ML20149D800

Memorandum & Order (Ruling on Suffolk County Motion to Compel Lilco Responses to Interrogatories).* Denies Suffolk County Motion to Compel Lilco Response to Interrogatories. Served on 880205

ML20149D800
Person / Time
Site:	Shoreham File:Long Island Lighting Company icon.png
Issue date:	02/03/1988
From:	Gleason J Atomic Safety and Licensing Board Panel
To:	SUFFOLK COUNTY, NY
References
CON-#188-5545 86-529-02-OLR, 86-529-2-OLR, OL-3, NUDOCS 8802100022
Download: ML20149D800 (7)

Text

r-V sW5 s . .

'l 00CKETE0 UNITED STATES OF AMERICA NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSION 88 FEB -4 P3 :20 ATOMIC SAFETY AND LICENSING BOARD Before Administrative Judges: Q$Q}r '6g g James P. Gleason, Chairman Dr. Jerry R. Kline Mr. Frederick J. Shon SERVED FEB o S 1988 In the Matter of Docket No. 50-322-0L-3 LONG ISLAND LIGHTING COMPANY

) (ASLBP No. 86-529-02-OLR)

(Shoreham Nuclear Power Station, Unit 1) February 3,1988

)

MEMORANDUM AND ORDER (Rding on Suffolk County's Motion for Order to Compel LILCO's Responses to Interrogatories)

Pursuant to 10 C.F.R. $ 2.740(f), Suffolk County (County) requests the Board to issue an order compelling LILC0 to respond to portions of Suffolk County's First Set of Interrogatories and Request for Production of Documents, dated January 4,1988. LII.00 answered the motion to compel, which was filed on January 25, 1988, on January 30, 1988. Both the motion to compel and the answer thereto were made in a timely manner and set forth clearly the discovery dispute between the parties. There are ten categories of documents included in the parties' disagreements, and we address them in the order they were submitted. We do not repeat, but merely refer, in our decision herein, to arguments and responses made by the parties in each category.

BRO 2100022 080203 ;?2 ADOCK 0500 gJR

)30 >

2 A. Suffolk County Interrogatory 4 reads as follows:

4. Provide the following information with respect to each LILCO-employed LERO worker who LILCO relies upon to implement its new schools evacuation proposal by serving as backup and primary school bus drivers:

a Name 1/

b Position with LILC0; and '

c Qualifications / experience to serve as a school bus driver.

[1] Should LILC0 wish to protect the privacy of individual workers, the County has no objection to LILCO's designating, at this time, the LILCO-employed school bus drivers by number (or some other means) rather than by name.

(a) The County indicates that it is adequate for its present purpose to have cach LERO worker identified by a number (or other means) rather than by name. The Board leaves it to the parties to resolve this matter amicably. However, it wishes to point out to the parties, with respect to LILCO's objection to releasing names, that if efforts were made to subject potential emergency workers "to harassment and intimidation," (LILCO's Response at 4), the Board would expect the facts of that endeavor to be brought to its attention. Under such circumstance, the Board is not without power to curb such impropriety.

(b) Although it is difficult for the Board to comprehend the l

t l

relevance of a worker's position with LILCO to the question of serving

' as a school bus driver in an emergency, we cannot state categorically that it may not be reasonably calculated to lead to the discovery of admissible evidence. The County's motion is granted on this l

interrogatory.

I I

l l

l r

l

i t

3 (c) The qualification / experience issue is irrelevant since all

. potential auxiliary bus drivers must be trained and possess the requisite bus driver licenses.

The County's motion is denied herein.

B. Suffolk County Interrogatory 7 reads as follows:

7. Have any LILCO personnel declined to participate in LILCO's new schools evacuation proposal? If so, please indicate the number who have declined to participate, and identify the reason (s) given for their declining to participate.

Inasmuch as this interrogatory is responded to by LILCO that no information or documents are in existence, the County's motion is denied.,

C. Suffolk County Interrogatory 11(a) requests LILC0 to:

11. Provide a copy of all documents relating to:

(a) The recruitment of LILCO employees to serve as school bus drivers under LILCO's schools evacuation proposal; The same decision, as in B. above, is made here since LILCO denies the existence of any documents on school bus driver recruitment. We note, hotever, LILCO's indication in its response of some documents discovered on this subject on January 20, 1988. See LILCO's Response at 5 footnote 8. We assume this material has been received by the County.

D. Interrogstories 11(c), 12, 13, 14, 15 and 16 all seek information regarding the training of the LILCO-employed school bus drivers. These interrogatories read as follows:

4 Interrogatory No. J1(c)

11. Provide a copy of all documents relating to:

(c) The training of LILC0 employees who agree to serve as LERO school bus drivers.

