ML20094D512
| ML20094D512 | |
| Person / Time | |
|---|---|
| Site: | Shoreham File:Long Island Lighting Company icon.png |
| Issue date: | 08/06/1984 |
| From: | Irwin D HUNTON & WILLIAMS, LONG ISLAND LIGHTING CO. |
| To: | Atomic Safety and Licensing Board Panel |
| References | |
| OL-3, NUDOCS 8408080428 | |
| Download: ML20094D512 (22) | |
Text
.z' Wy RELISTED C0;RE2FO!!DENCE LILCO, August 6, 198'4'
^,
gh Q:*~
N c
UNITED STATES OF AMERICA T~ 1 NUCLEARLREGULATORY COMMISSION Opch8
^
OS Before the Atomic Safety and' Licensing Board '84
$90 -g NO:17
- InlthA. Matter of
)
- 19., ++
9 LLIGHTING' COMPANY Docket No. 50-322-OL-3
')
(Emergency Planning Proceeding)
- (Shoreham Nuclear Power Station, )
- Unit 11)
)
.m LILCO'S' OPPOSITION TO SUFFOLK COUNTY'S DILATORY PLEADINGS-ON STRIKE ISSUES AND MOTION TO DIRECT THE1 PARTIES TO PROVIDE TIMELY DISCOVERY ON DIRECT CASE
" 1 Barely'a wesk into.the:.five-week period established by this Board to prepare for.a narrow, structured hearing on three-issues raised by the Board. relative to the current-LILCO strike, Suffolk iCounty began complaining about its professed ability to meet that
- schedule.lf -Three days later.the County asked the Board both to encumber.its own; inquiry with written testimony and to delay it by three weekii2/
Similar'1etters have-been sent by the County to
~
LILCO counsel. 'For the reasons. set forth below, LILCO believes E
!that.th'e-Board should-reject Suffolk County's complaints, promptly JandLoutright.
- ;+
l M ~ f"Suffolk County's Motion to Board Regarding Schedule for
. Hearing the Strike. Issues," July 31, 1984.
P
- 2A "Suffolk-County's Motion for. Reconsideration of Board's
- July-24forder.Kegarding Schedule for Hearing and Prohibiting
. Written-Testimony;.on-the Strike Issues,." August 3, 1984.
t y
Q SD nd
?
w..
. e4osoeo42s 06 V
PDR-ADDcK o 322-
- {
0, PDR
, i i
- Second, LILCO has been compelled to conclude that Suffolk County has embarked upon a course of conduct which will make time-ly litigation of this matter impossible without default by Suffolk County, severe prejudice to LILCO, or further direction by this eu r-LBoard.
The seriousness'of this possibility is such that LILCO, as a party. vitally affected by the pace of this litigation, is com-pelled to bring the matter to the Board's attention at this early date and to seek appropriate relief.
g I.
Suffolk County's Request for a Three-Week Delay and for Encumbered Proceedings Should be Rejected On July 24,'this Board delineated'three issues which it felt needed resolution as a result of the current strike by LILCO's two
~1ab9r unions.
The Board's Order permitted three weeks for discov-Jery and, rather than requiring written testimony, permitted the
. parties.to proceed at hearing by live oral testimony.
The Board's Order is capable of being implemented; indeed,
. within 10 days of its issuance Suffolk County and LILCO had exchanged _ potential witness lists in preparation for depositions, and New York State had filed a request for production of docu-
,ments.3/_ The Board should adhere to the July 24 Order, for the f'
'following reasons:
.sb/ -
The-aspects of the discovery process that will, in LILCO's judgment, tend inevitably to frustrate the accomplishment of the Board's schedule unless redressed are set forth in Part II aof-this-pleading.
"i
~ '"
L
- 1.
lThe issues raised by the July 24 Order were raised sua
'sponte-bysthe Board, after consideration of the parties' views.
Presumablyithe Board had in mind a scope of inquiry-proportionate to the time frame and procedures it allotted.
The Board is rea-r
_ sonably.. entitled under its supervisory poucrs in 10 CFR S 2.718 to e
control the scope and schedule for the hearing, particularly since it'is the Board's own inquiry that must be satisfied.
i-
.2.-
'LILCO has both provided_the other parties with detailed advance notice-of its case and has significantly. narrowed -- LILCO
! believes, totally resolved -- any reasonable basis for dispute on
'th'e Board's-questions.
