ML20041G454
| ML20041G454 | |
| Person / Time | |
|---|---|
| Site: | Shoreham File:Long Island Lighting Company icon.png |
| Issue date: | 03/15/1982 |
| From: | Reveley W HUNTON & WILLIAMS, LONG ISLAND LIGHTING CO. |
| To: | Atomic Safety and Licensing Board Panel |
| Shared Package | |
| ML20041G455 | List: |
| References | |
| ISSUANCES-OL, NUDOCS 8203220327 | |
| Download: ML20041G454 (5) | |
Text
-
8 March 15, 1982 r~ p c.
i UNITED STATES OF AMERICfd2 l!N117 00:15 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)
LILCO'S OBJECTIONS TO SUFFOLK COUNTY'S DISCOVERY REQUESTS AND MOTION FOR A M
PROTECTIVE ORDER gECggygn \\,9 nap m
D Nigg.T.
I.
e N
t.
On March 8, 1982, LILCO received Suffolk Coun a
Interrogatories to Long Island Lighting Company and Suffolk
-aunty Request for Production of Documents by Long Island Lighting Company.
Involved were 67 interrogatories and 40 requests to produce, many of them multipart.
On the morning of March 9, just before the start of the prehearing conference, LILCO was served with suffolk County Second Set of Interrogatories to Long Island Lighting Company, Suffolk County Second Request for Production of Documents by Long Island Lighting Company, and Supplement to Suffolk County Second Request for Production of Documents by Long Island Lighting Company.
Included were 95 more interrogatories and 20 more requests to produce, again many of then multipart.
These requests have confronted LILCO with sweeping discovery f}609 82O3220327 820315 PDR ADOCK 05000322
$0 l(
l C
(
- s demands of the sort that are appropriately made, if at all, far earlier in the prehearing process, not on the eve of hearings.
For the reasons noted below, we believe that the County's requests are untimely and burdensome.
Thus, we believe that LILCO has no duty to answer any of them, though it has agreed nonetheless to answer many.
The County, in turn, has agreed to drop some of the rest.
Our objections concern the remainder:
1.
Suffolk County Second Set of Interroga-tories to Long IFland Lighting Company, dated March 6, 1982:
Questions 33 and 36.
2.
Suffolk County Request for Production of Documents by Long Island Lighting Company, dated March 5, 1982:
Documents 37 (g) and (h) (request now limited to audits).
3.
Supp]ement to Suffolk County Second Request for Production of Documents by Long Island Lighting Company, dated March 8, 1982:
Documents 1.b (request now limited to documents after March 15, 1978) and 1.c(iv) through (vii).
II.
During the prehearing conference of October 11, 1977, the Board ordered that discovery begin.
Thus it has been underway in this proceeding for 4-1/2 years, involving interrogatory answers, document production, oral exchanges during meetings and telephone calls, and at least seven site visits by County consultants and/or counsel.
The process
i has ranged from acutely formal to quite informal communication.
Along the way, neither LILCO nor the County has gotten all the information it wanted.
LILCO has indicated its unhappiness on numerous occasions, both formally and informally, as has the County.
Nonetheless both parties have still given one another far more information than is normally exchanged in NRC prehearing processes.
And the scope of the discovery has radically exceeded the sort contemplated in the Commission's proposed discovery rule of June 8, 1981 (4 6 Fed. Reg. 30350).
Informal discovery was the norm from early March 1979 to early December 1981.
During that period, a number of County concerns were resolved in light of information supplied by LILCO; during the last six months of the period, a settlement of most of the County's remaining contentions was negotiated by representatives of the County Executive, a
delegation from the County Legislature, and LILCO.
On December 8, 1981, a majority in the County Legislature rejected the settlement, preferring instead vigorous litigation of all the existing County concerns.
It was not until almost three months later, however, that the County filed the sweeping interrogatories now at issue.
When finallp served, they were grossly late.
7*
is also important to recall that this Board in its Order of February 8, 1982, directed the parties (a) to essentially complete their remaining discovery prior to the
_4_
('
March 9-10 prehearing conference, and (b) to be prepared to file testimony in mid-April.
See Board Order of February 8, 1982, at 5-6.
These directives meant that any remaining discovery requests should have been limited in scope and
~
filed well before the prehearing conference.
And these directives meant that any parties forced to contend with sweeping discovery requests after the end of the prehearing conference could not help but be prejudiced in their final testimony preparations.
Against this background, LILCO thinks that the County's requests of March 8-9, 1982, are unreasonable.
Rather than simply object to all of them, however, LILCO has I
worked with the County to lessen the burden to what we hope are tolerable limits.
Accordingly, LILCO has agreed to answer all or part of the requests as indicated in the marked-up copies of SC's discovery requests that are attached.b!
The County, in turn, has agreed to drop all or parts of many of the requests, as is also apparent from the attached papers.
III.
LILCO objects to all of the remaining requests, that is, those described on page 2 above.
As explained already, b/ LILCO also provided County counsel and consultants with a site inspection on March 11 that we believe the County found responsive to its Request for Site Visit of March 2, 1982.
The March 11 tour was at least the seventh that County lawyers and/or experts have made during the prehearing process.
5 i
the Company believes that it has no obligation to answer any of the County's March 8-9 requests because they were served too late and are prejudicially demanding.
Moreover, since LILCO has agreed, nonetheless, to give the County much of what it wants, the Company ought clearly to be spared the additional burden of going the fourth or fif th mile.
In this regard, the discovery requests cited on page 2 above are particularly onerous.
Each would require LILCO to search its voluminous OA records to compile information or find documents not readily availabic.
IV.
For the reasons stated above, LILCO requests that a protective order be issued denying discovery on the Suffolk County requests listed on page 2 above.
Respectfully submitted, LONG ISLAN LIGHTIN
..PANY 1
'f h &
W. Tagldr eveley, III Anthony Earley, Jr.
Hunton & Williams 707 East Main Street P. O. Box 1535 Richmond, Virginia 23212 l
DATED:
March 15, 1982 l
l