ML20094D470

Joint Motion of State of Ny & Suffolk County to Compel Discovery of Documents & Info Sought in 840801 Discovery Request.Aslb Requested to Give Matter Expeditious Consideration.W/Certificate of Svc.Related Correspondence

ML20094D470
Person / Time
Site:	Shoreham File:Long Island Lighting Company icon.png
Issue date:	08/07/1984
From:	Mcmurray C, Zahnleuter R KIRKPATRICK & LOCKHART, NEW YORK, STATE OF, SUFFOLK COUNTY, NY
To:	Atomic Safety and Licensing Board Panel
References
OL-3, NUDOCS 8408080410
Download: ML20094D470 (20)

Text

Y

~'

uiCi e

U.~J L - UNITED STATES OF AMERICA -

NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSION Before the Atomic Safety and Licensing Boar [SN h AG0-8 ki:jg

" " ~ ' .

In the Matter of

)

) (Emergency Planning)

-(Shoreham Nuclear Power Station, )

Unit 1) )

)

JOINT MOTION OF NEW YORK STATE '

AND SUFFOLK COUNTY TO COMPEL DISCOVERY On August 3, 1984, LILCO stated its refusal to respond to sixteen limited discovery requests made jointly by Suffolk County and the State of New York on August 1 pursuant to the Board's July 24, 1984 Memorandum and Order and 10 CFR $2.740. For the reasons set forth below, the State of New York and Suffolk County

> move this Board pursuant to 10 CFR $2.740(f) to compel LILCO to produce without delay, but in no event later than August 14, the documents and information sought in the State and County's August 1 discovery request. The Board is also requested to give expedited consideration to this matter.

Facts On July 24, 1984, the Board !ssued a Memorandum and Order Determining That A Serious Safety Matter Exists (hereinafter

" Memorandum and Order"). In essence, the Board concluded that the current strike of LILCO employees, who comprise the bulk of

\; .

-d$V 8400080410 G40807 gDRADOCK05000 [g

/' h'

p Lthe workers LILCO' expects to respond to a radiological emergency

.at'Shoreham, raised important questions regarding LILCO's ability taringlement its emergency response plan. Accordingly, the Board admitted.three issues, sua sponte, for litigation by the parties.

1. A r p _ g grandushand Order at 3. The Board further ruled that the i parties may engage in limited discovery on the three admitted l'

issues. Id.

4 Pursuant to the Board's Memorandum and Order, on August 1 1"

. l Lthe State and the County telecopied an informal discovery request  !

to LILCO seeking information relevant to the issues set forth in a

' the Board's - Memorandum and Order. The State's and County's joint 44 request is appended as Attachment 1 to this pleading.

t LILCO replied to the State's and County's joint discovery ,

l request by letter received late in the afternoon of Friday,  !

i August 3. (Attachment 2).1! As an initial matter, LILCO stated .

its refusal to answer the State's und County's discovery request

.because it took the,*orm of an " informal letter pleading."

i With respect to the State's and County's sixteen specific l h: requests, LILCO informed the State and the County that twelve of '

fj: ,

ythose. requests (Requests 1-11 and 15), pertaining to the LERO k- AI Attached to LILCO's Friday, August 3 letter was another letter addressed _to counsel for the County which, for the first time since the Eoard's July 24 Memorandum and Order, identified  ;

.individuai~s, all LILCO employees, whom LILCO characterized as  :

"among its potential witnesses" on the strike issues.

t

o h

L w

work force, the union affiliations of the LERO workers, and the extent of resignations from LERO as a result of the strike, were "smot" because of LILCO's intent to bring the Shoreham reactor to cold shutdown upon notice of a strike. Thus, LILCO stated it did t __a n '

"not propose to answer" those requests.

