ML20084F216

Motion to Extend Discovery Schedule to 840523 for depositions,840611 for Filing of Specs & 840621 for Util & NRC Responses.Certificate of Svc Encl.Related Correspondence

ML20084F216
Person / Time
Site:	Shoreham File:Long Island Lighting Company icon.png
Issue date:	05/02/1984
From:	Dynner A KIRKPATRICK & LOCKHART, SUFFOLK COUNTY, NY
To:	Atomic Safety and Licensing Board Panel
References
OL, NUDOCS 8405040022
Download: ML20084F216 (15)

Text

_ -

$b*) ,

RELATED CORRESPONDENCE i

I 5/2/84  !

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA 1 Nfqcf0 NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSION Before the Atomic Safety and Licensin h oMYi-3 g ,.g

. Fr : :; -

)

In the Matter of )

)

LONG ISLAND LIGHTING COMPANY ) Docket No. 50-322-OL

)

(Shoreham Nuclear Power Station, )

Unit 1) )

SUFFOLK COUNTY'S MOTION TO EXTEND DISCOVERY SCHEDULE By its Order of April 20, 1984, this Board permitted Suffolk County and New York State "a maximum of ten days' worth of depositions" to conclude on May 11, 1984. The Board also extended from May 1 to'May 22 the filing date for the County's and State's specification of issues and other matters. The expanded discovery period of 21 days granted by the Board was far short of that requested by Suffolk County and New York State or proposed by the NPC Staff.

Facts not available to the Board (and in some cases to the parties) at the time it issued its April 20 Order now make clear that there are substantial grounds to justify a further extension of the discovery schedule.

$$k5 DO O k G

(()55(325

1. Suffolk County received on April 17 approximately 35,000 pages 1/ of documents from TDI, which the County had identified ,

as relevant during the March 22-23 visit to TDI.2/ The Board, when it issued its Order, did not know that the TDI documents were so numerous. The County and its consultants have only had time to review a portion of the TDI documents before depositions began today. There will also be an inadequate amount of time for the County to complete its review and analysis of the large number of TDI documents in time for a May 21 filing.3/ The TDI documents 4.nclude many examples of defects and failures of cylinder heads, crankshafts, pistons, cylinder blocks, and other components which preliminary identification show to have an appropriate nexus to the Shoreham diesel problems. Without more time to complete this analysis, the May 22 filing will be incomplete.

1/ The County's estimate is 30,000 pages; TDI's estimate is 40,000.

-2/ Centrary to assertions by LILCO, it was clear to the County, TDI,and all parties that the March visit was only for the purpose of a quick survey of the hundreds of thousands of documents which TDI made available as responsive to the County's February 29 document request, to identify documents to be copied and supplied to the County. Dozens of files were not even looked at, since they were obviously important (i.e., TDI-LILCO correspondence files) and thus needed to be cooled. An actual substantive review of all files would have taken many, many days of work by the five County representatives, and would have delayed even further the process of getting the materials copied.

-3/ As made clear in paragraph 3, virtually all of the County's team of attorneys and consultants will be occupied more than full time during depositions from May 2 through May 11, and will be unavailable to review the TDI documents.

, . i 1

2. Based upon the partial review to date, the County is certain that the TDI documents supplied on April 17 did not include all of the documents identified for copying. See Exhibit

1. Moreover, LILCO has not yet completed its production of documents. Additional time will be required to review and analyze these documents when received, and/or to pursue discovery through motions to compel production of documents.

i

3. The deposition period is inadequate for the County to 1

take important depositions and discover potentially significant i

l information. The ten days allotted by the Board have forced the i

County to reduce the number of depositions originally noticed or i

contemplated from over 30 to 15 plus two NRC panels. This ,

required the County to forego deposing any LILCO or Stone a

! Webster personnel, and to concentrate on TDI and FAA personnel, j although time will not permit the depositions of all TDI and FAA persons whom the County wants to depose.

