ML20205L794
| ML20205L794 | |
| Person / Time | |
|---|---|
| Site: | Shoreham File:Long Island Lighting Company icon.png |
| Issue date: | 03/24/1987 |
| From: | Zahnleuter R NEW YORK, STATE OF |
| To: | Atomic Safety and Licensing Board Panel |
| References | |
| CON-#287-2963 OL-3, NUDOCS 8704020194 | |
| Download: ML20205L794 (11) | |
Text
,?
~
i
) fh3 RELATED CORRESPONDENCE 00CNETED USNRC March 24, 1987 37 HN130 Pi:I3 i
UNITED STATES OF AMERICA 0FFICE CF IECRETARY NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSION CCCBEImii.>. SEFv,y*
DRANCH Before the Atomic Safety and Licensina Boced
)
In the Matter of
)
)
LONG ISLAND LIGHTING COMPANY
)
Docket No. 50-322-OL-3
)
(Emergency Planning)
(Shoreham Nuclear Power Station,
)
Unit 1)
)
)
STATE OF NEW YORK OPPOSITION TO LILCO'S FIRST SET OF REQUESTS FOR ADMISSIONS REGARDING RECEPTION CENTERS On March 18, 1987, LILCO filed a motioni seeking an order compelling the State of New York
(" State") to respond to certain requests for admissions previously served upon the State by LILCO.2 For the reasons set forth below, LILCO's Motion should i
[
be denied.
t s,
1 1
LILCO's Motion To Compel State of New York To Respond to LILCO's First Set of Requests For Admissions Regarding Reception Centers (March 18, 1987) (" Motion").
2 LILCO's First Set of Requests for Admissions Regarding Reception Centers (March 3, 1987)
(" Requests").
~
8704020194 870324 3
PDR ADOCK 05000322
})b0 0
BACKGROUND On March 3, 1987, LILCO served the State and Suffolk County with the Requests at issue here.
Specifically, LILCO sought admissions to the following statements:
Recuest 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 decon-tamination of evacuees for radioactive contam-ination during a nuclear accident.
Recuest No. 2 That no other relocation or reception center at any nuclear power plant in New York State has been required to have a SPDES water dis-charge permit in order to conduct monitoring and decontamination of evacuees for radio-active contamination or to discharge contami-nated water into the public water system.
Requests at 3.
The Governments' responses to the Requests were due on March 16, but were not in fact served until the following day.3 3
Egg Suffolk County and State of New York Response and Objections to LILCO's First Set of Request for Admissions Regarding Reception Centers (March 17, 1987)
(" Response").
The Governments' one-day delay in service of their Response was not intentional, and was not an attempt to delay the proceeding or to hinder LILCO's ability to prepare its testimony as LILCO accuses.
(footnote continued)
.o In their Response, the Governments answered LILCO's Requests as follows:
Answer to Reauest No.
1.
The Governments object to Request No. 1 on the ground that it seeks information which
~
is not relevant to this proceeding.
Without waiving this objection, the Governments answer as follows:
Suffolk County states that it does not have sufficient information to admit or deny truthfully Request No.
1.
The State of New York states that it cannot truthfully admit or deny Request No. 1 because the issue of whether an EIS is required under SEQRA for other relocation or reception centers has not been addressed by the State authorities having jurisdiction over SEQRA.
(footnote continued from previous page)
Counsel for the State was attending the hearing in the OL-5 proceeding from Tuesday through Friday of the preceding week and was unable to prepare and serve a response'while in Long Island.
Counse1~for the State did, however, make arrangements for counsel with Suffolk County to file a joint response.
Both counsel made plans to consult with one another on. Monday, March 16, for purposes of preparing such a joint response.
However, they were unable to do so until after close of business on that' day due to the fact that a long conference call with the Board and other parties was held on Monday morning, after which Counsel for the State was required to meet with and prepare a State witness, Langdon Marsh, for a deposition which took place Monday afternoon.
The deposition lasted until 5:30 p.m. that evening.
By that time, it was impossible, from a logistical point of. view, to serve the Governments' Response on that day.
