ML20214G777

Motion for Protective Order for Areas Covered in Suffolk County 861010 First Set of Interrogatories (9-11 & 15-18) & Request for Production of Documents

ML20214G777
Person / Time
Site:	Shoreham File:Long Island Lighting Company icon.png
Issue date:	11/21/1986
From:	Zeugin L HUNTON & WILLIAMS, LONG ISLAND LIGHTING CO.
To:	Atomic Safety and Licensing Board Panel
Shared Package
ML20214G780	List: ML20214G777 ML20214G813 ML20214G832
References
CON-#486-1630 OL-5, NUDOCS 8611260186
Download: ML20214G777 (3)

Text

hy%

, . LILCO, Nov:mber 21,1986 UNITED STATES OF AMERICA NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSION COLKETED URNPC Before the Atomic Safety and Licensing Board

'86 NOV 24 P4 :55 In the Matter of LONG ISLAND LIGHTING COMPANY ) Docket No. 50-322-OL-5

) (EP Exercise) *

(Shoreham Nuclear Power Station, )

Unit 1) )

LILCO'S MOTION FOR PROTECTIVE ORDER IN RESPONSE TO SUFFOLK COUNTY'S MOTION TO COMPEL LILCO moves for a protective order with respect to the areas covered and !ssues raised in Interrogatories 9-11 and 15-18 of Intervenors' First Set of Interrogatories and Requests for Production of Documents, filed October 10,1986. LILCO responded or ob-jected to Intervenors' entire discovery request on October 27, 1986 and November 10, 1986. Suffolk County filed a motion to compel discovery with respect to certain of LILCO's individual responses November 10, to which LILCO is filing its Opposition in a separate pleading served herewith. The matters covered by this Motion for Protective Order are among those covered by LILCO's Opposition.II The areas covered by this motion for a Protective Order are two:

1. protection of the identitics of individuals employed by or otherwise in-volved with organizations which have participated with LILCO and the LERO organiza-tion in demorstrating the implementability of the Sbcreham offsite plan (Interrogatories 9-11); and 1/ Not all of the interrogatories objected to in the attached Opposition are included within the scope of this Motion for a Protective Order. The reason is that as to some of the interrogatories objected to. LILCO does not contend that properly focused and otherwise proper discovery could not, under any circumstances, be had: LILCO merely contends that the pending discovery requests arc substantially improper. With respect to the two areas covered by this motion, however, LILCO believes that further discov-ery simply should not be pursued and requests that the Board issue an Order not merely denying tho pending discovery requests but protecting LILCO from further discovery in the affected areas.

Oh$$$h22 3d3 PDR

r

2. documents and other information related to the process of derivation of the February 13,1986 exercise objectives (Interrogatories 15 and 16) and scenario (Interrog-atories 17 and 18).

The bases for this Motion for a Protective Order are those set forth with respect to the discovery requests at issue in the attached Opposition.

With respect to the protection of individuals, as is stated more fully at pages 10-12 the attached Opposition and the attached affidavit of Charles A. Daverio, LILCO's request for a protective order is based on the facts that no necessary or legiti-mate pupose is served by the disclosure of the names and other information requested; and that the revelation of such information will, in the current climate on Long Island, almost certainly be tued as a basis to harass, intimidate, or other wise pressure the indi-viduals involved and their organizations to refuse to cooperate further with LILCO in the Shoreham offsite emergency plan.

With respect to the requests for information relating to the detelopment of the exercise objectives and scenario (Interrogatories 15-18), LILCO's request is based on the fact that such inquiries inherently go solely to the development of the exercise and thus have no legitimate relevance to the scope of this proceeding, which is concerned with the results of the exercise. Argument in support of this portion of the motion is presented more fully in LILCO's Opposition at pages 2-7.

Unlike various other matters within the scope of the interrogatories objected to in the Opposition filed herewith, there is no way in which the matters encompassed within this motion can become proper subjects of inquiry in this proceeding. In addi-tion, revelation of the information :;ought by interrogatories 9-11 would be highly damaging to LILCO's ability to continue to maintain its working relationships with out-side organizations, and thus to ensure the implementability in fact of the Shoreham offsite p'an.

r

, s A protective order is necessary to protect LILCO and its agents against the an-noyance, oppression, and undue burden and expense of having either to respond or ob-ject further to the matters raised in Interrogatories 9-11 and 15-18. Accordingly, good cause having been shown, LILCO requests that the Board issue a protective order pursu-ant to its authority under 10 CFR S 2.730(c), not only denying the discovery sought by these interrogatories (as is the case with respect to the other interrogatories objected to in LILCO's Opposition), but also that it order that further discovery not be sought, from LILCO or any other party or non-party to this proceeding, on matters relating to:

1. the identity of or other information concerning individual employees, mem-bers or other persons affiliated with organizations participating with LERO in the im-plementation of the Shoreham offsite emergency plan; and

2. the development (as contrasted with the contents, or the effectuation in the February 13,1986 exercise) of the objectives and scenario for the 1986 exercise.

Respectfully submitted, Donald P.1 Lee B.Zeug

[/

Jessine A. Monaghan Karen L. Donegan Hunton & Williams 707 East Main Street P.O. Box 1535 Richmond, Virginia 23212 DATED: November 21,1986

-