ML20150A888
| ML20150A888 | |
| Person / Time | |
|---|---|
| Site: | Shoreham File:Long Island Lighting Company icon.png |
| Issue date: | 03/10/1988 |
| From: | Harlow D HUNTON & WILLIAMS, LONG ISLAND LIGHTING CO. |
| To: | SUFFOLK COUNTY, NY |
| Shared Package | |
| ML20150A892 | List: |
| References | |
| CON-#188-5840 OL-3, NUDOCS 8803160079 | |
| Download: ML20150A888 (13) | |
Text
.
654 0 CELAl.ED_CO't@f0!10EftC3 LILCO, March 10, 1988 g
1 4
DOOKETED USNRC UNITED STATES OF AMERICA NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSION (FFlCE ] ^E{Nf LCCr(Eim s :. r 's h t.
[,i A),C 4 Before the Atomic Safety and Licensing Board In the Matter of
)
)
LONG ISLAND LIGHTING COMPANY
)
Docket No. 50-322-OL-3
)
(Emergency Planning)
(Shoreham Nuclear Power Station,
)
(Hospital Evacuation Issue)
Unit 1)
)
LILCO'S RESPONSES AND OBJECTIONS TO SUFFOLK COUNTY'S FIRST SET OF INTERROGATORIES AND REQUEST FOR PRODUCTION OF DOCUMENTS LILCO hereby responds to Suffolk County's First Set of Interrogatories and Re-quest for Production of Documents, dated February 29, 1988 and served on LILCO on March 1,1988.N I.
GENERAL ANSWERS AND OBJECTIONS TO INTERROGATORIES DEFINITIONS AND INSTRUCTIONS A.
LILCO objects to all interrogatories, definitions and instructions insofar as they require the disclosure of any information protected by the attorney-client privi-lege or work product doctrine.
B.
LILCO objects to all interrogatories to the extent they purport to require information outside the possession, custody or control of LILCO.
C.
LILCO objects to the inclusion of attorneys in the definition of "LILCO" or "LILCO personnel" in paragraph H of Suffolk County's Definitions and Instructions be-cause their inclusion is clearly calculated to discover information protected by the attorney-client privilege and the work product doctrine.
y According to the certificate of service, the First Set of Interrogatories was served on LILCO by telecopier on February 29. In fact, LILCO received the interroga-tories by telecopier in the mid-morning of March 1.
8803160079 000310 DR ADOCK 050 2
, 3 D.
LILCO objects on relevance grounds to all interrogatories that seek infor-mation that is outside the scope of the issue in this proceeding, as established by the Board in its February 24,1988 Memorandum and Order. LILCO objects to individual in-terrogatories on this ground where appropriate.
IL ANSWERS AND OBJECTIONS TO INTERROGATORIES Suffolk County Interrogatory No.1 Identify each person whom LILCO expects to call as an expert or non-expert witness during the remanded proceeding on the hospital evacuation issue and state the subject matter on which each is expected to testify.
Response: LILCO identified two witnesses for the hospital evacuation time estimates proceeding on February 25, 1988, the first day of the discovery period, in a letter to Suffolk County counsel. Letter from Scott D. Matchett to Christopher M. McMurray, February 25, 1988. The two witnesses are Diane P. Driekorn and Edward B. Lieberman.
Ms. Driekorn will be the Company representative on the panel and will testify as neces-sary as to why LILCO calculated the hospital evacuation time estimates in light of the remand order on the hospital evacuation issue and the processes by which LILCO con-tracted to have such time estimates developed.
Mr. Lieberman will testify on matters regarding the accuracy and bases of the hospital evacuation time estimates presented in Rev. 9.
Suffolk County Interrogatory No. 2 For each expert witness identified in response to Interrogatory No.1, state the substance of the facts and opinions to which the expert is expected to testify and a summary of the grounds for each opinon.
Response: The substance of the facts and opinions to which Mr. Lieberman is expected to testify is contained in his affidavit, which is Attachment 3 to LILCO's Motion for Summary Disposition of the Hospital Evacuation Issue (Dec. 18, 1987).