LILCO's August 3 letter also refused to respond to the remaining four requests for a variety of reasons. Request 12 sought information regarding the' number and identity, by job title, of the non-union workers LILCO intends to rely on to place

the plant in cold shutdown. LILCO rejected this request on grounds that it was burdensome and unnecessarily instrusive, and

.on the mistaken assumption that the request sought " names cc LILCO '

other personal information about (LILCO's] employees."

further stated that the l'.1 formation sought in Requests 14 and 16, e

regarding its procedures for cold shutdown, could be found in the

). FSAR and plant procedures. LILCO did not, however, identify the F:

specific FSAR provisions or planc procedures in which the infor-mation was available. Finally, Request 13 sought all documents 3 pertaining to or discussing any commitment either to place the plant in cold shutdown or to keep the plant operating. LILCO replied that, in its view, the proposed licensing condition included in the letter " adequately" addressed the matter.

~

c f;.

it .~1 h;a[" ' s j %f -

'\

hy;;g ,-a ~ :w 1"# -r i

gr _

3 r.

E' i ft x -

1 ,

s  ;

\

L' Discussion

> l 1The-Board's. July 24 Memorandum and Order established three

, s importantJsafety issues on which it wished to hear evidence and L

][

A;

.:grantedJthe parties the opportunity to conduct discovery to E develop:their. respective cases. . Pursuant to the NRC's discovery M m " trulen,J"[p]artica may obtain discovery regarding any matter, not

! privileged,;which is relevant to the subject matter involved in the; proceeding,whetheritrelatestotheclaimordefenseofth$

/ -party or.to the: claim or defense of any other party. . . ." 10 -

n'

.CFR'L {2. 74 0 (b ) (1) . Furthermore, discovery requests are not objec- .

.ftionable "iflthe information sought appears reasonably calculated , J b cto lead to the discovery-if admissible evidence." 10 CFR J62.740(b)(1).

'In the instant case, the State and the County have filed a fM _

llmited nu'mber of discovery requests, all of which are pertinent x . . . .

<to,Eand likely to lead to the discovery of admissible evidence Jon,:t'he important strike issues raised by the Board. Neverthe-

'l'ess,.1ILCO,-in defiance of the. Board's Memorandum and Order, has 3'(

f refused to1 respond to the State and County's joint requests for s freasons.which'have no support in law or fact. LILCO's attempt to lhide: facts pertinent.to the very questions put into issue by the s

1 b ,

? -Board is inexcusable and must not be condoned by this Board.

(7 c :1 a-N

=_ 1

.kb ,

.- . m.

k, v.

y igshgi ; -

,diW x. r W. t .

h;t #"#sh a < .

(fL . J t a': .Furthermore, LILCO's.effortssto obstruct the progress of discov-(4 \erybis1 wasting the already limited time afforded to the parties

-for discovery under the Board's current schedule.

N

~

• LILCO's first reason!for refusing to respond to the State

% v 7

and~ County's joint request -- that the request constitutes "an -

hbprei5 pnformalsletterpleading".--'strainscredibilityandistotally .

at; odds with established practice in this case. To say that ITILCO's objection raises form above substance is to state the 2"

<1 Y ff X

9:

~

. obvious. .Furthermore,.it has been the rule, rather than the f-J p' : exception,c for. the parties to make discovery requests through NA -" informal letter pleadings." Indeed, the County's and the iv ~

State's files.are filled with such informal discovery requests

y[e Jev .

-from'LILCO. The State-and the County have even responded to gg  ? discovery requests from LILCO made by telephone.

Thus, LILCO t .,

Y- '

. ca'nnot, . in f good, faith, raise this weak objection.

W, 9 64 jt, LILCO's single objection to twelve of the joint discovery it s.

. Erequests'(Requests 1-11 and 15) has nothing to do with the stan-n ;v

,lg ,

, }qddrd for the scope of discovery set forth in 10 CFR 62.740(b)(1).

'Nor, for that matter, is it based on any known NRC regulation or p-.

'caselaw. Rather, LILCO has taken it upon itself to determine

.- +

! , un,_ , < .

- 'I.hdee'd, LILCO's actions provide further support for Suffolk

f. "

' County's Motion for Reconsideration of the Board's July 24 Order Regarding Schedule For Hearing and Prohibiting Written Testimony on the-Strike: Issues (August 3, 1984); see also, Suffolk County

, Notice To Board Regarding Schedule For Hearing The Strike Issues (July 31, 1984).

