ML20154B641
| ML20154B641 | |
| Person / Time | |
|---|---|
| Site: | Shoreham File:Long Island Lighting Company icon.png |
| Issue date: | 05/02/1988 |
| From: | Christman J HUNTON & WILLIAMS, LONG ISLAND LIGHTING CO. |
| To: | Atomic Safety and Licensing Board Panel |
| Shared Package | |
| ML20154B645 | List: |
| References | |
| CON-#288-6240 OL-3, NUDOCS 8805170262 | |
| Download: ML20154B641 (441) | |
Text
4 7,h8 LILCO, May 2,1988 DOCKETED UsHnc UNITED STATES OF AMERICA NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSION
'88 MY -5 P4 :21 Before the Atomic Safety and Licensing Board OC ER fi I N;,-
.. [ fib ['
In the Matter of )
)
LONG ISLAND LIGHTING COMPANY ) Docket No. 50-322-OL-3
) (Emergency Planning)
(Shoreham Nuclear Power Station, ) (Realism /Best Efforts)
! Unit 1) )
SUPPLEMENT TO LILCO'S RESPONSE TO GOVERNMENTS' APRIL 13 OBJECTION AND MOTION IN THE ALTERNATIVE TO COMPEL DISCOVERY Hunton & Williams Donald P. Irwin 707 East Main Street James N. Christman P. O. Box 1535 K. Dennis Sisk Richmond, Virginia 23212 Counsel to Long Island Lighting Company (804) 788-8200 880517o262 08o502 PDR ADOCK 05000322 G PDR
LILCO, May 2,1988 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, ) (Realism /Best Efforts) .
Unit 1) )
SUPPLEMENT TO LILCO'S RESPONSE TO GOVERNMENTS' APRIL 13 OBJECTION AND
}iOflON IN THE ALTERNATIVE TO COMPEL DISCOVERY Hunton & Williams Donald P. Irwin 707 East Main Street James N. Christman P. O. Box 1535 K. Dennis Sisk Richmond, Virginia 23212 Counsel to Long Island Lighting Company (804) 788-8200
LILCO, May 2,1988 UNITED STATES OF AMERICA NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSION Before the Atomic Safety and Licensinst Board In the Matter of )
)
LONG ISLAND LIGHTING COMPANY ' ) Docket No. 50-322-OL-3
) (Emergency Planning)
(Shoreham Nuclear Power Station, ) (Realism /Best Efforts)
Unit 1) )
SUPPLEMENT TO LILCO'S RESPONSE TO GOVERNMENTS' APRIL 13 OBJECTION AND MOTION IN THE ALTERNATIVE TO COMPEL DISCOVERY INTRODUCTION On April 22, 1988, Long Island Lighting Company ("LILCO") filed "LILCO's Re-sponse to Governments' Objection to Portions of February 29 and April 8 Orders in the Realism Remand and Offer of Proof"("Response to April 13 Objection"). The Resoonse to April 13 Objection requested that the Board dismiss Intervenors' realism contentions for failure to carry their burden of proof and present a positive case. At that time, LILCO had neither Intervenors' written discovery responses nor, with one exception,II any of the deposition testimony on realism issues. Since then, written Interrogatory an-swers and depositions taken since April 22 confirm definitively what then appeared to be the case based on Intervenors' April 13 Objection; Intervenors simply do not intend to offer any substantial case on their response to a radiological emergency at 1/ Suffolk County Executive Patrick G. Halpin's deposition was taken on April 19, 1988, prior to the Response to April 13 Objection.
Shoreham. Thus they have forgone, to all appearances deliberately, the opportunity to rebut the presumption in the Commission's realism rule that ncn participating govern-ments'"best efforts" to mspond to a radiological emergency will generally follow an ap-proved utility plan. This evidence is so overwhelming as to impell LILCO to supple-ment its initial Response.2/ Specifically, LILCO reiterates its request that the Board dismiss the Intervenors' contentions on the basis of the record and Intervenors' stated intentions. In the alternative, LILCO moves for a further order compelling discovery.3/
At issue is the nature of the State's and County's "best efforts" response in the event of a radiological emergency at Shoreham. The Board has twice made clear that:
[ A ) lack of legal authority cannot be raised under the regu-lation as a response against LILCO's Plan, nor can simple protestations that the State and County will not use LILCO's Plan. Acceptable rebuttals to the Plan must include positive statements of the projected behavior of the Governments.
A determination to respond a_d hoc would be acceptable only if accompanied by specification of the resources available for such a response, and the actions such a response could entall including the time iactors involved.
Confirmatory Memorandum and Order (Ruling on LILCO's Motions for Summary Dispo-sition of Contentions 1, 2, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8 and 10, and Board Guidance on Issues for Litiga-tion) at 4 (Feb. 29,1988) ("February 29 Confirmatory Memorandum and Order"). Again on April 8, the Board stated:
2/ LILCO has foreshadowed, in its Response to April 13 Objection, the likelihood that discovery would require supplementation of that paper.
3/ This supplement is being filed the first business day af ter the close of the discov-ery period ordered by the Board. Confirmatory Memorandum and Order at 2 (Apr.18, 1988). It addresses comprehensively Intervenors' complete iallure to be forthcoming in discovery as to the nature of Intervenors' "best efforts" response. If the Board declines to dismiss the contentions, the earliest discovery sought to be compelled is the continu-ation of Mr. Halpin's deposition of April 19, 1988. On April 21, Suffolk County refused to make Mr. Halpin available for continuation of his deposition. See Letter to Lawrence Coe Lanpher from K. Dennis Sisk (Apr. 21,1988) (Att. 6). All of the other events reported in this supplement are more recent yet.
-3 Intervenors . . . ca no longer raise the specter of a lack of legal authority as a response nor can simple protestations that they will not use LILCO's plan suffice. The Intervenors are required to come forward with positive statements of l their plans and must specify the resources that are available for a projected responso and the time factors that are in-volved in any emergency activities proposed. Lacking the presentation of a positive case for analysis and evaluation, a 3
finding of default and an adverse ruling could result in con-nection with the contention to which such omissions applied.
Memorandum (Extension of Board's Ruling and Opinion on LILCO Summary Disposition Motions of Legal Authority (Realism) Contentions and Guidance to Parties on New Rule 10 C.F.R. S 50.47(c)(1)), LBP-88-9, 27 NRC __, slip op. at 24-25 (Apr. 8,1988) ("April 8 Memorandum"). The Intervenors have failed to heed these rulings.
In the "Governments' Objection to Portions of February 29 and April 8 Orders in the Realism Remand and Offer of Proof"(Apr. 13,1988)("April 13 Objection"), they put forth their entire case on "best efforts"in proffered testimony by two witnesses (State Disaster Preparedness Commission Chairman David Axelrod and Suffolk County Execu-tive Patrick Halpin). The testimony, af ter declaring the State and County will not use the LILCO Plan in a Shoreham emergency, then flatly refuses to cay how the State and County would respond or to identify the resources available, the actions that could be taken or the timing of such a response.
Intervenors subsequently made these two key witnesses available for deposition for only two hours each, terminated the depositions without LILCO's consent and in the midst of LILCO's questions, and obstructed the depositions with a stream of objections and commentary by Intervenors' counsel and nonresponsive answers by the witnesses.
The Intervenors also peremptorily ended the depositions of Messrs. Petrone, Roberts, Papile, Czech, and Baranski without LILCO's consent, though LILCO's counsel had not completed questioning. And the Intervenors defied the Board's Order compelling depo-sitions of two other crucial people: Dr. David E. Harris, Commissioner of the Suffolk County Department of Health Services, and William Regan, Director of the Division of
Emergency Preparedness in Suffolk County, who is responsible for County disaster plan-
. ning and the Suffolk County Disaster Preparedness Plan.
Finally, the Intervenors objected to virtually all of LILCO's written interngato-ries and provided responsive answers only to a few - 10 of 116 questions.
In all of this -Intervenors' April 13 Objection and testimony, depositions and re-sponses to interrogatories - Intervenors have completely failed to be forthcoming about the nature of their "best efforts" response, the resources available for it, the ac-tions that could be taken, and its timing. Instead, they have done precisely what the Board ruled they could not: rely on "simple protestations that they will not use LILCO's plan . . . ." April 8 Memorandum at 24.
Accordingly, for the reasons set forth in LILCO's Response to April 13 Objection and supplemented here, LILCO asks the Board to dismiss Contentions 1-2, 4-8, and 10 on the ground that Intervenors have failed, despite repeated opportunity, to produce the evidence necessary to meet their burden of proof. If the Board declines to dismiss the contentions, LILCO moves the Board to compel the Intervenors to (1) answer LILCO's Interrogatories and (2) make Messrs. Axelrod, Halpin, Petrone, Roberts, Papile, Czech, Baranski, Harris and Regan available for depositions to be continued from day-to-day until they are completed.
STATEMENT OF FACTS I. A_pril 13 Objection Intervenors' April 13 Objection had two stated objectives: "(1) to state the Gov-ernments' obje.ction to the portions of the Board's Order of February 29,1988 and April 8,1988 whleh appear to preemptively bar the Governments from filing full and truthful testimony in the CLI-86-13 remand proceeding on the Governments' Legal Authority Contentions; and (2) to submit the Governments' offer of proof, pursuant to 10 C.F.R.
I
J S 2.743(e), consisting of the testimony they would file if they are not precluded from doing so by the Board's Orders." April 13 Objection at 1-2. The April 13 Objection made clear Intervenots' rejection of any interpretation of the realism rule that requires them to present positive evidence about the nature of their emergency response in order to rebut the presumption that they will follow the LILCO plan. The direct testi-mony that accompanies the April 13 Objection reaffirmed Intervenors' position that they now have no plan for responding to a Shoreham emergency, that they will not de-velop a plan, and that they will not "speculate" about what resources might be available or response might be forthcoming in a Shoreham emergency.
LILCO's Resporue to April 13 Objection urged this Board to dismiss Contentions 1-2, 4-8, and 10 because the Intervenors have not and will not "present a positive case for (the Board's] analysis and evaluation." Response to April 13 Objection at 2. In di-rect defiance of Board rulings, Intervenors have failed to mW their burden of proof; they have refused to provide the evidence necessary to support their contentions.
II. Discovery Over the past few weeks, LILCO has posed written discovery requests seeking information relevant to the realism /best efforts proceeding, has deposed (or attempted to depose) Intervenors' proffered witnesses and other persons believed by LILCO to be knowledgeable, and has sought to depose other persons with knowledge of the issues raised by this proceeding. LILCO's legitimate discovery inquiries have met a stone wall. At every turn, the Intervenors have disregarded this Board's Orders that they must come forward with positive evidence of "the projected behavior of the Govern-ments,"including specification of resources and times for response. Attachments 7 and 8 are the complete deposition transcripts of Mr. Halpin and Dr. Axelrod. Reading them straight through provides insight that nothing else can into how Intervenors have
frustrated discovery, as a means of asserting facts about their potential response to an emergency at Shoreham.
A. Written Discovery Reauests On March 24, 1988, LILCO filed "LILCO's Second Set of Interrogatories and Re-quests for Production of Documents Regarding Contentions 1-2, 4-8, and 10 to Suffolk County, New York State, and the Town of Southampton." There were 116 inquiries (numbered 8-123).O On April 20, Intervenors objected formally to 62 of these inqui-ries.EI On April 22 they served generally nonresponsive answers and further objec-tionsE# ot the remainder, on April 22.II A tabular summary of Intervenors' responses to these Interrogatories is Attachment 14, hereto.
4/ Intervenars initially sought and were granted an extension of time to respond to LILCO's interrogatories. Board Conference Call (Apr. 11, 1988). Intervenors argued, in part, that the extension was needed because the "[rlequests are lengthy and complex, and would require the Governments to expend substantial time and effort in re-sponding." See Governments' Motion for Extension of Time to Respond to Realism Dis-covery Requests, and to Extend Discovery Schedule at 6 (Apr. 6,1988). The detailed answers implied by Intervenors' request were not forthcoming. Intervenors' responses consisted of objections, without answers, to 96 of the 116 requests; only 10 requests were answered without objection.
!/ See Governments' Objections to LILCO's Second Set of Interrogatories Regarding Contentions 1-2, 4-8, and 10 (Apr. 20,1988) (Att.1) ("April 20 Objections").
g/ See Governments' Answers and Additional Objections to LILCO's Second Set of Interrogatories Regarding Contentions 1-2, 4-8, and 10 (Apr. 22,1988) (Att. 2) ("April 22 Answers and Objections"). These further objections were untimely. Pursuant to the Board's oral ruling in the April 11 conference call, all objections were to be filed by April 20.
2/ Neither the April 20 Objections nor the April 22 Answers and Objections ad-dressed Interrogatory 86, which says:
State all the "general assumptions" referred to at page 5 of the REPG Affidavit that LILCO makes "about the New York State Plan and emergency planning which are unwarranted."
For each assumption, state why it is unwarranted.
LILCO has never had any response whatsoever to this basic request.
Intervenors' April 20 Objections consist of six general objections that are cross-referenced, by number, in response to the interrogatories. General Objection 6, which claims that the interrogatories are overly burdensome, is never referenced.
General Objection 1 states:
The Governments object to LILCO's Interrogatories to the extent that they seek information about emergency planning for nuclear power plants other than Shoreham, the actions of governments other than the Governments, emergency plans other than tha LILCO Plan, and emergencies other than a radiological emergency at Shoreham. The requested information is not relevant to the issue before the Board, which concerns only the nature of a "best efforts" response by the Governments to a Shoreham emergency. See Con-firmatory Memorandum and Order (Ruling on LILCO's Mo-tions for Summary Disposition of Contentions 1,2,4,5,6,7, 8, and 10, and Board Guidance on Issues for Litigation) (Feb.
29,1988) at 2-3.
In addition, LILCO's Interrogatories which seek such infor-mation are not within the scope of relevant inquiry estab-lished by the NRC's new emergency planning rule. As the NRC stated in adopting the new rule:
The final rule makes clear that every emergen-cy plan is to be evaluated for adequacy on its own merits, without reference to the specific dose reductions which might be accomplished under the plan or to the capabihties of any other plan.
52 Fed. Reg. 42084 (November 3,1987) (emphasis added]
LILCO's Interrogatories are in direct contravention of this NRC directive. Accordingly, LILCO's attempts to obtain in-formation about other plants, other governments, other plans and other emergencies are irrelevant and not rea-sonably calculated to lead to the discovery of admissible evi-dence. _S_ee_10 CFR S 2,740(b)(1).
April 20 Objections at 2-3 (Att.1).
The information requested by LILCO, however, has obvious relevance to the re-sponse capabilities, plans and resources available to the State and County for an emer-gency response at Shoreham, the actions that could be taken and the timing involved, as directed by the Board.
l l
.s General Objection 2 states that Suffolk County does not possess or control infor-mation about the State and other counties within the State. General Objection 4 simi-larly states that New York State does not possess or control information about Suffolk County and other counties within the State.
General Objections 3 and 5 refuse to provide information or documents about how count.les, other than Suffolk, would respond in the event of a radiological emergen-cy because, according to Intervenors, it would require their "speculation" and the pro-duction of documents not in their possession, custody, or control.
General Objection 1 - that other plans and other emergencies are irrelevant -
is referenced in response to 61 of LILCO's 116 inquiries, and no answer is give '. See Chart (Att.14). On that and other bases, LILCO obtained no answers to any ( Its in-quiries concerning plans and procedures that New York State and counties in the State now use for ingestion pathway and recovery and reentry responses for other existing nuclear plants (Interrogatories 50-54). Nor did LILCO obtain any answers to inquiries concerning (1) whether New York State or counties in the State will participate in the Yankee Rowe exercise (which took place on April 27, shortly af ter Intervenors' April 20 Objections were filed) and the nature of that participation (Interrogatories 55-60), and (2) whether New York State and counties in the State within Shoreham's 50-mile EPZ are capable of responding to a radiological emergency that require 3 ingestion pathway and recovery and reentry activities for other plants and, if so, what resources can be used (Interrogatories 61-63).
General Objection 1 was also used to avoid responses to Interrogatories 117 and 118, which asked as follows:
[117) Identify and describe any and all portions of Suffolk County that are within the plume exposure EPZ of the Mill-stone Nuclear Power Plant in Connecticut.
- And,
9 (118) Identify e.ny and all plans and procedures that Suffolk County would use, follow, or otherwise rely upon to respond to a radiologient emergency at the Millstone plant which re-quired the implementation of protective measures, includ-ing, but not Ilmited to, evacuation of the portions of Suffolk County identified in Interrogatory 117. Provide a copy of all such documents.
April 20 Objections at 27 (Att.1). No answer was given either to Interrogatory 120:
Please provide a copy of any and all existing plans and pro-cedures for responding to emergencies, whether radiological or nonradiological, affecting Suffolk County, including, but not limited to, chemical spills, fires, hurricanes, explosions, and earthquakes. Please include any and all plans for deal-ing with accidants involving shipments of radiological mate-rials to Brookhaven National Lab, the Shoreham Nuclear Power Station, hospitals and other medical f acilities, and in-dustrial facilities.
April 20 Objections at 28 (Att.1). Intervenors refused to respond on the basis of Objec-tions 1 and 4. Significantly, Intervenors did not assert, nor could they, that Suffolk County did not have responsive informction and documents.EI Still, they refused to pro-vide the information and documents.
Objection 2, and no answer, was the response to 58 of LILCO's 116 Interrogato-ries. See chart (Att.14). Objection 2 - that information about the State and its other counties was not within the possession of Suffolk County - was, with the exception of Interrogatory 62, applied to all of the !!ucogatories just described. But Suffolk Coun-ty's fellow Intervenor, New York State, has this information, as its witness Dr. Axelrod admitted. Axelrod Deposition at 76 77.
g/ Suffolk County's only proffered witness and his assistant admitted that such plans exist. Suffolk County Executive Halpin was familiar with Suffolk County's plans for hurricanes. Deposition Transcript of Patrick G. Halpin at 10 (Apr.19,1988) (Att.
7). Frank Petrone, Halpin's assistant, stated in his deposition that Suffolk County does have a generic plan for responding to emergencies. Deposition Transcript of Frank P.
Petrone at 24-26 (Apr. 25, if,88)(Att. 9).
j
For many interrogatories, neither Objection 4 nor 5 was cited. See April 22 An-swers and Objection = at Interrogatories 51, 53-56, 58, 63, 64, 70-72, 74, 78-82, 87, 88, 93-96, 90,102-105,108,112,113,115-117, and 122 (Att. 2) and Chart (Att.14). The ab-sence of these two objections (which, when read together, indicate that New York State has no responsive material) means that that State does indeed have responsive in-formation to these 35 interrogatories. The State simply won't provide it even though the State has already selectively relled on it. For example, although the State used the REPG affidavit to defeat LILCO's summary disposition motions, the State refused to provide information in response to Interrogatory 105, which sought clarification of var-ious statements in the REPG Affidavit:
[105) In denying LILCO Material Fact No. 2 REPG states "the State and local government personnel who will be re-sponsible for carrying out particular recovery and reentry and ingestion pathway functions are not primarily identified in the Plan." REPG Affidavit at 17. Identify these "unidentified" State and local government personnel who will be responsible for recovery and reentry activities for each county in New York State located within a 50-mile EPZ of a nuclear power plant.
