-
..,
IIUMEDUNITED STATES OF AMERICA
NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSION,'
L' - ,j r-) g nBefore the Atomic Safety and Licensing Board
. . -
.
)*In the MattAr of )
)LONG ISLAND LIGHTING COMPANY ) Docket No. 50-322 0.L.
)(Shoreham Nuclear Power Station, ).Unit 1) . )
)
''.
SUFFOLK COUNTY'S WITHDRAWAL OF MOTION, ,
TO COMPEL LILCO TO FILE A WRITTEN REPORTCONCERNING THE TELEDYNE
ENGINEERING SERVICES
DESIGN REVIEW OF SHOREHAM; MOTION FOR ALTERNATIVE RELIEF
.
Suffolk County filed a motion (the " Motion") on April 8,
1983 requesting the Board to issue an order compelling
LILCO-
to submit a report (a) detailing the status of the design
review
by Teledyne Engineering Services ("Teledyne"), (b)
explaining
the reasons for the delays in issuance of the Teledyne
report
and estimating the date of the final're' ort, and (c)
describingp
all contacts between LILCO and Teledyne with respect to the
review. This Motion was prompted by long, repeated and con-
tinuing delays in the issuance of the report and the failure
of
LILCO to provide information on the reasons for the delays
and
accurate estimates of the issuance date.This matter has
apparently also been of concern to the
, _ _
Board, which most recently referred to the Teledyne report
as
"still pending, but long anticipated and much delayed
(without
8305050005 830502PDR ADOCK 050003220 PDR
_ _
-
. -,
. -2-
explanation) ." " Memorandum and Order Referring Denial. . .
of Suffolk County's Motion to Terminate to the Appeal Board
an
Certifying Low-Power License Question to the Commission~
(Through the Appeal Board) ," LBP-83-21, 17 NRC (1983),
~t 20. As the Board noted in its " Memorandum and Order
Direc%
,
ing Parties to Discuss Pending Suffolk County Motions,"
April 14, 1983 (the " Board Order"), the Board itself
requested-_
.information on the status and scheduled issuance date of
" ' the Teledyne deport as late as during the hearing on April
5,' '
1983. LILCO's response was that the Teledyne report "is not
out yet, and we do not have any later information on when it
will be available." Tr. 20,359. The Staff made no response.
In compliance with the Board Order, by letter of April l@
1983, the County proposed a meeting among the County, LILCO,
the Staff, and Teledyne to discuss the Motion. In subsequent
correspondence, LILCO refused to meet in person, agreeing
onig
| to a conference telephone call and declining to involve
Teled
i in the call or the County in telephone calls between LILCO
an
Teledyne. Copies of all of this correspondence are attached
as Exhibit 1. During the course of a telephone conference
ca)
on April 22, 1983, LILCO and the Staff finally disclosed
most,
but not all, of the information requested by the. County in.
.
its Motion -(part (c) of the Motion described above was not
-- - provided) and, accordingly, asked the County to
withdraw
the Motion. The County responded that it would consider
L
-
*
.
-3-.
withdrawing the Motion only after review of LILCO's and the
Staff's replies to the Motion, which s.hould accurately'
state
'the substance of the information given the County or' ally
during the telephone conference call.
LILCO's reply ~to the Motion, filed on April 25, 1983,
gratuitously characterizes the County's Motion as "a
premature.
and vexatious request for discovery." The County's Motion
was not a " request for discovery;" it was an attempt to
penetrate LILCO's virtual blackout of information concerning-
-
the progress (or lack of it) of the Teledyne review, so that
the County and the Board might obtain some insight into the,
schedule of this proceeding. The Motion was hardly "
premature;"
both the County and the Board repeatedly over the course of
-
many months have requested LILCO to disclose information on
the status of the Teledyne review, only to be met by the
stone wall of silence or purported ignorance. The Motion was
apparently " vexatious" to LILCO because LILCO did not wish,
'
to provide important.information to the Board and the other
parties. ,
*
Because LILCO did furnish the County most of the informa-
tion requested by the Motion, and confirmed that information
in writing in.its reply, the County hereby withdraws its
Motion."
We note, as stated on page 4 of LILCO's reply, that the time,,
.
which LILCO takes to respond to questions by Teledyne is
one of the critical pacing elements of the schedule for
.
-
. .
,
_a_
issuance of the Teledyne report.- Therefore, the timing of
the
issuance of.Teledyne's final report is to a significant
extent~
within LILCO's co'ntrol. LILCO estimates'that the final
report
will be issued by the middle or end of June.-
The Staff estimates in its April 28, 1983 response to the
Motion (the " Staff Response") that the final report could
be
~
issued by the end of May. According to the Staff Response,,
Mr. Caruso frequently contacted Mr. Landers of Teledyne over*~
++
,,
the past several months to " track the progress of the'Teledyne.
.
review." However, the Staff failed to provide detailed
information regarding the status of the Teledyne review to~
- the County or the Board. Indeed, the Staff informed the
County orally that ' the Staff intended to oppose the
County's.