. < =

s I

5 s-- 2 ,

s-

y- 37- .-

y Y c

't- e 2 n ~'

' ithat its proposed licensing condition renders " moot" the issue of

al strike's impact on LILCO's ability to implement its plan and

'therefore obviates the-need for discovery. LILCO's "mootness" objection, however, is without basis.

.ThelBoard itself' has raised particular issues for the par-

~

~i5 tie's=to address'and has ruled that the parties may conduct limit'ed discovery on those issues. This is what the State and

County have endeavored to do by asking specific and limited ques tions about the LERO work force, union affiliations, union con-s

' tracts and-the extent of the. workers' withdrawal from LERO.

~

'LILCO cannot seek to short circuit legitimate discovery by stat-cing1that, in LILCO's' opinion, it has found the solution to its strike-problem and on that basis deny further discovery. LILCO's "mootness" objection is simply not a proper objection to a

-l legitimate discovery. request and must be rejected. In light of

'LILCO's failure to raise any objection to Requests 1-11 and 15,

fotherdthan its unsupportable "mootness" objection, the Board

~

s

should compel lLILCO-to answer those requests without delay.

s - Furthermore, the County and the State disagree with LILCO's bald assertion'that its proposed. licensing condition makes any of

- :the Board's issues moot, for reasons which the County and State Eintend to address.when the strike issues are heard. Suffice it v

L' l

w ,

]  %;, ~2' l'J ., .;e :

e '

c. ..

}

5%; '

Jg M

Q.z$bn4+:=;$ ,e  ;

p(.

p- w.

toy.say,Lhowever, that1LILCO's licensing condition is vague,

~

'fC '

o, y -

sambiguous and, incomplete, particularly subpart (2) which would JpermitiLILCO:: '

, w ,

, ;to conductJsuch other operations as the Staff

~'

j' ,

lshalli approve if it is'shown that the strike-

"b i

~

.does'not,-in-fact, impair LILCO's ability to

..,..Y _ ., -implement-its offsite emergency preparedness

@ M p

@r;;@ s antplan. ~(Emphasis added).

V- n.

a ; m v. k; - <

V ' ;Asfis evidentxfrom this subpart, the question of whether a striky 4,' d

woul'rimpairiLILCO's ability to implement its plan is still an

n e fissue. ;Indeed, . this

subpart emphasizes the'importance of the N, ,

[ issue. ,Therefore, the State and County.are entitled to discovery

- s

on the matter.

r .

! In addition,fLILCO.'s: proposed licensing condition assumes c

'thatlin the;fdture'there will-be.a LERO of similar size and

,inaturei.as that which existed' prior to the strike.

At the July 19

' discussion of the strike issues,' counsel.for LILCO stated that

~ J"[t]h'e 'appro'priate; course is to presume, unless evidence emerges

~

p s:

- ;to th'e co'ntrary,~that,LERO,.as it is constituted, in the plan and Iin the evidence taken, will,.in fact, be so constituted-again by 4, {the - time - it'- is ' needed. " ' Tr. 13,839. This assumption, however, s

Emay(not:beuvalid. The State and County have a right to obtain.

W

- m - i'nformation regarding the validity of LILCO's assumption and to

g. -

q ~.

seek 1 evidence that may, in-fact, " emerge ( } to the contrary."~

7 ,

t 9-y

-- - ' _c., , -

, _ . , , - - - ,.n.,- I, p. .,w.-,- ,,.-,.we -y.,-,.,.,w.g ,,.,,-,-,.,,ng,-.m,,, m ,,.._ _ , w.--c., - -, ann,.-.,.

~

, s #

1;#

f?

t 4 ef^

.: / ,. . 1

e. m

x n..

.y n-

,..t x ._..