April 20 Objections at 25 (Att.1). In short, the State has not only failed to proffer the sponsors of the REPG affidavit as witnesses, or its contents as evidence; it has also failed to provide meaningful responses to most of LILCO's interrogatories concerning the content of that affidavit. See, %, April 22 Answers and Objections at Interroga-tories 88-98,103-105,108,112,113,115,116 ( Att. 2).
Objections 4 and 5, and no answers, were given to inquiries about ingestion path-way and recovery and reentry response training and drills for other nuclear facilities in New York. But, as the State's Radiological Emergency Preparedness Plan shows, the State is hecvily involved with that training. The State Emergency Management Office (SEMO) and REPG are to "provide training and awareness to State and local officials."
See New York State Radiological Emergency Preparedness Plan for Commercial Power
Plants, Part II, Sec. I, Proc. K at K-7 (Att.13). A detailed chart in the Plan describes ,
the training for local personnel. W. at Part II, Sec. I, Proc. F. at Att. 6. Table 2, at 5-7 (Att.13). REPG, SEMO, and the State Department of Health are listed on that chart as either having the primary role for training or providing support resources for it. And all counties are to send REPG their training reports. W. at F-6 (Att.13). The State ob-viously has this information; REPG relied on it to defeat LILCO's motions for summary disposition on realism, but now refuses to disclose it.
Turning to Intervenors' "answers" served April 22, one finds they are largely ob-jections. They cover 53 interrogatories, only seven of which were answered without objection. See Chart (Att.14). Of the 53, 40 were objected to and "answered" general-ly as follows:
The Governments object to this Interrogatory on the ground that it calls for speculation by the Governments. Notwith-standing this objection, the Governments state that, for the reasons set forth in their April 13 Objection and Offer of Proof, they have not adopted any plan, or otherwise trained or planned for responding to a Shoreham emergency. Ac-cordingly, they are in no position to provide further respon-sive information.
_See, e_.L. April 22 Answers and Objections at 7 (Att. 2). For 30 of the interrogatories, this response was the only "answer" provided. See April 22 Answers and Objections at Interrogatories 9,13-17,19-20, 35-38, 40-42, 45-46, 48-49, 66,107,109,114,121 (A tt.
2).
Interrogatories that sought plans and procedures the State and County would use in performing the functions outlined in the realism contentions were answered with the statement that "[n]one has been identified or exists." See April 22 Answers and Objec-tions at Interrogatories 18, 27, 34, 39, 44 ( A tt. 2).
The only substantive responses given concerned (1) how many police personnel and vehicles werc available in Suffolk County from the Suffolk County Police Depart-ment (SCPD), the State of New York and the Suffolk County Sheriff (Interrogatories 32,
l 33);(2) the SCPD list for contacting tne County Executive in the event of a newsworthy or major incident (Interrogatory 12); (3) that the Governor and the Suffolk County Ex-ecutive would be responsible for deciding on protective action recommendations, as-suming command and control of an undefined emergency response, and managing, im-plementing and coordinating that response (Interrogatories 21-23); (4) that road impediments are removed by private contractors licensed by Suf folk County's towns (In-terrogatory 43 j); (5) that Shoreham's RECS lines are bare dangling wires in the State's offices (Interrogatory 11); and (6) the locations of those wires relative to the relevant State offices in Albany (Interrogatory 11).
Intervenors provided nonresponsive answers to Interrogatories 106, 110, 111, 119.
See Chart (Att.14). For example, when asked, in Interrogatory 119, who in the New York State government and who in the Suffolk County government are "most knowl-edgeable" about how the State and County would respond to a Shoreham emergency with respect to the functions at issue in Contentions 1,2, 4-8, and 10, Intervenors re-sponded:
With respect to the Stc of New York, Commissioner David Axelrod has been idantified to testify regarding the State's response. Suffolk County ExecuWm P-trick Halpin has been designated to testify regarding the i. y's response.
April 22 Answers and Objections at Interrogatory 149 'att. 2).
Finally, whenever "answers" were provided, the y were not "under oath or affir-mation" or "signed by the person making them" as required by the NRC's Rules of Prac-tice.10 C.F.R. S 2.740(b).EI 2/ During the deposition of SCPD Assistant Chief Inspector Roberts, on April 26, counsel for Suffolk County wanted to stipulate that the answers pertaining to the SCPD were provided through Inspector Roberts, but Inspector Roberts denied ever having seen Intervenors' April 22 Answers and Objections.
Q. (Ms. Stone] Chief Roberts, did you participate in the gov-(footnote continued)
I
(footnote continued) ernment's answers and additional objections to LILCO's second set of interrogatories regarding contentions 1 through 2,4 through 8, and 10,if you know?
eeeee Ms. Stone: Let's mark this as Exhibit 4.
eeeee Mr. Miller: Ms. Stone, maybe this will save time, if you want to make this an exhibit, that is fine, I will stipulate that information per-talning to the Suffolk County Police Depart-ment that is included within our response, Suffolk County's response to LILCO's interrog-atories, was marshaled through Chief Roberts.
If you want to show Chief Roberts a particular interrogatory and ask him about the interroga-tory, maybe that will save time.
Q. Chief Roberts, I show you what has been marked as Exhibit 4 to this deposition and ask you if you recognize this document? And feel free to look through it.
A. Thank you.
(Pause)
I've never seen this document before.
Deposition Transcript of Richard C. Roberts at 39-41 (Apr. 26,1988). On April 26, LILCO wrote to Intervenors asking them to comply with the Rules of Practice and pro-vide a signed verification that supports the April 22 Answers and Objections. To date, there has been no response.
I
f B. Deposition of Suffolk County's Sole Witness Halpin On April 19, 1988, LILCO deposed the County's only proffered witness on the re-alism/best efforts issue, Suffolk County Executive Patrick G. Halpin. Mr. Halpin was made available for deposition for only two hours between 2:00 PM and 4:05 PM. Far more than two hours is needed, however, to discover information relevant to this pro-ceeding, including what resources and personnel would be available to respond to a Shoreham emergency and the time within which those resources could be mustered, and whether other emergency plans could be employed. See April 8 Memorandum at 24-25.
From the outset, LILCO had repeatedly made clear its intention to depose Mr.
Halpin, Suffolk County's Chief Executive and only proffered witness, as long as neces-sary to gain understanding of significant details of the realism /best efforts issue. The Notice of Deposition stated that the deposition would be taken "at 1:00 PM and thereaf-ter until the taking of the deposition may be completed." See Notice of Deposition (Patrick G. Halpin) (Apr. 16,1988) (Att. 3).NI Informed on the eve of the deposition that Mr. Halpin would not be available until 2:00 PM, LILCO's attorneys reiterated their ,
belief that "the few business hours apparently allocated by the County" were not suffi-cient and that LILCO intended to pursue the deposition, if necessary, into the evening hours and from day-to-day until it was completed. See Letter to Lawrence Coe Lanpher from K. Dennis Sisk (Apr. 18,1988) (Att. 5); see also Letter to Lawrence Coe Lanpher from K. Dennis Sisk (Apr. 21,1988) (Att. 6).
M/ Mr. Halpin was made available beginning in the af ternoon, rather than the morn-ing, at the County's insistence. In pre-deposition telephone scheduling negotiations, LILCO made clear its concerns that a deposition beginning in the af ternoon might not be able to be completed the same day.
The deposition began at 2:00 PM, the time dictated by Suffolk County but not consented to by LILCO. See Deposition Transcript of Patrick G. Halpin at 5 (Apr.19, 1988) (Att. 7). At 4:05,PM, Suffolk County's attorney stopped LILCO's questioning.
LILCO's attorney stated on the record that LILCO had not completed its questioning on Mr. Halpin's proposed testimony, the affidavit filed with his testimony, various attach-ments to it and other relevant areas of inquiry, and that no other party (including coun-sel for the NRC Staff) had had an opportunity to question the witness. Halpin Depost-tion at 84-85 (Att. 7). LILCO's attorney further stated that LILCO would not agree to conclude the deposition but would agree to continue the deposition at a later date to be agreed upon by counsel. See Halpin Deposition at 84 (Att. 7). In response, Suffolk County's attorney posed a redirect question to the witness that opened a new area of questioning (delegation of police power to LILCO personnel), upon which LILCO had in-tended to question had time permitted, and then made the witness unavailable. !_d at
- 85. LILCO's request on April 21 to continue Mr. Halpin's deposition was flatly rejected by the County. See April 21 Letter (Att. 6).
Suffolk County further abbreviated LILCO's discovery by objecting to or seeking clarification of virtually every third question asked of Mr. Halpin. Objections appear on 54 pages of this 86-page transcript. County lawyers interjected commentary or sought "clarification" on an additional five pages. Not only did these interruptions ob-struct the development of various lines of questioning, but they also effectively pre-vented discovery of information recognized by the Board as relevant to the proceeding.
Almost without exception, Mr. Halpin parroted his counsel's objections in his answers.
The following excerpts are indicative:
Q. As County Executive, can you direct the Suffolk County Police Department to respond to an emergency at the Shoreham Nuclear Power Plant?
A. The -
Mr. Lanpher: I object. I don't know what - I think the ques-tion is vague.
I don't know what you mean by "respond to an emergency." What kind of directions are you assuming in that question?
eeeee It's extremely vague. I don't know what you have in mind, but the witness can't know what you have in mind when you say "respond".
The Witness: I'm not sure how the Police Department or how I would direct the Police Department to re-spond to an emergency at the Slicercham Nucle-ar Power Station given the vagueness of the question.
Halpin Deposition at 26-27 (Att. 7).
Q. Okay. Mr. Halpin, in the event that the Shoreham Plant were licensed to operate at full power, would you direct anyone under your control or supervision to review the LILCO Plan?
Mr. Lanpher: I object. It calls for speculation.
The Witness: Again, it is our position that the plant should not operate and it will not operate, because an emergency plan that would work couldn't be developed.
You are asking me to speculate about, you know, whether or not we would review the LILCO emergency plan. Frankly, I am not in a position to do that at this time.
Halpin Deposition at 69-70; see also id. at 71-77 (Att. 7).
LILCO's efforts "to find out what it is that they [the Intervenor Governments) would do", April 8 Memorandum at 39 (emphasis in original), were thwarted throughout the Halpin eeposition both by counsel's objections and by Mr. Halpin's ignorance of Suffolk County's plans for non-Shoreham emergencies and refusal to "speculate" what resources might be available or response might be forthcoming in a Shoreham
emergency. Yet, Mr. Halpin stated that he was the person in the Suffolk County gov-ernment who was the most knowledgable about the intended actions of that government in the event of an emergency at the Shoreham Plant.EHalpin Deposition at 62 (Att.
7).
Whenever LILCO inquired about plans for non-Shoreham emergencies, an area consideied relevant by this Board when it denied LILCO's summary disposition motions (see April 8 Memorandum at 53-54), the County's attorneys objected on the grounds of relevance, and Mr. Halpin said he did not know about the County's emergency plans:
Mr. Sisk: Is he generally familiar with what plans the County has for responding to emergencies of various types?
Mr. Lanpher: I object to the question as irrelevant to the ex-tent it goes beyond a Shoreham emergency.
The Witness: I'm frankly not intimately familiar with all of the plans or for that matter generally familiar with the plans.
eeeee The one plan that I am generally familiar with is the plan in the event that there is an emer-gency relating to a hurricane. And, that's about it.
Halpin Deposition at 9-10 (Att. 7).
When questions focused on what the County would do or what resources would be available in a Shoreham emergency, objections continued, and Mr. Halpin's answers merely repeated Intervenors' position that they will not follow the LILCO plan or coor-dinate with LILCO, and that they refuse to "speculate" about what their response to an emergency would be or what resources would be available to support it.
11/ Intervenors' April 22 Answers and Objections also stated, in response to the in-quiry who in Suffolk County government was most knowledgeable about how Suffolk County would respond to a Shoreham emergency, that "Suffolk County Executive Patrick Halpin has been designated to testify regarding the County's response." See April 22 Answers and Objections at Interrogatory 119.
l
Q. Okay. In the event of an emergency at the Shoreham Nuclear Power Station, Mr. Halpin, what resources would be available to you to re-spond to that emergency?
Mr. Lanpher: Iobject. It calls for speculation. Also, its vague. I don't know what you mean by "re-sources."
By Mr. Sisk: (continuing)
Q. What organizations, departments, personnel within the County would be available to you?
A. I can't answer that question, because we do not have a plan that would give me that informa-tion for an emergency, a radiological emergen-cy, at the Shoreham Nuclear Power Plant.
Halpin Deposition at 25-26 (Att. 7).
Q. Okay. Mr. Halpin, returning to the hypotheti-cal and I won't repeat all the facts. It's the hy-pothetical that the plant is operating, there is an accident, you are notified LILCO recom-mends evacuation of a portion of the EPZ, let me ask you to assumo one additional fact.
If you concluded, based upon your own sources of information, that an evacuation was neces-sary to reduce harm to the public, what would you do?
A. You know, you are asking me to speculate about what I would do. And, here today, I'm not in a position to be able to do that.
I don't know what I would do. So, it would be difficult for me to speculate at this time.
Q. Mr. Halpin, let me add one additional f act. If you then decided to order an evacuation, how would you effect that?
Mr. Lanpher: I object to the question. He can't possibly an-swer that question . . . . So, I object that it's calling for just too great a degree of specula-tion.
Mr. Sisk: I think what I did was to remove one contin-gency and carry it a step further. But, lets see if the witness can answer it.
________.._________________._.___________.___J
The Witness: Again, it's impossible for me to answer that question, because I don't know what I would do.
The LILCO plan would be something that I wouldn't consider and, therefore, I wouldn't know what, you know, an appropriate response would be, given the scenario that you have Need.
Halpin Deposition at 70-71 (Att. 7).
Q. The plant is in operation. All judicial appeals have been exhausted. An accident occurs.
LILCO notifies you that an accident has oc-curred and LILCO recommends an evacuation of all or part of the EPZ.
Would you notify the public at all?
Mr. Lanpher: I object to the question. He has already testified that he doesn't know what he would do in those circumstances.
And, its speculative. You are asking him to speculate about a thing that he has already told you he can't do.
Mr. Sisk: I'm asking a different question. But, let me ask the witness.
By Mr. Sisk: (continuing)
Q. Can you answer it?
A. Again, I don't know what my response would be. And, therefore, I'm not sure what would be appropriate, given the scenario that you have posed, whether or not taking that action would
[ bel the appropriate response given the prob-lem.
Q. If you decided to notify the public, how would you do it?
Mr. Lanpher: Same objection.
The Witness: Again, you are asking me to speculate.
Halpin Deposition at 75-76 (Att. 7)
Mr. Halpin's deposition testimony confirms that Suffolk County has no intention of com'.ng forward with positive statements about its plans or resources. In his depost-tion, Mr. Halpin stated that he would not modify or supplement his testimony filed with the April 13 Objection, and he said that the County does not intend to introduce any ad-ditional testimony as to how Suffolk County would respond in the event of an emergen- El 3
cy at Shoreham. Halpin Deposition at 19-20 (Att. 7).
C. Deposition of New York State's Sole Witness Axelrod The deposition of New York State's sole proffered witness on realism /best ef-forts, Dr. David Axelrod, who is Chairman of the State's Disaster Preparedness Com-mission and Commissioner of Health, proceeded along similar lines. Dr. Axelrod also was made available for only two hours, despite LILCO's express intention to depose him as long as necessary to discover relevant facts. The deposition was noticed by agree-ment for "1:00 PM and thereaf ter until the taking of the deposition may be complet-ed"N but did not begin until 3:00 PM and was terminated by New York State's counsel at 5:12 PM. The time and length of the deposition were dictated by Intervenors, with-out LILCO's consent. See Deposition Transcript of David Axelrod at 5 (Apr. 22,1988)
(Att. 8). When the deposition began, LILCO's attorneys protested its length and reiter-ated what had been said in previous correspondence, that LILCO would:
do its utmost to pursue the questioning as quickly and effi-ciently as possible but that we do intend to continue the deposition. If we are unable to do so this evening, we are prepared to do so tomorrow or next week at any time the witness hopefully will be available.
Axelrod Deposition at 5 (Att 8). New York State's attorney replied that:
Dr. Axelrod will not be available tomorrow or next week.
So, if the time allowed is not sufficient, then I recommend you pursue what remedies you think are appropriate and we will respond appropriately also.
1_2/ Notice of Deposition (David Axelrod)(Apr. 16,1988) ( A t t, 4)
i Axelrod Deposition at 5 (Att 8). Even though New York State's attorney would not per-mit LILCO to question past 5:10 PM, he permitted Suffolk County's attorney to question for an additional few minutes. Axelrod Deposition at 103-108 (Att 8).
Throughout the deposition, LILCO's attorney noted subject matter areas, such as the New York State Radiological Emergency Preparedness Plan, radiological plans for other nuclear plants whose EPZs include parts of New York and Suffolk County and the content of the Governor's affidavit and various appended statements it incorpo-rated,$ that would have been pursued in more detail had time not been so abbrevi-ated. LILCO's counsel also noted that time limitations prevented inquiry into other lines of questioning, including Dr. Axelrod's knowledge of a review of a prior ra-diological emergency plan for Shoreham conducted by the DPC. LILCO made clear that, in its view, for the State to produce the State's sole witness on the real-
!sm/best efforts issue and make that witness available for only two hours and decline at this time to continue the deposition . . . is unreasonable and insufficient time for LILCO to complete discovery prior to hearing.
Axelrod Deposition at 107 (Att. 8).
13/ When asked a few questions about Governor Cuomo's statements, Dr. Axelrod was unable to explain, clarify, or give meaning to those statements that were incorpo-rated in his testimony.
Q. (Mr. Brown] Number two, is it correct - have you spoken to the Governor about the two-sentence quota-tion that is at the bottom of Page 3 that Mr.
Sisk quoted?
A. No. I have not.
Q. And, do you have any idea what the Governor intends by any of these words at the present time, therefore?
A. No, I do not.
Axelrod Deposition at 104 (Att 8).
As was the case with Mr. Halpin's repositten, in:ervenors' further abbreviated LILCO's discovery by peppering the deposition with numerous objections, commentary and requests for "ciarification." Objections appear on 35 pages of this 108 page tran-script. Lawyers for both the State and County interjected commentary or sought clari-fication on an additional 7 pages, in addition to the frequent breaks in the flow of questioning that resulted from these objections, Intervenors' witness was cued by his attorneys' objections to stop providing any information. For example:
Q. Does this portion of the master plan apply where a county f ails to provide or implement its own plan?
Mr. Brown: I object to that. It is calling for a legal conclu-sion.
Mr. Sisk: This is the Chairman of the DPC.
