ML20150A942
| ML20150A942 | |
| Person / Time | |
|---|---|
| Site: | Shoreham File:Long Island Lighting Company icon.png |
| Issue date: | 03/11/1988 |
| From: | Ingebretson C HUNTON & WILLIAMS, LONG ISLAND LIGHTING CO. |
| To: | Atomic Safety and Licensing Board Panel |
| References | |
| CON-#188-5847 OL-3, NUDOCS 8803160098 | |
| Download: ML20150A942 (132) | |
Text
LILCO, March 11,1988 00 METED UNITED STATES OF AMERICA USNRC NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSION
'88 MR 14 A10 47 Before the Atomic Safety and Licensing Board 0FFICE Of SELi:tIAr Y 00CKETING A SEPvlCE BRANCH In the Matter of
)
)
LONG ISLAND LIGHTING COMPANY
) Docket No. 50-322-OL-3
) (Emergency Planning)
(Shoreham Nuclear Power Station,
)
Unit 1)
)
LILCO'S MOTION TO COMPEL ANSWERS TO CERTAIN INTERROGATORIES AND REQUESTS FOR PRODUCTION OF DOCUMENTS Pursuant to 10 CFR 52.740(f), Long Island Lighting Company ("LILCO") moves the Board for an order compelling Suffolk County and its expert witnesses to produce docume its sought by LILCO's Notices of Deposition to those witnesses and to respond to certain interrogatories and requests for production of documents filed by LILCO on January 13, 1988, and January 27, 1988. In particular, LILCO asks the Board to require Suffolk County to supplement its responses to LILCO's Interrogatories Nos. 23-26, 30, and 35-37 (set out verbatim in footnotes 2 and 3 below).M 1/
In filing its request, LILCO is mindful of the "Board Memorandum and Order
[ Setting Hearing and Discovery Schedule)" (March 10, 1988). This Motion to Compel, which is focused on the need for full answers to existing discovery requests, is not oc-casion for any change in the schedule set forth in that Order. As detailed in this mo-tion, LILCO sought to obtain the information it now seeks to comp (! during the discov-ery period and, within that period, sought by letter to negotiate a resolution of this discovery dispute. Suffc1k County's final decision to withhold the information was not evident until af ter the close of discovery when it wrote to LILCO's counsel on March 3 that there was "no reason... to update the County's prior responses." See Letter to Mary Jo Leugers from Michael S. Miller (March 3,1988) (Att. A). An order compelling Suffolk County to respond fully to LILCO's focused discovery requests should not affect the schedule. Under the current schedule, an order to respond by April 1 would leave Suffolk County 20 days to respond and would provide LILCO a dozen days to consider the information in its prefiled testimony, hhh DO 2
G DSo5
- _ _ _ _ _ - _ _ _ _ BACKGROUN_D Over the past two months, LILCO has sought to discover through depositions, in-terrogatories, and requests for production of documents the f acts and opinions on which Suffolk County's school official expert witnesses are expected to rely in their testimony on LILCO's plan to evacuate public schools in the Shoreham EPZ. Obtaining this infor-mation, which relates to one of the central issues of this proceeding - role conflict -
is critical to LILCO's ability to cross-examine these witnesses and to the effective liti-gation of this proceeding. LILCO's attempts to obtain this information have been frus-trated by Suffolk County's refusal to comply fully with discovery requests. Suffolk County's recent, final refusal to provide such information forces LILCO to seek the Board's aid. See Letter to Mary Jo Leugers from Michael S. Miller (March 3,1988) i
("[N]o reason exists at this time to update the County's prior responses...")(Att. A).
LILCO sought discovery of Suffolk County's expert witnesses, as well as their background and experience, opinions, and the bases for those opinions, through Inter-rogatories 1 and 2 of LILCO's First Set of Interrogatories and Requests for Production of Documents Regarding Role Conflict of School Bus Drivers to Suffolk County and New d
York State served on January 5,1988 (Att. C). On January 13, 1988, LILCO's Second Set of Interrogatories and Requests for Production of Documents further specified its request for that information through Interrogatories 23 through 26, and 30.U Again on 2/
LILCO's Second Set of Interrogatories and Requests for Production included the following:
23.
Identify by type of emergency, location of emergency, and date of emer-gency all past emergencies (for example, floods, fires, snowstorms, or hurricanes) known to Intervenors or their Contractors or mentioned in documents in the possession, custody, or control of Intervenors or their Contractors in which bus drivers were called upon to transport people be-cause of the emergency - for example, to transport school pupils or other i
members of the public either to their homes (for example, in early dis-l 1
missal of schools) or to places of safety away from their homes, include (footnote continued)
January 27,1988, LILCO sought the information through its Third Set of Interrogatories and Requests for Production of Documents, including Interrogatories 35 through 37.E (footnote continued) in "emergencies" any event (for example, snowstorms) that caused a school to dismiss earlier than usual. In each such emergency, how many bus drivers were called upon to transport people because of the emergen-cy?
24.
How many instances are known to Intervenors or their Contractors or re-ported in documents in their possession, custody, or control of bus drivers, in any emergency, attending to the safety of their own families before re-porting to perform their bus driving duties? For each of the bus drivers who, in an emergency of any kind, attended to the safety of his own fami-ly before reporting to perform his bus driving duties, provide the following information:
a.
What relationship to the driver (for example, son or wife) was the person or persons whose safety the driver attended to before per-forming his bus-driving duties?
b.
What was the emergency?
c.
What was the date of the failure to perform or delay in per-forming?
d.
What person or what document has the information about the f all-ure to perform or delay in performing?
e.
For each delay in performing, how long was the delay?
25.
Of the school bus drivers who serve the schools listed in Attachment 1 to "LILCO's Motion for Summary Disposition of Contention 25.C (' Role Con-filet' of School Bus Drivers)." dated October 22, 1987, how many have other members of their families living in the Shoreham ten-mile EPZ?
26.
When the school bus drivers who serve each of the schools specified in At-tachment i to "LILCO's Motion for Summary Disposition of Contention 25.C (' Role Conflict' of School Bus Drivers)," dated October 22,1987, are trained for their jobs, what are they told about 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 the school or bus company when they will not (footnote continued)
Suffolk County responded to LILCO's interrogatory requests on January 27,1988, before its school official expert witnesses had ben identified. Its answers basically stated that it was generally aware that there had ten early dismissals of children from (footnote continued) perform their jobs?
eeee 30.
Please provide a copy of all documents used in preparing the answers to Requests 23-28 above.
S_ee Attachment E, "Suffolk County's Answers to LILCO's Second Set of Interrogatories and Requests for Production of Documents Regarding Role Conflict of School Bus Driv-ers," which includes the text of LILCO's interrogatories.
3/
In its Third Set of Interrogatories and Requests for Production, LILCO asked the following questions:
35.
To the extent not provided by your answers to Requests 23 and 24 in LILCO's Second Set of Interrogatories and Requests for Production of Documents Regarding Role Conflict of School Bus Drivers to Suffolk l
County and New York State, dated January 13, 1988, please provide one l'
example known to Intervenors (as defined in Definition F of the "Defini-tions" cited above) of a bus driver who, in an emergency, attended to the safety of his own family before reporting to perform his bus driving du-ties. For this example please identify the emergency, the date, the orga-nization for which the bus driver worked at the time, the duties the bus driver was expected to perform in connection with the emergency, the length of time before the bus driver reported to perform these duties, and the family members whose safety the driver attended to. Identify also the source (person or document or both) of this example, 36.
Give a second example of a bus driver who, in an emergency, attended to the safety of his own family before reporting to perform his bus driving duties and identify the example and source as requested in Request No. 35 above.
37.
Give a third example of a bus driver who, in an emergency, attended to the safety of his own family before reporting to perform his bus driving duties and identify the example and source as requested in Request No. 35 above.
S_ee Attachment F, "Suffolk County's Answers to LILCO's Third Set of Interrogatories and Requests for Production of Documents Regarding Role Conflict of School Bus Driv-ers to Suffolk County and New York State," which includes the text of LILCO's inter-rogatories.
schools involving bus transportation, but that, with the exception of discovery materi-als and testimony from the emergency planning procee.-lings of 1983-84, Suffolk County was not aware of any information within its possession, custody, or control which was responsive. See Suffolk County's hnswers to interrogatories 23-26,30 and 35-37 (Atts. E and F).
On February 12, 1988, near the close of discovery, Suf folk County designated the school officials it intended to call as expert witnesses.O Deposition notices for some of the school official witnesses were served, which included a request that the deponent "produce at deposition for inspection and copying, any and all documents... which are relevant to the issue" of whether a sufficient number of school bus drivers can be relied upon to perform emergency services.N The depositions of the remainder of the school official witnesses were by agreement due, in part, to short and at times overnight no-tice of their availability for deposition. Documents were not produced at any of the depositions of school official witnesses.
Based upon the representation that the newly designated school official witness-es would draw on their experience for their testimony, LILCO, on February 24, 1988, wrote to Suffolk County requesting that it "update its responses to LILCO's interrogato-ries and requests for production of documents to include information and materials that l
4/
Dr. Suprina and Mr. Doherty were designated "subject to confirmation" on February 12; they were later confirmed as witnesses. The school officials designated were Bruce G. Brodsky, School Board Member, Middle Country School District; Edward J. Doherty, Supervisor of Transportation for the Riverhead Central School District; lloward M. Koenig, Superintendent of Schools for the East Meadow School District; Nick F. Muto, Superintenc%nt of Schools for the Longwood Central School District; Anthony R. Rossi, Supervisor of Transportation for the Middle Country School District; Robert W. Petrilak, School Board Member, Mt. Sinal Board of Education; J. Thomas Smith, Transportation Coordinator for the Longwood Central School District; and Richard N. Suprina, Superintendent of Schools for the Riverhead Central School Dis-trict.
S/
The Notices of Deposition are Attachment G.
are now accessible to the County through its newly designated witnesses." S_ee Letter to Michael S. Miller from Mary Jo Leugers (Feb. 24,1988) (A tt. B).
On March 3,1988, Suffolk County curtly responded by refusing to provide any additional information relevant to LILCO's interrogatories. See March 3 Letter (Att.
A). Suffolk County charged that LILCO's continued pursuit of information about the grounds for expert opinions was the result of:
your misunderstanding or misconception regarding Suffolk County's obligation to update its discovery responses (which]
stems primarily from your assumption that, since some of the witnesses designated by Suffolk County are officiais of the school districts at issue in this proceeding, the County must necessarily have access to information and materials not available to LILCO. Your assumption, simply put, is wrong.
See March 3 Letter (Att. A).
ARGUMENT I.
LILCO is Entitled to Discovery.
The basis for this Motion to Compel is twofold. First, LILCO needs this informa-tion, which is highly relevant and material to the issues in this proceeding, for a full and fair exposition of the evidence in this proceeding. Second, LILCO needs the factual underpinnings of the school official witnesses' opinions for purposes of cross-examination.
A.
The Information LILCO Seeks is Relevant and Material to the Issues in this Proceedinst.
One of the central issues in this proceeding is whether role conflict will affect the ability to evacuate school childt : from the Shoreham EPZ. LILCO maintains that it will not and that empirical data on past emergencies show that instances of role abandonment are very rare. Suffolk County and its school official witnesses maintain that role conflict will be a significant problem in a Shoreham evacuation and that they know role abandonment has occurred in prior school emergencies. Nonetheless, Suffolk i
I L_
-q.
County refuses to substantiate its theory by producing the empirical data its witnesses claim to have on role abandonment. Interrogatories 23, 24, and 35 through 37, which Suffolk County refuses to supplement with information allegedly known to its school of-ficial witnesses, seek those real-life examples.
LILCO also seeks through Interrogatory 26 information about whether school of-ficial witnesses, outside the context of their testimony on the Shoreham plan, view school bus driver role conflict as a problem to be addressed. If instances of role aban-donment have occurred and role conflict is the serious concern that these school offi-cials now maintain, that should be evident in their approach to bus driver training.
LILCO needs to know.
The third category of role conflict related information that LILCO seeks to com-pel is the number of bus drivers who have family members living in the EPZ. See Inter-rogatory 25. Role conflict, if it occurs, has as its central element a concern for f amily members in the zone of danger. If the school bus drivers' family members are not in the zone of danger, then there can be no role conflict. Answers to Interrogatory 25 that incorporate information available to the school official witnesses would provide LILCO and the Board with this information.
The information that Suffolk County refuses to provide is highly relevant to the issues in this proceeding, is the alleged basis of the school of ficial witnesses' testimony, and has been sought by LILCO through discovery. Fairness requires that LILCO receive this information.
B.
LILCO is Entitled to Discover the Grounds for the Opinions of Suffolk County's Expert Witnesses.
It is beyond question that a party is entitled to discover the substance of the facts and opinions relied on by expert witnesses expected to testify at trial, the grounds for each opinion, and the bases for the witnesses' alleged expertise. Federal Rule of i
Civil Procedure ("FRCP") 26(b)(4)(A). The purpose of this well-recognized rule is to permit effective cross-examination of expert witnesses. See, g, Scott & Fetzer Co.
- v. Dile,643 F.2d 670, 673 (9th Cir.1981); Weiss v. Chrysler Motors Corp.,515 F.2d 449, 456-57 (2nd Cir.1975). Here, LILCO moves for an order to compel full and f air discov-ery of the bases for such expert opinions and the bases for the witnesses' alleged ex-pertise.
Discovery in this proceeding has established that the school officials designated as expert witnesses by Suffolk County will testify, based on their knowledge and experi-ence gained through their positions with various school boards, school board assocla-tions, and school districts, about the implementability of LILCO's proposal to evacuate school children from the EPZ in the event of an accident at Shoreham. Suffolk County has so stated in its answers to Interrogatories. See Second Supplement to Suffolk Coun-ty's Answers to LILCO's First Set of Interrogatories and Document Requests Regarding Role Conflict of School Bus Drivers (Feb. 15,1988), at 1-3 (Att. D). And, without ex-ception, the school official witnesses testified in their depositions that they intend to rely on their experiences as school administrators, transportation supervisors, school superintendents, and school board members as the basis for the epinions they will pro-vide in their testimony.EI For example, in his deposition, Mr. Muto stated:
$/
Deposition of Bruce G. Brodsky (Feb. 24,1988), at 9-10 (Att. H); Deposition of Edward J. Doherty (Feb. 18,1988), at 9-10 (Att.1); Deposition of Howard M. Koenig (Feb.16,1988), at 85-89 (Att. J); Deposition of Nick F. Muto (Feb. 29,1988), at 8-11 (Att. K); Deposition of Robert W. Petrilak (Feb. 18,1988), at 8 (Att. L); Deposition of Anthony R. Rossi (Feb. 18,1988), at 7 (Att. M); Deposition of J. Thomas Smith (Feb. 25, 1988), at 11-12 (Att. N); and Deposition of Richard N. Suprina (Feb. 25,1988), at 37-38
( A tt. O).
_9 Q:
So, you are basing your opinion that it would be an impossible task on your experience in the pre-vious emergencies that you've had -
A:
Yes.
Q:
- at your school?
A:
Yes.
Muto Dep. at 11. (Att. K). Similarly, in his deposition Mr. Smith testified that the basis for the opinions he would give would be his experience:
Q:
What is this input that you are basing your opinion upon?
A:
Number one, my experience was dealing with transporting children;...
Smit:1 Dep. at 12 (Att. N). Likewise, Mr. Brodsky testified:
Q:
No. My question is: What is your understanding of why you were asked to be a witness in this pro-ceeding?
eeee My understanding is to bring my expertise as a A:
long term board member as to the feasibility of evacuating students from a school district in an emergency situation.
Brodsky Dep. at 9-10 (Att. H).
The discovery requests, for which LILCO now moves to compel answers, seek precisely the type of experientialinformation that the witnesses claim is the basis for their opinions.
Specifically, Interrogatory No. 23 seeks information about past emergencies in which school officials dealt with early school dismissal requiring trans-portation of school children by bus drivers. Likewise, Interrogatory 24 asks whether, in past emergencies requiring early dismissal, the bus drivers attended to the safety of their own families before performing their bus driver duties. Interrogatories 35,36, and 37 merely seek further examples of the experiential information requested in Interrogatories 23 and 24, and Interrogatory 30 requests copies of documents that would memorialize such experiences.
LILCO sought to obtain some of this information through the depositions of the school official witnesses, but their responses were circumscribed both by the limits of II their memory on the day of the deposition and by the fact that they had not prepared I/
When Mr. Petrilak was asked a question similar to Interrogatory No. 26, he was unable to provide a detailed response:
Q:
Do your drivers receive training in driving during emergencies?
eeee A:
I don't fully understand your question. But, I am not fully aware of the exact training all the driv-ers go through, so I wouldn't be able to answer it anyway.
Petrilak Dep. at 27-28 (Att. L.)
Mr. Doherty, who is the Supervisor of Transportation for the Riverhead Central i
School District, when asked to provide information similar to that requested Interroga-l tories 23 and 24, could not provide that information:
Q:
You have been describing situations and circum-stances from the past in which you had a shortage of drivers. Can you give me more details about those circumstances?
For instance, what - why were you short of driv-ers in those circumstances?
eeee A:
Going back, I don't know. It was a snowstorm, not this year, where we had an early dismissal and tried to round up drivers and a ccuple of my driv-ers just, for some reason or another, we weren't able to get to them or they couldn't get there. I don't really know what the circumstances were.
Doherty Dep. at 63-64 (Att. I). Nor could Dr. Suprina, Superintendent of Schools for the (footnote continued)
_ for their deposition testimony other than, in some instances, by reviewing parts of the LILCO Plan and prior testimony.I Understandably, their answers to deposition (footnote continued)
Riverhead Central School District, provide that information. He said there were in-stances where employees had not performed their duties in early dismissal, but could not specify who the employees were or why they did not perform their jobs:
Q:
1 take it, then, you know of specific examples in which some employees of your school district have, in fact, not stayed and done their jobs in those circumstances of an early dismissal?
A:
I know that that has occurred. I could not identi-fy specific people for you, but I know that over my career I have seen that happen.
Suprina Dep. at 55 (Att. O). Mr. Rossi also testified in his deposition that he knew of instances where a bus driver had been contacted for early dismissal purposes and had not shown up, but admitted tha' he did not recall all of the instances in which drivers were unavailable:
Q:
Have you ever contacted a bus driver for early dismissal purposes and have them not show up?
A:
Yes.
Q:
Could you tell me about that occurrence or occur-rences?
A:
We have had occasionally drivers that become very nervous with the weather conditions, that become too nervous, be it migraines, headaches or just tension, whatever, and opt to leave before completing their duties or not even beginning their duties.
j Q:
Are they the only occurrences like that that you can recall?
A:
At the moment, yes, Rossi Dep. at 93 (Att. M).
I 1/
During his deposition Mr. Rossi admitted that he had not done any preparation since his previous testimony in 1984 on the issue of role conflict for bus drivers. See (footnote continued) l l
t questions could not provide the same type of full picture that would be available through a thoughtful response to interrogatories and the production of documents.
LILCO is also entitled to discover non-experiential information known to or in the possession, custody, or control of the school official witnesses that relates to the facts on which they undoubtedly base tneir opinions on bus driver role conflict. Those f acts would include the number of school bus drivers serving the school district whose family members live in the Shoreham EPZ and whether school bus driver training in-cludes instruction on how to deal with an emergency and how to care for one's f amily in the case of early schotl dismissal or emergency.
(footnote continued)
Rossi Dep. at 8-9. Nor had Mr. Muto prepared for his deposition by reviewing any ma-terials that might have refreshed his recollection about his experiences:
Q:
Have you reviewed any documents in preparation for - 7 A:
No, I have not.
eee*
Q:
Did you review your prior testimony in this pro-ceeding irom '837 A:
No, I have not.
Muto Dep. at 8 (Att. K).
Q:
... And, what I want to know is what you are doing to help formulate the opinions that you will be expressing in this proceeding?
A:
I've not prepared anything to date, and I'm not sure what I would be preparing in the future.
Muto Dep. at 62 (Att. K). See also, Brodsky Dep. at 58-59 (Att. H); Petrilak Dep, at 19-20 (A tt. L).
As answers to deposition questions clearly show, the school officials based their testimonial opinion that the LILCO proposal for school evacuation is unworkable on their judgment that bus drivers, including those with families living in the EPZ, would experience role conflict. But, as the deposition transcripts also show, the school offi-cials were of ten unable to provide specific information to support their opinions. The depostion of Edward J. Doherty provides a good example of how LILCO's efforts to ob-tain the factual underpinnings of the school official witnesses' opinions were frustrated:
Q:
I believe my original question was, and now is, do you believe that any of your drivers would refuse to drive in the event of a Shoreham emergency that required an evacuation of schools in your school district?
