ML20090H999

Response Opposing Suffolk County 840423 Request for Production of Documents

ML20090H999
Person / Time
Site:	Shoreham File:Long Island Lighting Company icon.png
Issue date:	05/14/1984
From:	Glass S Federal Emergency Management Agency
To:	Atomic Safety and Licensing Board Panel
Shared Package
ML20090H994	List: ML20090H999
References
OL-3, NUDOCS 8405220114
Download: ML20090H999 (11)

Text

. . - . . - -.

UNITED STATES OF K1ERICAN ATTACHfiE!!T C

'>4 IRJCLEAR REGUIATORY CQHISSION j l

Before the Atomic Safety and Licensing Board

)

In the Matter of )

) Docket No. 50-322-OL-3 IDNG ISIAND LIGHIING COtPANY ) (Buergency Planning)

)

, (Shorehan Nuclear Power Station Unit 1)

)

i FEMA'S RESPONSE TO 4 SUFFULK COUNTY REQUEST EUR PRODUCTION OF DOCt.NENIS FD% was served with a Discovery Request by Suffolk County on April 23, 1984. Included in that request was a three part Docunent Request

{

related to the Regional Assistance Coenittee's (RAC) review of the LIIf0 Transition Plan. Pursuant to the provisions of 10 CFR 2.740(f), 2.741(d) and the Board's instructions of May 9, 1984 FB % respectfully submits the l following reply.

FEMA has produced as part of a Freedom of Information Request

! nunerous docunents to tne law finn of Kirkpatrick-Iockhart. Counsel for Suffolk County has agreed that F&A need only icentify those docunents 1

previously provided which are responsive to the present Discovery l

v Request.

6 i

cs g

a lo- The following docunents relevant to this Request were provided S to Suffolk County's counsel pursuant to the FDIA inquiry:

i t*

1 o

-:s i 1. Septenber 23, 1983 menorandun from Jeffrey S. 3ragg, Executive i Deputy Director to Frank P. Petrone, Regional Director, Region II requesting Mr. Petrone's office arrange for the perfamance of h 2.

a full RAC review of Revision 1 of the LIIDO Transition Pian.

September 23, 1983 memorandum from Richard W. Krires, Quinnan, FRPCC to the Federal Radiol ical Preparedness Coordinat Committee (FRPCC) members orming them that a request wi l be

_ made for RAC support. _ _ _ __ _ , , _ _ _ _ _ _l

3

. s-l P

3. October 4, 1983 memorandun from Frank P. Petrone, Regional Director to all Region II RAC members outlining the schedule for review of the LIILO Plan for Shoreham.

4. October 7,1983 memorandun from Philip McIntire for Frank P.

Petrone, Regional Director to Richard Krian, Assistant Associate Director, NTH -

Subject:

Status Report #1 Shoreham Plan review.

5. October 24, 1983 memorandun from Frank P. Petrone, Regional

Director to Richard W. Krian,

Subject:

Shorehan Plan Review '

l Status Report #2.

i

! 6. October 27, 1983 memorandun from Richard W. Krian to Edward L.

i Jordan, Director Division of EP&ER, USNRC.

Subject:

BR'S need for an extension to complete the review of the LIII0 Transition Plan, Revision 1.

I 7. November 4,1983 letter from Louis 0. Giuffrida, Director FHR

> and Nunzio J. Palladino. Gairman NRC to Honorable Alan K.

. Simpson conveying quarterly report on emergency preparedness for nuclear power plants.

! 8. November 8,1983 memorandun from Frank P. Petrone to Richard Krim,

Subject:

Shoreham Plan Review Status Report #3.

! 9. November 16, 1983 memorandun from Frank P. Petrone to Richard W.

! Krian,

Subject:

Shorehan Plan Review Revision 2.

10. November 18, 1983 memorandun from Roger B. Kowieski, mairman RAC to Philip McIntire, Chief NIH, Region II,

Subject:

LIILO's

. Bnergency Response Plan Revision II.

11. November 23, 1983 memorandun from Roger B. Fowieski to Frank P. '

Petrone and Philip McIntire -

Subject:

Review of the LIILO Plan for the Shoreham Nuclear Power Station (Assunptions used in

review of Plan).

1

12. December 8, 1983 memorandum from Samuel W. Speck, Associate 4

Director State & Incal Prograns and Support to Frank P. Petrone,

Subject:

Extension of time for the Review of the LIILO

Transition Plan. Revision 2.

4

13. December 12, 1983 memorandun from Roger B. Kowieski to Philip H.

McIntire,

Subject:

RAC review of the LIILO Transition Plan.

