ML20087J502
| ML20087J502 | |
| Person / Time | |
|---|---|
| Site: | Shoreham File:Long Island Lighting Company icon.png |
| Issue date: | 03/20/1984 |
| From: | Dynner A KIRKPATRICK & LOCKHART, SUFFOLK COUNTY, NY |
| To: | Atomic Safety and Licensing Board Panel |
| References | |
| CON-DSB-50 OL, NUDOCS 8403220250 | |
| Download: ML20087J502 (13) | |
Text
ez
,.e
,.,, p -
Wu Lu, r'" - -
'58'60 3/fb7.m. D fj e
UNITED STATES OF AMERICA NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSION
'84 IP.R 22 /"0:35 Before the Atomic ety and Licensing Board.._.
~
)
In the Matter of
)
)
LONG ISLAND LIGHTING COMPANY
)
Docket No. 50-322-OL
)
(Shoreha'm Nuclear Power Station,
)
Unit 1)
)
)
SUFFOLK COUNTY'S RESPONSE TO LILCO'S REQUEST FOR PRODUCTION OF DOCUMENTS 1.
Suffolk County has no reports, memoranda or calculations responsive to LILCO's Request for Production of Documents dated March 1, 1984, 7xcept as follows:
a.
Reports, memoranda and calculations of LILCO, its con-tracters and consultants, previously supplied to the County by LILCO, copies or originals of which are already in LILCO's pos-session or under its control; b.
Reports, memoranda and calculations relating to the M.V.
Columbia, the M.V.
Pride of Texas, the M.V.
Star of Texas, and the M.V. Edwin H. Gott obtained from responses to subpoenas issued by
- .he Board to the owners or operators of such vessels, copies of which have been previously supplied to LILCO; c.
Reports, memoranda and calculations prepared by or sent to the NRC Staff, copies of which have been previously supplied to LILCO by the NRC Staff, or which are referred to in such documents 9403220250 840320 PDR ADOCK 05000322 q{))
C PDR
. i I
previously supplied to'LILCO, or which are specifically referred to in.the County's Supplemental EDG Contentions;
'd.
A preliminary memorandum of Ocean Fleets Consultancy l
Services relating to'the crankshafts' failure to meet the stan-dards of Lloyd's Register of Shipping, and Professor Christensen's calculations to the same effect.
As discussed at the February 22, 1984 conference of the parties (Tr. 21,643),.such information is a
preliminary and must be confirmed by reference to drawings and specific'ations for the replacement crankshafts, which have not yet f
been supplied to the County or its consultants.
As indicated at the February conference and committed to by
~
l the County to LILCO, Suffolk County will have its expert consul-l tants prepare reports, memoranda and calculations regarding the County's analyses of the TDI diesel enginesiand'their' components and supporting the County's contentions.
However, such reports will not be prepared until after the requested diesel. component.
drawings have been received-and reviewed and after sufficient
~
!~
discovery has been completed to permit the' County.to. reach mean-1
-ingful and' supportable conclusions..Asistated?in'the letterJfrom i
the. County's counsel to counsel'.for LILCO,Edated Marchil4., 1984-(a copy of which'is attached hereto as Exhibit 1) setting'forth[the=
~
r I
status.offother EDG. discovery matters,Jthe County!will provide-LILCO with:earlyfinformation'concerning;the analyses'the County's i
consultants are. performing.(seelpara. (6))'
+
As ofLthis'date:~(i) some,.but not,all,Cdrawings~o'f1TDI:.
L
~
diesel componentsLwere. received by"thefCounty'siconsultants'on
~
. March 119, 1984; 1
- (ii) LILCO's responses to the County's March 1, 1984, docu-ment discovery request has been limited to diesel deficiency reports, and partial documents received on March 19, 1984; and (iii)
A visit to inspect documents at TDI is scheduled for March 22 and 23, 1984.
LILCO has not yet responded to any matters referred to in Exhibit 1, including identifying LILCO, TDI and TDI Owners' Group personnel and the authors of FaAA reports, or notifying the County of the availability of individuals for depositions.
This lack of prompt responses by LILCO can only result in inefficiency and delay.
2.
With respect to LILCO's Request No. 11S, the parties have agreed initially to exchange lists of publications by their 1
experts.
See Exhibit 1 at para. (7).
The County objects, how-I ever, to LILCO's request for the production of documents relating to "onsite or offsite power requirements for nuclear. power plants."
Such documents are neither relevant to the subject I
l matters involved in the pending proceeding nor reasonably cal-culated to lead to the discovery of admissible evidence.
