ML20210N445

Memorandum & Order.* Denies Util Motion to Compel Admissions.Served on 870210

ML20210N445
Person / Time
Site:	Shoreham File:Long Island Lighting Company icon.png
Issue date:	02/09/1987
From:	Frye J, Paris O, Shon F Atomic Safety and Licensing Board Panel
To:	LONG ISLAND LIGHTING CO.
References
CON-#187-2475 86-533-01-OL, 86-533-1-OL, OL, OL-5, NUDOCS 8702130120
Download: ML20210N445 (4)

Text

6 2V75 q

Yihc UNITED STATES OF AMERICA 87 FEB 10 A10:14 NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSION ATOMIC SAFETY AND LICENSING BOARD jff0NT . <"

Before Administrative Judges John H Frye III, Chairman Dr. Oscar H. Paris Mr. Frederick J. Shon SERVED FEB 10 1987 In the Matter of Docket No. 50-322-OL-5

) (EPExercise) '

LONG ISLAND LIGHTING COMPANY (ASLBP No. 86-533-01-OL)

(Shoreham Nuclear Power Station, Unit 1) February 9, 1987

)

MEMORANDUM AND ORDER (Ruling on LILCO's Motion to Compel Admissions)

On December 1, 1986, LILCO requested "...that Intervenors admit or deny ...as to each and every entry on the attached timeline, that l

l LILCO's Timeline of Exercise Events accurately states the exercise events and connunications recorded in LERO player logs and messages."

LILC0 describes the timeline as follows:

The timeline for which LILC0 seeks admission is a chronological compilation of players'1og entries (individually identified) and LERO message foms (also individually identified) that were generated by LERO players during the February 13, 1986 l

Exercise; the timeline consists of 278 pages, each

! page containing an average of ten entries. The entries themselves reflect either the complete text of the log or message form from which they are drawn or in some cases lengthy notations on Exercise documents have been summarized. In effect the timeline provides a complete chronology of the events on the Y

l 8702130120 870209 h6 l PDR ADOCK 05000322 O PDR

4

.g day of the Exercise that were noted on message forms or in players' log books. (See LILCO's motion to compel admissions of January'T~ p.4.)

LILC0 maintains that its request for admissions is clearly within the proper scope of discovery. Further, LILC0 takes the position that admission of the accuracy of the timeline will foster judicial economy by eliminating or reducing-the need to introduce documents and testimony to establish what occurred on the day of the exercise. (See motion, p.3.)

Intervenors refuse to admit the accuracy of LILCO's timeline. They take the position that:

1. The limited number of Intervenors observers and the restrictions placed on their activities makes it impossible for the Intervenors to admit or deny the accuracy of the timeline;

2. A cursory review of the timeline against the underlying documents reveals that it is inaccurate; and

3. Complete review of the timeline would consume over 200 hours0.00231 days <br />0.0556 hours <br />3.306878e-4 weeks <br />7.61e-5 months <br /> of attorney time and thus is overly burdensome.

Intervenors indicate, however, that in the interest of judicial economy they will stipulate that:

1. The documents on which the timeline is based were in fact prepared by the LERO players indicated on the documents;

2. The notations on the documents were made at approximately the times indicated;

3. The documents are a complete set of the documents generated during the exercise; and

l l

"s  ;

l

4. There are no other documents generated by the LERO players during the exercise. Moreover, Intervenors assert that they are willing to stipulate a set of exercise-related documents upon which all parties could rely. They maintain that such a stipulation would be conducive to judicial economy, while LILCO's proposal is not. (See Intervenors' response to LILC0's motion of January 15, pp. 6-11.)

LILC0 on January 21 filed a motion seeking leave to reply to Intervenors' response together with that reply. Intervenors on February 2 opposed the motion and responded to LILCO's reply. That reply takes issue with Intervenors' characterization of the timeline, and Intervenors' response defends their characterization.

It is apparent that a good deal of controversy surrounds the timeline. Given this controversy and given the relatively short period of time remaining before the hearing, we do not believe that much benefit can be derived by requiring Intervenors to closely analyze the timeline. It is evident that a close analysis will likely produce more disagreement than agreement. Because the timeline purports to reflect the contents of the documents generated by the LERO players during the exercise, and because there does not appear to be any controversy concerning the documents themselves, the timeline appears to have added a controversy where none existed. In these circumstances, LILC0's motion must be denied.

Intervenors have offered to stipulate to a set of documents upon which all parties could rely at the hearing. Such a stipulation would be

useful fr expediting the hearing. The parties are to explore the

s.

l l

possibility of reaching such an agreement and report to the Board by February 24. In view of the stipulations regarding the documents underlying the timeline which Intervenors have already offered, the Board expects that some agreement will be forthcoming. Any such agreement could provide for the stipulated documents to be admitted as a joint exhibit or, if the parties prefer, as a Board exhibit.

It is so ORDERED.

THE ATOMIC SAFETY AND LICENSING BOARD Dr. Oscar H. Paris ADMINISTRATIVE JUDGE h)

Frederick ShW ' ~

W ADMINISTR E JUDGE L C\a /

John H Fr ', III, Chairman A ST T IVE JUDGE i Bethesda, Maryland i

l I

._ _