14. December 14, 1983 letter from Donald P. Irwin to Bernard M.

Bordenick dealing with timeliness of submittal of Revision 3 to FHiA.

15. December 14, 1983 letter from Donald P. Irwin to Stewart M.

I Glass including a general description of changes to occur in i Revision 3.

l -

.o

16. Decenber 14, 1983 letter from Donald P. Irwin to Stewart M. 1 Glass relating to Revision 3 of the LIIDO Transition Plan. I

17. December 15, 1983 Telefax from Frank P. Petrone to Richard W.

Krinun,

Subject:

Shoreham Activities Report #5.

18. December 16, 1983 from Roger B Kowieski to all Region II RAC members outlining schedule for work on Revision 2.

19. Decenber 20, 1983 memorandun from Frank P. Petrone to Samuel W.

Speck,

Subject:

Extension of time for RAC review of LIIS

, Transition Plan for Shorehm.

20. Decenber 21, 1983 letter from Stewart M. Glass to Donald P.

Irwin, confirming Transnittal of collated LIILO Transition Plan, Revisions 3 and matrix of changes.

21. Decenber 29, 1983 letter from John Wesmantle (LIILO) to Stewart M. Glass, confirming that copies of the LIIED Transition Plan were sent to all RAC members. Attached is cross - reference to the plan.

22. January 9, 1984 memorandun from Frank P. Petrone to Samuel W. ,

Speck,

Subject:

RAC Review of LIILO Transition Plan - Revision 1, 2, & 3.

23. January 10, 1984 - Attendance list and staff notes of LIILO Briefing on Revision #3. (In attendance representatives fran Kirkpatrick-Iockhart, NRC, AIE, FB4A, LIILO, Hunton-Williams, KID Assoc. , LERIO).

24. January 13, 1984 - memorandum from Richard W. Krinun to Edward L.

Jordan,

Subject:

RAC review of LIIDO Transition Plan for

! Shorehm.

25. January 20, 1984 attendance list from RAC meeting.

26. January 24, 1984 memorandun from Frank P. Petrone to Samuel W.

Speck, Relating to Shoreham Plan Review, Governor's position, legal authority and assunptions made in order to allow RAC members to proceed with a technical review.

27. January 25, 1984 letter from Samuel W. Speck to Willian J. ,

Dircks as to whether FatA should continue, modify or terminate j the NRC requested reviews of the LIIOD Plan.

28. February 3, 1984 memorandun from Samuel W. Speck to Frank P.

Petrone,

Subject:

Whether tGC wishes 784A to proceed with Plan review.

l l

y- _ - . . ._ _ . . . . _.

E ',

29. February 9,1984 letter to H. Taylor Reveley Ill, Esq. from Bnergency George W. Jett, General Counsel,

Subject:

preparedness issues for Shoreham.

30. March 1,1984 Fax of changeh to page 6 of portion of RAC review.

31. Copies of pages that were changed in RAC review after initial subnittal to FalA Headquarters.

menorandun fran Roger B. Kowieski to Stewart M.

32. March 14, 1984 Glass conveying letter from Joseph H. Keller.

33. March 14, 1984 menorandun from Roger B. Kowieski to Stewart M. Glass,

Subject:

Subuission of Revisions / Additions to LIILO Transition Plan.

letters to Dr. Catacosinos, Chairman L1140, King

34. 11 arch 15,1984 Mallory, Honorable Alan Simpson fran Iouis O. Giuffrida, ,

Director FB% conveying copy of letter to NRC.

35. 11 arch 15,1984 menorandun from Roger B. Kowieski to Marianne Jackson conveying Regional Director briefing paper and chronology of events relevant to the review of the L11ID ~

Transition Plan, Revisions 1, 2 & 3 (with those attachnents).

draft of letter from Ronald G. Eberhardt, 36: March 15, 1984 Director of Congressional Relations conveying copy of RAC review. Attached is list of Congressional recipients of that letter.

37. March 15, 1984 letter from Samuel W. Speck to Willia:n J. Dircks Also provided sunnary sheet prepared conveying the RAC review.

by Richard W. Krimm comoaring Argonne review and RAC review.

letter from Congressman Markey to Iouis 0.

