ML20205F258
| ML20205F258 | |
| Person / Time | |
|---|---|
| Site: | Shoreham File:Long Island Lighting Company icon.png |
| Issue date: | 03/25/1987 |
| From: | Kline J, Margulies M, Shon F Atomic Safety and Licensing Board Panel |
| To: | LONG ISLAND LIGHTING CO. |
| References | |
| CON-#187-2903 86-529-02-OL, 86-529-2-OL, OL-3, NUDOCS 8703310126 | |
| Download: ML20205F258 (6) | |
Text
-
4
,;o DOCKETED USNRC UNITED STATES OF AMERICA NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSION
'87 ffAR 25 P4:15 ATOMIC SAFETY AND LICENSING G3ARD
~
Before Administrative Judges:
[CHYTf GS~NYfE[~
BRANCH Morton B. Margulies, Chairman Dr. Jerry R. Kline Mr. Frederick J. Shon SERVED MAR 261987-
)
In the Matter of
)
Docket No. 50-322-0L-3
)
(Emergency Planning)
LONG ISLAND LIGHTING COMPANY.
)
)
(ASLBP No. 86-529-02-0L)
(Shoreham Nuclear Power Station,
)
Unit 1)
)
March 25 1987 t
)
MEMORANDUM AND ORDER (Ruling on LILCO's March 18, 1987 Motion to Compel)
==
Introduction:==
On March 18, 1987, LILC0 filed a motion pursuant to 10 C.F.R. 2.740(f) to compel Intervenors to admit or deny Applicant's first set of requests for admission regarding reception centers, of March 3,1987.
Suffolk County and the State of New York had filed responses to the requests for admission on March 17, 1937.
In timely responses to the motion filed March 24, 1987, Suffolk Coct.y and the State of New York asked that the motion to compel be denied.
In this Memorandum and Order we grant Applicant's motion to compel as to New York State and deny it l
as to Suffolk County.
8703310126 870325 PDR ADOCK 05000322 O
PDR P
)S
l kl i
2 Discussion:
In its March 3,1987 request LILCO sought admissions of Suffolk County and New York State as to the following statements:
Request No. 1 That no other relocation or reception center at any nuclear power plant in New York State has been required to have an Environmental Impact Statement under SEQRA or other state law in order to conduct monitoring and decontamination of evacuees for radioactive contamination during a nuclear accident.
Request No. 2 That no other relocation or reception center at an'y nuclear power plant in New York State has been required to have a SPDES water discharge permit in order to conduct monitoring and decontamination of evacuees for radioactive contamination or to discharge contaminated water into the public water system.
In their response of March 17, 1987, Suffolk County and New York State responded that the requests seek information which is not relevant to the proceeding. Without waiving the objections, Suffolk County further responded that it does not have sufficient information to admit or deny truthfully the two requests. New York State responded it cannot truthfully admit or deny the requests because the issues of whether an Environmental Impact Statement (EIS) is required under SEQRA and an SPDES permit is needed for other relocation or reception centers have not been addressed by the State authorities having jurisdiction in the respective matters.
Applicant in its March 18, 1987 motion to compel asserted that Intervenors did not respond within the 10 day period allowed by 10 C.F.R. 2.742 and that by strict construction of the rules LILC0's requests stand admitted. Applicant further claimed that this Licensing
O
[i.
3 Board on March 16, 1987 had held the subject matter to be relevant. It further alleged that New York State's answer was evasive. LILC0 stated New York State was not asked to admit or deny whether State authorities had addressed the matters but whether any other facility "has been required" to have an EIS or a SPDES permit. LILCO further stated that from New York State's response LILCO could justifiably conclude (since these issues have not been addressed by the proper State authorities) that such requirements have not been imposed at any other relocation or reception center in New York State.
It claims however,'it is entitled to nonevasive answers to its requests.
In its opposition to the motion to compel Suffolk County asserted that the complaint was actually directed against the State of New York.
It joined the State of New York in opposing the motion.
New York State requested that LILCO's motion should be denied for several reasons.
It admitted that its response to the request for admissions being one day late because of the press of the proceedings.
The State considered this to be innocuous. New York State stated it withheld no information on its assertion that the subject matters were not relevant.
It took that course to preserve its objections for the record. New York State further asserted its answers were complete and as responsive as possible to the questions posed.
It went on to state that whether an EIS or an SPDES permit is required, depends on the application of the provisions of the relevant State environmental laws to the specific facts of a particular facility or potential hazard.
The State claimed that the authorities having jurisdiction over the matters
. ~..
e
-l 4
had not addressed the issues of whether the provisions of applicable state. environmental laws impose a requirement for an EIS or SPDES permit at reception centers other than LILCO's.
It asserted that the State cannot admit that LILCO's requests are true, because it may well be that the statement or permit is required under applicable state law for one or all of the other reception centers in the State.
Findings:
The motion to compel will be de:ided by the Licensing Board on its merits and not on the question of timeliness. The parties have been very diligent in complying with the service requirements in this proceeding, where express delivery is the norm. flothing was shown to be involved in the late filing other than a harmless error.
The subject matters of the requests for admission are the proper subject for discovery.
It was so held by the Licensing Board on March 16, 1987 and it need not be discussed any further here.
Suffolk County's responses were not shown to be incorrect or incomplete. The motion as pertains to it is without merit.
New York State, however, misconstrued Applicant's request to admit or deny. LILCO's request was to determine whether an EIS or SPDES permit has been required at other facilities not whether either i_ss required. A simple factual matter was inquired of. At the time of the request, had an EIS or SPDES permit been required by New York State at the other facilities. Applicant's inquiry was not whether a statement l
or permit is required.
It is possible an EIS or SPDES permit is i
t
- c
- t 5
required by law but may not have been required by the authorities at the time of the request. Applicant is entitled to a direct response to a
' clear, unambiguous request. The State authorities having jurisdiction over the EIS under SEQRA and SPDES permits, who responded that they have not addressed these issues, should be fully capable of directly admitting or denying whether the statements and permits had been required at other facilities. Responding to the request as posed will settle the controversy.
Order:
Based upon all of the foregoing the Licensing Board Orders that:
1.
Applicant's motion to compel of March 18, 1987, as directed to Suffolk County be, and is hereby denied.
2.
Applicant's motion to compel of March 18, 1987, as directed to New York State be, and is hereby granted.
3.
New York State is to directly either admit or deny the statements propounded to it in Applicant's requests of March 3,1987.
t 6
4.
Because Applicant's prefiled testimony is due Monday, March 30, 1987, New York State's response is due in the hands of Applicant by noon on Friday, March 27, 1987.
5.
This Memorandum and Order will be read by telephone to the parties during the morning of March 25, 1987.
THE ATOMIC SAFETY AND LICENSING BOARD e
Morton B. Margdlies JChairman ADMINISTRATIVE LAW 40DGE h
Jerry R. Kline ADMINISTRATIVE JUDGE AJS Frederic ( J. Shon ADMINISTRATIVE J GE F3 Dated at Bethesda, Maryland this 25th day of March,1987