O,
Suffolk County Interrogatory No. 3 Provide an up-to-date resume for each witness identified in response to Interrog-atory No.1.
R sponse: Resumes for both Mr. Lieberman and Ms. Driekorn were provided to the County in connection with the reception centers proceeding held in July 1987 and are a part of the record following transcript page 17,421 as part of LILCO Exhibit 1. More up-to-date resumes, if available, will be provided to the County as soon as possible.
Suffolk County Interrogatory No. 4 For each witness identified in response to Interrogatory No.1, provide all docu-ments prepared by, for, or under the supervision of such witness relating in any way to evacuation time estimates for hospitals in and around the Shoreham EPZ.
Response: For Ms. Driekorn, there are no such documents. For Mr. Lieberman, LILCO provided the County, by hand delivery on February 29,1988, documents relating to hos-pital evacuatic' estimates. LILCO is enclosing with this set of Responses two ad-ditional doc,
%dch are responsive to this interrogatory. To the best of LILCO's knowledge, it has now provided the County with all documents which are relevant to the hospital evacuation time estimates issue. Should LILCO identify additional docu-ments that are responsive to this interrogatory, it will provide Suffolk County with any such documents that are not privileged before the end of the discovery period.
Suffolk County Interrogatory No. 5 For each witness identified in response to Interrogatory No.1, identify by date, location and proceeding, all prior testimony before any judicial, administrative, or leg-islative body, including deposition testimony, concerning emergency preparedness and, in particular, protective actions for special population groups such as hospital patients, nursing home residents, and other such individuals.
Response: Ms. Driekorn has previously testified as a witness only in the Shoreham re-ception centers proceeding, which was held in July 1987. Information about the previ-ous testimony of Mr. Lieberman in this proceeding has already been provided to the County in the -05 proceeding. In addition, Mr. Lieberman has testified in the Seabrook
, s hearing, which was held in November and December of 1987. Information regarding Mr. Lieberman's Seabrook testimony will be provided to the County as soon as possible.
Suffolk County Interrogatory No. 6 Identify every company, organization, group, entity, institution, and individual, including those identified in Interrogatory 1, who participated in the preparation of the hospital evacuation time estimates set forth in Revision 9 of the LILCO Plan. With re-spect to each organization or individual identified, explain the nature of that organiza-tion's or individual's participation in the preparation of the evacuation time estimates.
Response: LILCO object.; to Interrogatory No. 6 to the extent it purports to include counsel for LILCO who may have participated in the preparation of the hospital evacu-ation time estimates. Notwithstanding and without waiving this objection, LILCO lists below the primary entities and individuals involved in preparing the hospital evacuation time estimates, and the role or function each performed:
Edward B. Lieberman, KLD Conceptual development Associates, Inc.
Jeffrey Sobotka, Aldikoff Conceptual development and Associates, Inc.
calculations D. Curt Ingram, Stone &
Calculations Webster Engineering Corp.
Marlene Katz Sheldon, KLD Calculations Associates, Inc.
Mary Seely, KLD Calculations Associates, Inc.
Paul Jacobs, The Behr Calculations Consulting Group, Inc.
Nick Lambadis, Impell Calculations Corporation l
Suffolk County Interrogatory No. 7 l
l Provide all documents underlying, supporting or relied upon in calculating the l
hospital evacuation time estimates set forth in Revision 9 of the LILCO Plan.
Response: LILCO has now provided the County with all documents relating to hospital l
- 3 evacuation time estimates. See LILCO Response to Interrogatory No. 4. In addition to these documents, the assumptions stated in Appendix A to the LILCO Plan were relied upon in calculating the hospital evacuation time estimates.
Suffolk County Interrogatory No. 8 Identify by date and description all drills, exercises, tabletop exercises, class-room training sessions, and all other training activities relating to LILCO's new hospital evacuation proposal that have been held or are scheduled to be held.
