ML20080M551

Response to Requests for Admissions.Certificate of Svc Encl

ML20080M551
Person / Time
Site:	Shoreham File:Long Island Lighting Company icon.png
Issue date:	09/29/1983
From:	Letsche K KIRKPATRICK & LOCKHART, SUFFOLK COUNTY, NY
To:	LONG ISLAND LIGHTING CO.
References
ISSUANCES-OL-3, NUDOCS 8310040199
Download: ML20080M551 (9)

Text

~

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

!b[dfTED USNRC UNITED STATES OF AMERICA NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSION h kJ 3 Pid Before the Atomic Safety and Licensing BoafdFICE OF SECRdDun

_ CXLiitlG A SEnric;'-

BRANCH

)

[ In the Matter of j'; .)

' )

LONG ISLAND LIGHTING COMPANY ) Docket No. 50-322-OL-3

) (Emergency Planning)

-(Shoreham Nuclear Power Station, )

Unit 1) )

)

)

SUFFOLK COUNTY RESPONSE TO LILCO'S REQUESTS FOR ADMISSIONS Pursuant to 10 CFR S2.742, Suffolk County hereby responds to LILCO's Requests for Admission dated August 25, 1983 and served on Suffolk County on September 19, 1983:

Request No. 1. That the list of witnesses provided on July 22, 1983 in answer to LILCO's informal discovery requests 1 and 2 of July 13, 1983 remains the complete list of persons whom Suffolk County intends to call as witnesses on emergency r

planning issues.

Response.

Suffolk County objects to this request as being improper 1

I and beyond the permissible scope of such requests as set forth

in 10 CFR S2.742, in that it does not seek "the admission of the genuineness and authenticity of any relevant documents l

l

! described in or attached to the request, or for the admission l

l I

i 8310040199 830929 i PDR ADOCK 05000322 PDR O

. . . _ _ ,__.._m. . . . . m.___ ._.__m... . . . _ _ . -

oof the truth of any specified relevant matter of fact." With-out waiving this objection, Suffolk County refers LILCO to its August 31, 1983 response to LILCO's Interrogatory 31 of August 8, 1983, and the letter dated September 14, 1983 from Karla J.

Letsche to Donald P. Irwin. The County will inform LILCO of any_ additional changes in its list of anticipated witnesses as required by 10 CFR 52.740 (e) (1) .

Request No. 2. That the studies and other documents provided by Suffolk County in their responses through August 22 to LILCO informal discovery requests dated June 29, July 6, July 13, July 21 and July 25, 1983 constitute the complete list of studies and other documents which will be relied on by Suffolk County in its pre-filed direct testimony on emergency planning in this proceeding or exhibits thereto, in cross-examin'a tion thereon, or in rebuttal testimony (if any) or exhibits thereto.

Response..

Suffolk County objects to this request as being improper and beyond the permissible scope of such requests as set forth in 10 CFR S2.742, in that it does not seek "the admission of the genuineness and authenticity of any relevant document described in or attached to the request, or for the admission of the truth of any specified relevant matter of fact." With-out waiving its objection, the County states that the documents identified and/or provided by the County in response to LILCO's discovery requests comprise those documents, other than those c' overed by the attorney work product doctrine, that at the time

the responses were prepared, the County was able t.o state its intention to rely upon in' testimony. At this time, the County is not able to identify any additional non-privileged documents upon which its witnesses will rely in testimony, nor is the County able or obligated to predict the materials upon which it i

may' rely for cross-examination or rebuttal testimony. See also Response to Request 6.

Request No. 3. That the consulting firm of PRC Voorhees prepared for the Suffolk County RERP Steering Committee a docu-ment entitled "Suffolk County Radiological Emergency Response Plan," Working Draft Report, dated November 1982.

Response.

Admitted. ~

Request No. 4. That PRC Voorhees prepared for the Suffolk County RERP Steering Committee a document entitled " Preliminary Evacuation Time Estimates for the Shoreham EPZ," dated' November 1982. .-

l Response.