]

a. The schedule for depositions is as follows:

May 2 ---

Bakshi (Ocean Fleets)

May 3 ---

Eley (Ocean Fleets)

! May 3 ---

Swanger (FAA)

{

May 4 ---

Eley i May-4 ---

Rogers (FAA)

May 4 ---

Chen (LILCO consultant)

• May 7 ---

Hubbard (MHB)-

<

• May 7 ---

Bridenbaugh (MHB)_

May 7 ---

Barich (TDI)

May.7 ---

Wells (FAA) l May 8- ---

Trussell (TDI)

May 8 ---

Dobric (TDI)

May 8 Wilson (TDI) j May 8 ---

. Christensen (S.C. consultant)

May 9

~

Christensen '

May 9 ---

Mathews (TDI)

May 9 ---

Harris (FAA)

May 9 Shyne-(FAA)

May.10 ---

Lowry (TDI)

May 10 ---

Schilling (TDI)

• May 10 ---

Anderson (S.C. consultant) 4 Indicates deposition by LILCO,_ defended by Suffolk' County

• May 11 ---

Anderson May 11 -- -

Yang (TDI)

May 11 ---

Beshouri (TDI) ,

• Indicates deposition by LILCO, defended by Suffolk Ccunty.

The depositions during the week of May 2 will be on Long Island; those during the week of May 7 will be in California. During

\

this period all of the County's attorneys and consultants on diesel matters will be occupied more than full time preparing for the depositions, taking and assisting in the taking of depositions, having depositions taken of them and defending such depositions, and traveling.4/

l b. On April 27, the Ccunty noticed the depositions F.

Pischinger (LILCO's German diesel consultant) for May 2 and of J.

Wallace (TDI's metallurgist consultant) for May 7-8. The County was informed that neither of these deponents could be located and they could not be deposed by May 11. LILCO rejected the County's request to extend the deposition period voluntarily beyond May 11 to permit these gentlemen to be deposed. LILCO also took the position that the Board's order for 10 days of depositions did not mean 10 days, with possibly several depositions per day, but rather serial depositions over a maximum 10 day period; hence, LILCO argues that the County has already exceeded its allotted depositions. Suffolk County believes LILCO's interpretation is incorrect, but in any case, efficiency and fairness will n'ot be served by precluding the depositions of Messrs. Pischinger, 4/

- Suffolk County continues to hold the position that, in view of the thousands of relevant documents which could not be reviewed in time or have not yet been produced, these depositions are premature and adequate preparation for the depositions has not been possible.

_________-___n

-S-i l

1 Wallace, and the other LILCO deponents previously noticed by the l

! County who cannot be deposed in the allowed time.

I ,

c. Despite repeated requests by the County, TDI  !

continues to refuse to identify its key personnel and their positions, including personnel responsible for diesel design.

] See Exhibit 2. This inexplicable refusal may' preclude the County from deposing the most knowledgeable TDI personnel unless q additional deposition time is granted.

j d. The Staff did not respond to the County's March 1 request for identification of Staff personnel and consultants involved in diesel matters, until April 30. _This identification followed the County's April 27 deposition notice to'the Staff.

See Exhibit 3. The Staff has agreed to make some of the i requested personnel and consultants available for depositions in

~

two panels, as requested, but refused to do so until after May

11. Unless the discovery period is further extended, the County.

will be unable to take these important depositions. Even if the parties were to agree to' permit these depositions after May ll, 1

the County cannot simultaneously depose these individuals i

meaningfully, attempt to complete document ~ reviews and analyses, and prepare the May 22 filing, all in the space of 10 days (6-business days).

For all o,f the foregoing reasons, Suffolk County hereby 1

moves that this Board extend the discovery-schedule as follows:

i May 23 (8 additional business days -- depositions-end for depositions) i

. _ _ _ . _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ . _ . _ . _ _ - _ . _ _ . _ _ _ . _ _ . . _ . _ _ _ _.._____._.______._.__._____.___.__._____._._.______.--___.___________..._._____._m . _ _ _ _ _ . __ _ _ _ _ _ .

. . . June 11 (9 more_ days than originally -- filing of specifications contemplated to analyze and absorb many documents and depositions)

June 21 -- LILCO and Staff answers This modest 30 day extension is appopriate under the circumstances of this complex case, is reasonable, and will not prejudice any of the parties.

