ML20041F082
| ML20041F082 | |
| Person / Time | |
|---|---|
| Site: | Indian Point  |
| Issue date: | 03/05/1982 |
| From: | Brandenburg B, Morgan C CONSOLIDATED EDISON CO. OF NEW YORK, INC., MORGAN ASSOCIATES, POWER AUTHORITY OF THE STATE OF NEW YORK (NEW YORK |
| To: | Atomic Safety and Licensing Board Panel |
| References | |
| ISSUANCES-SP, NUDOCS 8203160172 | |
| Download: ML20041F082 (9) | |
Text
- _
--],khMI UNITED STATES OF AMERICA NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSID W.f!-9 All :10 ATOMIC SAFETY AND LICENSING BOARD
=
- 7-Before Administrative Judges:
Louis J. Carter, Chairman Frederick J. Shon Dr. Oscar H. Paris
___x In the Matter of Docket Nos. 50-247 SP CONSOLIDATED EDISON COMPANY OF 50-286 SP NEW YORK, INC. (Indian Point, Unit No. 2)
March 5, 1982 POWER AUTHORITY OF THE STATE OF rs
'4 NEW YORK, (Indian Point, Unit No. 3)
'DG
.9
x v
W\\R P,57gg y i.$ " Wa$t g y
- N
'j LICENSEES' ANSWER TO NRC STAFF MOTION TO STRIKE UCS/NYPIRG IG
~
"SIX QUESTIONS" OBJECTIONS AND, IN THE ALTERNATIVE, MOTION FOR TIME TO REPLY j '
^;
.w.
ATTORNEYS FILING THIS DOCUMENT:
Brent L'. Brandenburg Charles Morgan, Jr.
MORGAN ASSOCIATES, CHARTERED CONSOLIDATED EDISON 1899 L Street, N.W.
COMPANY OF NEW YORK, INC, Washington, D.C.
20036 4 Irving' Place (202) 466-7000 New York, New York 10003 (212) 460-4333 kg 8203160172 820305 PDR ADOCK 05000247 O
.L
- . g i
UNITED STATES OF AMERICA NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSION
'82 ((g 9 ATOMIC SAFETY AND LICENSING BOARD; Before Administrative Judges:
3 ff,IE Louis J. Carter, Chairman Frederick J. Shon Dr. Oscar H.
Paris
x In the Matter of Decket Nos, 50-247 SP CONSOLIDATED EDISON COMPANY OF 50-286 SP NEW YORK, INC. (Indian Point, Unit No. 2)
March 5, 1982 POWER AUTHORITY OF THE STATE OF NEW YORK, (Indian Point, Unit No. 3)
x LICENSEES' ANSWER TO NRC STAFF 4'
MOTION TO STRIKE UCS/NYPIRG "SIX QUESTIONS" OBJECTIONS AND, IN THE ALTERNATIVE, MOTION FOR TIME TO REPLY Consolidated Edison Company of New York, Inc.
(" Con Edison"), licensee of Indian Point Unit No.
2, and the Power Authority of the State of New York
(" Authority"), licensee of Indian Point Unit No.
3, answer herewith the February 18, 1982 l
"NRC Staff Motion to Strike UCS/NYPIRG Objections, and in the I
Alternative, Motion for Time t'o Reply." For the reasons set forth below, Con Edison and the Authority respectfully re-quest that this Board strike the January 29, 1982' document en-titled "UCS/NYPIRG Objections to Answers Submitted by Licensees
and Staff to the Commission Questions", and that the Staff motion be granted in all respects.
BACKGROUND On December 2, 1981, the Board directed the Sta"f and Licensees to file answers by December 31, 1981, respecting the first six questions set forth in the Commission's Orders of January 8 and September 18, 1981.
As to the level of detail desired in the "six questions" statements, the Board endorsed the characterization of the statements which were to be filed as " notice pleading" ( December 2, 1981 Tr. at 133), and stated that:
"The question of the basis for-the answer does not necessarily mean, and does not mean, that you must file your evidence if it is based on a general
./
understanding or if you are unable to answer the question because you do not have the information, then that would be a fair and honest answer to the question.
If you are studying an issue and have in prog-ress an examination of that issue, then you can state that you are in the process of reaching a conclusion on that issue.
It is not the finalization of all the questions.
It is your initial position.
Certainly you would, after the record is made, be permitted to make any other direction or statement with regard to what has been proven in the case."
Tr. at 130-32.
On December 31, 1981 Licensees filed substantial statements of their positions on each of the six questions..
