ML20149D782
| ML20149D782 | |
| Person / Time | |
|---|---|
| Site: | Shoreham File:Long Island Lighting Company icon.png |
| Issue date: | 02/03/1988 |
| From: | Christman J HUNTON & WILLIAMS, LONG ISLAND LIGHTING CO. |
| To: | Atomic Safety and Licensing Board Panel |
| References | |
| CON-#188-5543 OL-3, NUDOCS 8802100014 | |
| Download: ML20149D782 (12) | |
Text
f 5 y' 3 LILCO, Fcbruary 3,1988 i
ggtATED CORRESPONDEMO usnec UNITED STATES OF AMERICA NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSION T8 FEB -5 P A :22 (FRCE Or E riff '
Before the Atomic Safety and Licensing Board 00CdiiM; A S. iig
!s.E 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 RESPONSES AND OBJECTIONS TO NEW YORl( STATE'S FIRST SET OF INTERROGATORIES AND REQUEST FOR PRODUCTION OF DOCUMENTS LILCO hereby responds to 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 sante 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-atcries and Request for Production of Documents (January 20,1988), at 1-2.
II.
ANSWERS AND OBJECTIONS TO INTERROGATORIES New York State Interrogatory No.1 Describe all emergencies known to LILCO or LILCO's witnesses, or referred to in documents in LILCO's or LILCO's witnesses' possession, custody or control, in which bus drivers were called upon to transport people to their homes or to places of safety away from their homes because of the emergency. The term "emergencies" includes, for ex-ample, such events as floods, fires, hurricanes, explosions and hazardous waste releases.
Specifically describe, on a lettered subpart by subpart basis: (a) the type of emergency; (b) the location of the emergency; (c) the date and time of the emergency; (d) the O
00$
g2
(;)
0 'l number of bus drivers who transported people; (e) the number of people who were transported; (f) the number of bus drivers who were expected to report for work but who did not report to work; (g) the reason why those bus drivers did not report to work; and (h) the number of people who were expected to be transported by the bus drivers but who were not transported by the bus drivers because the bus drivers did not report to work. With respect to emergencies referred to in documents in LILCO's or LILCO's witnesses' possession, custody or control, provide these documents.
Respense: The 16 emergencies referenced by LILCO witness Robert B. Kelly in his re-port, "Role Abandonment by Bus Drivers During Major Emergency Evacuations" are listed and described on page 4 of that report. Copies of the report have already been provided to Suffolk County and New York State. In all 16 emergencies listed, buses were used to transport people from endangered areas. The report gives the information requested in subparts (a), (b), (c), and (e) of Interrogatory No.1. As to subpart (d), the number of bus drivers who participated in each emergency evacuation is not known by LILCO or Mr. Kelly. As to subparts (f),(g), and (h), asking for the number of bus drivers who did not report, the reason they did not report, and the number of ovacuees affected by non-reporting drivers, the report states that in the 16 emergencies listed there were no documented cases of bus drivers not cooperating or refusing to drive the buses.
LILCO provided (by Federal express package sent to New York State counsel January 30, 1988) all backup documentation for the 16 emergencies '. hat Mr. Kelly examined in preparing his report.
In addition, Dr. Lindell cites the 1079 Mississauga train derailment accident in Ontario, Canada as another emergency in which buses were used to transport people out of endangered areas. Dr. Lindell knows of no cases of bus drivers not reporting to work in emergencies. Dr. Lindell's knowledge about the Mississauga incident is based on his reading of pertinent literature. Dr. Lindell and LILCO do not have possession, cus-tody, or control of specific information about the Mississauga incident of the type sought in Interrogatory No.1.
l
0,
New York Stata Interrogatory No. 2 Describe allinstances of inclement weather known to LILCO or LILCO's witness-es, or referred to in documents in LILCO's or LILCO's witnesses' possession, custody or control, in which bus drivers were called upon to transport schoolchildren to their homes or to places of safety away from their homes because of the inclement weather.
The term "inclement weather" includes, for example, snowstorms. Specifically de-scribe, on a lettered subpart by subpart basis: (a) the type of inclement weather; (b) the location of the inclement weather; (c) the date and time of the inclement weather; (d) the number of bus drivers who transported schoolchildren: (e) the number of school-children who were transported; (f) the number of bus drivers who were expected to re-port for work but who did not report to work;(g) the reason why those bus drivers did not report to work; and (h) the number of schoolchildren who were expected to be transported by the bus drivers but who were not transported by the bus drivers because the bus drivers did not report to work. With respect to such instances of inclement weather referred to in documents in LILCO's or LILCO's witnesses' possession, custody or control, provide these documents.