Mr. Brown: I don't think there is any precedent for this, though. I'm positive there is no precedent, plus it's asking ior a legal interpretation.
By Mr. Sisk: (continuing)
Q. Can you answer the question?
A. I will defer to counsel.
Axelrod Depostion at 81 (Att. 8).
LILCO's general questions about New York State's plans for radiological emergencies were frequently met with "points of clarification" as to whether the ques-tion referred to Shoreham or non-Shoreham emergencies. See, el, Axelrod Deposition at 21, 22, 28, 42, 65 (Att. 8). This resulted in the witness qualifying his answers to ex-clude Shoreham from New York State's generic radiological plans on the ground that there is no site-specific plan for Shoreham establishing the relationships between all parties, including local governments, to the State of New York. For example:
Q. Does that (your responsibilities as Commis-stoner of Health) include what is described in NRC parlance as a protective action recom-mendation in the event of an emergency?
A. Yes. The department has a specific responsi-bility for protective action guldtlines.
Mr. Brown: Just a point of clarification, Mr. Sisk. In your question, are you referring to radiological emergencies as some generic concept or on a site-specific basis?
Are you - obviously I'm addressing Shoreham.
Are you asking questions about the Shoreham plant? Because I have not interpreted it to be anything related to Shoreham at this point, just general questions that exclude Shoreham, Mr. Sisk: I have asked general questions which would in-clude Shoreham.
Mr. Brown: Well that certainly wasn't understood by me. I don't know if the witness understood it that way, because there is no plan for Shoreham, as you know.
eoeeo Q. Let me ask you, Dr. Axelrod, as Commissioner of Health, do you have general responsibility within the State of New York for developing and implementing protective action recom-mendations in response to a radiological emer-gency at any and all power plants in the State of New York?
eeeee The Witness: The Department would provide for guidelines for those power plants that are currently 11-censed and operating and for which there is an existing site-specific plan. That does not in-clude Shoreham, eeeee Each of the operating power plants currently have a site-specific plan which identifies the relationship of all the partiest that is, local parties, community government, county gov-ernment, and in some cases multiple county governments, to the State of New York and its various activities.
The protective guidelines would relate to in-formation that would be transmitted through those individual entities of local government and how they would be applied. The guidelines assume that form of implementation which would require some form of site-specific activ-ity by each of the entitles that would be in-volved in providing for the protective actions that would be anticipated.
Axelrod Deposition at 21-24 (Att. 8).
When LILCO's ques 6ons pursued the plans and resources of New York State to respond to radiological emergencies at other nuclear power plants whose emergency planning zones affect New York State or Suffolk County, objections and evasive an-swers continued:
Q. Dr. Axelrod, isn't there, in f act, in place in the State of New York a plan for ingestion path-way responses within Suffolk County related to the Millstone plant? ,
Mr. Zahnleuter: I object to questions about Millstone on rele-vancy.
The Witness: There is no plan in Suffolk County that relates to - or for Suffolk County that relates to spe-cific, site-specific, activities that would be re-quired in the e' tent of an accident at Shore-ham.
Those site-spesific plans which have been identified for .Villstone relate only to peripher-al activites that would be required under the Millstone site-specific plan and are not rele-vant to the Shoreham site-specific plan.
Axelrod Deposition at 90-91(Att. 8).
When the questions focused on how New York would respond to a radiological emergency at Shoreham, Dr. Axelrod's testimony was similarly unresponsive. Consis-tent with Intervenors' litigation position, Dr. Axelrod would not "speculate" as to what resources might be available or what the ' esp 7nse might be to a Shoreham emergency.
That testimony seems to conflict with Dr. Axelrod's testimony that in his position as
Chairman of the Disaster Preparedness Commission he is responsible to "Governor Cuomo for the actions of the New York State Radiological Emergency Preparedness Group and the New York State Emergency Management Office." Axelrod Deposition at 13 (Att. 8). For example:
Q. Dr. Axelrod, does th's document (the New York State Radiological Plan) identify the re-sources generally available to the State for re-sponding to radiological emergencies at nucle-ar power plants? .
Mr. Brown: A clarification. Are you including the Shore-ham Nuclear Power Plant.
Mr. Sisk: I am including any plant within the State of New York, which includes Shoreham.
Mr. Brown: Even through Shoreham is not an operating plant, you are including Shoreham, I take it?
Mr. Sisk: Yes.
The witness: The plan operates on generic capabilities of each of the departments that would be in-volved in a response, as they are identified in the 7 counties - as are identified in relation-ship to the 7 counties in which there would be an expected response in the event of an acci-dent at an operating commercial power plant.
It does not include Shoreham.
By Mr. Sisk: (continuing)
Q. Dr. Axelrod,is it your testimony that the State resources identified in this document would not be available for response to an emergency at the Shoreham Nuclear Power Plant?
A. It would be impossible for me to speculate as to what resources might or might not be avail-able, since there is the assumption that those resources would be in response to a plan. Since there is no plan with respect to Shoreham,it is impossible for me to identify which resources would or would not be available in addressing an incident at the Shoreham Plant.
Axelrod Deposition at 65-66 (Att. 8).
Intervenors' objections to LILCO's inquiries and Dr. Axelrod's refusals to respond substantively to questions concerning a radiological emergency at Shoreham confirmed the position taken by Intervenors in their April 13 Objection and attached testimony.
When asked, Dr. Axelrod affirmed the testimony given by him on behalf of New York State and submitted with the April 13 Objection. He further stated that the State did not intend to modify or supplement that testimony, through him or any other represen-tative of the State of New York. Axelrod Deposition at 10-13 (Att. 8).
D. Petrone Deposition Frank Petrone, Ccunty Executive Assistant to County Executive Patrick Halpin with responsibility for Shoreham and energy issues, was deposed on April 25, 1988.
Deposition Transcript of Frank P. Petrone at 4 (Apr. 25,1588) (Att. 9). His deposition was also limited arbitrarily to two hours. Petrone Deposition at 1,109 (Att. 9). Again, LILCO was not permitted to finish its questioning and so stated on the record. Petrone Deposition at 107-109 ( Att. 9).
E. Deposition of Roberts l On April 26, 1988, LILCO deposed Richard C. Roberts, Assistant Chief Inspector of the Suffolk County Police Department, on the realism /best efforts issue. Again the deponent was made available for an arbitrarily limited time. With LILCO still ques-tioning, Mr. Roberts was removed by counsel for Suffolk County af ter four hours.
Q. What is Mr. Regan's job?
A. Mr. Regan, to my knowledge, is director of the office of Emergency Preparedness, County of Suffolk.
Mr. Miller: I believe the time is up, Ms. Stone.
Ms. Stone: All right, I will stop under protest. I will make two comments.
[
Not only did we not agree to the four-hour .
deadline, I've had to use considerable time out l of this deposition time to find a way to limit !
my questions and there are quite a number of i follow-up questions that I've not been able to l persue (sic} here today so on behalf of LILCO, {
I would have to say that in our view this depo- !
sition is not concluded and there are major !
substantive areas which we have not yet had !
an opportunity to cover, j Mr. Miller: I understand you disagree with the position !
that the county has taken in this matter. . . So !
if you have a complaint, I guess you will take it I to the licensing board and we will respond. . . . ;
l Deposition Transcript of Richard C. Roberts at 163-64 (Apr. 26,1988)(Att.10). LILCO had more questions to ask of Mr. Roberts.- In particular, LILCO wished to pursue de- ;
tailed questions on Mr. Robert's affidavits that were submitted with the Intervenors' l
Opposition to LILCO's Summary Disposition Motions; the nature of a SCPD response, if f s
the SCPD were directed by the County Executive to respond to an emergency at Shoreham and to use the LILCO plan; and the relationship between the SCPD and the I state pollee.
F. PaDile Czech and Bar inski (REPG) Deposition {
LILCO agreed to conduct the deposition of Messrs. Papile, Czech, and Baranski ;
of New York State's Radiological Emergency Preparedness Group (REPG) as a panel. l i
The panel was made available for only four hours, between 1:00 and 5:00 PM on Friday, April 29.M/ LILCO was unable to complete its questioning, particularly in the follow-ing areas: the details of the New York State Radiological Emergency Preparedness Plan and the State resources for radiological responses identified in it; the Affidavit spon- l sored by the REPG and relied upon by the Board in denying LILCO's summary i i
M/ The REPG Director, Mr. Papile, departed at 4:30 PM due to a preef 7 [
pointment. ;
i l
disposition motion; and information requested in LILCO's interrogatories about which the deponents are likely to have knowledge. _S_ee Deposition Transcript of Lawrence B. l Czech, James D. Papile and James C. Baranski at 166-68 (Apr. 29,1988) (Att.11).
Again, the deposition was impeded by numerous objections and requests for clari- i fication (some made af ter the deponent had answered) and unresponsive answers.
Throughout, the deponents adhered to the position that they would not recognize the existence of the LILCO Plan, and that without a Shoreham-specific plan, they would not identify what resources might be available to respond to a Shoreham emergency:
Mr. Sisk: In the interest of time, I am going to depart from my questioning on this document and its details for a moment and return to it later, if there is time.
Let me ask this general question. General Papile, does this generic portion of the state plan (the New York State Radiological Emer-gency Preparedness Plan for Commercial Power Plants) identify any state resources that could be - and I am not asking that in a legal sense - I am asking that in a practical sense - does this document identify any state resource that could be employed in responding to a radiological accident at the Shoreham plant?
Mr. Zahnleuter: I object. I object because that document speaks for itself and the question pertains to Shoreham, it calls for speculation.
Mr. Sisk: Can you answer the question, General Papile?
Mr. Papile: Well, my counsel presented it real well.
I think it's asking for speculation and I can't speculate because I don't know what we really have and so forth and so on. I can't speculate.
Mr. Sisk: General Papile let, me get down to this a little 4 bit on a nuts and bolts level.
The state does have a Radiological Eme:Tency Response Group, doesn't it?
4 1
i
Mr. Papile: The Radiological Emergency Preparedness Group?
What's the question?
Mr. Sisk: Your agency. -
Mr. Papile: What was the question?
Mr. Sisk: The question is - and I don't mean to be cute:
You do exist, don't you?
Mr. Papile: Yes, we do.
Mr. Sisk: Isn't there a State Department of Health?
Mr. Papile: Yes, there is.
Mr. Sisk: In fact, there are a number of state agencies that are set forth in Article 2-B, are there not?
Mr. Papile: Yes, there are.
Mr. Sisk: And the heads of those various agencies have positions on the Disaster Preparedness Com-mission, don't they?
Mr. Papile: Yes, Mr. Sisk: Ignoring legal questions which lawyers can de-bate at a later date, and focusing on practical questions, would it be possible for any of those agencies to respond in any capacity to a ra-diological accident at Shoreham?
Mr. Papile: No. It is not possible.
Mr. Zahnleuter: I object to this question because it's impossible to ignore the legalities of any situation.
I also object because it calls for speculation, and the witness has already answered.
Mr. Sisk: General Papile, why is it not possible?
Mr. Papile: There is no plan.
Mr. Sisk: Does that complete your answer?
Mr. Papile: For now.
,w~-r - _ . _ ._ - .., _.,_ ,. _ .,_
Mr. Sisk: When you said, "there is no plan," can you tell me what you mean?
Mr. Papile: There is no plan for that situation.
Mr. Sisk: Meaning that there is no Shoreham specific ra-diological emergency response plan?
Mr. Papile: Agreed.
eeeee Mr. Sisk: General Papile, did you testify previously that in the absence of a site-specific radiological plan for Shoreham, the state REPG would not be able to respond to a radiological accident at Shoreham?
Mr. Zahnleuter: Mr. Sisk, why don't you provide Mr. Paplie with a specific, or the specific instance of his testi-mony to which you are referring?
Mr. Sisk: Let me ask you, is that a correct characteriza-tion of your testimony?
Mr. Lanpher: I object. I believe that's not a correct charac-terization. I think he stated he didn't know how or if he could respond, and again, it is calling for speculation.
Mr. Sisk: Let me note for the record that - and I will do this very briefly - that during the deposition of Mr. Halpin, Mr. Lanpher corrected a re-sponse that had been given previously to the same fact (sic: effect; by witness Halpin four times. It was subsequently modified by witness Halpin.
I will stand on the answer previously given and reflected in the transcript by General Papile.
It is not my recollection that that was his an-swer. And I will leave it at that.
General Papile, would the state, would the Di-saster Preparedness Commission and the REPG be able to respond to an emergency at the Shoreham nuclear power plant in the absence of an approved Suffolk County radioloigcal emergency preparedness plan?
Mr. Ltnpher: I object. I don't know what you mean by "re-spond."
Do anything or do something that would be ad-equate?
Mr. Zahnleuter: I would like to add to that, "be able to" is also vague.
Mr. Sisk: I will accept a portion of Mr. Lanpher's correc-tion.
Would the state be able to do anything?
Mr. Papile: It is pure speculation. I don't know.
Mr. Sisk: General Papile, can you tell me what resourc-es, departments, agencies or instrumentalities of the state you would be able to direct if the governor ordered you to respond to an emer-gency at the Shoreham nuclear power plant?
Mr. Zahnleuter: I object. One of the grounds for my objection is you included in your question or statement, "you would be able to direct." Now that's a vague instruction, because I am not sure if that means Mr. Papile as a person, as a general, as director of REPG, in whatever capacity he may have.
I also object, as we have said over and over again here today, that relates to the implausibility of this hypothetical and the f act the.t it calls fer speculation.
Mr. Lanpher: I also object because I don't believe it has been established that REPG has any direction re-sponsibility in the event of a radiological emergency. I believe that's Dr. Axelrod or the governor, those are the people who direct, not REPG.
Mr. Sisk: Can you answer?
Mr. Papile: I have no director responsibility. I would have to take orders from higher up.
Mr. Sisk: In your capacity as the head of the REPG and given the knowledge that you have obtained in that capacity, can you tell me what state re-sources, and by that I mean departments, agen-cies, personnel, the governor could direct to respond to an emergency at the Shoreham nu-clear power plant if he choose to do so?
Mr. Lanpher: I object, calling for speculation about what the governor would do or Dr. Axelrod would oo as designee.
Mr. Sisk: I have asked what resources they could use.
Mr. Zahnleuter: I have the same objection.
Mr. Paplie: Without a plan, it would be pure speculation. I wouldn't want to answer that without a plan.
Mr. Sisk: By without a plan, do you mean without a Suffolk County approved plan?
Mr. Papile: With any plan. As of this time,I see no plan.
Czech, Papile and Baranski Transcript at 85-88,118-122 (Att.11).
During the time available, LILCO gained some further insight into the meaning and veracity of the REPG Affidavit, but could not complete questioning on it. For ex-ample, despite the Affidavit's insistence that detailed, site-specific plans, procedures, training and exercises, including county personnel, are necessary for adequate ingestion pathway response capabilities, the deponents stated that (1) part of Suffolk County is within the 50-mile ingestion pe.thway for the Millstone plant, but the deponents were not aware of any site-specific exercises or training involving Suffolk County or New York State personnel for that plant (Czech, Papile and Baranski Transcript at 26 28, 74-75,161-62 (Att.11)) and (2) the State has no plans or agreements with Nassau Coun-ty, part of which is within the 50-mile EPZ for Shoreham and the 50-mile EPZ for Indian Point, to play & support role in the ingestion pathway phase for Indian Point (Czech, Papile and Baranski Transcript at 161-65 (Att.11)). Further, despite the Aff t-davit's statements that the State Radiological Emergency Preparedness Plan could not be used in conjunction with the LILCO Plan for ingestion pathway and recovery and re-entry responses, the deponents stated that they had not reviewed any portions of the LILCO Plan relating to ingestion pathway and recovery and reentry. (See Czech, Papile i
and Baranski Transcript at 154-55 (Att.11).
{ . - - - . -. .
G. Regan and Harris Depositions LILCO noticed and the Board subsequently ordered the depositions of State and County employees prior to the designation of Intervenors' witnesses. On April 15. In-tervenors untiaterally suspended those depositions because they deemed them no longer necessary. The Board in a Confirmatory Memorandum and Order of April 18,1988, re-iterated its prior decision, ordered the depositions to be taken during the period April 25-29, and extended discovery solely for that purpose until April 29. !_d. at 2,13 (Apr.
18, 1988). Intervenors delayed making known to LILCO the availability of these depo-nents until April 21 and, in violation of the Board's Orders, stated without explanation that William Regan and Dr. David Harris would not be available at any time within the discovery period. Letter to James N. Christman from Michael S. Miller (Apr. 21, 1988)
( A t t.11).
ARGUMENT I. The Contentions Should be Dismissed Because Intervenors have failed to f. fake their Case on the Merits Intervenors' position is clear. While they say they will respond to an emergency, they refuse to specify the "resources available for such a response" or "the actions such a response could entail, including the time factors involved" as required by the Board's Orders. See February 29 Confirmatory Memorandum and Order at 4. Intervenors' posi-tion and their intended evidentiary presentation were laid out fr} toto in their April 13 Objection. Discovery since then has only confirmed Intervenors' stolid adherence to that position and their refusal to disclose factual material known to them which would provide the detailed context of (or perhaps dispose of) the presumptions of the realism rule.
[
l e
Intervenors' "answers" to 40 of LILCO's written interrogatories echo that post- [
tion. Those "answersa state unequivocally that:
[F]or the reasons set forth in their April 13 Objection and !
Offer of Proof, . . . [the Intervenors) have not adopted any l plan, or otherwise trained or planned for responding to a l Shoreham emergency. Accordingly, they are in no position i to provide further responsive information, j See, e1, April 22 Answers and Objections at 7. The deposition testimony of Suffolk !
County Executive Halpin and Commissioner David Axelrod, who represent the views of County and State, also expressly adheres to the position taken in the April 13 Objection and states that that position will not change. !
Intervenors have, apparently deliberately, forgone the opportunity "to present a positive case for (the Board's) analysis and evaluation." Intervenors have been cau-tioned by tne Board that they must go forward, but they have refused to do so, in def t- l ance of the Board's rulings and management of this proceeding. Thus, they have trig- !
gered that portion of the Board's February 29 Confirmatory Memorandum and Order j calling for an adverse ruling on their contentions. February 29 Confirmatory Memoran-dum and Order at 4. ,
r t
A. Intervenors' Failure to Present Evidence f
Since LILCO's Response to the April 13 Objection, Intervenors have been obdu- I rate in their failure to present evidence on what they would do in a real emergency.
i As noted by LILCO in that Response, NRC case law recognizes "that when a party has relevant evider.ce within his control which he falls to produce, that failure i
gives rise to an inference that the evidence is unf avorable to him." Public Service Co. f of New Hampshire (Seabrook Station, Units 1 & 2), ALAB-471,7 NRC 477,498, rev'd on [
t pJher tround, CLI-78-14, 7 NRC 952 (1978). The depositions of Mr. Halpin and Dr. !
i Axelrod and the April 20 Objection and 22 Answers and Objections show clearly that j t
- i
! f
. - - ,.--,,- .,,. - ~,._- - -- - - - - - .-- - .-- ,_..--~...-----J
l lntervenors possess information about the State and County plans and resources that have been used in both radiological and non-radiological emergencies, but they refuse to provide that information. The Statement of Facts, above, illustrates that whenever asked how the State or County would respond to a radiological emergency at Shoreham j or what resources would be available, Mr. Halpin and Dr. Axelrod stated that they were a
unable to "speculate" about either the response or the resources. Yet. Dr. Axelrod ad-mitted that New York State has plans for radiological emergencies at plants whose 10-mile or 50-mile EPZs enter or are wholly within New York State. Three of those plants have 50-mile EPZs that also enter Suffolk County, And Intervenors' April 20 Objection do not deny that the State has that information. See, eA, April 20 Objection at Interogatories 51, 53, 54-56, 63, 64, 70-72, 74, 78-82, 87, 88, 93-96, 99, 102-105, 112, 113, 115-117, 122. It follows that the Board can conclude that indeed Intervenors have both plans and resources that could be used to respond to a radiological emergency at Shoreham.