LILCO accomplished this by the offer of a
-license condition requiring Shoreham to be put into cold shutdown
-in the event of a strike,~and supporting affidavits, contained in its August 3 Motion for Summary Resolution.4/
LILCO has also of-fered to make its potential witneases generally available for dis-covery through' August 14 for further discovery on its case.
Thus LILCO has expedited preparation for litigation of whatever issues,
'if any, will need to be tried.
4/-
In its August 3 Motion for Summary Resolution LILCO (1)
' stipulated that it could not guarantee that LERO' c effec-
-tiveness would never be impaired by a strike involving a major-ity of its members, and (2) offered to put the Shoreham unit into cold shutdown in the event of such a strike.
LILCO be-lieves that this commitment, backed up by the affidavits at-tached to the Motion for Summary Resolution, resolved any mate-
' rial issues of fact on Board Questions 2 and 3.
What is certain is that they totally mooted Board Question 1.
U k-
gv
-. r-3.
Suffolk County's complaint about a shortage of resources to fulfill.-its responsibilities on this issue in a timely manner cannot be credited.
At the same time as it asserts that it can conimit time for only two. lawyers to the Emergency Planning pro-ceeding -,the proceeding which it has endlessly referred to as
.being " unique" and " centrally important"-to the ultimate resolu-
~
g
- tion of the entire Shoreham proceeding -- the County is attempting to secure access _for four of its lawyers to Safeguards Information in theilow-power license proceeding.5/
The fact that Suffolk County is also embroiled in litigation on other issues as well is no-excuse, since.Suffolk County's participation in each of them is purely voluntary.
Suffolk County has entered the appearance of at least 12 lawyers from the firm of Kirkpatrick, Lockhart, et al. in various phases of this case.
Within limits, parties' allocation Lof-resources is their own business.
When, however, that alloca-tion operates to frustrate completion of legitimate goals, it be-l lcomes the1 business of other parties and the Board.
LILCO submits P
~that this issue'has now reached these proportions.
4.
Written prefiled testimony is not a requirement of NRC
' regulations, as even Suffolk County's Motion for Reconsideration concedes.
It merely aids in focusing a hearing, particularly when
-5/
-One of-these, Mr. Miller, is among the two lawyers the County admits to having still'available for this proceeding.
4 The;other three -- Messrs. Brown and Lanpher and Ms. Letsche --
have_all appeared in this proceeding and are presumably conver-sant with~it.
o-
r
. ?
pg
^
~1s' sues are broad-ranging,-complex and technical.
The so-called
- strike" issues are discrete and~not excessively technical.
Prefiled written testimony is not needed.6/. In any event, LILCO's affidavits provide Suffolk County with notice of the outlines and a
Jmuch detail of its direct case, more than three weeks before the
-hearing.
Though LILCO would not object to Suffolk County's profiling-written testimony before August 28, LILCO does not in-
~
tend to complain about the use of live direct testimony as a means L
Lto.come to' hearing on this discrete set of issues, as long as it has had a chance to obtain discovery of each of Suffolk County's
! intended witnesses.7/
In short, the so-called " strike" issue consists of three lim-tited questions raised.by the' Board; their resolution is Within the LBoard's sound discretion.-
LILCO has attempted to aid this process by-filing its Motion for Summary Resolution, intended to narrow the issues and to put the parties on notice of its case, and by offering its witnesses for. deposition.
Suffolk County's 6/
Suffolk County's reference (Motion for Reconsideration at
The context of the discussion quoted by Suffolk County was a Licensing Board's consideration of a re-quest by certain intervenors to both (1) refuse to submit to
. discovery and then (2) submit testimony live, with no advance notice.' The Licensing Board totally correctly rejected this
-no-notice. approach, which is a far cry from the focused oppor-tunity for a live hearing, following discovery, contemplated by
'this-Board's July 24 Order.
7/
Suffolk County's apparent intent to defy the Board's July 24 Order in this regard is treated in Part II of this motion.
i l
r--
o y
. complaints about this schedule involve resource-allocation con-4; flicts entirely of its own making.
If the County is directed to
- concentrate its energy on taking discovery and finding and
- preparing witnesses rather than on filing dilatory pleadings, or lelse risk default, this issue can be tried on the reasonable schedule set by the Board.
Otherwise, it will not be.
II.
