter attached).
No grounds were given.
7.
The County's response to LILCO's second request for documents, filed on August 4, contained no mention of docu-ments withheld under a claim of privilege.
Further, the County's August 4 response suggests that the County may be pro-ducing only those documents it considers within its " posses-sion, custody or control," excluding from that category docu-ments in its consultants' possession.
8.
It is not possible to evaluate the County's claims of privilege because the County provides no details.
With respect to privilege the County cites no legal authority, nor did it list in its filed responses the documents for which it claims the privilege, even though LILCO's document requests asked the County to provide a list of any documents considered to be privileged from production.
In addition, the County has l
?
I
. c not applied for a protective order.
The NRC regulations, 10 C.F.R.
I 2.740(f), say that "[f]ailure to answer or respond shall not be excused on the ground that the discovery sought is objectionable unless the person or party failing to answer or respond has applied for a protective order pursuant to para-graph (c) of this section."
9.
The County has not produced documents within the dates set by the Board.
In an attempt to accommodate the County, LILCO offered to inspect documents in New York.
See LILCO's July 30 letter, attached.
LILCO also agreed to the County's producing documents by August 6, rather than July 26 and August 3, even though that date was three days past the last day set by the Board for producing documents from the County's consultants, and eleven days mast the last day set by the Board for producing documents in the County's possession.
See LILCO's letters of August 5 and August 13, attached.
The County has produced documents well past August 6.
See the transnittal letters, attached, dated August 5, August 9, August 14, a d August 16.
The County has not provided a date by which J
it will produce the remaining documents responsive to LILCO's reques. 3/
t 3/
SukfolkCounty'sabuseofthediscoveryprocessisnot limited to its unjustified failure to comply with the Board's July 2's mandate respecting document production.
Throughout the
?
footnote continued 9
1 l
10.
For the above reasons, LILCO moves the presiding officer to issue an order compelling the County to respond fully and immediately to LILCO's first and second requests to Suffolk County for emergency planning documents.
Respectfully submitted, LONG ISLAND LIGHTING COMPANY V
W( T Wlor Reveley,"III Jame# N. Christman Kathy E.B. McCleskey Hunton & Williams 707 E. Main Street Richmond, Virginia 23212 DATED:
August 23, 1982 i
footnote continued depositions of County employees and consultants, attorneys for the County have' repeatedly instructed deponents not to answer a variety of questions.
LILCO is currently cataloguing these additional obstructionist tactics.
Although LILCO is not seek-ing sanctions in this motion to compel, it expressly reserves the right to lay before the Board the full array of the County's efforts to hamstring LILCO's discovery.
At such time, l
LILCO will seek appropriate sanctions.
i i
{_
1-
~
The above-mentioned attachments are being sent by Federal Express to Hauppauge with another copy of the motion.
t e
i Y
5 t
1 J
I r
i r,
l' l
f l
,. -. +,
m,-.a.,,,
,,m-,,r,--,
LILCO, August 23, 1982 CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE In the Matter of LONG ISLAND LIGHTING COMPANY (Shoreham Nuclear Power Station, Unit 1)
Docket No. 50-322 (OL)
I hereby certify that copies of LILCO'S MOTION TO COMPEL PRODUCTION OF EMERGENCY PLANNING DOCUMENTS were served upon the following by first-class mail, postage prepaid, by hand (as indicated by an asterisk), or by Federal Express (as indicated by two asterisks), on August 23, 1982.
Lawrence Brenner, Esq.*
Atomic Safe'ty and Licensing i
Administ'rative Judge Appeal Board Panel Atomic Safety and Licensing U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Board Panel Commission U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Washington, D.C.
20555 Commission Washington, D.C.
20555 Atomic Safety and Licensing Board Panel Dr. Peter A. Morris
- U.S. Nuclear Regulatory i
Administrative Judge Commission.
f Atomic Safety and Licensing Washington, D.C.
20555 Board Panel l
U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Bernard M. Bordenick, Esq.**
Commission David A. Repka, Esq.
Washington, D.C.
20555 U.S. Nuclear Regulatory j
Commission i
Dr. James H. Carpenter
- Washington, D.C.
20555 Administrative Judge Atomic Safety and Licensing David J. Gilmartin, Esq.
j Board Panel Attn:
Patricia A. Dempsey, Esq.