Response: LILCO and LILCO's witnesses do not have possession, custody, or control of the specific information sought in Interrogatory No. 2.
However, LILCO and its wit-nesses are not aware of any such instances of inclement weather in which school bus drivers refused to perform their jobs due to role conflict or role abandonment. To the best of LILCO's knowledge, there are no documents in LILCO's or LILCO's witnesses' possession, custody, or control that are responsive to this interrogatory.
New York State Interrogatory No. 3 Describe all instances known to LILCO or LILCO's witnesses, or reported in doc-uments in LILCO's or LILCO's witnesses' possession, custody or control, when bus driv-ers, in an emergency, attended to the safety of their own families before reporting to perform their bus driving duties. Specifically describe, on a lettered subpart by subpart basis, for each bus driver: (a) the person (for example, child or spouse) that the bus driver attended to first; (b) the type, location, date and time of the emergency; (c) the length of the concomitant delay in reporting to work. With respect to emergencies re-ferred to in documents in LILCO's or LILCO's witnessess' possession, custody or control, provide these documents.
Response: To the best of LILCO's and LILCO's witnesses' knowledge, there have been no incidents of bus drivers in an emergency attending to the safety of their own fami-lies before reporting to perform their bus driving duties. In addition, neither LILCO nor LILCO's witnesses know of any documents of any kind that report any such behavior during an emergency.
o 0 New York State Interroratory No. 4 Describe all instances known to LILCO or LILCO's witnesses, or reported in doc-uments in LILCO's or LILCO's witnesses' possession, custody or control, when bus driv-ers, in an emergency, performed their bus driving duties anc ther Mtended to the safe-ty of their own families. Specifically describe, on a lettred abpart by subpart basis, for each bus driver: (a) the person (for example, child or spouse) that the bus driver at-tended to af ter performing his or her bus driving duties; (b) the type, location, date, and time of the emergency. With respect to emergencies referred to in documents in LILCO's or LILCO's witnesses' possession, custody or control, provide these documents.
Response: 11LCO's response here is the same as its response to New York State Inter-rogatory No.1.
New York State Interrogato"y No. 5 How many of the school bus drivers serving the schools listed in Attachment i to "LILCO's Motion for Summary Disposition of Contention 25.C (' Role Conflict' of School Bus Drivers)," dated October 22, 1987, have members of their families living in the Shoreham ten-mile EPZ7 Response: LILCO does not have possession, custody, or control of the information re-quested by this interrogatory. LILCO believes that the State, through its Education De-partment, is better able to elicit this information from the school districts.
New York State Interrogatory No. 6 How many of LILCO employees who have agreed to serve as bus drivers have members of their f amilies living in the Shoreham ten-LIM EPZ7 Resporwe: A conservative estimate is that 46 of 562 drivers have their homes in the EPZ. Some of the 46 presumably have families at home. This is the best information LILCO has to answer this question.
I LILCO objects to this Interrogatory on the ground that it attempts to raise issues about role conflict of LERO emergency workers. This issue was resolved in LILCO's favor in the Board's Partial Initial Decision. LBP-85-12,21 NRC 644,674 (1985). Inter-venors cannot relitigate this issue.
l i
)
New York State Interrogatory No. 7 For the school bus drivers who serve each of the schools specified in Attachment 1 to "LILCO's Motion for Summary Disposition of Contention 25.C (' Role Conflict' of School Bus Drivers)," dated October 22, 1987, specifically describe, on a lettered subpart by subpart basis, how their job training addresses: (a) dealing with emergencies of any kind; (b) performing their duties when schools dismiss early; (c) caring for their own families in cases of early school dismissals or emergencies; (d) providing notice to i
the school and bus company when they will not perform their jobs.
Response: LILCO has no information in its possession, custody or control that is re-sponsive to Interrogatory No. 7. New York State, through its Education Department,is more able to elicit this information from the school districts.
New York State Interrogatory No. 8 Provide an up-to-date copy of all early dismissal and emergency plans for each of the schools identified in Attachment 1 of "LILCO's Motion for Summary Disposition of Contention 25.C (' Role Conflict' of School Bus Drivers)," dated October 22,1987.
