ML20214Q592
| ML20214Q592 | |
| Person / Time | |
|---|---|
| Site: | Shoreham File:Long Island Lighting Company icon.png |
| Issue date: | 12/01/1986 |
| From: | Lanpher L KIRKPATRICK & LOCKHART, SUFFOLK COUNTY, NY |
| To: | Atomic Safety and Licensing Board Panel |
| Shared Package | |
| ML20214Q593 | List: |
| References | |
| CON-#486-1743 OL-5, NUDOCS 8612050206 | |
| Download: ML20214Q592 (9) | |
Text
'
l 170 e
DOCKETED-USNRC December 1, 1986 UNITED STATES OF AMERICA ~
'86 DEC -4 M NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSION GFFIC2 0 5:
' ik Before the Atomic Safety and Licensina Board 00CW"'% & Pf'IC FP M.C'
)
In the Matter of
)
)
LONG ISLAND LIGHTING COMPANY
)
Docket No. 50-322-OL-5
)
(EP Exercise)
(Shoreham Nuclear Power Station,
)
Unit 1)
)
)-
SUFFOLK COUNTY RESPONSE TO "LILCO'S MOTION FOR PROTECTIVE ORDER IN RESPONSE TO SUFFOLK COUNTY'S MOTION TO COMPEL" On November 21, 1986, LILCO filed a " Motion for Protective Order in Response to Suffolk County's Motion to Compel" (herein-after, "LILCO's Motion").
LILCO's Motion is supported by an.
affidavit of Charles A.
Daverio and-also by a more general filing entitled "LILCO's Opposition to Suffolk County's Motion for Order Compelling LILCO to Respond to Suffolk County's First Set of
. Interrogatories and Request for Production of Documents," also dated November 21, 1986 (hereinafter, "LILCO's Opposition").
In most respects, Suffolk County's response to the matters raised in LILCO's Motion has already been set forth adequately in the County's initial motion to compel LILCO to respond to the County's first set of interrogatories, which was filed with the:
8612050206 861201 ~
{DR ADOCK 05000322 PDR
])S03 e
Board on November 10, 1986.
Egg Suffolk County's Motion for Order Compelling LILCO to Respond to Suffolk County's First Set.
of Interrogatories and Request for Production of Documents, dated November 10, 1986.
Rather than repeating arguments already made, Suffolk County respectfully refers the Board to its November 10 motion.
There are, however, certain matters raised by LILCO's Motion, LILCO's Opposition and the Daverio affidavit which need to be addressed briefly.
1.
In its' Motion, LILCO seeks a protective order with respect to the areas covered and issues raised in Interrogatories 9-11 and 15-18 of Suffolk County's First Set of Interrogatories and Requests for Production of Documents, filed October 10, 1986.
1 Thus far, LILCO has refused to provide complete answers to these interrogatories and document requests.
Interrogatories 9 and 10 request the identity of organiza-tions and individuals who assisted LILCO either before or after the February 13 Shoreham Exercise (hereinafter, " Exercise") in matters related to the Exercise; they also seek the'identifica-tion of organizations and individuals who participated in the Exercise.
Interrogatory 11 requests the identification of Exercise-related documents produced by any of the organizations or individuals identified in response to Interrogatories 9 and 10.
I
o.
LILCO first makes a general objection that it should not'be required to reveal the identity of individuals who worked on Exercise-related matters or who participated in the Exercise because that could lead to the disintegration of LILCO's-Plan.
LILCO worries that this disintegration will be caused by persons.
I opposed to LILCO and the Shoreham plant, who upon hearing that a' particular individual or organization is. involved with LILCO.and its Plan, will persuade such individuals or organizations'not to participate with LILCO in the Plan's implementation.
Accord-ingly, LILCO asserts that it and its Plan should be shielded from public scrutiny, and it requests the Board for issuance of a protective order to that effect.1 1
LILCO's Motion expressly relies upon the arguments set forth by LILCO in its November 21 Opposition.
