ML20207T533

Lilco Motion to Compel State of Ny to Respond to Lilco First Set of Requests for Admissions Re Reception Ctrs.* Certificate of Svc Encl

ML20207T533
Person / Time
Site:	Shoreham File:Long Island Lighting Company icon.png
Issue date:	03/18/1987
From:	Leugers M HUNTON & WILLIAMS, LONG ISLAND LIGHTING CO.
To:	Atomic Safety and Licensing Board Panel
References
CON-#187-2846 OL-3, NUDOCS 8703240107
Download: ML20207T533 (7)

Text

-

LILCO, March 18,1987 L/g UNITED STATES OF AMERICA.

00CMETED l

USNRC f

NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSION

~

'87. MAR 20 P2 :30 Before the Atomic Safety and Licensing Board

-s

' Of flCE OT F.CRt np y 00CKET E s str<vict' D

5 In the Matter of

)

)

i.

LONG ISLAND LIGHTING COMPANY

) Docket No. 50-322-OL-3

) (Emergency Planning)

(Shoreham Nuclear Power Station,

)(Reopened Reception Center Issue).

UMt i)

)

3 LILCO'S MOTION TO COMPEL STATE OF 1

NEW YORK TO RESPOND TO LILCO'S FIRST SET j

OF REQUESTS FOR ADMISSIONS REGARDING RECEPTION CENTERS j

l, 11

,. - i '

In accordance with:10 C.F.R. S 2.740(f), Long Island Lighting' Company ("LILC,O")-

_l urd emi.:t s : (a.f mv and d=cmq moves this Board for an order compelling Suffolk County and the-State of'NewiYoubteLG. --(ji

.m. v.c, M5+

., 2.y n...n s mis.m respond to LILCO's First Set of Requests for Admissions Regarding Reception Centers

]

w,...e n-3

("LILCO'S Requests for Admission").

I e

I. Introduction On March 3,'1987, LILCO propounded its "First Set of Requests for Admissions

... v

-, a.x a

.c m.

Regarding Reception Centers" on Suffolk County and New York State (herein referred to as "Intervenors"). In particular, the Intervenors were asked whether any other relo-I cation or reception center at any other nuclear plant in New York State have been re-quired to have an EnvironmentalImpact Statement ("EIS") under SEQRA or other state I'

f law or a SPDES water discharge permit in order to conduct monitoring and

~

decontamination at those centers.

i'

~

Intervenors submitted their response, a day late, on March 17,1987, objecting 3I first on relevance grounds to LILCO's Requests for Admissions. In making this objec-l:

tion, the Intervenors stated, as to both requests, that:

i i

8703240107 870318

{DR ADOCK 05000322 PDR D303 y

h

..i

.o 1 a The Governments object to Request No.1-[and Request No.

j' 2] on the ground that it seeks information.which is not rele-

I vant to this proceeding.

Suffolk County and State of New York Response and Objections to LILCO's First Set of

},

Requests for Ariminions Regarding Reception Centers ("Intervenors' Response") at 2.

1i In its second objection to both of these requests, Suffolk County stated that "it

,j does not have sufficient information to admit or deny truthfully Request No.1 [and Request No. 2]." Intervenors' Response at 2,3. The State of New York in its second ob-J) jection to Request No.1 stated that:

The State of New York states that it cannot truthful 11y admit or deny Request No.1 because the issue of whether an EIS is

~

required under SEQRA for other relocation or reception.cen-

{

~

ters has not been addressed by the State authorities having ju-

, ~. risdiction over SEQRA.

j,.;m.

s -

,r

'j I

. n a.<.. M v.

'm Intervenors'. Response at 2o In response to Request No. 2, the State ofrNow York stated' d

't

, onne

..e s

4

- that:

x n,

The State of New York states that it cannot truthfully admit or deny Request No. 2 because the issu_e of whether an SPDES permit is required for other relocatiorror reception centers.

has not been addressed by the State authorities having juris-diction over SPDES permits.

Intervenhrs' Response at 3.

LILCO's Requests for Admissions, described above, are proper under the NRC's Rules of Practice,10 C.F.R. S 2.742. Indeed,Intervenors have made relevance objec-tions to similar requests in the past, and their obpctions have been overruled. New

' York State's remaining responses to Requests Nos. I and 2 are evasive and represent a complete failure to respond at all. Intervenors sho11d be ordered to respond fully to j

i*

these requests now.

l y

1 1

k 1

k M

1

' ~v H. Dhwumminn 4

)

' A.'. Intervenors' Respoose to LILCO's First Set of Requests for Arimimminna

,, is Un'imaty LILCO's Requests for Admissions was served on March 3,~1987 by express mail

.3 upon the Intervenors. The Intervenors did not respond to LILCO's requests until March

,j c

f 17,1987,~ past the 10-day period allowed by 5 2.742 of the NRC's Rules of Practice ac-

-}

cording to S 2.710 of the Rules for computation of time. According to S 2.742(b), each 1

requested admission shall be deemed made unless, witL a ten days af ter service of the request,' the party to whom the request is directed responds in some manner prescribed

~

1 i

$2 by 5 2.742.. The Intervenors have f ailed to do so, thus, by strict construction of the Rules, LILCO's Requests stand admitted.,.