Response: LILCO does not have possession, custody or control of the documents re-quested in New York State Interrogatory No. 8. New York State, through its Education Department, is more able to obtain these documents from the school districts.
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 relles upon to l
drive buses to implement LILCO's new schools evacuation proposal: (a) amount of l
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 l
emergency at Shoreham; (d) amount of money and other considerations LILCO will give l
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 LILOO 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 licensa and registration, as well as the actual provi-sion of services, objects or benefits such as child care, telephones, vehicles, utilities, l
leave, stock or incentives of any kind.
1
Response: Beyond the information already set forth in LILCO's Summary Disposition Motici LILCO objects to Interrogatory No. 9 on the ground that it seeks information that is not relevant to this proceeding and that is not reasonably calculated to lead to 4
the discovery of admissible evidence. Throughout the 3horeham litigation LILCO has consistently withheld information of a proprietary nature, including information con-cerning the reimburseme.t of LERO workers.
New York State Interrogatory No.10 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 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 relies upon to drive buses to implement LILCO's new schools evacuation proposal: (a) amount of money and other considerations LILCO will give to each bus driver for each hour of classroom training on Shoreham emergency planning; (b) amount of money and other considerations 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 eachbus driver for each hour spent responding to an actual emergency at Shoreham; (e) amount of money and other consid-erations 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 cach 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.
Response: IILCO objects to Interrogatory No.10 on the same grounds stated in LILCO's Response to Interrogatory No. 9.
New York State Interrogatory No.11 l
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 paragraphs 15 and 16 of his associated affidavit, by answering the following. When the LILCO-employed bus drivers referred to in LILCO's schools evacuation proposal perform their bus driving du-l ties during their regular working hours, will these bus drivers receive money and other considerations for performing their bus driving duties in addition to receiving their reg-ular hourly wages? If the answer is affirmative, specify the amount of money and other i
considerations. The term "othct considerations," as used herein, has the same meaning as is set iorth in Interrogatory !<o. 9.
l l
i
i
( l l
Response: LILCO objects to Interrogatory No.11 on the same grounds stated in LILCO's Response to Interrogatory No. 9.
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 attendees 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, telephor.e conversations or discussions.
Response: LILCO states that, to the best of its knowledge, aside from the response to LILCO's Summary Disposition Motion filed by the NRC Staff, there have been no con-tacts of ar.y kind that are responsive to Interrogatory No.12.
New York State Interrogatory No.13 Does LILCO now have in its possession, custody or control any information that is in addition to or different from the information set forth in the "Response of the State of New York to LILCO's First Set of Interrogatories and Requests for Production of Documents Regarding Role Conflict of School Bus Drivers," dated January 19, 1988, and "LILCO's Motion for Summary Disposition of Contention 25.C (' Role Conflict' of School Bus Drivers)," dated October 22, 1987, conerning; (a) the number of students currently enrolled at each school located in the ten mile EPZ for Shoreham (see LILCO Interrogatory No. 8); (b) which of these schools are on split sessions and the number of students in attendance during each split session for each school (seg LILCO Interrogato-ry No. 8); (c) the identification of each and every bus company that contracts with each school leoated in the ten-mile EPZ for Shoreham to transport school children (see LILCO Interrogatory No. 9); (d) which of these bus companies provide buses and drivers to which schools (see LILCO Interrogatory No. 9); (e) the number of school bus drivers under contract to or on the payroll of each school located in the ten-mile EPZ for Shoreham (seg LILCO Interrogatory No.10); (f) the number of these drivers that are designated for each school (see LILCO Interrogatory No.10)? If the answer is affirma-tive, provide, on a lettered subpart by subpart basis the additional or different informa-tion.
R m @ cse: LILCO does not have any additional or different information from that set forth in New York State's Response to LILCO's First Set of Interrogatories and LILCO's Summary Disposition Motion concerning subparts (a), (b), (e), or (f) of Interrogatory No.
13.
As to Interrogatory 13 (c) and (d), LILCO has learned that Medi Bus does provide some transportation for handicapped students in the Mt. Sinal School District and that Crimson Coach provides one wagon for the Eagle Elementary School.
New York State Interrogatory No.14 Provide a copy of all documents used in preparing the answers to these interrog-atories.