Response: LILCO objects to Interrogatory No. 8 on the grounds that it seeks informa-tion that is not relevant to the subject matter of this proceeding and is not reasonably calculated to lead to the discovery of admissible evidence. The sole issue in this pro-ceeding is "the accuracy and bases of the evacuation time estimates presented in Revi-sion 9 to LILCO's Plan." Memorandum and Order (Feb. 24,1988) at 12. Information concerning drills, exercises, and other training activities is not relevant to the issue of the accuracy and bases of the hospital evacuation time estimates, nor is such informa-tion likely to lead to the discovery of admissible evidence on that issue.
Suffolk County Interrogatory No. 9 For each activity identified in response to Interrogatory 7, provide all documents relating to the activity.
Rsponse: LILCO assumes that the County intended Interrogatory No. 9 to read "For each activity identified in response to Interrogatory 8...," and LILCO objects for the same reasons given in its response to Interrogatory No. 8.
l l
Suffolk County Interrogatory No.10 What contacts has LILCO had with any hospital or medical association regarding l
LILCO's hospital evacuation proposal? For each such contact, identify all hospital (s) or association (s) and person (s) involved, the date(s) of each contact, the substance of any conversations, and produce copies of any documents which relate in any way to such contacts.
Response: LILCO objects to Interrogatory No.10 on the grounds that it seeks informa-tion that is not relevant to the subject matter of this proceeding, the accuracy and l
i
. s bases of the hospital evacuation time estimates in Revision 9, and is not reasonably cal-culated to lead to the discovery of admissible evidence.
Suffolk County Interrogatory No.11 To the extent not stated in LILCO's December 18,1987 Motion for Summary Dis-position of the Hospital Evacuation Issue and pages IV-176 through 177 of Appendix A of the LILCO Plan, state all assumptions on which LILCO's hospital evacuation time esti-mates are based.
Response: All of the assumptions on which LILCO's hospital evacuation time estimates are based are stated in Rev. 9 of Appendix A. Certain of these assumptions, however, require further clarification.
Two of the assumptions stated in Appendix A are:
Loading Vehicles at Facility:
Ambulettes carry 7 people and can be loaded in 25 minutes for normal weather and 30 minutes for inclement weather.
Ambulances carry 2 people and can be loaded in 20 minutes for normal weather and 30 minutes for inclement weather.
Up to 6 ambulances and 6 ambulettes can be loaded simulta-neously at a given facility. Residents of the f acilities are ready for loading at time of vehicle arrival. (p. IV-176).
Loading buses at facility:
Buses carry a maximum of 40 adult passengers and can be loaded in 10 minutes. Up to 6 buses can be loaded simulta-neously. (p. IV-177).
While not explicitly stated in these two assumptions, in the calculation of the hospital evacuation time estimates, vehicle distribution among evacuating facilities was optimized (M, limited at any given time to six vehicles of each given type) to mini-mize queuing.
Another assumption stated in Appendix A is:
All three hospitals receive vehicles concurrently as they be-come available. (p. IV-178)
In the calculation of hospital evacuation time estimates, hospitals were allocated
4 5 vehicles in proportion to the number of patients remaining to be evacuated at each hos-pital as vehicles became available for reassignment.
Another assumption stated in Appendix A is:
Af ter delivering evacuees to reception hospitals, the vehicle drivers are immediately available for additional trips, if nec-essary. (p. IV-178)
In the calculation of the hospital evacuation time estimates, vehicles which were not needed for multiple trips were assigned to reception hospitals that, generally, were fur-ther away than the reception hospitals to which vehicles needed for multiple trips were assigned.
Suffolk County Interrogatory No.12 What event or occurrence is the starting point for the evacuation time estimate for each hospital? What is the stopping point?
