ML20086M724
| ML20086M724 | |
| Person / Time | |
|---|---|
| Site: | Shoreham File:Long Island Lighting Company icon.png |
| Issue date: | 02/14/1984 |
| From: | Irwin D HUNTON & WILLIAMS, LONG ISLAND LIGHTING CO. |
| To: | Atomic Safety and Licensing Board Panel |
| Shared Package | |
| ML20086M726 | List: |
| References | |
| ISSUANCES-OL-3, NUDOCS 8402170022 | |
| Download: ML20086M724 (25) | |
Text
.
s -
.a . a l
LILCO, Febb9hE34, 1984 I
'84 RB 16 hii d5 UNITED STATES OF AMERICA NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSIDN' Before the Atomic Safety and Licensing Board In the Matter of )
)
LONG ISLAND LIGHTING COMPANY ) Docket No. 50-322-OL-3
) (Emergency Planning Proceeding)
(Shoreham Nuclear Power Station, )
Unit 1) )
LILCO'S MOTION FOR LEAVE TO REPLY, AND REPLY, TO MEMORANDUM OF GOVERNOR MARIO CUOMO, REPRESENTING THE STATE OF NEW YORK, IN OPPOSITION TO LILCO'S MOTION TO COMPEL EXPEDITED PRODUCTION OF DOCUMENTS BY NEW YORK STATE Pursuant to 5 2.740(c) of the Commission's Rules of Prac-tice., LILCO requests leave to reply to the document filed on behalf of New York on February 13 and captioned " Memorandum of Governor Mario Cuomo, Representing the State of New York, in Opposition to LILCO's [ February 8] Motion to Compel Expedited Production of Documents by New York State" (Response). The grounds for seeking this leave to reply are that the Response gravely misrepresents both the law on assertion of privilege and the circumstances of discovery.on these documents.
LILCO notes at the outset that the Commission's basic dis-covery regulation provides for discovery of any matter, not privileged, which is relevant-to the subject matter of the proceeding, whether it relates to the claim or defense of the party seeking discovery or to the claim or 8402170022 840214 PDR ADOCK 05000322 O PDR DSOS
.. s. '
l defense of any other party. . . . It is not ground for objection that the information .
sought will be inadmissible at the hearing if l the information sought appears reasonably cal- l culated to lead to the discovery of admissible evidence, 10 CFR $ 2.740(b)(1) (emphasis supplied). The issues posed by the pleading bearing New York State's name are squarely ad-dressed by this regulation. As will be shown in more detail below, LILCO believes that the documents which it has requested cut squarely to New York State's assertions in this case, both in its own testimony and in support of Suffolk County's conten-tions, of defects in LILCO's emergency planning for Shoreham; that they show, in fact, a favorable substantive review by New York State officials until that review was discontinued in mid-1983.
LILCO cannot be more specific than it has been with re-spect to these documents, except as noted below, because both the documents and their complete listing are in New York State's possession and have not been produced either for LILCO or the Board. That their contents are known to New York State, however, is certain: Mr. Zahnleuter, one of counsel for New York State, prepared the listing within the past six months.
New York State's cry of lack of specificity totally ignores the fact that New York State, not LILCO, possesses the documents in question; that it has collected and categorized them for New York FOIA purposes; that the list attached by LILCO presents, itself, a prima facia argument for the relevance of these
documents, given their descriptions; that the proponent of a privilege must demonstrate it with respect to each document for which protection is sought; and that New York has not done so.
For the reasons stated in LILCO's original motion and outlined below, the discovery should be granted.
A. Preliminary Objections The pleading filed on behalf of New York State makes a number of preliminary arguments about timeliness, truncation of customary discovery procedures, and the like (Response at 2-5).
