ML20093E433
| ML20093E433 | |
| Person / Time | |
|---|---|
| Site: | Shoreham File:Long Island Lighting Company icon.png |
| Issue date: | 07/16/1984 |
| From: | Dynner A KIRKPATRICK & LOCKHART, SUFFOLK COUNTY, NY |
| To: | Atomic Safety and Licensing Board Panel |
| References | |
| OL, NUDOCS 8407170552 | |
| Download: ML20093E433 (18) | |
Text
QY N
'I 3
g w
i
\\
i l'*
f
-)
RElM' 0
.. J 0:iDENUd,
- e s/-
'n
- \\
7/16/84 COCKETED UNI'TED STATES _OF AMERICA NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSION
.'84 r1 17 A10 :40 Before the Atomic Safety and Licensing hoard
)
In the Matter of
)
)
LONG ISLAND LIGHTING COMPANY
)
Docket No. 50-322-OL
)
(Shoreham Nuclear Power Station,
)
Unit 1)
)
)
SUFFOLK COUNTY'S OPPOSITION TO LILCO'S MOTION TO QUASH SUBPOENAS Suffolk County hereby answers and opposes LILCO's Motion to Quash Subpoenas dated July 13, 1984, and received late Friday afternoon by the County.
LILCO's Motion makes no attempt, and provides no facts or arguments whatsoever, to show that the subject subpoenas are
" unreasonable" or require " evidence not relevant to any matter in issue," as required by 10 C.F.R. S 2.720(f) for quashing a sub-poena.
On the other hand, Suffolk County's Application for Issuance of Subpcenas, dated July 9, 1984, demonstrates that the subject subpoenas are reasonable and necessary for obtaining evidence of important relevance to the County's admitted EDG Contention.
LILCO's Motion contains two basic arguments:
first, that the County could have applied for the subpoenas earlier (para-graphs 1-4) and second, that the. County and the Board violated a 8407170552 840716
(()
PDR ADOCK 05000322
'7 Q
e.
purported July 5 order by applying for and issuing, respectively, the subject subpoenas (paragraphs 5-7).
Suffolk County acknowledges that in May it learned that a meeting with ABS concerning the replacement crankshafts had been held with Messrs. Guiffra and Woytowich of ABS in attendance.1/
As stated in the County's Applicati6n (at 1), the County's repre-sentatives promptly contacted ABS to provide information about ABS's involvement, but not until July 3 did ABS decline to supply relevant information.
Moreover, LILCO did not produce documents as to which the County wanted to question ABS until June 22 and July 5, 1984.
See Application at 1.
The County could have sought to subpoena the ABS personnel earlier, but such action would have been premature and ineffi-cient, and the depositions would have been taken without key j_
documents not then produced by LILCO.
Moreover, LILCO's complaint that the County's Application was untimely is without legal sup-i port.
An application for. subpoenas of non parties pursuant to Section 2.720 may be made at any time, and is not limited'to the discovery period.
LILCO's statement that the Board's July 5 bench order prohibited _the subject subpoenas is incorrect.
The County did tell the Board on July 5 that the County had informed.LILCO that 1/'
We note that paragraph 3 of LILCO's Motion' asserts that in the deposition of Dr. Chen the County asked no questions about the meeting with ABS or.the' ABS certification of the crankshafts.
That assertion is completely false.
See Chen' Deposition at 107-110,! attached as Exhibit 1.
In any case, whether or not-the
. County asked these questions of Dr. Chen is irrelevant to.the issuance of the subject subpoenas.
4.
1 the County would be seeking to subpoena ABS personnel, and gave the reasons therefor.
Tr. 21,672-73.2/
The County never asked the Board's permission to apply for these subpoenas.
The doard never said anything about this matter, much less ruled on it.
All-the Board did at Tr. 21,076-77 (as cited by LILCO in paragraph 5 of its Motion) was to deny the County's request in part IV of its June 11 filing for discovery from certain TDI customers.
The ABS is not a customer of TDI.
The Board never ordered Suffolk County not to apply for the subject subpoenas.
The County did not violate any order in apply-ing for the subpoenas, and this Board did not contradict any of its prior orders or statements by issuing the subject subpoenas.
LILCO's Motion fails to note that the subject subpoenas were discussed with the Board and parties during a teleconference on July 11, 1984.
The record would have been more complete had LILCO related in its Motion the substance of that discussion and the Board's preliminary views concerning the subject subpoenas.
Finally, LILCO objects that issuance of the subpoenas "will require LILCO to prepare for and attend these depositions, at a time when the parties are engaged in the Preparation (sic) of testimony."
LILCO has until August 14 to file its testimony --
two weeks after'the~ County's. testimony is due.
Moreover, nothing requires LILCO to prepare for and attend the depositions.
LILCO can choose not to attend if its priorities so dictate.