, _. g,, n ;,,c,u. 7 t. 7, % u g,,

. B. g 1ThgJqsensing Board Has,Previously R.C.. ante st w+2.mr rww Yor-m.

~

Held that Information About Other Nnelane -

Power Plants is Relevant; to_the Shors*mn%,:

.,w.,.. eenw

~.

Licennine h:_:_:_tne In this proc $eding involvik 'the Reception Centers as well as in the Shoreham 3

Exercise proceeding, the Board has on numerous occasions ruled that liiformation abou't j

nuclear power plants in New York other than Shoreham is relevant.M uring a confer-D ence call with the Licensing Board on March 16,1987, held just one day before the In-tervenors filed this Response, the Board again ordered the Intervenors to provide LILCO with information concerning other nuclear power plants in New York. In

. LILCO's Third Request for Production of Documents dated March 3,1987, LILCO re-

~

quested current copies and related documents of all parts of the State Plan and the

-1 County Plan concerning monitoring and decontamination at relocation or reception 1

1/

For a more complete discussion of Board rulings that the Intervenors should pro-vide information on other nuclear power plants in New York State, see "LILCO's Motion to Compel Suffolk County and State of New York to Respond to LILCO's Interrogato-ries and Requests for Production of Documents Regarding Reception Centers", dated March 7,1987.

j

1 ;

"4 4a

-J-centers serving those nuclear power plants. Even with this ruling iresh in their memo-

t 4

ry, the Intervenors persisted in this Response in making th'e same repeated objections.

]

on releva'nce grounds to production of information related to other nuclear power j

plants in New York. As a result, LILCO is continually forced to request that this Board move to compel the Intervenors to respond. Intervenors' continual failure to appropri-t, ately respond can only be seen as an attempt to delay the proceeding and hinder

~

LILCO's ability adequately to prepare its testimony which is due to be filed within nine l;

days. Accordingly, the Board should once again order the Intervenors to respond to 4

LILCO's requests for admissions concerning other nuclear power plants in New York

]

i' State.

~

dl T

~

J. '.

t-HI.

New York Statet 53annnd Objectlen -

.)'

m,er',. q,o:3. ;,. e.to LILCOs Requests for Adm4 dan lave of cime -

N 5W! -

7 Evasive and !!hadd Not Be Permitted In answer to LILCO Requests Nos.1 and 2, New York State responded that it could not admit or deny either request as to whether a SPDES permit or an EIS under SEQRA is required for other relocation or reception centers at other nuclear power plants in New York State because the issues "ha[ve] not been addressed by the State 4

authorities having juhisdiction over" SEQRA or SPDES permits. Intervenors' Response at 2,3. LILCO did not ask New York State to admit or deny whether State authorities had addressed these matters. Rather, LILCO requested that the Intervenors admit or deny "[t] hat no other relocation or reception center at any other nuclear power plant i

r:

in New York State has been reauired" to have an EIS [ Request No.1] or a SPDES per-mit (Request No. 2]. LILCO's Request for Admission at 3 (emphasis added). From New i

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 l

imposed at other relocation or reception centers in New York State. But k.ILCU is en tied to a nonevasive answer to its Requests. If New York State was able to discover i

l 1

+

4

.--l,----.

~

i h."

_1 that State authorities having jurisdiction over SEQRA and SPDES permits had not ad-dressed these issues, it could have as easily discovered from those same State authori-j

~

ties wheth,er they have required other relocation or reception centers at other nuclear power plants in New York State to have an EIS or a SPDES permit. New York State's answer is evasive and can only be viewed as an effort to obstruct LILCO's right'to dis-

)

covery of relevant information. Thus, New York State should be required to respond to -

]'

LILCO's Requests for Admission.

i k

?

IV. Conclusion For the reasons stated above, LILCO respectfully moves that this Board enter an.

l' i

order, on an expedited basis, compelling Intervenors to admit or deny LILCO's First Set 0

m-a -

. :. m.

of Requests for Admission Regarding Reception Centers Directed to Suffolk County and

.]