What they all overlook is that New York State brought upon itself the burdens as well as the benefits of becoming a par-ticipant at the late he,ur that it did; that LILCO, beginning the very day of New York State's entry, January 17, attempted repeatedly to obtain from New York State a list of issues on which it intended to participate; and that New York State pro-duced that list, only under threat of litigation, for the first time on February 6, 1984.1/ That list (see Attachment 1) dis-closed for the very first time the identities of.18 witnesses (later supplemented to 19) who were proposed to file testimony on 25 contentions. Even before the State had disclosed its then-intended scope of participation, on February 3, LILCO had 1/ LILCO tendered to New York State the papers which it would file with the Board late that day if the State did not describe its intended witnesses and their areas of testimony. The State produced its list that day.
already requested the documents which are the subject of the pending motion to compel by telephone from Mr. Zahnleuter, co-counsel for New York State; he candidly confirmed that he had prepared the document listing, requested that LILCO's request be put into writing, and stated that he did not believe that New York would make the documents as.'lable publicly. LILCO made its written request the very next business day. February 6, and filed its motion to compel the same day.
In short: 1. New York had been~an active party only two weeks when LILCO made its document request; the State disclosed i
its then-intended witnesses and the scope of their testimony only after repeated pressure from LILCO, on the very day the pending motion was filed. LILCO's request was plainly timely.
- 2. Mr. Zahnleuter, as the motion to compel and the response filed on behalf of New York State bear out, accurately represented on February 3 New York State's position of refusing discovery of the documents requested. The exact documents in question were well known to counsel for New York, and the re-fusal to produce them was a considered one. Thus the, substance of a request for production under 10 CFR 5 2.741(d) was com-pleted in 3 days rather than 30, and a motion to compel was 1
proper under the circumstances. This is particularly so given the fact that 6 2.741(d) normally allows a party 30 days to re-spond to a request for production of documents, which would permit LILCO to seek to compel discovery, if necessary, only in w> e -- -
2 w
March after the filing of direct testimony. This would totally frustrate the purpose of discovery. For New York, which picked its own time to enter this case, to resist prompt discovery ei-ther compels LILCO to do without it or to postpone the hear-ings. Either would be grossly prejudicial and unfair to LILCO; neither is consistent with New York State's taking the proceed-ing as it finds it.
New York State suggests that document discovery was not within the scope of the Board's order granting LILCO discovery of New York State. The short answer is that the Commission's regulations grant parties broad rights to document discovery, which cannot be abolished, and have not been ny any order of this Board. The only constraint on that discovery is that of time; but New York State cannot shift to LILCO all the hard -
ships of its decision not to become active until normal discov-ery was completed and a schedule leading to imminent hearings on Group II issues was at hand. New York has also waived its argument; it did not object to document requests made in the February 1 deposition of Dr. Hartgen, et al., and in fact pro-vided those documents regnested at the end of the deposition.
B. Particularity and Relevance The Response filed on behalf of New York State argues at length (pp. 6-11) that LILCO has failed to make its request with adequate particularity and showing of relevance. The
objection on grounds of particularity is silly. LILCO identi-fled the list of documents it sought; New York State knew the list and the documents; there is no issue of particularity.
New York State also claims that some of the documents are not relevant since they do not relate at all to Shoreham but to comments on the DPC's proposed rules. If so, then those docu-ments can be properly withheld upon a proper identification by New York (which, after all, posesses the documents) and permit-ting the Board to examine them if necessary.
As to the assertions that the documents are not relevant because they do not indicate a formal " position" by New York State or relate to a Shoreham Emergency Plan, the documents themselves, and only the documents, permit judgment of that.
The final " position" of New York State on any given factual issue is the result of the accumulated reviews of staff members on that issue. Whether those reviews are pertinent to the cur-rent Shoreham emergency plan depends on the resemblance of the version which was being reviewed to the current version. If the provision of the plan being reviewed is the same or suffi-ciently similar to comparable provisions of the plan as it now exists, the technical review of that provision by New York State staff experts is relevant to their views of the technical merits of the comparable portions of Revision 3. To attempt a blanket distinction, as does the. pleading filed on behalf of New York State (pp. 8-9), totally ignores the relevant issue:
I i
I
the views of technical experts reviewing basically factual and technical aspects of a plan which is the direct lineal ancestor of the plan currently before this Board.