U.S.. Nuclear Regulatory County Attorney Commission Suffolk County Department of Law l
Washington, D.C.
20555 Veterans Memorial Highway
[
Hauppauge, New York 11787 t
A l
i t
p i
.... t Secretary of the Commission Stephen B. Latham, Esq.
U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Twomey, Latham & Shea Commission 33 West Second Street Washington, D.C.
20555 P. O. Box 398 Riverhead, New York 11901
^
Herbert H. Brown, Esq.**
Ralph Shapiro, Esq.
Lawrence Coe Lanpher, Esq.
Cammer and Shapiro, P.C.
Karla J.
Letsche, Esq.
9 East 40th Street Kirkpatrick, Lockhart, Hill, New York, New York 11901 Christopher & Phillips 8th Floor 1900 M Street, N.W.
Howard L. Blau, Esq.
Washington, D.C.
20036 217 Newbridge Road Hicksville, New York 11801 Mr. Mark W. Goldsmith Energy Research Group Matthew J. Kelly, Esq.
400-1 Totten Pond Road State of New York Waltham, Massachusetts 02154 Department of Public Service Three Empire State Plaza MHB Technical Associates Albany, New York 12223 1723 Hamilton Avenue Suite K Mr. Jay Dunkleberger San Jose, California 95125 New York State Energy Office Agency Building 2 Empire State Plaza Albany, New York 12223 s
Respectfully submitted, LONG ISLAND LIGHTING COMPANY Kathy E
. EcCleskey L Hunton & Williams 707 East Main Street P.O.
Box 1535 Richmond, Virginia 23212 DATED:
August 23, 1982
1?
KNNATRICK, IAXTWAT2T, HrLL, CuarsTornun Se PnxLLIrs A Paarsessary Woure A Poormassesus. CompanArsc 1900 M STREET, N. W.
WABIENGTON, D. C. Eco06 su ernern:mou rutarmosa (mos) ass-roco July 26, 1982
r===.u===ine,,o=
rw=ao
camm=:= r=x
=co ains..tirmar.
ramax - mien ur ntn..r n.rini warram's me==cr maan wr====
(ete) 986 0800 (202) 452-8391 James Christman, Esq.
Kathy McCleskey, Esq.
Hunton & Williams P.O. Box 1535 707 East Main Street Richmond, Virginia 23212
Dear Jim and Kathy:
Pursuant to the Board's decision on LILCO's motion to compel discovery, we are today beginning the process of producing documents relevant to your discovery requests of June 2 and 22, 1982.
The documents produced today are from the files of Suffolk County's Department of Planning and Department of Emergency Preparedness and, with few exceptions, pertain to nuclear emergency planning.
However, they by no means comprise the total of relevant documents in Suffolk County's possession.
By memorandum of July 22, 1982, Deputy County Executive Frank Jones ordered all department heads to conduct a search of their department's files within 24 hours2.777778e-4 days <br />0.00667 hours <br />3.968254e-5 weeks <br />9.132e-6 months <br /> in order to identify and copy all documents pertaining to your request.
While this process is moving forward with all possible dispatch, it is simply impossible to produce all relevant documents by today.
The County has over fifty agencies, many of which have some role to play in various emergencies, both nuclear and non-nuclear.
Thus, Suffolk County has emergency procedures for a wide range of events, from coping with hurricanes to tracking down contaminated canned tunafish in supermarkets.
Furthermore, the Department of Emergency Preparedness occupies an entire building.
Every scrap of paper produced in that building may well pertain to your request for documents.
While Suffolk County has every intention of complying with the Board's order, I might suggest that you narrow your request, particularly with regard to non-nuclear planning, in order to prevent discovery in this case from reaching nightmare proportions.
EINEPATRIC1,10CEMAur, Hit.x., Cantaroenna 8: Purttres James Christman, Esq.
Kathy McCleskey, Esq.
July 26, 1982 Page Two Item 7 of your June 2 request seeks "[a]Il documents used in preparing the March 10 plan.
In addition to the materials provided today, the Suffolk County Department of Planning utilized a number of reference publications in preparing that document.
Most of these reference materials have not been produced today, but are listed on Attachment A.
If you wish to obtain some of the listed items, and they are in the County's possession, we will provide them to you upon request.
With respect to documents not directly in the possession of the County, but rather in the possession of its emergency planning consultants, please be advised that on July 21, 1982, a letter was sent by Federal Express to each consultant seeking all documents in your June 2 and 22 requests.