This Board's Prompt Intervention is Necessary to Ensure That Suffolk County Does Not Create
-a Situation Where Delay Is Inevitable As'of this morning, August 6, it became clear to LILCO that Suffolk: County was embarked upon a course which, unless promptly corrected, must lead either to barring of direct testimony by Suffolk. County witnesses, prejudicial denial of LILCO's right to L
- obtain discovery of'Suffolk County witnesses, or delay in the hearing on'the " strike" issues.
While LILCO knows long since of this Board's distaste for being required to resolve discovery dis-p
_putes, this. matter has ramifications well beyond discovery gener-sally, and go'to the integrity of the hearing process.
Its ele-tments are-twofold:
first, refusing to make its witnesses available for discovery as required by the Board's July 24 Order; I
-and second,_ seeking to delay the hearing rather than obeying the k.
fBoard's Order and preparing for it.
k A.
Refusal to Comply with Discovery:
On July 26, LILCO asked Suffolk County, by letter, to designate its intended wit-
-nesses on the so-called " strike" issues (Attachment 1).
On August 4
y_
4' i-
. p.
- 2,:Suffolk county replied by letter, designating four witnesses (and stating that others might be named in the future) but making only two of them (Lieutenant Fakler, Mr. Minor) available at all
..for deposition in the Board-ordered discovery period, and then
.cnly on August 13 and 14 (Attachment 2).
On August 3, LILCO wrote to Suffolk County (Attachment 3), requesting depositions of these witnesses on August 14 and presaging its proposed basis for reso-lution of the " strike" issues.
On August 6, Suffolk County re-fused by letter-(Attachment 4) to make these witnesses available on August 14 despite its earlier representation that they would be, giving as the reason that emergency planning hearings would be in session that day and Suffolk County could not make attorneys available to represent them.
LILCO replied by letter later that day (Attachment 5) urging Suffolk County to reconsider and renoticing.the depositions for August 13 (Attachment 6); a paral-lel telephone call, placed by Mr. Irwin to Mr. McMurray at about 11:00 on~ August 6, has not been returned.g/
The upshot of this is that, with the possible exception of
- August 13 (as to which LILCO has been unable to gain any informa-tion from Suffolk County), Suffolk County will not be making any of its intended witnesses available for discovery within the dead-
'line set by the Board.9/
u
@/
On August 3, LILCO requested New York State to identify any witnesses it intended-co sponsor in time to be deposed by August 14; LILCO has not yet received any reply from New York State.
jb/.
LILCO, by contrast, on August 3, identified its witnesses, made them generally available for deposition, and indicated their basic testimony.
L
~
'This situation is.obviously unacceptable, since it could re-sult either:in Suffolk County's presenting its entire case through
. live direct testimony without any notice to LILCO or in an
~
Lunwarranted delay in the hearing caused by Suffolk County's defi-w; ance ofJthe Board's July 24 Order.
LILCO requests that this Board specifically, and promptly, direct that any party wishing to spon-
- sor direct testimony make each of the witnesses through whom it intends to present that testimony available for deposition within the ordered discovery period.lOf B.
Dilatory Conduct: ~ Contrary to Suffolk County's implicit assumption, the identification of a new issue does not necessarily engender.a long delay;11/ it.all depends on the issue and the con-
- duct'of-the. parties. -The Board has taken steps, in its July 24
- 10/
For.the. reasons stated in.Part I, LILCO does not believe that any: extension of the discovery period is warranted.
LILCO vould be willing to extend it by one week,.to August 21, as long as the August 28 hearing date was not disturbed; but from
~
Mr. McMurray's August 2 letter, it appears that such an exten-
- sion.would not increase the number of Suffolk County witnesses
. available.
11/
Suffolk County refers to dictum in the recent Indian Point emergency planning case, LBP-83-68, 18 NRC 811.(1983) for the proposition that new issues necessarily mean substantial de-lays.. Motion for Reconsideration at 4-5.
Three things may be
. noted'above the County's reference.
First, the Indian Point
-Licensing Board's observations while interesting commentary on imC practice is dictum and too general to be directly applied.
Second, it. referred to full-blown hearings starting from scratch, whereas here the issue is familiar and narrow, advance information has been provided, and the Board has explicitly crafted procedures to eliminate delay.