3.
LILCO's Request No. 116 is for documents that discuss anticipated low power operating conditions at Shoreham that concern (a) onsite and offsite AC power require-ments; (b) accident scenarios; and (c)
LILCO's ability to supply such power as would be necessary to assure public health and safety during low power test-ing up to 5%.
_4_
Suffolk County objects to this request because such documents are neither relevant to the subject matters involved in the pending proceeding, nor reasonably calculated to lead to the discovery of admissible evidence.
Respect, fully submitted, Martin Bradley Ashare Suffolk County Department of Law Veterans Memorial Highway Hauppauge, New York 11788 Mr ' -
Herbert H. BKwf /F Lawrence Cog Lanpher Alan Roy Dynner Douglas J. Scheidt KIRKPATRICK, LOCKHART, HILL, CHRISTOPHER & PHILLIPS 1900 M Street, N.W.,
Suite 800 Washington, D.C.
20036 Attorneys for Suffolk County March 20, 1984 i
i-t
.4
EXHIBIT 1 Kruir*ATRICE, LONM'A*T, Hrr1, CHRISTOPnza & Pwrrxx9s A P_^
brazeesme A Poorsessesus. CeasesLMrsos 19o0 M Srmmar, N. W.
WAmazzo2ow, D. C. noose
=r.=,==== (aoa) a ~a March 14, 1984
= = =
causa =rs:
= = u.w a - r.
-. m m ow
.im, >===
== - m,
wanaro==ner asu. nme===
==
-nwu M = ***
Robert M. Rolfe, Esq.
Anthony F. Earley, Jr., Esq.
Hunton & Williams P.O.
Box 1535 707 East Main Street l
Richmond, Virginia 23212 Re:
EDG Discovery Gentlemen:
This letter will confirm the areas of agreement and dis-agreement as to certain discovery matters discussed during the March 9 teleconference among yourselves, Richard Goddard, Alan Dynner, Larry Lanpher and myself.
(1)
As to the scheduling of depositions, it was agreed that the parties should provide each other as soon as possible with the dates on which the individuals whom the parties wish to depose will be available for depositions.
The County
~
informed LILCO that its three expert witnesses, Dennis Eley and Professors Anderson and Christensen, generally would be avail-able throughout the current period set aside for depositions, but specified that Professor Christensen would not be available the week of April 9 and Mr. Eley would not be available April 3.
LILCO did not provide any information on the availability of any of their listed witnesses.
In addition, the parties noted that Passover and Good Friday fall within this time period.
The County indicated that Mr. Dynner would be unavailable on Passover and that expected difficulties in mak-ing travel arrangements for Good Friday could preclude taking.
any depositions that day.
LILCO agreed to ascertain whether these religious holidays would affect the taking of depositions of persons that the County seeks to dispose.
Finally,.the County stated that it would attempt to schedule the depositions geographically (such as all witnesses being deposed in Arizona or in the Bay area would be deposed during a single deposition period) so as to make more efficient use of the time set aside for discovery.
l
- 6 l
~
KraxPATRICK,10CENART, Hrzz, CumscTerunn & Puxt.x.xPs Robert M. Rolfe, Esq.
i Anthony F. Earley, Jr., Esq.
l March 14, 1984 l
Page 2 The parties agreed that it would not be feasible to take depositions during the first discovery period.
Because the County's experts have only preliminary information and have not yet received the drawings or specifications for the EDG compo-nents, LILCO's depositions of those-experts now would not be particularly useful and would likely require multiple deposi-tions of the same person.
Similarly, the taking of depositions by the County would not be particularly fruitful without the j
informed assistance of its experts.
The parties also agreed j
that it would be exceedingly difficult for the parties to take l
all the depositions they seek within the second discovery period.
The County again indicated that it would likely move to extend the discovery period as soon as the Board issues its i
formal prehearing conference order and LILCO again noted its likely opposition to any such motion.
(2)
LILCO generally objected to the number of depositions that the County seeks to take and noted that it was " surprised" at that number because the. county allegedly had indicated pre-viously to the Board that only twelve depositions would be taken.
The County pointed out that no such limitation was suggested, and quoted from its February 17 letter to LILCO that its thinking on depositions at that time was only at the pre-liminary stage and that the County was considering deposing 4
appropriate LILCO, FaAA and TDI personnel and contractors, including the twelve individuals specifically identified.
(3)
The County indicated that LILCO had not responded at all to its March 1 request that LILCO identify the: subject mat-ter of the testimony of each of LILCO's expert-witnesses..