Motion. In our view the Staff should facilitate the
disclosure
of information regarding the progress of the Teledyne review
(especially when that information has been repeatedly
requested
by the Board), rather than oppose,a motion designed to
secure.
that information for the benefit of the Board and all
parties.
The Staff Response fails to confirm-in writing one
matter disclosed by the Staff during the Apri1 22
conference,
call. Mr. Caruso reported that Mr. Landers of Teledyne
. told Mr. Caruso he had reviewed the transcripts of the,
hearings on the Torrey Pines report, and did not want to'' '
happen to Teledyne what happened to Torrey Pines. Teledyne
was being extremely cautious in its review, and if it found
a
non-conformance in an item, was inspecting all similar items
in the system.
.
-
~
*
. ,
-5-.
Obviously the Motion and Board Order which were necessary
to force LILCO and the Staff to disclose information
regarding
the Teledyne review kere not the most efficient way to obtain
'
this information, although those means were compelled by.
intransigence. Accordingly,' while withdrawing the Motion on
the basis stated above, the County hereby moves for
alternative,
I
relief: that the Board" order LILCO and the Staff each to
pro-
vide the County and all parties promptly with any and all.
- information it may obtain in the future regarding the
status
of the Teledyne design review or affecting its estimates of
che
issuance date of the Teledyne report..
Respectfully submitted,
David J. Gilmartin -Patricia A. DempseySuffolk County Department
of LawVeterans Memorial HighwayHauppauge, New York 11788
h = -/* ' Herbert H. Bro /,
Lawrence Coe anpherAlan Roy Dy erKIRKPATRICK, LOCKHART,
HILL,CHRISTOPHER & PHILLIPS
1900 M Street, N.W. .< .Washington, D.C. 20036
Attorneys for Suffolk County
. .
-
!
May 2, 1983
4
,-.- _ -. -_ ,_,y - - . . , . _ _ , . . . _ < - _ , ,
-
. .
EXHIBIT 1*.
EIREPATRICK, LOCKEA.HT, HILL CuarsTorm:n & ParLLIrs
A Perasarr Zwcs.untwo A PaorasstoxAL Consomen?
1900 M Srazzr, E W.
%szux.orox, D. C. 20036.,
txx.armoxa (noe) 4ea.rooo . * 2r rmwnunoscants: arraz mzarra.
nzr,-=r,soussor a sexxzcTELEX 44oa00 XIrE U1 1500 OI.2TER
3CIIENO
i waaram's mmmer mAz. wcLama rmusemax, rrrysuvArzA isama -' * *
* * ~
(202) 452-7022 -
April 15, 1983.
..
. T.S. Ellis, III, Esqqire Bernard M. Bordenick, Esq."_'
Anthony F. Earley, Jr., Esq. U.S. Nuclear-Regul~atory-
Hunton-& Williams Commission
P.O. Box 1535 Washington, D.C. 20555707 East Main
StreetRichmond, Virginia 23212
'
Gentlemen:,
As you know, Suffolk County has recently filed a " Motionto
Compel LILCO to File a Written Report Concerning the
Teledyne'Engineering Services Design Review of Shoreham" (the
"Teledynemotion"). In an order issued yesterday, the ASLB directed
LILCO,the County and the NRC Staff to discuss this motion prior to
the4time that answers to the motion are filed.
We propose meeting on Tuesday, April 19, in our
Washingtonoffices. We believe that representatives of Teledyne
should beincluded in this meeting. This will ensure that answers to
the-inquiries made by tlie County in its riotion can be provided
tothe parties and included by LILCO and the Staff in their
answersto the County's Teledyne motion. Please contact me as soon
as
"
possible so that we can make the necessary arrangements for
themeeting .
Sincerely,
' - - fb',Michael S. Miller
' '
MSM:ph '-
cc: Donald.F. LandersSenior Vice-PresidentTeledyne Engineering
Services,
- - . -. ,_ _ _ _ - _ ._. ._ _ ,_ _-. _ - - _
-
,
.
,_
.
ar
.
IIU N ros & WILLI AM S.
.
707 EAsv Main stacc7 P. o. Box IG3 5 *
RICIEMOND, VIROINIA 20C12o e a , .ve6oswas.ie egua.nwwsA avrwut.
*es .. . . a s o . p. o. a.m no s s o
mattacy, a.o.vw cam otena a,s oa TcLcPwoNC 8 04 70s . G200 ** **
*8 C #****. . . . " . ' . " , . . . " . .. . . . . . . . . , ,
,
;,'" ", ;',";",'' ''" ' ' * " * " Apri1 18, ,1983 ,.6e
24566.0000-,..... ...w.. ...... . . . . . . . . . . .
.........< ........ 8-.
.
Michael S. Miller, Es,,q. Bernard M. Dordenick, Esq'Kirkpatrick,
Lockhart, IIlll U.S. Nuclear Regulatory.
- . Christopher & Phillips Commission'
19 0 0 M S tree t , N .W . washington, D.C. 20555Washington,
D.C. 2003G
Dear Mike and Bernie:
We received this morning 