2/
LILCO's Mot'<an (at 2l) miscites the transcript pages as Y1,772-73, an apparent typographical error.-
. o For'all of the foregoing reasons, Suffolk County respectfully urges the Board to deny LILCO's Motion to Quash Subpoenas.
Respectfully submitted, Martin Bradley Ashare Suffolk County Department of Law Veterans Memorial Highway Hauppauge, New York 11788 HerlTert H. Bpwn /
Lawrence Cor 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 July 16, 1984 l
M.
EXHIBIT 1 OFFICIAL TRANSCRIPT 1-
'ROCEED:NGS 3EFO:E O
UNITED STATES OF AMERICA NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSION BEFORE THE ATOMIC SAFETY AND LICENSING BOARD j
In the Matter of:
)
)
LONG ISLAND LIGHTING COMPANY
)
Docket No. 50-322-OL I
(Shoreham Nuclear Power Station
)
)
Unit 1)
)
b DEPOSITION OF SIMON K. CHEN 1.:$.
1 Washington, D. C.
Tuesday, May 15, 1984 O
-(202) 628-9300 440 FIRST STREET, bl.W.
m
O 107 1
Q Are there ABS figures comparable to the IIcyd 2
figures that you used?
3 A
Nc.
I used the L1cyd figures fer ABS 4
calcul a tions.
5 3
I understand, but my question is are there AE S 6
figure s comparable to the licyd figures that ycu used?
7 A
There is no tabulation as such in the ABS and 8
the AB5 vill say that the ccmpany shculd generate its 9
own pr essure / time diag ram.
10 0
Did you.have any discussions with any 11 person nel f rom ABS ccncerning your findings?
12 A
No, I have no discussion with them, but I 13 attend ed one of the meetings tcgether with Mr. Ten and l
14 Mr. Mo ntgomery.
I have attended one ABS meeting 15 tcg eth er with F.r.
Eoland Yen of TDI and Gene Montgomery l
16 of IIlCO, as well as Paul Jchnston of Failure Analysis, 17 and the date I don 't remember.
It was sometime in 18 March, I believe.
19 0
What was the purpose of that meeting?
20 A
lIlCC managereat wants to be sure that I knov 21 wha t I 'm talking abo ut.
I don 't know.
They say, well, 22 you re ally know the new rules?
I said,well, I think I ALDEReoN REPORTING COMPANY,lNC..
20 F ST., N.W, WASHINGTON, D.C. 20001 (202 828-9300
108 1
know the rules, so they go to AES and talk to Mr. Gitffa J
2 and an other gentleran.
3 Q
Mculd you repeat that name?
4 A
Gi uf f a -- G-i-u-f -f-a.
5 Q
And at that meeting ycu reviewed ycur 6
calculations with Mr. Giuffa?
7 A
No, I did not.
I did net.
'Je were just 8
discus sing to be sure that Mr. Mo nt gom e ry knows what the 9
rules are because I knew that they have scme new rules, 10 sc tha t they explained the rules, how to use the rules 11 and so forth.
They have a 1980 edition of the rule,
12 which I did not ha ve when I visited them.
I had the 13 1982 version, I believe, so Mr. P aul John ston purchased 14 a ccpy of those rules and made some copies for me so 15 that I could go home and check my calculaticns ence 16 more.
17 Q
Sc ycu did ycur cricinal calculations under.
18 the
'8 2 rules?
19 A
Correct.
20 Q
later you checked them against the '84 rules?
21 A
Exactly.-
22 Q
And was there any appreciable change?
ALDERSON REPORTING COMPANY,INC.
20 F ST., N.W., WA$HtNGTON, D.C. 20001 (202) 628 9300
1C9 1
A No.
I think I like the '84 rules better.
I 2
think the '84 rules ar e more definitive.
The '82 rules 3
are ju st like all these rules, are not very definitive.
4 0
In doing the calculations under the '84 rules 5
did yo u find that there was more rocm, more leeway, er 6
less leeway?
7 A
The same.
8 MR. STRO UPE:
Chject to the fcrm of the 9
q u e sti o n.
10 THE WITNESS:
Approximately the same because 11 these rules are -- withcut the methods specified it',s i
12 very dif ficult.
13 BY MR. DYNNER:
(Resuming) 14 0
Eid you obtain an ABS approval or 15 certification f or the crankshaf t?
16 A
I did not.
I
's not my crankshaft.
I did 17 not.
18 0
Did IILCO get one?
19 A
I believe in the testimony the other day I wa s 20 sit tin g in testimony the other day that TDI has gotten 21 approv al.
22 0
Did you make any other calcul'ations with AL.DeRBoM REPORTING COMPANY,INC.
20 F ST., N.W., WASNINGTON, D.C. 20001 (202 628-9300
1 l
110 1
restre t to the replacerent crankshafts?
2 A
I did go through quite a f ew calculations in 3
fact te be sure that the crankshaft meets my rule.