The Response was prepared that night, after counsel were finally able to confer, and was sent the next day by Federal Express to LILCO.
Answer to Recuest No.
2.
The Governments object to Request No. 2 on the ground that it seeks information which is not relevant to this proceeding.
Without waiving-this objection, the Governments answer as follows.
Suffolk County states that it does not have sufficient information to admit or deny truthfully Request No.
2.
The State of New York states that it cannot truthfully admit or deny Request No. 2 because the issue of whether an SPDES permit is required for other relocation or reception centers has not been addressed by the State authorities having jurisdiction over SPDES permits.
Response at 2-3.
LILCO argues that the State's answer is evasive and is an effort to obstruct LILCO's right to discovery of relevant informa-tion.
Motion at 5.
LILCO also appears to assert that the Governments' relevancy objections were improper.
Motion at 3-4.
For the reasons set forth below, LILCO's motion should be denied.
DISCUSSION I.
The State of New York Has a Right to Preserve Its Obiections To LILCO's Discoverv Reauests LILCO first complains that the Governments acted improperly in stating an objection to the relevance to LILCO's Requests.
This is a non-issue.
e
/
The Governments stated their objection to the relevance of LILCO's Requests for the purpose of preserving their objections for the record.
In fact, the Governments, after stating their objections, went on to respond to the Requests.
No information was withheld on grounds of the stated objections.
Therefore, LILCO's complaint is meaningless.
II. The State of New York Has Responded As Comoletely As Possible To LILCO's Recuests.
LILCO's primary complaint is that the State's responses to its requests were evasive and an attempt to obstruct legitimate discovery.
LILCO's complaint is unfounded.
LILCO's Requests asked the State to admit that' environmental impact statements ("EIS") and State Pollutant Discharge
- c.,
Elimination System ("SPDES") permits have not been "~ required" at other nuclear power plants in New York State.
The State responded that it could not truthfully admit or deny the request because the v.
question of whether the requirements for an EIS or.SPDES permit apply to other nuclear power plants has not been addressed by the authorities with jurisdiction over the matter.
This answer is completely truthful and as responsive as possible to the question posed.
\\
9
-S-
.\\
s I
s 3
a K4
'i
\\
..e s
w
\\,
p/'
)
t y
g, h
3 1-
/.'
s
(
,x
'e s
..\\
'\\]
/
t.
l
_ _' Wl; ether an EIS or.an SPDES permit is " required" depends on U
the a'pplic tion cif the,0yrovisions of the relevant state environ-ci.
i v
i h
mental lawsvo the specdfic\\, facts of a particular facility.or s
r, c
l[
'poeNial. hazard.
Here, $he State has responded that the Authori-y
)
+
[
( ties having jurisdicallon over the matter Save not addressed th'e c y issue di whethe.r the provisions of applicable state environmental s,
j,V h
laws. impose a requirement f'or an EIS or SPDES permi't at reception
(-
- 3 b;l2 centers other than LILCO's.
The State cannot admit that LILCO's
\\/
\\
'),'requet;ts are true, becausevit may well be that an EIS orfSPDES, permit la.requi[ red.under applicable state law for one yr all ofs
't, t
x r
g t
3-w 1
)
v the other reception centers in the State.
The State has simply 1
h' o
t.
i l V
y, not' to date,3pplied the %
.. partinent to other reception Centers s
i to the appMcable environsh n%1 laws.
It may or may not do so in i
o i
)
1 s
the future.
.p.
1 1
i
\\
j It appears Utom the Motion that LILCO was actually seeking
(
I
{
u{pissionsto'differentquestionsthanthoseactuallyposed.
If t
e LIACO'r R9 quests'were intended to discover whether.the State has v,
takenhepforcementactionagainst'otheroperatorsof' reception I
centeys for failure to have ah 5:IS or SPDES permit *, then that is a different qu$stion.
HTaever, the State cannot be faulted for
\\*
}
, answering the question posed, and not the question that LILCO e
wished it,had askW.d.