We will contact you with the results of that request on August 3, 1982, the date set by the Board for production by the County's consultants.
As we have stated to you earlier, these consultants are presently at work on Suffolk County's Radiological Emergency Response Plan.
Their efforts in complying with your request may very well affect the County's ability to complete that plan on schedule.
Please note that the County is asserting privileges with respect to the following documents:
1.
Correspondence and other such documents between the Suffolk County Department of Law and any agency or employee thereof, which fall within the attorney-client privilege and are thus not subject to discovery.
Furthermore, they represent i
intra-governmental communications, production of which is not l
required.
2.
All communications and other such documents between Suffolk County's counsel in the Shoreham licensing proceeding and Suffolk County officials or their consultants.
Such items fall within the attorney-client privilege and include attorney work product.
3.
All communications, memoranda, and minutes from or to the Suffolk County Radiological Emergency Response Plan i
Steering Committee.
These documents reflect advisory opinions,
[
recommendations and deliberations pertaining ~to the County's j
radiological emergency planning efforts, and thus fall within the intra-governmental communications privilege.
In compliance with your request to take depositions of certain Suffolk County witnesses from August 5-17, 1982, we
+
A
ErmurArmacx, IACEMAmT, Hitz, Cumsstorumm & Partsres James Christman, Esq.
Fathy McCleskey, Esq.
July 26, 1982
'Page Three are in the process of contacting the individuals you have identified for that purpose.
Stephen Cole has informed us that he will appear on August 5, 1982 in Washington, D.C.
only upon receipt of assurance that he will be paid by LILCO at a rate of $200 per hour for his deposition (including travel) and $100 per hour for any preparation time, as_well Furthermore, Frank Jones will be out of town as expenses.
from August 8-28 and will not be available for a deposition in Washington, D.C. on August 17, 1982 as you requested.
Please advise us how you wish to proceed with these two individuals in light of these concerns.
We will be in contact with you as further documents are made available by the County.
I suggest that as the volume of relevant documents increases, we might want to arrange for inspection at the County's offices in Hauppauge, New York.
In addition, we will have to work out the means by which LILCO intends to pay for the costs incurred in producing such a large volume of documents.
~
.~
Yours truly, Cherif Sedky Christopher M. McMurray Attachment I
,.e
~a Huwron & WILLIAMS 7o7 East MAIN STREET P.o. Box 1535 Rxcmsoxx>,VxmoxxxA eaela
.e e n.., tv.
u.....
o o a T suiLoi.o e o.som esaso matteau, montw camouma e,soa TE L E P H o N E 804-788-8200
,",',",[,,"*,
p.e. som som e > e,.. e,,,
FtMT vimoneesA oANE TOWER July 30, 1982 0.i72",** *.*,,....
o...e,o.
o..o.
Cherif Sedky, Esq.
Christopher M. McMurray, Esq.
Kirkpatrick Lockhart, Hill, Christopher, i
and Phillips t
1900 M. Street, N.W.
Washington, D.C. 20036 Document Production and Depositions Gentlemen:
This letter responds to your letter of July 26 and memorializes our phone conversations of July 27 and 28 regarding document production and depositions.
As to document production, we understand from your July 28 letter that the County will produce many relevant documents over the new few days in response to our requests.
We will, if necessary, inspect the documents in New York.
We suggest that the County provide at fifteen cents a page any copies we may request after inspecting the documents.
(LILCO provided QA documents under a similar arrangement.)
Although it was not unexpected, we still find disturbing your suggestion that your consultants' efforts in complying with r
our discovery requests "may very well affect the County's ability I
We think it is to complete the [ County] plan on schedule."
incumbent upon the County, as on any litigant in any prc,ceeding, to fulfill its discovery and other obligations promptly, even if We will have to l
occasional extraordinary efforts are necessary.
resist any efforts to delay the licensing proceeciing based on asserted burdens of participating in the legal process.
You also noted in your July 26 letter that you intend to To our assert privileges with respect to certain documents.
t knowledge, you have not filed a pleading in response to LILCO's second document request, listing the documents you are claiming Nor did you provide l
are protected and the basis for your claim.
j that information in your response to LILCO's first request or in Until we receive this information, we are unable to l
your letter.
respond to your assertion of privilege, but we are inclined to i
view your assertion as unfounded.
i
?
a-e
. ~<
HUNTON 6e WILLI AM S Cherif Sedky, Esq.