~

m

% :'; 7 y -

@g* -"

M ; Request': 12 seeks the identity, by job title, of non-union

,w iworkers who.could _be : relied upon to place t.he plant in cold shut-

.1

• down,.'orirun.the plant,Jin:the. face of a strike. LILCO has

[. Jrefused to respond to Request 12.because it is " burdensome,"

~

n f '" unnecessarily' intrusive," and would require LILCO to-reveal

' names'and pers'nal-information.about'its emplc. LILCO's

~

o -

w;% % : g:p. =<

p. Lobjectionihas no merit.-

'[ Request 12'is obviously relevant to the the

+

BoardR(particularly.~the second and third issut. in.

cold $hutdown) because LILCO'may be required t. ~

t 3 4,

Lachievefcold shutdown ~using only non-union per Request 12

g. -l(asjwell'as Requests'13,-14 and 16) is likely the State i.e and[the1.Countylin~ discovery whether there is-any basis for LILCO Ccounsel's bald assertion,-made on July 19 ii response to,. ques-p; - - -

hi2  ; tioning' from the .' Board . that' "there are enot an-union. personnel a: . .. .. ..

_;_ itofshut'the; plant _down safely.even if union- sonnel did walk-p, c

,foff thegiob withoutLany. notice." Tr. 13,851; see also, Tr.

l13, 84 8-8 4 9.1- Furthermore, LILCOs o.wn licensing condition says thatithe.; plant!may still-operate during a strike, if the NRC

~

~

[.

m Tapproves. RequestL:12 thus seeks information about how the licen-a ;A

~

sing:j conditilon, ~ particularly_ subpart (2), would be implemented.

L; t m ,

p, *

.In addition,.LILCO'has given no specifics'as to'why it w

Q, .believestRequest;12.'to be~" burdensome,"' casting serious doubt on

[the1 validity of its concern.. Finally, LILCO's objection that 14

'.;W i g

? .

.Of ~ > "* A .

Mt: _ = , - ' ,

.w - w.w

-,ya

.ay, ..

a TR equest:121is~" intrusive" and would require the identification of Lthe names"of personnel is unfounded in light of the specific Edirection that. personnel need be identified only by job title.

Therefore, for.the reasons stated above, the Board should compel

'LILCO'to respond to Request 12.

19 dB' -

t

Requesti-13 seeks all documents pertaining i.o or discussing fany commitment by LILCO to shut down the plant, or to keep it

, operating, in:the face of-a strike. LILCO's August 3 letter

. stated'that LILCO's licensing condition address the request "ade-lquately." LILCO's response, however, is inadequate.

f

/The second'and third issues raised by the Board in its

. Memorandum and Order clearly raise the issue of the efficacy and

. safety;of placing the-plant in cold shutdown during an actual or

? threatened' strike. LILCO's proposed licensing condition also purports to-make a commitment to go to cold shutdown under such p'

conditions, and'also to " conduct other operations" if the NRC

. approves. 'The State and the County are entitled to discovery on Lth'e issue raised by the Board, including discovery of what infor-x mation LILCO has about the feasibility and safety of going to e

cold: shutdown, and any information which explains how LILCO's

decision to go to cold shutdown (or to conduct "other opera-tions"): will be triggered. .Therefore, the Board should compel LLILCO'to supply'all documents responsive to Request 13.

(?w l 1

I

-v ,- - 4

• Finally,.LILCO has stated that the answers to Requests 14 candi16, also on the issue of cold. shutdown, can be found in the Shoreham FSAR and plant procedures. LILCO, however, did not fspecifylwhich parts of the FSAR, or which plant procedures, are

relevant.- Furthermore, LILCO did not specify whether other docu-

{, ments are responsive to the State's and County's joint request.

LILCO should be compelled to provide such information and/or

_g s L l copies of'the relevant documents immediately. .-

I '

-The State and County request this Board to give expeditious con, sideration to this matter.

Respectfully submitted, e

MARIO CUOMO, Governor of the State of New York FABIAN G. PALOMINO, ESQ.

Special Counsel to the Governor of the State of New York BY: 2 , _

RICHARD J. Z p LEU p , ESQ. / Q Assistant to the Special Counsel to the Governor of the State of New York r.