LILCO's Motion at 1.
One statement, in particular, in the LILCO Opposition must be corrected.
At page 11 thereof, LILCO states:
(C]ounsel for Suffolk County met one evening in June 1986 with an organization of Suffolk County bus drivers in an effort to induceLthem to refuse publicly to cooperate with the Shorehan Plan.
LILCO cites Suffolk County's, the State of New York's.and the Town of Southampton's November 14 Interrogatory Response as the basis for the above statement.
LILCO's statement, however, is grossly misleading and false and is not supported by.the Governments' November 14 Response.
Indeed, the cited interrogatory response reads as follows:
On June 23,_1986, Messrs. Brown and Lanpher of Kirkpatrick & Lockhart met with school bus drivers association representatives on Long Island.
LILCO personnel and attorneys were also present at that meeting.
~
Egg Suffolk County, State of New York, and Town of Southampton Response to LILCO's First Set of Interrogatories and Requests for Production of Documents to Suffolk County, New York State and (footnote continued) l 1 t
1.
The Board cannot accede to this LILCO request.
If LILCO's-
. Plan is in fact disintegrating even before Shoreham ever'oper-ates, how can this Board or the NRC possibly find " reasonable assurance" that adequate protective. measures for -the public can and will be taken?
The answer is obvious:
the Board could never-find such reasonable assurance.
Indeed, the very fact that LILCO has now admitted that its Plan is disintegrating is substantial proof that reasonable assurance is not provided by that Plan.
Rather than cloak LILCO's Plan in secrecy, as LILCO would have the Board do, this Board should endeavor to make certain that the Plan is subjected to the fullest public airing.possible.
Otherwise, the Board will not be in a position to reach an informed judgment on the true capabilities of LILCO's Plan.
(footnote continued from previous-page)
Town of Southampton (November 14, 1986), at 11.
The undersigned attorney representing Suffolk County, Mr. Lanpher, recalls the June 23 meeting very well.
While Suffolk County was represented at that meeting-by the two persons mentioned above, LILCO had five persons.in attendance.
Contrary to LILCO's assertion, Messrs. Lanpher and Brown did not attempt
~
"to induce (bus drivers] to refuse publicly to-cooperate with the Shoreham Plan."
Rather, Messrs. Lanpher and Brown explained to-the bus drivers in attendance the assumptions made by LILCO regarding.their participation under LILCO's Plan,'and suggested to the bus _ drivers that they decide for themselves whether to cooperate with LILCO's Plan.
LILCO's personnel.at the meeting made presentations which urged the bus drivers to cooperate with LILCO.
Neither the LILCO presentation nor.that by the County's representatives was improper in any way.
Yet, LILCO's Opposition seems calculated to create the impression that improper-activities by the County took place. _It serves no legitimate-purpose for such inaccuracies to-be placed in pleadings..
4 2.
-Suffolk County has reviewed Interrogatories 9 and 10 in view of the data that are now necessary for discovery.
With respect to Interrogatory 9, LILCO,has-apparently identified the organizations which participated in the Exercise and has agreed to produce responsive d'ocuments; it has refused,'however, to identify part'icular individuals who participated in the Exercise.
Upon further consideration, Suffolk County has determined, at least for the time being, that it is not necessary that the actual individuals who participated in the Exercise be identi-
)
fled.
Accordingly, that portion of the motion to compel is_with-
)
drawn.
l With respect to Interrogatory 10, LILCO has refused to identify either the organizations or the individuals who were involved-in assisting LILCO on Exercise-related matters, both 1
before and after the Exercise.
Suffolk County has determined that, for the time being, the identity of particular individuals f
is not needed; however, for the reasons already discussed at pages 12-14 of Suffolk County's November 10 motion to compel, the identity of organizations is necessary.
Such information is also clearly relevant to admitted contentions and thus should be subject to discovery by the County.