Christopher M. McMurray, Esq.
July 30, 1982 Page 2 As to depositions, we will depose Frank Jones on August 5, since he is unavailable August 8 through 28.
Also, at our request we will not depose Kai Erikson on August 6, and his deposition will be rescheduled for sometime during the week of August 16.
Please tell Dr. Cole and your other experts that LILCO is prepared to reimburse them at the same rate that was agreed upon for the 7B depositions:
(1) round-trip coach fare, (2) car rental at Avis rates, (3) one night's lodging if the expert is unable to return home the same day, and (4) the expert's time at the deposition, at the hourly rate the expert charges the County.
We presume the County will reimburse LILCO's experts under the same arrangement.
As I mentioned during our phone conversation, we think it would save time if we discussed in this round of depositions all issues submitted in contentions EP 2 through EP 27, including those designated for Phase II in the Board's July 27 Order.
Since you have stated that you object to putting off any of those issues, and since we will have the deponents assembled, we think it makes sense to discuss those issues now.
We do not understand your refusal to do so.
Jim Christman and I are compiling information and settlement language regarding the contentions.
We look forward to discussing that material with you during our meeting at your offices Tuesday next.
Sincerel,
Ka thy E.
c 301/586
e...
1 Huwrow 8e WILLIAMS 707 EAST MAIN STREET P. O. Box #535 t
u.a. PEhusvtusga avEmur,as.w.
g Brenown,VIBOINIA enete n o..ox i.eso (
c 0 4 7.urtssa.
- * "'" *' * ".'s*o y * *
- 48 P.o.comio.
T ELLPMo N E 804-788-8200 sos-ass-.
passiew, nonTM camouseA areoa e,o - sa. -.3r, 24566.000003i
,.or o.
F4AST WimGlueA SAfon T.WER 8368k
...ex.
ve.. voima.
o,.,c,...,,,...o.,...
NDRFoLa.v.aRGeN6A 33 1o August 5, 1962 B701 cos-ea -..
Cherif Sedky, Esq.
Christopher M. McMurray, Esq.
Kirkpatrick, Lockhart, Bill, Christopher & Phillips 1900 M Street, N.W.
Washington, EC 20036 Gentlemen:
26, 1962, you suggested that he In your letter of July Unfortunately you naven't given narrow our discovery request.
us any information on which we could make a decision to narrow.
You need to understand that none of our 6ocument requests were made merely to harass you; every single one of them was made because we believe it will produce information relevant to the issues in this proceeding.
Let us give you an example.
You seem to think that our requests for documents related to nonnuclear emergency planning But surely you can understand that, are somewhat unreasonable.if we can show that the authorities are capable, in our view, for example, of evacuating people from hurricanes or toxic chemical spills, we have gone a long way toward proving that they are capable of evacuating them in a radiologicalThis becomes your insistence that the County nas no radiological emergency emergency.
plan.
Another examples you mention that Suffolk County has procedures for tracking down contaminated canned tuna fish in Surely it has occurred to you that those proce-supermarkets.
dures might be relevant to how t.he County might deal with the action to protect the public from consumption of contamina l
So unless you give
(.
foodstuffs (look at NUREG-0655, page 64).
us more details about the documents that you think are not reli evant, we have no way to make our own judgment and must con-7' clude that if the documents are responsive to our requests, then they are relevant to our case and ought to be produced.
c.
0 1
I
,.n
e
.- 2 --
a Howrow Se WILLIAMS b
It is our understanding that you are producing the 1
remainder of the documents responsive to our discovery request-~
We would appreciate receiving further this Friday, August 6.
information regarding the documents you are not producing under We also note once again that we have not a claim of privilege.
received a filed response to our second request for documents.
Sincerely, James N. Christman Kathy E.8. McCleskey 301/728 I
I i
i i
l I
f t
}
l r
e i
I l
'k l
F i
i
KIRKPATRICK, LOCKHART, Hrz.t.. CurareTorntze & Parrx.ups A Psavennessw tenmos.a A Perieemseemas ram,umarums sooo M Srnsar, N. W.
WAsuzamow, D. C. soone a re me.sessust (ee.is) eaa.,ene
' = = = < =. - -.
=. = - =..