1 LILCO stated that it could not identify the specific subject matters until it had a better idea-of the County's contentions and the bases therefor.
The County stated that the contentions and their detailed bases provided more than adequate infor-mation for LILCO to identify the expected. subject matter of its experts' testimony.
LILCO did provide the following' general subject matters of the testimony of its experts:
Seamen (all aspects of the DRQR); Swanger (DRQR and bearings); Youngling (EDG startup.
testing, general operating aspects and operating history);
Museller (overall diesel' efforts, DG recovery program, all'as-pects of the diesels); Kammeyer (engineering questions and dis-positions, cylinder heads, and perhaps cylinder-head studs, rocker arm capscrews and air start capscrews); Wells'(FaAA ef-i forts); and Rogers (DRQR, particularly design review, and in-strumented crankshaft testing on EDGs 101 and 103).
LILCO
..t
~ ~ -. ~..
, _.,.., _ _.. _,... L.
-m
.,. +.,
I
. KraurArancx, locxuAmr, Hrz.x., Cumzaroruna & Puxx.x.xys Robert M. Rolfe, Esq.
Anthony F. Earley, Jr., Esq.
March 14, 1984 Page 3 stated that probably only one of LILCO's German consultants (Pishinger) would testify and that it was difficult to pinpoint one particular aspect as to which he would testify.
LILCO also indicated that FaAA's Mr. McCarthy might be called as an expert witness, but did not specify the anticipated subject matter of his testimony.
The County expects that LILCO will provide more detailed information as to the' subject matters of the testimony of LILCO's expert witnesses as soon as possible.
LILCO also did not provide the County with specific infor-mation as to the. identity of any individual employed by TDI who would be called as an expert witness, nor did LILCO provide the
)
County with the other identifying information requested in its 1
March 1 letter as to:
i "each individual in TDI with principal day-to-day responsibility for diesel engine design, for the design of crankshafts, for the design of pistons, and for the design of each other component of the Shoreham EDGs which has experienced failures, cracking, or linear indications,
[and) each individual in TDI with principal day-to-day responsibility for the manufacture of components in the TDI R-48 diesel engine, as to casting, machine shop, and.other significant manufacturing process."
LILCO stated that no decisions had been made as to whether any TDI employees would be called as witne.saes.and that it could not tell the County who the TDI experts are as to each area of responsibility.
LILCO suggested that Messrs. Matthews and
.Trussell of TDI might be called as expert witnesses but stated that the County should contact TDI's counsel directly for this information.
Please be advised that the County now intends to l
take the deposition of Mr..Trussell, as well as that of Mr.
Museller as we previously indicated, on the general-subject of TDI diesel engine design and manufacturing, engine rating, defects and failures.
Further, the County expects that other j
persons may also be designated for depositions after review of initial discovery materials is completed.
The County noted that LILCO also has not complied'with~the County's March 1 request that LILCO identify:
w w-
-w-g v
,-m g
,,,.. -,w-r-w
-wi--ww.-rw-%
-+b
--==r-v
- = w e v-
--=
KanurArmacx, Lwi=r, Bas.x., Cuarstornam & Puxx.s.res Robert M. Rolfe, Esq.
Anthony F.
Earley, Jr., Esq.
March 14, 1984 Page 4 L
"by name, organization, position, exper-tise, responsibility and function:
each other individual, whether an employee, consultant, contractor or agent of LILCO, or an employee of such -a consultant, con-tractor or agent, primarily responsible for the design review, quality review, failure analysis, inspection, or testing of a com-ponent of the Shoreham EDGs in LILCO's die-sel recovery program or in the DRQR appli-cable to Shoreham."
-LILCO objects to the County's deposing each of these as yet unidentified individuals.
The County indicated that no final decision on the number of deponents could be made until the County received and analyzed the requested identifying infor-mation as well as the drawings and documents previously re-j quested.
The County stressed that it particularly sought the identities and responsibilities of those individuals with 2
" hands on" responsibility for design and quality review, and not just the identities of those who oversee the DRQR program.
LILCO agreed to provide the County with the names of these individuals with " hands on" responsibility and the general areas of their responsibility, but without necessarily agreeing to their depositions.
LILCO also agreed to confirm the current accuracy of the information contained in the attached DRQR Pro-gram Sheet and to inform the County of any additional general areas to be covered by the DRQR and the identities of the persons responsible for those areas.