38. March 19,1984 Giuffrida, Director FB4A requesting additional information.

menorandun froin Stewart M. Glass to George Jett

39. Itarch 30, 1984 Status Report on Shorehan ASLB Proceedings.

Subject:

40. April 13, 1984 ietter from Donald P. Irvin to Scewart M. Glass and Spence Perry requesting a meeting with the RAC.

In addition, the following docunents have been provided to Suffolk County with this Response:

1. Septenber 15, 1983 menorandun from Edward L. Jordan to Richard W. Krinn,

Subject:

Federal Bnergency Managenent Agency (FBM)

Support for the Nuclear Regulatory Cotunission (NRC) Licensing of Shoreham Nuclear" Station.

9 u

2. Nova ber 10, 1983 menorands from Edward L. Jordan to Richard W.

Krima.

Subject:

Federal Bnergency Management Agency (HMA)

Support for the Nuclear Regulatory Commission (NRC) Licensing of Shoreh m Nuclear Station. .

3. Noveber 15, 1983 memorandum from Edward L. Jordan to Richard W.

Krim,

Subject:

Shoreh m Long Island Lighting Company -

4 Transition Plan.

4. Decenber 22, 1983 memorandun from Edward L. Jordan to Richard W.

Krim,

Subject:

The Federal Bnergency Managenent Agency (FH%)

Support for the Nuclear Regulatory Comission (NRC) Licensing of Shorehan Nuclear Station.

4. Decenber 28, 1983 memorandun from Edward L. Jordan to Richard W.

Krim,

Subject:

The Federal Bnergency Management Agency (FEMA)

' Support for the Nuclear Regulatory Connission (NRC) Licensing of Shoreh m Nuclear Power Station.

5. January 11,1984 osmorandum from Edward L. Jordan to Richard W.

Krim,

Subject:

Federal Bnergency Managenent Agency (FEMA)

Review of Im1g Island Lighting Company (LIILO) Transition Plan for the Shoreh m Nuclear Power Plant.

i 6. January 26, 1984 letter from Willim J. Dircks, to Samuel W.

Speck regarding response to January 25, 1984, letter asking

' whether FEMA should continue, modify, or tecninate its review of LIILO offsite energency plans for the Shorehan facility.

1 7. February 24, 1984 Draft memorandum from Sheldon A. Schwartz to E. Christenbury,

Subject:

FER review of offsite emergency plan

)

i for Shorehan.

8. April 2,1984 letter fran A. Schwencer, to ti.S. Pollock i regarding - Federal Snergency tianagement Agency (FEMA) Findings on Long Island Lighting Company (LILf0) Transition Plan for Shorehau.

l Pursuant to the terms of 10 CFR 2.740 (f) and 2.741 (d), Rule 26(b) of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure and the teens of the Boards instructions of May 9,1984 the Federal Bnergency Management Agency respectfully objects to the release and discovery of the following documents.

1. Intter dated Novenber 3,1983 conveying NRC RAC menber, Craig Z, Gordon's, coments on the LIlm Transition Plan, Revision 1 for Shorehan.

I 2. Menorandum dated Novenber 2,1983 conveying DOE RAC member, Herb G. Fish's, comments on the LIILO Transition Plan, Revision 1 for Shorehan.

3. 14tter dated October 21, 1983 conveying FDA (HHS) RAC menber,'

Renald E. Bernacki's, coments on the LIIDO Transition Pla1,

. Revision 1 for Shoreham.

i- 4. Manorandun dated November 3,1983 conveying 00r RAC toenber, Paul Intz's, <==nts on the LIIDO Transition Plan. Revision 1 for

/ Shorehan.

5. Intter dated October 14, 1983 conveying USIA RAC menber, Cheryl Malina's, comments on the LIILO Transition Plan, Revision I for l Shorehan.  !

4

6. Submission dated Novenber 1,1983 conveying FDfA employee, Robert i

L. Acerno's, connents on the LIILO Transition Plan, Revision 1 I for Shorehan.

7. I4tter dated November 2,1983 conveying INEL RAC consultant, Joe l~

H. Kaller's, connents on the LIILO Transition Plan, Revision 1 for Shorehan.

8. Memorandtsn dated November 4, 1983 conveying ANL RAC consultant, i Thornas E. Baldwin's, connents on the LIIDO Transition Plan Revision 1 for Shoreham.

9. 14cter dated December 5,1983 conveying EPA RAC rnenber, Linda Olmer's, conments on the LIIDO Transition Plan Revision 1 for Shorehan.

1

! 10. 14tter dated January 12,19% conveying NRC RAC member, Robert J.

Bores's, connents on the LIILO Transition Plan Revision 3 for

'Shorehan.

t 11. Memorandtsn dated January 6,19% conveying DOE RAC rnenber, Herbert Fish's, connents on the LIILO Transition Plan, Revision 3 for Shorehan.

