ML20078C825
| ML20078C825 | |
| Person / Time | |
|---|---|
| Site: | Shoreham File:Long Island Lighting Company icon.png |
| Issue date: | 09/23/1983 |
| From: | Irwin D HUNTON & WILLIAMS, LONG ISLAND LIGHTING CO. |
| To: | Atomic Safety and Licensing Board Panel |
| References | |
| ISSUANCES-OL-3, NUDOCS 8309280225 | |
| Download: ML20078C825 (9) | |
Text
I
~
l LILCOQO g hmber 23, 1983 UNITED STATES OF AM g C g NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMNISsIOF n2:20 i
0FFICE OF SECW tar l
s l
Before the Atomic Safety and 116ehbl6dfBoard l
In the Matter of
)
l
)
LONG ISLAND LIGHTING COMPANY
)
Docket No. 50-322-OL-3 j
)
(Emergency Planning Proceeding)
(Shoreham Nuclear Power Station, )
Unit 1)
)
l l
LILCO'S RESPONSE TO SUFFOLK COUNTY'S MOTION TO COMPEL LILCO RESPONSE TO INTERROGATORY CONCERNING LERO WORKERS i
l l
On September 16, 1983, Suffolk County filed a Motion to
(
Compel LILCO's Response to Suffolk County's Interrogatory Con-cerning LERO Workers.
That interrogatory (the " Additional In-terrogatory") was filed August 24, 1983, and was a detailed l
(
follow-up to an earlier interrogatory covering the makeup of the LERO volunteer force, filed on July 18, 1983 and answered by LILCO on August 5, 1983.
In its motion, Suffolk County has I
taken the position that the information requested by the Addi-tional Interrogatory is relevant to the issues in this proceed-ing and that LILCO's objection, on the grounds that it is over-j ly broad, unduly burdensome, seeks information that is not rel-i evant and is not reasonably calculated to lead to the discovery of admissible evidence, and seeks information in a form differ-ent from that maintained by LILCO in the ordinary course of its business, was improper.
For the reasons detailed below, LILCO B309280225 830923 PDR ADOCK 05000322 S@
G PDR
believes that the "AdditionalrInterrogatory" is objectionable and that an answer to it should not be compelled.
In addition to the bases summarized above, LILCO's objec-tion to this interrogatory also reflects the position that emergency planning litigation should not focus on the minute details of implementing an emergency plan, particularly when it is carried to the extent of individual workers' lives and cir-
)
cumstances.
Rather, "the focus [of such litigation) should be on whether an applicant's emergency plan itself satisfies the 16 more broadly drafted standards of 10 C.F.R. I 50.47(b)."
In the Matter of Louisiana Power and Light Company (Waterford Steam Electric Station, Unit 3), ALAB-732 (June 29, 1983).
Ac-cordingly, LILCO asks this Board to deny Suffolk County's Mo-tion to Compel LILCO Response to Interrogatory Concerning LERO Workers.
I j
I.
BACKGROUND In en early discovery request dated July 18, 1983, Suffolk County asked LILCO to provide detailed information with respect to each LILCO-employed LERO worker.
See Appendix A.
Specifi-cally, Suffolk County requested the name, position with LILCO, work location, position with LERO, home address and EPZ zone designation (if applicable), and the number and ages of chil-dren living at home.
In its request Suffolk County specifical-ly recognized that LILCO might properly wish to protect the
L 9
. privacy of individual workers and stated that the County had no objection to LILCO's designating the LERO workers by number rather than b'y name, or to LILCO's providing the street and block of the workers' residences rather than the exact house numbers.
LILCO objected to Suffolk County's request to the ex-tent that the information requested constituted an invasion of privacy of the LILCO-employed LERO worker.
However, LILCO pro-vided Suffolk County with a computer printout that listed the LERO job title, work location, EPZ zone designation, town of residence and LILCO job title for each of the approximately 1,600 LILCO-employed LERO workers.
Thus the only information ultimately requested but not provided, for each of the LERO werkers, were: (1) individual employees exact street addresses, and (2) number and ages of children living at home.
See Appen-dix A.
On August 24, 1983, Suffolk County served the Additional Interrogatory at issue here.
See Appendix B.
The interrogato-5 ry seeks ten categories of extensive, detailed information for each of the approximately 1,600 LERO workers listed on the com-puter printout provided to Suffolk County.
LILCO objected to the interrogatory on the grounds that it was overly broad, un-duly burdensome, sought information that'is not relevant, sought information in a form different from
=aintained by l
LILCO in the ordinary course of business, and sought -
den-f l
tial information constituting an invasion of privacy of individual LERO workers.
See Appendix A.
i 1
I
..--,m..-
. Subsequent to L;6CO's response,to Suffolk County's addi-tional Interrogatory of August 24, 1983, Suffolk County desig-nated three L.ILCO-employed LERO workers from the computer Printout that LILCO had provided and requented that the three workers be made available for deposition.
The depositions of the three LERO workers took place on September 22, 1983.
Dur-inn those depositions Suffolk County inquired into the same quaistions for which it now seeks to compel responses to these interrogatories.
Without waiving its objection to the provi-sion of the information requested on a LERO-wide basis, LILCO did not object to the County's inquiry into the individual LILCO-employed LERO workers' familial status, length of employ-i ment with LILCO, or normal working hours.
II.
DISCUSSION Suffolk County, through its " Additional Interrogatory",
seeks ten categories of detailed information, most of it per-sonal, concerning each of some 1,600 LILCO-employed LERO workers as follows:
1.
How long the employee has worked for LILCO.
2.
The employee's normal working hours.
3.
How the employee will be notified of a Shoreham emer-gency.