Respectfully submitted, Martin Bradley Ashare Suffolk County Department of Law Veterans Memorial Highway Hauppauge, New York 11788 m --

Herbert H. Kownsf Lawrence CM Lanpher Alan Roy Dynner Douglas J. Scheidt KIRKPATRICK, LOCKHART, HILL, CHRISTOPHER & PHILLIPS-1900 M Street, N.W.

Suite'800 Washington, D.C. 20036 Attorneys for suffolk County May 2, 1984 i

9

a .

EXHIBIT 1 l

i KmrDATRICK. LOCKHART, HILL, CnRrsTOPHER & PurLLIPs A Paarrummassar Inctuaano A Peormaanon4L CossamArnos 1900 M STREET, N. W.

WAsmucrrow, D. C. eoose TELEPIEDNE (SoG) 488 *TO.O IN FITTSBL*BOE CARLE:SKIPNI EIMFATBBCE,latXmasT,donneos & EUTCRISO3 m =x m .o. 1,= Un s. iso oin== nori or.

WatIER's IniEECT DIAL NUMass PETEBecaeM,PBWNSTLVANIA 3S898 (202)452-6774 May 2, 1984 BY FEDERAL EXPRESS David Ross, Esq.

'c/o Transamerica Delaval, Inc.

Engine and Compressor Division 550 - 85th Avenue Oakland, California 94621 Re: EDG Discovery

Dear David:

First, this will confirm certain aspects of our recent telephone conversations concerning TDI's production of docu-ments pursuant to Suffolk County's discovery requests. On April 28, I notified you that a number of the documents

, identified and requested by the County during its inspection of TDI files in Oakland had not been produced by TDI. These documents include the following:

1. TDI service department correspondence files for November 1983 - January 1984, and July - August 1983

2. TDI failure analyses nos. 100, 118, 127, 142, 148, i

150, 151, and 159

3. TDI interoffice correspondence files (by subject matter) nos. 330 (Fly Wheel), 331 '(Guard) , 445, 450 (Fuel Boost, Pump Headers), 620 (Fuel Day Tank), 621 (Fuel) and 700 (Stand Pipe)

4. DE file 8T t

5. DE calculations 5-2, 8-2 and 3-2 You subsequently informed me that you had made copies of

, these documents and would send them to me promptly. As I also informed you, the County's review of the documents produced by TDI for additional missing documents was continuing.

e .

KrRKPATRICE, IACEMAnT. Hit.L, CunttroPHnN O PHILLIPS David Ross, Esq.

May 2, 1984 f i Page Two  !

i Second, I mentioned to you that the County considered critical its request for visicorder continuous plots of cylinder pressure against time / crank angle (showing four pressure waves) at 75%, 100% and 110% loads for the TDI R-48 diesel engines. The County also considers critical its 1

previous requests for documents showing temperature distribu-tion through cylinder heads, the piston crown and upper parts of the cylinder liner. Your April 27 letter in response to these requests merely states that the items are open. No indication is stated as to why TDI has not complied with these requests. Further unexplained delay will insure

'a motion to compel by the County.

Third, the suggestion in your April 27 letter that TDI's delay in producing documents was " slight" is off base.

Although you correctly state that the County received copies of several hundred pages of documents while at TDI, over three weeks passed before the County received copies of any of the other "approximately forty thousand pages of documents" it had requested from TDI. Thus, TDI has had far more time to review documents with which it already was familiar than the County's experts will have had to review the same docu-i ments prior to the beginning of the deposition period.

Very truly yours, Md &

Doug s J. Scheidt DJS/ss cc: Robert E. Smith, Esq.

Odes L. Stroupe, Jr., Esq. (by hand)

Richard J. Goddard, Esq.

Fabian G. Palomino, Esq.

e 1

i

, 4 EIGIBIT 2 EIRKPATRICK, WWART, HrLL, CHRISTOPHER 8e PHILLIPS A PAmrwomousy twcLeonwO A PearsonsONAL CoeFORATION 1900 M Srnmar, N. W. ,

WAmminarox, D. C. 20006 TELTEMONE (908) 488-F000 IN FITTeaUnes CABLE: MIPMI EIEES&tEMI.*"a*t.dospens & BUTERIGON TELEX 440ece BIFK UI $300 OREVER 3C133ENO WRITER S DIERCT IEAL NUMBER FIT 193USSEL FBWWWYLVANIA ISGGS (202)452-6774 April 30, 1984 BY FEDERAL EXPRESS Robert E. Smith, Esq.