--Augus t 11, 1982
[," , !"".,..,.,,,,.,...
,,=,,,, =,,,,,
......m.
..gs.
7 -~
.. ~ James N'. ChYis tinan, EWq- * ' ~ " ~ ~. '. ;
.'!.*.h
. k ~~ ~ ~..~. b "~. :-.
~
1(a thy E. D. McCloskey, Esq.
Ilunton & Williams 707 East Main Street Richmond, Virginia 23212
Dear Jim and 1(athy :
The following is a list of documerits which are arguably.
relevant to your broad discovery request, but which we are-withholding on grounds that those documents fall under recognized privilegen.
As I stated to you by phone in the late afternoon on Monday, August 9, 1982, you did not receive this list earlier because I was receiving the documents from Suffolk County in phases, and felt that it.would be more officient for both sides to receive one document listing all materials we consider privileged, rather than a number of shorter lists.
1.
The following documents are not subject to discovery becaune they fall within the attorney-client privilege or the executive privilege concerning intra-governmental communi-cations and which might reveal advice, opinions or policy making decisions within the suf folk County governments.-.----..-.-..-----
~~ _
=.-
~
~ Memorandum f rom David J'. Gilmartin, ' ~
County Attorney to Suffolk County.
Leginiators dated April 24, 1981, concerning negotiations with LILCO regarding the outstanding issues g
i surrounding ultimate operation of the Shoreham Nuclear Power Station.
Memorandum to David J. Gilmartin
,l from Patricia A. Dempsey, dated May 21, 1982 regarding Ms. Dempsey's comments regarding the issues and problems related to the County's preparation of a radiolo3 cal 1
emergency response plan.
Memorandum to the members of the IIcalth Committee, Suffolk County Legislature, from Patricia A. Dempsey, Assistant County Attorney, dated
- . ~
5bi (f -
1%f November 19, 1981, regarding a report from Ms. Dempsey regarding the sixth stipulation re shoreham Nuclear Power
- . l Station.
91 A letter from Patricia A. Dempsey to all Suffolk County legislators dated October 1 regarding the sixth l
! f:-
ntipulation and settlement of Suffolk
' f,7 County contentions regarding the Shoreham Nuc1 car Power Plant.
Attached to this letter is a copy of the sixth stipulation and a settlement of Suffolk County
- p contentions in draf t form dated October 5, 3
1981.
Memorandum from Patricia A. Dempseyr Assistant County Attorney, to Lee Kopelman, copies to Robert Meunkle, David J.
Gilmartin, William J. Kent, and E. R. Riley regarding emergency planning services i
negotiated between Cleveland Electric I
Illuminating Company in Lake County and PRC Voorhees' involvement in that effort.
Memorandum to Patricia A. Dempsey, Assistant County Attorney, from Robert C. Meunkle, dated September 2, 1981, regarding school buildings proposed to use as transfer points in the event of an evacuation of the EPs around the SNPS.
5 Memorandum from David J. Gilmartin, Suffolk County Attorney, to Peter F.
Cohalan, County Executive and others, dated March 18, 1982, regarding the Planning Department's emergency planning efforts and presentation of those efforts to the County executive.
A letter from Patricia A. Dempsey, Assistant County Attorney, to Robert C. Mounkle, dated February 3, 1982, regarding use of school buses and school building in case an evacuation is required.
Memorandum to Laura Palmer from Patricia A. Dempsey, Assistant County Attorney, dated Feburary 11, 1982, regarding correspondence from the Long Island railroad regarding the County's radiological emergency response plan.
I
q,.
f)9 A letter from Patricia A. Dempsey, Annistant County Attorney, to Robert C.
.~
p Mounklo, dated January 25, 1982, 4
intters receiving from school districtsregarding E
regarding the use of their school
- ?
building and buses.
PGEEEEG^#JM75GTEMEM3274TCS!:U.!2fMt(TEG7/KCh7^;;Mr=?"?;
..-.s-
_,_ _..._Asaistant Coun,t;y,,, Attorney, to, Robert C.
Mounkle, dated January 15, 1982, regarTing materials relevant to the Shoreham Plant which were forwarded by MHB Technical Associates.
y A letter from Patricia A. Dempsey to m
Mr. Robert Meunkle, dated January 14, 1982, regarding securing copies of h
NMNM kW4 i.h 1
N intention to have a contention on a
. l..