Interrogatory No. 12

12. Identify by date ind description all drills, exercises, tabletop exercises, classroom training sessions, and all other training activities relating to LILCO's new schools evacuation proposal that have been held and/or scheduled to be held.

Interrogatory No. 13

13. For each activity identified in response to the previous interrogatory, identify the persons who participated.

Interrogatory No. 14

14. For each activity identified in response to Interrogatory 12, provide all documents concerning the activity.

Interrogatory No. 15

15. Identify all persons responsible for training LILCO employees to serve as LERO school bus drivers. Describe the functions and responsibilities of these people.

Interrogatory No. 16

16. Provide an up-to-date resume for each of the persons identified in response to the previous interrogatory, including information regarding each person's qualifica ions and experience.

We need not address for our purpose the issue whether trainng of bus drivers is res judicata. LILCO has denied the existence of additional documents on training of LILCO's school bus drivers and consequently, the County's motion is denied on this interrogatory. We do remind the parties, that under 10 C.F.R. 6 2.740(e), duties are set forth to supplement responses on discovery requests.

5 E. Interrogatory 21(b) requests LILC0 to provide:

The number of LILCO-employed school bus drivers that could be ordered to report to each of the designated bus yards.

LILC0 responds that the information requested is found in Attachment 1 to LILC0's answer to the interrogatories. Accordingly, the County's motion is denied. However, we request that LILCO verify to the County that the infonnation in Attachment 1, listing buses that can be called out to the specific bus yards, includes the assignment of bus drivers.

F. Interrogatory 24 requests that LILC0:

24. Provide copies of all documents relating in any way to any time estimates for the evacuation of public school children from the 10-mile emergency planning zone in a single wave under LILCO's schouls evacuation proposal.

The Board assumes from LILCO's answer on this interrogatory that the information on time estimates has been supplied to it through receipt of Revision 9 of the emergency plan. Additionally, any jurisdictional question will be responded to in our ruling on LILCO's motion in ,limine, which is pending and awaiting responses from the parties. County's motion to compel is denied.

G. Interrogatory 26 requests that LILCO:

26. Provide a copy of all documents, including correspondence and drafts, concerning the impact on the implementability of LILC0's offsite emergency plan of LILCO's new schools evacuation proposal, including, but not limited to, the impact of having to notify, mobilize, brief, equip, dispatch, connunicate with, l

coordinate and control, and/or manage as many as 562 additional LERO personnel.

4 6

LILCO maintains in its answer that there are no non-privileged documents existing to respond to the County's interrogatory and that the County is not requesting any of the documents which have been identified by LILCO as covered by an attorney-client or work product privilege.

The information on these documents was apparently submitted to the parties after the County's motion to compel was filed. The County's motion is denied.

H. Interrogatory 29 reads as follows:

29. Identify any and all locations to which school children would purportedly be transported by LILCO-employed school bus drivers in the event of a Shoreham emergency.

Interrogatory 30 requests LILCO to:

30. Identify all routes which might have to be driven by LILCO-employed school bus drivers in transporting school children during a Shoreham emergency.

Interrogatory 29, according to LILCO's answer, has been answered by the identification in Revision 9 of reception centers for school children. The Applicant does concede it is withholding some documents on reception centers because in its pending motion in limine, reception centers are considered to be outside the scope of the remand proceeding.

The County's motion is denied on this interrogatory.

On Interrogatory 30, we will reserve judgment on the County's request for route information until a Board Order is issued on LILCO's in,limine motion. The question of evacuation time estimates, to which the viability of routes is related, is to be censidered in that motion.

1 m ,..

)

O 7

I. Interrogatory 31 requests LILCO to:

31. Provide a copy of all maps which LILCO-employed school bus drivers are purportedly to N given as part of their training.

On the grounds asserted by LILCO, that the "the maps requested do not exist," the County's motion is denied.

J. Interrogatory 32 requests that LILCO:

32. Provide copies of any documents relating to LILCO's new schools evacuation proposal and not previously produced, including, by way of example only, drafts, notes, and correspondence, whether produced or generated by LILCO, LERO, or non-LILCO organizations or individua'Is.

LILCO states that no documents responsive tc the County's interrogatory exist. Consequently, the motion to compel is denied.

The Board's Order on the County's motion to compel is as set forth in this memorandum.

ORDERED:

FOR THE ATOMIC SAFETY AND LICENSI'iG BOARD mm l- M~

James P. Gleason, Chairman ADMINISTR\TIVE JUDGE Dated at Bethesda, Maryland this 3rd day of February,1988.