A:
Some drivers might, yes.
And, there would be some reasons for them to do so.
Q:
You say some might. How many might?
A:
Well -
Mr. Lanpher:
Objection. That calls for speculation.
The Witness:
I really have no idea, you know, how many would be so involved.
Doherty Dep, at 29-30 (Att. I). This motion to compel seeks production of such infor-mation which was not forthcoming in the depositions and which was also requested in Interrogatories 25 and 26.
II.
Suffolk County's Reasons for Refusing to Produce Relevant Information are Without Basis.
Suffolk County gives three reasons for its refusal to comply with LILCO's repeat-ed requests for information related to the f acts and opinions of the school official ex-perts and the bases for those opinions. See March 3 Letter (Att. A). Not one of them is sufficient to justify Suffolk County's refusal to supply this relevant and discoverable in-formation.
. A.
The School Districts' Status as Separate Political Entitles Does Not Justify Suffolk County's Refusal to Comply With LILCO's Discovery Requests.
The County tries to ward off discovery by raising the separate political status of the school districts and incanting that "[a]ny information sought from these entitles is within their unique control, custody and possession, and is as available to LILCO as it is to the County." March 3 Letter at 2 (Att. A).
Suffolk County cannot be permitted to designate school officials as experts and then use their employment by a separate entity as a shield to prevent discovery.
Suffolk County's position is particularly egregious when one considers that these wit-nesses are to give not only their own opinions on the implementability of the LILCO Plan, but also the opinions of the very school districts from which they are distanced for purposes of discovery. See Second Supplement to Suffolk County's Answers at 2-3 (Att. D).
Indeed, in their depositions the witnesses confirmed that their opinions would be offered on behalf of their school districts as well as themselves. Mr. Petrilak stated:
Q:
Is it in your capacity as a member of the Mt. Sinal Board of Education that you are here as a wit-ness?
A:
Yes, it's in that capacity.
Petrilak Dep. at 5 (Att. L). Later in his deposition, Mr. Petrilak again confirmed that he was representing the Mt. Sinal School District in the testimony he would give as a witness.
Q:
I have one last question for you, Mr. Petrilak.
What is your understanding of who you are repre-senting as a witness in this proceeding?
A:
I am representing the Mt. Sinal School District, specifically the Mt. Sinal School Board, the Board of Education, which sets the policy for the School District.
_ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ Q:
When you testify in this proceeding, is it your un-derstanding that you will be speaking as a repre-sentative of the Mt. Sinal School Board?
A:
Yes, that's correct.
Petrilak Dep. at 40-41. Dr. Suprina's deposition also confirmed that he would be repre-senting his school district when he testified as a witness in this proceeding.
Q:
Who are you representing as a witness in this pro-ceeding, or what is your understanding of who you are representing?
A:
I believe I am representing the Board of Educa-tion and the best interest of the parents and chil-dren in the Riverhead Central School District.
Suprina Dep. at 59 (Att. O). Mr. Muto, Superintendent of Schools for the Longwood Central School District also stated under oath that he would be representing the opin-lons of his school district.
Q:
In being a witness in this proceeding, are you rep-resenting the Suffolk County's position about what is wrong with LILCO's plan? Or, is it the position of your school district?
A:
I'm only here testifying as the Superintendent of Longwood Schools.
Q:
Okay. So, is it correct to say that you are repre-senting just the opinions of the school district?
A:
Correct.
Muto Dep. at 61-62 (Att. K).
1 Suffolk County has engaged these school official witnesses to offer expert testi-many about the implementability of the LILCO Plan based both on their experience and on their knowledge and understanding of the positions taken by their school districts.
The information requested is clearly within both the possession, custody, and control 1
and the knowledge of the school official witnesses since they intend to rely on it as the basis of their testimony. LILCO is entitled to obtain that information through both
. document discovery and through interrogatory answers that incorporate the knowledge of Suffolk County's experts.
B.
The Non-Party Status of the School School Districts Does Not Preclude Discovery.
In a second attempt to obscure LILCO's right to discover the facts relied on and opinions held by the school official witnesses, Suffolk County objects to LILCO's discov-ery requests on the ground that the school districts are not parties in this proceeding.
In its March 3 letter refusing discovery, the County writes:
(S] imply because the school officials who will testify for the County can and will pre.ent the views of their school districts regarding LILCO's schools evacuation proposal, that does not mean that the school districts have become parties to this proceeding and are therefore subject to LILCO's dis-covery requests and demands for information... The desig-nation of witnesses who will testify on Suffolk County's be-half, but who also hold positions which allow them to "speak" for their respective school districts, does not pro-vide LILCO a way to conduct discovery against the school districts through Suffol'. County.
March 3 Letter at 2 (Att. A).
LILCO does not seek to make the school districts parties to this proceeding, nor need they be parties for the requested information to be produced. The information re-quested is limited in scope to the experience of the school official witnesses, and the school districts on whose behalf they speak, with early dismissal and with school bus drivers' behavior in emergencies, including those requiring early dismissal. These are facts on which these witnesses have said they rely for their testimony; they must be 4
]
within their knowledge, possession, custody, or control. LILCO simply seeks to under-i stand the facts and experiences which underlie the opinions of the school district wit-nesses. It requires the requested information to do so.
. C.
LILCO Has Not Forfeited Its Right To the Requested Information.
Finally, Suffolk County argues that, in the depositions of the school official wit-neGes, LILCO did not request documents or ask the kinds of questions for which LILCO now demands answers, and on that basis the County is not obligated to provide re-sponses to Interrogatories Nos. 23-26,30, and 35-37 that would include the knowledge of the school official witnesses. The County's argument is without basis either in fact or in law.
It is clear that LILCO was under no obligation to request information responsive to its Interrogatories in the course of its depositions of the County's witnesses. The various methods of discovery set out in the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure and the NRC Rules of Practice are intended to be cumulative rather than alternative or exclu-sive; a party may take both depositlom and interrogatories as Icng as he is not at-tempting to circumvent a court ruling, or to harass or oppress an adverse witnesses.10 C.F.R. S 2.740(d); FRCP 26; see also, Taylor v. Atchison. Topeka and Santa Fe Railway Company,33 F.R.D. 283,285 (1962); Stonybrook Tenants Association. Inc. v. Alpert,29 F.R.D.165,167 (1961). In other words, a party may seek to secure various information through various methods of discovery.
The benefit of multiple means of discovery is obvious. Depositions require the deponent to rely on his or her memory. Interrogatories, on the other hand, permit a party to reflect on the discovery request, to make whatever investigation may be nec-essary, and then to provide an appropriate response. LILCO's decision not to pursue, in every deposition of the County's school official witnesses, the very questions posed in the interrogatories directed to the County and its witnesses cannot be taken as a walv-er of LILCO's right to discover the information. Thus, the County is not excused from responding to the discovery requests.
_ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ Moreover, LILCO did ask, in each deposition, for the witnesses' opinions and the facts and experience on which those opinions were based. Indeed, even Suffolk County admits, in its March 3 letter, that in the depositions of Dr. Suprina and Mr. Smith, LILCO asked for the information sought in its discovery requests. See March 3 Letter at 2 (Att. A). Unfortunately, because the witnesses were forced to rely on memories that had not been recently refreshed, the answers were not comprehensive.
For example, when Dr. Suprina was asked whether he could identify instances in which persons in his school district had apparently experienced role conflict, he was unable to give specific details:
Q:
I take it, then, you know of specific examples in which some employees of your school district have, in fact, not stayed and done their jobs in those circumstances of an early dismissal?
1 A:
I know that that has occurred. I could not identi-l fy specific people for you, but I know that over my career I have seen that happen.
Q:
Do you know for any case, and again, it is diffi-cult, do you know the reasons why these persons lef t or failed to perform their jobs?
A:
I think it could range from a number of different things.
They were concerned about their own safety. They wanted to get a head start without basically snow. They were concerned about their child's safety, so they wanted to go and pick he or she up from the baby sitter or from the nursery school.
There are probably some other reasons, but I can't think of them off hand.
Suprina Dep. at 55-56 (Att. O). The vague responses received to deposition inquiries highlights tha need for an order compelling responses to the discovery requests.
' CONCLUSION For the foregoing reasons, LILCO requests the Board to order Suffolk County to supplement its answers to Interrogatories Nos. 23-26,30, and 35-37 based on the knowl-edge of its school official witnesses and to provide the requested documents in their possession, custody, and control.
Res ettully submitted, r t. %, ns James N. Christman Mary Jo Leugers Charles L. Ingebretson Counsel for Long Island Lighting Company Hunton & Williams 707 East Main Street P.O. Box 1535 Richmond, Virginia 23212 DATED: March 11,1988
- t, 4
LIST OF ATFACIDEENTS Attachment A Letter to Mary Jo Leugers from Michael S. Miller (March 3, 1988)
Attachment B Letter to Michael S. Miller from Mary Jo Leugers (Feb. 24, 1988)
Attachment C LILCO's First Set of Interrogatories and Raquests for Production of focu-ments Regarding Role Conflict of School Bus Drivers to Suffolk County and New York State (Jan. 5, 1988)
Attachment D Second Supplement to Suffolk County's Answers to LILCO's First Set of Inter-rogatories and Document Requests Re-garding Role Conflict of School Bus Drivers (Feb. 15, 1988)
Attachment E Suffolk County's Answers to LILCO's Second Set of Interrogatories and Re-quests for Production of Documents Re-garding Role Conflict of School Bus Drivers (Jan. 27, 1988)
Attachment F Suffolk County's Answers to LILCO's Third Set of Interroga;ories and Re-quests for Production of Documents Re-garding Role Conflict of School Bus Drivers to Suffolk County and New York State (Feb. 10, 1988)
Attachment G Notices of Deposition for Robert Pe-
- trilak, Edward Doherty, and Anthony Rossi (Feb. 17, 1988)
Attachment H Excerpts from Deposition of Bruce G.
Brodsky (Feb. 24, 1988)
Attachment I Excerpts from Deposition for Edward J.
Doherty (Feb. 18, 1988)
Attachment J Excerpts from Deposition of Howard M.
Koenig (Feb. 16, 1988)
Attachment K Excerpts from Deposition of Nick F.
Muto (Feb. 29, 1988)
Attachment L Excerpts from Deposition of Robert W.
Petrilak (Feb. 18, 1988)
f.
1 t
2 l Attachment M Excerpts from Depositon of Anthony R.
Rossi (Feb. 18, 1988)
Attachment N Excerpts from Deposition of J.
Thomas l
Smith (Feb. 25, 1988)
Attachment O Excerpts from Deposition of Richard N.
Suprina (Feb. 25, 1988) r h
(
i
b &
ATTACHMENT A I
KIRKPATRICK & LOCKHART SOUTH LOBBY. 9TH Floor ExcHANCE PLAC2 1900 M STREET, N.W.
IN TASHINGToN. D.C. 200 4 5891 ein 227m to:s 8,Jcant Astbu MLAML FL 33111 TIUPHONE (20D 74M 00% )?tal11 Trux acre n oc u
,, a g TIUCCf1EA L:02) 7441M PfTT580LCH, PA 15 22 5)?9 MICHAEL S. MILLER i412) 3554 2 (2:2177Sec22 March 3, 1988 VIA FEDERAL EXPRESS Mary Jo Leugers, Esq.
Hunton & Williams 707 East Main Street P.O. Box 1535 Richmond, Virginia 23212
Dear Mary Jo:
By letter dated February 24, 1988, you requested that Suffolk County update its responses to LILCO's interrogatories and requests for production of documents "to include information and materials that are now accessible to the County through its newly designated witnesses."
Specifically, you requested that Suffolk County provide updated responses to LILCO Interrogatories Nos. 8-11, 18, 23-26, 28-30, 35-37, 41-45, and 47-52.
Your request was apparently based upon your interpretation of 10 CFR S 2.740(e); at least, in your letter you suggested that Suffolk County's designation of new witnesses "obligated" the County to amend its prior responses, since such responses, in your opinion, were likely "no longer true."
Contrary to your suggestion, our review of Suffolk County's responses to LILCO's interrogatories and document requests reveals that the County's designation of additional witnesses has not rendered any of its prior responses untrue or incorrect.
Thus, there is no need, and certainly no obligation upon Suffolk County, to update or amend its prior discovery responses.
It would appear from your letter that the basis of your misunderstanding or misconcepticn regarding Suffolk County's obligation to update its discovery responses stems primarily from your assumption that, since some of the witnesses designated by Suffolk County are officials of the school districts at issue in this proceeding, the County must necessarily have access to information and materials not available to LILCO.
Your assumption, simply put, is wrong.
h i l
1 KIRKPATRICK & LOCKHART Mary Jo Leugers, Esq.
March 3, 1988 Page 2 First, as Suffolk County has consistently noted in its prior discovery responses (see, e.g.,
Suffolk County's Answers to LILCO's First Set of Interrogatories and Requests for Production of Documents, dated January 19, 1988), the school districts at issue in this proceeding are separate and distinct political entities from the County.
Any information sought from these entities is within their unique control, custody and possession, and is as available to LILCO as it is to the County.
Second, LILCO must surely realize by now that the subject school districts are not parties to this proceeding; this fact is not changed by the status of the school officials who will testify for Suffolk County, Put another way, simply because the school officials who will testify for the County can and will present the views of their school districts regarding LILCO's schools evacuation proposal, that does not mean that the school districts have become parties to this proceeding and are therefore subject to LILCO's discovery requests and demands. for information.
The interrogatories and document requests referenced in your February 24 letter were directed to Suffolk County, and were responded to by Suffolk County.
It is still Suffolk County which is obligated to respond to LILCO's discovery requests.
The designation of witnesses who will testify on Suffolk County's behalf, but who also hold positions which allow them to "speak" for their respective school districts, does not provide LILCO a way to conduct discovery against the school districts through Suffolk County.
Third, during the course of its depositions of the schools officials who have been designated to testify on behalf of Suffolk County, you and the other members of your firm who have attended the depositions had ample opportunity to direct any questions you wished to the witnesses.
You also had the opportunity to request any information or documents'you wished from the witnesses.
In some instances, you took advantage of the opportunity available to you.
Thus, for example, during the depositions of Dr. Richard Suprina, Superintendent of Riverhead Central School District, and Mr. Thomas Smith, Supervisor of Transportation of Longwood Central School District, information responsive to LILCO Interrogatories Nos. 24 and 35-37 was requested.
For the most part, however, counsel for LILCO failed to request information from the witnesses, or to ask the witnesses the kinds of questions for which LILCO now demands answers.
Under these circumstances, the County is not obligated to now provide the information and documents requested in your February 24 letter -- especially when the information and documents sought are within the unique control, custody and possession of the school districts, and not the County.
h &
KIRKPATRICK & LOCKHART Mary Jo Leugers, Esq.
March 3, 1988 Page 3 I trust that the foregoing makes clear Suffolk County's position with respect to the "requests" set forth in your February 24 letter.
Clearly, notwithstanding the implications of your letter, Suffolk County, throughout the schools discovery period, has diligently fulfilled its obligation to provide to LILCO any and all relevant information and documents responsive to LILCO's discovery requests.
On those occasions when such information and/or documents only became known to Suffolk County after responses to LILCO's requests had been made, we have promptly updated or amended our prior responses.
Indeed, to date, the County has suppletaented prior discovery responses on at least four occasions -- on January 27, February 15, February 17 and February 26, 1988.
To that end, additional information and documents responsive to LILCO Interrogatories Nos. 11, 18, 28, and 29 have recently been received by counsel for Suffolk County, and are provided with this letter.
See "Suffolk County's Fourth Supplemental Response to LILCO's First Set of Interrogatories and Request for Production of Documents Regarding Role Conflict of School Bus Drivers" and "Suffolk County's Second Supplemental Response to LILCO's Second Set of Interrogatories and Requests for Production of Documents Regarding Role Conflict of School Bus Drivers," both dated March 3, 1988.
Suffolk County has received no additional information responsive to LILCO Interrogatories Nos. 8-10, 12-14, 23-26, 30, 35-37, 41-45, or 47-52, however.
Thus, contrary to the expectations expressed in your February 24 letter, no reason exists at this time to update the County's prior responses to these interrogatories.
Sincerely, Michael S. Miller Enclosure cc:
Charles A.
Barth, Esq.
William R.
Cumming, Esq.
Richard J.
Zahnleuter, Esq.
Stephen B.
Latham, Esq.
ATTACRMENT B H UNTON & WII.I IAM S k
7o? CAST MMN stestT P.O. Som 15 3 5 sooo
.n e=ue.
=.
R cauown. V aoaw, eoaae
,oo
.o o..
e
- . =.
,o =.
c.
se wcw vo. =ew vo
.co.,
,=esa =oma.oa...oo.ee
,awa =o=e.ia.so...ooo
.a TE6ap Oesa SC4 744 42OO nsam 4.
=w.,
we e.atw
.ia.,A.. toes.
telex 6844251 ons mammove..
..o
- e. a.owa.
o.
. o.
o.,os
... u.
n u
.a.
.u.u o.
n a o.<......>ooo February 24, 1988 c...,n.u.u
,,,,o, o
...o....,..
.o,.....
.o.
44. 4 4.. o.
..u=s. w m u 3,.o.
i.e.a $2O3o vths ose4 sa. 337 asse n u o.,...... u.o
.a o
7278 o...e,.. 6 o.....
TELECOPY Michael S. Miller, Esq.
Kirkpatrick & Lockhart South Lobby - 9th Floor 1800 M Street, N.W.
Washington, D.C.
20036-5891
Dear Mike:
On several different occasions we have asked that Suffolk County update its responses to LILCO's interrogatories and re-l quests for production of documents to include information and ma-terials that are now accessible to the County through its newly designated witnesses.
Suffolk County is obligated by the PRC regulation to amend prior responses for which it knows "that the response though correct when made is no longer true and the cir-cumstances are such that a failure to amend the response is in substance a knowing concealment."
10 CFR S 2.740(e)(2)(ii).
Ac-cordingly, LILCO requests that you review your responses to LILCO's interrogatories and requests for production cf documents and update those responses that are no longer correct.
At a min-imum, LILCO expects updated responses to LILCO Interrogatories Nos. 8-14, 18, 23-26, 28-30, 35-37, 41-45, and 47-52.
Since these new witnesses were designated over a week ago, we would appreciate your response to this request no later than Friday, February 26.
I Sincerely yours, SbM Mary Jo Leugers MJL/dl i
/
9
w ha J('
{
ATTACHMENT C W
Ll! Cb, January 5,1988
'5 i
t l
s UNITED STATES OF AMERICS' NUCLEAR RPGUi.ATORY COflyISSION
~
Before the Atomic SafeN and Licensing Board 1
)
In the Matter of N
,g
)
/
)
LONG ISLAND LbNTI 'O COMPANY,
) Dodet No. $0-322-OL-3
) (End.Tency Planning) 5 4,
(Shoreham Nuclear PoNer Statford..
) (School Bus Driver Issue)
Unit T.)
)
g yv
,)3 t
x s
YS FIRST SET OF iNTERQOCATORIES AND REEtESTS t
FOR PRL JCTION OF IXX'UMENT.T REGARDING ROLE CONFLICT OF SCHOOL BUS DRIVERS _TO,$_UFFOTg CODNTY AND MEW YORK STATE Lont falknd Lighting Company, by 31ts ::ounsel, tropounds the following p
Interogatorim to Suffolk County anti New York S? ate ("Intervenor" or "the Interve-l i
nors"), pursuant to SS 2.740, 2.74b, and 2.741 hLthe Nuclear Regulatory Commission's I.
Rules of Practice. By propounding these interrogatt.rica LILCO makes no admission or
^
reprsentauon about the proper scope of the istru?i to be de'cided or the evidence 'htt may be presented.
,, \\
4 uy_pTRUCTIO! @
4 l
1 E' ch inte rogatory shall be answeW separatMy bnd fully in writing'under A.
a oath in iccordance with 5 2.740b of the NRC' RuS" 6 Pract.';ce. i To the extent that a
i Intervenors do not have specific, complete. and d. curate 1.iformation witn wh{ch to an-swer any interrogatory, Intervenors should so state, and the interrogatory should be an-t i
swered to tne extent information is aval!ab.e, iriantifying each person who is believed to have accurate information with respect theneto. Where exact informatior. is not avidlable, estimated informatton should be supptled; the answer should state that the Jn-formation is an estimate and she bas 4;rn valch the estimate was made.
Where l
s l
appropriate, the upper and lower bounoaries et Wp esilmate should be given.
t 44[! ! M'! - /4g0_)
4
s.