Martin Bradley Ashare Suffolk County Attorney H. Lee Dennison Building Veterans Memorial Highway Hauppauge, New York li788 L

y- -

n;; .

j .

7 3..

- [C" 'fN r

11 -

.=_- M -

~-...

KarlY J . Let'sc le Michael S. Miller 4 ~ Christopher M. McMurray 7

KIRKPATRICK, LOCKHART, HILL, CHRISTOPHER & PHILLIPS 1900~M Street, NW washington, DC 20036 Attorneys for Suffolk County r ;i;9 . ~ . . .

s:

7 9'

n l

. - - - -. - _ - - _ -~, ,__ . _ , . --.-- .-.. _.--_- - ,.- . _ _.__.--,,c ,__-, . . - - - - _

ATTACIIMENT 1 1

STATc or NEw YORK Executive CHAMBER FAS'AN PALOMINO Spaels' Counsel to the Govertwar August 1, 1984 BY TELECOPIER Donald P. Irwin, Esq.

Hunton & Williams P.O. Box 1535 707 East Main Street '

Richmond, Virginia 23212

Dear Don:

Pursuant to the Board's Memorandum and Order of July 24, 1984, I request that LILCO furnish the following information pertaining to the three issues raised by the Board in that Memorandum and Order as soon as possible, but in any event, no later than August 14, 1984:

1. The identity of any and all labor unions which repre-sent any LILCO employee affiliated with LERO.

2. A copy of any and all labor contracts between LILCO and any of the labor unions, or members of such unions, identified in response to request 1 above. In'the event that any such union or union member currently has no contract with LILCO in effect, please provide a copy of the contract which was in effect most recently.

3. The latest computer printout of LILCO employees who are members of LERO, effective immediately prior to the strike, in the same format as the printout provided to the County on June 21, 1984, and indicating which such workers are union members and the union affiliation of each such LERO workers.

4. A listing of all members of LERO who have resigned or withdrawn from LERO as a result of the current strike.

This may be done by job title to protect the identities of the workers.

. ~ .

v - -

Ih Y  %,

( . Donald P. Irwin, Esq. Auguct 1, 1984 p~g

5. All~ letters of resignation from LERO_ received by LILCO since July 1, 1984 and all other documents received since July 1, 1984 stating the intention of LERO workers to resign or withdraw from LILCO.

6. . All-documents received from labor unions listed in response to request 1 above, or officials of such unions, regarding their support or lack of support of LERO and/or LILCO's. radiological emergency response plan.

.7. All documents indicating the withdrawal of support for LERO by any union listed in response to request 1, or officials of such unions, for LERO and/or the LILCO radiological emergency response plan.

--Me -

g ,- -All documants pertaining to or discussing the impact of the documents identified in response to request 5, 4 6 and 7 on the ability of LILCO to implement it's radiological emergency response plan.

9. The identity of any and all labor unions which repre-9' ,

sent. employees who may be expected to respond to a radiological emergency and who are employed by organi-zations other than LILCO, including, but not limited to, ambulance companies, bus companies, radio stations, Radiofone Corporation and all support organizations (private and public/ nonprofit) identified in Appendix B of the LILCO Transition Plan.

10. A copy of any and all labor contracts between non-LILCO organizations and the personnel described in request 9

. above.

11. A listing, by job title, of the employees who are employed by non-LILCO organizations and who would be expected to respond to a radiological emergency at Shoreham, identifying which employees are union members and the union affiliation of each such employees.

11 2 . The number and identity, by LILCO job title, of all of the non-union LILCO employees (including, but not e limited to, reactor operators) upon whom LILCO would l" rely to place the reactor at the Shoreham Nuclear Power Station in cold shutdown in the face of a threatened or actual strike by union employees.

13. All documents which pertain to or discuss a commitment by LILCO to keep the shoreham reactor operating during a strike by union employees, or which pertain to or r: discuss a commitment by LILCO to place the Shoreham reactor in cold shutdown in the face of a threatened or actual strike by union employees.