?^
A letter from Robert C. Meunkle to' t
Patricia Dempsey, dated February 24, 1982, 3
regarding school district partici during a radiological emergency. pation A letter to Robert C. Mounkle from Patricia A. Dempsey, dated November 18,
)
1981, regarding agreements between school districts to permit use of school buses in the event of a radiological emergency.
)
t i
A letter from Robert C. Meunkle to Patricia A. Dempsey, dated April 30, 1981, regarding legal documents necessar i
to guarantee availability of facilities,y equipment and services required for an ovacuation plan.
A letter from David J. 4Gilmartin, County Attorney, to Suffolk County Legislators regarding County intervention in the Nuclear Power Station Licensing hearings.
A Ictter from Patricia A. Dempsey, Assistant County Attorney, to Mr. Richard A. Strang, dated October 28, 1980, regarding the County's involvement in the Shoreham Nuclear Licensing proceedings, and a review of LILCO's emergency planning activities.
e e
-j i
^*
4-A letter from Richard A. Strang to Patricia A. Dempsey, dated October 30, 1980, regarding agreements between LILCO and the Wading River Fire Department.
I A l'etter from Patricia A. Dempsey, i
Assistant County Attorney, to Mr. Richard j
A. Strang, Deputy Commissioner, Department of Transportation, dated October 28, 1980, regarding a review of LILCO's activities j
in the area of emergency planning.
I
{
A letter from Ric'hard A. Strang, Deputy Commissioner, Department of Transportation, S
to Ms. Pat Dempsey, dated May 7, 1980, regarding proposed legislation by Assembly-l Fink on radiological emergency -
man preparedness.
A lotter from Richard A. Strang to Patricia Dempscy, dated May 7, 1980, regarding i
transportation of radioactive material in general and spent fuel in particular.
)
i A letter from Patricia A. Dempsey to William Reagan, Director, Department of Emergency Preparedness, dated August 8, 1980, enclosing copy of comments submitted I
regarding legislator thinks proposed act concerning emergency response plans.
j A letter from Patricia A. Dempsey to William E. Reagan, dated August 12, 1980, i
regarding Suffolk County's evacuation plans for the Shoreham Nuclear facility.
A letter from Patricia A. Dempsey to I
William E. Reagan, dated August 13, 1980, regarding a memo from the Federal Emergency Management Agency.
A letter to Patricia Dempsey from the Department of Transportation, dated August 18, 1980, regarding policy and procedures for review and approval by FEMA of emergency planning efforts.
A Ictter from Eugene R. Melly, Assistant County Attorney, to Mr. Anthony Noto, i
dated September 11, 1980, regarding a tour of the Shoreham facility for members of'the legislature.
l
A letter from Richard A. Strang, Deputy Commissioner, Department of Transportation, to Patricia Dempsey, dated August 20, 1980, regarding time estimates for evacuation.
I A lotter from Patricia A. Dempsey, Assistant County Attorney, to William E. Reagan, Director, Emergency Preparedness Department, dated August 14, 1980, regarding policy and procedures for review and approval by FEMA of emergency plans.
i A 3etter from Patricia A. Dempsey to Assembly Speaker Fink, dated August 5, 1980, offering comments on the proposed radiological emergency preparedness act.
Memorandum from Patricia A. Dempsey to' David J. Gilmartin and William J. Kent, dated June 5,1981, regarding the contract between Suffolk County and LILCO for.
preparation of County radiological omergency response plan.
A letter from Howard E. Pachman, County Attorney, to Messrs. Noto and Grant and Dr. Feldman, dated May 16, 1979, regarding regulating the operation of nuclear power facilities.
2.
The following documents are not discoverable because they were prepared by the County's attorneys or by the County's consultants'for the use of the County's att6rneys, in preparation for litigation of t.hc emergency planning issues under consideration.
PRC Voorhees' notes on LILCO's emergency plan.
Memorandum to Dr. Edward P. Radford, from Chris McMurray, Counsel to suffolk County, dated May 25, 1982, regarding Dr. Radford's review of the LILCO plan.
Comments on the shoreham Nuclear Power Station omorgency plan authored by Dr.
James Johnson.
A letter from Dr. Kai T. Erikson to
~.
Christopher M. McMurray, dated May 13, 1982, regarding Dr. Erikson's review of the LILCO plan.