In accordance with the Board's directions, Licensees did state that they were in the process of formulating positions on certain issues.
Contrary to UCS/NYPIRG's suggestions, there was nothing " meager" about the information supplied, and the Licensees' statements certainly gave prospective intervenors notice -- analogous to the notice pleading used by the Board as an example -- of the positions being taken on each of the six questions.
DISCUSSION Staff's motion to strike should be granted, because UCS/NYPIRG lacks standing to file objections, because the UCS/NYPIRG objections fail to comply with Board procedural directives, and because the objections are in substance a premature request for discovery.
Licensees concur with the grounds set forth in the Staff motion.
In particular,s-to the extent that UCS/NYPIRG's a
misleadingly captioned * " objections" filing seeks supplementa-l.
i tion of Licensees' statements, that request would require I
information far in excess of the Board's December 2, 1981 directives, and should accordingly be construed as a request for discovery.
Such a request would be manifestly premature in light of its failure to follow the Commission's procedures for See February 18, 1982 Staff motion to strike at 2-3.
e
discovery as set forth in 10 CFR S 2.740(b)(1).*
Furthermore, such discovery is only available to parties, 10 CFR SS 2.740 (f )(1) and 2.744(a ), and in this proceeding the Board has not yet issued its order ruling upon either the admission of parties or contentions.
Since UCS/NYPIRG at this point lacks party s?.atus, they are not entitled to commence discovery.**
CONCLUSION For the reasons set forth abovc, the Staff's motion should be granted in all respects, and UCS/NYPIRG's objections to Licensees' answers to the Commission's six questions should be stricken.
If the UCS/NYPIRG objections be deemed by the l
s' That section states in per.tinent part that " discovery shall begin only after the prehearing conference...
and shall relate on1 to those matters in controversy which have been identifie y the Commission or the presiding'of-ficer in the prehearing order entered at the conclusion of that prehearing conference." (Emphasis added ).
l Moreover, UCS/NYPIRG, by its c.otion to compel discovery prior to having served any earlier discovery requests upon Licensees, is again clearly choosing to ignore the NRC's Regulations.
10 CFR S 2.740 (f)(1) states in pertinent part:
i If a... party upon'whom a request for production of. documents... is served f ails to respond...
the party submitting the request may move the pre-siding of ficer, within ten (10 ) days af ter...
failure of a party to respond to the request for an order compelling a response
, l
Board as a motion, then ten days from the service of an order respecting sane should be af forded to Licensees to reply.
Respectfully submitted, E 41
$$ 0 )
be$$
3 I
Brent L. Brah'denburg Charles Morgan, J d.
J~~
Paul F.
Colarulli Joseph J. Levin, Jr.
Assistant General Counsel MORGAN ASSOCIATES, CHARTERED CONSOLIDATED EDISON COMPANY OF 189.9 L Street, N.W.
NEW YORK, INC.
Washington, D.C.
20036 4 Irving Place (202) 466-7000 New York, New York 10003 (212) 460-4333 Thomas R. Frey General Counsel Charles M.
Pratt Assistant General Counsel POWER ~ AUTHORITY OF THE STATE OF NEW YORK Licensee of Indian Point Unit 3 c
10 Columbus Circle New York, New York 10019 3
(212) 397-6200 Bernard D..Fischman Micha.el Curley l
Richard F. Czaja David H. Pikus l
l SHEA & GOULD 1
330 Madison Avenue l
New York, New York 10017 (212) 370-8000 l
Dated:
New York, New York March 5, 1982 1
i l
~ X r.E T ~
m-g2 t2 9 g1 no UNITED STATES OF AMERICA NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSION ATOMIC SAFETY AND LICENSING BOARD
'NI-i[6 [$6 u-'"
3p;;,C:;
Before Administrative Judges:
Louis J. Carter, Chairman Frederick J. Shon Dr. Oscar H.
Puris
x CONSOLIDATED EDISON COMPANY OF NEW YORK, INC. (Indian Point, Docket Nos. 50-247-SP Unit No. 2) 50-286-SP
~
POWER AUTHORITY OF THE STATE OF March 5, 1982 NEW YORK, (Indian Point, Unit No. 1)
x CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE I certify that I have served. copies of " Licensees' t'
Answer to NRC Staf f Motion to Strike UCS/NYPIRG "Six Questions" Objections and, in the Alternative, Motion for Time to-Reply" on. the following parties by first class mail, postage t
(
prepaid, this 5th day of March 1982.
Docketing and Service Branch Dr. Oscar H.
Paris Office of the Secretary Administrative Judge U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Atomic Safety and Licensing Commission Board Washington, D.C.