Finally, one of the
' current Board members was on the Indian Point Board; presuma-bly,'if he thought that an improper schedule were being pro-posed here, lie would not have joined in the Board's July 24 Order.
i m
-4 14
p a
gi ua f*
b 9_
, 0? ' x:
Order,ftoEavoid unnecessary delay.
Rather than comply with that p
Order, however, Suffolk County has merely stated that each of its e:
four named witnesses will be " unavailable" for unspecified reasons during most or all'of the period between now and August 28, and i
- - - uthat'not one of them would be available on August 23, the day of the' hearing.
Neither the reasons for these witnesses' ostensible
~ unavailability nor the scope of the County's assertedly fruitless search for'other relevant witnesses is specified.
'Similarly, the County's entire volume of paper to date on this issue -- two. pleadings, at least two letters -- has been di-rected'to forestalling an August 28 hearing rather than
.acomplishing it.
Suffolk County has not yet taken any steps to request the o
depositions of LILCO's prospective witnesses.
LILCO does not ob-Lject.to this, so long as the County is not allowed to use this de-fault later to delay the August 28 hearing.
It goes without saying that LILCO has a vital stake in the i
- progress as well as the final outcome of this proceeding.
Suffolk county's gambit of refusing to accede to the inherent requirements of the Board's schedule, if it succeeds, will both flout this Board's authority and prejudice LILCO in numerous ways, not limit-C-
'ed to the'$1.4 million daily cost of debt service for Shoreham.
I The Board should not permit this type of behavior.
k
=
I f
i
r CONCLUSION For the reasons stated above, LILCO urges the Board to take
.two steps:
1.
to'promptly deny Suffolk County's August 3 " Motion for
-Reconsideration" both as to its scheduling aspects and live-
' testimony aspects, with the_ caveat that nothing in the Board's Order-should be understood to prohibit Suffolk County from filing direct testimony in written form (if it chooses so to file) far enough before the August 28 hearing to put the other parties ade-tquately on notice; and
-y6 2.
to explicitly.put all parties on notice that if they wish n
h
-to present direct testimony, they must have made available each witness for deposition before the close of discovery.
t 4
Respectfully submitted, LONG ISLAND LIGHTING COMPANY f
Donald P.
Irwin HUNTON & WILLIAMS
- P.O. Box 1535 707' East Main Street Richmond, Virginia 23212 DATED:
August 6, 1984 d
A
ATTACHMENT 1 HUNTON & WILLIAMS 707 East MAIN Stasst P.O. Box 1535 a000 me==e,6va= a ave =ws. =, w.
HIcnuowo, V aoIwIA a3212 ae......,:=o, e o somisaae
=tw voan. =sw voo..o.v.
was
=oto=.o c.acose
'est==o=c a a eso eaoo trkes=o=a aca.een..soo Tc La pwo N C 804 788 8200 eausa veaves
. 333 sowr= oma=0 avt=we TWX 710 956 - Q 068 e e a t owso a.o a o som ios Los *=os6se. cavroa='a soo?*
aest c= =ca'- cano6+a ateoa
'tLao-o=aa.s setasoo
-rwce-o=c sie see oa,.
'"Y*
e.eseec==csseres==ausamo ainst vies..a sa== towse a o so. os.
Ju1y 26, 1984 "o ' 'ec =*a* =e~.,* *.*>", a,'.
2..'
2 v s..oue. v.
,=.a aso no.a
'au e.6..,o...ae.e so.
=on.. oe.a.
"+t =o osaccv o.46 =o soa vee.
Michael S. Miller, Esq.
Christopher M.
McMurray, Esq.
Kirkpatrick, Lockhart, Hill, BY TELECOPIER Christopher & Phillips 1900 M Street, N.W.
Eighth Floor Washington, D.C.
20036
Dear Mike and Chris:
I write to you since, as I understand it, you are now jointly in charge of Suffolk County's emergency planning work.
The Board's July 24 Memorandum and Order concerning the effect of a strike on LERO indicates that it expec ts the par-ties to present oral testimony on August 28, and that it expects parties to complete such discovery on this issue as is necessary prior to August 14.
By this letter, I request that the County. advise LILCO, either through me or Jim Christman, as to whether it intends to produce any witnesses on the matters addressed in the Board's July 24 Order.
If the answer is in the affirmative, please notify us, as soon as possible, of the following:
1.
The name of each witness being proffered by the County; 2.
His or her professional qualifications, if they are not already in the record; 3.
A statement of the areas in which the witness is expected to testify; and 4.