. B.
Each interrogatory shall be deemed to be continuing, and Intervenors are requested seasonably to supplement answers with additional facts, documents, informa-tion, and names of witnesses which become known, in accordance with 5 2.740(e)(1) and (2) of the NRC's Rules of Practice.
C.
The words "and" and "or" shall be construed either conjunctively or disjunc-tively so as to bring within the scope of these discovery requests any information that might otherwise be construed to be outside their scope.
D.
Wherever appropriate, the singular form of a word shall be interpreted in the plural, and vice versa, so as to bring within the scope of these discovery requests any information that might otherwise be construed to be outside their scope.
E.
Wherever appropriate, the masculine form of a word shall be interpreted as feninine, and vice versa, so as to bring within the scope of these discovery requests any information that might otherwise be construed to be outside their scope.
F.
Please produce each document in the form and condition in which it exists on the date of service of this request, including all comments, notes, remarks, and other material that may have been added to the document af ter its initial preparation.
G.
If Intervenors object to or claim a privilege (attorney-client, work product, or other) with respect to any interrogatory or document request, in whole or in part, or seek to withhold documents or information because of the alleged proprietary nature of the data, please set forth all reasons and the underlying factual basis for the objection l
or claim of privilege in sufficient detail to permit the Licensing Board to determine the validity of the objection or claim of privilege. This description by Intervenors should include with respect to any document: (1) author, addressor, addressee, recipients of in-
?
dicated and "blind" copies together with their job titles: (2) date of preparation; (3) sub-ject mattert (4) purpose for which the document was prepared: (5) all persons to whom l
l
1 i
, i distributed, shown, or explained; (6) present custodian; (7) all persons believed to have a copy of the document; and (8) the nature of the privilege or objection atserted.
H.
For any document or part of a document that was at one time, but is no longer, in Intervenors' possession, custody, or control, or which is no longer in exis-tence, or which cannot be located or produced, identify the document, state where and how it passed out of existence or why it can no longer be located and the reasons there-for, and identify each person having knowledge concerning such disposition or loss and the contents of the document, and identify each document evidencirg its prior exis-tence and/or any f act concerning its nonexistence or loss.
I.
When, in order to answer a question fully or accurately, it is necessary to distinguish between the responses of individual Intervenors or to ider.tify individual In-tervenors, such distinctions or identifications should be made in the a:wwer.
DEFINITIONS A.
"Person" means any individual, corporation, partnership, unincorporated as-sociation, joint venture, government or agency thereof, or other legal entity or form of organization or association.
B.
"Document" means the original and each copy, regardless of origin or loca-tion, of any written, typed, printed, recorded or graphic material, l.owever produced or reproduced, or any tangible thing that in whole or in part illustrates or conveys infor-mation, including but not limited to papers, letters, notes, bocks, correspondence, memoranda, interoffice or intraoffice communications, corporate records, memoranda or minutes of meetings, or conversations whether personal or te.ephonic, cablegrams, mailgrams, telegrams, reports, summaries, surveys, analyses, stueles, calculations, pro-jections ledgers journals and other !ormal o i fr n ormal books of record or account, bul-letins, notices, announcements, advertisements, catalogs, taanuals, instructions, 4
agreements, contracts and other legal documents, notebooks, clippings, vouchers, checks and draf ts, bills, receipts, invoices, calendars, appointment books, diaries, pre-
!!minary draf ts and working papers, drawings, sketches, graph.3, charts, plans, specif1-cations, blueprints, photographs, films, videotapes, tapes, recordings, computer-stored and computer-retrievable information, annotations or markings appearing on any docu-ment or thing, and all other writings and recordings of every description, however denominated, translated or oescribed.
C.
"Communication" or "contact" includes every exchange of information by any means including but not limited to personal or telephonic.
D.
"ULuo" or "ULCO personnel" mean Long Island Lighting Company and any affiliate, agent, employee, consultant, contractor, technical advisor, representative, or other person acting for on behalf of ULCO, or at ULCO's direction or control, or in
\\
concert with ULCO or assisting ULCO.
E.
"Shoreham" means the Shoreham Nuclear Power Station, Unit 1,-any part thereof, or any stnJeture, system, component, instrumentation, equipment, or materials included in, or intended to be included in. Shoreham.
F.
"Intervenors" means Suffolk County, New York State, and the Town of Southampton, or any of them, or any agency thereof and any agent, employee, consul-tant, contractor, technical advisor, representative or other person acting for or on be-half of them, or at their direction and control, or in concert with or assisting them.
G.
"Contractor" means any person, not affiliated with Intervenors, who per-formed work concerning Shoreham on behalf of Intervenors and/or pursuant to a con-tract with Intervenors or sub-contractors who performed work on behalf of a contrac-tor with whom the person was not affiliated and pursuant to a contract with such contractor. A person other than a contractor, who contracts with the sub-contractor, shall be deemed a sub-contractor.
s H.
"Concerns," "concerning," or any other derivative thereof, includes refer-ring to, responding to, relating to, pertaining to, in connection with, compromising, memoralizing, commenting on, regarding, discussing, showing, describing, reflecting, analyzing, supporting, contradicting, and constituting.
I.
"Identify" when used in reference to a natural person means to set forth the following:
1.
his name; 2.
his last known residential address; 3.
his last known business address; 4.
his last employer; 5.
his title or position; 6.
his area of responsibility:
7.
his business, professional, or other relationship with Intervenorst and 8.
if any of the above information is changed subsequent to the time period referenced in a particular interrogatory, set forth in the an-swer, and label appropriately, current information as well as the in-formation applicable to the time period referenced in the interroga-tory.
J.
"!dentify" when used in reference to a corporation or other entity that is not a natural person shall mean to set forth the following:
1.
the full name of such person, including its legal name and any as-sumed or trade names under which it transacts or has transacted business;
e,
2.
the nature or form of such a person, if known; i
3.
the address of its principal place of business or the principal place where such person is to be found; 4,
whether Intervenors have or have had any relationship or affiliation with such person. Its affiliates or subsidiaries, and, if so, a descrip-tion of such relationship; and 5.
if any of the above information has changed subsequent to the time period referenced in a particular interrogatory, set forth in the an-swer, and label appropriately, current information as well as the in-formation applicable to the time referenced in the interrogatory.
K.
"Identify" when used in reference to a document shall mean to set forth the following:
1.
Its title:
I 2.
Its subject matter; 3.
Its date:
4.
Its author; 5.
Its addressee:
6.
Its file designation or other identifying des! nation: and I
7.
Its present location and prtsent custodian.
- l..
"Identify" with respect to a contact or communication shall mean to set forth the following:
1.
the date of the communication; 2.
the place of the making and place of receipt of the communication:
Il I
1
3.
the type and means of communication; 4.
the substance of the communication; 5.
each person making a communication, and his location at the time the communication was made:
6.
each person to whom the communication was made, and his location at the time the communication was made; 7.
all other persons present during, participating in, or receiving the communication and the location of each such person at the time; 8.
each document concerning such communication; and 9.
each document upon which the comununifatten $ tam &er'which is referred to in the communication.
M.
"Analysis" means research, investigation, audit, inspection, review, evalua-tion, testing, monitoring, or any other method or form of examining data and/or forming conclusions or recommendations.
N.
"NRC" or "NRC Staf!" means the Nuclear Regulatory Commission and its staff, any division or section or region thereof, any staff member thereof, or any agent, consultant. contractor, technical advisor, emplo'lee, or representative of the NRC.
O.
"FEMA" means the Federal Emergency Management Agency and its staff, any division or section or region thereof, any staff member thereof, or any agent, con-sultant, contractor, technical advisor, employee, or representative of FEM A.
1 l
INTERROGATORIES AND REQUESTS FOR PRODUCTION OF DOCUMENTS Identification of Witnesses i
1.
Please identify each witness Intervenors expect to call to testify on any factors concerning "whether, in light of the potential for role conflict, a su!!icient number of school bus drivers can be relied upon to perform
emergency evacuation duties." Memorandum and Order (Ruling on App!!-
cant's Motion of October 22, 1987 for Summary Disposition of Contention 25.C "Role Conflict" of School Bus Drivers) (December 30,1987) at 5. For each witness, other than experts, that Intervenors expect to call, state the subject matter on which he is expected to testify and the substance of the facts to which he is expected to testify. For each witness that Intervenors expect to call as an expert witness, state the subject matter on which he is expected to testify, the substance of the facts and opinions to which he is expected to testify, and the summary of the grounds for each such opinion.
2.
For each witness, please provide a copy of his most current curriculum vitae, resume, or statement of professional qualifications.
3.
Please list any NRC, legislative, or other legal proceeding in which each witness has testilled on any matter concerning role conflict or school evae-uations during disasters or emergencies.
4.
Please provide a copy of any preilled testimony listed in response to Inter-rogatory 3 above.
5.
Please identify all articles, papers, and other documents authored or coau-thored by each witness on the subject of role conflict or school evacuations during disasters or emergencies.
6.
Please state whether each witness has prepared, or has had prepared, any written studies, reports, analyses, or other documents with respect to any l
of the following:
(a)
Role conflict during large-scale disasters or emergencies especially concerning, but not limited to, school bus drivers or other persons who traditionally do not have emergency roles during emergencies.
l l
l
(b)
School evacuations or plans for school evacuations for disasters or emergencies, including, but not limited to, a Shoreham emergency.
7.
Unless the answer to Interrogatory 6 above is a simple negative, please identify and provide a copy of e:ch document.
Identification of Information 8.
Please identify the number of students currently enrolled at each school lo-cated in the 10-mile EPZ for Shoreham as identified in "LILCO's Motion for Summary DLsposition of Contention 25.C ("Role Conflict" of School Bus Drivers)(October 22,1987)(hereinaf ter "Motion") at Attachment 1 and the source of this information. Identify which of these schools are on split ses-sions and provide the current number of students in attendance during each split session for each school.
9.
Please identify each and every bus company that contracts with each school identified in LILCO's Motion at Attachment I to transport school children. For each school, specify which bus companies provide buses and drivers.
10.
Identify the number of school bus drivers under contract to or on the pay-roll of each school and school district in the EPZ identified in LILCO's Mo-tion at Attachment 1.
Specify the number of drivers that are designated for each school.
11.
Identify any contacts and communications the Intervenors have had with any school or school district in the EPZ regarding evacuation of those schools during a Shoreham emergency. Include, for each contact and com-munications, the school or school district contacted and the person talked with, the date of each contact, and the substance of each conversation.
Please produce any documents related to such contacts.
. 3 12.
Identify any contacts the Intervenors have had with any bus companies 4
I under contract to the schools and school districts in the EPZ regarding evacuation of those schools during a Shoreham emergency. Include, for each contact, the bus company contacted and the person talked with, the date of er.ch contact, and the substance of each conversation. Please pro-j l
duce any documents related to such contacts.
I 13.
Identify any contacts the Intervenors have had with any bus companies on Long Island, to the extent not identified in Interrogatory 13, regarding evacuation of those schools during a Shoreham emergency. Include, for each contact, the bus company contacted and the person talked with, the date of each contact, and the substance of each conversation. Please pro-duce any documents related to such contacts.
14.
Identify any contacts the latervenors have had with any school bus drivers on the payroll of or under contract with schools or school districts in the EPZ regarding evacuation of those schools during a Shoreham emergency.
Identify, for each contact, the person talked with, the date of each con-tact, and the substance of each conversation. Please produce any docu-ments related to such contacts.
l 15.
State, for all nuclear power plants in New York State other than Shoreham, whether schools and school districts in the EPZs for those plants plan to evacuate school children in a single wave or in multiple waves. In re-sponding to this request, identify this information on a county-by-county basis for each nuclear power plant in New York.
s )
4 16.
State, for all nuclear power plants in New York State other than Shoreham, whether schools and school districts in the EPZs for those plants plan to use bus drivers to evacuate school children in addition to school bus drivers ordinarily on the payrolls of or under contract to these schools and school districts. In responding to this request, identify this information on a county-by-county basis for each nuclear power plant in New York.
17.
For the additional bus drivers, if any, identified in response to Interrogatory 16 above, identify the type of training these bus drivers receive and the laws, regulations, and ordinances that govern the use of these additional bus drivers to evacuate school children during a radiological emergency.
Identification of Other Documents 18.
Please identify and provide a copy of any document not already identified in response to Interrogatories 7 and 11-14 above on which Intervenors in-tend to rely in support of their position on the issue of whether there will be a sufficient number of school bus drivers to evacuate schools during a Shoreham emergency.
Alleged Deficiencies in LILCO's Proposal to Use LERO School Bus Drivers to Evacuate Schools in the EPZ 19.
Please list each and every factor that Intervenors claim might make LILCO's proposal to evacuate all schools in the EPZ in a single wave unworkable and inadequate to protect the pubile health.
20.
To the extent not covered by the answer to Interrogatory 9 above, please list every respect in which Intervenors claim that LILCO's procedures for using auxiliary school bus drivers to evacuate school children are inade-l l
quate.
l 1
-la-21.
Please list each and every State and locallaw, regulation, or ordinance that Intervenors claim might make LILCO's proposal to evacuate schools in the EPZ in a single wave illegal.
22.
Please list each and every State and locallaw, regulation, or ordinance that the Intervenors claim that LILCO must satisfy to use auxiliary school bus drivers and buses to evacuate school children during a Shoreham emergen-cy.
@42
$1M ta J
rs Hunton & Williams 707 East Main Street P.O. Box 1535 Richmond, Virginia 23212 DATED: January 5,1988 l
t
b
)
LILCO, January 5,1988 I
CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE 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 FIRST SET OF INTERROGATORIES AND i
REQUESTS FOR PRODUCTION OF DOCUMENTS REGARDING ROLE CONFLICT OF SCHOOL BUS DRIVERS TO SUFFOLK COUNTY AND NEW YORK STATE were served this date upon the following by telecopier as indicated by one asterisk, by Federal Ex-press as indicated by two asterisks, or by first-class mail, postage prepaid.
James P. Gleason, Chairman A tomic 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. Kline George E. Johnson. Esq. **
Atomic Safety and Licensing Richard G. Bachmann Esq.
Board U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission 11555 Rockville Pike East-West Towers, Rm. 427 One White Flint North 4350 East-West Hwy.
Bethesda, MD 20814 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.
Atiention Docketing and Service Special Counsel to the Governor l
l Section Executive Chamber U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission Room 229 1*f17 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
1 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 BredeG 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 Martin Bradley Ashare, Esq. **
Stephen B. Latham, Esq. **
Eugene R. Kelly, Esq.
Twomey, Latham & Shea Suffolk County Attorney 33 West Second Street H. Lee Dennison Building P.O. Box 298 Veterans Memorial Highway Riverhead, New York 11901 Hauppauge, New York 11787 Mr. Philip McIntire Dr. Monroe Schneider Federal Emergency Management North Shore Committee A gency P.O. Box 231 26 Federal Plaza Wading River, NY 11792 New York, New York 10278 W
n JhnlA.d egers / [
J 6
Hunton & Williams 707 East Main Street P.O. Box 1535 Richmond, Virginia 23212 DATED: January 5,1988 r
o ATTACHMENT D 15,88 15i07 KIRKPATRICK & LCCKHART 202 779 9:00 i.
Embruary 15, 1983 UNITED STATES OF AMERICA NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSION Before the Atomic Safety and Licensino Board
)
In the Matter of
)
)
LONG ISLAND LIGHTING COMPANY
)
Docket No. 50-322-OL-3
)
(Emergency Planning)
(Shoreham Nuclear Power Station,
)
Unit 1)
)
)
SECOND SUPPLEMENT TO SUP70LK COUNTY'S ANSWERS TO LILCO'S FIRST SET OF IM ERROGATORIES AND DOCUMEW REQUESTS REGAADING ROLE CONFLICT OF SCE00L BOS DRIVERS Suffolk County hereby supplements its Answers of January 19, and its supplemental Response of January 27, to LILCO's first set of Interrogatories and Requests for Production of Documents re-garding role conflict of school bus drivers.
LILCO Interreaatory No.1 sunnlemental answer._
By letter dated February 12, 1988, the County identified seven witnesses and two tentative additional witnesses.
A copy of that letter is attached hereto, and is incorporated by reference herein.
It identifies, for each
@M S
L i 15,88 15:09 KIRKPATRICK & LOCKHAR: 202 779 9200 P.03 i
witness, the subject matter on which he is expected to testify.
The following additional information is provided in further response to this interrogatory.
The testimony of Dr. Allen Barton will be based generally upon his knowledge and experience in the field of sociology (including the subjects of survey research methods, disaster research, organizational behavior, and role. conflict), the literature in those fields, and survey data provided by Dr. Cole.
The testimony of Robert Petrilak and Dr. Bruce Brodsky will be based upon their experience as members of their respective' school boards (Mt. Sinal and Middle Country), their knowledge and understanding of the positions taken by those boards with respect to LILCO's auxiliary bus driver proposal for, evacuation of school children in a Shoreham emergency and the bases for such posi-tions, and their knowledge and experience concerning matters re-lating to the implementability of LILCO's proposal.
In addition, Dr. Brodsky's testimony will also be based upon his experience and knowledge gained through his positions with the Brookhaven Town School oards Association, the Nassau-Suffolk School Boards Association, and the New York State School Boards Association.
The testimony of Dr. Muto, Dr. Koenig, and Dr. Suprina will be based upon their experience as Superintendents of Schools in their respective school districts (Longwood, East Meadow, and Riverhead), their knowledge and understanding of the positions taken by those districts with respect to LILCO's auxiliary bus driver proposal for evacuation of school children in a Shoreham s t
,15,08 15:08 KIRKPATRICK & LCCKHART 000 779 9:00 P.04 emergency and the bases for such positions, and their knowledge and experience concerning matters relating to the implementa-bility of LILCo's proposal. In addition, the testimony of Drs.
Koenig and Muto will be based upon their experience and knowledge gained through their positions with the Nassau-Suffolk School Boards Association.
The testimony of Messrs. Rossi, Smith, and Dougherty will be based upon their experience as Directors of Transportation for their respective school districts (Middle country, Longwood, and Riverhead), their knowledge and understanding of the positions taken by those districts with respect to LILCO's auxiliary bus driver proposal for evacuation of school children in a Shoreham emergency and the bases for such positions, and their knowledge and experience concerning matters relating to the implementabi-lity of LILCO's proposal. In addition, the testimony of Mr. Rossi will be based upon his experience and knowledge gained through his position as President of the Suffolk Chapter of the New York Association of Pupil Transportation.
LILCO Interrocatory No.2 Sumelemental answer.
A copy of Dr. Koenig's resume was attached to the February 12 letter referenced in the answer above and attached hereto.
The resumes of the other witnesses will be provided as soon as we receive them.
15,88 15:09 KIRKPATRICK & LCCKHAR 200 779 9000 P.05 I
LItco Interroaatorv Mo. 3 sucolemental answer.
Dr. Muto and Messrs. Petrilak, Smith, and Rossi testified in the 1983-84 emergency planning hearings in l this proceeding.
I LILCO Interrocatory No. 4 sueelemental answer.
The testimony of Dr. Muto and Messes.
Petrilak, Smith, and Rossi was provided in connection with the 1983-84 hearings.
LILco Interrocatory No. 5 suoclemental answer.
At this time, we are able to identify the following works, authored by Dr. Barton, which include discussions on the subject of role conflict during disasters:
"Social organizations under Stress: A Socio-logical Review of Disaster Research," (National Academy of Science - National Research Council:
Washington, D.C., 1963).
"organization and Mass Behavior in the Emergency Social System," in Man and Seeiety in Disaster, l
George W. Baker and Dwight Chapman, ed. (New I
York: Basic Books, 1962).
l Communities in Disaster, (New York: Doubleday, 1969)
LILCO Interroaatory No. 6 agnplemental answer.
See supplement.41 anawer en inter-rogatory No. 5.
We will supplement this response, if necessary, upon further discussion with the newly identified witnesses.
4
s 15,89 15:09 KIRKPATRICK & LOCKHART 000 779 9200 P.06 I
Litco Interrocaterv No. 7 Sunclemental answer.
The works of Dr. Barton are in the public domain, and should be easily accessible to LILCo.
LILCO Interrocaterv No. 11 suoulemental answer.
The following "contacts and communi-cations" may be responsive to this interrogatory:
l.
February 1, 1988, contact between Karla J. Letsche, Kirkpatrick & Lockhart, and Miller Place Union Free School District, Middle Country Central School District and Mt. Sinai Union Free School District, concerning anticipated litigation of LILCO's new school evacuation proposal.
2.