As discussed in LILCO's Response to the April 13 Objection, dismissal is also ap-propriate because Intervenors' refusal to present evidence on the ground that they -
the State and County - have decided that the LILCO emergency plan is inadequate constitutes an impermissable challenge to NRC authority over issues concerning ra-dialogical health and saf ety. The two federal courts that have addressed this issue, both in the context of the Shoreham case, have affirmed the exclusive authority of the NRC over radiological health and safety issues, including those dealing with emergeracy plan-ning. _See Citizens for an Orderly Energy Policy v. County of Suffolk,604 F. Supp.1084 (E.D.N.Y.1985), aff'd, 813 F.2d 570 (2nd Cir.1987) (per curiam) ("COEP"); Long Island Lighting Co. v. County of Suffolk,628 F. Supp. 654 (E.D.N.Y.1986).E 3
I 1_5/ That is not to say that federal law requires a county or state to participate in ,
offsite emergency planning. As the COEP court noted, participation is optional COEP, (footnote continued)
L
i B. Dismissal of the Contentions because Intervenors have Obstructed Discovery Intervenors' obstruction of the discovery proces:; independently justifies dismiss-al of their contentions. As illustrated in the Statement of Facts, above, Intervenors have refused to make deponents available in violation of Board Orders, have arbitrarily abbreviated the length of the discovery depositions, and have used frivolous objections to obstruct oral examination and to decline to respond to written requests, even though I
it is clear that they pnasant relevant information. LILCO has been stonewalled in its ;
efforts to discover what the Board has indicated may be germane to realism /best ef-forts, specifically:
the state of knowledge (of the State and the County) con- l cerning details of the plan, , . . the availability of State and ,
County resources, . . . LILCO's ability to communicate with '
responsible State and County officials in an emergency, . . .
(the) requirements for a site specific Shoreham emergency ;
plan. . . . (the) responsible County officials to act in an emergency, issues connected with LILCO's traffic control >
plan, the adequacy of police resources, . . . [the) flexibility ,
in response plans; the necessity of prior training, . . . emer-
- gency plans in other areas of other New York State nuclear iacilities. . . . [and inf armation underlying) the af fidavits of :
Papile, Roberts, [andi the REPG Group.
April 8 Memorandum at 53-55. Intervenors simply refuse to make this information l available, despite LILCO's repeated efforts, supported by Board Orders, to get it.
The situation addressed by this Supplement was still inchoate at the time LILCO t filed its April 22 Response to April 13 Objection, since Intervenors had not yet an- !
swered perthwnt written and deposition discovery. As is clear by now, however, their ,
"answer" is limited to an inte dixit refusal to plan or disclose.
(footnote continued) :
604 F. Supp, at 1095-96. But such refusal to participate affirmatively neither prevents j the federal process from proceeding nor determines its outcome. COEP at 1095 (hold- i i
ing that Suifolk County's opposition will, af ter final NRC action, become "academic").
The current situation is not a minor dispute over tangential details. It involves the factual issues pivotal to observance - or rebuttal - of the governmental-cooperation presumption at the core of the Commission's realism rule. That is the cen-tral issue remaining to be decided in this case, and one whose facts are uniquely within the control of New York State and Suffolk County.
The conduct recited in this Supplement - whose true nature has become sub-stantially evident only with responses to LILCO's discovery within the past 10 days -
constitues repeated and outright refusal to go forward on major issues which would not exist at all in this case but for the actions of Suffolk County and New York State.
Having created these issues and injected them into the Commission's process, the Coun-ty and State are now unmistakably obstructing their resolution by that process. For reasons already set out in detailin LILCO's Response to April 13 Objection at 13-14, 16-19, and merely illustrated here, the "realism" contentions should be dismissed for the repeated failure of New York State and Suffolk County to sustain their burden of going forward.
II. If the Contentions are Not Dismissed. Discovery should be Compelled In the alternative, if there are facts the Board believes still must be discovered, presented and developed on the record, LILCO asks the Board to issue an order compel-ling discovery. LILCO seeks forthright answers to its interrogatories, the production of Messrs. Halpin, Roberts, Petrone, Czech, Baranski, and Papile, and Dr. Axelrod for con-tinuation of their depositions, and the production for deposition of Mr. Regan and Dr.
Harris.
The depositions of Dr. Axelrod and Mr. Halpin, the sole proffered witnesses for the State and County, were improperly abbreviated both in terms of total time and pro-ductive time. Since these officials have teen designated as the persons most l
. . = . . - -- - . - - - -._. . . - - . - _ - - - _ - , - _ _ - . - _ - - - . _
knowledgable about the response of the State and County to a radiological emergency at Shoreham, it is imperative, if factual issues are to be further explored, that LILCO have full and fair discovery of their opinions and the facts on which they rely.
The depositions of Messrs. Roberts, Petrone, Czech, Baranski, and Papile were likewise abbreviated. Mr. Roberts, Assistant Chief Inspector for the SCPD and a long time expect for Suffolk County on Shoreham matters, is likely to have information con-cerning the availability of County resources, the SCPD's knowledge of the plan, LILCO's ability to communicate with responsible County officials in an emergency, issues con-cerning LILCO's traffle control plan, the adequacy of police resources and the flexibili-ty of its response plans - all areas recognized by the Board as germane. See April 8 Memorandum at 53-54. Mr. Petrone, as the County Executive Assistant end as the former Director of FEMA Region II, is likely to have information about the same mat-ters, especially State and County's ability to respond to an emergency at Shoreman, plans for other nuclear facilities in Region II, and the training, drills and exercises that have taken place.
LILCO was unable to complete its questioning of Messrs. Czech, Papile and Baranski on the REPG Affidavit, the New York State Radiological Emergency Pre-paredness Plan, plans for other plants in or affecting the State, and other matters.
Again the Board has expressed its interest in these matters, and LILCO plainly needs to complete this discovery if hearings are to go forward.
Mr. Regan, Director of the Division of Emergency Preparedness in Suffolk Coun-ty, has under h's control the County EOC. Clearly his deposition, as yet unscheduled despite two Board Orders and efforts by LILCO, would provide relevant information.
Similarly, the deposition of Dr. Harris, Commissioner of the Suffolk County Department of Health Services - also requested by LILCO and ordered twice by the Board but not i complied with by Suffolk County - should also provide relevant information. In other L _
New York counties, the Health Commissioner typically has primary responsibility for making protective action recommendations to the County Executive and LILCO knows of nothing that distinguishes Suffolk County on this score.
If the contentions are not dismissed, discovery is clearly needed if only to explain the inconsistencies in the Intervenors' pleadings. For example, in one of the af-fidavits that the Board relied on to deny LILCO's summary disposition motions, the Di-rector of tne State of New York's Radiological Emergency Preparedness Group (REPG) said that the Shoreham RECS line to REPG's offices terminates in an office "miles away from REPG's current location." Governments' Opposition to LILCO's Summary Disposi-tion Motions on Contentions 12 and 4-10 (Feb.10,1988) at Affidavit of James D. Papile at 3 (May 11,1987). In the Intervenors' April 22 Answers and Objection to LILCO's In-terrogatory," on the other hand, the Intervenors say that the RECS line closest to REPG is in a non-REPG office that is approximately "50 yards, through corridors, from the REPG office."
LILCO asks this Board to compel not only the process of discovery, but also sub-stantive responses by Intervenors. To this end, LILCO asks the Board to make unmistakably clear that:
- 1. Information dealing with Suffolk County's and/or New York State's emer-gency plans and resources for nuclear installations other than Shoreham and non-nuclear emergencies is relevant to the present inquiry.
- 2. Intervenors may not refuse to discuss their predicted response to a ra-diological emergency at Shoreham on the ground that such discussion would con-stitute "speculation."
A. Plans for Nuclear Plants Other than Shoreham Are Relevant The relevance of other plans is clear from (1) this Board's April 8 Memorandum, (2) Intervenors' use of the REPG affidavit, which relied on other plans, to defeat LILCO's Summary Disposition Motions, (3) a history of Board decisions in this proceed-ing confirming the relevance of other plans, and (4) a fair reading of the realism rule.
The Board's April 8 Memorandum, at 53-54, specifically stated that cao of the "genuine issues to be heard" was the "relevance of emergency plans in other areas of other New York State nuclear facilities." As the Board further recognized, plans for nuclear plants other than Shoreham were put squarely in controversy by the Interve-nors, particularly in their ingestion pathway / recovery and reentry response to LILCO's Summary Disposition Motions. The Board noted that Intervenors' denials are of the nature of disagreements with the LILCO interpretations of certain features of the New York State Plan and the manner in which that plan interacts with the plans of individual counties. Generally speaking, the New York REPG witnesses see the parts taken by individual counties in recovery, reentry, and ingestion planning as much more complex taan LILCO sees them. The witnesses also see such things as police actions in an emergency as quite different from day-to-day police actions; hence they believe that proper response cannot be assured without preplanning and drills.
April 8 Memorandum at 49. It would be manifestly unfair to permit Intervenors, through the affidavits of REPG, to defeat LILCO's Motions for Summary Disposition with assertions of the differences between the LILCO plan and other local plans for in-gestion pathway and recovery and reentry without permitting LILCO to inquire wheth-er such differences are reai.
The history of this case also demonstrates the relevance of plans for nuclear plants other than Shoreham. Intervenors have repeatedly and unsuccessfully contested their relevance. The Licensing Boards has unexpectedly found those plans to be rele-vant. See, g, Memorandum and Order (Ruling on Governments' Motion to Strike
Portions of LILCO's Testimony on the Suitability of Reception Centers) at 8 (May 7, 1987); Memorandum and Order (Ruling on LILCO's March 13, 1987 Motion to Compel),
slip op, at 4 (Mar. 25,1987); Memorandum Memorializing Ruling on Motion to Compel Response to LILCO's Interrogatories and to Produce Documents (Mar. 17,1987); Memo-randum and Order (Ruling on LILCO's Motions to Compel New York State to Answer LILCO's First Set of Interrogatories and for a Protective Order) at 5-6 (Dec.19,1986);
Order Granting LILCO's Motion to Compel Expedited Production of the New York State Emergency Preparedness Plan at 4 (Feb. 28,1984). In fact, the Board heard extensive testimony during the 1987 Reception Centers remand proceeding about the emergency plans for the counties in the 10-mile EPZ's of other nuclear power plants in the State.
See Tr.18,066 e_t se_q. (Baranski, Czech, Papile); Tr. 18,417-18, (Keller); Tr. 18,454-460 (Husar, Keller).
Further, Suffolk County's plans, response capabilities, and resources for re-sponding to emergencies other than an accident at Shoreham are plainly relevant to what the County could or would do in a Shoreham emergency whether or not they say they would follow the LILCO plan.
Finally, Intervenors' reliance on the NRC's realism rule to support their rele-vance objection to inquiries about other plants, other plans and other emergencies is misplaced. Intervenors quote a portion of the rule's preamble out of context in General Objection 1. See April 20 Objections (Att.1). When read in context, it is clear that this portion of the preamble is concerned not at all with the general relevance of other emergency plans, but with the much narrower, and distinct, question of whether a utili-ty plan should be required to provide dose savings equivalent to what might be accom-plished with government cooperation:
The Commission, in its 1986 LILCO decision, stressed the need for flexibility in the evaluation of emergency plans. In that decision, the Commission observed that it "might look f avorably" on a utility plan "if there was reasonable assur-ance that it was capable of achieving dose reductions in the event of an accident that are generally is comparable to what might be accomplished with government cooperation."
24 NRC 22,30. We do not read that decision as requiring a finding of the precise dose reductions that would be accom-plished either by the utility's plan or by a hypothetical plan that had full state and local participation: such findings are never a requirement in the evaluation of emergency plans.
The final rule makes clear that every emergency plan is to be evaluated for adequacy on its own merits, without refer-ence to the specific dose reductions which might be accom-plished under the plan or to the capabilities of any other plan.
52 Fed. Reg. 42078, 42084 (Nov. 3,1987).
The issue here is not whether one plan can be compared with another, but whether the State and County have the ability and resources to respond to a Shoreham emergency. Other plans used or relied on by those governments necessarily will reveal the plans and resources available to cope with other threats - some or all of which will be relevant in a Shoreham emergency. In particular, LILCO's interrogatories, which in-cluded requests for production of documents, would reach such relevant plans as the New York State Radiological Emergency Preparedness Plan for Commercial Power Plants, the County of Suffolk Disaster Preparedness Plan, and the Civil Defense Basic Emergency Plan for Suffolk County and its Townships and Villages.
B. The Details of Intervenors' Response to a Shoreham Emergency and the Resources Available for Such a Response are Relevant This Board stated in its February 29 Confirmatory Memorandum and Order, at 4, that:
Acceptable rebuttals to the Plan must include positive state-ments of the projected behavior of the Governments. A de-termination to respond jLd hoe would be acceptable only if accompanied by specification of the resources available for such a response, and the actions such a response could entall including the time f actors involved.
Again in its April 8 Memorandum, at 24-25, the Board stated:
The Intervenors are required to come forward with positive statements of their plans and must specify the resources that are available for a projected response and the time f ac-tors that are involved in any emergency activities proposed.
In these rulings, the Board was implementing the realism rule. The rule pre-sumes that State and local officials will follow the utility plan in an actual emergency unless there is a good faith and timely proffer of an adequate and feasible state and/or local radiological emergency plan that would in fact be relied upon in a radiological emergency.
52 Fed. Reg. 42,078,42,086 (Nov. 3,1987). As this Board recognized:
We are bound by regulation to affirmatively determine the adequacy of the expected response and that the obligation on us equally binds the parties to supply the critical infor-mation needed to make that determination in any future hearing if they want their views to be heard.
February 29 Confirmatory Memorandum and Order at 4-5 (emphasis in original).
It is simply beyond reasonable question that what intervenors would do to re-spond to a Shoreham emergency and the resources available for such a projected re-sponse are relevant.
CONCLUSION LILCO moves this Board to dismiss Contentions 1-2, 4-8, and 10 on the grounds that there is no issue to decide since LILCO's prima f acie case is unrebutted. In apply-ing the Commission's Rule, the Board has ruled that the presumption in the Rule that the State and County will implement the LILCO plan will apply unless the Intervenors come forward with evidence of how they would otherwise use their best efforts to re-spond. February 29 Confirmatory Order and Memorandum at 4-5; April 8 Memorandum at 21-22, 24-25. The Board has been specific as to what the Intervenors must show.
The Board has twice ruled that the Intervenors must come forward with plans showing
their intended response, or with a specification of the resources available for an a_d hoc response and the actions such a response could entall including the time factors in-volved. The Board has twice stated that Intervenors' failure to present such a positive case could result in an adverse ruling on the contentions.
Intervenors have repeatedly and, apparently deliberately, refused to come for-ward with any such showing. First, Intervenors filed the April 13 Objection and testi-mony of DPC Chairman Axelrod and County Executive Halpin, which they say consti-tutes their entire case on what the State and County might do in response to a Shoreham emergency. The testimony is nothing more than "simple protestations that they will not use LILCO's plan. . . ." (Board's April 8 Memorandum) and refusal to "speculate" as to how the State or County would or could respond to a Shoreham emer-gency. Second, Intervenors objected, and failed to provide substantial responses, to LILCO's interrogatories seeking to learn how the Intervenors would or could respond to a Shoreham emergency. Third, Intervenors peremptorily truncated the depositions of their two witnesses and the depositions of three State deponents and two County depo-nents. Fourth, the County defied the Board's orders to produce two additional key County officials for deposition. Fif th, in the copositions that were held - of five State officials and four County officials - Intervenors steadf astly refused to "speculate" as to how they would or could respond to a Shoreham emergency. They even declined to "speculate" as to what State or County resources, departments or personnel could be employed in such a response, much less the timing involved. The deponents' principal reason for refusing to "speculate" as to available resources assertedly was the lack of a "site-specific" plan, approved by the State and/or County, for Shoreham. Thus, at base, the Intervenors' position has remained the same since 1983 - that, without a State of County approved plan for Shoreham, which they decline to provide, they cannot even identify any response capability.El M/ Indeed, the Intervenors objected to, disclaimed knowledge of, or failed to be forthcoming as to their- resources and response capabilities for other types of emergencies and other nuclear plants in or affecting the State or Suffolk County.
I
The Intervernors have had multiple opportunities to follow the Board's Orders and put forth "a positive case for review and analysis. . . ." (April 8 Memorandum at 24-25). They have repeatedly declined to do so. Accordingly, Intervenors have f ailed to carry their burden of going forward, and their contentions should be dismissed.E If the Board declines to dismiss the contentions, then it would be patently unfair to LILCO to proceed to hearing without the discovery that the Intervenors have stonewalled. Thus, in the alternative, the Board should issue an order compelling the Intervenors to respond to LILCO's interrogatories and to produce the documents re-quested, including documents setting forth resources and response capabilities for other types of emergencies and other nuclear plants in the State or affecting the State (including Suffolk County). Further, the Board should issue an order compelling the depositions of County deponents Regan and Harris, and compelling the State and Coun-ty to make Messrs. Axelrod, Halpin, Petrone, Roberts, Papile, Czech and Baranski available for the completion of their depositions.