Any documents on which the witness intends to rely in his or her testimony.
r,
_2-HuwroN & WILLIAMS LILCO will want to depose any witnesses being proffered by
. the County and would like to complete any such depositions prior to August 14.
Sincerely yours, A
d Donald P'.
Irwin
. 91/730 9
6 i
\\ !
t
~
.r.
..~..,,s
,,,,,_.,,_._w-_
._-_y...
,---..-rw,.
~
ATTACHMENT 2 KrameArazcz, Locmasamr, Hzz.x,, CuaraTOPumm & PHILUPS A phampuusemP heSSSESW A N Ci seco M Srmast, N.W.
Wasummercer, D, C. sooms same SemW S&t, # 3895 TB&BPHONWr(See) M*f988 sees esAvem stfatessee 58458. N M (see SP4 005 g
FITTESUnes. NY&h544 leses (es;ses.esee August 2, 1984 wassess armee, esas wwwson (202) 452-8391 BY TELECOPIER Donald P.
Irwin, Esq.
Hunton 4 Williams P.O. Box 1535 707 East Main Street Richmond, Virginia 23212
Dear Don:
This is to identify witnesses the County presently intends to rely upon for testimony on the strike issues raised by the Board in its July 24, 1984 Order.
As of this date, the County proposes to offer the testimony of the following four witnesses:
Deputy Inspector Peter Cosgrove, Lieutenant John Fakler and i
Professor David J. Olson and Mr. Gregory C. Minor, all of whom have previously testified before the Board on other matters.
Deputy Inspector Cosgrove, Lieutenant Fakler and Professor Olson
]
will address primarily the first issue set out in the Board's July 24 Order.
Mr. Minor will address primarily the second and third issues in that Order.
The County is continuing its efforts to identify other witnesses and will bring them to your attention as soon as they are known to the County.
Please be advised that Inspector Cosgro.ve is unavailable
.from August 6-20 and August 27-28.
Lieutenant Fakler is avail able for deposition from now through August 13, but is not avail-able to appear during the week of August 28.
Professor Olson is not available during the entire month of August, but is available after September 3.
Greg Minor is available during the week of August 13 and during the week of september 10.
i I assume from your failure to identify witnesses to appear on LILCO's behalf that you are also experiencing difficulty in preparing your case within the time allotted by the Board.
Massamairuscs, f--r, Enss., Cummeverasam & Pum.r.rpe Don 21d P. Irwin, Esq.
1 August 2, 1944
.Pcg3 2
.N;vartheless, please inform me as soon as you are aware of the witnesses LILCO intends to offer on the strike issues.
Yours truly, Christopher M. McMurray A
me
~a.
a e
d
_, ~ _.
ATTACHMENT 3
.,1 8
HuwroN & WII.I.IAMS 2000 PENNevt.VANIA AVENut. N.W.
P.O. Box 8923o v.,
, =.,
o me..s.
WAsunworow. D.C. soooo
......w.
"".~~;'.'O' *.*"*
" " ~ .' 1 *,".' "
m s
.Ns,o 9.....oo
~
y*!55~/;3f/.'!*'.
Aususe 3, 19s4
..yf,*3."f,g,""j,,,'.1,
"" '~'~
;* "."":.'*~* *
.... :.. n".". L,,...
. ;;=:,:;,;;, :::. ::,
. "~a
" ~ * ~ ' ' = ~ = ~
,. a.,...
-Christopher M. McMurray, Esq.
Kirkpatrick', Lockhar t, Hill, BY HAND Christopher &'Phillips 1900 M Street, N.W.
Eighth Floor
- Washington, D.C.-
20036
Dear Chris:
' Your letter of August 2, responding to my letter of July 26, arrived here yesterday evening by telecopier.
LILCO includes among its potential witnesses at the August 28 hearing the follow-ing names:
Matthew C. Cordaro, John A. Weismantle, Charles A.
' Daverio, John Riger t, John A. Scalice and Elias P.- Stergakos.
Messrs. Cordaro, Weismantle, caverio, and Rigert have testified
.previously.
Mr. Scalice is Operations Manager of the Shoreham Nu-clear' Power Station.
Dr. Stergakos is Manager of LILCO's Radia-tion-Protection Division.
Dr. Cordaro will testify primarily on Board Question 1.
Messrs. Rigert, Scalice and Stergakos will pri-marily testify on Board Guestions 2 and 3.