4.
The staging area or other location to which the em-ployee is expected to report upon receiving notifica-tion of an event that requires him to report.
l
. 5.
The sex of the employee.
6.
The current marital status of the employee.
7.
If m,arried, whether the employee's spouse works full time (i.e., at least 30 hours3.472222e-4 days <br />0.00833 hours <br />4.960317e-5 weeks <br />1.1415e-5 months <br /> / week).
8.
Whether the employee has children under the age of 5 living at home.
9.
Whether the employee has children between the ages of 5 and 17 living at home.
- 10. The employee's residential zip code.
The County asserts that requiring the development and produc-tion of this information is necessary because "the LILCO plan is dependent for implementation u' on the ability and will-p ingness of approximately 1,600 LILCO employees to report in a timely manner to perform various emergency functions to which they have been assigned," and is necessary for an " informed evaluaticn of the conflicts likely to be experienced, and the likely reactions to those conflicts by the LERO workers."
Mo-tion at 3, 4.
L7LCO has responded to subparts 3, 4 and 10 of the "Addi-tional Interrogatory,"
i.e.,
those that relate to job-related matters (manner of notification, staging area location and home location by ZIP code).
However, the remainder of the subparts contain highly intrusive personal inquiries that are not likely to be probative of any matter beyond what the expert sociologists already listed as witnesses by each side could de-l velop on the basis of their experience and knowledge.
1 1
. Suffolk County and LILCO.each have listed as witnesses sociologists who will testify on the subject of the role con-flict that may be experienced by LILCO-employed LERO emergency workers.
These sociologists have studied the behavior of peo-ple in emergency situations and will testify about their opin-ions on what can be anticipated from emergency workers should a radiological incident occur at Shoreham.
The County has never contended that the 1,600 LILCO-employed LERO workers differ as a sample in any substantial fashion from any average populace of 1,600 persons.
Nor has it made any showing that the massive literature on emergency worker performance and attitudes is not probative of the likely aggregate attitudes and performance of the LERO work force.
Second, LILCO objects to the seven specific remaining subparts of the " Additional Interrogatory" because they are overly broad, unduly burdensome, seek information that is not i
relevant and is not reasonably calculated to lead to the dis-covery of admissible evidence, and seeks information in a form I
different from that maintained by LILCO in the ordinary course of its business.
LILCO does not maintain information for each individual LERO worker as to whether that employee has chil-dren, nor on the age and place of residence of the employees' children, if any.
Likewise, LILCO does not maintain informa-tion concerning the employment status of a LILCO employee's spouse.
Thus, LILCO is simply unable to answer subparts 7, 8, and 9 of Suffolk County Additional Interrogatory.
. LILCO does maintain information on the number of years that an employee has worked for LILCO (subpart 1); however, that infor-mation is not'part of the LERO worker data bank from which Suffolk County has already received a computer printout.
In order to obtain such information, LILCO would be required to search the personnel files of some 1,600 LILCO employees'and to compute, based on the data of initial employment, the length of r
time an etaployee has worked for LILCO.
Similarly, information about employees' normal working hours (subpart 2) is not cen-tralized and could only be obtained by contacting each individ-ual employee's supervisor.
Likewise, neither the sex nor the marital status of LERO members is centrally maintained, and would have to be derived from employees' personnel files.
The burden of compiling the information requested far outweighs Suffolk County's need for that information to develop its theo-ry of role conflict or to evaluate the notification and mobili-zation issues.
In any event, much of the information requested by Suffolk County Additional Interrogatory is not relevant to the County's theories on their face.
As LILCO understands Suffolk County's theory of role conflict, neither the sex of the employee nor the length of time that the employee has worked for LILCO would affect whether that employee would experience role conflict in an emergency situation.
Accordingly, LILCO objects to Suffolk County Additional interrogatory subparts 1 and 5 on the
l 8-i additional grounds that the information they seek is not relevant to the subjecti matter of this proceeding and is not calculated to' lead to'the discovery of admissible evidence.
While LILCO has not attempted to place a cost on the com-pilation of the requested information, it is substantial.
Suffolk County has not demonstrated, by affidavit or any kind of probative argument, the necessity of this unique, highly intrusive and hard-to-gather information.
Even to the extent tha it is relevant, it is cumulative of information available in the literature available to both sides' intended witnesses.
Production of the information would have other adverse effects.
While time has not permitted a detailed search, its production in a fashion which would prevent the identification of individuals may well violate basic rights to privacy.
Further, the production of such information would also inevitably tend to chill the performance of these duties by in-dividual LERO workers.
If identities of individual LERO workers can be spotlighted by the entity which has amassed all l
of its resources for the avowed purpose of preventing the i
operation of Shoreham -- an entity which, among other things, taxes them and owes them the obligation of police and fire pro-i tection as well as a multitude of other day-to-day services --
they may reasonably come to fear that participation in LERO may jeopardize their livelihood or their standing in the community.
i It is not lightly that LILCO feels compelled so to portray the i
e 4
--,-----~-w.,-.--
.-.~-me-.,-----_-..-%
3
,,._,,y
_.r
-~s,,,.
.-----.-.e-,m,.c
%.pm-y,- -,, -. - - -
_9_
situation in Suffolk County at this time, but it is a fact.
The requested discovery should not be permitted.
III. RELIEF For the reasons stated above, LILCO moves this Board to deny Suffolk County's Motion to Compel LILCO Response to Inter-rogatory Concerning LERO Workers.
Respectfully submitted, f) e Donald P.
Irwin Jessine A. Monaghan Hunton & Williams 707 East Main Street Post Office Box 1535 Richmond, Virginia 23212 DATED:
September 23, 1983