LILCO has reason to believe that the documents do bear ma-terially on the New York State experts' views of the LILCO plan as it then existed, and of emergency planning issues generally.
A memorandum dated September 15, 1982 from R. Albertin to J. R.
Dillenbeck, apparently listed on page 8, item 6 of the list of documents appended to the Motion to Compel, was supplied to LILCO in normal distribution of correspondence during the actu-al review period. It is Attachment 2 hereto. This memo indi-cates that (1) New York State had reviewed the plan in enough detail to have issued a deficiency list; (2) that responses to that deficiency list were being reviewed; (3) that Mr. Albertin had reviewed the entire Plan (with limited time); and that he had tendered factual observations on several areas -- organiza-tional interrelationships, bus systems, school evacuations, and traffic modeling (" dynamic analysis"). These matters are di-rectly relevant to factual issues in this case, including ones on which Mr. Albertin, a witness for New York State, is testi-fying.2/ On the basis of this memorandum LILCO has reason to 2/ The memo also relates to areas on which New York State has now determined not to file direct testimony. See Letter, Fabian H. Palomino to Donald P. Irwin, February ~10, 1984 (At-tachment 3) and Letter, Richard J. Zahnleuter to Donald P.
Irwin, February 13, 1984 (Attachment 4). However, this does not lessen the importance of LILCO's obtaining documents treating cuch areas as well. Mr. Palomino's letter indicates (Footnote continued) l
believe that other documents in tha listing also contain expert reviews of concrete aspects of the LILCO Plan. The documents are prima facia relevant to Shoreham and should be released.
C. Assertions of Privilege The State begins its argument on privilege (pp. 11-16) by asserting that its review of LILCO's request for production has been preliminary. This is literally not credible: this de-tailed list was prepared by New York State's own counsel less than six months ago. The State has been on notice of LILCO's present intent since February 3, and should have replied on the merits.
Turning to those merits: The document filed on behalf of New York State first objects to production of even those docu-ments already made publicly available pursuant to the New York FOIA, from a listing which only it possessea, on grounds of in-sufficient identification and relevance. The materials have been identified to the fullest extent LILCO could identify them; New York State knows exactly what they are and so would the Board and parties if New York State did not refuse to pro-duce even the listing of publicly released documents. As for (Footnote continued) that the State of New York supports Suffolk County's position on all contentions, and LILCO is entitled to know the basis for New York's presently asserted positions, even if New York has chosen not to submit testimony on a given issue.
relevance, the State should tender any documents it considers to be not.only irrelevant but also not calculated to lead to the production of relevant material, to the Board for in camera review. All others it should turn over forthwith, along with pages 1 through 5 of the listing.
The next category argued by New York State relates to as-sertions of executive privilege, which is how the pleading filed on behalf of New York State characterizes those documents withheld on the basis of NY FOIA categories A and B. The pleading cites at length this Board's Order on executive privi-lege (Response, pp. 12-13). While the Board's opinion is accu-rately cited it has not been accurately applied. The executive privilege exemption applies to protect the deliberative func-tions of government and its policy-formulation process. It' does not apply to withhold from scrutiny matters which are plainly factual or technical in nature. The Albertin memo (At-tachment 2 hereto) is a perfect example, containing an expert's reviews, not of decisional or policy considerations, but of factual materials in the LILCO plan.
Even assuming, arguendo, that the Albertin memo was prop-erly withheld under the NY FOIA, it does not follow that it is exempt from discovery, since the NY FOIA exempts broader classes of documents than are protected by executive privilege.
The NY FOIA exempts all factual material other than "statisti-I cal or factual tabulations or data." Thus an essentially l
I
factual critique, such as that in the Albertin memo, would be protected under the NY FOIA; it certainly does not, however, go to the narrowly defined deliberative functions of government protected by the doctrine of executive privilege.
Once again, New York State, as the sole party with access to and control over the documents in question, should have sub-mitted them to the Board for in camera examination if it wished to withhold them, with a document-by-document demonstration of the applicability of the privilege claimed.