February a, 1988, contact between Karla J. Letsche, Kirkpatrick & Lockhart, and Miller Place Union-Free School District, Mt. Sinai Union Free School District, Middle Country School District, East Meadow Union Free School District, and Riverhead Central School District, concerning anticipated litigation of LILCO's new school evacuation proposal.
3.
February 11, 1988, contact between Michael S. Miller and Karla J. Letsche, Kirkpatrick & Lockhart, and Middle Country Centrtl School District, Riverhead Central School District, Comsewogue Union Free School District, Longwood Central School District, and Mt. Sinal Union Free School District concerning anticipated litigation of LILCO's new school evacuation pro-posal.
KIRKPATRICK & LOCKHART 202 779 9200 p,o7
,15,00 15:09 4.
February 12, 1988, contact between Michael S. Miller and Karla J. Letsche, Kirkpatrick & Lockhart, and Middle Country Central School District, Riverhead Central School District, Miller Place Union Free School District, Longwood Central School District, and Mt. Sinal Union Free School District concerning anticipated litigation of LILco's new school evacuation pro-posal.
The other information requested by this interrogatory is protected from disclosure by the attorney work product priv-ilege.
All objections and assertions of privilege, or reference thereto, were stated by counsel.
As JJb Mickhey S. Miller f '
Karla J. Letsche KIRKPATRICK & LOCKHART 1800 M Street, N.W.
South Lobby - Ninth Floor Washington, D.C.
20036-5891 Attorneys for Suffolk County l
l l
i 1
l
! I
6 s
15.88 15:10 KIRKPATRICK & LOCKHART 202 778 9200 P.08 i
February 15, 19SS UNITED STATES OF AMERICA NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSION Before the Atomic Safety and Licensina Board
)
In the Matter of
)
)
LONG ISLAND LIGHTING COMPANY
)
Docket No. 50-322-OL-3
)
(Emergency Planning)
(Shoreham Nuclear Power Station,
)
Unit 1)
)
)
CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE I hereby certify that copies of SECOND SUPPLEMENT TO SUFFOLK COUNTY'S ANSWERS TO LILCO'S FIRST SET OF INTERROGATORIES AND DOCUMENT REQUESTS REGARDING ROLE CONFLICT OF SCHOOL BUS DRIVERS have been served on the following this 15th day of February, 1988 by U.S. mail, first class, except as otherwise noted.
I James P. Gleason, Chairman Mr. Frederick J. Shon Atomic Safety and L,1 censing Board Atomic Safety and Licensing 513 Gilmoure Drive U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Coms Silver Spring, Maryland 20901 Washington, D.C.
20555 Dr. Jerry R. Kline William R. Cumming, Esq.
Atomic Safety and Licensing Board Spence W. Perry, Esq.
U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission Office of General Counsel Washington, D.C.
20555 Federal Emergency Management 500 C Street, S.W., Room 840 Washington, D.C.
20472
o.
KIRKPATRICK & LOCKHART 202 779 9:00 P.09
,15,89 15:10 Fabian G. Palomino, Esq.
W. Taylor Reveley, III, Es Richard J. Zahleuter, Esq.
Runton 6 Williams Special Counsel to the Governor P.O. Box 1535 Executive Chamber, Rs. 229 707 East Main Street State Capitol Richmond, Virginia 23212 Albany, New York 12224 Joel Elau, Esq.
Anthony F. Earley, Jr., Es Director, Utility Intervention General Counsel N.Y. Consumer Protection Board Long Island Lighting Coepa Suite 1020 175 East, Old Country Road Albany, New York 12210 Hicksville, New York 1180 E. Thomas Boyle, Esq.
Ms. Elisabeth Talbbi, Cler Suffolk County Attorney Suffolk County Legislature Eldg. 158 North County Complex Suffolk County Legislature Veterans Memorial Highway Office Building Hauppauge, New York 11784 Veterans Memorial Highway Rauppauge, New York 11784 Mr. L. F. Britt Stephen B. Latham, Esq.
Long Island Lighting Company Twomey, Latham & Shea Shoreham Nuclear Power Station 33 West Second Street North Country Road Riverhead, New York 11901 Wading River, New York 11792 Ms. Nora Bredes Docketing and Service Sect Executive Director Office of the Secretary Shoreham op pnents Coalition U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Co 195 East Main Street 1717 H Street, N.W.
Smithtown, New York 11787 Washington, D.C.
20555 Alfred L. Nardelli, Esq.
Hon. Patrick G. Halpin Assistant Attorney General Suffolk County Executive New York State Department of Law M. Lee Dennison Building 120 Broadway Veterans Memorial Highway Room 3-118 Hauppauge, New York 11788 New York, New York 10271 MH5 Technical Associates Dr. Monroe Schneider 1723 Manilton Avenue North Shore Committee Suite K P.O. Box 231 San Jose, California 95125 Wading River, New York 11 Mr. Jay Dunkleburger George E. Johnson, Esq.
New York State Energy Office Edwin J. Reis Esq.
Agency Building 2 U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Cc Empire State Plaza Office of General Counsel Alu ny, New York 12223 Washington, D.C.
20555
L 6 g 15,88 15:11 KIRKPATRICK & LOCKHART 20 778 9200 P.10 i
i David A. Brownlee, Esq.
Mr. Stuart Diamond Kirkpatrick & Lockhart Business / Financial 1500 Oliver Building NEW YORK TIMES Pittsburgh, Pennsylvania 15222 229 W. 43rd Street New York, New York 10036 Douglas J. Mynes, Councilman Mr. Philip McIntire Town Board of Oyster Bay Federal Emergency Management Town Mall Agency Oyster Day, New York 11771 26 Federal Plaza New York, New York 10276 J
8- -
[
By Telecopy Kar',a J. Letaph r KIRKFATRICK F LOCKRART 1400 M Street, N.W.
South Lobby - 9th Floor Washington, D.C.
20036-5891:
l l
1 l
1 1
l l
i
r i
ATTACHMENT E s
January 27, 1983 UNITED STATES OF AMERICA NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSION gefere the Atemic jafety and Licensino Beard
)
In the Matter of
)
)
Docket No. 50-322-OL-3 LONG ISLAND LIGHTING CCMPANY
)
(Emergency Planning)
)
(Shoreham Nuclear Power Station
)
Unit 1)
)
)
SUFFOLK COUNTY'S ANSWERS to LILCO'S SECOND SET OF INTERROGATORIES AND REQUESTS FOR PRODUCTION OF DOCUIL9ffS REGARDING ROLE CONFLICT OF SCBOOL BOS DRIVERS On Jan%:f 13 1988, L:LCO !iled its "Second Set of Inter-regatories and Ret 4 2es ts for Production of Documents Regarding Role Conflict of School Bus Drivers to Suffolk County and New York State" ("Secote Discovery Request").
Pursuant to 10 CTR S 2.740b, Suffolk County (the "County *)
nereby responds to LILCO's Second Discovety Request.
. GENERAL RESPONCE A.
All documents identi!!ed in these Answers will be pro-vided within the time a. otted by the NRC's Rules of Practice, to the extent the County deet not object to the.r preduction.
lby' C
O 3.
The County cbjects to all interroga: Cries and documen i
requests to the extent :ney saek informati:n er d:cumen:s cu: side j
of :he possession, custody or con:rcl of the County.
C.
The County objects to all in:errega: cries, documen:
requests, definitions, and instructions insofar as they require the disclosure of any information protected by the attorney-client privilege or work product doctrine.
I II.
ANSWERS TO INTERROCATORIES Aun rwvTMENT REOUESTS Interroaatories LILCO Interreesterv No. 23 i
23.
~:dentif y by type of emergency, 1: cation of emergency, and date of emergency all past emergencies (for 1
- example, floods,
- fires, snowstorms, or hurricanes) known to Intervenors or their Contractors or mentioned in documents in the possession, custody, or control of Intervenors or their Contractors in which bus drivers were called upon to transport people because of the emergency -- for example. :o transport seneol pupils or other members of :he public either to their nemes (for example, in early dismissal of sen:cis) or to places of safety away from their homes.
Include in "emergencies" any event (for
- example, snowstorms) tnat caused a
school to dismiss earlier than usual.
- n each suen emergency, new many bus drivers were called upon to transport people because of the emergency?
Answer.
Suffolk C:unty states that, at ene present time, and to the oest of its <newledge, :ne County is generally aware that there nave been + a r '. y dism;3sals involving bus ::ansper:a-
- lon of children from senoois during snowstorms.
Wi:n :ne excep-
- ion of discovery materials and testimony by all par:tes in con-junction with the emergency planning proceedings of 1983-84, ene County is not aware of any information within its possession, cus:c.dy or con:rol wnica is responsive :o :nis :nter cga:ory.
- c the extent such inf ormation may be found in the record of ene 1983-84 litigation, such information is as accessible to LILCO as it is to the County.
The County is, however, currently in :ne process of searching for any additional documents that would be responsive to this Interrogatory, and will promptly inform L:LCO if any such documents are identified or if :he County otherwise becomes aware of any information responsive to this Inter-regatory.
On information and belief, some of the information requested may be in the possession, cus::iy or control of the school districts which govern the schools 2: iosue ( h, those schools listed in Attachment I to "L LCO's Motion for Summary Disposition of Contention 25.C (' Role Conflict' of School Bus Drivers)," dated October 22, 1987.
The sencol dis:ricts are separate and distine: political entities fr:m :ne County, how-ever.
LILCO Interrocaterv No. 24 24.
How.?any instances are <newn to :ntervenors or neir Contractors or reported in documents in :near pcsses-sion, custody, or control of bus drivers, :n any emer-gency, attending :o the safety of :neir own families before reporting to perform their sus de:ving duties?
For each of :ne sus drivers wne. in an emergency of any kind, attended :o :ne safety of nas own f amily before reporting to perf:r-nts bus driving duties. pr: vide
- ne foll: wing.nt: ma::en:
3-
l l
a.
a.
What rela:;ensnip :o :ne driver (for example, son or wife) was :he persen or persons wnese safety l
the driver attended to cef re per.* rming nis ous-i driving duties?
b.
What was :ne emergency?
l c.
What was :ne date of :ne failure to perform er delay in perf:rming?
l d.
What persen er vna: document has the information
{b
- ne failure :: perform or delpy in per-r e.
For each delay in performing, how long was the delay?
Answer.
With the exception of testimony during thu emer-I gency planning proceedings of 1983-84, Suffolk County states that, at the present time, and to the best of its knowledge, the County is not aware of any information within its possession, 1
custody or control wnien is responsive to :r.s Interrogatory.
To
}
the extent suen inf:rmation may be found
.a the record of the l
1983-84 litigation, suen information is as accessible to LILCO as it is to the County.
The County, however, is currently in the precess of searening for any additional dccuments that would be responsive to :nis Interrogatery, and will pecep:ly inform L:LCO if any such documents are ident:fied or !! -ne County otherwise l
becomes aware of any information respons;ve to this Inter-1 regatory.
L I' CO Interrecaterv No. 25 25.
Of the schcoi cus drivers wne serve tne schools listed in Act.cnmen; i :: "L LCO's Motten !:r Su.. mary Dispost-tion of Centen:t:n 25.C (' Role Conflict' of School Bus Drivers)." dated Oc:: er 22, 1987, hw many nave Other 4
\\
~1 0
6 i
memeers :t :neir families liv;ng in :ne Sh::enam :en.
mile EPZ?
Answer.
With :ne pess;cle excepta:n of testimony der;ng
- ne emergency plana;ng pt:ceedings f ;)93-84. Suffel< C:un:y s:ates enat, a: :ne present :;me, and :: :ne est of ::s <n:w-
- ledge, the informati:n reques:ed oy :n;s :n:ert:gatory is ne:
.;:hin the possess!:n, custody c
- nt:01 of the C:unty.
C
- ne suen informa:i:n may e f:und in the record of the 1983-84 exten:
litigatien, suen inf::mation is as accesstele to LILCO as 1; is to ne C unty.
Litco :nterrecaterv 90.
26 26.
When
- ne senc:1 bus drivers who serve eacn of
- ne scncels specified in A::acnmen:
- "L:LCO's Motion for Summary D sposi:ica Of C:ntent.:n 25.C (' Role Con-flic:' Of School aus Drivers)," da:e: October 22, 1987, are ::ained for : net: ;cos, wnat are :ney :cid accu:
Dealing witn emergencies Of any <ir.d?
a.
b.
Perf ming
- neir du:tes when schools dism:ss early?
c.
Caring for thei Own fam:11es ;n cases :f early scncol dismissals :: emergencies?
d.
P::viding notice :: :ne sch:ol
- cas campany wnen they will not pert::.s : net:
ces?
anjy31 Che inf::mati:n reques:ed by :nis :ntert:ga ory :s not visnin :ne p ssess;en, cus'..Jy :: control :f Suff:1< Coun y.
Cn inf::mati:n and cel:ef, suen :nt::mari:n may ce :n :ne p:sses-s; n, cust:dy or centrol :! :ne sch::1 dis::i::s wnich g:vern ne
-3
Y
< l' i
3 a
l
\\
)h y 1
s i
, ' l)'.
1 ;
1 i
i 1-
\\.
(
i J
g s
)/
q 3. :1
/
isst h, Thescnooldistrkssf are sepa ate and distinct 1
sedools at 3
p'ol tical entidies f rom the our.h, hwe er,
- 3 2
,' }
' ))
i s.
I
,7. d qo IntertfigAkprv No.
27 s' n T
" 2 7.'
When bus drivers are trair.ed.\\o drive buses for radic!
logical emergency plans for ni. blear plants in New York State ' chdier than Shoreham,,v y\\a t are they told about caring fo0 their families j 4: hrgencies?
s i
i s -
r 1
j i
h<; {.
Witihut catceding the relevance $t ne'dkdormation
/
i f
sought, Wr'# elk County < states that'the requester information is
\\j'.
i wi tnL;., 'the possc$cion, custody or control of the County.
To-not the exrldt such f orcp\\ation.s in the emergency plans.for plants i
i'l p
in New Yor.1 State er than Shoreham, such i t' ormation is as cy\\
a accessiblit. to L,.'I CO aQ it is to t'te, County.
/ - '
\\
' f ',
i j.\\'s
\\
/
'4s LILCO Interrocatory No. 2%
- 28.,Pleasei /ljf t al New York State and Suffolk County
' gena lep /, pe r sonne. L, and Contractors who were asked to p'v! ff,e n'4p(cfor:'grles'ancjRequests.
tpe 11t ign to respond to this Second Set chVdpkg 7
g b
^,
i
/
'3a swn.
Suffolk County oojects to tnis :nterrogatory to the 'exrai): it purports ~to seek info:jr.a ion from the County re-l l
l 1 g!.dding the involvement of New lorA) State agencies, personnel,
^g
.I and Contractors in r eroon, ding to L:,7CO 's Second Discovery Re-3.j L
quest.
Such informar; ion is not wiknN e!he possession, custody er s
o j
contr(.. of tne Cour.,ty'.
Moreover, Suf folk County oojects to this 1
- ntertogatory to the extent it includes counsel for -he County s
3 within 123 scope.
Notvi. s'ta$. ding and without waiving M ese co f.,i s
,\\
'.-. t f
~
s i
\\
t 1
5 l
s a
f I,4,
2 1.
T.
s,
jections, the Suffolk County personnel who were asked to provide responses were the persons identified in Attachment 1 :o these Answers.
Document Recuests
.LILCO Interrocaterv No. 29 29.
Please provide an up-to-date copy of all early dis-y missal and/or 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.
Answer.
As LILCO is well aware, the profiled tdstimony on schools issues submitted by LILCO during the 1983-84 emergency planning proceedings included copies of "go home" and emergency closing plans for the following school' districts and schools:
I P,oces I; Boces II Shoreham-Wading River School District; Middle f
Island; Little Flower Union Free School District; Miller Place Union Free School District: Port Jefferson: Comsewegue School District; Middle Country; South Manor; Riverhead Central School District: William Floyd; St. David's School; and St. John's Pre-School.
With the exception of this information, which is avail-able in the record of the 1983-84 emergency planning proceedings, and is therefore as accessible to LILCO as it is to the County, the County states that, at the present time, and to the best of its knowledge, the C unty does not have within its possession, custody or control any early dismissal and/or emergency plans that might exist for any
! :ne schools identified in Attachment
-7
i 1 to "LILCO's Motion for Summary Disposition of Contention 25.C
(' Role Conflict' of School Bus Drivers),' dated October 22, 1987 However, the County is currently in the process of searching for any documents that would be responsive to this Interregatory, and will promptly inform L:LCO 15 any such documents are. identified.
On information and
- belief, the requested documents, if they exist, would presumably be in the possession, custody or control of the school districts which govern the schools at issue.
The school districts are separate and distinct political entities from the County, however.
LILCO Interrocatory No. 30 30.
Please provide a copy of all documents used in pre-paring the answers to Requests 23-28 above.
Answer.
Suffolk County objects t:
this Interrogatory because it is overly broad, redundant, and unduly burdensome.
Where LILCO has requested specific documents or categories of documents, the County has responded appropriately.
Notwith-standing this objection, Suffolk County wil. provide L:LCO with any documents that are responsive to this :nterrogatory and not privileged during the time period specified by the NRC Rules of Practice. _ - -.-
b
)
Obiections Stated by Counsel All objections and assertions of privilege, or reference thereto, were stated by counsel.
Respectfully submitted, k&
Michael S. Miller J.
Lynn Taylor Kirkpatrick & Lockhart 1800 M Street, N.W.
South Lobby - 9th Floor Washington, D.C.
20036 Attorneys for Suffolk County January 27, 1983.
w l
Patrick G. Ralpin Edward Soughal Joe Sanseverino County Executive Budget Unit
. Director, Comm. Dev.
9th Floor Dennison Bldg.
8th Floor Dennison Bldg.
62 Eckerkamp Drive Hauppauge Hauppauge Smithtown, N.Y.
Thomas J. McAteer, Jr.
Bruce Blower Peggy Mason Chief Deputy County Exec.
Handicapped Services County Exec. Asst.
9th Floor Dennison Bldg.
65 Jetson Lane 9th Floor Dennis Bldg.
Hauppauge Central Islip Hauppauge Frank Petrene John Bianchet Joseph Schneider County Executive Office office for the Aging Data Processing 9th Floor Dennison Bldg.
65 Jetson Lane Bldg. 50 Hauppa age Central Islip Hauppauge Dennis McCarthy James Leigh Den Fahey County Executive office Youth Bureau Federal and State Aid 9th Floor Dennison aldg.
65 Jetson "ane lith Fl., Dennison Bldg.
Hauppauge Central Is'.ip Hauppauge Brad O'Hearn Daniel Bahr Jane Hollander Director of Communications Labor Relations Dir., Of fice for Women 9th Floor Dennison Bldg.
Oval Drive 65 Jetson Lane Hauppauge Hauppauge Central Islip Louis Soleo Glen Middleton Eileen Kremers County Executive Office County Exec. Asst.
DWI Coordinator 9th Floor Dennison Bldg.
9th Floor Dennison Bldg.
8th Fl., Dennison Bldg.
Hauppauge Hauppauge Hauppauge Thomas McAdam Margaret M.
Reese Evelyn Roth Budget Unit County Exec. Asst.
Deputy County Exec.
9th Floor Dennison Bldg.
9th Floor Dennison Bldg.
9th Fl. Dennison Bldg.
Hauppauge Hauppauge Hauppauge Larry Schwart Louise Jones Robert Kurtter Deputy County Exec.
Affirmative Action Deputy County Exec.
9th Floor Dennison Bldg.
65 Jetson Lane 9th Fl. Denntsen Bldg.
Hauppauge Central Islip Rauppauge James Patterson John Liguori Kevin Law Insurance & Risk Management Criminal Justice County Exec. Asst.
10 Oval Drive Coordinating Council 9th Fl. Dennison Bldg.
Hauppauge 65 Jetson Lane Hauppauge Central Islip Lin Capler Lisa A. Mirabella Joan Ward County Exec. Office County Exec. Asst.
Human Rescuces Liaison 9th Fl. Dennison Bldg.
9th Fl. Dennison Bldg.
Human Resources Hauppauge Hauppauge 65 Jetson Lane
L &
Joseph R. Caputo Alan Schneider Robert Krelling Audit and Control Civil Service Dept.
S.C. Community College 10th F1. Dennison Bldg.
65 Jetson Lane Selden Eauppauge Central Islip Edward Draffin Shirley De Matteo Patrick Henry Probation Department Civil Service Dept.
District Attorney Yaphanx 65 Jetson Lane Riverhead Central Islip Lawrence A.