Respectfully submitted, A ~ ' "
nald'P. Irwin rJames N. Christman K. Dennis Sisk Counsel for Long Island Lighting Company Hunton & Williams 707 East Main Street P.O. Box 1535 Richmond, Virginia 23212 DATED: May 2,1988 H/ If the Board believes there is still an issue suitable for hearing, then it should be limited to the narrow issue of the adequacy of LILCO's procedure for dealing with the State and County.
l ATTACHMENTS
- 1. Governments' Objections to LILCO's Second Set of Interrogatories Regarding Contentions 1-2, 4-8, and 10 - April 20,1988 l
- 2. Governments' Answers and Additional Objections to LILCO's Secord Set of In- '
l terrogatories Regarding Contentions 1-2, 4-8, and 10 - April 22,1988
- 3. Notice of Deposition (Patrick G. Halpin)- April 16, 1988 l
- 4. Notice of Deposition (David Axelrod)-- April 16,1988 '
- 5. Letter to Lawrence Coe Lanpher from K. Dennis Sisk - April 18,1988
- 6. Letter to Lawrence Coe Lanpher from K. Dennis Sisk - April 21,1988
- 7. Deposition Transcript of Patrick G. Halpin - April 19,1988
- 8. Deposition Transcript of David Axelrod - April 22,1988
- 9. Excerpts from Deposition Transcript of Frank P. Petrone - April 25,1988
- 10. Excerpts from Deposition Transcript of Richard C. Roberts - April 26,1988
- 11. Excerpts from Deposition Transcript of Lawrence B. Czech, James D. Papile, and James C. Baranski - April 29,1988
- 12. Letter to James N. Christman from Michael S. Miller - April 21,1988
- 13. New York State Radiological Emergency Preparedness Plan for Commercial Nuclear Power Plants - April 1987 (Part II,Section I at Procedures F and K)
- 14. Chart of Intervenors' Interrogatory Responses l
l l
l I
1 l
l l
l \
l
Attachment 1 1 _ , _ _ . _ _ . , _ _ , _ . ,_. - , _ . _ _ - .
i Aoril 20, 1988 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 Planni~ng)
(Shoreham Nuclear Power Station, )
Unit 1) )
)
GOVERNMENTS' OBJECTIONS TO LILCO'S SECOND SET OF INTERROGATORIES REGARDING CONTENTIONS 1-2, 4-8, AND 10
- Pursuant to 10 CFR S 2.740b(b), and in accordance with this Board's oral ruling of April 11 and Confirmatory Memorandum and Order of April 12 ("April 12 Order"), Suffolk County, the State of New York, and the Town of Southampton (the "Governments")
hereby note their objections to LILCO's Second Set of Interrogatories and Document Requests Regarding Contentions 1-2, 4-8 and 10 (March 24, 1988) ("Interrogatories").
Interrogatories not addressed in these objections will be addressed in the Governments' Answers which will be filed on April 22, 1988, also in accordance with the Board's April 11 oral ruling and the Board's April 12 Order. The April 22 Answers may contain certain additional objections, but the Interrogatories
[Pi
l l
addressed there will be answered notwithstanding those objections.
GENERAL OBJECTIONS
- 1. The Governments object to LILCO's Interrogatories to l
the extent that they seek information about emergency planning ]
for nuclear power plants other than Shoreham, the actions of governments other than the Governments, emergency plans other than the LILCO Plan, and emergencies other than a radiological emergency at Shoreham. The requested information is not relevant to the issue before the Board, which concerns only the nature of a "best efforts" response by the Governments to a Shoreham emergency. Egg Confirmatory Memorandum and Ceder (Ruling on LILCO's Motions for Summary Disposition of Contentions 1, 2, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, and 10, and Board Guidance on Issues for Litigation)
(Feb. 29, 1988) at 2-3.
In addition, LILCO's Interrogatories which seek such information are not within the scope of relevant inquiry established by the NRC's new emergency planning rule. As the NRC stated in adopting the new rule:
The final rule makes clear that every emergency plan is to be evaluated for adequacy on its own merits, without reference to the specific dose reductions which might be accomplished under the plan or to the cacabilities of any other olan.
2_
l ; .
52 Fed. Reg. 42084 (November 3, 1987). LILCO's Interrogatories ari in direct contravention of this NRC directive. Accordingly, LILCO's attempts to obtain information about other plants, other governments, other plans and other emergencies are irrelevant and not reasonably calculated to lead to the discovery of admissible evidence. Egg 10 CFR $ 2.740(b)(1).
- 2. Suffolk County objects to the numerous Interrogatories addressed to it which seek information about the State and other counties within the State. The information requested is not within the possession or control of Suffolk County and thus cannot be provided to LILCO by Suffolk County.
- 3. The Governments also object to LILCO's Interrogatories to the extent that they seek information on how counties other than Suffolk County would respond, or what plans or procedures they would use, follow or rely upon in drills, exercises, or in the event of a radiological emergency (111, 12g2, Interrogatory No. 52). These numerous interrogatories call for speculation which the Governments are unable to provide. The counties about which LILCO seeks such information are separate governmental entities which have independent authority to determine their own actions prior to and during emergencies. Accordingly, the Governments cannot predict what these counties would do, how they would respond, what plans they would use, or other such matters.
If LILCO wants this information, it should obtain it from the counties in question. The Governments note that the information is as accessible to LILCO as it is to the Governments.
3-
- 4. The State of New York objects to the questions addressed to it which seek information about Suffolk County and other counties within the State. The information requested is not within the possession or control of the State and thus cannot be provided to LILCO by the State.
- 5. The Governments object to LILCO's 7:nterrogatories to p the extent that they seek the identification of documents, or l production of documents themselves, which are in the possession, ;
custody or control of counties other than Suffolk County. Such counties are separate, independent governmental entities. The documents are as accessible to LILCO as they are to the Governments, and if LILCO wants these documents, it should obtain them from the counties in question.
- 6. The Governments object to all of the Interrogatories addressed herein on the ground that they are overly burdensome,
_ and this is especially true for the 63 interrogatories (over half of those submitted by LILCO) seeking information about emergency planning for plants etner than Shoreham, by governmental authorities other than the Governments, or for emergencies other than radiological emergencies. Not only are such questions not relevant (111 General Objection No. 1), but by their sheer number, they place an undue burden on the Governments. For instance, a great many of the Interrogatories ask for multiple pieces of information on a "county-by-county" basis for every county located in any 50-mile ingestion pathway EPZ within the State. Egg Interrogatory Nos. 51-54, 58-60, 68-74, 76-78, 85,
87, 88-89, 91-94, 96-98, 103, 113. 115. To attempt to assemble the requested informat: ion and provide answers to the Interrogatories objected to here would take many weeks or months beyond the current deadline imposed by the Board. It is unfair to impose such a burden on the Governments, especially in light of the absence of any relevant purpose for posing the Interrogatories. Because this objection is stated for all of the Interrogatories addressed here, it will not be repeated in the specific objections below.
SPECIFIC OBJECTIONS LILCO Interrocatory No. 8
- 8. With respect to each of the following functions,
- a. activating the early warning sirens and directing the -
broadcast and contents of emergency broadcast system (EBS) messages in the event of a radiological emergency at Shoreham (hereinafter the "Contention 5 functions"),
- b. making decisions and official recommendations to the public as to the appropriate actions necessary to protect the public health and safety, including deciding upon protective actions which will be communi-cated to the public, in the event of a radiological emergency at Shoreham (hereinafter the "Contention 6 functions"),
- c. directing traffic, blocking roadways, setting up bar-riers in roadways, and channeling traffic in the event of a radiological emergency at Shor,eham (hereinafter the "Contentions 1 and 2 functions"),
- d. performing access control functions at the EPZ perimeter in the event of a radiological emergency at Shoreham (hereinafter the "Contention 10 functions"),
- e. removing obstructicns from public roadways, including ,
the towing of private vehicles, in the event of a radiological emergency at Shoreham (hereinafter the "Contention 4 functions"),
_3
f, making and implementing decisions and official recommendations tc the public concerning protective actions for the ingestion exposure pathway in the event of a radiological emergency at Shoreham (hereinafter the "Contention 7 functions"), and
- g. making and implementing decisions and official recommendations to the public concerning recovery and reentry in the event of a radiological emergency at Shoreham (hereinafter the "Contention 8 functions"),
please list each and every factor that Intervenors claim would prevent a "best efforts" response by New York State and Suffolk County, generally following the LILCO Plan, from satisfying the applicable NRC requirements.
Answer to Interrocatorv 8.
The Governments object on the ground that the premise of the Interrogatory -- that the Governments would generally follow the LILCO Plan -- is false and lacking in any factual basis. For the reasons set forte in the Governments' April 13 Objection to Portions of February 29 and April 8 Orders in the Realism Remand and Offer of Proof and Attachmer,ts thereto (hereafter, "April 13 Objections and Offer of Proof"), the Governments will not adopt or follow LILCO's Plan.
LILCO Interrocatory No. 50
- 50. Identify all plans and procedures that New York State has and would use, follow, or otherwise rely upon to make an ingestion pathway and recovery and reentry response to a radiological emergency at (a) the Yankee Rowe nuclear power plant (Massachusetts), (b) the Millstone nuclear power plant (Connecticut), (c) the Haddam Neck nuclear power plant (Connecticut), (d) the Vermont Yankee nuclear power plant (Vermont), and (e) the Oyster Creek nuclear power plant (New Jersey). Indicate which of the plans and procedures are site-specific rather than generic. Provide copies of all documents.
Answer to Interrocatory No. 50.
igg General Objections Nos. 1, 2'and 5.
LILCO Interrocatory No. 51
- 51. Identify, on a plant-by-plant basis, all counties in New York State that are located in the ingestion pathway EPZs of the nuclear power plants listed in Interrogatory No. 50.
Answer to Interrocatory No. 51.
Egg General Objections Nos. 1 and 2. In addition, the Governments object on the grounds that the information sought is as easily accessible to LILCO through public sources as it is to the Governments.
LILCO Interrocatory No. 52
- 52. Identify, on a county-by-county basis, all plans and procedures that the counties listed in response to Interrogatory No. 51 have or would use, follow, or otherwise rely upon for an ingsstion pathway and recovery and reentry response to a radiological emergency at the nuclear cover plants ident..fied in Interrogatory No. 50. Indicate which of the plans and procedures are site-specific. Provide copies of all documents.
Answer to Interrocatory No. 52.
Egg General Objections Nos. 1, 2, 3 and 5.
LILCO Interrocatory No. 53
- 53. State, for the counties listed in response to Interrogatory No. 51 that do not have plans and procedures for an ingestion pathway and recovery and reentry response, how each such county would provide for an ingestion pathway and recovery and reentry response to a radiological emergency.
4
Answer to Interrocatory No. 53.
' ggg General Objections Nos. 1, 2, and 3.
LILCO Interrocatorv No. 54
- 54. Identify all training sessions, drills, and exercises that have been or will be conducted by a county or by New York State to prepare for an ingestion pathway and recovery and reentry response to a radiological emergency at the nuclear power plants listed in Interrogatory No. 50. Identify which counties were or will be involved in each training session, drill, and exercise.
. Answer to Interrocatory No. 54.
Egg General Objections Nos. 1, 2 and 3.
LILCO Interrocatory No. 55
- 55. State whether New York State will participate in the FEMA-graded ingestion pathway exercise for the Yankee Rowe nuclear -
power plant ("Yankee Rowe Exercise"), that will be held in April 1988. Is New York State required by FEMA to participate in this exercise?
Answer to Interrocatory No. 55.
Egg General Objections Nos. 1 and 2.
LILCO Interroaatory No. 56
- 56. Identify the nature of New York State's participation in the Yankee Rowe Exercise. Include (a) the extent of the State's participation, (b) a list of the activities the State will be responsible for and the State personnel who will be responsible for each activity, and (c) a list of the State personnel who will participate in the exercise and the function each will serve in preparing for or participating in the exercise.
Answer to Interrocatory No. 56.
Egg General Objections Nos. 1 and 2.
LILCO Interroaatory No. 57 l
- 57. Identify all plans, procedures, training materials, drill schedules, drill scenarios, and any other documents that the State has used or will use to prepare for and participate in the Yankee Rowe Exercise. Provide copies of all documents.
Answer to Interrocatory No. 57.
Egg General Objections Nos. 1, 2 and 5.
LILCO Interrocatory Mo. 58
- 58. Identify each and every county in New York State that will be involved in preparing for and participating in the Yankee Rowe Exercise. For each county identify what activities that county will be responsible for and who at each county will be -
responsible for that activity.
Answer to Interrocatory_tL%,_11 Egg General Objections Nos. 1, 2, and 3.
LILCO Interrocatory No. 59
- 59. Identify, on a county-by-county basis, all plans, procedures, training materials, drill schedules and scenarios, and any other documents that the counties identified in Interrogatory No. 58 will use to prepare for and participate in the Yankee Rowe Exercise. Identify which of these documents are site-specific. Provide copies of all documents.
Answer to Interrocatory No. 59.
Egg General Objections Nos. 1, 2, 3 and 5.
.g.
l 0
- . _ , _ , _ _ .__..____,,,_..____.,__m.. . . . - _ , , . . , . . _ . _ _ , . _ _ . - - _ _ - ,
LILCO Interrocatory No. 60
- 60. Identify all training and drills that have been or will be conducted by the State and the counties identified in Interrogatory No. 58 in preparation for the Yankee Rowe Exercise.
Identify and provide any documents concerning the training and drills.
Answer to Interrocatory No. 60.
Egg General Objections Nos. 1, 2, 3 and 5.
LILCO Interrocatory No. 61
- 61. State whether New York State and the counties and other pertinent jurisdictions in New York State within the 50-mile EPZ of Shoreham are capable of responding to a radiological emergency that requires ingestion pathway and recovery and reentry activities within the ingestion pathway EPZs of (a) the Millstone Nuclear Power Plant, (b) the Oyster Creek Nuclear Power Plant, (c) the Indian Point Nuclear Power Plant, and (d) the Haddam Neck Nuclear Power Plant and whether they have sufficient resources to undertake such a response. If the answer is yes, explain how New York State and the counties and other pertinent jurisdictions would respond and what resources they would use. Identify all plans and procedures that would be used and all documents showing that there are sufficient resources. State whether any of these plans, procedures, or other documer ts are site-specific to their locations.
Answer to Interrocatory No. 61.
Egg General Objections Nos. 1, 2, 3, and 5.
LILCO Interrocatory No. 62
- 62. Identify who of the Intervenors would be responsible for the emergency functions and activities identified in Interrogatory No. 49 during the recovery phase of a Millstone, Haddam Neck, oyster Creek, or Indian Point radiological emergency. To the extent not already identified, identify all plans and procedures that would be used, followed, or otherwise relied upon. Provide copies of all documents.
g wer to Interrocatory No. 62.
ggg General Objections Nos. 1 and 5.
LILCO Interroaatory No. 63 -
- 63. Identify what emergency response functions and activities the following agencies would be responsible for during a Millstone, Haddam Neck, Oyster Creek, or Indian Point radiological emergency affecting the areas of New York State within the Shoreham 50-mile EPZ and state how those functions and activities would differ from the functions and activities which those agencies would have to perform to make an ingestion pathway and recovery and reentry response for Shoreham: (a) State Department of Health, (b) Department of Agriculture and Marketn, (c) Departments of Environmental Conservation, (d) State Police, (e) Department of Transportation, (f) State Emergency Management Office (SEMO), and (g) the Radiological Emergency Preparedness Group (REPG).
~
Answer to Interroaatory No. 63.
Egg General Objections Nos. 1 and 2. -
LILCO Interrocatory No. 64
- 64. Identify, on an item-by-item basis, what is different about Shoreham that prevents the State and the other counties and other pertinent jurisdictions in New York State within the 50-mile EPZ of Shoreham from using the same plans, procedures, and resources that are used for an ingestion pathway and recovery and reentry response to a Millstone, Haddam. Neck, Oyster Creek, or Indian Point radiological emergency.
Answer to Interrocatory No. 64.
Egg General Objections Nos. 1, 2, and 3.
LILCO Interrocatory No. 67
- 67. Identify whether ingestion pathway and recovery and reentry activities have been coordinated between the State and Suffolk County and the utilities and offsite response organizations for i
Millstone, Oyster Creek, Haddam Neck, and Indian Point nuclear l
power plants. Identify any and all such activities. Identify all. documents documenting these activities. Provide copies of all'such documents.
Answer to Interrocatorv No. 67.
Egg General objections Nos. 1 and 5.
f LILCO Interroaatory No. 68
- 68. Identify all county plans and procedures, and the specific sections and pages of these plans and procedures, that.would be used by the following counties for an ingestion pathway and recovery and reentry response: Orange, Putnam, Wayne, Monroe, Westchester, Oswego, and Rockland. State whether the plans are used for each county only or for other counties. Identify any other counties for which such plans would be used.
faswer to Interroaatory No. 68.
Egg General Objections Nos. 1, 2, 3 and 5. Moreover, LILCO possesses copies of the plans in question and is capable of making the requested determinations on its cwn.
u LILCO Intgirocatory No. 69
- 69. Identify, on a plant-by plant basis, each county in the ingestion pathway EPZs, but not in the plume exposure EPZs, of each operating nuclear power plant in New York. For each county, identify all county plans and procedures that would be used, followed, or otherwise relied upon by that county for an ingestion pathway and a recovery and reentry response to a 12 -
radiological emergency. If the county does not have plans and procedures, state how they would respond.
Answer to Interrocatory No. 69.
Sgt General Objections Nos. 1, 2, 3 and 5. In addition, the Governments object on the ground that the identification of the counties at issue is as easily accessible to LILCO through the NRC public document room or other public sources as it is to the Governments.
LILCO Interrocatory No. 70 ,
- 70. Identify, on a county-by-county basis for each county in New York State in the ingestion pathway EPZ of a nuclear power plant, who in the New York State government is most knowledgeabic about emergency preparedness of each county to ma<e an ingestion pathway and recovery and reentry response.
Answer to Interrocatory No. 70.
Egg General Objections Nos. 1 and 2.
l LILCO Interrocatory No. 71
- 71. For the areas of New York State within the 50-mile SPZ of Shoreham, identify who (a) in the New York State government and (b) in the counties and other pertinent jurisdictionn in those areas is most knowledgeable about the emergency preparedness of the counties and other pertinent jurisdictions in those areas to make an ingestion pathway and recovery and reentry response to a Millstone, Haddam Neck, Oyster Creek; and Indian Point radiological emergency.
l i
1 i
l l
Answer to Interrocatory No. 71.
Egg General Objections Nos. 1, 2', and 3.
Q .CO Interrocatory No. 72
- 72. For each county listed in Interrogatory No. 68 and identified in your responso to No. 69, identify, for each of the following sub parts, each county that has participated in (a) an ingestion pathway exercise, (b) any drills of ingestion pathway plans and procedures, (c) any training of ingestion pathway plans or procedures, (d) an exercise dealing with recovery and reontry activities, (e) in any drills of recovery and reentry plans and procedures, and (f) in any training of recovery and reentry plans and procedures. For each subpart, identify the dates that that activity occurred, what plans and procedures were used, and who participated.
Answer to Interrocatory No. 72.
Egg General Objections Nos. 1 and 2.
LILCO Interrocatory No. 73
- 73. For each sub part in Interrogatory No. 72, identify all documents containing documentation of the activities listed in Interrogatory No. 72. Provide copies of all such documents.
Answer to Interrocatory No. 7J .
Egg General Objections Nos. 1, 2 and 5.
LILCO Interrocatory No. 74
- 74. Identify, on a county-by-county basis for each county in New York State in an ingestion pathway EPZ of a nuclear power plant, the local offices of the State that are involved in responding to a radiological emergency. State what function they serve and the activities they are responsible for.
l -
14 -
? 4 I. . - - _ _ _ _ _ . - -- . - - -- . - - . - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - --
Answer to Interrocatory No d.