20555 U.S. Nuclear Regulatory i
Commission Louis J.
Carter, Esq., Chairma'n Washington, D.C.
20555 Administrative Judge Atomic Safety and Licensing Mr. Frederick J. Shon Board Administrative Judge 7300 City Line Avenue - Suite 120 Atomic Safety and Licensing Philadelphia, Pennsylvania 19151 Board U.S. Nuclear Regulatory j
Commission Washington, D.C.
20555
Janice Moore, Esq.
Charles J. Mai.iish, Esq.
Counsel for NRC StP
Litigation Division Office of the Execuuve The Port Authority of Legal Director New York and New Jersey U.S. Nuclear Regulatory One World Trade Center Commission New York, N.Y.
10048 Washington, D.C.
20555 Ezra I.Bialik, Esq.
Paul F.
Colarulli, Esq.
Steve Leipsiz, Esq.
Joseph J.
Levin, Jr., Esq.
Environmental Protection Bureau Pamela S. Horowitz, Esq.
New York State Attorney Charles Morgan, Jr., Esq.
General's Office Morgan Associated, Chartered Two World Trade Center 1899 L Street, N.W.
New York, N.Y.
10047 Washington, D.C.
20036 Alfred B.
Del Bello Charles M.
Pratt, Esq.
Westchester County Executive Thomas R..Frey, Esq.
Westchester County Power Authority of the 148 Martine Avenue State of New York New York, N.Y.
10601 10 Columbus Circle New. York, N.Y.
10019 Andrew S. Roffe, Esq.
New York State Assembly Ellyn R. Weiss, Esq.
Albany, N.Y.
12248 William S. Jordan, III, Esq.
Harmon & Weiss Renee Schwartz, Esq.
1725 I Street.
N.W., Suite 506 Botein, Hays, Sklar & Herzberg Washington, D.C.
20006 Attorneys for Metropolitan Transportation Authority Joan Holt, Project Director 200 Park Avenue Indian. Point Project New York, N.Y.
10166 New York Public Interest Research Group Stanley B. Klimberg 5 Beekman Street General Counsel New York, N.Y.
10038 New York State Energy Office 2 Rockefeller State Plaza John Gilroy, Westchester Albany, N.Y.
12223 Coordinator Indian Point Project Honorable Ruth Messinger New York Public Interest Member of the Council of the Research Group City of New York 240 Central Avenue District #4-White Plains, New York 10606 City Hall New York, N.Y.
10007 Jeffrey M. Blum New York University Law School Marc L.
Parris, Esq.
423 Vanderbilt Hall County Attorney Washington Square South County of Rockland New York, N.Y.
10012 11 New Hempstead Road New City, N.Y.
10010.
Geoffrey Cobb Ryan Alan Latman, Esq.
Conservation Committee 44 Sunset Drive Chairman, Director Croton-on-Hudson, N.Y.
10520 New York City Audubon Society 71 W.
23rd Street, Suite 1828 Lorna Salzman New York, N.Y.
10010 Mid-Atlantic Representative Friends of the Earth, Inc.
Greater New York Council on Energy 208 West 13th Street c/o Dean R. Corren, Director New York, N.Y.
10011 New York University 26 Stuyvesant Street Zipporah S.
Fleisher New York, N.Y.
10003 West Branch Conservation Association Atomic Safety and Licensing 443 Buena Vista Roa.
Board Panel New City, N.Y.
109b6 U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commissi6n Mayor George V. Begany Washington, D.C.
20555 Village of Buchanan 236 Tate Avenue Atomic Safety and Licensing Buchanan, N.Y.
10511 Appeal Board Panel U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Judith Kessler, Coordinator Commission Rockland Citizens for Safe Washington, D.C.
20555 Energy 300 New Hempstead Road Honorable Richard L. Brodsky New City, N.Y.
10956 Member of the County Legislature Westchester County David H. Pikus, Esq.
County Office Building ~
Richard F. Czaja, Esq.
White Plains, N.Y.
10601 330 Madison Avenue 2
New York, N.Y.
10017 Pat Posner, Spokesperson Parents Concerned About Amanda Potterfield,Esq.
Indian Point Box 384 l
P.O. Box 125 Village Station Croton-on-Hudson, N.Y.
10520 New York, New York 10038 Charles A.
Scheiner, Co-Chairperson Westchester People 's Action Coalition, Inc.
P.O. Box 488 White Plains, N.Y.
10602 Dated:
March 5, 1982 New York, New York i
' BRENT L.
BRANDENBU 3-r
- -,