Messrs. Weismantle and r
Daverio'are generally conversant will a11' issues raised by'the Board's July 24 Order.
These witnesses will be available general-ly'for deposition during normal business hours between now and August 14 on Long Island.
If further witnesses are designated, LILCO will promptly' notify Suffolk County then.
t With respect to your notice of the availability of the Coun-ty's four expected witnesses for discovery, please be advised that LILCO wishes to depose both Lieutenant Fakler and Mr. Minor on August-14, preferably on Long Island.
I don't consider that you have.fairlf: offered to make Lieutenent Cosgrove available during the discovery period prescribed by the Board, given that during that entire period he is stated to be "available" only today.
As I understand you, the County does not propose to make Mr. Olson available at all'.for discovery within the allotted discovery peri-od.
-p-*.
9 wp-y-
e-wo,.w*wyyy,,yv,y.py i-,
ywwvse.
,e-.-y w y o.y e w - ww
- e a w - ww m m ww-
r--
~ *.
Huwrow & WILLIAMS As you can see from the above, LILCO does not share the dif-ficulties which you profess with preparing for the August 28 hear-ing.
Please be advised that LILCO does not intend to consent to any deferral of the hearing.
I am sure, given the resourcefulness the County has shown in the past, that the County, if it wishes to present witnesses at the hearing, will do so.
All LILCO demands is.the: realistic opportunity to obtain discovery on anyone whom the County proposes to proffer, on or before the August 14 cutoff.
- LILCO will object to the appearance of any witnesses on behalf of the County whom it has not had a reasonable opportunity to depose by August 14.
You may find a reasonable resolution of this matter prefera-ble to litigation.
LILCO would be willing to accept the following i
condition on an 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-4 ees, LILCO shall bring the Shoreham Nuclear Power Station (SNPS) to cold shutdown condi-tion using normal operating procedures.
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 shutdown condition until the end of the strike except that, with the prior approval of the NRC Staff upon review of written application by LILCO, LILCO shall be permitted:
(1) to take the reactor to a refueling mode to conduct refueling or other c
operations requiring access to the 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 d
- +
+
v v v
w-
,w----wer.--.iw,---
wr.----w---r--,c-4
-m---..-------...--
m
w-.-
-,-r-r,---e---
}
- Huwrow & WrLLIAxs fact, impair LILCO's ability to in-plement its-offsite emergency pre-paredness plan.
- 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 and conditions approved by FEMA, to assume
- legal responsibility for effectuation of offsite emergency response for Shoreham Nucle-ar Power Station.
~ Please' telephone me in our Washington office (955-1500) by 4:00 this afternoon if the County wishes to resolve the issue on this basis.
Otherwise I shall assume that Suffolk County rajects this proposal.
Sinc rely yours, i
.Nn Donald P.
Irwin 91/730 Edwin J.~Reis, Esq.
cc Bernard M. Bordenick, Esq.
Stewart M. Glass, Esq.
Richard J.
Zahnleuter, Esq.
O 9
,,---,--n,-+mme---
m-rw,,-,,,-,ewn,,v-m_
-,,-r.-
,- p y-r e e
rwe-
ATTACHMENT 4 KzmuyATazcx, Locx3EART, HILL, CHRISTOMena & Px Lxaps A Passmessase Eseneseos A muernesses.w ceasemagnes seco M Srmaar, N. W.
WAssurorcer, D. C. 3000e sees sensmana, sness assaass,Pueessa sense vasarmossasee; dee rose feeW OFe= tee sees ouvee avu.neme y Tvencasm, yes,meVLwAmaa aseos (ese;ege eege August 6, 1984 8
6 SSWeCT 38A& m (202) 452-8391 B_Y TELECOPIER Donald P. Irwin, Esq.
Hunton a Williams P.O. Box 1535 707 East Main Street Richmond, Virginia 23212
Dear Don:
which you identify some of the " potential" witnesses LILCOI rec 3 in intends to rely upon to provide testimony on the strike issues raised by the Board in its July 24 Order.
I also received tion of the strike issues.approximately two hours later LILCO's motion for summ Your request to depose Greg Minor and Lieutenant Fakler on August 14 is unacceptable to the County since, as you are aware, the emergency planning hearings resume on that date and counsel will be unavailable to defend the witnesses' depositions.