With respect to the various assertions of litigative priv-ileges (pp. 14-16), LILCO agrees with the assertion in the doc-ument filed on behalf of New York State (p. 14) that not all of the documents as to which Suffolk County claimed work product, attorney-client, or preparation-for-litigation privilege in Phase I of the litigation of Emergency Planning issues were turned over to LILCO; and LILCO has never said otherwise. What the "Brenner Board" did do, and New York State cannot deny, is refuse Suffolk County's blanket assertions of privilege, and require the County, in attempting to assert that privilege, to (1) identify specifically each document as to which a privilege was being asserted, (2) identify the privilege being asserted, and (3) explain its applicability to the document in question.
Long Island Lignting Company (Shoreham Nuclear Power Station),
16 NRC 1144, 1153 (1982). This decision also places the bur-den, properly, on the asserter of privilege to submit the l
l
pertinent documents to the Beard for in camera inspection. Id.
at 1150. New York State has neither justified the application of any privilegs asserted nor provided the documents for exami-nation. Despite having apparently read the Shoreham discovery opinion, it has not followed it. It has not properly asserted any privilege and the documents should be produced.3/
D. Prejudice New York State's final argument is that of prejudice and 1
burdensomeness. The St te is complaining about a self-inflicted wound. The State chose to participate; the documents LILCO presently seeks are already identified and have already buen reviewed and classified by New York State counsel. There is no burden on New York from the discovery now sought.4/ The only party being prejudiced is LILCO. and that by New York's timing of its entry and its dilatory approach to discovery.
3/ For New York State to assert (pp. 15-16) that LILCO should justify its desire for each document is fatuous when the State is the sole custodian of the documents. Nevertheless, without prejudice to obtaining all other documents requested, a copy of those pages of the listing in LILCO's possession, encircling those documents which from their description obviously relate to Shoreham, is attached (Attachment 5). At least 29 of the 49 entries in the listing fall into this category.
4/ New York complains of interference with its other ongoing work. New-York State has substantially contracted its initial j scope of Group II testimony filing, from 25 contentions and many more sub-contentions, to three.
l
1 i
l Conclusion '
New York State has failed to justify with any particulari-ty withholding any of an identified set of documents of prima Zacia relevance to this case. It has failed to provide those documents, or even the balance of their listing, to the Board for its review. The burden is on the party r,sserting a privi-lege to do so with requisite particularity, and New York State-has not even attempted this task. The Board should require New York State to provide the complete listing attached to LILCO's Motion to Compel, and each document listed, to LILCO forthwith.
Respectfully submitted, LONG ISLAND LIGHTING COMPANY By Donald P. Irwin HUNTON & WILLIAMS 707 East Main Street P.O. Box 1535 Richmond, Virginia 23212 DATED: February 14, 1984 4
- * . m ,
-~, ., .
ATTACl! MENT .1 STAYr or New Yang EXECUTIVE CHAMsEn ALSANY822f4 PAtlAN PALOMINO
- s. = w c.. . . . .. e.,,,,,,
February 6, 1964 Mr. Donald Irwin, Esq.
Munton & Williams
. P.O. Box 1535 707 East Main Street Richmond, Virginia 23212
Dear Don:
The following list of people are from the New York State REPG Office and will be available to be deposed at 10:00 a.m., Tuesday, February 7, 1984 at the Governor's Office in New York City. Their areas of testimony are indicated by the contention numbers which follow their names:
Stephen Clemente 16, 21, 245, 244, 24I, 24J, 24K, 24L, 240, 24R, 26D, 26F, 33, 44F;
. Linda Millstroy ,
l 16, 21r l Marvin Silverman 333
.J. R. Dillenback 44F#
Don Davidoff l
i 11, 58, 60, 61, 85;
. James Boranski
- 46, 58, 61; and James Papile k 74 I..
1 Mr. Don Irwin, Esq.
February 6, 1984 Page 2 l
[
The following individuals from the New York State Department of Environmental Conservation will also be available to be deposed on Tuesday, February 7, 1984 at the Governor's office in New York City. Their areas of testimony appear beneath their namess Edward P. Bennett 4
Richard S. Taylor 64, 66D, 973.
