ML20147H803

Lilco Supplemental Responses & Objections to State of Ny First Set of Interrogatories & Requests for Production of Documents.* Certificate of Svc Encl.Related Correspondence

ML20147H803
Person / Time
Site:	Shoreham File:Long Island Lighting Company icon.png
Issue date:	02/29/1988
From:	Leugers M HUNTON & WILLIAMS, LONG ISLAND LIGHTING CO.
To:	NEW YORK, STATE OF
References
CON-#188-5749 OL-3, NUDOCS 8803090071
Download: ML20147H803 (7)

Text

.8hk LILCO, Fcbruary 29,1988 V pacoaaeseann%

DOCKETED USHRC UNITED STATES OF AMERICA NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSION 88 MAR -7 P3 :55 Before the Atomic Safety and Licensing Board OC h ;Yi 1.h.

BRANCH 4

In the Matter of )

)

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

) (Emergency Planning)

(Shoreham Nuclear Power Station, ) (School Bus Driver Issue)

Unit 1) )

LILCO'S SUPPLEMENTAL RESPONSES AND OBJECTIONS TO NEW YORK STATE'S FIRST SET OF INTERROGATORIES AND REQUESTS FOR PRODUCTION OF DOCUMENTS LILCO hereby supplements its responses tc the State of New York's First Set of Interrogatories and Request for Production of Documents, dated and served on LILCO on January 22,1988.

I. GENERAL ANSWERS AND OBJECTIONS TO INTERROGATORIES, DEFINITIONS, AND INSTRUCTIONS LILCO gives the same general answers and makes the same general objections to New York State's Interrogatories, Definitions, and Instructions that it made in response to Suffolk County's First Set of Interrogatories and Request for Production of Docu-ments. See LILCO's Responses and Objections to Suffolk County's First Set of Interrog-i atories and Request for Production of Documents (January 20,1988), at 1-2.

l H. SUPPLEMENTAL ANSWERS AND OBJECTIONS TO INTERROGATORIES New York State Interrogatory No. 9 Elaborate on the statements made on page 16 of "LILCO's Motion for Summary Disposition of Contention 25.C (' Role Conflict' of School Bus Drivers)," dated October 22, 1987, and elaborate on the statements made by Mr. Crocker in paragraph 15 of his associated affidavit, by providing, on a lettered subpart by subpart basis, the following information with respect to non-LILCO school bus drivers who LILCO relies upon to goo 188u BEEsii o )g i

j drive buses to implement LILCO's new schools evacuation proposal: (a) amount of money and other considerations LILCO will give to each school bus driver for each hour of classroom training on Shoreham emergency planning; (b) amount of money and other considerations LILCO will give to each school bus driver for each hour spent participating in drills and exercises; (c) amount of money and other considerations LILCO will give to each school bus driver for each hour spent responding to an actual emergency at Shoreham; (d) amount of money and other considerations LILCO will give to each school bus driver as a sign-on or a year-end bonus or as a bonus of any type; (e) amount of money and other considerations LILCO will give to each school bus driver for any reason not stated above. The term "other considerations" includes, but is not limit-ed to, reimbursement for mileage, child care, telephone installation and maintenance, meals, lodging, insurance, driver's license and registration, as well as the actual provi-sion of services, objects or benefits such as child care, telephones, vehicles, utilities, leave, stock or incentives of any kind.

Supplemental Response: Notwithstanding LILCO's objections to the relevancy of New York State's Interrogatory No. 9, stated in the initial response to this interrogatory, LILCO's response to 9(a) and 9(b) is that, subject to negotiation between LILCO and the bus companies, non-LILCO participants will receive their regular compensation (plus overtime wages, as appropriate) for each hour spent in classroom training and participating in drills and exercises. LILCO's response to 9(c) is that LILCO does not contemplate paying any non-LILCO emergency worker any compensation for re-sponding during an actual emergency and to 9(d)is that non-LILCO participants will re-ceive year-end bonuses of some as yet undetermined amount, subject to negotiation be-tween LILCO and the bus companies, for their participation in LILCO's school bus driver program.