Egg General Objections Nos. 1 and 2.
LILCO Interroaatory No. 76
- 76. Identify which counties in the ingestion pathway EPZ of the Ginna Nuclear Power Station were involved in preparing for the Ginna ingestion pathway exercise ("Ginna Exercise") held in October 1987. For each county describe the roles they played in preparing for and participating in the Ginna Exercise. Identify all documents used by these counties to prepare for and participate in the Ginna Exercise.
Answer to Interrocatory No. 76.
Egg General Objections Nos. 1, 2 and 5.
LILCO Interroaatory No. 77
- 77. On a county-by-county basis for all counties except Wayne and Monroe, identify by date when the State and the counties identified in response to Interrogatory No. 76 (a) met to prepere for the Ginna Exercise, (b) trained for the Exercise, and (c) drilled in preparation for the exercise. Identify and provide all documents containing documentation of these events.
Answer to Interrocatory No. 77.
Egg General Objections Nos. 1, 2 and 5.
LILCO Interrocatory No. 78
- 78. State for each county in the Ginna ingestion pathway EPZ whether each county's EOC was activated and whether it remained operational throughout the Ginna Exercise. For each county whose EOC was not activated or which did not remain operational throughout the exercise, explain who directed the county's operations and from where.
15 -
T -
=r-- -- , - , - - - , , .--m r ve---- --- -,-- - ~-e-- r---------+-------e *- .ve--v ---------,r- - . - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -
l
. 1 I
Answer to Interrocatory Po. 78.
Egg General Objections Nos. 1 and 2. i l
I LILCO Interrocatory No. 79 l
- 79. Do the Intervenors believe (see 10 C.F.R. Part 50, App. E (F)(3)(e)) that it is suff!cient to demonstrate at least once every five years the State's capabilities to make an ingestion ;
pathway response through an exercise held at only one nuclear I power plant site in the State? If the answer is no, state (a) for which sites in the State that the State's capabilities 1 must be tested in a separate exercise and (b) whether the counties within the 50-mile EPZs of these sites must also i participate in a FEMA graded exercise to demonstrate their ability to make an ingestion pathway response.
Answer to Interrocatory No. 79.
igg General Objection No. 1. In addition, the Interrogatory is objectionable because it is vague and ambiguous. To the extent that the interrogatory seeks an interpretation of law, the Governments object on the ground they are not required to provide any such interpretation.
LILCO Interrocatory No. 80
- 80. If the answer to the first part of Interrogatory No. 79 is yes, state how a single ingestion pathway exercise, like the Ginna Exercise, demonstrates the ability of New York State and ,
the counties in the ingestion pathway EPZs of the other nuclear power plants in the State to make an ingestion pathway response at any other nuclear power plant in the State.
Answer to Interrocatory No. 80.
Egg General Objections Nos. 1 and 2. Egg also Answer to Interrogatory No. 79, above.
i 4
LILCO Interroaatory No. 81
- 81. If the Intervenors believe that the Ginna Exercise demonstrates the capabilities of the State and other counties to respond to an emergency at other nuclear power plants, state whether the Ginna Exercise demonstrates the capabilities of New York State and the counties and other pertinent jurisdictions in the Shoreham 50-mile EPZ to make an ingestion pathway response to a Shoreham emergency. If the answer is no, explain why not.
Answer to Interrocatory No. 81.
Egg General Objections Nos. 1 and 2. In addition, the Interrogatory is objectionable because it is vague and ambiguous.
LILCO Interrocatory No. 82 i i
- 82. Do the Intervenors believe that for each nuclear power plant in New York State an ingestion pathway exercise must be conducted (a) to satisfy NRC requirements and (b) to demonstrate that the counties are adequately prepared for an ingestion pathway respotics ? If no, explain why not.
Answer to Interrocatory No. 82.
Egg General Objections Nos. 1 and 2. In addition, the Interrogatory is objectionable because it is vague. To the extent that the Interrogatory seeks an interpretation of law, the Governments object as they are not required to provide any such interpretation.
LILCO Interrocatory No. 83
- 83. Idsntify all documents critiquing the Ginna Exercise, including any informal reports, articles, or summaries prepared by the State, counties or utility; and draft FEMA post-exercise repcrts and the final FEMA post-exercise report. Provide copies of all such documents.
m
Annwar to Interroaatory No. U.
. gag Gene 1 Objections Nos. 1, 2, 3 and 5. The Governments also object on the ground that much of the information requested is as easily accessible to LILCO as tc the Governments.
LILCO Interrogstory No. 85
- 85. Identify, on a county-by-county basis for each county in New York State in a 50-mile EPZ of a nuclear power plant, the "routines" referred to on page 4 of the REPG Affidavit in the sentence "thore are also many additional routines developed at the State and county level via close interaction of personnel which are not reflected in the generic State Plan or the county addenda." Identify any documents that contain these "routines."
If the "routines" are site-specific to the particular counties, identify the counties to which tha routines apply. State whether these routines apply to all counties in New York State located in an ingestion pathway EPZ of a nuclear power plant. Provide copies of al' identified documents.
Answer to Interrocatory No. 85.
Egg General Objections Nos. 1, 2 and 5.
i LILCO Interrocatory No. 87
- 87. On a county-by-county basis for all counties in New York
, State located in an ingestion pathway EPZ of a nuclear power plant, identify the "detailed State and local government drills and exercises" referenced at the bottom of page 5 of the REPG Affidavit.
Answer to Interrocatory No. 87 Egg General Objections Nos. 1 and 2.
LILCO Interrocatory No. JR
- 88. Identify the bases and actual experiences and activities that support the statement at page 6 of the REPG Affidavit "that l
- -- . , - _ - . . , . ..,-,,.. ,-- ,-_, n , - .---_. _-- ,.- . ,,,,- - a-.- -----..,.-.- ,, - - . _ _ ,__-.--.--.,__,-. -, -, ,.
the various counties respond very differently to ingestion pathway and recovery and reentry matters." Provide specific examples of (a) how the counties respond differently and (b) the implication of these differences.
Answer to Interrocatory No. 88.
Egg General Objections Nos. 1 and 2.
LILCO Interrocatory No. 89
- 89. Identify, on a county-by-county basis for all counties in New York State located within an ingestion pathway EPZ of a nuclear power plant, the "detailed, albeit somewhat informal procedures and techniques" referenced at page 6 of the REPG Affidavit which "enhances the real framework for an integrated response." Identify and provide copies of all documents that contain these "procedures and techniques" for each county.
Answer to Interrocatory No. 89.
Egg General Objections Nos. 1, 2 and S.
LILCO Interrocatory No. 90
- 90. In discussing the proper protective response options available for making decisions about agricultural land on page 8 of the REPG Affidavit, REPG states that "substantial information is needed on soil conditions, crop rotations (and), water flow patterns . . . ." State (a) whether all of this information was made available during the Ginna Exercise, (b) whether it was actually used during the Ginna Exercise, and (c) whether this information is kept updated for each county in New York State that is located in an ingestion pathway EPZ of a nuclear power plant. Identify, on a county-by-county basia, who is responsible for gathering and updating this information. If it is collected by State personnel, identify what local offices are responsible for this task and where this information is kept. Provide copies of all documents containing this information.
Answer to Interrocatory No. 90.
f e
i Egg General Objections Nos. 1, 2 and 5.
kILCO Interroaatory No. 91
- 91. In reference to page 8 of the REPG Affidavit, identify for each county in New York State located in an ingestion pathway EPZ of a nuclear power plant (a) what county personnel "are needed to provide these data," (b) who according to "pre planning" "will perform particular tasks," (c) what these "particular tasks" are, and (d) the training and evaluation of these personnel 7ecessary to do these "particular tasks." Identify all documents containing this "pre-planning," training, and evaluation.
Provide copies of all such cocuments.
Answer to Interrocatorv No. 91.
Egg General Objections Nos. 1, 2 and 5.
LILCO Interrocatory No. 92
- 92. Identify, on a county-by-county basis for all counties in New York State located in an ingestion pathway EPZ of a nuclear power plant, "the procedures, dedicated rescurces (and) trained personnel" that New York State has identified "for ingestion pathway data collection and analysis" referred to on page 9 of the REPG Affidavit. Provide copies of all such documents.
Answer to Interrocatory No. 92.
Egg General Objections Nos. 1, 2 and 5.
LILCO Interrocatory No. 93
- 93. If the Intervenors believe that "[t]he level of training required for a proper ingestion pathway response is illustrated by preparation for the Ginna exercise" which "involved close to nine months," REPG Affidavit at 9-10, state whether the same type and amount of training and preparation has already been conducted for all other couaties in New York State in an ingestion pathway EPZ of a nuclear power plant. Identify which counties have been prepared to the (same or greater) extent. If the same type and amount of preparation has not been conducted with respect to any counties in New York State in an ingestion pathway EPZ of a 9
1 i
nuclear power plant, state why such preparation has not been !
conducted and whether there are plans to do so.
, l l
Answer to Interroaatory No. 93.
Egg General Objections Nos. I and 2. i l
LILCO IntJrroaatory No. 94
- 94. State whether the counties in the Ginna ingestion pathway EPZ were capable of making an ingestion pathway response to a Ginna radiological emergency prior to this "close to nine months" s l
of preparation identified on page 10 of the REPG Affidavit. If the answer is yes, explain why nine months of preparation was needed.
&gswer to Interrocatory No. 94.
111 General Objections Nos. 1 and 2.
LILCO Interrocatory No. 95
- l
- 95. State whether the State will change its approach to planning i for an ingestion pathway response in light of the two "important i
i lessons page learned 10 of as Affidavit.
the REPG a result of the Ginna exercise" identified on i If yes, state what changes the State will make. If no, explain why changes will not be made. I Answer to Interrocatory No. 95. i Egg General Objections Nos. 1 and 2. In addition, the t
Interrogatory is objectionable because the term "change its ,
approach to emergency planning" is vague and ambiguous. i LILCO Interrocatory No. 96_
- 96. Identify, on a county-by-county basis for each county in New York that is located in an ingestion pathway EPZ of a nuclear power plant, the location of the local cooperative extension offices that would participate in an ingestion pathway response.
Answer to Interroaatory No. 96.
ggg General Objections Nos. 1 and 2.
In addition, the information sought is as accessible to LILCO as it is to the Governments.
LILCO Interrocatory No. 97
- 97. Page 10 of the REPG Affidavit cites two "examples" of site-specific implementing procedures that concern an "adequate local communication network for use by the ingestion sampling teams,"
and "an adequate operations base for the ingestion sampling ,
teams." For each county in New York State that is located in an ingestion pathway EPZ of a nuclear power plant, identify (a) the "site-specific implementation procedures" for these two "examples," (b) who is responsible for implementing these procedures, and (c) and training or drills that have taken place concerning these procedures. Provide copies of all documents relating to these procedures and the training involving these procedures.
Answer to Interroaatory No. 97.
Egg General Objections Nos. 1, 2, 3 and S.
LILCO Interroaatory No. 98
- 98. The REPG Affidavit at 10 says that there are "detailed procedures" which go "beyond the generic Plan and county-specific agenda . . . which implement the tasks identified in the Plan.
Identify, on a county-by-county basis for each county in New York State that is located in an ingestion pathway EPZ of a nuclear power plant, these detailed procedures, and state which tasks in the State Plan they are used to implement. Provide copies of all such documents.
Answer to Interrocatory No. 98.
111 General Objections Nos. 1, 2 and 5.
LILCO Interroaatory No. 99
- 99. State whether it would take nire months to a year for the counties in New York State in an intestion pathway EPZ of a nuclear power plant to be prepared to make an ingestion pathway and recovery and reentry response that would be adequate to satisfy the applicable NRC requirements. If the answer is no, -
state how long it would take the counties to become prepared.
Answer to Interrocatory No. 99.
Egg General Objections Nos. 1 and 2. :n addition, this Interrogatory calls for speculation.
LILCO Interrocatory No. 100 100. Identify when the State and County EOCs on Long Island have been activated in the past, why they were activated, what activities took place, and who was responsible for those activities.
Answer to Interrocatory No. 100.
Egg General Objections Nos. 1, 2 and 4. The State has no IOC on Long Island. The Suffolk County EOC has never been 1
activated for a Shoreham-related emergency. Any information sought regarding Nassau County should'be obtained from Nassau County.
LILCO Interroaatory No. 101 101. Has New York State or Suffolk or Nassau County ever implemented their recovery procedures on Long Island in response to a man-made or natural disaster or emergency? If so, identify each occurrence? For each occurrence, identify (a) who in the State and County was involved in this response, (b) what roles they were responsible for, and (c) what activities took place.
Answer to Interrocatory No. 101.
EgA General Objections Nos. 1, 2 and 4.
LILCO Interrocatory No. 102 102. If the "counties near Shoreham have not dedicated the resources or trained the personnel to support a state ingestion pathway response," REPG Affidavit at 12, state how they will support an ingestion pathway response to a Millstone, Haddam Neck, Oyster Creek, or Indian Point radiological emergency.
Answer to Interrocatory No. 102.
Egg General Objections Nos. 1, 2, and 3.
LILCO Interrocatory No. 103 103. At pare 11 of the REPG Affidavit it states that the State Plan does not define responsibilities "since the precise details of how a county can respond are only worked out in "discussions" about how the counties can assist the State in an ingestion pathway response. For each county in New York State in an ingestion pathway EPZ of a nuclear power plant, state when the State has had these "discussions," who attended these "discussions," and, for each county, the "precise details" of the "assistance" that each county will provide the State in an ingestion pathway response. Identify when these "discussions"
- 24 -
l l
have been "refined" during "drills, table too exercises, and
' similar training sessions. . . . "
Answer to Interrocatory No. 103.
Egg General objections Nos. 1, 2, and 3.
LILCO Interrocatory No. 104 104. If the State and all the counties have not had these "discussions," state (a) why they have not occurred, (b) when they will occur, and (c) how the counties can be prepared at this time to assist the State in an ingestion pathway response if these "discussions" have not occurred.
Answer to Interrocatory No. 104.
Egg General Objections Nos. 1 and 2.
LILCO Interrocatory No. 105 105. In denying LILCO Material Fact No. 2 REPG states "the State and local government personnel who will be responsible for carrying out particular recovery and reentry and ingestion pathway functions are not primarily identified in the Plan."
REPG Affidavit at 17. Identify these "unidentified" State and local government personnel who will be responsible for recovery and reentry activities for each county in New York State located within a 50-mile EPZ of a nuclear power plant.
Answer to Interrocatory No. 105.
! Egg General Objections Nos. 1 and 2.
LILCO Interrocatory No. 108 i
108. In response to LILCO Material Fact No. 8 REPG stated that even though the Monroe County Plan says the State Plan has I complete instructions on recovery, the State Plan does not have l complete instructions. REPG Affidavit at 19. Explain how the Monroe County Plan statement can be true. If it is only true "in context," please identify the context that makes it true.
i l l
i
, , . , , , . - , - - - , . - - n.-- - .--
Answer to Interroaatory No. 108.
ggg General Objections Nos. 1 and 2.
LILc0 m erroaatory No. 112 112. Explain the Intervenors' "understanding (about] what actually would occur in Monroe County with respect to the County Executive" that is more "complex" than that indicated in LILCO Material Fact No. 17. REPG Affidavit at 21. Identify the detailed preparation and planning referenced in the REPG response excluding Monroe County's preparation for the 1987 Ginna Exercise.
Answer to Interrocatory No. 112.
Egg General Objections Nos. 1 and 2.
LILCO Interrocatory No, 113 113. In response to LILCO Material Fact No. 21, REPG states that -
the "State Department of Health is a21 the only agency that has responsibilities for analyzing all of the exposure pathways
. . ." REPG Affidavit at 22. Identify on a county-by-county basis for each county in New York State in a 50-mile EPZ of a nuclear power plant all other agencies that have this responsibility.
Answer to Interrocatory No. 113.
Egg General Objections Nos. 1 and 2.
LILCO Interrocatory No. 115 .
115. In response to LILCO Material Fact No. 41, REPG states that "particular counties provide more or less support, depending on (various] factors. . . . " REPG Affidavit at 26. On a county-by-county basis for each county in New York State located in a 50-mile EPZ of a nuclear power plant what "more or less support" is provided in comparison to that listed in LILCO Material Fact No. 41.
Answer to Interroaatorv No. 115.
ggg General Objections Nos. 1 and 2.
LILCO Interroaatory No. 136 116. In response to LILCO Material Fact No. 54, REPG states that the Ginna Exercise tested "the State ingestion pathway procedures for local governments in the vicinity of Ginna only.' State what parts of the State Plan were not tested during the Ginna Exercise and if the State plans to test these parts at another exercise.
Answer to Interrocatory No. 116.
Egg General Objections Nos. I and 2.
LILCO Interrocatory No. 117 117. Identify and describe any and all portions of Suffolk County that are within the plume exposure EPZ of the Millstone
- Nuclear Power Plant in Connecticut.
Answer to Interrocatory No. 117.
Egg General Objections Nos. 1 and 2. The ".overnments also object on the ground that the information sought is as easily accessible to LILCO through publ.ic sources as it is to the Governments.
LILCO Interroaatory No. 118 118. Identify any and all plans and precedures that Suffolk County would use, follow, or otherwise rely upon to respond to a radiological amargency at the Millstone plant which required the implementation of protective measures, including, but not limited to, evacuation of the portions of Suffolk County identified in Interrogatory No. 117. Provide a copy of all such documents.
27 -
~--
Answer to Interroaatory No. 118.
- 'gg General Objections Nos. 1 and 4.
LILCO Interroaatory No. 120 120. Please provide a copy of any and all existing plans and procedures for responding to emergencies, whether radiological or nonradiological, affecting suffolk County, including, but not limited to, chemical spills, fires, hurricanes, explosions, and earthquakes. Please include any and all plans for dealing with accidents involving shipments of radiological materials to Brookhaven National Lab, the Shoreham Nuclear Power Station, hospitals and other medical facilities, and industrial facilities.
Answer to Interroaatory No. 12q.
Egg General Objections Nos. 1 and 4.
r LlLCO Interroaatorv No. 122 122. With respect to New York State, how do the answers to Interrogatories Nos. 10, 13, 15, 16, 21, 22, 23, 30, 37, and 42 differ from what the State would do in a radiological emergency at other operating nuclear power plants in New York State?
Answer to Interroaatory No. 122.
Ett General Objections Nos. 1 and 2.
LJLCO Interroaatory No. 123 123. To the extant not already requested, please provide all (sic] copies of all documents identified in response to che above interrogatories.
28 -
. , , , - . . . - - - - , g .,-w a - - - ,-------^^^c"
Answer to Interroaatory No. 123.
gag General Objections Nos. 1, 2; 3, 4 and 5. To the extent documents are identified in the Governments' April 22 Answers in response to non-objectionable questions, they will be provided.
OBJECTIONS STATED BY COUNSEL counsel state all objections and answers not requiring verification.