~ _

Donnld P. Irwin, Ecq. August 1, 1984 s

m -

e - -

.34, ;371 documents which pertain to or discuss the ability lof.LILCO's non-union employees to place the Shoreham reactor in cold shutdown in the face of a threatened

' or actual'atrike by union employees, or which pertain to or discuss the ability of LILCO's non-union empicyees to keep the Shoreham reactor operating during a strike by union employees.

15. All documents which pertain to or discuss LILCO's or LERO's ability to implement its offsite radiological emergency preparedness plan during a strike by union employees.

16.. All documents which pertain to or discuss in any way 1the measures to be taken to place the Shoreham reactor

--:ua_. - " in cold shutdown in the face of a threatened or actual strike by LILCO's union employees.

..Please: construe the term " document" as used in this request to-include, but not be limited to, all draft or final memorander

. correspondence, questions, comments, reports, evaluations, ratings, summaries, notes, transcripts, minutes, summaries or notes of meetings,: discussions or conferences (including telephone con-forences). .Please also construe the term " document" to include, but not be limited to, documents in the possession or control of LILCO, LERO, LERIO,.any non-LILCO organization which employs persons who may be expected to respond to a radiological emergency lat.Shoreham, or any consultant or egntractor to such organizations.

' Counsel for the County has authorized me to inform you that

=the-county endorses this request and that copies of all information so provided to the State should also be furnished tc counsel for the

-County atltheir offices in Washington, D. C.

If you have any_ questions, please contact me at (518) 474-1238 or.Mr. McMurray at (202) 452-8391.

Sincerely, t .

7 r i I f g-

,J.Whoh

, y Richard n1'euter, Esq.

Assistant SpE6ial Counsel to the Governor lcca Mr. McMurray C m ag

3 i .. ATTACHMENT 2 H UNTON & WILLIAM S 2000 PENNSVbVANIA AVE NUE, N.W p o. Som se230

. . . . . . . . . . . , . . ..... w.m..,...o.c. oos. ... .. ......

"" :*;'. ..~ .".':*."* ,,u, .N. ,oa . e,, . .s oo ""~ ::l.'n:,". ""

.: '.'. *::.':*.:. ~ ::::,

.. *1* ::: ~::::T" Au9uat 3, 1984

""~~.'.'

4

....,n-...........m..

"" ~~.0Mla'."..".. .

.2. ".".*.* *, , . .. "?;:;"'.:;";"::"

""~;; , *n::: "~

,,a .

} .......~.......

= ~ Richard J. Zahnleuter, Esq.

Assistant special Counsel

'to ths Governct BY TELECOPIER ,

Executive Chamber -

State Capital Albany, New York 12224

Dear Rick:

Thank you for your letter dated Auguct 1, which arrived after the'close of business that evening. As you can see from the atta-ched letter to Chris McMurray, LILCO's potential witnesses -- Drs.

Cordaro and Stergakos and Messrs. Weismantle, Daverio, Rigert and Scalice -- will.be generally available for deposition between now and August 14, the cutoff of discovery set by the Board. I sug-gest that you ar.d Chris coordinate your desired discovery sched-ulos so that depositions of as many of these persons as you desire can be accomplished by the August 14 discovery cutoff date ordered

.by the Board.

with respect to the questions contained in your letter gener-ally, . they are not proper interrogatories or requests for produc-tion and LILCO does not intend to answer an informal letter plead-ing as such. With respect specifically to the questions 1-11, and 15, all of them have relevance only if LILCO intends to operate the Shoreham reactor during a strike in a fashion which presumes the unimpaired ability of LERO to perform its functions. LILCO stipulates that it cannot guarantee that there are no circumstanc-es under which LERC's ability to function would be impaired during a strike by LILCO employees. Therefore, LILCC intends to take the reactor to cold shutdown in the manner outlined below in the c event of a strike against LILCO. Thus, questions 1-11 and 15 are moot and LILCO does not propose to answer them. Question 12 is burdensome, unnecessarily intrusive, and deals with personnel recordus as you know, LILCC will not voluntarily provide names or other personal information about its employees. However, you may i

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

H UNTON & WILLI AMM obtain rslovant information on this matter in your deposition Of Mr. Scalice, the plant Operations Manager. Question 13 is ad-dressed adequately by the stipulation above and the proposed li-cense condition below. Questions 14 and 16 eddress the same sub-

-ject and, generally speaking, involve numerous parts of the FSAR and plant procedures. She FSAR is available; LILCO will endeavor to make available to you any specific pertinent plant procedures.