Admitted.

Request No. 5. That Suffolk County does not intend to present as witnesses any persons who prepared either or both of the documents listed in Requests for Admission 3 and 4 above, l

i in the presentation of its case on Emergency Planning issues in this proceeding.

! Response.

l -

h Suffolk County objects to this request as being improper l

and beyond the permissible scope of such requests as set forth i

_ .. m _ . . . . . . . . _ . . . _ _ _ _ . . _ _ . _ _ . _ ._ -

in 10 CFR S2.742, in that it does not seek "the admission of the genuineness and authenticity of any relevant document described in or attached to the request, or for the admission of the truth of any specified relevant matter of fact." With-out waiving its objection, the County refers LILCO to its i

August 31, 1983 rlesponse to LILCO Interrogatory 31 of August 8, 19 83, and incorporates herein by refue.ence its response above to Request No. 2.

Request No. 6. That Suffolk County does not intend to rely (a) on the document listed in Request for Admission 3, or (b) on work underlying it, in the presentation of its case on Emergency Planning issues in this proceeding.

Response.

Suffolk County objects to this request as being improper and beyond the permissible - scope of such requests as set forth in 10 CFR S2.742, in that it does not seek "the admission of the genuineness and authenticity of any relevant document i

! described in or attached to the request, or for the admission of the truth of any specified relevant matter of fact." With-l out waiving its objection, the County refers LILCO to its v

September 13, 1983 response to LILCO's August 8, 1983 Interroga-1 i tory 59, and incorporates herein by reference its response above to Request No. 2. In addition, the County notes that (a) it is under no obligation to provide, nor is LILCO entitled i

, to discover, the contents or drafts of testimony prior to the r

_ -- . . . . . a..~.- w. ... _ . ..-

' filing of such testimony, which is what this request seeks; and (b) the County's witnesses have been made available to answer questions by LILCO concerning relevant' facts and their expert opinions.

Request No. 7. That Suffolk County does not intend to I

rely (a) on the document listed in Request for Admission 4, or' (b) on work underlying it, in the presentation of its case on Emergency Planning issues in this proceeding.

Response.

See response above to Request No. 6 which is hereby incor-porated by reference.

Request No. 8. That Suffolk County does not intend to rely on the PRC Voorhees report identified in Request 4, or on work underlying it, for support for any of the following proposi-tions:

(a) LILCO's evacuation time estimates are unreliable.and should be far longer (SC Revised Contention 65);

i (b) only a limited east-west roadway network is available for evacuation; (c) "it will likely take at least from one to more than three hours for people to mobilize before they can begin to evacuate" (SC Revised Contention 65.A);

?:

.(d) "[h]eavy traffic congestion from mobilization traf 'ic, due to both high demand and conflicting traffic flow l

. . . will. lengthen evacuation times" (SC Revised Contention 65.B);

l i

- .,,~e.. . , . . - - - . . . . . . . . . - , , - - . . , , . . . . , - -

,- _m.__ -

6-

-(e) "LERO mobilization will take at least several hours" (SC Revised Contention 27), including (1) mobilization of bus drivers, (ii) mobilization of road crews, (iii) mobilization of emergency response personnel-living outside the EPZ, and (iv) mobilization of fuel truck and route alert; drivers;

-(f) LILCO has underestimated the number of persons to be .

served by buses (SC Revised Contention 67. A);

(g) "LILCO's ' estimated route times' for the evacuation buses- to reach the transfer points are also unrealis-tically low in that they fail to take into account the congested. conditions that exist" (SC Revised i Contention 67.C);

(h) "[a]s a result of the time neccssary to complete the evacuation, persons may be exposed to health-threaten-ing radiation doses" (SC Revised Contention 67) ;

(i) early dismissal of school children will take sub-stantially longer than predicted by LILCO, and "[a]n evacuation of schools, using LILCO employees as bus drivers, would take too long and children would not be adequately protected from health threatening radiation doses" (SC Revised Contention 71.B) ;

i l

,g- . - - - - - . , , ,--. ,-w--,--,,,, -, --, - - . e

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

(j ) evacuation of people from special, facilities (SC Revised Contention 72.A) and handicapped people at home (SC Revised Contention 73.B) would take too long and those people would receive health threatening doses of radiation; and

'l (k) ambulances will be unable to respond when needed.due' to severe traffic congestion during evacuation.