Dos Sant0s Dr. David Harris William Car,ary Veterans Service Agency Healta Services Board of El.ections Hauppauge Hauppauge Yaphank Ricardo Montana Jean Tuthill George Wolf Human Rights Commission Tanance and Taxation Board of '!1ections 65 Jetson Lane Rivernead Yaphank Juliette Kinsella Anthony Mastroianni County Clers Public Adminstrator Riverhead Riverhead Elizabeth Taibbi P0bert Sgroi Lee E.
Xoppelman Clerk of the Legislature Dept. of Real Estate Planning Dept.
Hauppauge Hauppauge Hauppauge E. Themas Boyle Trans Diamante Thomas Junor County Attorney Real Pecp. Tax Sve. A;ency Economic Development Building 158 Rivernead Hauppauge Hauppauge Eugene Dooley A.
Barten Cass Harold Withers Sheriff Commissioner Consumer Affairs Dept.
Riverhead Public Worss Dept.
Hauppauge Yapnank Eric Kopp John D. Chester Gerald V. Cronin General Services Parks Department Div. of Transportation Hauppauge West Sayvil'e M. Lee Dennison Hauppauge David Gruen James Caples Budget Review Office Police Dept.
County Legislature Yaphank Hauppauge John Wehrenberg j
Deputy Commissioner t
Police Department Yaphank l
Department Heads List for ADHs.
Page 2 of 3
s s
}
Berbert Davis Cosumissioner, FRES Yaphank Daniel Fricke Cooperative Extension 246 Griffing Avenue Riverhead, NY 11901 vanderbilt Museus 180 Little Nect Road Centerport, NY 11721 Stanley Pauzer Soil and Water Conservation 164 Old County Road Route 58 Riverhead, NY 11901 Alice Anthein Consissioner Dept. of Social Services Rabro Dr., Hauppauge Raymond Allmendinger Labor Department Hauppauge Charles Novo, Jr.
Suffolk County Assoc. of Municipal Employees, Inc.
600 Middle Country Road Selden, NY 11794 Legal Aid John F. Middlemiss, Jr.
260 W. Main Street Bay Shore, NY 11706 Department Heads List for ADHs Page 3 of 3
4
%I VERIPICATION Frank P.
he is currently the Special AssistantPetrone, being duly sworn, deposes an that to the Suffolk County Executive; that he has been involved in matters related to the Shoreham Nuclear Power Plant since January 1987; the County's Answers to LILCO's Second Set that he has read Requests for Production of Documents Regarding Role Conflict ofof Interroga School Bus Drivers and knows the contents thereof; that stated in the County's Answers are based on his personalthe facts knowledge or on reasonable inquiry of appropriate County personnel, as well as on additional information provided by counsel; and that he believes the matters stated therein to be true to the best of his knowledge and belief, and therefore verifies the foregoing on behalf of.'Suffolk County.
% j#
Frank P.
Petrone State of New York
)
SS:
I, LNbA C T C 9 L c Q.
, a Notary Public in and for the jurisdiction aforesaid, nereby certify nat Frank P.
- Petrone, dated January 27,whose name is signed to the foregoing Answers to Interroga 1988, has personally nworn before me that the statements therein are true to the best of his knowledge and belief.
/
@'g, pqgq Notary Puoli()
NOTARY Fv8UC. State of alew Ya M 30 415:CG4/n C;.m, My Commission expires:
M m A - 5 : m...y 2 19 U
'l ATTACIBiENT F Febetra ry 10, 1988 UNITED STATES OF AMERICA NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSION Before the Atomic Safety and Licensine Board 2
In the Matter of
)
)
Docket No. 50-322-OL-3 LONG ISLAND LIGHTING COMPANY
)
(Emergency Plaf}ning)
)
(Shoreham Nuclear Power-Station,
)
Unit 1)
)
)
SUFFOLR COUWrY'S AWWERS '!O LILCO'S TE2ED SET W 1rremanrnTORIES A E REQUESTS FOR FRODOCTICII OF DOCtDGWFS REGARDING ROLE C00EFLICT OF ScE00L BUS DRIVJ'RS TO SUFFOLE Cuumii AMn u m Yner STATE On January 27, 1988, LILCO filed its "Third Set of Interrogatories and Requests for Production of Documents Regarding Role Conflict of School Bus Drivers to Suffolk County and New York State" ("Third Request").
Pursuant to 10 CFR S 2.740b, Suffolk County (the "County") hereby responds to l
LILCO's Third Request.
I.
GENERAL RESPONSE A.
All documents identified in these Answers will be provided within the time allotted by the NRC's Rules of Practice, to the extenc the County does not object to their production.
fS I
d 5.
The County hereby objects to LILCO's interrogatories and document requests to the extent they seek information or documents outside of the possession, custody or control of the County.
C.
The County objects to all interrogatories, document requests, definitions and instructions insofar as they require the disclosure of any information protected by the attorney-client privilege or work product doctrine.
II.
AMfrWERM TO INTEMt0GATOltIES AND ihu-REQUESTS LILc0 Interreaatory No. 31 31.
In the January 19, 1988 Response of the State of New York to LILCO's first Set of Interrogatories you list (pp. 4-6) in response to Request No. 8 certain information "provided by the schools to the New York State Education Department" concerning "student enrollment for schools within the 10-mile EPZ."
Please provide the date of this information and list those persons who provided this information to the Education Depa r tmen t.
Identify and provide any and all documents from which this information was obtained.
Answer.
Suffolk County has no information in its possession, custody or control that is responsive to this Interrogatory.
In any event, the Interrogatory is directed to l
New York State, not Suffolk County.
LILc0 Interrocatory No. 32 l
32.
In the State of New York's January 19, 1988 Response, l
you list (pp. 6-8) in response to Request No. 9 certain information "provided by school districts to the New York State Education Department" concerning "the bus,
l l
't.
companies that contract with each school district identified in LILCO's Motion at Attachment 1."
Please provide the date of this information and list those persons who provided this information to the Education Depa r tment.
Identify and provide any and all documents from which this information was obtained.
i Answer.
Egg Answer to Interrogatory No. 31 above, i
i LILCO Interrocatory No. 33 33.
In the State of New York's January 19, 1988 Response, you list (pp. 8-9) in response to Request No. 10 certain information "provided by the school districts" concerning "the number of school bus drivers and mechanics on the payroll of each pertinent school district."
Please provide the date of this.information and list those persons who provided this informatich.
)
Identify and provide any and all documents from which this information was obtained.
Answer.
133 Answer to Interrogatory No. 31 above.
L_ILCO Interrocatorv No. 34 34.
Please provide, as agreed in your conversation with LILCO counsel on January 25, 1988, current copies of the radiological emergency preparedness plans for the counties of Orange, Putnam, and Rockland.
Please provide as well current copies of the radiological emergency preparedness plans for the counties of Dutchess, Jefferson, and Onondaga.
Answer.
Egg Answer to Interrogatory No. 31 above.
LILCO Interrogatory No. 35 35.
To the extent not provided by your ansvers to Requests 23 and 24 in LILCO's Second Set of Interrogatories and Requests for Production of Documents Regarding Role Conflict of School Bus Drivers to Suffolk County and New York State, dated January 13, 1988, please provide one example known to Intervenors (as defined in Definition P of the "Definitions" cited above) of a bus driver who, in an emergency, attended to the safety of
- 1 I
l.
i his own family before reporting to perform his bus driving duties.
For this example please identify the emergency, the date, the organization.for which the bus driver worked at the time, the duties the bus driver was expected to perform in connection with the emergency, the length of time before the bus driver reported to perform these duties, and the family members whose safety the driver attended to.
Identify also the source (person or document or both) of this example.
Answer.
At this time, other than as previously provided in response to Interrogatory Nos. 23 and 24 (dated January 27, 1988), Suffolk County is not aware of any information within its possession, custody or control which is responsive to this Interrogatory.
The County, however, will continue to search for-any additional documents that would be responsive to this Interrogatory, and will promptly inform LILCO if any such documents are identified or if the County otherwAs4 becdsh& aware of any information responsive to this Interrogatory.
LILCO Interrocatory No. 36 36.
Give a second example of a bus driver who, in an emergency, attended to the safety of his own family before reporting to perform his bus driving duties and identify the example and source as requested in Request No. 35 above.
Answtr.
Egg Answer to Interrogatory No. 35 above.
LILCO Interrocatory No. 37 37.
Give a third example of a bus driver who, in an emergency, attended to the safety of his own family before reporting to perform his bus driving duties and identify the example and source as requested in Request i
No. 35 above.
i
(
l
- 5 i
I t
An3XtI.
Egg Answer to Interrogatory No. 35 above.
Litco Interroaatory No. 38 38.
In your response to LILCO Interrogatory No. 1, Suffolk County's Answers to LILCO's First Set of Interrogatories and Document Requests Regarding Role Conflict of School Bus Drivers (Jan. 19, 1988), at 3, you refer to Professor Cole's "contacts with other experts on the subject."
Please identify all such contacts.
Answer.
At this time, any contacts between Professor Cole and other experts regarding the nature or causes of role conflict in general, and, more particularly, Suffolk County's contention that role conflict will substantially reduce the number of available bus drivers in the event of a Shoreham emergency, have been made at the request of counsel.
Accordingly, SuffolR,C6unty objects to this Interrogatory on the ground that it seekB' information privileged at this time from discovery by the work product doctrine.
L Lc0 interreanterv No. 39 39.
In the same response cited in No. 38 above you refer to the "causes of role conflict and the factors existing on Long Island which could lead to role conflict."
Identify all such "causes" and "factors."
Answer.
Suffolk County objects to this Interrogatory for the same reasons it objected to Interrogatory No. 38, lugt, it seeks information protected from discovery by the work product doctrine.
Notwithstanding this objection, and without waiving any privilege that may apply, the County states that, at this l
l l,
l i
L
- t d
I time and to the best of its knowledge, the "causes and factors" existing on Long Island which could lead to role conflict include those revealed in the testimony filed on behalf of the County during the emergency plan proceedings of 1983-84, as supported by surveys of Suffolk County bus drivers and firemen conducted by Professor Cole in 1982.
Such information may be found in the record of the 1983-84 proceeding, and is as accessible to LILCO as it is to the County.
Further research, analysis and investigation by Professor Cole may lead to further bases for the "causes" of role conflict and the "factors" existing on Long Island which could lead to role conflict.
LILCO Interrecatorv No. 40
,s 40.
In your response to LILCO Interrogatory 21 (dated January 19, 1988) you say that "(f]urther research, analysis and discovery may reveal additional State and/or local laws, regulations and ordinances that would be violated by LILCO's proposal."
Have you identified any such laws, regulations, or ordinances?
If so, what are they?
Answer.
Yes.
Egg Suffolk County's Supplemental Response to LILCO's First Set of Interrogatories and Requests for Production of Documents Regarding Role Conflict of School Bus Drivers, dated January 27, 1988.
Further research, analysis or discovery may reveal yet additional State and/or local laws, regulations and ordinances that would be violated by LILCO's proposal.
i I p
n
a s
E I
LILCO Interrocatory No. 41 41.
Are you aware of any contacts or communications in which any person or group has attempted to persuade schools or school districts (or representatives or employees of schools or school districts) not to participate in LILCO's auxiliary school bus driver arrangement or otherwise not to cooperate with LILCO l
with regard to the evacuation of schools during a Shoreham emergency?
If so, please identify such contacts and communications.
To the extent that such information is available to you or can be obtained, please include, for each contact and communication, the school or school district contacted and the person talked with, the date of each contact, and the substance of each conversation.
Please produce any documents related to such contacts.
Answer.
The County is aware that since LILCO's Plan was first made public in 1983 and continuing to date, members of the public as well as school officials and employees have made known to school boards and other school officials their views concerning LILCO's proposals for dealing with a Shoreham emergency, and how schools should respond to them, as evidenced by resolutions and other documents in the public domain which have over the years, been adopted or prepared by schools, school districts, or school employees.
On information and belief, the specific information concerning particular contacts or communications requested by this Interrogatory is as accessible to LILCO as it is to Suffolk County.
LILCO Interrocaterv No. 42 42.
Are you aware of any contacts or communications in which any person or group has attempted to persuade any bus companies under contract to schools and school districts not to participate in LILCO's auxiliary school bus driver arrangement or otherwise not to cooperate with LILCO with regard to the evacuation of,
,,_.,w-,--
schools during a Shoreham emergency?
If so, please identif above. y those contacts as requested in Request No. 41
{
Answer.
Suffolk County states that, at the present time and to the best of its knowledge, it is not aware of~any information responsive to this Interrogatory.
LItCO Interrocatory No. 43 43.
Are you aware of any contacts or communications in which any person or group has attempted to persuade any bus company on Long Island, to the extent not identified in Request No. 42, not to participate in LILCO's auxiliary school bus driver arrangement.or otherwise not to cooperate with LILCO with regard to the evacuation of schools during a shoreham emergency?
If so, please identify those contacts ais requested in Request No. 41 above.
w.
Answer.
Suffolk County states that, at the present.. time and
~'
to the best of its knowledge, it is not awareof,anf"i$folmat.ioS""
responsive to this Interrogatory.
LILCO Interrocatory No. 44 44.
Are you aware of any contacts or communications in which any person or group has attempted to persuade any school bus drivers on the payroll of or under contract with schools or school districts not to participate in LILCO's auxiliary school bus driver arrangement or otherwise not to cooperate with LILCO with regard to the evacuation of schools during a Shoreham emergency?
If so, please identify those contacts as requested in Request No. 41 above.
Answer.
The bus driver statements provided to LILCO by Suffolk County under cover letter dated February 4, 1988 presumably resulted from "contacts" of some sort, but the County
I i
I
'i 1:
has no knowledge that such contacts included a.sy attempts to persuade any school bus drivers on the payroll of or under contract with schools or school districts not to participate in LILco's auxiliary school bus driver arrangerment or otherwise not to cooperate with LILCO with regard to the evacuation of schools during a Shoreham emergency.
ONIOtes STATED BY Cu,-n.
All objections and assertions of privilege, or reference thereto, were stated by counsel.
Micnael S.
Mil;.or J.
Lynn Taylor Kirkpactick & Lockhart 1800 "M" Street, N.W.
South Lobby - Ninth Floor Washington, D.C.
20036-5891 Attorneys for Suffolk County February 10, 1988 l
l l
I l
l t
9-l I
I 4
3 b
February 10, 198a UNITED STATES OF AMERICA NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSION Before the Atomic Safety and Licensine Board
)
In the Matter of
)
)
LONG ISLAND LIGHTING COMPANY
)
Docket No. 50-322-OL-3
)
(Emergency Planning)
(Shoreham Nuclear Power Station,
)
Unit 1)
)
)
enTIrtcATz or snvicz I hereby certify that copies of SUFFOLK COUNTY'S ANSWERS TO LILCO'S THIRD SET OF INTERROGATORIES AND REQUESTS FOR PRODUCTION OF DOCUMENTS REGARDING ROLE CONFLICT OF SCHOOL BUS DRIVERS TO SUFFOLK COUNTY AND NEW YORK STATE have been served on the following this 10th day of February, 1988 by U.S. mail, first class, except as otherwise noted:
James P.
Gleason, Chairman Mr. Frederick J. Shon Atomic Safety and Licensing Board Atomic Safety and Licensing Board U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Cormissic Washington, D.C.
20555 Washington, D.C.
20555 James P. Gleason, Chairman William R. Cumming, Esq.
513 Gilmoure Drive Spence W.
Perry, Esq.
Silver Spring, Maryland 20901 Office of General Counsel Federal Emergency Management Agen Dr. Jerry R. Kline 500 C Street, S.W.,
Room 840 Atomic Safety and Licensing Board Washington, D.C.
20472 U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission Washington, D.C.
20555 W. Taylor Reveley, III, Esq.
Munton & Williams Fabian G. Falomino, Esq.
P.O. Box 1535 Richard J.
Zahnleuter, Esq.
707 East Main Street Special Counsel to the Governor Richmond, Virginia 23212 Executive Chamber, Rs. 229 State Capitol Albany, New York 12224 f
l
6-i i
Joel slau, Esq.
Anthony F. Earley, Jr., Esq.
Director, Utility Intervention General Counsel N.Y. Coneumer Protection Board Suite 1020 Long Island Lighting Company 175 East Old Country Road
,M,bany, New York 12210 Ricksville, New York 11801 E. Thomas Boyle, Esq.
Suffolk County Attorney No. Elisabeth Taibbi, Clerk aldg. 158 North County Complex Suffolk County Legislature veterans Memorial Highway Suffolk County Legislature Office Building Hauppauge, New York 11788 Veterans Memorial 31ghwcy i
Rauppauge, New York 11788 Mr. L.
F. Britt Long Island Lighting Company Stephen S. Latham, Esq.
Shoreham Nuclear Power Station Twomey, Latham & Shea North Country Road 33 West Second Street Riverhead, New York 11901 Wading River, New York 11792 Ms. Nora Bredes Executive Director Docketing and Service Section Shoreham Opponents Coalition Office of the Secretary 195 East Main Street U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Comm.
1717 E Street, N.W.
Smithtown, New York 11787 Washington, D.C.
20555 Alfred L. Nardelli, Esq.
New York State Department of Law Hon. Patrick G. Halpin Suffolk County Executive 120 Broadway, 3rd Floor H.
Room 3-116 Lee Dennison Building Veterans Memorial Highway New York, New Yock 10271 Hauppauge, New York 11788 MIB Technical Associates 1723 Hamilton Avenue Dr. Monroe Schneider Suite K North Shore Committee P.O. Box 231 San Jose, California 95125 Wading River, New York 11792 Mr. Jay Dunkleburger George E. Johnson, Esq.
New York State Energy Office Edwin J. Reis, Esq.
Agency Building 2 Empire State Plaza Office of the General Counsel U.S.
l Albany, New York 12223 Nuclear Regulatory Comm.
Washington, D.C.
20555 David A. Brownlee, Esq.
Kirkpatrick 6 Lockhart Mr. Stuart Diamond Business / Financial 1500 Oliver Building NEW YORK TIMES Pittsburgh, Pennsylvania 15222 229 W. 43rd Street New York. New York 10036 i
8 e '
I Douglas J. Rynes, Councilman Town soard of Oyster Bay Town Ball oyster say, New York 11771 Michael S. Miller
~
KIRKPATRICK fr LOCREART 1800 M Street, N.W.
South Lobby - 9th Floor Washington, D.C.
20036-5891 Sy Mail on February 10, 1988 and by Telecopy on February 11, 1988 i
e i
i G
f i
1 i
f i
l ' -
- ~
s i
VTRfFICATICW Frank P. Patrone, being duly sworn, deposee and seyes he is currently the special Aeoistant to the suffolk County that Eweeutives that he has been involved in settere relate the county's Answere to LILCO's Third set, of In Document Requests for Production of Documente RegardIng Role Conflict of school aus Drivers and knows the se personnel, so well se on additional infor.mation p counsel; and that he believes the mattere stated therein to be true to the best of his knowledge and belief, and therefore verifies the foregoing on behalf of Suffe County.
rank P. Petrene
~
8 tate of New York
)
88:
I imM4 C. Tan ces.
the jur,isdiction arotese16, hereby certify that Freek p. Petrone a wotary Punlie in and for whose name is signed to the foregoing Anewere to Interrogetories, dated Februsty 10, 1988, has persona 41y owern before se that the, statements therein are true to the best of his knowledge and belief.
&MAA $A J A Metary FwH1e O
m
..o..
i
-- : =.-
ATTACHMENT G LILCO, F;bruary 17, 1988 i
UNITED STATES OF AMERICA NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSION 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,
) (School Bus Driver Issue)
Unit 1)
)
NOTICE OF DEPOSITION PLEASE TAKE NOTICE that the Long Island Lighting Company, by counsel, pur-suant to 10 C.F.R. S 2.740a of the Nuclear Regulatory Commission's Rules of Practice, will take the deposition upon oral examination of Robert Petrilak on the subject of "whether, in the light of the potential tor role conflict, a sufficient number of school bus drivers can be relied upon to perform emergency evacuation duties." Memorandum and Order (Ruling on Applicant's Motion of October 22, 1987 for Summary Disposition of Contention 25.C Role Conflict of School Bus Drivers), at 5 (Dec. 30,1987). The dep-osition will be taken before a notary public and court reporter on Thursday, February 18,1988 at 4:00 p.m. and thereaf ter until the taking of the deposition may be complet-ed, at the Suffolk County Attorney's Office, Building 158 North County Complex, Veter-ans Memorial Highway, Hauppauge, New York 11788.