T
-r v
w w
w e
. z... ' ; a c. ;.n
,;,is.v:;.qbj:.m:.si%59.ss:.d 'ac;.n.;&, s;s;n.74G.y;;.;pdkr&:.':. ' * );.:.
,.. D, s
g y yggp+g
- - L -h - w ~ -
t
, S e
A letter from Christopher M. McMurray,
'1 a review of LILCO's plan.
A 1ctter from Christopher M. McMurray, Counsol to Suffolk County, to James
~
H. Johnson, Jr., dated April 21, 1982, regarding a review of the LILCO plan.
A letter to Herbert Brown, Counsel to Suffolk County, from James H. Johnson, dated July 26, 1982, regarding a review of Suffolk County's plan.
3.
The following documents are not discoverable because they consist of intra-governmental communicationa contalMng advice, opinions, recommendations, or policy making decisions which are subject to executive privilege:
A document authored by Fred Finlayson titled " Criteria for Establishing EPE Boundaries" A memo to Frank Jones, Deputy County Executive, from Philip B. Herr, 6 ted 5
May 12, 1982, regarding radiologica; omergency response plan demographics.
Meeting notes authored by Peter Polk regarding review of LILCO on-site plan.
Meeting notes authored by Peter Polk, dated April 29, 1982, regarding Suffolk County radiological emergency response plan.
All Stecring Committee minutes.
A letter to Dr. Lee Kopelman, Executive Director, Nassau/Suffolk Regional Planning Board, from Richard A. Strang, t
Director of Traffic Safety, dated February-23, 1981 regarding legislation regarding emergenc,y response planning.
1 Please do not hesitate to contact ~me should you have any questions regarding this matter.
F i
l l
J.-
r HUNTON & WILLIAMS 707 East MA N sTRetT P. o. Box 1535 MCmtOND,VIROINIA S3919 esso pawnsv6vania avsmus, as. w.
0 0 a v eustme.
a o,som sesso e o. som see e os "es s.'s."s' o
" * ^ * * ' * " " " * *
- Ta L t PM o w e e 04 - 7ee - e2oo
"8'*"'." eats Cee-eae ri m,.
..e 24566.000003 I
c.te.
n o
= =..
l rus....
co -=.-..o' August 13, 1982 o'=<c' a'a' ao *o* '** 8 7 01 Cherif Sedky, Esq.
Christopher M. McMurray, Esq.
Kirkpatrick, Lockhart, Bill, Christopher & Phillips 1900 M Street, N.W.
j Washington, D.C.
20036 Gentlemen:
We have received your August 11 letter listing docu-ments you are withholding under a claim of privilege.
We had previously asked you in our letters of July 30 and August 5 (not to mention our two requests for documents) to provide us with a list of the documents being withheld and a statement of the bases for withholding the documents.
We repeated that request during our phone conversation with you on August 9.
Your letter of August 11, which was telecopied a day later than promised, does not provide any information regarding the bases for your claim of privilege.
It merely lists the documents you have refused to produce to LILCO.
Further, as stated in our August 5 letter, it was our understanding that you were producing any remaining documents on Friday, August 6.
That date was three days past the last day set by the Board for producing documents from the County's consultants, and was eleven days past the last day set by the Board for producing documents in the County's possession.
l Bowever, in light of our statements to the Board that we were
f,,-
o Huwrow & WILLIAMS l
willing to work within a flexible time frame on production of documents, we agreed that Friday, August 6 was acceptable for final production.
The existence of the additional documents that arrived this week, plus the text of the cover letter accompanying those documents, makes clear that you intend to continue to produce documents piecemeal for an indefinite period.
We asked you on Monday last to include in your letter regarding document pro-duction (the letter you sent on August 11) a date by which you would complete production of documents.
You have refused to do We regard your actions as in violation of the Board's so.
decisions.
t We also received on August 11 the County's response to LILCO's second document request.
Your certificate of service states this document was served on Taylor Reveley by hand, pre-sumably in Long Island, on August 4.
We reiterate our insist-ence that, should you determine to serve pleadings or documents 1
on us by hand in Long Island, copies be sent by expeditea means to us in Richmond.
We are particularly disturbed to have re-ceived this response seven days after it was served, as we inquired about it frequently over the past few weeks, both in letters and during phone conversations, and were advised last week that it had been mailed, only to learn that it was actu-ally mailed on August 10.