New York State Interrogatory No.10 Elaborate on the statements made on page 16 of "LILCO's Slotion for Summary Disposition of Contention 25.C (' Role Conflict' of School Bus Drivers)," dated October 22, 1987, and elaborate on the statements made by Str. Crocker in paragraph 16 of his associated affidavit, by providing, on a lettered subpart by subpart basis, the following information with respect to LILCO-employed LERO workers who LILCO relles upon to drive buses to implement LILCO's new schools evacuation proposal: (a) amount of money and other considerations LILCO will give each bus driver for each hour of class-room training on Shoreham emergency planning; (b) amount of money and other consid-erations LILCO will give to each bus driver for each hour spent participating in drills and exercises; (c) amount of money and other considerations LILCO will give to each

'{

bus driver for each hour spent attending, or studying for, school bus driver training classes for a class 2 license, and taking the class 2 driving test; (d) amount of money and other considerations LILCO will give to each bus driver for each hour spent re-sponding to an actual emergency at Shoreham; (e) amount of money and other consider-ations LILCO will give to each bus driver as a sign-on or year-end bonus or as a bonus of any type; (f) amount of money and other considerations LILCO will give to each bus driver for any reason not stated above. The term "other considerations," as used here-in, has the same meaning as is set forth in Interrogatory No. 9.

Supplemental Response: Notwithstanding LILCO's objections to the relevancy of New York State's Interrogatory No.10, stated in its initial response to this interrogatory, LILCO's response to 10(d) and (f) is that, apart from LERO emergency workers' ordinary pay (and, as appropriate, overtime wages), LILCO does not contemplate providing any compensation to LERO workers for responding to any actual emergency at Shoreham.

New York State Interrogatory No.12 Has LILCO ever met (on or about January 14, 1988 or at any other time), or en-gaged in telephone conversations or discussions, with the NRC or FEMA regarding in any way LILCO's schools evacuation proposal? If the answer is affirmative: (a) identify the dates and locations of the meetings or the dates of the telephone conversations;(b) identify all attendcas or participants; (c) specifically describe all statements that were made about LILCO's schools evacuation proposal; (d) attribute all such statements to particular individuals; and (e) provide any documents that concern LILCO's schools evacuation proposal that were produced in preparation for, during, or as a result of the meetings, telephone conversations or discussions.

Supplemental Response: LILCO's answer to Interrogatory No.12 is n_o. LILCO's refer-ence in its previous answer to the Staff's response to LILCO's summary disposition mo-tion was only intended to mean tha* LILCO learned of the Staff's position on the school bus driver issue at the same time all other parties did, la, when the Staff filed its re-sponse. No "conversations or discussions" of the type inquired about in Interrogatory No.12 occurred.

. .g .

Objections Stated by Counsel All objections and references to objections were stated by counsel.

Respectfully submitted,

'Jaffes N m5n3 [/

Mary J rs v Counsel or Long Island Lighting mpany Hunton & Williams 707 East Main Street P.O. Box 1535 Richmond, Virginia 23212 DATED: February 29,1988 l

1 l

l l

1 l

l l

'i VERIFICATION Douglas M. Crocker, being first duly sworn on oath, deposes and says: that he is currently the Manager, Nuclear Emergency Preparedness, Nuclear Operations Support Department for Long Island Lighting Company; that he has personal knowledge of a portion of the subject matter of this litigation; that responsible corporate employees have provided him with additional f& cts necessary to provide the information contained in the foregoing Answers to Interrogatories; that he has read the answers, and knows the contents thereof; and that based upon such information of which he has personal knowledge and with which he has been provided, he is informed and believes the matters stated therein to be true, and on these grounds alleges that the matters stated therein are true and therefore verifies the forgoing on behalf of Long Island Lighting Company.

4 Douglas M. Crocker State of New York SS:

[

I, [l/[ , a Notary Public in and for the jurYediction 'afoy,pjraid, hereby certify that Douglas M.

CrockerVwhose name U si ed to the foregoing Answers to Interrogatories, dated waw e# 9 ,1988, has personally sworn before me that the stat'ements pharein are true to the best of his knowledge and belief.