With respect to LILCO's summar County will respond in due course. y disposition motion, the Yours truly, Christopher M. McMurray I
ATTACHMENT 5 Huwrow & WILLIAus 707 CAar MAIN STm..T P.O. Box 1535 RIeauown. V:morwrA aoaae
...u.
aooo a.m*.yt.waa** m.au
- n. w.
. o. on..ase
=.w vca.. =.. voan io,,
,T."!":.'.!;o* !."*.",o r.u.....o 7....
oo
""'""l.',?,".*'
TWX-7tO 956 *COSI
.. & v.vitoine a o.o. so.
Lo.333.ouva omaac Aw."u.
s6s.,C.v,on...oor, n.c. ion.nonen c..ov..e,.ca n a
.,,s..,=...oo na o~..........v.
,.., n o..........v.mo..
. vo.
A
-,,.l.3.."".'"*...
August 6, 1984
" " ""'"';.". ".'"."l.',' f,'."'
"" 7.*'t. 7.7.*l' *"'
24566.000003
,'.u ao-
...c,
..u.... n.. 8357 Michael S. Miller, Esq.
Christopher M. McMurray, Esq.
Kirkpatrick, Lockhart, Hill, BY TELECOPIER Christopher & Phillips
-1900 M Street, N.W.
Eighth Floor Washington, D.C.
20036 Dedt Mike and Chris:
.On Saturday I became aware of two pleadings filed by Suf folk County, one dated July 31 and the other dated August 3, concerning the litigation of the so-called " strike" issue.
The purpose of this letter is to urge you to schedule forthwith the
' depositions of LILCO witnesses who were designated in my August 3 letter to Chris McMurray and whom Suffolk County wishes to
' depose.
LILCO also expects that if Suf folk County contemplates presenting any testimony through Lieutenant Cosgrove or Mr.
Olson, the County will make them available for deposition on or before August 14.
I look forward to hearing from you imminently.
If, for any reason, I am not in the office, I urge you to reach Jim Christman or Lee Zeugin to make the necessary arrangemente.
I'have also received Chris McMurray's letter this morning, refusing to schedule Mr. Minor and Lieutenant Fakler available for depositions on August 14, despite the fact that both of these witnesses are available in fact that day.
This response by' the County is in direct defiance of the Board's Order of
' July 24. J urge you to reconsider your position.
Sincerely yours, Donald P.
Irwin 91/730
m -
q; ATTACHMENT 6 s
4 HUNTON & WILLIAMS 707 EAsf MAIN STsessT P.O. box 1535 Escasasown. V motwsA emets aos
...vs.ua seeo seem.sevusasma menue. =.w.
s. o. som essee at* voan. atw vonn ioeve unne.n.seveen, p. c. seese.
s vtLce omt aia-soo eaoo
-tats es.sseeseeseee TELKPMONE SO4 +784 8200 vassa 7s.vos asa seuem esame me=us -
TWW.Teo 956 0060 m e a e mustoimo a o. mon noe Lee,as.estse c.a6.*re8N8'A 0007e aaLEIGM, NonfM CamoymA 27eoS e
...*,. 00 v.c.........a....,
riaer ve==esssa mann mus6oine
,.... - vew..
....s.
. _ e.i*.i "".*.*"
August 6, 1984
"'L"",',";.".","'.'.',*,'..*,',"'
24566.3
"'**"*"",",'.e*.*e*'*"'
,,<=
o.
4
...c,...s....... 8 3 5 7
~ Christopher M. McMurray,.Esq.
Kirkpatrick, Lockhart, Hill, BY TELECOPIER Christopher & Phillips
~1900 M Street, N.W.'
Eighth Floor Washington, D.C.
20036 Board " Strike Iss'ues" Discovery
~
Dear,
Chris?
' I s
I'm sorry that you haven't returned my telephone call of this morning.
I don't accept the basis ctated in your letter of this morning for-.your refusal to make Mr. Minor and Lieutenant Fakler
-available for-deposition on August 14.
However, since according to your letter of August.2 they will be available on August 13 as well,=and since there's no hearing.that day, this will notify you
- that LILCO intends to depose them individually on August 13, pre-ferably on Long Island, beginning at 9:30 a.m.
Please let me know which of them you prefer to be deposed first.
Sincerely yours, Donald P.