The following people from the itew York State Department of fransportation will be available to be deposed at the New York City Governor's Office at lo:00 a.m. on Wednesday, February 8, 1984. The areas of their testimony are indicated by the contention numbers following their names:
Foster Beach 66D, 97; Nicholas Barr 66; William Acquario Robert Knighton Richard Albertin 67, 73.
Also available to be deposed on Wednesday, February 8, 1984 at the Governor's office in New York City will be the following persons from the Office of Disaster Preparedness. The areas of their testimony are indicated i by the contention numbers following their names:
Donald DeVito !
Anthony Germano 63, 6s, 69, 70, 71. l The above is the anticipated list of State witnesses i for the Group II testimony. Their resumes are in the i
process of being prepared and will be forwarded to you as soon as possible.
t y - , , - & -..e.-,,. - - - - , , , , , , . , , . , , ,,,-,.,,,-w,-,, , , , - - , , > - - - - - - - , . , . y
-- o _
o Mr. Donald Irwin, Esq.
,. February 6, 1984 . Page 3 A situation has occurred which I must call to your attention. Prior to one of my witnesses being deposed last week, attorneys who were employees of LILCO interviewed the witness's wife, who is employed by LILCO. In their interview these attorneys sought to ascertain information as to the role her husband, the witnmus, would be taking in the subject proceeding and the nature of his testiacay. It would seem to me that this is most improper inasmuch as it was an intimidating attempt to reach confidential casmunications between husband and wife as well as information between the witness and his counsel. I expect that this will not be repeated.
Sincerely yours ,
Fabian C. Palomino FGPsa l
f
, . . .+ .+ **
. l ATTACHMENT 2 MEMORANDUM oATE September 15, 1982 DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION susJrcT REVIEW OF SHOREHAM NUCLEA3 POWER STATION EMERGENCY RESPONSE PLAN NM R. Albertin, Specialized Transit Section, NYS10T,146-4 [0 "
TO J. R. Dillenbeck, Disaster Preparedness Comission At your request, I have reviewed the August 31st responses .to cited l deficiencies in the Emergency Response Plan. In addition, I have taken the liberty to review the entire Plan and additional comments , l'
- are provided from this effort.
\ .
l In evaluating these observations, please bear in mind that the amount
- of time available to me vaa limited. As per your request, I therefore, concentrated on my previous points of concern. Even so, it is possible my comments may be addressed in the document (but missed) .
Concerning the August 31st Consultant Canunents & Answers...
Item Comunent A 1c The supplied block diagram is a major step
( '
in the right direction at determining effective, recognized chains of command.
It does not, however, indicate lines of authority among function (duty). or within duty command structure. Examples include:
equal authority for Town, Police and State Police. I doubt this would be a practicable approach. Similarly, NYSDOT shows no interrelationship with the County DPW, I would reconsnand an incorporation of the " Role" table into the diagram. I A 2a Here, too the lines of authority are vanne l with sometimes three agencies have primary l responsibility for the same duty. Also, l $
further detail should be considered within each function. If every individual in charge of a function can directly request assistance from another the result could be chaos. For l example, can the individual in charge of buses request ambulances for a handicapped person?
Will each function have a separate radio band?
Other itema not specifically included but to be considered...
~
( .
Page "
Item Coment *
( ,
F
^
Has a comunications expert looked into the feasibility of the amount of two-way radio comunications to be required by each function?
. App A 11-18 How will individual handicapped people be accomodated? What if the phone lines are jamed? What vehicles will be used? Who will be in charge?
App A The entire bus system remains a serious concern. Some of the items to be resolved include: where will the buses come from?
Who will drive? ,Where will they get training?
". What communications will they have with headquarters? How long will it take for l
them and the drivers to be ready? Fueling?
Breakdowns?
I realize the decision to evacuate students home first was a local one made after much thought. While it is addressed in some detail l 1
in the plan, since this is the first time an evacuation plan in New York State used this
(. . approach, I feel additional inivanation could be provided to cover likely but irregular
- experiences such as ... parents not home,
. or more importantly how this decision could effect evacuation times.
