ML20052B357

Application for Issuance of Subpoena Duces Team Directed to Util.Proposed Subpoena Encl

ML20052B357
Person / Time
Site:	Shoreham File:Long Island Lighting Company icon.png
Issue date:	04/28/1982
From:	Letsche K KIRKPATRICK & LOCKHART, SUFFOLK COUNTY, NY
To:	Atomic Safety and Licensing Board Panel
References
ISSUANCES-OL, NUDOCS 8204300329
Download: ML20052B357 (6)

Text

_ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _

c gv  % ,.. .c-

[ RECEIVED ,

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA gpp g g gg -) NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSION h "NSEu"MB) FORE C THE ATOMIC SAFETY AND LICENSING BOARD T2 fp 29 D13 cfp j t9 V )

In the Matter of )

)

LONG ISLAND LIGHTING COMPANY ) Docket No. 50-32  %

) G s (Shoreham Nuclear Power Station, )

Unit 1) ) s RECElvso 4

APR 291993,,,. 2 B- "'Efl!?g"mme 3 APPLICATION FOR ISSUANCE OF SUBPOENA nec

• 88 b v Suffolk County hereby requests the Presiding Officer Licensing Board to issue a subpoena in the form attached hereto to Long Island Lighting Company ("LILCO"). The subpoena directs LILCO to produce no later than at the c'.mmencement of the hearing on May 4, 1982 six documents for inspection and copying. Issuance of the subpoena is authorized by 10 C.F.R. S 2.720.

Each of the documents listed in the subpoena were referenced and relied upon by witnesses, sponsored by LILCO, in direct testimony filed in this case. Thus:

1. The Valve Test Plan and the " Guidance for Preparing Valve Testing Program Descriptions and Associated Relief Request Pur-suant to 10 C.F.R. 50.55a(g)," (documents 1 and 2 in the attached subpoena) were referenced at page 10 of Raymond E. Fortier's testimony regarding SC Contention 11.

2. The Shoreham Piping Design Specification SH 1-171 (document 3) was referenced by Mr. Fortier at page 4 of his testimony regarding SC Contention 4.

8 2 0 4 3 003d 7

3. The pre-operational and startup test program relating to water hammer (document 4) is referenced by Mr. Fortier and also by Richard A. Hill at page 10 of their joint testimony regarding SC Contention 4.

4. LILCO's procedures requiring review of industry-related problems with respect to the effects of water-hammer loads, and the pre-operational and startup testing information obtained by General Electric from other BWR plants (documents 5 and 6) are referenced by Messrs. Fortier and Hill, respectively, at pages 10 and 11 of their testimony regarding SC Contention 4.

None of the requested documents were submitted by LILCO as exhibits to the testimony in which they are referenced. Suffolk County does not have copies of them in its possession. The docu-ments are plainly relevant, and therefore are properly the subject of a subpoena under 10 C.F.R. S 2.720.-*/ In order to conduct cross-examination of the LILCO witnesses, it is necessary that Suffolk County have access to these documents upon which LILCO's witnesses have relied.

-*/ The fact that Suffolk County may not have requested the referenced documents specifically in discovery requests previously filed, does not in any way diminish the County's entitlement to request a subpoena for them now. See In re Illinois Power Company (Clinton Power Station, Unit Nos. 1 and 2), Docket Nos. 50-461 and 50-462, ALAB-340 (July 29, 1976).

Suffolk County has requested counsel for LILCO to produce the requested documents voluntarily so that the issuance of a subpoena could be avoided; a respcmse has not yet been received.

The County has filed this Application to protect its rights and to notify the Board of its intention to seek a subpoena if LILCO refuses to provide the documents voluntarily. We expect to re-ceive a response from LILCO's counsel no later than the morning of April 29, 1982. At that time, we will inform the Board of LILCO's position and, if appropriate, request that this subpoena Application be ruled upon as soon as possible.

Respectfully submitted, David H. Gilmartin Patricia A. Dempsey Suffolk County Department of Law Veterans Memorial Highway Hauppauge, New York 11788 MIL Herbert H. Brownj/

'261Cb_

Lawrence Coe Lanpher Karla J. Letsche KIRKPATRICK, LOCKHART, HILL, CHRISTOPHER & PHILLIPS l

1900 M Street, N.W., 8th Floor Washington, D.C. 20036 April 28, 1982 Attorneys for Suffolk County l

l

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSION t 7; BEFORE THE' ATOMIC SAFETY AND LICENSING BOARD

'82 APR 29 Ei3

)

In the Matter of ) I,r ,,

)

LONG ISLAND LIGHTING COMPANY ) Docket No. 50-322 0.L.

)

(Shoreham Nuclear Power Statica, )

Unit 1) )

)

SUBPOENA DUCES TECUM To: Long Island Lighting Company c/o W. Taylor Reveley, III Hunton & Williams 707 East Main Street Richmond, Virginia 23212 Copy also delivered to:

Brian R. McCaffrey Regulatory Supervisor Long Island Lighting Company 175 East Old Country Road Hicksville, New York You are hereby directed to produce, no later than the commencement of the hearing on May 4,1982, the documents speci-l l

fied below:

1. Valve Test Plan covering the testing of safety-related valves (referenced at page 10, answer to question No. 25, of Fortier's testimony on SC Contention 11) .

, 2. " Guidance for Preparing Valve Testing Program Descriptions and Associated Relief Request l

l l

l

, - - - - . - - - , = - - - .- , , . , . _ , - _-- - -

Pursuant to 10 C.F.R. 50.55a(g)" (referenced at page 10, answer to question No. 25, of Fortier's testimony on SC Contention ll).

3. Shoreham piping design specification SH1-171 (referenced at page 4, answer to question No. 8, of Portier's testimony on SC Contention 4).

4. Pre-operational and startup test program, specifically those portions relating to vibration dynamic effects tests or other tests relating to water hammer (referenced at page 10, answer to question No. 21, of Fortier's and Hill's testimony on SC Contention 4).

5. LILCO Procedures that require review of industry-related problems, specifically those requiring or relating to review of effects from water-hammer loads (referenced at page 10, answer to question No. 22, of Fortier's testimony on SC Contention 4).

6. Pre-operational and startup testing information obtained by G.E. from other BWR plants that has been considered in the design and startup prepara-tion of Shoreham with regard to water hammer (referenced at page 11, answer to question No. 22, of Hill's testimony on SC Contention 4).

4

.- 3-i If you oppose this subpoena, you may move to quash or modify in accordance with 10 C.F.R. Section 2. 720 (f) .

LAWRENCE J. BRENNER Presiding Judge i

April , 1982 i

G 4

I I

i

--.v.. .

,n-.,,- .---------------,,-m-, ,--,.,__,----r,.- ,, , . . . . , . , , . , , - . . . . , . - . - - _ . , , , , , - . , - - - - - , - , _ - , -- - -w ----