Response: The "starting point" for the evacuation time estimate for each hospital is when a protective action recommendation of evacuation is given to the general popula-tion for the zone in which each hospital is located (or, for a hospital outside the EPZ, the zone closest to where such hospital is located). This "starting point" includes the assumption, listed in Appendix A at p. IV-176, that ambulance and ambulette companies are notified to dispatch vehicles at the Site Area Emergency level and that the Site Area Emergency level precedes the order to evacuate by 25 minutes, in the case of an evacuation of the entire EPZ, the "stopping point" for the evac-uation time estimate for each hospital is when the last vehicle carrying the last pa-tient(s) being evacuated from each hospital crosses the boundary of the EPZ. In the case of an evacuation of less than the full EPZ, the "stopping point" is when the last vehicle carrying the last patient (s) from each evacuating hospital crosses the boundary of the combination of zones being evacuated.
I
. i Suffolk County Interrogatory No.13 With respect to the evacuation time estimate for each hospital, what routes are evacuation vehicles (ambulances, ambulettes, etc.) assumed to take?
Response: The answer to this interrogatory is contained in the documents on hospital evacuation time estimates which were provided to the County on February 29, 1988.
See LILCO Response to Interrogatory No. 4.
Suffolk County Interrogatory No.14 With respect to the evacuation time estimate for each hospital, to what recep-tion hospital or hospitals are the evacuating patients assumed to be taken and in what order? To the extent that patients are assumed to be taken to more than one hospital, list the order in which the patients are taken to the reception hospitals (starting with the first reception hospital that patients are taken to, then the second, etc.). Identify how many patients are assumed to be taken to each such reception hospital.
Response: See LILCO Response to Interrogatory No.13.
Suffolk County Interrogatory No.15 Do the hospital evacuation time estimates assume that all three hospitals evacu-ate concurrently? If not, state how many of the hospitals are assumed to evacuate con-currently.
Rsponse: The hospital evacuation time estimates for a full ten mile evacuation assume that all three hospitals evacuate concurrently. In calculating the hospital evacuation time estimates for Schedule 4 (Central Suffolk Hospital) and Schedule 6 (John T. Mather Hospital and St. Charles Hospital) it was not assumed that all three hospitals evacuate concurrently. For Schedule 4 and Schedule 6, only those hospitals located within (or, in the case of Central Suffolk Hospital, near) the zones included within each Schedule are assumed to evacuate concurrently.
Suffolk County Interrogatory No.16 e
Do the hospital evacuation time estimates assume multiple waves of evacuation i
vehicles - e, multiple trips by the evacuation vehicles? If so, how many? In addi-tion, state the routes which such vehicles are assumed to travel back to each evacuating hospital.
, e Response: The hospital evacuation time estimates assume that evacuation vehicles will make multiple trips in order to evacuate the homebound handicapped, special f acilities (other than Suffolk Infirmary and the hospitals), Suffolk Infirmary and the hospitals. It is assumed that evacuation of the homebound handicapped and the special facilities (other than Suffolk Infirmary and the hospitals) can be accomplished in a single wave.
It is assumed that evacuation of Suffolk Infirmary and the three hospitals can be ac-complished in no more than two additional waves. The documents provided by LILCO to the County on February 29, 1988 indicate the routes which evacuation vehicles are assumed to travel back to each evacuating hospital.
Suffolk County Interrogatory No.17 Has LILCO, its experts or consultants analyzed or evaluated the sensitivity of any of the assumptions on which its hospital evacuation time estimates are based? If so, state the results of any such analyses or evaluations.
Response: LILCO has not analyzed or evaluated the sensitivity of the hospital evacua-tion time estimates to variations in the assumptions.
Suffolk County Interrogatory No.18 Provide all documents relating to all of the studies or evaluations identified in response to Interrogatory 17.
Response: See LILCO Response to Interrogatory No.17.
Suffolk County Interrogatory No.19 Explain the bases for all assumptions set forth at pages IV-176 through 177 of Appendix A of the LILCO Plan.
Rmponse: Except as noted below, the assumptions set forth at pages IV-176 through IV-177 of Appendix A were contained in LILCO's Testimony on Contentions 72.A and E, ff.
Tr. 9101, and were discussed in the Licensing Board's Partial Initial Decision (PID), at pages 835-38.