Regarding the Dywuic Analysis...
Generally the work is exceedingly thorough and well documented. The issue of " acceptable" capacities appears adequately addressed but e I complete comments on the analysis would require a thorough review of the analysis, the computer model and the assumptions. Time did not permit this. I recommend this effort be undertaken.
The model, however, is accepted in the profession as a viable transportation tool. My only concerns,.therefore, are in traffic control...
J 10j I still feel the issoe of available manpower is not sufficiently addressed,
)
I I
(
_ .. _ _____._________m _____________.___________________________________m__
pegs ..
.(
- l Sunnary Many of the concerns have been addressed but several key issues (described above) remain clouded. Emergency Mass Evacuation is a very difficult responsibility. The authors / consultants are correct in stating any plan
.will have problems. However, a thorough feasibility analysis should be conducted for each transportation task, the interrelationship with other groups, connunications and resources to minimize later problems, The current plan does not have sufficient information available to do this at this time. .
RA: LAC 1
9 s
m _ - , - . ~
i J
4 h
> KEF.Ox TELECCPIE71495310- 2-843 7:05PH t'. 01
, t.)2.LU l i\'t. LM4'att.K itH W:o'. Li l Y ATTACliMENT 3 stats or Ntw Yoms EXECUTIVE CHAMsER 3
FAGiAN PALOY.lNO s..u.: e.. . = ... e.....u February 10, 1984 Donald P. Irwin, Esquire Hunton & Williams P.O.Bos 1535 707 East Main Street Richmond, Virg3nia 23212 Dear Don In light of the current direction of this case, as well as scheduling conflicts, limitation on resources, and the scope of the NRC proceeding, the State of New York has determined that it will not sub: nit testimony on Group II contentions other than by Messrs. Acquario, Knighton, Gibbon and Albertin on contentions 67 and 97. Accordingly, the depositions scheduled for February 13, 15 and 17 are cancelled.
Letasreiterate,however,thatitewYorkstate fully supports the position of Suffolk County and each of Intervenors' contentions in this proceeding and that the State will participate in the litigation of the Group II issues.
Sincerely, e
Fabian G. Palcatino 1
l l
l \
l l
. . . - . , - , - , , . , - ,- ,-- .w, ., ...n.... -,..n- - - - - - , . , - - - -
EXECUTWC CrVt1EER ALEftf/ P.03 ATTACl! MENT 4 STATE or NEW Yoan Executive CHAMBER FAS!AN PALOMINQ so.e. cow a it m.o..., ,
February 13, 1984 I BY TELECOPIER 1
l Donald P. Irwin, Esq.
} Hunton & Williams i
707 East Main Street P. O. Box 1535 Richmond, Virginia 23212 Re: Docket No. 50-322-OL-3
Dear Don:
This is in response to the post script in your letter of February 13, 1984 to Mr. Palomino.
Please be advised that dt this time the State intends to sponsor testimony on Contention 73, as originally specified in Mr. Palomino's letter to you of February 6, 1984.
Sincerely, 0 19 1
,) .A W L-
. Richard . Zahnleuter, Esq.
Assistant to the Special Counsel to the Governor of the State of New York l
cc: ALL BY TELECOPIER l Bornard Bordenick, Esq.
! Christopher McMurray, Esq.
Stewart Glass, Esq.