David Ross, Esq.

Guggenheimer & Untermyer 80 Pine Street New York, New York 10005 Re: EDG Discovery Gentlemen:

As you are well aware, on March 1 Suffolk County

formally requested that it be provided with the names of "each individual in TDI with principal day-to-day responsibility for diesel engine design, for the design of crankshafts, for the design of pistons, and for the design of each other component of the Shoreham EDGs which has experienced failures, cracking, or linear indications, . . . [and]

each individual in TDI with principal day-to-day responsibility for the manufacture of components in the TDI R-48 diesel engine, as to casting, machine shop, and other significant manufacturing process."

This information was of critical importance to the County to enable it to determine which TDI employees it should depose. Two months have passed and neither LILCO nor TDI has responded to the Ccunty's request. On April 24 I telephoned David Ross to remind him of this obligation and Mr. Ross agreed to provide the requested information promptly.

Mr. Ross, however, refused to return my repeated telephone calls to him the remainder of the week and when I finally a contacted him on Friday, April 27, he could not provide me with any information in response to the County's request.

l l

4:

EtanPATRICat, tOCKuART, Hts.z.. Cumsstorumm & Punt.t.rre Robert E. Smith, Esq.

! David Ross, Esq. ,

April 30, 1984 ,

Page Two 1'

On Saturday, April 28 I again telephoned Mr. Ross who only j provided me with the name of the TDI employee with principal

• 4 responsibility for the TDI machine shop.

t i Thus, the County has noticed various TDI employees for i depositions based on the limited information available to it. '

j The County objects strongly to the lack of cooperation

' exhibited by LILCO and TDI and reserves the right to seek appropriate relief from the Board.

1 Very truly yours, l

j / -

' . . .t. t '. t ' ,. i i .

Douglas J. Scheidt. [

I l DJS/ss 1 cc: Odes Stroupe, Jr., Esq.

l Anthony F. Earley, Jr., Esq.

Richard J. Goddard, Esq.

3

~

Robert E. Smith, Esq., David Ross, Esq.

(c/o TDI, Oakland, California by Federal Express) i i

i l

1 3

-1 i

t i .

1

.i -]

i i I i i .i i

i i

I

_ _ . . . . . -,m.-

EXHIBIT 3 )

R1MPATRIcx, LOCKHART, HrLL, CHRISTOPHER & PnILLrrs A Paarwansary twcs.uonne A Peoysesionat Conson.4 nom 1900 M Sramar, N. W.

havuwoTox, D. C. 2o000 TELEFnONE (SOS) 458*7000 IN FITT93 URGE CARLE NIF3t1 EIREFATEME WWEAnt.dOENG05 & ETTcEISON xmi.Ex 4.o.o. ntFn ex moo arma ecuar==

w n m a m u cT m in. ,ux l rm..c===. rs==en.winia ====

(202)452-6774 April 27, 1984 '**)*"'"**

Mr. William J. Dircks (BY TELECOPIER)

Executive Director for Operations U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission' Washington, D.C. 20555 Re: In the Matter of Long Island Lighting Company (Shoreham Nuclear Power Station, Unit 1) Docket No. 50-322-1 (OL)

Dear Mr. Dircks:

l l As Alan Dynner, counsel for Suffolk County, informed Richard Goddard this morning, the County will take the depositions of the Staff's consultants from Battelle/P.acific Northwest Laboratory. We have specifically noticed the depositions of Messrs. Laity and Louzecky but understand that two other persons, B. Saffell and A. Henricksen, may also be employed as consultants by the Staff. We intend to depose all four of these individuals as a panel on May 2 in San Jose, California, on their review of the TDI Owners Group DRQR.

We also will take the deposition of (i) the NRC Staff person (s)

(W. E. Foster, others) responsible for and with direct personal knowledge of the evaluation of the NRC vendor inspec-tion activity and findings with respect to TDI, and (ii) the NRC Staff person (C. Berlinger) redponsible for the Staff's review of the' TDI Owners Group DROR. We will continue to discuss with the Staff the times and locations of all of these depositions.