The deponent is directed to produce at the deposition, for inspection and copy-ing, any and all documents, including without limitation notes, records, reports, memoranda, correspondence, studies, analyses, papers, writings, photographs, record-ings, and other materials of any kind or nature whatsoever, in his possession, custody or control or in the possession, custody or control of representatives, employees, attor-neys, assigns, or anyone acting on his behalf, which are relevant to the issue stated above.
l 4,
Respectfully submitted, u.%.04dw:e James N. Christman Counsel for Long Island Lighting Company Hunton & Williams 707 East Main Street P.O. Box 1535 Richmond, Virginia 23212 DATED: February 17.1988
e LILCO, F;bruary 17,1988 i
UNITED STATES OF AMERICA NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSION 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.
) (School Bus Driver Issue)
Unit 1)
)
NOTICE OF DEPOSITION PLEASE TAKE NOTICE that the Long Island Lighting Company, by counsel, pur-suant to 10 C.F.R. S 2.740a of the Nuclear Regulatory Commission's Rules of Practice, will take the deposition upon oral examination of Edward Dougherty on the subject of "whether, in the light of the potential for role conflict, a sufficient number of school bus drivers can be relled upon to perform emergency evacuation duties." Memorandum ari 'rder (Ruling on Applicant's Motion of October 22, 1987 for Summary Disposition of Contention 25.C Role Conflict of School Bus Drivers), at 5 (Dec. 30,1987). The dep-osition will be taken before a notary public and court reporter on Thursday, February 18,1988 at 12:30 p.m. and thereaf ter until the taking of the deposition maybe complet-ed, at the Suffolk County Attorney's Office, Building 158 North County Complex, Veter-ans Memorial Highway, Hauppauge, New York 11788.
The depouent is directed to produce at the deposition, for inspection and copy-ing, any and all documents, including without limitation notes, records, reports, memoranda, correspondence, studies, analyses, papers, writings, photographs, record-ings, and other materials of any kind or nature whatsoever, in his possession, custody or control or in the possession, custody or control of representatives, employees, attor-neys, assigns, or anyone acting on his behalf, which are relevant to the issue stated above.
2 1
Respectfully submitted,
~^A Fess ames N. Christman Counsel for Long Island Lighting Company Hunton & Williams 707 East Main Street P.O. Box 1535 Richmond, Virginia 23212 DATED: February 17,1988 l
I i
I
a LILCO, February 17,1988
/
CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE In the Matter of LONG ISLAND LIGHTING COMPANY (Shoreham Nuclear Power Station, Unit 1)
Docket No. 50-322-OL-3 I hereby certify that evpies of NOTICE OF DEPOSITION for Edward Dougherty were served this date upon the following by telecopier as indicated by one asterisk, by Federal Express as indicated by two asterisks, or by first-class mail, postage prepaid.
James P. Gleason, Chairman Fabian G. Palomino, Esq.
- Atomic Safety and Licensing Board Richard J. Zahnleuter, Esq.
513 Gilmoure Drive Special Counsel to the Covernor Silver Spring, Maryland 20901 Executive Chamber Room 229 Karla J. Letsche Esq.
- State Capitol Kirkpatrick & Lockhart Albany, New York 12224 South Lobby - 9th Floor 1800 M Street, N.W.
Spence W. Perry, Esq.
- Washington, D.C. 20036-5891 William R. Cumming, Esq.
Federal Emergency Management George E. Johnson, Esq.
- Agency Richard G. Bachmann, Esq.
500 C Street, S.W., Room 840 U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission Washington, D.C. 20472 One White Flint North 11555 Rockville Pike Rockville, MD 20852 Stephen B. Latham, Esq. **
1 Twomey, Latham & Shea 33 West Second Street P.O. Box 298 Riverhead, New York 11901 i
w %.0Au$rrea ames N. Christman Hunton & Wl'.tiams 707 East Main Street P.O. Box 1535 i
Richmond, Virginia 23212 DATED: February 17,1988
LILCO, February 17,1988
'h UNITED STATES OF AMERICA NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISS(ON' t
Before the Atomic Safety and Licensing Scard in the Matter of
)
)
LONG ISLAND LIGHTING COMPANY
) Docket No. 50-322-OL-3
) (Emergency Planning)
(Shoreham Nuclear Power Statimi,
) (School Bus Driver Issue)
Unit 1)
)
NOUCE OF DEPOEDON PLEASE TAKE NOTICE that the Long Island Lighting Company, by counsel, pur-suant to 10 C.F.R. S 2.740a of the Nuclear Regulatory Corunission's Rules of Practice, will take the deposition upon oral examination of Anthony Rosal on the subject of "whether, in the light of the potential for role conflict, a sufficient number of school bus drivers can be relied upon to perform emergency evacuation duties." Memorandum and Order (Ruling on Applicant's Motion of October 22, 1987 for Summary Disposition of Contention 25.C Role Conflict of School Bus Drivers), at 5 (Dec. 30,1987). The dep-osition will be taken before a notary public ark. court reporter on Thursday, February 18,1988 at 9:00 a.m. and tht.reaf ter until the taking of the deposition may be complet-ed at the Suffolk County Attorney's Office, Building 138 North County Complex, Veter-ans Memorial Highway, Hauppauge, New York 11788.
The deponent is directed to produce at the deposition, for inspection and copy-ing, any and all documents, including without limitation notes, records, reports, memoranda, correspondence, studies, analyses, papers, writings, photographs, record-ings, and other materials of any kind or nature whatsoever, in his possession, custody or
/
control or in the possession, custody or contro; of representatives, employees, attor-neys, assigns, or anyone acting on his behalf, which are relevant to the issue stated above.
D
-g-o Respectfully submitted, I
'sJ ames N. Christmin Counsel for Long Island Lighting Company
- Hunton & Wluiams 707 East Main Street P.O. Box 1535 Richmond, Virginia 23212 DATED
- February 17, 1988 f
f
-m-S
,A g
7
[Q{* \\
[
3'
['.
1 LILCO., February sty 988 h 4
T',., ;
),
e
'e 5, '
- 1 sj ( <,.( f t
m
\\
1 44{,9 i
{
' '1 i
CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE I
S t(4
.j i
\\
1, e
1 h h g, hr of
~
LONG ISLAl j LIG'. TING COMPANY / [. h s
(Shoreham Nucici Power Station, Un31) f Docket S h 50-322-OL-3
^
s
\\
,k' a
d-I hereby certify that copies of NOTICE OF DEPOSITION for Ant l tony Rossi were -
~
served this date upon the fellowing by telecopier as indicated b Wrycter3?f..uy Teder>
al Express as indicated by two asterisks, or by first-cla.:s mail, postage prep 6d;
i 1
i s
/,. j,
- ../
b Jamcs P. Gleason, Chairman t ablan C it altc(no, Esq }
- 4 Atomic Safety and Licarudng Board '
(\\
RicharVJ. ZcsfrtWu ri,72sq.
513 Gilmoure Drive
/
Speciai Counsel to the Gevernor Silver Spring, Maryland 20901
)
/.
Executive Chamber
(
j l Room 229 Karla J ietsche, Esq. *
' A State Capito!
South Lobby - 9th Floor Albany, Nesy/ York 12224, )o Kirkpatrick & Lockhart Spence W. Perry, Esq.
- l '7 -
i
/
I 1800 M Street, N.W.
WP.shington, D.C. 2693F5891 Willim R. Cumming, Os4 )
'3 Federal Rrergency Mmoremer.t George E. Johnson,13q.
- adency,
s
)
Pichard G. I>achtsnn, Esq.
,' 30 C Strect, S.W., Roorn 8 tia' '
O.S Nuclear Rgalatwy Commission Wrshington, D.C. 20472'i C,re Whits flint yorth 11555 RMkville 91ke.
1 C kville, MD 20852
.l Stephen B. Latham, Esq. **
Twemey, Latham & Shea 33 West Second Street h
P.O. Fox 298 Itiverhead, New York 11901
,D WN
~
' James N. Chtttman haton a W1111 arts (07 East Main Sten P.O. Box 15.iS Rf chmond. Virglu!c 23212 DA TED: February t?,1988 l
m.
y ew,.,w-
-rw-
-,m
ATTACHMENT H TRAXSCRIF1 OF PROCEEDINGS UNITED STATES OF A!! ERICA NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSION BEFORE THE ATOMIC SAFETY AND LICENSING SOARD
_ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _x In the Matter of:
Docket No. 50-322-OL-3 LONG ISLAND LIGHTING COMPANY (Emergency Planning)
(Shoreham Nuclear Power (School Bus Driver Issue)
Station, Unit 1)
- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -x DEPOSITION JF BRUCE G.
BRODSKY i
I Hauppauge, New York Wednesday, February 24, 1988 ACE-FEDERAL REPORTERS, INC.
Steno:ype Ravrtm 444 North Capitol Street Washington, D.C. 20001 (202) M7-3700 Nationwide Coverage 800-336 6646 l
~O 01 09 9
2 3W/sw 1
Q And where did you see the plans?
2 A
My attorneys have made it available to me.
3 Q
And it is your understanding according to the 4
plans that you have seen of the LILCO -- parts of the LILCO 5
plan, that those plans provide that buses on contract to 6
school districts outside the Emergency Planning Zone will be 7
used to evacuate schools inside the Emergency Planning Zone?
8 A
I think that is part of the proposal.
9 0
What is your understanding of why you have been 10 asked to be a witness in this proceeding?
11 MR. LANPHER:
I object to the question.
It is 12 irrelevant why he has been asked.
You might ask him what 13 his testimony is going to be.
That is a p, roper question.
14 BY MS. LEUGERS:
(Continuing) i 15 0
You can go ahead and answer.
16 A
As to what my testimony will be?
17 Q
No.
My question ist What is your understanding 18 of why you were asked to be a witness in this proceeding?
19 MR. LANPHER:
Calls for speculation.
20 MS. LEUGERS:
I have asked for his 21 understanding.
I am not asking him to speculate.
I am 22 asking for what your understanding is.
ACE FEDERAL REPORTERS, INC.
n swum
t 01 10 10 2
3W/sw 1
THE WITNESS:
My understanding is to bring my 2
expertise as a long term board member as to the feasibility 3
of evacuating students from a school district in an 4
emergency situation.
j 5
BY MS. LEUGERS:
(Continuing) l 6
0 What is your opinion about the feasibility of 7
evacuating schools during a Shoreham emerge'ncy?
8 A
I don't believe that it is feasible.
9 0
Why?
10 A
I can speak in terms of the Middle Country School 11 District in specific, and speak in general of school 12 districts, so I will mention both.
13 Three or four years ago, possibly five, when the 14 issue originally came up in Middle Country, after extensive 15 discu.9sion and the development of surveys of our school 16 district employees, both teachers and bus drivers, as to how 17 they would react in case of an emergency, we discovered that l
1 l
18 a large percentage of our people would react in terms of l
19 taking care of their own families first rather than doing l
l 20 the jobs that they are proscribed to do.
That is j
i l
i 21 specifically in Middle Country.
1 22 In general, speaking to other school board j
1 I
t i
l t\\CE. FEDERAL REPORTERS, INC.
202 347 3?00 Nationwide Coverage 8C0 336-6646
a04 07 58 1
3JW/sw I
witness for this proceeding?
2 A
Two or three weeks ago.
3 Q
Was it the beginning of February?
4 A
Yes, I would say so.
5 0
Were you contacted by phone or in person?
6 A
Telephone.
7 Q-Who contacted you at that time?
l 8
A Ms. Letsche.
9 Q
And, when was the next time you talked to someone 10 about being a witness?
11 A
Today.
12 Q
When its. Letsche contacted you by phone two weeks 13 ago, you haven't met with anyone else since then about being j
14 a witness?
15 A
That's correct.
16 0
You mentioned some documents you were provided by i
17 counsel in preparation of your deposition.
Could you tell 18 me what documents you have reviewed in preparing for this 19 deposition?
20 A
The. documents were the two items -- I believe the 21 two items -- I'm sorry.
Yes, the two items that you have 22 already given me, Exhibits 1 and 2, and the extraction of ACE. FEDERAL REPORTERS, INC.
202 347 3700 Nationwide Coverarp 800 336-6646 m
a 0
04 08 59 1
IJW/sw 1
the -- I don' t want to use the wrong terminology -- can we 2
conference on that?
3 MR. LANPHER:
Are you trying to say some other 4
portions of the plan?
5 THE WITNESS:
Yeah.
6 MR. LAN PH,ER:
I will represent for the record 7
that we provided extracts from the LILCO plan.
He can 8
answer what he reviewed.
9 THE WITNESS:
Right, as well as several 10 Resolutions that were adopted by various school districts.
11 BY MS. LEUGERS :
(Continuing) 12 O
What were the school districts that the i
13 Resolutions were adopted by?
14 A
To the best of my recollection, they were, of l
course, the Middle Country School District Resolution, l
15 i
I 16 Longwood, Mt. Sinai, Miller Place, Shoreham-Wading River.
17 There might have been more; I don't recall.
18 0
And, what were those Resolutions about?
l 19 A
They were Resolutions in general -- in general, 20 Resolutions passed by Boards of Education expressing their 21 concern with the feasibility of evacuating this section of 22 Long Island in case of a nuclear emergency.
l i
ACE. FEDERAL REPORTERS, lNC.
l c.
ATTACHMENT I IJ TIMNSCRIF1 OF PROCEEDINGS 1
UNITED STATES OF AMERICA NUCLFAR REGULATORY CO!O!ISSION BEFORE THE ATOMIC SAFETY AND LICENSING BOARD
- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -x In the Matter of:
Docket No. 50-322-OL-3 LONG ISLAFD LIGHTING COMPANY (Emergency Planning)
(Shoreham Nuclear Power (School Bus Driver Issue)
Station, Unit 1)
- _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _x DEPOSITION OF EDWARD J.
DOHERTY l
Hauppauge, New York Thursday, February 18, 1988 ACE-FEDERAL REPORTERS, INC.
Stewtvtv Rowtm 444 Nonh Capitol Street Washington, D.C. 20001 (202) 347-3700 Nationwide Cowrage 800 336-6646
'e
)
,47891 01 09' 9
1 GJW/sw 1
O Fourteen out of those 45?
2 A
Yes.
i 3
Q In total, how many drivers does Riverhead School l
4 District employ use?
5 A
Fift
.x.
6 0
You have 45 buses and 56 drivers.
Why do you 7
have more drivers than buses?
8 A
Well, we need substitutes.
9 O
So, within that 56 are considered substitutes?
10 A
All right.
There are two or three other runs 11 here.
You asked for in-District runs.
I gave you the 12 in-District runs there.
It would still be included in that 13 total.
14 Q
Okay.
Do you know what the issue is in this 15 school bus driver proceeding?
16 A
I'm aware of some of it.
17 Q
Could you please state your understanding of what 18 those issues are?
I i
19 A
There is an evacuation plan which is the only t
20 thing that I'm -- in my realm of responsibility that I'm l
21 involved with or would be involved with.
There are 1
22 coacerns, as far as evacuating the buildings, where they l
ACE FEDERAL REPORTERS, INC-L 202 347 3700 Nationwde Coserage 800 336-6 4 6
'<7891 01 10 10 1
GJW/sw 1
would be evacuated to, how they would be evacuated.
Very 2
much a part of that are my responsibilitios, whether it be I
{
3 this type of a concern or whether it be weather or anything 4
else, would be my responsibility as a District employee not 5
only to the student but to the parents of those students and 6
the wishes of those parents in times of any kind of stress 7
or anything like that.
8 So, those would be the areas of my concern, how 9
well I could formulate a plan to carry it out.
Those 10 concerns are mine, okay.
11 Q
Do you know what the term "role conflict" or 12 "role abandonment" means?
13 A
Well, I -- yes, I think I can understand as v?ll 14 as anybody.
f 15 MR. LANPHER:
Just answer the question.
The 16 answer is yes?
17 THE WITNESS:
Yes.
18 MR. LANPHER:
Off the record, please.
i 19 (Off the record.)
f i
20 BY MR. HARLOW:
, Continuing) j
(
21 Q
Is this your first deposition, Mr. Doherty?
l 22 A
Well, ef this nature, yes.
I ACE. FEDERAL REPORTERS, INC.
202 347 3'00 Nationwide Coverage 800 336 6646
Y
- 7891 02 12 29 1
GJW/sw
'l extent you are capable, you can answer it.
2 THE WITNESS:
Okay.
Being --
3 MR. HARLOW Pardon me.
May I clarify?
4 BY MR. HARLOW (Continuing) 5 Q
Answer the question, do you think they woul'd i
6 drive in those circumstances?
7
!!R. LANPHER:
Same objection.
8 THE WITNESS:
I'm going --
9 MR. LANPHER:
Wait.
I need a clarification, 10 because your original question I believe was whether all the 11 drivers would agree to drive.
12 MR. HARLOW No.
13 BY MR. HARLOW (Continuing) 14 0
I believe my original question was, and now is, I
15 do you believe that any of your drivers would refuse to 16 drive in the event of a Shoreham emergency that required an i
17 evacuation of schools in your school district?
18 A
Some drivers might, yes.
And, there would be 19 some reasons for them to do so.
20 t
Q You say some might.
How many might?
21 A
Well --
l 22 MR. LANPHER:
Objection.
That calls for I
i ACEJFEDERAL REPORTERS, lNC.
l 2023473?00 Nationwide Coseragt 800 336-6646
j7891 02 13 30 1
GJW/sw I
speculation.
2 THE WITNESS:
I really have no idea, you know, 3
how many would be so involved.
4 BY MR. HARLOW:
(Continuing) 1 5
Q You said that there may be -- that there would be 6
reasons that some may not drive.
Could you tell me what you 7
believe those reasons are?
8 A
Well, if I can -- I don't know if I'm going to be 9
answering the question.
The setup as far as my drivers are 10 concerned, my drivers are not paid from 6:30 in the morning 11 until 5:30 in the afternoon.
They are paid for, you might 12 say, piecework, 6:30 to 9:30, 6:30 to 9, 10:30 to 1.
So, 1
13 what might be referred to in some areas as reports.
14 They get paid for certain hours that are included I
15 in those reports.
So, there might be drivers there that do 16 not -- only work the morning report and afternoon report.
17 They don't work a midday report.
They don't work a night 18 report.
19 Those drivers might take other types of
- t t
20 I employment to augment what they are getting from us.
There 21 might be some people there that have some personal concerns, 22 you know, in this type of an emergency you are speaking, i
I ACEJFEDERAL REPORTERS, INC.
[
- o: m 3 oo Nationwide coserage 500334646
r-7891 04 12 63 GJW/sw 1
-Q Returning to the situation --
t 2
A Familiarity --
3 Q
Go ahead.
4 A
-- with the area, very essential, very 5
essential.
You know, to have somebody reading a piece of 6
paper and driving down the road, you know, it's a question i
7 of safety there.
It's a big question of safety and security 8 :
also with using a strange driver.
a 9 i 0
You have been describing situations and i
j circumstances from the pas' in which you had a shortage of 10 l
11 drivers.
Can you give me more details about those 12 l circumstances?
I 13 :
For instance, what -- why were you short of 14 j drivers in those circumstances?
15 MR. LANPHER:
May I ask for a clarification.
Da 16 you just want an example?
I i
17 l BY MR. HARLOW:
(Continuing) 18 Q
Let's start with the most recent example you can 19 remember.
20 A
The most recent ex3mple would have been a week 21 ago, Monday.
Yeah, a week ago this past Monday.
It's what 22 I just described to you now.
I needed six drivers and only i
ACE FEDERAL REPORTERS, INC.
k 202 347 3*00 Nanonwide Coserage 500336646
l l
7891 04 13 64 GJW/sw 1
had fiva.
And, I'm using myself, my staff.
I had three 2
ladies in the office assisting, a mechanics helper, a 3
mechanic.
And, I didn' t want to go any deeper into the shop i
4 because it was not the best of days, and I called up a 5 i parent.
We had a one-on-one situation.
I called the parent l
1
{
6 and said:
We are not taking your kid to school until 9 7
o' clock.
I explained to her why.
She wasn't happy about 8
it, but it wasn't much else we could do.
But the kid got to 9 $
school.
i'.
10 Going back, I don't know.
It was a snowstorm, i
11 not this year, where we had an early dismissal and tried to n
l 12 [
round up drivers and a couple of my drivers just, for some 2
13 reason or another, we weren't able to get to them or they 14 couldn' t get there.
I don't really know what the l
1 15 circumstances were.