Likewise, if LILCO's Requests were meant to ask whether counties have designated rec.eption centers without t
i
.g seeking a d7 termination from the appropriate State agency regard-
\\
ing the need for an EIS or:a SPDES permit, that is also a i a i
?
\\.
3_
s
\\
s
,,..,.---)+-
.-,-,-,,-..,,,-,n, 4
/
9 e
'n different question.4 The State, however, properly answered the questions posed and was under no obligation to try to divine whether LILCO actually intended to ask something else.
l In short, the State has answered LILCO's Requests as com-pletely as possible.
It has stated that it cannot truthfully admit or deny LILCO's Requests and explained why.
Nothing more is required.
1
\\
CONCLUSION For the foregoing reasons, LILCO's Motion should tue denied.
I Respectfully submitted,
?
/
,: f,L,
- /s fif ll./
' Fabian 9. Palomino Richardt,J..'-Zahnleuter Special Counsel to the Governor of the State of New York Executive Chamber, Room 229 Capitol Building s
Albany, New York 12224 Attorneys for Governor Mario Cuomo and the State of New York j
March 24, 1987 6,
4 LILCO's Requests appear to be based on an erroneous perception of how the State administers the relevant environmental laws.
It is the responsibility of tne party advocating the conduct of a regulated activity to seek a determination from the appropriate State agency regarding the need for an EIS or SPDES permit.
It is not the responsibility of the State to seek such a determination from itself.
i,
, 4
'b L
l
-l, l
,e t
t i
g DOCKETED y,
USNRC j
l,6 March 24, 1987
'87 MAR 30 P1 :13 UNITED STATES OF AMERICA
[0CM[y,Sc.7
~
F'C y
NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSION BRANCH Before the Atomic Safety and Licensino Board
)
l In the Matter of
)
l
)
rLONG ISLAND LIGHTING COMPANY
)
Docket No. 50-322-OL-3
)
(Emergency Planning)
I
[1 (Shoreham Nuclear Power Station,
)
(
Unit 1)
)
)
CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE I hereby cert;ty that copies of STATE OF NEW YORK OPPOSITION TO LILCO'S FIRST';3T OF REQUESTS FOR ADMISSIONS REGARDING RECEPTION CENTERS have been served on the following this 24th day of March, 1987 by United States mail, first class, except as otherwise noted.
I
\\
f j
Morton B. Margulies, Esq., Chairman ** Joel Blau, Esq.
Atomic Safety and Licensing Board Director, Utility Intervention U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission N.Y.
Consumer Protection Board Washington, D.C.
20555 Suite 1020 Albany, New York 12210 Dr. Jerry R.
Kline**
William R. Cumming, Esq.
Atomic Safety and Licensing Board Spence W.
Perry, Esq.
U.S. Nuclear Regulatocy Commission Office of General Counsel Washington, D.C.
20555 Federal Emergency Management Agency 500 C Street, S.W.,
Room 840 Washington, D.C.
20472 0/
t 2
6 t
E
- 5
!.i
,p t
Mr. Frederick J. Shon**
Anthony F.
Eagley, Jr., Esq.
Atomic Safety and Licensing Board General Counsel U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission Long Island Lighting Company Washington, D.C.
20555 175 East Old Country Road Hicksville, New York 11801 Ms. Elisabeth Taibbi W. Taylor Reveley, III, Esq.*A' Clerk Hunton & Williams Suffolk County Legislature P.O.
Box 1535 Suffolk County Legislature 707 East Main Street Office Building Richmond, Virginia 23212 Veterans Memorial Highway Hauppauge, New York 11788 Mr. L. F. Britt Stephen B.
Latham, Esq.
Long Island Lighting Company Twomey, Latham & Shea Shoreham Nuclear Power Station 33 West Second Street North Country Road Riverhead, New York 11901 Wading River, New York 11792 Ms. Nora Bredes Docketing and Service Section Executive Director Office of the Secretary Shoreham Opponents Coalition U.S.
Nuclear Regulatory Comm.
195 East Main Street 1717 H Street, N.W.
Smithtown, New York 11787 Washington, D.C.