.E. Thomas Boyle Suffolk County Attorney Building 158 North County Complex Veterans Memorial Highway Hauppauge, New York 11788
, 3 -4 ' . 1- -
Lawrence C. Lanpher Christopher M. McMurray Ronald R. Ross
KIRKPATRICK & LOCKHART 1800 M Street, N.W.
South Lobby - 9th Floor Washington, D.C. 20036-5891 Attorneys for Suffolk County
. LaA }> aA m.m.)
Fabian G. Palomikof Richard J. Zahnleuter Special Counsel to the Governor of the State of New York Executive Chamber, Room 229 Albany, New York 12224 Attorneys for Mario M. Cuomo, Governor of the State of New York 29 -
1
\
$QG h3- LA~%%)
Stephen B. Latham Twomey, Latham & Shea 33 West Second Street Riverhead, New York 11901 Attorneys for the Town of Southampton i
4 W
6 i
l
[ l
+
30 -
Aoril 20, 1988 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 SERylCE I hereby certify that copies of GOVERNMENTS' OBJECTIONS TO LILCO'S SECOND SET OF INTERROGATORIES REGARDING CONTCNTIONS 1-2, -
4-8, AND 10 have been served on the following this 20th day of April, 1988 by U.S. mail,~first class, except as otherwise indicated.
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 Commission 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 Dr. Jerry R. Kline Federal Emergency Management Agency 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.*
Hunton & Williams Fabian G. Palomino, Esq. P.O. Box 1535 Richard J. Zahnleuter, Esq. 707 East Main Street Special Counsel to the Governor Richmond, Virginia 23212 Executive Chamber, Rm. 229 State Capitol Albany, New York 12224
Joel'Blau, Esq. Anthony F. Earlay, Jr., Esq.
Director, Utility Intervention General Counsel N.Y. Consumer Protection Board Long Island Lighting Company Suite 1020 175 East Old Country Road Albany, New York 12210 Hicksville, New York 11801 E. Thomas Boyle, Esq. Ms. Elisabeth Taibbi, Clerk Suffolk County Attorney Suffolk County Legislature Bldg. 158 North County Complex Suffolk County Legislature Veterans Memorial Highway Office Building Hauppauge, New York 11788 Veterans Memorial Highway Hauppauge, New York 11788 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 Soction Executive Director Office of the Secretary Shoreham Opponents Coalition U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Comm.
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 New York State Department of Law Suffolk County Executive 120 Broadway, 3rd Floor H. Lee Dennison Building Room 3-118 Veterans Memorial Highway New York, New York 10271 Hauppauge, New York 11788 MHB Technical Associates Dr. Monroe Schneider 1723 Hamilton Avenue North Shore Committee Suite K P.O. Box 231 San Jose, California 95125 Wading River, New York 11792 l Mr. Jay Dunkleburger Richard G. Bachmann, Esq.
l New York State Energy Office Edwin J. Reis, Esq.
Agency Building 2 Office of the General Counsel Empire State Plaza U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Comm.
Albany, New York 12223 Washington, D.C. 20555 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 l
1
Douglas J. Bynes, Councilman Adjudicatory File Town Board of Oyster Bay Atomic Safety and Licensing Board Town Hall Panel Docket (ASLBP)
Oyster Bay, New York 11771 U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission Washington, D.C. 20555
. 14 .
7 Ronald R. Ross KIRKPATRICK & LOCKHART 1800 M Street, N.W.
South Lobby - 9th Floor
. Washington, D.C. 20036-5891 By Federal Express i
l f
l
4 Attachment 2 I
e I
i l
i r 1
I I
I
A Aoril 22, ligg 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) )
_)
GOVERNMENTS' ANSWERS AND ADDITIONAL OBJECTIONS TO LILCO'S SECOND SET OF INTERROGATORIES REGARDING CONTENTIONS 1-2, 4-8, AND 10 Pursuant to 10 CFR S 2.740b(b), and in accordance with this Board's oral ruling of April 11 and Confirmatory Memorandum and Order of April 12, Suffolk County, the State of New York and the Town of Southhampton (the "Governments") hereby answer LILCO's Second Set of Interrogatories Regarding Contentions 1-2, 4-8, and
~
10 (March 24, 1988) ("Interrogatories").
The Governments' objections to LILCO's Interrogatories were served on April 20. This Answer contains additional objections to some of the Interrogatories, but answers are nevertheless provided. Many of the answers herein reference the Governments' Objection to Portions of February 29 and April 8 Orders In the Realism Remand and Offer of Proof (April 13, 1988) (hereafter, "April 13 Objection and Offer of Proof"). The April 13 Objection and Offer of Proof sets forth the Governments' intended testimony kv f ' '
on the matters at issue in this proceeding (except on immateriality) and is as complete a statement of the Governments' intentions, with respect to a "best efforts" response to a Shoreham emergenc:r, as they are able to provide.
Answers and Obiectiong LILCO Interrocatory No. 9
- 9. Wich respect to the Contention 5 functions, please state whether New York State and Suffolk County, as part of a "best efforts" response to a radiological emergency at Shoreham, would do anything other than generally follow the LILCO Plan.
&Dawer to Interroaatory No. 9.
For the reasons set forth in the Governments' April 13 Objection and Offer of Proof, the Governments would not follow LILCO's Plan.
LILCO Interroaatory No. 10
- 10. Unless the answer to Interrogatory No. 9 is a simple no, please identify and describe the processes, methods, and means by which New York State and Suffolk County emergency response per-sonnel would be notified of a radiological emergency at Shoreham.
Specifically, in Intervenors' Answer to LILCO's Motion for Summary Disposition of Contentions 5 and 6 (Feb. 10, 1988) (here-inafter "Answer to 5 and 6 Motion") on page 22 Intervenors state that "the issues presented by LILCO's realism defense to Conten-tions 5 and 6, CLI-86-13, and the new rule require this Board to determine how the Governments would respond in an emergency" and that "the Board's inquiry must focus" on certain matters, which you then list. With respect to these matters, in your response to this interrogatory please include answers to the following questions which Intervenors raised:
- a. How would the State learn of a Shoreham accident?
(Answer to 5 and 6 Motion at 22.)
- b. How long would it take New York and Suffolk County to "react to a call from LILCO reporting that there had been an accident at Shoreham?" (id.)
I l
- c. Whom would the person or persons receiving the call in
, turn have to contact? How would those contacts be made and how long would such contacts take? (14. at 22-23).
Answer to Interrocatory No. 12 The Governments object to this Interrogatory on the ground that it calls for speculation by the Governments. Notwithstand- i ing this objection, the Governments state that, for the reasons set forth in their April 13 Objection and Offer of Proof, they have not adopted any plan, nor have they otherwise trained or planned for responding to a Shoreham emergency. Accordingly, beyond stating that they would exercise their best judgment at the time of the accident, the Governments do not know how or when they would learn of a Shoreham accident, whether they would receive a call from LILCO, who would receive a call (if one were 1
to be received), or how long any contacts might take. Suffolk County notes that, as stated by Mr. Halpin during his deposition, neither he nor his top deputies regularly carries a "beeper" or other similar device. Thus, while Mr. Halpin, as County Executive, would be the person in charge of any County action, it 1
is not clear whether Mr. Halpin could be contacted at any particular !!me or how long contacting him might take.
LILCO Interrocatory No _,ll
- 11. To the extent not already provided in your response to Interrogatory No. 10, please answer the following questions with respect to the RECS lines to State offices:
- a. What is required to make the existing Shoreham RECS
! lines to the State "operational" and "capable of func-I tioning?" (See Affidavit of James D. Papile, May 11, ,
1987, at 3 1 4),
- b. If Shoreham were to operate at 100% power, would the State permit the RECS lines to be made operational? l i
i
_.m- , , . . , . , . _ . , . , . , . . . _ . . , _ . - - , - - - - . _ _ _ . _ _ , . _ _ _ _ - . . _ _ _ _ _ , - , . . _
- c. Precisely how far is the nearest Shoreham RECS line drop from each of tne following offices:
(1) REPG in Albany (ii) the State Police Communications Center in Albany (iii) the State EOC in Alban,v (iv) the SEMO district office in Poughkeepsie?
- d. Will the State permit LILCO, at LILCO's expense, to relocate the RECS lines to each of the above four locations?
- e. Will the State permit LILCO, at LILCO's expense, to relocate the RECS lines to each of the above four -
locations if Shoreham were licensed to operate at 100 percent power?
Answer to Interrocatory No. 11.
- a. The "Shoreham RECS Lines to the State" referred to in this Interrogatory protrude from the walls in the various locations and terminate as bare, dangling wires. What is required to make the lines operational is uncertain. Certainly, at a minimum, they would need to be connected to telephones.
Whether this would be sufficient to make them operational is unknown because the system has not been in service for years and it could be non-operational or might malfunction for any number of reasons.
b,d, and e. The State objects to these Interrogateries on the ground that they call for speculation. Notwithstanding this objection, the State answers that, for the reasons set forth in the April 13 Objection and Offer of Proof, the State has not adopted any plan for Shoreham and will not cooperate with LILCO in developing or implementing any emergency plan or response, j
4-4
Beyond these facts, the State is unable to provide any further in'ormation.
f The County is unable to respond to these Interroga-tories which are directed to the State.
- c. The State objects to this Interrogatory on the ground that the term "Shoreham RECS line drop" is vague. Notwithstand-ing this objection, the State answers that the wires referenced abover (i) located closest to REPG in Albany protrude from a wall in a non-REPG office that is approximately 50 yards, through corridors, from the REPG office; (ii) located cloaest to the State Police Communications Center in Albany protrude from a wall in unrelated offices two floors aways (iii) located closest to the State EOC in Albany protrude from a wall in the State EOC; and (iv) located closest to the SEMO district office in Poughkeepsie protrude from a wall in that office.
LILCO Interrocatory No _,12r
- 12. To the extent not already provided in your response to Interrogatory No. 10, please answer the followings
- a. Identify and describe any and all procedures, methods, and means by which the Governor of New York and the Suffolk County Executive can be contacted or paged 24 hours2.777778e-4 days <br />0.00667 hours <br />3.968254e-5 weeks <br />9.132e-6 months <br /> a day. Identify those persons who have control of or access to those means of contact and describe how those persons can be contacted 24 hours2.777778e-4 days <br />0.00667 hours <br />3.968254e-5 weeks <br />9.132e-6 months <br /> a day.
- b. If for any reason the Governor of New York could not be contacted or was otherwise not available to respond to a radiologier.1 emergency at Shoreham, who would be responsible for performing the Governor's duties in the Governor's absence? How would tnat person be contacted and informed of a radiological emergency at Shoreham?
- c. If for any reason the Suffolk County Executive could not be contacted or was otherwise not available to respond to a radiological emergency at Shoreham, who would be responsible for performing the Suffolk County Executive's duties in the county Executive's absence?
How would that person be contacted and informed of a radiological emergency at Shoreham?
Answer to Interroortory No. 12.
The Governments object to this Interrogatory to the extent it calls for speculation about who would be contacted, and how they would be contacted, in a Shoreham emergency. Egg April 13 Objection and Offer of Proof. Notwithstanding this objection, 111 Answer to Interrogatory No. 10. In addition, the County attaches herewith a document regarding SCPD procedures for contacting members of the County Executive's staff "in the event of a newsworthy or major incident." The State also notes in response to this Interrogatory that pursuant to Sections 24(1) and 28 of the Executive law, only a local chief executive may request a "declaration of disaster emergency" from the Governor.
Therefore, the relevant "procedure, method and means "by which the Governor can be contacted in a radiological emergency include contact by a local chief executive.
LILCO Interrocatory No. 13
- 13. Unless the answer to Interrogatory No. 9 is a simple no, please identify and describe the processes, methods, and means which New York State and Suffolk County would use, undertake, or employ in activating the early warning siren system in the event of a radiological emergency at Shoreham. Specifically, in your response to this interrogatory please include answers to the following questions which Intervenors raised in their Answer to 5 and 6 Motion at 23:
- - .- - . - - _ _ _ _ _-. u_--._..
- a. Who from New York State and Suffolk County would need to be consulted in connection with a decision concern-ing when or how to activate the sirens? (Answer to 5 and 6 Motion at 23.)
- b. How would such consultations take place and how long would they take? (Id.)
- c. Who would make the decisions as to when and how to activate the sirens? (Id.)
- d. What "data, information, and criteria" would be "needed, desired, consulted or relied upon" by the person or persons responsible for determining when to activate the sirens and how to do so? (14.)
- e. Who would "implement" the decision to activate the sirens? (14.)
- f. How long would it take to "implement" the decision to activate the sirens? (Id.) '
Answer to Interrocatory No. 13.
The Governments object to this Interrogatory on the ground that it calls for speculation by the Governments. Notwithstand-ing this objection, the Governments state that, for the reasons set forth in their April 13 Objection and offer of Proof, they have not adopted any plan, or otherwise trained or planned for i responding to a Shoreham e.nergency. Accordingly, they are in no position to provide further responsive information. Suffolk 4
County also notes that Mr. Halpin testified during his deposition that he does not intend to use LILCO's siren system and thus the assumed basis for this Interrogatory is not accurate. The State notes further that the LILCO Plan does not assume a role for the State in siren activation and thus there is no basis for the Interrogatory to the extent it is directed to the State.
t LILCO Interrocatory No. 14 14 .' To the extent not already provided in your response to Interrogatory No. 13, please answer the following:
- a. Assuming that the public in the Shoreham 10-mile EPZ needed to be alerted quickly to the existence of a Shoreham radiological emergency, would the State and County allow the existing sirens to be sounded?
- b. Is you answer the same if the State and County also assume that a public education brochure has been dis-tributed annually throughout the EPZ telling people that they should tune their radios to the EBS when they hear sirens?
Answer to Interroaatory No. 14.
The Governments object to this Interrogatory on the ground that it calls for speculation by the Governments. Notwithstand-ing this objection, the Governments state that, for the reasons set forth in their April 13 Objection and Offer of Proof, they have not adopted any plan, or otherwise trained or planned for responding to a Shoreham emergency. Accordingly, they are in no position to provide further responsive information. The State and County also object to subpart (b) because it assumes a fact (distribution of the brochure) that cannot occur since LILCO l lacks legal authority to distribute such a brochure.
LILCO Interrocatory No. 15
- 15. Unless the answer to Interrogatory No. 9 is a simple no, please identify and describe the processes, methods, and means which New York State and Suffolk County would use, undertake, or employ in activating an Emergency Broadcast System (EBS) in the event of a radiological emergency at Shoreham. Specifically, in your response to this interrogatory please include answers to the following questions which Intervenors raised in their Answer to 5 and 6 Motion at 23:
4
- a. Who would have to be "contacted" in connectiore with making a decision whether to activate an EBS? (Answer to 5 and 6 Motion at 23.)
- b. How would those "contacts" be made and how long would it take to make such "contacts?" (Id.)
- c. Who would need to be "consulted in connection with a decision concerning when or how to activate an EBS"?
How would those "consultations" take place and how long would they take? (Id.)
- d. Who would make the decisions as to when or how to activate an EBS? (Id.)
- e. What "data, information, and criteria" would be "needed, desired, consulted, or relied upon" by the person or persons responsible for deciding when or how to activate an EBS? (Id.)
- f. Who would "implement" the decision to activate an EBS?
(14.)
- g. How long would it take to "implement" the decision to activate an EBS? (Id.)
- h. What EBS would be chosen for use by New York State and Suffolk County? (14.)
Answer to Interrocatory No. 15.
The Governments object to this Interrogatory on the ground that it calls for speculation by the Governments. Notwithstand-ing this objection, the Governments state that, for the reasons set forth in their April 13 Objection and offer of Proof, they have not adopted any plan, or otherwise trained or planned for responding to a Shoreham emergency. Accordingly, they are in no position to provide further responsive information. Mr. Halpin similarly made clear at his April 19 deposition that since the County has no plan for taking these actions, he could not respond to similar questions because he does not know the answer.
i g Interroaatory No. 16 16 .' Unless the answer to Interrogatory No. 9 is a simple no, please identify and describe the processes, methods, and means which New York State and Suffolk County would use, undertake, or employ in preparing and broadcasting EBS messages in the event of a radiological emergency at Shoreham. Specifically, in your response to this interrogatory please include answers to the following questions which Intervenors raised in their Answer to 5 and 6 Motion at 24:
- a. Who would be responsible for decercining the contents of EBS messages? (Answer to 5 and 6 Motion at 24.)
- b. What "criteria" would be v8ed in determining the con-tents of EBS messages? (1d.)
- c. Who would be responsible for drafting EBS messages and long would this drafting process take? (14.)
- d. Who would be responsible for approving EBS messages and how long would this approval process take? (Id.)
- e. Who would broadcast EBS messages? (14.)
- f. How would the broadcasts of EBS messages be made and how often would they be made (1d.)
Answer to Interrocatory No. 16.
The Governments object to Ehis Interrogatory on the ground that it calls for speculation by the Governments. Notwithstand-ing this objection, the Governments state that, for the reasons set forth in their April 13 Objection and Offer of Proof, they have not adopted any plan or otherwise trained or planned for responding to a Shoreham emergency. Accordingly, they are in no position to provide further responsive information.
LILCO Interroaatory No. 17
- 17. To the extent not provided in your response to Interrogatory No. 16, please answer the following:
- a. Would the State and County use prewritten messages as much as possible, rather than writing new ones from scratch at the time of the emergency? If so, where are the prewritten messages to be found?
10 -
I t
- b. If it were necessary to get a message to the public
.- immediately advising them to shelter or evacuate, would !
the State and County consider broadcasting one of the messages in LILCO's emergency plan?
Answer to Interroaatory No. 17 The Governments object to this Interrogatory on the ground -
that it calls for speculation by the Governments. Notwithstand- 7 ing this objection, the Governments state that, for the reasons f
set forth in their April 13 Objection and Offer of Proof, they i-have not adopted any plan or otherwise trained or planned for i responding to a Shoreham emergency. Accordingly, they are in no :
position to provide further responsive information. The Goverr. - i ments state further in response to subpart b that, consistent !
with the testimony of Mr. Halpin and Dr. Axelrod, they will not l use LILCO's Plan. ,
l LILc0 Interroaatory No. 18 '
- 18. Identify any and all plans and procedures that New York State and Suffolk County would use, follow, or otherwise rely i upon in performing the Contention 5 functions. Please provide
[
copies of all such plans and procedures. '
Answer to Interrocatory No. 18. '
No such plans and procedures have been identified or exist. i LILCO Interroaatory No. 19
- 19. Please state each and every reason why Intervenors believe ,
that their implementation of the Contention 5 functions as :
described in their responses in Interrogatories Nos. 10, 13, 15, :
16, and 17 would be their "best efforts," whereas following the f LILCO Plan would not. Please list each and every factor that Intervenors claim would prevent their "best efforte" response from satisfying the applicable NRC requirements.
Answer to Interrocatory No. 19.