For example, consultants may have been retained by LILCO to l
assist in preparing LERO players for participation in the Exer-cise or to revise the LILCO Plan in order to attempt-to' eliminate 4 4 i
deficiencies revealed during the Exercise.
Such information could be highly significant to the Governments and to this Board.
Similarly, if an organization relied upon by LILCO participated
- in meetings prior to the Exercise and discussed how it intended to participate in the Exercise or what functions it could or
~
could not perform during the Exercise, such information would also be clearly relevant and subject to discovery by the Govern-ments.
Take as an example an attempt by LILCO to persuade some of the EBS radio stations to participate in the Exercise; if there were, in fact, such an attempt and the stations refused, that would certainly be relevant to Contentions Ex 15 and 16.
Thus, LILCO's assertion that "no admitted contention addresses either the pre-or post-Exercise performance of any organization named or unnamed" (agg LILCO's opposition at 14) is simply not true.
Finally, it must be noted that Mr. Daverio's affidavit only speaks in terms of protecting individuals' names from being disclosed.
The affidavit provides no basis whatsoever for failing to disclose the names of orcanizations which have worked on Exercise-related matters.
As noted above, the Governments have now withdrawn their request that individuals be identified.
There is no support at all, however, for LILCO's attempt to shield organizations from being identified. -
3.
Interrogatories 15-18 are discussed in detail at pages 14-18 of Suffolk County's motion to compel.
Suffolk County adds only the following brief remarks.
In LILCO's Opposition, LILCO urges that. interrogatories relating to the development of the Exercise objectives and development of.the Exercise scenario are not relevant to any contentions, because Suffolk County has stated that the Exercise objectives and the scenario are " givens" and thus these interrogatories can lead to.no relevant informa-tion.
Egg LILCO's Opposition at 4-6.
These LILCO assertions are-not accurate and the Board should summarily dismiss LILCO's Motion with respect to Interrogatories 15-18.
First, the Margulies Board's October 3 Prehearing Conference Order makes clear that the development of the scenario and the accomplishment of Exercise objectives are matters which clearly are relevant, particularly as these matters may relate to whether there has been a full participation exercise.
Second, while Suffolk County has accepted the Exercise scenario and objectives for what they are, that does not mean that discovery pertaining to the scenario and the objectives is irrelevant.
Rather, such discovery is directly relevant to many of the Governments' admitted contentions.
For example, FEMA has found in its post-Exercise assessment that many of the objectives were satisfied.
Suffolk County disputes such a finding.
Indeed, the County believes that a reasonable interpretation of many of the
)
objectives would lead to the view that they were not satisfied.
4 In order to be in a position to contest these matters, it is absolutely essential to understand exactly what was meant by particular objectives.
Such information can only be gleaned by conducting discovery regarding, inter alia, the development of the Exercise objectives.
The County's interrogatories regarding development of the Exercise scenario are pertinent for the same reason.
Suffolk County has alleged that the February 13 Exercise did not con-stitute a full participation exercise.
The Board on October 3 agreed that this was a matter which was proper to contest in this proceeding.
In contesting this matter, it is critical to find what was intended to be covered by the scenario, why certain choices were made (for instance, omitting all ingestion pathway activities from the Exercise), and whether the full-participation exercise requirements of Part 50, Appendix E were focused upon during development of the scenario.
Interrogatories 17 and 18 are calculated to lead to the discovery of exactly this kind of information.
For all the foregoing reasons, LILCO's Motion for Protective Order should be denied by this Board.
Respectfully submitted, Martin Bradley Ashare Suffolk County Attorney Building 158 North County Complex Veterans Memorial Highway Hauppauge, New York 11788 e-Werbert H.
Brown 7
Lawrence Coe Lanpher Michael S. Miller KIRKPATRICK & LOCKHART 1900 M Street, N.W.,
Suite 800 Washington, D.C.
20036 Attorneys for Suffolk County Dated:
December 1, 1986 *
.