20555 Mary M. Gundrum, Esq.
Hon. Michael A. LoGrande New York State Department of Law Suffolk County Executive 120 Broadway, 3rd Floor H. Lee Dennison Building Room 3-116 Veterans Memorial Highway New York, New York 10271 Hauppauge, New York 11788 MHB Technical Associates Dr. Monroe Schneider 1723 Hamilton Avenue North Shore Committee Suite K P.O.
Box 231 San Jose, California 95125 Wading River, New York 11792 Martin Bradley Ashare, Esq.
Herbert H. Brown, Esq.d6#
Suffolk County Attorney Lawrence Coe Lanpher, Esq.
Bldg. 158 North County Complex Karla J.
Letsche, Esq.,
Veterans Memorial Highway Kirkpatrick and Lockart Hauppauge, New York 11788 South Lobby - Ninth Floor 1800 "M" Street, N. W.
Washington, D.
C.
20036-5891 Mr. Jay Dunkleburger Richard G. Bachmann, Esq.84 New York State Energy Office U.S.
Nuclear Regulatory Comm.
Agency Building 2 Washington, D.C.
20555 Empire State Plaza Albany, New York 12223.
Mr. Frederick J.
Shon**
Anthony F.
Earley, Jr., Esq.
Atomic Safety and Licensing Board General Counsel U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission Long Island Lighting Company Washington, D.C.
20555 175 East Old Country Road Hicksville, New York 11801 Ms. Elisabeth Taibbi W. Taylor Reveley, III, Esq.*2' Clerk Hunton & Williams Suffolk County Legislature P.O. Box 1535 Suffolk County Legislature 707 East Main Street Office Building Richmond, Virginia 23212 Veterans Memorial Highway Hauppauge, New York 11788 Mr. L.
F. Britt Stephen B.
Latham, Esq.
Long Island Lighting Company Twomey, Latham & Shea Shoreham Nuclear Power Station 33 West Second Street North Country Road Riverhead, New York 11901 Wading River, New York 11792 Ms. Nora Bredes Docketing and Service Section Executive Director Office of the Secretary Shoreham Opponents Coalition U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Comm.
195 East Main Street 1717 H Street, N.W.
Smithtown, New York 11787 Washington, D.C.
20555 Mary M. Gundrum, Esq.
Hon. Michael A. LoGrande New York State Department of Law Suffolk County Executive 120 Broadway, 3rd Floor H.
Lee Dennison Building Room 3-116 Veterans Memorial Highway New York, New York 10271 Hauppauge, New York 11788 MHB Technical Associates Dr. Monroe Schneider 1723 Hamilton Avenue North Shore Committee Suite K P.O.
Box 231 San Jose, California 95125 Wading River, New Ycrk 11792 Martin Bradley Ashare, Esq.
Herbert H.
Brown, Esq.iff Suffolk County Attorney Lawrence Coe Lanpher, Esq.
Bldg. 158 North County Complex Karla J.
Letsche, Esq.
Veterans Memorial Highway Kirkpatrick and Lockart Hauppauge, New York 11788 South Lobby - Ninth Floor 1800 "M" Street, N. W.
Washington, D.
C.
20036-5891 Mr. Jay Dunkleburger Richard G. Bachmann, Esq.84 New York State Energy Office U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Comm.
Agency Building 2 Washington, D.C.
20555 Empire State Plaza Albany, New York 12223
,. g v David A. Brownlee, Esq.
Mr. Stuart Diamond Kirkpatrick & Lockhart Business / Financial 1500 Oliver Building NEW YORK TIMES Pittsburgh, Pennsylvania 15222 229 W. 43rd Street New York, New York 10036 Douglas J. Hynes, Councilman Town Board of Oyster Bay Town Hall Oyster Bay, New York 11771 A-/%',
,3l_,c y/kfabk) g Fabian G'.
Pa,lomino, Esq.
Richard }7 Zahnleuter, Esq.
Special Counsel to the Governor Executive Chamber Room 229, State Capitol Albany, New York 12224
- Via Federal Express
- Via Telecopy