Irwin 91/730'
.i
..w-
.-,,,,----r
,--.-y,....,,-.-.r
..e-....my-.,,me-w+,-..m.wr,ww...y,-,-.-._,,,
..w-w,m,,,,,,-
I!*
p LILCO, August 6, 1984 CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE In the Matter of oghk0 LONG ISLAND LIGHTING COMPANY (Shoreham Nuclear Power Station, Unit 1)
(Emergency Planning Proceeding) Docket No.
50-322*gh-3,0-8 go.77
'w I hereby certify that copies of LILCO'S OPPOSITION TO SUFFOLK COUNTY'S DILATORY PLEADINGS ON STRIKE ISSUEShAND MOTION PARTIES TO PROVIDE TIMELY DISCOVERY ON" DIRECT
.w u.nuo.
.uu 4 3 --
CASE were served this date upon the following by first-class >J*_'
l mail, postage prepaid, or by Federal Express (as indicated by an asterisk).
James A.
Laurenson, Secretary of the Commission Chairman
- U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Atomic Safety and Licensing Commission
. Board Washington, D.C.
20555 U.S.-Nuclear Regulatory Commission Atomic Safety and Licensing East-West Tower, Rm. 402A Appeal Board Panel 4350 East-West Hwy.
U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Bethesda, MD 20814 Commission Washington, D.C.
20555 Dr. Jerry R. Kline*
Atomic Safety and Licensing Atomic Safety and Licensing Board Board Panel U.S. Nuclear Regulatory U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission Commission
. East-West Tower, Rm. 427 Washington, D.C.
20555 4350 East-West Hwy.
Bethesda, MD 20814 Bernard M. Bordenick, Esq.*
Oreste Russ Pirfo, Esq.
Mr. Frederick J.
Shon*
Edwin J.
Reis, Esq.
Atomic Safety and Licensing U.
S. Nuclear Regulatory Board Commission U.S. Nuclear Regulatory 7735 Old Georgetown Road Commission (to mailroom)
East-West Tower, Rm. 430 Bethesda, MD 20814 4350 East-West Hwy.
Bethesda, MD 20814 Stewart M. Glass, Esq.*
Regional Counsel Eleanor L.
Frucci, Esq.*
Federal Emergency Management Attorney Agency Atomic Safety and Licensing 26 Federal Plaza, Room 1349 Board Panel New York, New York 10278 U.
S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission Stephen B. Latham, Esq.*
East-West Tower, North Tower John F.
Shea, Esq.
4350 East-West Highway Twomey, Latham & Shea Bethesda, MD 20814 33 West Second Street P.O.
Box 398 Riverhead, NY 11901
7
..9 P
o
?.
( -
Fabian G. (p:lomino, Esq.*
Ralph Shapiro, Esq.
T
.Special Cour,ssi to the Cammer & Shapiro, P.C.
Governor.
9 East 40th Street Executive' Chamber New York, New York 10016 Room 229 State Capitol James B. Dougherty, Esq.
Albany, New York 12224 3045 Porter Street Washington, D.C.
20008 Herbert H. Brown, Esq.*
Lawrence Coe Lanpher, Esq.
Jonathan D.
Feinberg, Esq.
Christopher M. McMurray, Esq.
New York State Public Service Kirkpatrick, Lockhart, Hill Commission, Staff Counsel Christopher & Phillips 3 Rockefeller Plaza 8th Floor Albany, New York 12223 1900 M Street, N.W.
Washington, D.C.
20036 Spence W. Perry, Esq.
Associate General Counsel MHB Technical Associates Federal Emergency Management 1723 Hamilton Avenue Agency Suite K 500 C Street, S.W.,
Rm. 840
. San Jose, California 95125 Washington, D.C.
20472 Mr. Jay Dunkelberger Ms. Nora Bredes New York State Energy Office Executive Coordinator Agency Building 2 Shoreham Opponents' Coalition Empire State Plaza 195 East Main Street Albany, New York 12223 Smithtown, New York 11787 Gerald C. Crotty, Esq.
Martin Bradley Ashare, Esq.
O Counsel to the Governor Suffolk County Attorney Executive Chamber H. Lee Dennison Building State Capitol Veterans Memorial Highway
-Albany, New York ~12224 Hauppauge, New York 11788 d
463 #
..e Donald 'P. Irwin l
Huntcn & Williams 707 East Main Street
' Post Office Box 1535-Richmond, Virginia ~
23212 DATED:
August 6, 1984 i:
N L-
..-