You may wish to depose the LILCG witnesses, particularly Mr.

Scalice, on these questions.

If New York State intends to present any witnesses, please

' advise me promptly of their names, qualifications, expected areas of testimony, documents to be relied on, and those dates between now and August 14 when they will be available for discovery.

LILCO will oppose New York State's proffering any witness whom it has not had a reasonable opportunity to depose on or before August 14.

7 New York State may prefer a reasonabic resolution of this matter to litigation. LILCO would be willing to accept the fol-lowing condition on the operating license at Shoreham:

PROPOSED LICENSE CONDITION So long as LILCO shall rely on an offsite emergency response organization consisting

"' entirely or primarily of LILCO employees, then

.. in anticipation of the commencement of a strike by a union representing LILCO employ-ees, LILCO shall bring the Shoreham Nuclear Power Station (SNPS) to cold shutdown condi-tion using normal operating proceourcs. LILCO shall commence bringing SNPS to cold shutdown condition 24 hours2.777778e-4 days <br />0.00667 hours <br />3.968254e-5 weeks <br />9.132e-6 months <br /> prior to the commencement of such strike, or immediately upon receipt of less than 24 hours2.777778e-4 days <br />0.00667 hours <br />3.968254e-5 weeks <br />9.132e-6 months <br />' notice of the impending commencement of a strike, with the goal of having the plant in cold shutdown condition by the time the strike commences. LILCO shall maintain-SNPS in cold chutdown condition until the end of the strike except that, with the prior approval of the NRC Staff upon review of written application by LILCO, LILCG shall be permitted:

(1) to take the reactor to a refueling mode to conduct refueling or other operations requiring access to the

s ..

. s.

.[ HunroN & WILLI AMS reactor core if it is shown that such operations cannot result in the occurrence of any events requiring offsite emergency response capabili-ty;)and (2) to conduct such other operations as the Staff shall approve if it is shown that the strike does not, in fact, impair LILCO's ability to im-plement its offsite emergency p 2-

paredness plan.

e ugy .This-condition shall terminate.at such time as any or any combination of agencies of the Fed-eral, New York State, or Suffolk County gov-ernments shall provide to the NRC written no-tice of its or their agreement, under terms J- ,

and. conditions approved by FEMA, to assume legal responsibility for effectuation of offsite emergency response for Shoreham Nucle-oar Power Station.

Please telephone me in our hashington office (202/955-1500) by 44:00 this afternoon if you are agreeable to resolving this issue lon this basis.- If you fail to call, I will infer that New York State is not so willing.

Sin erely yours, I'/ r, Donald P. Irwin 91/730 cc Christopher M. McMurray, Esq.

Edwin J..Reis, Esq.

Bernar6-M.'Bordenick, Esq.

Stewart M. Glass, Esq..

n 4

4/

Li L:--

c=y .

ch;' ~

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSION W

p.

Before the Atomic Safety and Licensing Board

^

)

'In the Matter of )

)

LONG ISLAND LIGHTING COMPANY ) Docket No. 50-322-OL-3

) (Emergency Planning)

+pf -:.(Ehnraham Nuclear: Power Station, )

Unit'1) )

)

s CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE

'ILhereby certify that copies of JOINT MOTION.0F NEW YORK STATE A!E) SUFFOLK COUNTY TO COMPEL DISCOVERY dated August 7, 1984, have been served to the following this 7th day of August 1984 by U.S. mail, first class, except as otherwise noted.

