ML20196B103
| ML20196B103 | |
| Person / Time | |
|---|---|
| Site: | Shoreham File:Long Island Lighting Company icon.png |
| Issue date: | 06/22/1988 |
| From: | Sisk K HUNTON & WILLIAMS, LONG ISLAND LIGHTING CO. |
| To: | Atomic Safety and Licensing Board Panel |
| References | |
| CON-#288-6614 OL-3, OL-5, NUDOCS 8806300193 | |
| Download: ML20196B103 (9) | |
Text
aN LILCO, Jure 22, 1988 g
00CKETE0 USNRC UNITED STATES OF AMERICA NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSION
'88 JtN 27 P6 :46 CFVG c'
'~
Before the Atomic Safety and Licensing Board h.j;ji;[ i' l In the Matter of
)
)
LONG ISLAND LIGHTING COMPANY
) Docket No. 50-322-OL-[3] (5]
) (Emergency Planning)
(Shorsham Nuclear Power Station,
)
Unit 1)
)
LILCO'S RESPONSE TO MO'.' ION TO QUASH SUBPOENAS At LILCO's request, the Board issued on June 16,1988, subpoenas for the deposi-tions of William Regan, former Director and long-time official of the Suffolk County Division of Emergency Preparedness, and Richard Roberts, former Assistant Chief In-spector of the Suffolk County Police Department. Mr. Roberts was served on June 18, 1988. Mr. Regan was served on the evening of June 21,1988.M The Motion to Quash, of course, does not perforce suspend the Board's subpoenas; under 10 C.F.R. S 2.720(f),
the subpoenas remain enforceable until further order of the Presiding Officer of the l
l Board or the Commission. Nonetheless, counsel for Suffolk County, who now appears to be representing Mr. Regan and Mr. Roberts, has informed LILCO's counsel that neither Mr. Regan nor Mr. Roberts will appear on the dates specified in the subpoenas.
t l
The subpoenas should be enforced, and there is no just cause for quashing them.
l 1/
The official process server retained by LILCO had difficulty locating Mr. Regan for service, and also had difficulty serving him when found. S_ee also the attached let-ter from Dennis Sisk to Lawrence Coe Lanpher, dated June 21,1988.
1 G
' 40}
8806300193 800622 PDR ADOCK 05000443 l
l v
T The terse Motion to Quash totally blinks recent history. LILCO first noticed the depositons of Messrs. Regan and Roberts on April 5,1988.
The Board, on April 11, 1988, ordered that those, snd other depositions noticed by LILCO be taken, and further confirmed that ruling on April 18. 1988. Mr. Regan, who was then Director of the Suffolk County Division of Emergency Preparedness (the County agency directly re-sponsible to the Suffolk County Executive for emergency planning and emergency re-sponses), was never produced for deposition as ordered. Mr. Roberts appeared for depo-sition on April 26, 1988, but his deposition was arbitrarily cut short by counsel for the County. The Board again ordered the taking of Mr. Regan's deposition and the resump-tion of Mr. Roberts' deposition on May 26, 1988. Af ter the production to LILCO of the State of New York, County of Suffolk Emergency Operations Plan on May 26,1988, and af ter receiving submissions by the parties on that event on June 1,1988, the Board again ordered depositions noticed by LILCO, including Mr. Regan and Mr. Roberts, in a bench order at the hearings on June 3,1988.
On June 4,1988, LILCO received a letter dated June 3,1988 from Mr. Lanpher, (who had appeared before the Board on June 3,1988) which informed LILCO, for the first time, that Mr. Regan and Mr. Roberts had retired from County government.2/
Thus, the County disclaimed employment or control of Messrs. Regan and Roberts, forcing LILCO to separately notice them for deposition. On June 7,1988, pursuant to 10 C.F.R. S 2.740a, LILCO issued notices of deposition to Messrs. Regan and Roberts, and had them served personally with the notices by an official process server on June 8, 1988. Both Mr. Regan and Mr. Roberts subsequently informed LILCO or LILCO's coun-sel that the County had advised them not to appear in response to the notices, and 2/
Mr. Lanpher provided the same information to LILCO's counsel in a telepone conversation on June 4,1988.
n a
{
k neither did appear. LILCO then, on June 15,1988, requested the subpoenas for the dep-ositions of Mr. Regan and Mr. Roberts, which were issued by the Board on June 16, and are the subject of the Motion to Quash.
In light of this history, the professed reasons for defying these subpoenas and moving to quash are lame. First, the Motion makes reference to the "Government's Motion for Licensing Board to Vacate June 17 Order" dated June 20, 1988. LILCO is separately responding to that Motion. It does not justify quashing the subpoenas.