4 0
What is the Chen rule?
5 A
The Chen rule is more stringent than the AES 6
rule.
7 0
What calcula tions did you make to see whether 8
it met the Chen rule?
9 A
I checked the fillet.
I checked the to propor tions and so I used my sof tware and went thrcugh 11 it to be sure the replacement shaft would stand up u.nder 12 the co nditions it was intended for.-
I trust my own 13 rules better than the ABS rules.
14 Q
Did you take inte consideration the shetgeen 15 of the fillets and any other portions of the crankshaf ts 16 when y ou did your calculations?
17 MB. STROUPE:
Object to the form of the 18 q u e sti o n.
I don't think there has been any reference to 19 '
the sh otpeen.
20 THE WITNESSs You mean the shotpeen at the 21 fille t ?
22 BY *?R. DYNNER:
(Resuming)
ALDeRSoN RePOlmMG COMPANY,INC.
20 F ST., N.W., WASHINGTON, D.C. 20001 (202) 628 9300
UNITED STATES OF AMERICA NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSION Before the Atomic Safety and Licensing Board
)
In the Matter of
)
)
LONG ISLAND LIGHTING COMPANY
)
Docket No. 50-322-OL
)
(Shoreham Nuclear Power Station,
)
Unit 1)
)
)
CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE I hereby certify that copies of SUFFOLK COUTY'S OPPOSITION TO LILCO'S MOTION TO QUASH SUBPOENAS, dated July 16, 1984, have been served on the following this 16th day of July 1984 by U.S.
mail, first class, except as otherwise indicated.
Lawrence J.
Brenner, Esq.*
Mr. Marc W. Goldsmith Administrative Judge Energy Research Group, Inc.-
Atomic Safety and Licensing Board 400-1 Totten Pond Road U.S.
Nuclear Regulatory Commission Waltham, Massachusetts 02154 Washington, D.C.
20555 Mr. Stuart Diamond Dr. George A.
Ferguson*
Business / Financial Administrative Judge NEW YORK TIMES Atomic Safety and Licensing Board New York, New York 10036 School of Engineering Howard University Milton Farley, Esq.*
2300 6th Street, N.W.
Hunton & Williams Washington, D.C.
20059 P.O.
Box 19230 2000 Pennsylvania Ave.,
N.W.
Dr. Peter A.
Morris
- Washington, D.C.
20036 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, Neu 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
s
' Robert E. Smith, Esq.
Stephen B. Latham, Esq.
Guggenheimer a Untermyer Twomey, Latham & Shea 80 Pine Street P.O.
Box 398 New York, New York 10005 33 West Second Street Riverhead, New York 11901 j
Mr. Brian R. McCaffrey Long Island Lighting Company.
- Mr. Frank R.
Jones
- Shoreham Nuclear Power Station Deputy County Executive
-P.O.
Box 618 H.. Lee Dennison Building North Country Road Veterans-Memorial Highway i
Wading River,- New York 11792 Hauppauge, New York 11788 f
Joel Blau, Esq.
1723 Hamilton Avenue MHB Technical Associates New York-Public Service Commission 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.Buildinq l
Suffolk County Attorney Veterans Memorial Highwaf H. Lee Dennison Building Hauppauge, New. York 11788 -
Veterans Memorial Highway Hauppauge, New York 11788 Fabian Palomino, Esq.#
i l
Special Counsel to.the i
Atomic Safe ty and Licensing Coard 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' j
Office of the Secretary Atomic Safety and Licensing
-U.S.
Nuclear Regulatory Commission Appeal Board
- 1717 H Street, N.W.
U.S. Nuclear Regulatory
- Washington, D.C.
20555
. Commission Washington, D.C.
. 20555' i
Bernard M.
Bordenick, Esq.*
Edwin J.'Reis, Esq.
~
Jonathan D. Feinberg, Esq.
j Richard J. Goddard,-Esq.
Staff Counsel Office of Exec. Legal Director New York State Public
- U.S. Nuclear-Regulatory-Commission
-1 Service Commission Washington, D.C.
20555 3 Rockefeller Plaza
. Albany,.New York
~12223 k
4 i
- V a--
P b
w e
t ?
"-'m
-e-w ra
-rs
-e 4
- s'++r-'
a---
-'-r
n b
Stewart M. Glass, Esq.
Regional Counsel Federal Emergency Management Agency 26 Federal Plaza New York, New York 10278 Odes L.
Stroupe, Jr., Ecq.
Hunton & Williams P.O.
Box 109 BB&T Building Raleigh, North Carolina 27602 e__
Alan Roy Dynp r
/r KIRKPATRIC W, LOCKHART, HILL, CHRISTOPHER & PHILLIPS 900 M Street, N.W.,
Suite 800 1
Washington, D.C.
20036 DATE:
July 16, 1984 i
I By Federal Express j
By Hand Delivery 4
1 4
i i
w
-,,,