ML20212L103
| ML20212L103 | |
| Person / Time | |
|---|---|
| Site: | Shoreham File:Long Island Lighting Company icon.png |
| Issue date: | 01/21/1987 |
| From: | Matchett S HUNTON & WILLIAMS, LONG ISLAND LIGHTING CO. |
| To: | Atomic Safety and Licensing Board Panel |
| Shared Package | |
| ML20212L105 | List: |
| References | |
| CON-#187-2304 OL-5, NUDOCS 8701290320 | |
| Download: ML20212L103 (3) | |
Text
--
($
- 2. ~jd LILCO, January 21,' 1987 a.,
DOCKEifC UNITED STATES OF AMERICA U iNi<C NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSION
'87 JAN 27 P3 :01 Before the Atomic Safety and Licensing Board gryg,,
00CKE % A a r,xt
.ntNcq In the Matter of
)
)
LONG ISLAND LIGHTING COMPANY
) Docket No. 50-322-OL-5
) (EP Exercise)
(Shoreham Nuclear Power Station,
)
Unit 1)
)
LILCO'S MOTION FOR LEAVE TO FILE A REPLY TO SUFFOLK COUNTY ET AL'S RESPONSE IN OPPOSITION TO LILCO'S MOTION TO COMPEL REGARDING LILCO'S FIRST REQUEST FOR ADMISSIONS AND THIRD SET OF INTERROGATORIES On January 15, 1987 Intervenors filed their Response in Opposition to LILCO's Motion to Compel Suffolk County, the State of New York, and the Town of Southampton to Respond to LILCO's First Request for Admissions and Third Set of In-terrogatoriesII (hereinaf ter " Opposition"). Intervenors' Opposition sets out at length specific reasons (merely alluded to in their earlier, " substantive" responseh why (1) they are allegedly unable to provide the requested admissions or denials or (2) they are refusing to do so. In their Opposition, however, Intervenors not only expand on old 1/ -
LILCO propounded its "First Request for Admissions and Third Set of Interroga-tories" on December 1,1986. Intervenors filed their " Response of Suffolk County, the State of New York, and the Town of Southampton to LILCO's First Request for Admis-sions and Third Set of Interrogatories" eight days late, on December 22,1983. On the same day LILCO received that Response, LILCO asked the Board for an order requiring Intervenors to admit or deny the accuracy of the contents of the timeline which was the subject of LILCO's First Request for Admissions. See LILCO's Motion Regarding Pending Discovery Matters and Order of Proceeding Under the December 11 Order (December 23,1986), at 11-13. LILCO filed a formal Motion to Compel on January 5, 1987.
2/
Intervenors first filed a unilateral " notice" on December 15, 1986 informing the Board and the parties that they would not be responding timely to LILCO's Request for l
Admissions.
i.
i 8701290320 870121
]
PDR ADOCK 05000322 G
PDR so3 a
_-.. ~ _,, - _
s__._,__-.,,,r__,,...,-.-,,,,,m.--
_,,...,,.,.---.,-__.---,r.___-__..--
arguments but also proffer entirely new arguments that were not even hinted at in their earlier response. Intervenors also mischaracterize the timeline that is the subject of LILCO's request. Those arguments warrant further comment from L!LCO. Accord-ingly, LILCO hereby files its reply and moves that the Board consider it in ruling on LILCO's Motion to Compel.
Intervenors' December 22,1986 " response" to LILCO's Firt I Request for Admis-sions consisted of a 3 page statement of Intervenors' intention not to respond further, for the asserted reasons that (1) the timeline is voluminous, (2) it covers a large number of Exercise messages and references "that have no relevance to admitted contentions
~
or matters in controversy", (3) some of the timeline entries are summaries of the actual Exercise documents, and "the Governments cannot agree to the characterizations" contained therein, and (4) since some of the Exercise events were simulated, Interve-nors cannot admit that the events mentioned in players' documents occurred at the times noted. See Response of Suffolk County et al. to LILCO's Firsj Request for Admis-sions (December 22,1986), at 3. Since the December 22 " response" was in fact not a proper response at all, and admitted nothing save for a few general matters,ULILCO filed its Motion to Compel on January 5,1987. In that motion, LILCO was forced to an-ticipate and then respond to the arguments mentioned in Intervenors' Response.
Intervenors' January 15, 1987 Opposition to LILCO's Motion to Compel consists of 22 pages of text, exclusive of attachments. In it,Intervenors flesh out their previous assertions purportedly justifying their refusal to respond further. In addition, Interve-nors add at least one new aigument, not previously mentioned,M that assertedly 3/
Intervenors " admitted" that (1) the logs and message forms "were in fact pre-pared by the LERO players indicated on such documents," (2) "the notations contained In such documents were made at approximately the times indicated on the documents,"
and (3) "to the best of their knowledge, there are no other documents generated by LERO players during the Exercise." December 22 Response at 2.
4/
Intervenors now argue that they are unable to admit or deny the accuracy of LILCO's timeline because their opportunity to observe actual events on February 13 was unduly limited. See Opposition at 6.
4 e,
,,,__n,
justifies that refusal. Moreover, the January 15 Opposition contains many generalities E and that attempt speciously not only to throw into doubt the that are plainly wrong accuracy of the timeline but also to cast aspersions on the propriety of LILCO's filing it in the first place. All the while, Intervenors attempt to obfuscate and avoid their duty under NRC regulations to admit or deny specifically each factual statement presented in the timeline.
Fairness dictates that LILCO be given an opportunity to reply to Intervenors' ar-guments (one of which is totally new and the remainder of which are in effect new), to correct Intervenors' factual mischaracterizations of the timeline, and to place the timeline and accompanying admissions request in the accurate context. Accordingly, LILCO requests that the Board grant this motion and consider the attached reply in ruling on LILCO's Motion to Compel.
Respectf ully submitted, Q }A
. _ A, jj T J. / fl M Dotfald P. Irwin V Scott D. Matchett Hunton & Williams 707 East Main Street P.O. Box 1535 Richmond, Virginia 23212 DATED: January 21,1987 i
!/
For example, Intervenors state that the timeline as a whole "is grossly inaccu-rate and thus provides no basis upon which to expect other parties to have to file re-sponses." Opposition at 6.
_