(4)
The County indicated in its March 1 letter that it intended to depose an official of Elliott Turbochargers.
Mr.
Rolfe stated in his March 2 letter that LILCO doesn't control Elliott employees and that the County should contact Elliott directly or through TDI's counsel.
The County stated that the Board had directed LILCO to take the lead on discovery matters generally and, as to this matter in particular, the County believed that, at the very least, LILCO should ascertain wheth-er TDI has attempted to gain Elliott's cooperation.
LILCO stated that Elliott had been contacted but had.not been partic-ularly cooperative.
At the County's request, LILCO agreed to provide the names of the persons at Elliott who were contacted.
(5)
The County also stated that LILCO had not complied-Li with its request to identify the authors of. the FaAA reports which do not on their face indicate who the authors are.
LILCO-stated that the reports generally have 'more than one author and
(
.,-.__.,,.,.r,-,,,,,e
- - - ~ =rw m,>
-e-=-~~.,
,w-,
- - - +
y-
t KINEPATRICE, LOCENART, Exu, Cuarr:ToPunn & Pmures Robert M. Rolfe, Esq.
Anthony F. Earley, Jr., Esq.
March 14, 1984 Page 5 1
that a number of individuals had input into the reports.
The County requested that LILCO identify the authors of each re-port, the person who had input into the reports and the areas
~
for which they were responsible.
LILCO indicated that it would attempt to supply such data, again without necessarily agreeing j
that the persons so identified would be appropriate persons to be deposed.
(6)
The parties agreed that prior to taking each deposi-tion they would identify the subject matters that they intended to pursue with the deponent and the documents that the deponent would be questioned about.
At LILCO's request, the County also l
agreed,to provide LILCO, prior to the depositions of the County's expert witnesses, with a description of the types of analyses they have or are performing.
Ihe County also informed LILCO that, under the current discovery schedule, the County's experts probably would not have time to prepare final written reports of their analyses prior to their depositions.
l (7)
The County also noted that LILCO had requested copies of publications and other writings of the County's experts on certain matters and requested that LILCO provide the County with its experts' publications and writings on the same mat-ters.
The parties agreed initially to exchange lists of the publications of their experts from which the parties could later select specific publications to be produced.
(8)
In an earlier telephone call, the County had inquired as to whether LILCO would permit the County's experts to physi-cally inspect any failed or damaged EDG components.
LILCO in-dicated that inspections of certain components might not be practicable, such as those that are currently in use..
The l
County agreed to provide LILCO with a list of specific compo-nents which it wished to inspect.
i l
.Very truly yours,
'N 9
Dougras J. Scheidt i
cc:
Richard J. Goddard, Esq.
Fabian G. Palomino, Esq.
1 Robert E.
Smith, Esq.
l i
~, _ _ - -, _ _ -. -,
.. ~.. _., _ _
7 PROGRAM MANAGER c.s.st AM AN lol I
i COMPONENT SELECTION QUALITY GROUP CHAIRMAN DESIGN GROUP CilAIRMAN CHAIRMAN n.J.uAJucatel J.c.uAuutvEn tal s.w. nostas (rl I
l l
-l OWNEitS Fo'A A LE AD S&W LEAD OWNER LEAD TASK LEADERS DIESEL CONSULTANTS REPRESENTATIVES L. A. sW ANsE A (F) w.0am tel M.N.scHusTER (01
- 1. SITE ENGINEEN
- l. SITE ENGINEERS 4.c.w Auutyta est 1.FEV
'I
- 2. VALVES
- j','u
- 2. DESIGN SPEC.-
ta - II J.ciuant ts P.Tuottu ict 3.TDI REP.
I f
- ,,$,3
- 2. sAnL scuus0T gy
- 3. OTHrns l
- 4. E MO g
l J. t Ms t u A N /
.{ si i
9 o.tsettiones ist l
I DOCUMENTATION RVW QUAllTY ENGR'G FIELD INSPECTION
- s. LLC l
TASK LEADER TASK LEADER TASK LEADER tm >Acos est OWNERS' o.asousNo ist J.ptiLLY tal
- s. gnaanic is t j
j
- 6. Turtro COMPONENT R
NTAMES g
g g
(
c.sAotte Irl
- 7. 0 EARINGS RODS, l.R48 I
I I
1.FoAA 2.RVis J. ppeitt. Ps tsi n.A.cuiu Isi E. sit s t ist 1
GEARS j
w.m coortantotn Irl LSEW 8 Uf, ads; CASTINGS,y
- 3. DIESEL CONSULT.