Second. the Motion to Quash suggests that there has been no showing that these two former County officials "have knowledge relevent to the Board's ' integrity of the proceeding' inquiry." That suggestion is astonishing. Mr. Regan is the former Director of the Suffolk County Division of Emergency Preparedness, which is responsible for County emergency planning and emergency response, including the County of Suffolk Emergency Operations Plan. He was the Director not only while Board orders were pending for his deposition, but also while interrogatories and Board document produc-tion orders concerning the Plan were pending. The Plan is riddled with references to the Division of Emergency Preparedness, and Mr. Regan's name or position title appears several times in the Plan. LILCO believes that, as Director, Mr. Regan reported to Mr. Frank Petrone, who, LILCO is informed, sent the Suffolk County Plan to the Coun-ty's counsel for production recently. Further, Mr. Regan was an official in the prede-cessor agency to the Div'sion of Emergency Preparedness - the former Department of Emergency Preparedness - for many years, including, to the best of LILCO's informa-tion and belief, the 1982-83 period. Mr. Roberts, whose deposition in this proceeding began while he was Assistant Chief Inspector of the Suffolk County Police Department, similarly had been an official within the Suffolk County Police Department for many years and had given testimony on behalf of the County in prior phases of this license m
6 4
application proceeding. The County Plan also contains numerous references to, and roles for, the Suffolk County Police Department.
The further suggestion that "there has been no showing that the information sought by the Board cannot be obtained through questions directed to the persons iden-tified in footnote 10 of the (Intervenors'] June 20 Motion..." represents yet another attempt by Intervenors to dictate who should be deposed, how, and to what extent.
That suggestion should be rejected, as the Board has done in its prior orders of April 11 April 18, May 10, May 26, June 3 June 10, and June 17.
Finally, the argument that a deposition of Mr. Regan would be "burdensome" be-cause Mr. Regan "has informed counsel that (a deposition) would be disruptive of his adjustment to [his] new position" with the Town of Brookhavon,is specious in light of the recent history of this proceeding. Shirking legal process cannot rest on so thin a reed. This is particularly so when the County has repeatedly defied Board orders for months to avoid a deposition of Mr. Regan.
Since counsel who has filed the motion to quash for Mr. Roberts and Mr. Regan has stated that they will not appear in response to the subpoenas on June 22 and 23, counsel effectively has unilaterally "quashed" the subpoenas. Accordingly, LILCO re-quests that they be modified to compel for Mr. Roberts' deposition on June 29 and Mr. Regan's deposition on June 30, 1988. The modification of the dates on the subpoe-nas, for these persons who have been served and have appeared by counsel, should be accomplished by simply notifying counsel of the new dates; otherwise, LILCO would have to serve each of the deponents personally a third time.
o
4, 5-Respectfully sub itted, a
""' n a.imn Col for Long land Lighting Company Hunton & Williams -
.707 East Main Street P.O. Box 1535 Richmond, Virginia 23212 DATED: June 22,1988 j.
T 4
t I
t l
l l
I i
I l'
l I
l l
I l
l i
r
._t_._____.._.._.______._,_______..'
Q.'
H UNTON Sc WILLI AMs 707 rAST MAm Statti P.o. Box 1535 acoo esi.e.sv6vania avt=wt. - w.
Ric awown. Va monw s A soste ao a.. Ave.
s.o ses.easo
=ta 'oes. =t w v ena o0.,
.as wi=oton, o. c. aoo se
't6t*=o=c a.a. sos.+ooo vesse=o=c sea.ess..soo Tttcawowc 804 788 820o
't6t a +8a s*e =w =' vi rio s, v.no =.a sama vo.co TcLcm 684425i os.c====ovc e s owa nt e o.oon sees
= o som ice
=oeros. vino
.a ea s.*
- att'e=. a oa'a ca nov =a ats oa vt6ce=o=c so..eas.sso.
'<6ce=o=a e> s.ees.sooo June 21, 1988
" 't = =,t i s;;,=a= a eno =o aoso o a.
e.,oo,.
a.
.. o s o....,
. =o.viu.... m = s s.
4,e 0 e i 6 e".'.'oi, c'7Ca's!.'a'a'o'.
"** 24566.300001 o..cc, o.a6 =o.o..... 7250 BY TELECOPY Lawrence Coe Lanpher, Esq.
Kirkpatrick & Lockhart South Lobby - 9th Floor 1800 M Street, N.W.
Washington, D.C.
20036-5891 Board Ordered Discovery
Dear Larry:
This letter confirms our telephone conversation of this afternoon.
I asked whether your firm is representing flessrs. Regan and Roberts.
You stated that you are filing motions to quash the subpoenas for their depositions, had been authorized to do so by flessrs. Regan and Roberts, and were representing them at least to that extent.
As of 4 PM, I still have not seen the motions to quash, but presume they are being telecopied to us today.
I asked whether you had requested a Board ruling on the motions to quash today; you said "not explicitly."
You stated that you had spoken with Mr. Regan today, that he had not yet been served with the subpoena,-but that you were not relying on that "technicality" in your motion to quash.
I therefore asked where ifr. Regan was when you spoke to him; you stated you did not know, that he had called you, and that you did not ask where he was.