James A. Laurenson, Chairman

• James B. Dougherty, Esq.

Atomic Safety and Licensing Board '3045 Porter Street, N.W. -

U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission Washington, D.C. 20008 Washington, D.C. ~20555 Mr. Jay Dunkleberger

^

, . Dr'. Jerry R. Kline

• New York State Energy Office Administrative Judge Agency Building 2

' Atomic Safety and Licensing Board Empire State Plaza

'.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission U Albany,'New York 12223 Washington, D.C. 20555 W. Taylor Reveley, III, Esq.#

Mr. Frederick J.'Shon

• Hunton & Williams u .AdministrativeLJudge P.O. Box 1535

-- Atomic Safety and ' Licensing Board 707 East Main Street e U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission Richmond, Virginia 23212 Washington, D.C. 20555

~

Edward M. Barrett, Esq. Spence Perry, Esq.

General Counsel Associate General Counsel

< 'Long Island Lighting Company Federal Emergency Management 250 Old' Country Road Agency c Mineola, New York 11501 Washington, D.C. 20472

(?

$: ;;:: z

(--

• i b:

) -Mr. Brian McCaffrey~ Stephen B. Latham, Esq.

H LLong Island Lighting Company Twomey, Latham a Shea

'Shoreham NucJear Power Station P.O. Box 398

'P.O. Box 618 33 West Second Street t'- North Country-Road Riverhead, New York 11901 Wading River, New York 11792 Ms. Nora Bredes

, Marc W.' Goldsmith Executive Coordinator

' Energy Research Group, Inc. Shoreham Opponents' Coalition

< _400-1 Totten Pond Road 195 East Main Street

, .e Waltham,-Massachusetts 02154 Smithtown, New York 11787 Joel Blau, Esq. MHB Technical Associates 4" New York Public Service Commission 1723 Hamilton Avenue The; Governor Nelson A. Rockefeller Suite K Building San Jose, California 95125

. Empire State Plaza 1  ; Albany, New York 12223 lion. Peter F. Cohalan

{E .

Suffolk County Executive L Martin Bradley'Ashare, Esq. H. Lee Dennison Building Suffolk1 County Attorney Veterans Memorial Highway H.' Lee Dennison Building Hauppauge, New York 11788 b

Veterans Memorial Highway Hauppauge, New York 11788 Atomic Safety and Licensing r Appeal Board Atomic Safety and Licensing Board U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Panel- Commission U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission Washington, D.C. 20555 Washington, D.C. 20555 1.-

_ Docketing _and Service Section Jonathan D. Feinberg, Esq.

Office of_the Secretary Staff Counsel U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission New York State Public 7 1717 11 Street,'N.W. Service Commission

[; Washington, D.C. 20555 3 Rockefeller Plaza Albany, New York 12223

.! D,J Bernard M. Bordenick, Esq.

• David'A. Repka, Esq. Stuart Diamond

. Edwin J. Reis, Esq. Business / Financial U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission New York Times

Washington, D.C. 20555- 229 W. 43rd Street New York, New York 10036 Stewart M. Glass, Esq. Eleanor L. Frucci, Esq. *

, Regional Counsel Atomic Safety and Licensing Federal Emergency Management Board Panel Agency, U.S. Nuclear Regulatory 26 Federal Plaza, Room 1349 Commission New York, New York 10278 Washington, D.C. 20555 i

i _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _

I ar' : .-

i Fabian Palomino, Esq. #

Special Counsel to J the Governor  ;

Executive Chamber, Room 229 State Capitol Albany, New York 12224

~ '

. risto;fher !f. McMurray KIRKPATRICK, LOCKHART, HILL, CHRISTOPHER & PHILLIPS 1900 M Street, NW, Suite 800 Washington, D.C. 20036 y Dated: -August 7, 1984'

• By Hand

-. 4 By Telecopior

l' -

L N .

I f-I' y

,,,...n.-,,-----,..-,--e,r- ,-------w -o.-w-~--, - , - - ----w~~---+--- -~~r-n---- -e-- s~n,wwv