'2. IAtter dated January 6,1984 conveying FDA RAC menber, Ronald E.

i Bernacki's, consents on the LILOO Transition Plan, Revision 3 for Shorehan.

13. Memorandun dated January 10, 1984 conveying DUT RAC rnamber, Paul

. Tutz's, coisnents on the LIILO Transition Plan, Revision 3 for Shorehan.

14. IAtter dated January 6,1984 conveying USDA RAC rnamber, meryl

Italina's, comments on the LIIID Transition Plan, Revision 3 for

! Shorehan. .

15. Submission dated January 9,1984 written directly on copy of prelbninary draft conveying FEMA staff member, Robert L.

Acerno's, connunts on the LIILO Transition Plan Revision 3 for Shorehan.

i

16. PH'.A Plan Review Form - dated January 12, 1984 conveying EPA RAC

, tasmber, Joyce Feldinan's, consents on the LIIID Transition Plan Revision 3 for Shorehan.

- - , . - , , . . _ ---,.-.e ., _ ._ ,. ._ ., . . . _ - -

17. Letter dated January 10, 1984 conveying INEL RAC consultant Joe H. Keller's. comments on the LIIID Transition Plan Revision 3 for Shorehan.

! 18. Memorandun dated January 9,1984. conveying FR4A member, Marianne C. Jackson's, connents en the LIIDO Transition Plan Revision 3 for Shoreham.

19. Submission dated Jarn ary 9,1984 written directly on Preliminary Draft conveying ANL RAC consultant, Thomas E. Baldwin's, connents on the review of the LIIED Transition Plan Revision 3 for Shoreham.

l

20. Preliminary Draft of Consolidated RAC Review dated January 20, 1984 with individual notes of 01eryl Malina of RAC meeting of January 20, 1984.

l 21. Preliminary Draft of Consolidated RAC Review dated January 20, 1984 with individual notes of Robert Bores of RAC meetin6 of January 20, 1984.

22. Prelia.inary Draft of Consolidated RAC Review dated January 20, 1984 with individual notes of Joyce Feldmm of RAC meeting of January 20, 1984.

23. Preliminary Draft of Consolidated RAC Review dated Janaury 20, 1984 with individual notes of Paul Lutz of RAC meeting cf January 20, 1984

! 24. Pre-Decisional Drafts of March 15, 1984, Intter Transnitting FR4A 4 Finding to NRC.

25. Pre-Decisional Draft of Definitions of Categories, etc., for February,1984, Consolidated RAC Review of the LIIID Transition Plan.

4

26. Sample of Four Random Draft Pages of February,1984, Consolidated RAC Review of LIllD Transition Plan.

27. Pre-Decisional Drafts of the 2/21/84 Region II Transnittal

demorandun to deadquarters for the RAC review of the LIIDO Transition Plan.

28. Pre-Decisional Drafts of the 2/3/84 Memorandum to Frank P.

Petrone, Regional Director, Region II, From Samuel W. Speck, Associate Director, State and local Programs ed Support, Federal Snergency Management Agency,

Subject:

Shorehan Plan Review.

29. Pre-Decisional Draft of Discussion Points, for Richard W. Krian and Joseph Winkle for Press Conference (not held) on the FINA finding of 3/15/84 for Shorehan.

30. Pre-Decisional Sets of Q's and A's for Press Conference (not

• held) on the FRiA Finding of 3/15/84 on Shorehen.

1

6

31. Margaret Lawless' copy of Region II RAC findings with her annotated notes.

32. Pre-Decisional Notes and Option Paper on Strategies for Handling Shoreham Offsite Bnergency Preparedness Problen.

33. Draft Telefax Header and Pre-decisional draft of Fa % 10/27/83 Memorandun to: Edward L. Jordan, Director, Division of Bnergency Preparedness and Engineering Response, Office of Inspection and Enforcement, Nuclear Regulatory Commission, From: Richard W.

Krima, Assistant Associate Director, Office of Natural and Technolo-gical Hazards Programs,

Subject:

Federal Bnergency Managenent Agency Support for Nuclear Regulatory Comnission Licensing of Shoreham Nuclear Station.

34. Memoranduo to Regional Assistance Connittee members from Roger ,

Kowieski,

Subject:

I4 gal Issues Identified During the RAC Review l of LIILO Transition Plan for Shorehan (Revision 3).

35. Three (3) Drafts of Consolidated RAC Review of LIIDO Transition Plan for Shorehan - Revision 3, (1/20/84)-Annotated with notes of FH%

enployees and contractors.