16 But, the buses were sitting in the yard with no 17 drivers.
And, my only recourse was to call the school 18 involved, explain the situation briefly, and the first 19 opportunity I got we would cover that.
i And, here again I have to resort to double, 20 j
tripling and myself getting involved in the actual 21
}
i l
22 ;, transporting myself.
i l
1 l
i ACE FEDERAL REPORTERS, INC.
l
},
20210 370 Nauonavie Coserage KO 336W46
[
1.0 3
ATTACllMENT J TIMN~SCRTI i
OF PROCEEDIN~GS UNITED STATES OF AMERICA NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSION BEFORE THE ATOMIC SAFETY AND LICENSING BOARD
-__________________x In the !!atter of:
Docket No. 50-322-OL-3 LONG ISLAND LIGHTING COMPANY (Emergency Planning)
(Shoreham Nuclear Power Station, a
Unit 1)
(School Bus Driver Issue)
- - - - - - - - - - - -x DEPOSITION OF HOWARD !!. KOENIG i
East Meadow, New York Tuesday, February 16, 1988 ACE-FEDERAL REPORTERS, INC.
Stenotype Reportm 444 North Capitol Street Washington, D.C. 20001 (202) M7-3700 Nationwide Cowrage 800-336 6646 i
f\\
i 7700 06 06 85 DAV/bc 1
whenever you need them.
2 Is that correct?
i 3
i A
That's correct.
Our buses have radios, so if N
4 h they're on the road, they can be contacted.
l l
5 i
0 But you're not sure how they would contact them d
i 6
4 if they're middle of the morning, they finish their bus II I
] routes and maybe they're out taking care of other business?
7 h
8 h
A That's correct.
4 9
li (Pause.)
d 10 O
You also in this document that I handed you i
11 earlier, which was the second supplement to Suffolk County's 4
answers to Lilco's first set of interrogatories on the same 1
12
?l j page that we were talking about, page 3, your testimony will 13 e
14 be based upon your experience and knowledge gained through i
15
' your position with the Nassau-Suffolk School Board i
16 0 Association.
l 17
.i What is it about your experience and knowledge on
{
j the Nassau-Suffolk School Board Association that would 18 fsupportyourtestimony?
l 19 l
A It would be my experience a's a participant in the j
20 i
t i
21 i deliberations of that organization on school issues on how l
i 22
! they would deal with these kinds of questions and what the ACE. FEDERAL REPORTERS, INC.
I k'
202 347 3?00 Nationwide Coserage 800 336 6646
I[I
\\
t 7700 06 06 86 DAV/bc 1
positions -- remember, we had discussed way back when, when s
i>
2 the NRC was up during the earlier time, the whole issue of 4
3 congregant care centers, et cetera.
1 i
4 So I had an opportunity to be. involved in i
- i j discussions with that group as well as the superintendant's 5
0 s
6
!l group on those issues.
il 7
Q.
So your experience and knowledge here concerning 1
8 I the position with the Nassau-Suffolk County School Board Association and the Council, the Nassau County Council of j
9 lr 10 Superintendants, would support your opinions that you have l
Iqbeengivingsofar?
11 12 A
Yes.
H 13 Q
And it's your opinion that the positions you have 14 been discussing so far would be the opinions of Nassau-l 15
[ Suffolk County School Board Association and the Council of r
16 N Superintendants.
li 17 j
Is that correct?
18 A
I can't speak for them, but that is my opinion.
I 19 0
But you would assume that that's probably the f
f i
20
' position they would take?
i I
21 A
Yes.
)
22 j
Q And that's based upon what you know of what s
l l
/\\CEJFEDERAL REPORTERS, INC.
- 0: m.3?oo Nationwide coserase soc.336-6w;
4
't I
7700 06 06 87 DAV/bc 1
position they had taken several years ago?
2 A
Yes.
' l{
O But it's not based upon any other discussions 3
hbecauseyouhaven'thadanyotherdiscussions.
Is that 4
5 correct?
I 6 j t.
Yes.
1 1
7 f
Q Has the East !!eadow School District taken'any I
8 f position about school evacuations for a Shoreham emergency?
l 9
ll A
I don't understand what you mean by ta).en any 10 position.
e 11
}
Q Whether they favor or oppose the school I
12 evacuation plans for a shoreham emergency as put forth by g
i 13 l
Lilco?
u 14 0
A We opposed it officially to the Red Cross in 4
15 terms of the use of East Meadows facilities, as the Red a
16 h Cross had envisioned it back when.
Regarding the thing FI 17 we're talking about now, the school district has not taken 18 any official position.
19 Q
On page 2 of the document I have given you, on 20 the bottom, it talks about your testimony will be based upon 21 your experience as superintendant, and then it says, instead t
22 of their, your knowledge of the positions taken by those i
l
/\\CE. FEDERAL REPORTERS, INC.
I, 202 347 3700 Nationwide Coserage 800 336 6646
k 7700 06 06 88 DAV/bc 1
districts with respect to Lilco's proposal, those diste(cts.
2 Are you talking about your district, or are you 3
talking about Longwood and Riverhead, which I believe is Dr.
4 Muto's and Saprina's.
5 MR. LANPHER:
I object to the question.
These 6 !
were words which were crafted by my partner, not by Dr.
7 Koenig.
We're. reading from a pleading of counsel.
So, to the extent the question implied that these 8
4 9
were Dr. Koenig's words, that's not accurate.
10 If you want him to comment on those words, that's I.
11 fine.
12 BY MS. LEUGERS:
13 t
Q I understand that you didn't write these.
But d
14 what I'm trying to understand, this does say what your I
15
] testimony is going to be.
And it says:
4 16 One of the phases is the knowledge and I
17 understanding of the positions taken by those districts.
I 19 I was wondering if you understand what it means 19 to say "those districts."
f 70 A
My understanding of English syntax,and writing 21 says to me that it says "their districts, their knowledge of
)
22 those districts".
l l
/LCE FEDERAL REPORTERS. INC.
ll 200 347 3?00 Nationwide Coserage 800 336 6646
t.
7700 07 07 89 DAV/bc 1
It says to me that Dr. Muto will be discussing i
2 Longwood, Dr. Koenig will be discussing East Meadow and Dr.
3 Saprina will be discussing Riverhead.
4 l
That's what this means to me.
[
5 0
Are you aware of what positions the Longwood 6 :
school district has taken?
I 7
A No.
8 0
Are you aware of the position that the Riverhead school district has taken?
9 l
i 10 A
No.
11 Q
So, at this point, you have no knowledge and h
understanding of the position taken by Longwood or Riverhead
[
12 l
l school district.
Right?
13
\\
14 j
A That's correct.
15 Q
And as far as you know, East Meadow school 1
l district has not taken any position.
ld 16 17 Is that correct?
18 A
That's correct.
19 Q
Dr. Koenig, do you approve each and every school l
20 i bus driver who drives a bus for one of your scrools?
21 A
Yes.
22 Q
How do you approve of them?
ACE. FEDERAL REPORTERS, INC.
L 20234?.)?00 Nationwide Coserage 800 336-f646
ATTACHMENT K TRAXSCRIFF OF PROCEEDINGS UNITED STATES OF A!! ERICA NUCLEAR REGULATORY COli!!ISSION BEFORE THE I
ATOMIC SAFETY AND LICENSING BOARD l
\\
_ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _x In the !!atter of:
Docket No. 50-322-OL-3 LONG ISLAND LIGHTING CO!!PANY (Emergency Planning)
(Shoreham Nuclear Power (School Bus Driver Issue)
Station, Unit 1)
- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -x i
DEPOSITION OF NICK F.
MUTO Hauppauge, New York Monday, February 29, 1988 ACE-FEDERAL REPORTERS, INC.
Stenotviv Rowtm 444 North Capitol Street Washington. D C. 20001 (202) 347 3700 Nationwide Cmtrage 800-336 6646
\\;3
'T 8970 01 08 8
l l
3JW/sw 1
A Today.
2 O
Have you reviewed any documents'in preparation 3
for --
4-4 A
No, I'have not.
5 Q
Have you received.any documents from counsel?
6 A
No, I have not.
+
7 Q
Did you review your prior testimony in-this 8
proceeding from '837 9
A No, I have not.
10 0
Okay.
Could you tell me what your understanding 11 of the issue in this proceeding'is?
i 12 A
I guess the issues that 1 perceive that we are 13 l here for is the question regarding evacuation.
And, LILCO 14 has a proposal to evacuate the children.
15 And, I'm assuming it's the feasibility of that i
16 proposal is what we are going to discuss today.
17 Q
And, what have you been asked to give an opinion 18 about for this proceeding?
19 A
None that I know of.
I'm not sure I follow your 20
' question.
21 Q
What I'm asking is, what are the opinions that 22 you have been asked to give in this proceeding that you are ACE. FEDERAL REPORTERS, INC.
000 34?-3?00 Nationwide Coserage 500 336 f46
\\h 8970 01 09 9
1 3JW/sw 1
going to be testifying about?
2 A
Oh, okay.
What I would do in my position as'the 3
Superintendent in case of an emergency.
4 O
And, I guess you mean what you would do in your 5
position:as Superintendent during a shoreham emergency;'is 6
that correct?
7 A
Correct.
8 0
Could you tell me what you would do as the 9
Superintendent -- in your position as Superintendent during 10 a Shoreham emergency?
11 MR. MILLER:
Excuse me.
Ms. Leugers, that's a 12 rather bread question.
Are you asking the witness what he 13 would do in any respect, or what he would do with respect to 14 the evacuation of school children?
15 I assume there are some limits on the bounds of 16 your question, and maybe you should define those limits.
17 MS, LEUGERS:
Well, I'm responding to Dr. Muto's 18 response to me about his opinions.
And, he said his 19 opinions would be on what he would do in his position as i
20 Superintendent of Schools during a Shoreham emergency.
21 And, I'm just trying to follow up with what he 22 means.
i I
.ACEJFEDERAL REPORTERS, INC.
L 200 347 )?00 Nationwide Coserage KG))6-6646
f.) -
8970 01 10 10 i
1 -3JW/sw 1
BY tis. LEUGERS:
(Continuing) 2 0
!!aybe you could explain to me better what you 3
mean by that.
)
4 A
Okay.
It would depend on the circumstances at 5.
.the time.
I would be the position to make the decision to 6
evacuate or not to evacuate and how extensive.
That i
7 evacuation would be up to me.
8 0
You mentioned that the issues -- you mentioned in 9
.your opinion the issues in this proceeding were the 10 feasibility of LILCO's proposal to evacuate schools.
11 Do you have an understanding of what LILCO's 12 proposal is?
8 I
13 l
A Hy understanding is that they would supply buses I
14
[
and would take children to a place such as Nassau Coliseum, i
15 l 0
Do you have any more details about the proposal l
l I,
than that?
f 16 17 A
Not much more than that.
18 0
Could you give me your opinions about the 19 l feasibility of that proposal?
i 20 A
Well, it appears that it would be an impossible 21 task.
And, I would be against authorizing children boarding 22 a bus and going to a destination that the family was not l
ACE. FEDERAL REPORTERS, INC.
I 2003473'00 Nanonwide Coserage 500136 6M6
8970 01 11 11-t 1
3JW/sw I
aware of and drivers that I was not familiar with.
[
2 O
Your first comment about the feasibility is that 3
it was an ir.possible task.
Could you tell me why you think i
4 it is an impossible task?
f 5
A I have been a Superintendent or an Associate f
6 Superintendent for nearly 20 years.
And, every emergency j
7 with which I have had to deal is. fraught with missing l
8 children, hysterical parents, lack of supervision and poor l
l 9
communica tion.
And, that's generally in a confined single 10 school district over which I have control of the
[
i 1
11 transportation system or have access to it.
l j
12 !
To give up my citildren to a third party to go to
- l l
l 13 l
a destination I don't know and their families are not aware 14 of makes it almost impossible to my way of thinking.
i 0
So, you are basing your opinion that it would be
.f 15 i
t 16 an impossible task on your experience in the previous
.{
17 emergencies that you've had --
18 A
Yes.
19 O
-- at your school?
3 I
[
J 20 A
Yes.
I 6
21 0
Could you tell me about those types of l
i 22 emergencies?
l r
i f
l l
t i
ACE. FEDERAL REPORTERS, INC l
l 200 34 h3 %
Nanonude Coserage K6336-%46
[
o i
8970 04 10 61 l
1 W/sw 1
A Yes.
And, most of them are of the opinion that 2
it would be difficult.
And, most of them -- by that, I meet i
I 3
with my administrative staff quite.often.
And, most of them 4
are of the opinion that the bus drivers, adequate bus 5
drivers, to have an organized evacuation would be most 6
difficult.
i 7
Q And, when did you have this discussion with your 8
staff?
9 A
I don't recall.
Somewhere along the line when it 10 came up, probably around '83 or during that time.
i 11 0
Do you intend upon conducting any type of survey i
l 4
j 12 with your school bus drivers or your staff about whether j
13 i they would perform their jobs during a Shoreham emergency?
i 4
14 A
I haven't planned on it.
15 0
Okay.
Do you know if anyone is planning on doing i
i 1
16 that for this litigation?
,f 17 A
I am not familiar with anyone who has.
18 Q
In being a witness in this proceeding, are you l
19 l representing the Suffolk County's position about what is j
20 wrong with LILCO's plan?
Or, is it the position of your i!'
21 school district?
22 A
I'm only here testifying as the Superintendent of ACE. FEDERAL REPORTERS, INC.
[
202 14 % 3 Nation *de Coserage 800 336 M46
. _ _ _ -..,. _ _ _..,, _ _ _ _. ____ '00..
i x,l 8970 04 11 62 1
1JW/sw 1
Longwood Schools.
2 O
Okay.
So, is it correct to say that you are 3
. representing just the opinions of the school district?
}
I 4
l A
Correct.
i 5
0 Have you ever talked with any of your school bus i
6 l drivers about driving during a Shoreham emergency?
7 A
Never.
ll 8 i O
Okay.
Could you tell me what else you plan on I
I 9
doing to prepare your opinions in this proceeding?
10 A
In order --
i-11 MR. MILLERt Wait.
I'm not sure I understand h
12 H that question.
To prepare his opinions?
9 l
13 0
BY MS. LEUGERS :
(Continuing) l d
i 14 O
All right.
What I'm getting at, I understand you l
1 15 probably haven't started writing your testimony yet.
- And, 16 what I want to know is what you are doing to help formulate l
E 17 the opinions that you will be expressing in this proceeding?
i I
t 18 i
A I've not prepared anything to date, and I'm not l
19 i sure what I would be preparing in the future.
t 20 Q
Okay.
Do you know what else you would like to do d
1 21
! to prepare for your testimony?
f 22
[
A Not really.
l f
i ACE. FEDERAL REPORTERS, INC.
L
- 0: 3c.3 co sanon.de coserage unn6 w6
g*
ATTAC!! MENT L 11MN~ SCRIPT OF PRDCEEDIN'GS UNITED STATES OF A!! ERICA NUCLEAR REGULATORY CO!CtISSION BEFORE THE ATOMIC SAFETY AND LICF.NSING SOA?D
_ _.x In the !!atter of :
Docket No. 50-322-OL-3 LONG ISLA!!D LIGliTI!!G COMPANY (Emergency Planning)
(Shoreham Nuclear Power (School Bua Driver Issue)
Station, Unit 1)
...x v
DEPOSITION OF ROBERT ti. PETRILAK Hauppauge, New York Thursday, February 18, 1988 ACE-FEDERAL REPORTERS, INC.
Stowtype Mertm 44 Nonh Captc4 Street Washington, D C. X001 (202) W 3700 Nationwhic Cowrage S00 336 6646
i
- (
'? ?
7892 01 05 5
GJW/sw 1
is a video -- audio and video retail establishment, printing 2
videos, selling records and CDs.
3 p(i We also do a special programming, a computer
44 program for businesses.
L4
\\
5 0
I have a copy of your resume.
It says you are a 6-member of the !!t. Sinai Board of Education.
I k
7 l A
That's correct.
l l
1
)
Q Is it in your capacity as a member'of the 8
9 !
lit. Sinai Board of Education that you are here as a witness?
10 i A
Yes, it's in that capacity.
l l
11 !
0 Could you describe for me generally where the 12 Mt. Sinai School District is. located in Suffolk County?
i
)
13 ;
A Okay.
We are on the north shore of Long Island, I
14 l located in the Town of Brookhaven.
Okay.
We are between il 15 h the school districts on the west of Port Jefferson and on t
- 16. l the east of' Miller Place.
17 Q
Could you tell re how many schools are in the
/
18 Mt. Sinai School District?
19 A
We have two schools, a junior high school and an 20 elementary school.
1 21 Q
Do you know how many bus p are used to transport a
3 22 the students at those two schools on a daily basis?
I 1
ACE. FEDERAL REPORTERS, INC.
1 b
m w
e
V ' N,
)
q
\\
1 I
')
7892 01 08 8
)
I GJW/sw 1
THE WITNESS:
We see,ths issue as whether or n 2
the LILCO plan,.evacdation plan, as it reJaAes to scl$ol
)
children' can be imrle.nented to pdotect tje safety of the 3
\\
4 children of the school disidict.
I belie)ve that's ene
}
i 5 l issue.
j i
6 i BY MR. HARLOW:
(Continuing) 7 l 0
What parts of this issue, as you stated it, will i
8 you be testifying about?
9 ;
4 3 I will be testifying regarding the i
to implementability of the LILCO plan as it relates to the
\\
11 school listrict and to the evacuation of the children.
h 12 0
When you say the implementability of LILCO's 13 school -- auxiliary school bus driver prop aal, what do you g
1 14 1 mean by "implementability?"
l, s
,s s
15 a'
What I mean is whether or.ot tho plan that is i
)
,a s i s
16 } il proposed by LIT.CO can actually be put int.o practico, nkay, 17 and function and operate, okay, as the plan describes.
18 0
Wil, ya De testifying acaut -- do you know what s
s.
s 19 the term "role conf;.ict" or "rale abaadunment" means?
20 A
Yes, I des Jii l 0
Could you give mre your definition of those terms?
22 A
The term I use would ba "role conflict."
Ar d,
1 i
.I l
ACE.?EDERAL REPORTERS, INC.
k
- ()? i p.1*m N g 'w;... Ao i 4,,,y p grp tit A4y
y *-
1 1
7892 02 02 19 GJW/sw 1
the LILCO auxiliary school bus driver proposal?
2 A
No, I haven't.
3 0
What documents have you reviewed to prepare 4
yourself for this deposition today?
I 5
A The -- I don't know if they have names, formal 6
names.
But, there was a packet of documents that -- one was 7
the actual LERO plan I believe it had on the top there.
I i
8 l recognized the top of it.
And, the listing of the school i
9 districts done by LILCO which showed how many children were 10 I in each school, the number of buses, the additional buses 11 that would be required; a document from LILCO on the 12 i procedures to be used by LERO drivers; and, I guess it was a 13 synopsis -- I guess is the best word -- of the most recent i
14 !
rulings in the most recent case on the adequacy of LILCO's 15 prior plan.
16 0
You say a synopsis of the most recent case.
Do i
17 you happen -- let me start over.
18 Who provided you the documents that you just 19 referred to?
20 A
They were provided by Mr. Lanpher.
21 Q
And, the synopsis you mentioned of the most 22 recent case, would that be the decision handed down recently
[
t l
l
/ ACE. FEDERAL REPORTERS, INC.
L-b WWnMa@
NrmauTLQne2me vonwa6
-7892 02 03 20 GJW/sw 1
by what I will refer to as the Frye Board on the. FEMA graded 2
exercise?
t 3
A This was from the FEMA-graded exercise, yes.
4 0
Was this the synopsis prepared by the attorneys?
5 Or, was it excerpts from the decision?
6 Or, do you know?
7 A
I would say it was excerpts from the decision 8
provided by Larry's office.
i 9 }
Q Are you familiar with the LILCO auxiliary school I
10 bus driver proposal?
11 A
Yes, I am.
12 0
Could you describe it to us in your own terms of 13 how you believe that proposal works?
Or, just describe what i
14 l you believe that proposal is.
A I believe the proposal is, as it relates to a 15 -j 16 one-wave evacuation of the schools, that LI LCO, through its 17 LERO organization, would provide additional bus drivers to 3
18 drive school buses for the school districts in the event 19 that adequate numbers of drivers did not show up to 20 transport the children.
21 Q
And, how did you come to your understanding of 22 what the auxiliary proposal -- the auxiliary school bus 23 l i
ACE. FEDERAL REPORTERS, INC.
f 202 347 3?00 Nationwide Coserage 800 336 6M6
S 7892 02.10 27 GJW/sw 1
Dr. Paciolla, for fir.al approval whether or not that person 2
is hired.
3
, The party is certified -- not given another word 4
to use -- by our school district to drive buses that are S
used within our school district.
6 Q
Does your school district ever use substitute bus 7
drivers?
8 A
I'm sure there is a roster of substitute bus l
9 drivers which have been approved just as we approve 10 substitute teachers and, after checking their 11 qualifications, substitute custodians.