I ATTACHMENT 5 I
"J" ,
(
letter to Cordaro from Mennessy with attachment
/8/02 (review of shorehan plan)'
6/11/52 letter to Trunso from Davidoff with attachment (letter of 5/17/02 to Davidoti from Trunso) letters from McQuaan to various persons various dates letter to Pachman from Mennessy 7/29/82
" Analysis of shoreham Offsite Enargency Plan"
] "Sganary of Comments on sections A. C, and 3 of
! undated the Shoreham-Suffolk County off-site Plan" l
letter from Mennessy to wolosin
- l 5/26/32 1 legislative contact reports 5/17 and 19/82
. letter to Cordero from Rennessy with attachments
[17/82] (letter of 5/10/82 from cordaro to Mennessy) meno to stasiuk from Davidoff )
5/17/82 I handwritten notes' )
5/14/82 I press release, statement by Governor Cuomo 4/19/03 and 5/14/83 I The following materials may be responsive Jew documents, York state but they3)are l
being withhsid on the grounds specified. The t d the Disaster Preparedness Commission and/or the New by York Sta e privileges, Departsent of Health reserve the right to amend or expan e j
grounds for withholding documents which are protectedMr. i as M111ock
[
l exemptions or objections.Bahnleuter s are attorneys employed by the State attorneys. The following i l referenced by the followin,pr g code systems vi ege ,
L refers to inter-agency asterials which are nots
. 1) "A" (1) statistical or factual tabulations or datas instructions to staff that affect the public, or '
(11) final agency policy or d'eterminations:
~
0.111) .
.' ' " - - - . . . .. .a.......
e
-o-
"B" refers to intra-agency eaterial editch are nots 2)
(i) etatistical or factual tabulations or datas (ii) instructions to staf f that af fect the public, or (iii) final agency policy or determinationst '
- 3) "C" refers to material prepared for 11tigation
- 4) "D" refers to attorney work product "E" refers to materials protected by attorney-client privilege.
~
5) r DATE DOCUMEIFF transmittal slip to Aselrod/DPC from Davidoff/DPC 4/26/83 with two attachments (" suggested questions l* and a for consideration by the shoreham handwritten note from stasiuk/paneDon to Austrod/DPC concerning) questions which should bethese materials con emphasised : suggestions, recommendations, opinions, conjecture and deliberations pertaining to the consequences
- of radioactive materials releases, A, 3 document is being released but portion containing 4/26/83, opinion, conjecture and beliefs concerning possible Atonia' safety and Licensing Board ,
decisions is bedag redacted. A, B.
I non-final, draft, working copy of essay headed by undat "this memorandus summarises concerning the thereham Nuclearthe Powerrecent events station.".
A. S. -
) non-final, draft, working copies of a letter tothe Ne
. stasfedreceiv 3/11 S3 res shoreham, A, 3.
meno to M111ock/poM from Davidoff/DPC concerning I
- 3/4/83 a draft reply to Brenner's 3/28/83 meno, with l attachment (draft, non-final response datedthis is de
- 3/3/83):
meno to Axelrod/DPC from Millock/ DON concerning 3/7/83s resolution of Commission Cohalan v.with New York State Disaster Preparedness attachments (draft, non-final working copy of a stipulation of
, dicontinuance)' A, 8, C, D, E.
G G
@ see ee 9
j'. [
3,
- m. j
' meno from Millock/ DON to hueirod/DPC concerning 2/23/8 events pertaining to Shoreham, A, 3, C, D, E..
1/19/83 meno to Castellano/DPC from Davidoff/DPC is being
~
- > released but portion pertaining to interpretation and opinion of the hearing and news coverage is being redacted, A, B.
2/16/83 meno to Axelrod/DPC from Millock/DOH concerning s J failure of suffolk County to prepare a response 1 ,
plan, A, 3, C, D, E.
2/11/83
- meno from Blocus/ DON to AzelrM/DPC concerning an editorial written by M. Fatterson in Newsday on 2/7/83r this meno contains opinions, conjecture,
' evaluations, recommendations and deliberative i material, n, B. ;
l 1/30/82 meno to DPC members from Davidoff/DPC j transmitting DPC's sta'ff's review of the adequacy ;
1 of LILCO's plang this meno contains non-final, opinions, conclusions, evaluations and i
recommendations by statf which have not been acted upon the the DPC members: these documents
' - constitute deliberative materials: attachments
- are an encorpt from NUREG-0654 and a completed review sheet, A, S.
non-final, draft working copy of a DPC resolution Qnd - pertaining to shoreham and associated planning,
- A, S. -
of a DPC press 12/6/82 non-final, draft, working copy12/8/82 DPC meeting, g
. release concerning proposed '
A, 3. ,' :
,i various dates drafts of Rennessy's letter of 11/29/82 to
,- Cohalas, A, 3. ,
i: f meno from Czech /DPC to Davidof f/DPC containing 11/
k 24/82 non-final, preliminary advisory comments,
. - opinions, evaluations, beliefs, conjecture and deliberative material pertaining to the adequacy of LIIA:O's plan, A, 3. ,
11/23/82 meno from Czech /DPC to Davidef f/DPC containing same subject matter as described directly above, ,.