36. Draft LIILO Plan Review (LIILO Transition Plan Revision 1) consoli-dated RAC review. .

37. 26 pages of a flip chart of Regional Assistance Connittee members' individual connents on LIIDO Transition Plan titled Shoreham Review Compilation of RAC Comnents.

t It is the position of the Federal Energe . aoe,, mt A&'ency that the above thirty-seven (37) docunents are pavileged, that are subject to the protection of executive privilege. FDR rely's on u. :

I Board's Memorandun and Order Ruling on Suffolk County Motion to Compel l

FB% to Produce Docunents dated Novenber 1,1983, the argiznents FSR submitted in support thereof (attached) and the Board's Memorandun and Order Ruling Upon LIID0's Motion to Compel Production of Docunents and 1

Objections of Governor Mario Cuomo dated March 6,1984. 1 i

The above docun.ents fall within a nunber of subgroups. Items one l i

(1) through nineteen (19) contain the individual review comments of the l individual RAC menbers, consultants and staff as provided to the RAC Qiairman. Itens twenty (20) through twenty-three (23) contain the l

o individual personal notes of RAC members of the RAC meeting of January 20, 1984 as annotated on the Preliminary Draft of the Consolidated RAC Review. It should be noted that these personal mees were mt originally in the possession of Fa% but were provided by the RAC members to Region l 11 to enable it to fully identify all itens contemplated by Suffolk County's Discovery Request. The individual notes have not bem reviewed at this thne. Itens twenty-five (25), twenty-six (26), and thirty-four (34) through thirty-seven (37) contain the various drafts and working pacers of the RAC review and the compilation of the individual RAC U comments. Miile iten thirty-one (31) contains a headquarters staff employee's comments on the RAC Plan Review.

FDR objects to the discovery of any advisory memoranda, predeci-sional deliberations related to the RAC review, or the input of the individuai. RAC inenbers to the final Fa% RAC report. Fa% has provided to Suffolk County docunents outlining the assunptions made in order to allow the RAC menbers to proceed with a technical review and copies of changes and clarifications t'o the Review after its submittal to Fa% headquarters.

The County's docunent request to Fan makes absolutely no showing of any circunstances requiring disclosure of the requested docunents. It is obvious fran the Memorandum explaining Suffolk County Discovery Requests Relating to FB % that they are seeking to ascertain the predecisional thoughts and opinions of the individual RAC menbers. Executive privilege is meant to protect these very thought processes, advisory opinion recoamendations and deliberations. i e

l

In addition these h==nts are irrelevant and will not lead to the production of admissible relevant evidence. The FENA RAC review is not being litigated in this proceeding and the inputs of the various menbers 4 of the RAC Comnittee have absolutely no probative value. The RAC submitted its final report which reflects the collegial judgment of the RAC. The RAC review is included as a portion of the testimony which further addresses the specific contentions which are the issues in l

litigation before this body. The FEMA witnesses have indicated that the i

purpose of their testimony is to address the contentions relating to 1 offsite preparedness at the Shorehan Nuclear Power Station which are properly the matter before this Board. Further, the panel indicates that their testimony (Q.17 p. 8 FTMA Testimony) represents the current FEMA l

evaluation of the LIICO Transition Plan, Revision 3.

Itens twenty-four (24), twenty-seven (27) through thirty (30), and j thirty-two (32) and thirty-three (33) all consist of drafts of docunents i

which contain the thoughts and opinions of individual staff members. In I

the case of itens twenty-four, twenty-seven and twenty-eight the final 1

docunents were submitted and are available to the parties. These l

documents fall squarely within the scope of executive privilege while the e

! matters contained therein are not related to the issues in contention before this Board.

It is mderstood that pursuant to NRC regulations all that FEMA need undertake in response to the County's Discovery request is identify the 4

itens being withheld, state the privilege that is being asserted and the l

t

~.

J' reason the privilege applies to the doctznents in question. The burden is on the County to seek an Order to Compel. Under normal ciretzustances the party from whom discovery is sought would have an opportunity to respond to the County's Motion. Due to the constraints of time that opportunity is not available, therefore FaiA expresses its willingness to engage in oral argunent on Friday, May 18th if that would assist the Board.

Respectfully submitted, y 1A.Ar=

Stewart M. Glass Regional Counsel Federal Emergency tianagenent Agency !

26 Federal Plaza Ne4 York, New York 10278 Dated: May 14, 1934 i

l 1

l I

l l

i 1

L