ML20207S614
| ML20207S614 | |
| Person / Time | |
|---|---|
| Site: | Shoreham File:Long Island Lighting Company icon.png |
| Issue date: | 03/17/1987 |
| From: | Margulies M Atomic Safety and Licensing Board Panel |
| To: | |
| References | |
| CON-#187-2836 86-529-02-OL, 86-529-2-OL, OL-3, NUDOCS 8703200097 | |
| Download: ML20207S614 (5) | |
Text
> 2$%
..a.
i,.
DOCKETED USNRC UNITED STATES OF AMERICA NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSION
'87 MAR 18 P3 :44 ATOMIC SAFETY AND LICENSING BOARD Before Administrative Judges:
[oC F
G BRANCH Morton B. Margulies, Chairman Dr. Jerry R. Kline Mr. Frederick J. Shon SERVED MAR 191987
)
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 17, 1987
)
MEMORANDUM MEMORIALIZING RULING ON MOTION TO COMPEL RESPONSE TO LILCO'S INTERROGATORIES AND TO PRODUCE DOCUMENTS On March 7, 1987 LILC0 filed a motion to compel Suffolk County and the State of New York to respond to interrogatories and to produce-documents regarding the reception centers.
The interrogatories filed January 16, 1987, February 4, 1987, and March 3, 1987, seek to discover possible inconsistencies between Intervenors views on Shoreham and their views on other nuclear plants in F
New York State.
Intervenors had objected to the first two requests on relevancy grounds and an answer to the third request was not yet due.
I Applicant claims that the information about the other nuclear plants in New York State is relevant to the Shoreham licensing proceeding.
It argues, for example, that if New York State does not require particular permits for other reception centers in the state it is relevant to a State position that such permits are needed for the gy032hh P
P" J.SCL o
1,,
2 Shoreham reception centers. LILC0 asserts that while the ultimate issue of suitability is specific to the Shoreham facilities, the standard for judging suitability is not. To determine whether the Shoreham reception centers are suitable, it is first necessary to have some idea of what is suitable as a general matter. LILC0 expects that the State's treatment of other reception centers will at a minimum provide valuable background information. Also, it would be reasonably expected to lead to information regarding the attitudes and beliefs relied on by New York.
In its motion LILC0 also alleged that Intervenors' responses to LILC0's requests for documents have been generally unsatisfactory. It cited the failure to submit an opinion survey a witness intended to rely on in his testimony and a failure to submit an updated resume for another witness.1 It was further alleged that other data and analyses were to be produced, and it sought to have them provided promptly.
Suffolk County and the State of New York in their pleading in opposition filed March 13, 1987 stated inter alia that tt.e information sought as to facilities at other plants were irrelevant, the subject matter of the hearing being LILCO's plan and LILCO's reception centers.
They asserted that because the interrogatories seek information which is outside the scope of the issues defined by the Board the requests cannot be considered reasonably calculated to lead to the discovery of 1
Applicant corrected its motion on March 9, 1987, having had received the opinion survey. The updated resume had also been furnished to LILCO.
il, I
3 admissible evidence.
Intervenors cited a previous instance where the Board would not receive evidence regarding the State's plans for accidents at nuclear plants in New York State other than Shoreham.
Suffolk County and the State of New York claimed the motion to compel was untimely as it related to the first two interrogatory requests.
10 C.F.R. 2.740(f)(1) provides for a ten day filing period.
As to the failure to file other documents, Intervenors took the position that the claim was unfounded. They noted the prior filing of the opinion survey and updated resume. They claimed that the parties were otherwise similarly situated. With the fast pace with which the matter is proceeding to. hearing they stated each side has yet to finish surveys and studies. The other sides are awaiting their completion so that they can be considered in the prefiled testimony which is due shortly. The State and County did not view this as a problem without a remedy. They look for its resolution by permitting the filing of rebuttal testimony whera good cause is demonstrated.
The motion was taken up during a telephone conference on March 16, 1987. Participants included Applicant, Suffolk County, the State of New York, Staff and FEMA. Only LILCO, the County and the State took positions in the matter.
After considering the positions of the parties, the Board determined that the motion to compel was untimely as regards the first two sets of interrogatories because of the ten day filing requirement in 10 C.F.R. 2.740( f)(1). The Board found the motion to ccmpel, as to the
7 3
4 interrogatories sought March 3,1987, not to be untimely and the requested information to be relevant.
The information sought pertains to the monitoring and decontamination of evacuees and vehicles for radiological contamination at nuclear facilities in New York State other than at Shoreham.
It does not inquire about facilities indiscriminate 1y.
It seeks information pertaining to facilities with which New York State has a direct relationship and for which there is a comparable situation at Shoreham.
The information requested should be reasonably expected to lead to information regarding the attitudes, beliefs and standards relied upon by New York State in these emergency planning matters.
It could provide information of possible inconsistencies between New York State's views on Shoreham and their views on other nuclear plants in New York State.
Such information is discoverable under the Commission's regulations and practice.
As to that part of the motion addressed to the failure to produce as yet uncompleted studies, the Board cor.cluded that parties on each side were in the same predicament and there was no indication the situation had come about because of bad faith dealings.
With the discovery and hearing schedules fixed and the Board not wanting to alter them so as to delay the proceeding it was determined that the outstanding discoverable matters should be provided as promptly as possible and that to the extent it need be, it be introduced in the proceeding by the filing of rebuttal testimony on a showing of good cause.
e
.:]
5 The Board so ruled at the telephone conference.
FOR THE ATOMIC SAFETY AND LICENSING BOARD kW Yhm Morton 3. MargulierJ Chairman ADMINISTRATIVE LAW JUDGE Dated at Bethesda, Maryland this 17th day of March,1987 t
u ii e i i -