2 )

, a.

ccm un.au H=: 1*icynmawt -

New York State.

a, ' ~ cr+..nnn nur omer N"&ec~

. 4. _-

,. g r. r rn _:,.. m::w,3..,

.a Respectfu11p submitted,

~

.c i

.v u. -

James

.C an/,

Hunton & Williams 707 East Main Street P.O. Box 1535 Richmond, Virginia 23212 DATED: March 18,1987

'k I

l i;.

~

l-i:

i

.i

~

LILCO, March 18,1987.

(.

00LKETED

~

4

'J5NRC i

'87 ISR 20 P2:30 CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE I

0FFICE OF "itWi AF f 00CKETING A SEPVICf.

j

-In the Matter of BRANCH.

j LONG ISLAND LIGHTING COMPANY (Shoreham Nuclear Power Station, Unit 1) j Docket No. 50-322-OL-3

$l I hereby certify that a copy of LILCO's MOTION TO COMPEL STATE OF NEW 1'

YORK TO RESPOND TO LILCO'S FIRST SET OF REQUESTS FOR ADMISSIONS RE-GARDING RECEPTION CENTERS was served this date upon the following by j

telecopter as xticated by one asterisk, by Federal Express as indicated by two aster-

-}

isks, or by first-class mail, postage prepaid.

i i

t

- 'ji Morton B. Margulies, Chairman **

Atomic Safety and Licensing E![

a Atomic Safety and Licensing Appeal Board Panel

• l U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission Washington, D.C. 20555

~,-

1 U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission Board 4

i East-West Towers, Rm. 407 4350 East-West Hwy.

Atomic Safety and Licensing i

1 Bethesda, MD 20814 Board Panel U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission Dr. Jerry R. Kline **

Washington, D.C. 20555 Atomic Safety and Licensing Richard G. Bachmann, Esq. **

Board U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission George E. Johnson, Esq.

East-West Towers, Rm. 427 U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission 4350 East-West Hwy.

7735 Old Georgetown Road Bethesda, MD 20814 (to mailroom)

Bethesda, MD 20814 Mr. Frederick J. Shon **

Atomic Safety and Licensing Herbert H. Brown, Esq. **

Board-Lawrence Coe Lanpher, Esq.

U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission Karla J. Letsche, Esq.

East-West Towers, Rm. 430 Kirkpatrick & Lockhart 3

4350 East-West Hwy.

South Lobby - 9th Floor Bethesda, MD 20814 1800 M Street, N.W.

Washington, D.C. 20036-5891 Secretary of the Commission Attention Docketing and Service Fabian G. Palomino, Esq. **

Section Richard J. Zahnleuter, Esq.

~

U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission Special Counsel to the Governor 1717 H Street, N.W.

Executive Chamber J

Washington, D.C. 20555 Room 229 l

State Capitol 4'

Albany, New York 12224 a

.{

y 4

l.

i 3

"i c

k-

!)

Jl Jonathan D. Feinberg, Esq.

i 8

Mary Gundrum, Esq.

New York State Department of AssistantAttorney General Public Service, Staff Counsel ii 120 Broadway -

Three Rockefeller Plaza Third Floor, Room 3-116 Albany, New York 12223

'! i New York, New York 10271

,y l Ms. Nora Bredes l,

Spence W. Perry, Esq. **

Executive Coordinator William R. Cumming, Esq.

Shoreham Opponents' Coalition Federal Emergency Management 195 East Main Street i

Smithtown, New York 11787 Agency i'

500 C Street, S.W., Room 840 Washington, D.C. 20472 Gerald C. Crotty, Esq..

Counsel to the Governor

, Mr. Jay Dunkleberger Executive Chamber New York State Energy Office State Capitol

}

Agency Building 2 Albany, New York 12224 t

i Empire State Plaza i

Albany, New York 12223 Martin Bradley Ashare, Esq. **

Eugene R. Kelly, Esq.

]

- Suffolk County Attorney

'j Stephen B. Latham, Esq. **

~

H. Lee Dennison Building Twomey, Latham & Shea 33 West Second Street Veterans Memorial Highway J:

I P.O. Box 298 Hauppauge, New York 11787 Riverhead, New York 11901 Dr. Monroe Schneider Mr. Philip McIntire North Shore Committee t.

Federal Emergency Management P.O. Box 231 Wading River, NY 11792

. Agency 26 Federal Plaza' New York, New York 10278 4

/2A4/

A/>G vgewr Hunton & Williams l'

707 East Main Street 1

P.O. Box 1535 Richmond, Virginia 23212 DATED: March 18,1987 t

1:

1 y

. _... -,.. -. _ _ -. _.. _ _. _. ~.

__ -_.___ __.__ _... -,.