A. s , l
[.. . ,
1 l
[- .
.g.
l l ,
meno to Czech /DPC from Clemente/DPC containing v suae subject matter as described directly above i
I for 11/24/82 meno A, B.
- l. 1/15/82 meno to " Larry"/DPC from " Jim P."/DPC containing <
maae subject matter as described above for 11/24/02 meno, A, 3. i l 11/9/82 draft, non-final working copies of letter to Cohalan from Wennessy, A, S.
10/25/82 .meno to Czech /DPC from I.owery/DPC containing same '
J subject matter as described directly above for 11/24/82 meno, A, 5.
meno to Czech /DPC from Clemente, same as 11/24/82 (14/ ,
meno A, 3.
meno to Dillenbeck/DPC from Albertin/ DOT, same as 9/15/82) 11/24/82 meno, A, S.
j) 82 meno to Davidoff/DPC from Czech /DPC, same as 11/24/82 meno, A, 3.
2 9/8/82 meno to Czech /DPC from Pop 11e/DPC, same as 11/24/82 meno, A, B.
7/23/83 darft, non-final letter from Hennessy to Pachman.
some from Phillips/ DON to Millock/ DON concerning dF legal issues pertaining to LILCO's plan, A, 3, D, E.
sono to "REPO Staff" from Davidoff concerning
( assignments for Shoreham plan review, A, S.
11/30/82 meno to DPC members from Davidoff/DPC containing
> non-final, preliminary advisory comments, l
)
opinions, evaluations, beliefs, conjecture and '
i deliberative material pertaining to the adequacy i
of LILCO's plan, A, 3. -
meno to Davidof"f/DPC from Eahnleuter/ DON advising 7/18/83 of the applicable comment period for regulations,
- . A, S. D, 5.
J
( .
l
. 1
- ~ .
. . ~ - . . ~ . . .
.g.
t . .
7/1/83 meno to Abornethy/DOH from Duncan/ DOM circulating for internal review proposed, draf t, regulations and regulatory impact statement, this is deliberative material, A, S.
S/27/83 meno to Taylor / DOR from M111ock/ DOM transmitting a revised, proposed regulation transmittal form
- for further laternal review, this is deliberative material, A, B, D, E.
20/ meno to M111ock/ DON from Bahnleuter/ DOM with attachments (rating sheet for 'Shoreham Offisite
- and pages 31-79 of an unidentified document) circulating non-final, draft, proposed regulation. transmittal form for internal review, this is deliberative material, A, B, D, E.
I 5/17/83 meno to M111ock/Dc5 from Bahnleuter/ Don !
, discussing and identifying several possible modifications of proposed regulation transmittal form, this is deliberative material, A, 3, D, E.
5/11/83 slip from Slocua/Dc5 to Duncan/ DON expressing comments on proposed regulation transmittel form, this is part of the internal review process and '
l l
1s deliberative material. A. 5.
l 4/29/83 meno to M111ock/ DOR from zahaleuter/ DOR requesting comments and opiniois concerning draft l proposed regulation transmittal form, this is part of the internal review process and is deliberative material, A, B. D, E.
4/29/03 same as meno directly.above,"but containing handwritten comments, A. 5, D. We 5/13/03 meno to Duncan/ DON from Wolohean/ DOR expressing comments on proposed regulation transmittal form, this is part of the internal review process and is deliberative material, A, B.
- undated handwritten meno from Millock/ DON to
~
Axelrod/DPC/ DON concerning possible contents of
- the proposed draf t regulations, this is deliberative material and part of the internal review process, A, 3, D, E.
f .
- - .-.- y - . . . . . . .
m
. . ,