Reponse: LILCO ob) cts to Interrogatory No.14 to the extent it seeks discovery of the work product of LILCO's attorneys in preparing LILCO's Response to the State's inter-rogatories or seeks discovery of other documents protected by the attorney-client priv-ilege. To the extent that specific documents or categories of documents have been re-quested above, LILCO is in the process of identifying those documents not objected to and not privileged and will produce them to the State within the 30-day period permit-teo by NRC regulations. At this point, however, the only responsive documents that LILCO has identified are the ones that LILCO already provided (on January 30,1988) in response to the State's Interrogatory No.1.
New York State Interrogatory No.15 List, on a numerical interrogatory by interrogatory basis and on a lettered subpart by subpart bad, all people, including, but not limited to, LILCO witnesses, who were asked to provide information or documents in response to: (a) this pleading; and (b) the pleading submitted by Suffolk County entitled, "Suffolk County's First Set of In-terrogatories and Request for Production of Documents to Long Island Lighting Compa-ny," dated January 4.1988.
Response: In responding to the Intervenors' requests, LILCO has inquired of the cogni-zant people in LERIO, including Douglas M. Crocker, and of its other witnesses, Dr.
Mileti, Dr. Lindell, and Mr. Kelly. It is not possible to provide the information re-quested with the amount of detail requested, particularly inasmuch as providing it would require reconstructing the process of answering Suffolk County's First Set of
Interrogatories some weeks ago. Accordingly. LILCO objects to Interrogatory No.15
).
because it is unduly burdensome. LILCO also objects to the extent the Interrogatory seeks information protected by the attorney-client privilege and work product doctrine.
Finally, LILCO objects on the ground that the level of detail requested is not calculated to lead to the discovery of admissible evidence; to the extent the State is seeking names of cognizant individuals, LILCO has already provided the information in its re-sponse (dated January 20,1988) to Suffolk County's Interrogatory No. 5.
Objectiom Stated by Coumel All objections and references to objections were stated by counsel.
Respectfully submitted, C~ x. w /m Jam 4 N. Christman
/
Mary Jo Leugers Counsel for Long Island Lightirig Company Hunton & Williams 707 East Main Street P.O. Box 1535 Richmond, Virginia 23212 DATED: February 3,1988 l
O VERIPICATION 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 facts 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 foregoing on behalf of Long Island Lighting Company.
I Douglas M. Crocker State of New York)
SS:
)
, a Notary Public in and for I,
the ju iction 'aforWd, tiereby certify that Douglas M.
l Crocke whose name is si n d to the foregoing Answers to l
Interrogatories, dated
.J
, 1988, has personally sworn before me that the statsments therein are true to the best of his knowledge and belief.
YWM l
At.e+
otary Pdblic l
My Commission expires:
d t
j 1
JOAN M. W;CNS i}.g.e'me.m
)
eney e 1
e.
22',.l:.'lll ':ra.,,$(
1
\\
l l
1
(
-~
LILCO, Fcbruary 3,1988 7
00LMETED UWC llB FEB -5 P4 :22 CERTIFIC ATE OF SERVICE OFFICE OF SECnt IAF
- 00CMEilHG & SE8vlCE BRANCH In the Matter of LONG ISLAND LIGHTING COMPANY (Shoreham Nuclear Power Station, Unit 1)
Docket No. 50-322-OL-3 I herr,by certify that copies of LILCO'S RESPONSES AND OBJECTIONS TO NEW YORK STATE'S FIRST SET OF INTERROGATORIES AND REQUEST FOR PRODUCTION OF DOCUs!ENTS were served this date upon the following by telecopier as indicated by one asterisk, by Federal Express as indicatod by two asterisks, or by first-class mail, postage 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 Flint 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.
Board Kirkpatrick & Lockhart U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission South Lobby - 9th Floor East-West Towers, Rm. 430 1800 M Street, N.W.
4350 East-West Hwy.
Washington, D.C. 20036-5891 Bethesda, MD 20814 Fabian G. Palomino, Esq.
- Secretary of the Commission Richard J. Zahnleuter, Esq.
Attention Docketing and Service Special Counsel to the Governor 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
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 Gerald C. Crotty, 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 Second Street Veterans Memorial Highway P.O. Box 298 Hauppauge, New York 11788 Riverhead, New York 11901 Dr. Monroe Schneider Mr. Philip Mc:ntire North Shore Committee Federal Emergency Management P.O. Box 231 Agency Wading River, NY 11792 26 Federal Plaza New York, New York 10278 4
an.n. Win' Sc6tt D. Matetrett Hunton & Williams 707 East Main Street P.O. Box 1535 Richmond, Virginia 23212 DATED: February 3,1988 4
4