Very truly yours, Douglas J. Scheidt DJS/ss cc: Odes Stroupe, Jr., Esq.

Anthony F. Earley, Jr. Esq.

Fabian G. Palomino, Esq. '

Robert E. Smith, Esq.

Richard J. Goddard, Esq.

h UNITED STATES OF AMERICA NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSION Before the Atomic Safety and Licensing Board

)

In the Matter of )

)

LONG ISLAND LIGHTING COMPANY ) Docket No. 50-322-OL

)

(Shoreham Nuclear Power Station, )

Unit 1) )

CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE I hereby certify that copies of SUFFOLK COUNTY'S MOTION TO EXTEND DISCOVERY SCHEDULE, dated May 2, 1984, have been served on the -

following this 2nd day of May 1984 by U.S. mail, first class, except as otherwise indicated.

Lawrence J. Brenner, Esq.* Ralph Shapiro, Esq.

Administrative Judge Cammer and Shapiro Atomic Safety & Licensing Board 9 East 40th Street U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission New York, New York 10016 Washington, D.C. 20555 Dr. George A. Ferguson* Mr. Stuart Diamond Administrative Judge Business / Financial Atomic Safety and Licensing Board NEW YORK TIMES School of Engineering New York, New York 10036 Howard University 2300 6th Street, N.W. # W. Taylor Reveley, III, Esq.

Washington, D.C. 20059 Hunton & Williams P.O. Box 1535 707 East Main Street Dr. Peter A. Morris

• Richmond, Virginia 23212 Administrative Judge Atomic Safety and Licensing Mr. Jay Dunkleberger Board New York State Energy Office U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission Agency Building 2 Washington, D.C. 20555 Empire State Plaza Albany, New York 12223 Edward M. Barrett, Esq.

, General Counsel James B. Dougherty, Esq.

Long Island Lighting Company 3045 Porter Street, N.W.

250 Old Country Road Washington, D.C. 20008

7 a

Robert E. Smith, Esq. Stephen B. Latham, Esq.

Guggenheimer & Untermyer Twomey, Latham a Shea 80 Pine Street P.O. Box 398 New York, New York 10005 33 West Second Street Riverhead, New York 11901 Mr. Brian R. McCaffrey .

Long Island Lighting Company Mr. Marc W. Goldsmith Shoreham Nuclear Power Station Ener.gy Research Group, Inc.

P.O. Box 618 400-1 Totten Pond Road North Country Road Waltham, Massachusetts 02154 Wading River, New York 11792 Joel Blau, Esq. MHB Technical Associates-New York Public Service Commission 1723 Hamilton Avenue The Governor Nelson A. Rockefeller Suite K Building San Jose, California 95125 Empire State Plaza Albany, New York 12223 Hon. Peter F. Cohalan Suffolk County Executive Martin Bradley Ashare, Esq. H. Lee Dennison Building suffolk County Attorney Veterans Memorial Highway H. Lee Dennison Building Hauppauge, New York 11788 Veterans Memorial Highway Hauppauge, New York 11788 Fabian Palomino, Esq.ff Special Counsel to the Atomic Safety and Licensing Board Governor Panel Executive Chamber U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission Room 229 Washington, D.C. 20555 State Capitol Albany, New York 12224 Docketing and Service Section Office of the Secretary Atomic Safety and Licensing U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission Appeal Board 1717 H Street, N.W. U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Washington, D.C. 20555 Commission Washington, D.C.- .20555 Bernard M. Bordenick, Esq.#

Edwin J. Reis, Esq. Jonathan D. Feinberg, Esq.

Richard J. Goddard,-Esq. Staff Counsel-Office of Exec. Legal Director New York State Public U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission Service Commission Washington, D.C.

20555 3 Rockefeller Plaza

' Albany, New York 12223

Stewart M. Glass, Esq.

Regional Counsel Federal Emergency Management Agency 26 Federal Plaza New York, New York 10278 W

Alan Roy D ner/

KIRKPATRI , LOCKHART, HILL, CHRISTO HER & PHILLIPS 1900 M Street, N.W.,

Suite 800 Washington, D.C. 20036 DATE: May 2, 1984

1. 1. - By Federal Express By Hand Delivery

1. By Telecopier

.