/3 m ]/h0O ocary (ubELy (/

m u, wicotNs

,,egur,eveue,ste* *

• M p/ j No. 4859598 My Commission expiras- <//,5//[

/

c .,7,73.ON. "&

m 3

I. LILCO, February 29,1988 000 M iL:'

L*C

'88 flAR -7 P3 :55 CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE YOC 1Yu Si$(

BRANCH  !

In the Matter of LONG ISLAND LIGHTING COMPANY '

(Shoreham Nuclear Power Station, Unit 1)

Docket No. 50-322-OL-3 I hereby certify that copies of LILCO'S SUPPLEMENTAL RESPONSES AND OB-JECTIONS TO NEW YORK STATE'S FIRST SET OF INTERROGATORIES AND RE-QUESTS FOR PRODUCTION OF DOCUMENTS and LILCO'S RESPONSE TO NEW YORK STATE'S MOTION TO COMPEL OF FEBRUARY 12,1988 were served this date upon the ,

following by Federal Express as indicated by two asterisks, or by first-class mail, post-age prepaid.

James P. Gleason, Chairman ** Atomic Safety and Licensing ,

Atomic Safety and Licensing Board Board Panel 513 Gilmoure Drive U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission Silver Spring, Maryland 20901 Washington, D.C. 20555 Dr. Jerry R. Kilne ** George E. Johnson, Esq. **

Atomic Safety and Licensing Richard G. Bachmann, Esq.

Board U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission One White Filnt North

'~

East-West Towers, Rm. 427 11555 Rockville Pike 4350 East-West Hwy. Rockville, MD 20852 Bethesda, MD 20814

. Herbert H. Brown, Esq. **  ;

Mr. Frederick J. Shon ** Lawrence Coe Lanpher, Esq.  ;

Atomic Safety and Licensing Karla J. Letsche, Esq.

Kirkpatrick & Lockhart

~

Board U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission South Lobby - 9th Floor '

i East-West Towers, Rm. 430 1800 M Street, N.W.

t 4350 East-West Hwy. Washington, D.C. 20038-5891 Bethesda, MD 20814 Fabian G. Palomino, Esq. ** ,

Secretary of the Commission Richard J. Zahnleuter, Esq.

Attention Locketing and Service Special Counsel to the Governor i Section Executive Chamber U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission Room 229 1717 H Street, N.W. State Capitol Washington, D.C. 20555 Albany, New York 12224 Atomic Safety and Licensing Appeal Board Panel U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission Washington, D.C. 20555

o

1. t Alfred L. Nardelli, Esq. Jonathan D. Feinberg, Esq.

Assistant Attorney General New York State Department of 120 Broadway Public Service, Staff Counsel Room 3-118 Three Rockefeller Plaza New York, New York 10271 Albany. New York 12223 Spence W. Perry, Esq. ** Ms. Nora Bredes William R. Cumming, Esq. Executive Coordinator Federal Emergency Management Shoreham Opponents' Coalition Agency 195 East Main Street 500 C Street, S.W., Room 840 .Smithtown, New York 11787 Washington, D.C. 20472 Evan A. Davis, Esq.

Mr. Jay Dunkleberger Counsel to the Governor New York State Energy Office Executive Chamber Agency Building 2 State Capitol Empire State Plaza Albany, New York 12224 Albany, New York 12223 E. Thomas Boyle, Esq.

Stephen B. Latham, Esq. ** Suffolk County Attorney Twomey, Latham & Shea Building 158 North County Complex 33 West Se ond Street Veterans Memorial Highway P.O. Box 298 Hauppauge, New York 11788 Riverhead, New York 11901 Dr. Monroe Schneider Mr. Philip McIntire North Shore Committee Federal Emergency Management P.O. Box 231 Agency Wading River, NY 11792 26 Federal Plaza New York, New York 10278

, James N. Chrihtman Hunton & Williams 707 East Main Street P.O. Box 1535 Richmond, Virginia 23212 DATED: February 29,1988