12 O
Do your school bus drivers need special training 13 to deal with handicapped students?
i 14 A
Those that drive handicapped buses do, yes.
15 s Q
What --
{
A As far as I know, the regular bus drivers for the 16 i
17 standard buses which do not transport handicapped children 18 don't.
I 19 Q
Do any of your school bus drivers receive any i
20 training in how to deal with emergencies?
Let me clarify.
21 Do your drivers receive training in driving 22 during emergencies?
ACE. FEDERAL REPORTERS, INC.
202 347 3700 Nationwide Coserage 800 336-6646
4 7892 02 11 28 GJW/sw 1
MR. LANPHER:
I object to the question.
I don't 2
know what you mean by emergencies.
3 I think your question is vague.
4 BY MR. HARLOW:
(Continuing) 5 0
Do you understand my question?
l 6
A I don't fully understand your question.- Bu t, I 7
am not fully aware of the exact training all the drivers go 8
through, so I wouldn't be able to answer it anyway.
I 9
Q Do you know of any bus driver in the Mt. Sinai 10 School District who has failed to drive his or her bus 11 during an emergency?
12 A
No.
13 MR. LANPHER:
The same objection.
I don't know j
what you mean by an emergency.
14 BY MR. HARLOW:
(Continuing) 15 I
16 Q
Are you aware of a bus driver who has refused to 17 drive in an emergency?
18 A
I'm not aware of those types of situations.
I'm 19 on the Board of Education.
We handle District policy.
i 20 And, the details of wnich drivers are doing what i
21 are really left to the people on an individualized basis to 22 the Transportation Office.
1
{
ACE. FEDERAL REPORTERS, INC.
202 347 3700 Nationwide Ccserage 800 336 6646
c 7892 03 06 40 GJW/sw 1
Right now, his position would have to be -- since 2
it is the policy of the District -- not to allow those 3
children on buses with bus drivers that are not. authorized 4
by our School District.
I have to keep coming back to that, 5
because that is what his responsibility is.
6 That is what the policy of the District is, and 7
that is the position he is supposed to take.
And, that's 8 l the role he is supposed to follow.
9 f MR. HARLOW:
Let's take about five minutes and l
10 let me see how we stand after taking a look at the 11 questions.
i 12 (Whereupon, a recess is taken at 4:02 p.m.,
to i
reconvene at 4:07 p.m., this same date.)
13 14 BY MR. HARLOW:
(Continuing) 15 0
I have one last question for you, Mr. Petrilak.
16 What is your understanding of who you are representing as a i
17 witness in this proceeding?
i 18 A
I am representing the Mt. Sinal School District, 19 specifically the Mt. Sinai School Board, the Board of 20 Education, which sets the policy for the School District.
21 0
When you testify in this proceeding, is it your 22 understanding that you will be speaking as a representative I
t i
ACE. FEDERAL REPORTERS, INC.
i X$M p n NrYthre Comm K6D6-fM6
r.
3 7892 03 07 41 G7W/sw 1
of the Mt. Sinai School Board?
'2 A
Yes, that's correct.
3 tiR. HARLOW:
That is all I have.
I thank you for 4
coming in.
- =
5 THE WITNESS:
Okay.
6 (Whereupon, the taking of the deposition is concluded at 4:08 p.m.,
this same date.)
g 9
ROBERT W.
PETRILAK 10 11 12 13 14 l
15 !
l' 16 j 17 i
18 l
19 20 l
21 22 l
I ACE. FEDERAL REPORTERS, INC, l
,% 2 347 3700 Nationwide Coserage 800 336. % 46
a-ATTACHMENT M A
TRAXSCRIF1 OF PROCEEDNGS UNITED STATES OF AMERICA NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSION BEFORE THE ATOMIC SAFETY AND LICENSING BOARD
- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -x In the Matter of:
Docket No. 50-322-OL-3 LONG ISLAND LIGHTING COMPANY (Emergency Planning)
(Shoreham Nuclear Power (Scnool Bus Driver Issue)
Station, Unit 1)
- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -x DEPOSITION OF ANTHONY R.
ROSSI i
[
Hauppauge, New York l
Thursday, February 18, 1988 l
ACE-FEDERAL REPORTERS, INC.
Stenotype Reporters 444 North Capitol Street l
Washington, D.C. 20001 (202) 347-3700 Nationwide Coverage 800-336 6646 l
l l
[
l8 i
.7890 01 07 7
1
'1JN/sw 1
THE WITNESS:
Not until you ask,them I guess.
2 BY MR. HARLOW (Continuing) 3 0
Well, let me ask you this.
According to a letter I
4 from Mr. Miller from Kirkpatrick & Lockhart to our law firm, 5
a letter dated February 12th, this letter says you will be 6-testifying about "the implementability of LILCO's auxiliary 7
school bus driver proposal."
8 What does that mean to you?
9 A
That means that the -- I would be responding I 10 guess to questions concerning the possibility of LILCO's 11 evacuation of students and -- or just transportation'in 12 general.
13 Q
Do you know what the term "role conflict" or 14 I "role abandonment" means?
I 15 A
To some degree.
I'm no professional in the area, I
16 but we understand roles.
j 1
17 0
Generally, could you give me your own definition 18 or your own impression of what those terms mean?
19 A
Well, for example, I have two roles that I can l
20 think of right off the top, and one is as a parent and one l
21 is as Transportation Supervisor.
I 22 O
And, when one speaks in terms of role conflict --
l l
/\\CEJFEDERAL REPORTERS, INC.
h 202 347 3*00 Nationwide Coserage MO 336-6646 t
l
.O.
7890 01 08 8
1 1JW/sw 1
when one speaks of being in conflict in one's roles or.
2 abandoning one's roles in an emergency, what does that mean?
j t
3 Do you have any opinions on that?
t l
4 A
I think you are asking me if I would -
you are 5
putting me in a position to' choose which role I would play p
6 as opposed to another in the event of an emergency, where my 7
job may conflict with my role as a parent.
And, I would be 8
forced to make that decision.
9 0
Do you anticipate that you will be testifying on 10 the issue of role conflict or role abandonment in this f
i I
11 proceeding?
f 12 A
Not as a professional but, as I said, as a parent 13 and employee, j
14 O
Have you been asked in any way to give any 15 testimony or your opinions on role conflict in the i
~
16 proceeding?
l 1
l 17 A
As it relates to the evacuation and what
)
I 18 linformationImayhavefrommydrivers,whichI'vedonein l
19 j the past -- I have done -- yes, I can respond to that.
j 20 0
Apart from your past experience which you alluded 21 to, have you done any preparation in anticipation of giving 22 testimony on that issue up to this point or in preparation ACE. FEDERAL REPORTERS, INC.
};
202 347 3700 Nationwide Coserage 800336646
<?
3.
7890 01 09 9
1 GJW/sw 1
for this deposition?
2 A
Nothing very current.
3 0
You say nothing very current.
Have you ever done I
preparation for -- have you ever done that sort of study or 5
that sort of preparation on the issue of role conflict?
l I
6 A
I prepared back the last time I gave testimony a l
7 survey for bus drivers, both District and contract drivers, 8
which asked questions concerning role conflict which were 9
taken from the original information, the original LILCO plan i
10 I believe, asking whether the drivers would respond and come 11 in and drive buses or would they go home and take care of i
12 their children first, or what would their priorities be in 13 the event of a Shoreham disaster.
14 0
Well, apart from that, that survey or that study, 15 you haven't done anything similar to that since that time, i
l 16 since you originally testified in this proceeding?
I l
l 17 A
No, not that I can think of.
l 18 0
How long ago were you contacted to be a witness l
I 19 in this proceeding?
Not the one before, but this current, 20 the remand, proceeding?
21 A
About two weeks ago.
22 0
When did you actually agree to be a witness?
ace. FEDERAL REPORTERS, INC.
202 347 3700 Nanonwide Coserage 800336646
l a
7890 06 08 93 GJW/sw 1
A No.
2 0
llave you ever contacted a bus driver for early 3
dismissal purposes and have them not show up?
4 A
Yes.
5 0
Could you tell me about that occurrence or i{ occurrences?
6 i
'l 7
A We have had occasionally drivers that become very i
8 nervous with the weather conditions, that become too i
nervous, be it migraines, headaches or just tension, 9 l l whatever, and opt to leave-defore completing their duties or 10 I
11 i not even beginning their duties.
I l
12 j 0
Are they the only occurrences like that that you l
13 can recall?
14 A
At the moment, yes.
15 0
Do you plan to give any testimony in this i
16 proceeding, this current remand proceeding, about whether or not the LILCO school bus driver proposal is legal or 17 18 illegal?
19 A
No.
I don't,think I'm qualified as to the 20 legality of it.
21 MR. HARLOW:
Could we take about a five minute 22 break?
I want to go through my questions and see if there I
ACE. FEDERAL REPORTERS, INC.
l 202 347 3700 Nationwide Coserage
!K4336 6646
t ATTACHMENT N 1RAXSCRIPT OF PROCEEDINGS UNITED STATES OF A!! ERICA NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSION BEFORE THE ATOMIC SAFETY AND LICENSING 30ARD
_ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _x In the !!atter of :
Docket No. 50-322-OL-3 LO"G ISLAND LIGHTING COMPANY (Emergency Planning)
(shoreham Nuclear Power (School Bus Driver Issue)
Station, Unit 1)
- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -x DEPOSITION OF J.
THOMAS SMITH Hauppauge, New York Thursday, February 25, 1988 ACE-FEDERAL REPORTERS, INC.
Stenotype P4crters 444 North Capitol Street Washington. D.C. M1 (202) 347 3700 Nationwide Cowrage 800 336 6646
i 8591 01 11 11 1
GW/sw 1
but I will see if I can clear it up.
2 The things that you just talked about, how to 3
drive a bus, child psychology, first aid, how to drive in 4.
inclimate weather, and child cc._ trol, is that the 23 hours2.662037e-4 days <br />0.00639 hours <br />3.80291e-5 weeks <br />8.7515e-6 months <br /> 5
that you provide in addition to the 20 hours2.314815e-4 days <br />0.00556 hours <br />3.306878e-5 weeks <br />7.61e-6 months <br /> that are 6
required by the State?
7 A
Yes.
In our district we mandate that you have 48 8
hours of training.
9 0
Okay.
What is your understanding of the issues 10 in this proceeding?
11 l A
What are my understandings?
- ty understanding is I
12 that LILCO, if they had an accident of some type, would i
13 request an e argency evacuation, or an early take home f rom 14
, our area, or the EP2 zone, and to relocation centers or as 15 quickly as possible to their homes or shelter their 16 students, not necessarily in that order.
17 Q
Is it correct that you are going to be giving 18 your opinions on the implementability of LILCO's proposal to 19 use LERO auxiliary bus drivers to implement this procedure?
20 A
Say that again, please.
l 21 O
Okay.
Is it your understanding that you are j
being asked to give your opinion about the implementability 22 ACE. FEDERAL REPORTERS, INC, wn.rm
~ =
-~~<un
e 8591 01 12 12 1
GW/sw 1
of LILCO's auxiliary bus driver proposal?
2 !
A Yes.
f Q
Can you tell me what your opinion is?
3 4
A My opinion'is, based on all input that I have i
5 received, the Plan is not good.
The drivers are not 6
trained, and the Plan cannot work.
7 Q
What is this input that you are basing your i
8 opinion upon?
I 9
A Number one, my experience was dealing with 10 transporting children; and number two, some of th6 detailed l
11 documents that I have seen, which are the Plan itself that 12 l LILCO has given.
And the logistics involved.
The I
13 logistics, the people involved.
I 14 The time schedule that never seems to I
15 materialize, those kind of things are what formulate my 16 opinion.
17 Q
Now, your opinion is that LILCO's proposal is not 18 good.
What about LILCO's proposal is not good?
19 A
Wha t about the proposal?
20 j
Q Yes.
i 21 A
Why isn't it good?
l 22 i Q
Right.
)
l l
ACE. FEDERAL REPORTERS INC.
I
- 02 W roo Manon-de cmerane 900 P6.uas
0 ATTACHMENT O 2
s 11
~ SCRIPT
~
OF PROCEEDE ~GS UNITED STATES OF AMERICA NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSION Before the Atomic Safety and Licensing Board
_ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _x In the Matter of:
LONG ISLAND LIGHTING COMPANY Docket No. 50-322-)L-3 (Shoreham Nuclear Power Station, (Emergency Planning)
Unit 1)
(School Bus Driver Issue)
__ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _x DEPOSITION OF RICHARD N.
SUPRINA l
l l
l I
l l
Hauppauge, New York l
l Thursday, February 25, 1988 ACE-FEDERAL REPORTERS, INC.
l Stenotype Ravrters 444 North Capitol Street I
Washington, D.C. 20001 (202) 347-3700 l
Nationwide Coverage 800 336 6646 l
i'
')
l' 1 :
8590 03 03 37 GJW/sw 1
an extremely high student or child to adult ratio.
And, I i
2 don't see any evidence that that-has been planned or can be l'
3 guaranteed.
I 4
Q Dr. Suprina, thank you for going through that.
i I
5 Are those the concerns that you have identified by going l through this document -- does that complete your concerns?
6 i
1 l
A Those are what come to mind as I read it.
Lots i
8 of times when I have documents, legal or medical or things 9
like that, I would go back and put it down and reread it 10 again another day and maybe come up with some other things.
11 But, right now on a cursory review of it, those 12 are the kinds of things that I would be concerned about.
13 i
MR. H ARLOW:
I think this is a good time to take i
14 a break.
Let's take about 10 minutes.
15 (Whereupon, a recess is taken at 9:4 0 a.m., to j
reconvene at 9:53 a.m.,
this same date.)
16 I
17 l
BY MR. HARLOW:
(Continuing) 18 0
Dr. Suprina, before the break you went down a 19 document and listed your concerns and explained them to us.
l 20 Could you tell me generally what is the basis for your --
21 for the concerns that you listed about the LILCO plan?
22 A
I think -- as I tried to allude there, I just ACE. FEDERAL REPORTERS. INC.
l 202 347 3700 Nationwide Coverage 800 336-6646
G 38 8590 03 04 GJW/sw 1
think from reading it and trying to analyze it based on my 2
own experience, I think it is impractical.
I don't think it t
3 has a reasonable opportunity to succeed.
4 I
And, I highlighted all the reasons from the lack 5
of preparation that I believe the drivers would have, not 6
only the vehicles, getting them and getting to the locations 7
and getting to the schools and finding where the schools are t
8 and being able to supervise the people.
l 9
I mean, it's basically cut and driod.
We are not 10
-- the district is not prepared to give LILCO or LILCO 11 representatives license to transport our children in our 12 vehicles.
We just don't think that that is a proper thing 13 to do for the safety of the children.
I 14 I
And, you know, I think I went through a litany of 15 things there that would explain why we don't think it's 16 appropriate and that it's not a workable plan.
17 0
You are not an expert in emergency planning, are 18 you?
19 A
No, sir.
20 0
You have never studied emergency planning, have 21 you?
22 A
No, sir.
ACE. FEDERAL REPORTERS, INC.
l 202 347 3700 Nationwde Coserage 800-336 6646
Q:
8590 04 04 55 GW/sw
'I safety delivered home.
If you are going to ask me has that 2
'always occurred, I am going to tell you no, and I am going 3
to say to you that I take umbrage with that, and I let the 4
people know.
5 So, if you are going to say is that a role 6
conflict, in my mind it is, and maybe in their mind it is 7
not, but I made it clear that in my mind it is.
8 Because I think that parents have a right to know I
9 that their children are protected all the time, and we are i
10 on site until they are safety delivered home.
11 l
0 I take it, thea, you know of specific examples in i
12 which some employees of your school district have, in fact, 13 not stayed and done their jobs in those circumstances of an 14 early dismissal?
i O"
15 A
I know that that has occurred.
I could not 16 j
identify specific people for you, but I know that over my i
17 career I have seen that happen.
18 0
Do you know for any case, and again, it is 19 difficult, do you know the reasons why those persons left 20 ot f ailed to perform their jobs?
21 A
I think it could range from a number of different 22 things.
They were concerned about their own safety.
They ACE. FEDERAL REPORTERS, INC.
h
- 023c.)?oo Nation.We coserage 800 33w.ui
N 8590 04 05 56 GW/sw 1
wanted to get a head start without basically snow.
They 2
were concerned about their child's safety, so they wanted to 3
go and pick he or she up from the baby sitter or from the 4
nursery school.
5 There are probably some other reasons, but I l
can't think of them off hand.
6 Q
Just so I am clear, you didn't talk to these 7
j 8
people after the fact and ask them why they left, did you?
9 i
A I specifically, in the role I am in now, did not i
l do that.
But I asked the building principals to do that.
10 11 Q
And did they report back to you.
12 A
I expect that they would follow up on that sort 13 of thing.
14 0
So, in short, you have no direct personal 15 knowledge of why those persons lef t early or f ailed to do 16 their jobs?
17 A
Well, only that the building principals would 18 have told me why certain things happened, and if I asked 19 questions of why the building wasn't covered, or why the 20 telephone wasn't there, or why this child was left in 21 school, or returned to school not to find thra teacher 22 there, and the building principle might have at the time l
\\
l ACE. FEDERAL REPORTERS, INC.
I 202 347 3?00 Nationwide Coserage 600 3364 46
l' d
i 8590 04 08 59 GW/sw 1
face?
2 A
He called me.
3 0
And what was the substance of that conversation?
4 A
Just asked if I was -- if any of the building 5
were in the 10-mile radius, and I said yes, and he said, 6
"Have you seen the new plan? "
I said yes.
He said, "What 7
was your reaction?"
And I said, "Unworkable."
He said he 8
had some contact with the firm, and would I be willing to i
9 i
testify, if you will, i
i 10 0
Doctor Konig asked you if --
11 A
Asked me if I had been in contact with the firm 12 at all, and I said, no.
He said, "Would you be willing to 13 talk with them?"
I said, "Yes."
14 0
Who are you representing as a witness in this 15 proceeding, or what is your understanding of who you are l
16 representing?
17 A
I believe I am representing the Board of 18 Education and the best interest of the parents and children 19 in the Riverhead Central School District.
1 20 MR. HARLOW:
Let me take about five minutes to 21 look over my notes, and I think we can get you out of here 22 by 11:00.
l ace. FEDERAL REPORTERS, INC.
l 202 347 3700 Nationwide Coserage 800 336-6M6
3 V.
LILCO, March 11,1988 w
00CKETED USNRC m ma 14 N0'47 CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE OFFICE OF Sh.ftt 1AP 00CKEllNG A SEPvlCL 0
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 Motion to Compel Answers to Certain In-terrogatories and Requests for Production of Documents 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. Kline **
George E. Johnson, Esq. **
Atomic Safety and t.icensing 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 20652 Bethesda, MD 20814 Herbert H. Brown, Esq. **
Mr. Frederick J. Shon **
Lawrence Coe Lanpher, Esq.
Atomic Safety and Licensing Karla J. Letsche, Esq.
I Board Kirkpatrick & Lockhart U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission South Lobby - 9th Floor l
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. **
l 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 Alf red L. Nardelli, Esq.
Atomic Safety and Licensing Assistant Attorney General Appeal Board Panel 120 Broadway U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission Room 3-118 Washington, D.C. 20555 New York, New York 10271
i
- Spence W. Perry, Esq. **
William R. Cumming, Esq.
Ms. Nora Bredes Federal Emergency Management Executive Coordinator Agency Shoreham Opponents' Coalition 500 C Street, S.W., Room 840 195 East Main Street Washington, D.C. 20472 Smithtown, New York 11787 Mr. Jay Dunkleberger Evan A. Davis, Esq.
New York State Energy Office Counsel to the Governor Agency Building 2 Executive Chamber Empire State Plaza State Capitol Albany, New York 12223 Albany, New York 12224 Stephen B. Latham, Esq. **
E. Thomas Boyle, Esq.
Twomey, Latham & Shea Suffolk County Attorney 33 West Second Street Building 158 North County Complex P.O. Box 298 Veterans Memorial Highway Riverhead, New York 11901 Hauppauge, New York 11788 Mr. Philip McIntire Dr. Monroe Schneider Federal Emergency Management North Shore Committee Agency P.O. Box 231 26 Federal Plaza Wading River, NY 11792 New York, New York 10278 Jonathan D. Feinberg, Esq.
New York State Department of Public Service, Staff Counsel Three Rockefeller Plaza Albany, New York 12223 b
V Hunton & Williams 707 East Main Street P.O. Box 1535 Richmond, Virginia 23212 DATED: March 11,1988