, 1 With regard to the assumptions concerning travel speeds listed in Table XIIIB of Appendix A, speeds for areas west of the EPZ were modified to reflect the updated speeds used in LILCO's testimony in the reception centers remand proceeding.
- S_e_e, e&, LILCO Exhibit 1 ("Written Testimony of Douglas M. Crocker, Dale E. Donaldson, I
Diane P. Driekorn, Edward B. Lieberman, Roger E. Linnemann, Michael K. Lindell, Dennis S. Mileti, and Richard J. Watts on the Sultability of Reception Centers"), ff. Tr.
17, 421, at 7.
The assumption stated at p. IV-176 that the "time required for ambu-lance /ambulette drivers to receive dosimetry, briefing and assignment at Brentwood/
Peconic, is 30 minutes" differs from the assumption previously litigated that such activ-itles for ambulance /ambulette drivers could be completed in 15 minutes. The basis for this change is LILCO's belief that this more conservative figure is a more realistic as-sessment as to the length of time that such activities fri smbulance/ambulette drivers might take.
The assumption stated at p. IV-176 that "(mlonitoring time for the occupants for all vehicles is 15 minutes" was not litigated previously. The basis for this assump-tion is LILCO's belief that 15 minutes is a reasonable amount of time to perform moni-toring.
Suffolk County Interrogatory No. 20 To the extent not covered by the above requests, provide all documents relating to LILCO's hospital evacuation time estimates.
Response: LILCO objects to Interrogatory No. 20 because it is overbroad and unduly burdensome. Where the County has requested specific documents or categories of doc-uments in Interrogatories 1-19, LILCO has responded appropriately and has, in f act, al-ready provided the County with such documents that are responsive and not privileged.
Interrogatory No. 20, however, is a scatts *-shot request directed generally at any docu-ments at all related to "LILCO's hospital evacuation time estimates." As such, the re-quest is overly broad, redundant, and unduly burdensome.
Without waiving this objection, LILCO states that apart from those documents identified in LILCO's Response to Interrogatory No. 4, there are no other documents relating to LILCO's hospital evacuation time estimates.
Suffolk County Interrogatory No. 21 Identify the patient capacity of each reception hospital listed in Attachment 5 to OPIP 3.6.5.
Response: To the extent that through this interrogatory the County is seeking informa-tion with which to dispute LILCO's estimate of 14% availability of space in the recep-tion hospitals, LILCO objects on relevancy grounds. The Board has stated that LILCO's t
l estimate "provides a reasonable planning basis for the purposes" and that "(p]ursuing another significant figure with the full panoply of an administrative hearing seems to us a waste of resources." Memorandum and Order (Feb. 24,1988) at 11. Moreover, the Board has said that "[dletermining whether these hospitals and their resources exist are matters we believe to be clearly ministerial matters properly lef t to the Staff."
Memorandum and Order (Feb. 24,1988) at 10.
LILCO does not object to the extent that the County is seeking this information simply as a means of verifying the accuracy of the calculation of LILCO's hospital evacuation time estimates. The requested information can be found in Attachment 1 to OPIP 4.2.2.
Obketions Stated by Counsel All objections and references to objections were stated by counsel.
l l
Respectfully submitted, h%5. 6/-
meEIR. Christman David S. Harlow Hunton & Williams 707 East Main Street P.O. Box 1535 Richmond, Virginia 23212 DATED: March 10,1988 i
l l
l l
t l
l l
l l
f
i e
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 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 forgoing on behalf of Long Island Lighting Company.
ETouglas M. Crocker State of New York SS:
i I,
/
I4
_ _, a Notary Public in and for the juri #ction (afopid, hereby certify that Douglas M.
Crocker Ghose name fd'si e
to he foregoing Answers to Interro atories, dated
/o,1988, has personally sworn before me that the statements therein are true to the best of his knowledge and belief.
/"*
~~ N
//h tary I"ubly JOAN M, wrog;gg
" Q
u-.?m::::M'g'9
- ' 9** ym
.?::::::a.,,y My Coasnission expires:
$8
/
l
..