Response.

See response above to Request No. 6, which is hereby incor-porated by reference. Also without waiving its objection to this request, the County refers LILCO to its September 13, 1983 response to LILCO Interrogatory 52 of August 8, 1983.

Respectfully submitted, David J. Gilmartin Patricia A. Dempsey Suffolk County Department of Law Veterans Memorial Highway Haupp ge, New York 11788 I

D A

/

Herbest H. Brown Laurence Coe La her Karla J. Letsc e KIRKPATRICK, LOCKHART, HILL, CHRISTOPHER & PHILLIPS 1900 M Street, N.W., Suite 800 Washington, D.C. 20036 Attorneys for Suffolk County September 29, 1983

.._,7...~.

?

UNITED STATES.0F AMERICA NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSION Before the Atomic Safety and Licensing Board

)

In the Matter of )

) .

i 'LONG ISLAND LIGHTING COMPANY ) Docket No. 50-322

) (Emergency Planning)

(Shoreham Nuclear Power Station, )

Unit 1) )

)

CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE

.I hereby certify that copies of SUFFOLK COUNTY RESPONSE TO LILCO' S REQUESTS FOR ADMISSIONS have been sent to the following this 29th day of September, 19 83 by U. S. mail, first class, except as c.therwise noted.

James A. Laurensen, Chairman Ralph Shapiro, Esq.

Atomic Safety and Licensing Board Cammer and Shapiro U.S. Nuclear Regelatory Commission 9 East 40th Street Washington, D.C. 20555 New York, New York 10016

.Dr. Jerry R. Kline

• W. Taylor Reveley, III, Esq.

Atomic Safety and Licensing Board Hunton & Williams U.S. Nuclear ~ Regulatory Commission 'P.O. Box 1535 Washington, D.C. 20555 707 East Main Street Richmond, Virginia 23212 Mr. Frederick J. Shon l Atomic Safety and Licensing Board Stephen B. Latham, Esq.

l U.S. Nuclear Regulatcry Commission Twomey, Latham & Shea l . -

Washington, D.C. 20555 33 West Second Street l Riverhead, New York 11901 L David J. Gilmartin, Esq.

! Suffolk County Attorney Docketing and Service Section L H. Lee Dennison Building Office of the Secretary

Veterans Memorial Highway U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commissios l Hauppauge, New York 11788 Washington, D.C. 20555 i

l Bernard M. Bordenick, Esq. Eleanor L. Frucci, Esq.

David A. Repka', Esq. -

Atomic Safety and Licensing i U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission Board Panel -

Washington, D.C. 20555 U. S. Nuclear Regulatory Commissi Washington, D.C. 20555

• By Federal Express g

---..--...a- . . , _ - - . - - _

4 Nora Bredes Stewart M. Glass, Esq.

Executive Director Regional Counsel Shoreham Opponents Coalition Federal Emergency Management 195 East Main Street Agency Smithtown, New York 11787 26 Fedcral Plaza, Room 1349 New York, New York 10278 MHB Technical Associates 1723 Hamilton Avenue James L. Dougherty, Esq.

Suite K 3045 Porter Street, N.W.

San Jose, California 95125 Washington, D.C. 20008

/ i .'

Karla J. Let he KIRKPATRICK,pLOCKHART, HILL, CHRISTOPHER & PHILLIPS 1900 M Street, N.W., Suite 800 Washington, D.C. 20036 DATED: September 29, 1983

-r , - - .---- - , -- . , - - - - - - - -