Yours very truly, Kakhy E. B. McCloskey James N. Christsan 301/798.
-w,
m rec'Gl fed EV Avgilo k/A ExmxPArnrcx, LocxHART, HILL, CHRISTOPHER Se PHILLIPs A Pamensmesse Incssonne A Poormassonat Coeromarson 1900 M Srazzr, N. W.
WASHINGTON, D. C. 20006 tatarssoera (ooe) me.roco In errresemos CASE =?NIFR1 EIESP&TEMI.tarunamT,doERSOS & NTTCEISoW August 5, 1982 ocam..co 3=i== -- wrr= wi warrma's muuacT maat armasa r:T7secuou,resusuvassa mass c >
.o (202) 452-8391 9
James N. Christman, Esq.
Kathy McCleskey, Esq.
Hunton & Williams 707 East Main Street Richmond, Virginia 23212
Dear Jim and Kathy:
Enclosed please find further documents pertaining to your first and second discovery requests.
These documents include ~various materials forwarded by our consultants, as well as emergency procedures from the Suffolk County Police Department and the Sheriff's Office.
More documents relevant to your request are being processed and will be provided as soon as pos-sible.
Yours truly, Christopher McMurray r
Encls.
o I
KYupATRICE, LOCKHART, HTTT., CHRISTOPHER Se PnILLIPs A Paarnemenw Incs.como A 7-.
^= Camromursaw 1900 M Srmunr, N. W.
WASHINGTON, D. C. 20006 m nemo.=c 3...roo.
August 9, 1982
,,,,,,t cAnn.n: neux minararaxx.urumaat.nouseos a semuson l
,====. - mira ex inoo anarse sename f
)
vaaran's aramcr asAL uvannum emamewasrussatsvasu aseos (202) 452-8391
- *-==
1 recd fha to l
/
e t
i Kathy McClesky, Esq.
Hunton & Williams t
707 East Main Street i
Richmond, Virginia 23212
Dear Kathy:
Enclosed are documents received from various Suffolk County agencies, all pertaining to their emergency planning procedures.
We will forward others as we receive them.
Yours truly, C"
Christopher McMurray i
t CM: ras Enclosures f
r r
l l
i l
i t
/'
' I wr===Ararcx, LocxHART, WrrJ., CmtISTOPHEn & Pururus 4 r.
- mo A h Cowaurs.m l 1 8h b Q, [ [h,
(
sooo x srmanr,N. w.
J WAsurmazow, D. C. aoops g
e
=====.== (
) E -=.*
August 14, 1982 sir -
amin:===
==== n.v====.
. =r==mos
== =x 4
=== 3:
. em
=ana
)
wars==. s ar man.-
sm tca
= mum i '
w-Kathy McClesky, Esq.
Hunton & WilliEms 707 East Main Street Richmond, Virginia 23212
Dear Kathy:
s Enclosed are documents received from consultants and from the Suffolk County Department of Fire Safety, pertaining to emergency planning.
We will continue to forward others as we receive them.
Your truly, W
Christopher McMurray CM: ras Enclosures r
t e
I M
i e
v.
i y
(Q[.,G
@ f;.l I )$ lf
,((
f <_ i
~
' Krium.enicx, LOCKnAnT, Hrrs, Cnnterornza 8e Pn1LLies
- i42, s - -:
s-A Paarrwammary Inczmaisu I Pooraessosas Comecuarnow
\\
1900 M SrmamT, N. W.
man.txorow, D. C. 20006
=== 1*aama -
August 16, 1982 m m r== = =
f.
nr. :: mum _
ar-r.ms.unamaar.,o -. =mus.o=
1 x
n.ux i
r -- n WEA ' m'k% MACT,ELAL MT.%EEk2.
ouva nen FIT 79BCBoM, PENBMTLTAN1a SSSS (2C25 i52 3391
'l 2
Kathy McCleskey '
Hunton & Jiilliams P.O. Box 1535 707 East Main Street Richnond, Virginia 23212 2
Deaf, Kathy:/
Enclosed'please find further documents related
( to emergency planning issues.
t Sincerely,
~
.s flE
~
Christopher McMurray i
4 JCMM: ras s
Enclosures e.
m t
N s
\\
f d
=
r l
w
(
/
b
,1,[
N m
12 j,
= :~, ~
- c 3,
- .
o