We have served Mr. Roberts, but we have not yet succeeded in serving tir. Regan either at his home or office; we plan to continue our attempts to effect service of the subpoena on tir. Regan.
I asked whether '.lessrs. Regan and Roberts would appear for their depositions absent further order from the Board
( ti r. Roberts' deposition is scheduled for tomorrow, June 22 at 9 U1, and 'Ir.
Regan's deposition is scheduled for June 23 at 9 AM); you stated that they would not appear for the subpoenaed depositions, and referred me to 10 CPR S 2.720(f).
As I stated, it is LILCO's position that a duly issued subpoena imposes an obligation to comply unless and until the aoard (or w
e H t3NTON & WILLI AM S Lawrence Coe Lanpher, Esq.
Kirkpatrick & Lockhart June 21, 1988 Page 2 the Commission) quashes or modifies the subpoena.
That is what 10 CFR S 2.720(f) pr ovid es.
11onetheless, because LILCO cannot control whether you comply with the subpoenas issued for Messrs. Roberts and Regan, we have cancelled travel plans and court reporters based on your representations.
Finally, I asked whether the County intends to answer LILCO's Third Set of Interrogatories today, as ordered by the Board most recently in the teleconference on June 17.
You stated that that issue was under "advisement."
I appreciate your commitment to telecopy to me any answers or objections the County may determine to file.
incerely yours, K / Dennis Sisk f
201/374 cca Richard J.
Zahnleuter, Esq.
Richard G. Bachmann, Esq.
William R. Cumming, Esq.
~_,
l:n i
LILCO, June 42/1988 USNnt l
l
'88 JLN 27 P6 :46 0FFKL r 5t m W '
l CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE 00CBE D'd A B di-BRMM In the Matter of LONG ISLAND LIGHTING COMPANY (Shoreham Nuclear Power Station, Unit 1)
Docket No. 50-322-OL-3 I hereby certify that copies of LILCO'S RESPONSE TO MOTION TO QUASH SUB-POENAS were served this date upon the following by telecopier as indicated by one as-terisk, or by first-class mail, postage prepald.
James P. Gleason, Chairman
- Adjudicatory File Atomic Safety and Licensing Board Atomic Safety and Licensing 513 Gilmoure Drive Board Panel Docket Silver Spring, Maryland 20901 U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission Washington, D.C. 20555 Dr. Jerry R. Kline
- Atomic Safety and Licensing Richard G. Bachmann, Esq.
- Board U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission Office of the General Counsel East-West Towers, Rm. 427 Washington, D.C. 20555 4350 East-West Hwy.
Bethesda, MD 20814 Herbert H. Brown, Esq.
- Lawrence Coe Lanpher, Esq.
Mr. Frederick J. Shon
- Karla J. Letsche, Esq.
Atomic Safety and Licensing Kirkpatrick & Lockhart Board South Lobby - 9th Floor U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission 1800 M Street, N.W.
East-West Towers, Rm. 430 Washington, D.C. 20036-5891 4350 East-West Hwy.
Bethesda, MD 20814 Fabian G. Palomino, Esq.
- Richard J. Zahnleuter, Esq.
Secretary of the Commission Special Counsel to the Governor Attention Docketing and Service Executive Chamber Section Room 229 U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission State Capitol 1717 H Street, N.W.
Albany, New York 12224 Washington, D.C. 20555 Alf red L. Nardelli, Esq.
Atomic Safety and Licensing Assistant Attorney General Appeal Board Panel 120 Broadway U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commt.ssion Room 3-118 Washington, D.C. 20*'d New York, New York 10271
_rt_._._.n._____
_.______.______________._______J
a
\\' George W. Watson, Esq.
- William R. Cumming, Esq.
Ms. Nora Bredes Federal Emergency Management Executive Coordinator Agency Shoreham Opponents' Coalition 500 C Street, S.W., Room 840 195 East Main Street Washington, D.C. 20472 Smithtown, New York 11787 Mr. Jay Dunkleberger Evan A. Davis, Esq.
New York State Energy Office Counsel to the Governor Agency Building 2 Executive Chamber Empire State Plaza State Capitol Albany, New York 12223 Albany, New York 12224 Stephen B. Latham, Esq.
E. Thomas Boyle, Esq.
Twomey, Latham & Shea Suffolk County Attorney 33 West Second Street Building 158 North County Complex P.O. Box 298 Veterans Memorial Highway Riverhead, New York 11901 Hauppauge, New York 11788 Mr. Philip McIntire Dr. Monroe Schneider Federal Emergency Management North Shore Committee Agency P.O. Box 231 26 Federal Plaza Wading River, NY 11792 New York, New York 10278 Jonathan D. Feinberg, Esq.
New York State Department of Public Service, Staff Counsel Three Rockefeller Plaza Albany, New York 12223 l
t I./
/G K. D Sisk l
\\
Hunton & Williams 707 East Main Street P.O. Box 1535 i
Richmond, Virginia 23212 l
DATED: June 22,1988
{
m