- 3. RV 12
- e. Jeansty ist W.Jaccesom ist c.punusIsi P.utLEnta ist a.wntTEisi
,go g
- 4. 0WNEHS* REP. ~
- 4. RV 20 1
- 9. STRUCT UR AL/
PERSONNEL l5 PERS0ilHEL l11 EST.PERSONtJEL l 8 EST. PERSONNEL l 5 EST. PERSONNEL l ~8 MECilANICAL
- 5. T DI RE P, l
r.o.Jounstou fra TOT AL ESTIMAT E 14 j
EllGillE ER'S F = FallunC ANALYSTS AssOCIAf ts SIAff
~
tse - TOTAL Pens 0NNEL 0- OWNER REPAtsiNTATivE C-CONSULTANTS 1
I
._-l 4
UNITED STATES OF AMERICA NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSION Befor_e the Atomic Safety and Licensing Board
)
In the Matter of
)
~
)'
LONG ISLAND LIGHTING COMPANY
)
Docket No. 50-322 0.L.
)
(Shoreham Nuclear Power Station,
)
Unit 1)
)
)
C_ERTIFICATE OF SERVICE I hereby certify that copies of SUFFOLK COUNTY'S RESPONSE TO LILCO'S REQUEST FOR PRODUCTION OF DOCUMENTS dated March 20, 1984, have been served to the following this 20th day of March 1984 by U.S. mail, first class, except as otherwise indicated.
Lawrence J.
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 Dr. George A.
Ferguson*
Howard L.
Blau, Esq.
Administrative Judge 217 Newbridge Road Atomic Safety and Licensing Board Hicksville, New York 11801 School of Engineering Howard University
- W.
Taylor Reveley, III, Esq.
2300 6th Street, N. f;.
Hunton & Williams Washington, D.C.
20059 P.O.
Box 1535 707 East Main Street Dr. Peter A.
Morris
- Richmond, Virginia 23212 Administrative Judge Atomic Safety and Licensing Board Mr. Jay Dunkleberger U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission New York State Energy Office Washington, D.C.
20555 Agency Building 2 Empire State Plaza Edward M.
Barrett, Esq.
Albany, New York 12223 General Counsel Long Island Lighting. Company James B. Dougherty, Esq.
250 Old Country Road 3045 Porter Street, N.W.
Mineola, New York 11501 Washington, D.C.
20008
, Robert E. Smith, Esq.
Stephen B. Latham, Esq.
Guggenheimer & Untermyer Twomey, Latham a Shea 80 Pine Street P.O. Box 398 New York, New York 10005 33 West Second Street Riverhead, New York 11901 Mr. Brian R. McCaffrey Long Island Lighting Company Mr. Marc W. Goldsmith Shoreham Nuclear Power Station Energy Research Group, Inc.
P.O. Box 618 400-1 Totten Pond Road North Country Road Waltham, Massachusetts 02154 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 F. Cohalan Suffolk County Executive Martin Bradley Ashare, Esq.
H.
Lee Dennison Building Suffolk County Attorney Veterans Memorial Highway H.
Lee Dennison Building Hauppauge, New York 11788 Veterans Memorial Highway Hauppauge, New York 11788 Fabian Palomino, Esq.#
1 Special Counsel to the Atomic Safety and Licensing Board Governor Panel Executive Chamber U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission Room 229 Washington, D.C.
20555 State Capitol Albany, New York 12224 Docketing and Service Section Office of the Secretary Atomic Safety and Licensing U.S.
Nuclear Regulatory Commission Appeal Board 1717 H Street, N.W.
U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Washi.ngton, D.C.
20555 Commission Washington, D.C.-
20555 Richard J. Goddard, Esq.*
Ralph Caruso Jonathan D.
Feinberg, Esq.
U.S.
Nuclear Regulatory Commission Staff Counsel Washington, D.C.
20555 New York State Public Service Commission Mr. Stuart-Diamond 3 Rockefeller Plaza Environment / Energy Writer Albany, New York 12223 NEWSDAY Long Island, New York 11747 4
9-
I
.. Stewart M. Glass, Esq.
Regional Counsel Federal Emergency Management Agency 26 Federal Plaza New York, New York 10278 AA Alan Roy D%nerj.
f KIRKPATRIW,-LOCKHART, HILL, CHRISTOPHER & PHILLIPS 1900 M Street, N.W.,
Suite 800 Washington, D.C.
20036 DATE:
March 20, 1984 By Federal Express By Hand Delivery
- By Telecopier t