As the Governments stated in response to the referenced contentions, they cannot speculate on what their response might be. Following the LILCO Plan wculd not be their "best efforts" because, for the reasons stated in the Governments' April 13 Objection and Offer of Proof, the Governments do not believe the LILCO Plan will protect the public and do not believe it can be successfully implemented. The Governments, consistent with their responsibilities to their citizens, could not use LILCO's plan which they have found to be independent. The Governments' ad hqq best effort response would not be adequate under NRC regulations for the reasons identified in the April 13 Objection and Offer of Proof.
LILCO Interroaatory No. 20
- 20. With respect to the Contention 6 functions, please state whether New York State and Suffolk County, as part of a "best efforts" response to a radiological emergency at Shoreham, would do anything other than generally follow the LILCO Plan.
Answer to Interroaatory No. 20.
For the reasons set forth in the Governments' April 13 Objection and Offer of Proof, the Governments will not follow LILCO's Plan.
LILCO Interroaatory No. 21
- 21. Unless the answer to Interrogatory No. 20 is a simple no, please identify and describe che processes, methods, and means which New York State and Suffolk County would use, undertake, or employ in determining, deriving. or deciding upon protective action recommendations in the e,snt of a radiological emergency at Shoreham. Specifically, in your response to this interroga-tory please include answers to the following questions which Intervenors raised in their Answer to 5 and 6 Motion at 24:
_.__,.o_ . - . - . - - . . - . , - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -
- a. Who would be responsible for determining, deriving, or deciding upon protective action recommendations? (Id.)
- b. How long would it take to locate the' person or persons responsible for determining protective action recommen-dations and to provide those peracas with "information" they believed "necessary and appropriate?" (Id.)
- c. ilhat "information" would the person or persons responsible for determining protective action recommendations require in order to determine protective action recommendations, and how would they obtain that "information?" (I.d. )
- d. What "criteria" would be used in determining protective action recommendations, and "how would those criteria be applied to information actually available in an emergency?" How long would this "process" take, and who would "perform" it? (Id.)
Answer to Interrocatory No. 21.
With respect to the State of New York, the Governor would ultimate.'.y be responsible for deciding upon protective action recommendations. With respect to Suffolk County, the County Executive would ultimately be responsible for decidi, apon protective action recommendations. Beyond these responses, the Governments object to this Interrogatory on the ground that it calls for speculation by the Governments. Notwithstanding this objection, the Governments state that, for the reasons set forth in their April 13 Objection and Offer of Proof, they have not adopted any plan, or trained or planned for responding to a shoreham emergency. Accordingly, they are in no position to provide further responsive information.
LILCO Interrocatory No. 22
- 22. Unless the answer to Interrogatory No. 20 is a simple no, please identify and describe the processes, methods, or means which New York State and Suffolk County would use, undertake, or employ in order to assume and exercise command and control of an emergency response to a radiological emergency at Shorcham.
Specifically, in your response to this interrogatory please include answers to the following questions which Intervenors raised in their Answer to 5 and 6 Motion at 24:
- a. Who would be responsible for assuming and exercising com;aand and control of the emergency response? (Answer to 5 and 6 Motion at 24.)
- b. How long would it take to locate the person or persons responsible for assuming and exercising command and control of the emergency response and to provide those persons with "information" they believed "necessary and appropriate?" (Id.)
- c. What "information would the person or persons responsible for assuming and exercising command and control of the emergency response require in order to assume and exercise command and control, and how would they obtain that "information?" (Id.)
i Answer to Interrocatory No. 22.
With respect to the State of New York, the Governor would ultimately be responsible for assuming command and control of the emergency response. With respect to Suffolk Co'inty, the County Executave would ultimately be responsible for the emergency response. Beyond these responses, the Governments object to this Interrogatory on the ground that it calls for speculation by the Governments. Notwithstanding this objection, the Governments state that, for the reasons set forth in their April 13 Objection and Offer of Proof, they have not adopted any plan as trained or planned for responding to a Shoreham emergency. Accordingly, they are in no position to provide further responsive information.
LILCO Interrocatory No. 23
- 23. Unless your answer to Interrogatory No. 20 is a simple no, please identify and describe the processes, methods, or means which New York State and Suffolk County would use, undertake, or employ in order to manage, implement, and coordinate an emergency responne to a radiological emergency at Shoreham. Specifically, i
l l
- - . - . - - - - . ~ . . , , . _ . - - _ - - , , . . , , . , - - , - - - .
-~ - - . . - . - . . . . - . - - . . . . - ,
in your response to this interrogatory please include answers to the;following questions which Intervenors raised in their Answer to 5 and 6 Motion at 24-25:
- a. Who would be responsible for managing, implementing, and coordinating the emergency response? (Answer to 5 and 6 Motion at 24.)
- b. How long would it take to locate the person or persons responsible for managing, implementing, and coordi-nating the emergency response and to provide those persons with "information" they believe "necessary and appropriate?" (14.)
- c. What "information" would the person or persons responsible for managing, implementing, and coordinating the emergency response require in order to perform those functions, and how would they obtain that information? (1d.)
- d. What "functions" would need to be managed, implamented, and coordinated during the emergency response? What "personnel" would need to be managed and coordinated during the emergency response? (Id. at 24-25.)
- e. How would those persons responsible for managing, implementing, and coordinating the emergency response contact and communicate with all "necessary personnel" during the emergency response? How long would it take to establish that contact and perform those communica-tions? (14. at 25.)
Answer to Interrocatory No. 23.
The Governor and County Executive would ultimately be responsible for managing, implementing and coordinating any response. The Governments object to the remainder of this Interrogatory on the ground that it calls for speculation by the Governments. Notwithstanding this objection, the Governments state that, for the reasons set forth in their April 13 Objection and Offer of Proof, they have not adopted any plan, or trained or planned for responding to a Shoreham emergency. Accordingly, they are in no position to provide further responsive informa-tion.
l l
LILCO Interrocatory No. 24 1
- 24. Suffolk County and the State of New York have admitted that !
they would attempt to stay in contact with LILCO or LERO or both i during a Shoreham emergency (LILCO's Statement of Material Facts, !
Mar. 20, 1987, t 46). To the extent not already provided in your l responses to Interrogatories No. 21-23 above, please answer the i following:
- a. How would the County attempt to stay in contact?
- b. How would the State attempt to stay in contact?
Answer to Interrocatory No. 24.
The Governments object to this Interrogatory on the ground that it calls for speculation by the Governments. Notwithstand-ing this objection, the Governments state that they do not know how they would attempt to stay in contact with LILCO. It would necessarily depend upon multiple factors, such as LILCO's role in causing the disaster. For the reasons set forth in their April 13 Objection and Offer of Proof, they have not adopted any plan or trained or planned for responding to a Shoreham emergency. Accordingly, they are in no position to provide further responsive information.
LILCO Interrocatory No. 25 l
- 25. To the extent not already provided in your responses to Interrogatories Nos. 21-23 above, please answer the following questions with respect to the criteria the State and County would use to make protective action determinations for the plume ex-posure pathway (10-mile) EPZ:
- a. What criteria would be used to decide whether the public should evacuate?
- b. What criteria would be used to decide whether the public should shelter?
- c. Would the f a e and County use EPA's Protective Action Guidelines to make protective action recommendations?
t I
1
- d. Would the State use different criteria from the ones it
, would use for radiological emergencies at other nuclear plants? If so, please specify how the Shoreham criteria would differ.
Answer to Interrcoatory No. 25.
The Governments object to this Interrogatory on the ground that it calls for speculation by the Governments. Notwithstand-ing this objection, the Governments state that, for the reasons set forth in their April 13 Objection and Offer of Proof, they have not adopted any plan, or otherwise trained or planned for responding to a Shoreham emergency. Accordingly, they are in no position to provide further responsive information.
LILCO Interrocatory No. 26
- 26. To the extent not already provided in your responses to other of these Interrogatories, please identify what criteria and standards the State and County would use to raake protective action recommendations for the ingestion exposure pathway (50-mile) EPZ.
Answer to Interrocatory No. 15 The Governments object to this Interrogatory on the ground that it calls for speculation by the Governments. Notwithstand-ing this objection, the Governments state that, for the reasons set forth in their April 13 Objection and Offer of Proof, they have not adopted any plan or trained or planned for responding to a Shoreham emergency. Accordingly, they are in no position to provide further responsive information.
LILCO Interrocatory No. 27
- 27. Identify any and all plans and procedures that New York State ar.d Suffolk County would use, follow, or otherwise rely upon in performing the Ccatention 6 functions. Please provide copies of all such plans and procedures.
i
Answer to Interrocatory No. 27.
None has been identified or exists.
LILCO Interrocatory No. 28
- 28. Please state each and every reason why Intervenors believe that their implementation of the Contention 6 functions as described in their responses to Interrogatory Nos. 21-25 above would be their "best efforts," whereas following the LILCO Plan would not. Please list each and every factor that Intervenors claim would prevent their "best efforts" response from satisfying the applicable NRC requirements.
Answer to Interrocatory No. 28.
Egg Answer to Interrogatory No. 19.
LILCO Interrocatory No. 29
- 29. With respect to the Contentions 1 and 2 functions, please state whether New York State and Suffolk County, as part of a "best efforts" response to a radiological emergency at Shoreham, would do anything otaer than generally follow the LILCO Plan.
&DJLWRE to Interrocatory No. 29.
For the reasons set forth in the Governments' April 13 Objection and Offer of Proof, the Governments will not follow LILCO's Plan.
LILCO Interrocatory No. la
- 30. Unless the answer to Interrogatory No. 29 is a simple no, please identify and describe the traffic control plans, strate-gies or techniques which the Suffolk County Police Department (SCPD) would implement during the evacuation of all or a portion of the EPZ in the event of a radiological emergency at Shoreham.
Specifically, i r. Intervenors' Response in Opposition to LILCO's Motion for Summary Disposition of Contentions 1 and 2 (Feb. 10, 1988) (hereinafter "Response to 1 and 2 Motion") at 46-47 Inter-venors state that "there are issues of fact regarding the nature and adequacy of a governmental 'best efforts' attempt at traffic control" and that "(a]mong the questions which must be addressed" are certain matters, which Intervenors then list. In your re-spense to this interrogatory please include answers to the fol-lowing questions which Intervenors raised in their Response to 1 and 2 Motion at 46-47:
- a. What would be the "level of preparedness" of the SCPD and "relevant" County officials in attempting to imple-ment traffic control? (Response to 1 and 2 Motion at 46.)
- b. What specific traffic control strategies would the SCPD implement and how would they be implemented? How long would it take to implement those strategies? (Id. at 47.)
- c. How many SCPD personnel would be required to implement the strategies identified in sub-part b above? How long would it take to mobilize sufficient SCPD per-sonnel to implement the strategies identified in sub-part b above? (1d.)
- d. Could Suffolk County "coordinate" with "other response organizations?" Would Suffolk County "coordinate" with "other response organizations?" If so, what other response organizations" would it "coordinate" with?
How would the County and these "other response organi-zations" would it "coordinate" with? How would the County and these "other response organizations" coordi-nate?" (14.)
&ngwer to Interrocatory No. 30.
The Governments object to this Interrogatory on the ground that it calls for speculation by the Governments. Notwithstand-ing this objection, the Governments state that, for the reasons set forth in their April 13 Objection and Offer of Proof, they have not adopted any plan, or otherwise trained or planned for responding to a Shoreham emergency. Accordingly, they are in no position to provide further responsive information. The County can state, however, that in response to subpart a, there would no level of preparedness, since Suffolk County has determined not to adopt, test, or implement any plan for Shoreham.
LILCO Interrocatory No. 31
- 31. The traffic posts and traffic movements to be encouraged and discouraged under the LILCO emergency plan are found in OPIP 3.6.3, Attachment 4. To the extent not already answered in your response to Interrogatory No. 30, please answer the following:
- a. Would Suffolk County and the State of New York send personnel to the posts listed in OPIP 3.6.3 if an evacuation of the Shoreham 10-mile EPZ were necessary?
- b. If not, which of the listed posts would not be manned, and which additional posts (not listed in OPIP 3.6.3) would be manned?
- c. Who would the State and County uso to man the traffic posts identified in response to a and b above?
- d. In what order would the State and County dispatch police (or other personnel) to the traffic posts? For example, would the State and County try to man the posts in the order listed in Attachment 7 to OPIP 3.6.3, or randomly, or accordingly to which police units were nearest which posts, or some other way? If "some other way," please describe it.
- e. How long would it take for the traffic posts to be fully manned by the State and County?
- f. Would the people manning the traffic posts for the State and County use the traffic control strategies (that is, the movements to be encouraged and dis-couraged and the channelization and traffic barrier placement) called for in the LILCO Plan? Which would the State and County use and which would the State and County not use?
- g. What traffic control measures would the State and County perform that are aqi called for in the LILCO Plan?
- h. If traffic were directed in accordance with your answers to b, f, and g above, would the evacuation times be greater than, less than, or the same as the evacuation times if the LILCO Plan were followed?
- 1. Assuming LILCO Traffic Guides were stationed at traffic posts listed in OPIP 3.6.3, would Suffolk County traffic personnel (i) ignore them, (ii) send them away, (iii) use them as a source of information or help as needed, or (iv) something else? If the answer is something else, please specify what.
Answer to Interroaatory No. 31.
With respect to subpart a, the answer is no for the reasons set forth in the Governments' April 13 Objection and Offer of Proof. Subparts b-f are therefore without basis. With respect to subpart i, the Governments would neither follow the advice of LILCO's Traffic Guides, nor permit them to direct traffic, which they have no authority to do. The Governments also object to this Interrogatory on the ground that it calls for speculation by the Governments. Notwithstanding this objection, the Governments state that, for the reasons set forth in their April 13 Objection and Offer of Proof, taey have not adopted any plan for responding to a Shoreham emergency. Accordingly, they are in no position to provide further responsive information.
LILCO Interrocatory No. .12
- 32. To the extent not already provided in your response to Interrogatory No. 30 above, please answer the following. If the answer differs for different times of the day or week, please answer for each time:
- a. How many uniformed police offices does Suffolk County employ? How many are on duty at any give time?
- b. How many police vehic'les driven by uniformed officers are on duty in Suffolk County at any given time?
- c. How many New York State Police vehicles driven by uniformed officers are on duty in Suffolk County at any given time?
Answer to Interyocatory No. 32,
- a. The County employs 2,615 police employees, both uniformed and non-uniformed. Of these, 1,740 are dedicated to the patrol division in patrol, supervisory and administrative positions. At any given time,
- i. .__
- - - - t- - - - -
approximately 135 uniformed officers are assigned to vehicles for 7atrol, Expressway enforcement, crime scene and supervisory duties.
- b. At any given time, approximat.ely 185 vehicles driven by uniformed officers are on duty including patrol vehicles, beach vehicles, crime scene vehicles and supervisory vehicles.
- c. Depending on certain factors, between three and five New York State Police vehicles are on duty in Suffolk County from 11:00 p.m. to 7:00 a.m., between seven and eleven New York State Police vehicles are on duty fron 7:00 a.m. to 3:00 p.m., and between eight and twelve New York State Police vehicles are on duty from 3:00 p.m. to 11:00 p.m.
LILCO Interrocatory No. 33
- 33. To the extent not already provided in your response to Interrogatory No. 30 above, please indicace how many police vehicles driven by uniformed officers are on duty at any given time for each of the following police departments:
- a. Suffolk County Sheriff's Office
- b. Riverhead Police Department
- c. Southampton Police Department
- d. Southold Police Department l l l
- e. Belle Terre Village Police Department
- f. Old Field Village Police Department
- g. Head of the Harbor Police Department
- h. Nissequogue Police Department
- i. Quogue Police Department
- j. Westhampton Police Department
- k. Parkway Police Answer to Interroaatory No. 33.
With respect to subpart a, there are approxim ely 158 uniformed deputies on duty with the Suffolk County Sheriff's Office, dedicated largely to court and civil process duties, not police functions. With respect to subpart k, the "Parkway Police" are part of the State Police. Egg Answer to Interrogatory 32c. The Governments do not have specific information for the other departments listed in subparts b-j, which are separate entities from the Suffolk County Police Department.
LILCO Interroaatory No. 34
- 34. Identify any and all plans and procedures that New York State and Suffolk County would use, follow, or otherwise rely upon in performing the Contentions 1 and 2 functions. Please provide copies of all such plans and procedure's.
Answer to Interrocatorv No. 34.
None has been identified or exists.
LILCO Interroaatorv No. 35
- 35. Please state each and every reason why Intervenors believe that their implementation of the Contentions 1-2 functions as described in their responses to Interrogatories Nos. 30-31 above would be their "best ef forts, whereas following che LILCO Plan
would not. Please list each and every factor that Intervenors claim would prevent their "best efforts" response from satisfying the applicable NRC requirements.
Answer to Interrocatory No. 35.
Ett Answer to Interrogatory No. 19.
LILCO Interrocatory No. 36
- 36. With respect to the Contention 10 functions, please state whether New York State and Suffolk County, as part of a "best efforts" response to a "best efforts" response to a radiological emergency at Shoreham, would do anything other than generally follow the LILCO Plan.
Answer to Interrocatory No. 36.
For the reasons set forth in the Governments' April 13 Objection and Offer of Proof, th'e Governments will not follow LILCO's Plan.
LILCO Interrocatory No. 37
- 37. Unless the answer to Interrogatory No. 36 is a simple no, please identify tha processes, methods, or means which the Suffolk County Police Department (SCPD) would use, undertake, or employ to perform access control functions at the EPZ perimeter in the event of a radiological emergency at Shoreham. Specif-ically, in an attachment to Intervenors' Opposition to LILCO's Motion for Summary Disposition of Contention 10 (Access Control at the EPZ Perimeter) (Feb. 10, 1988) Intervenors list several "issues of material fact in dispute." With respect to these issues, in your response to this interrogatory please include answers to the following questions which Intervenors raised:
- a. Has the SCPD made any "plans or preparations" to imple-ment access control? (Governments' Statement of Issues of Material Fact in Dispute.)
- b. What "standards" would the "local authorities use for exclusion and over how wide an area?" (Id.)
- c. Would Suffolk County "interact" with other "response organizations?" If so, what other "response organiza-tions" would it coordinate with? How would the County and these other "response organizations" coordinate?
(1d.)
24 -
- d. How many SCPD personnel would be required to implement access control? How long would it take to mobilize SCPD personnel to implement access control? (Id.)
- e. Would the SCPD's response be affected by the absence of radiological protection training or equipment? If so, how would it be affected? (Id.)
Answer to Interrocatory No. 37.
The answer to subpart a is no. With respect to the remain-ing subparts, the Governments object to this Interrogatory on the ground that it calls for speculation by the Governments. Not-withstanding this objection, the Governments state that, for the reasons set forth in their April 13 Objection and Offer of Proof, they have not adopted any plan or trained or planned for responding to a Shoreham emergency. Accordingly, they are in no position to provide further responsive information.
LILCO Interrocatory No. 38
- 38. To the extent not already provided in your response to Interrogatory No. 37 above, please answer the following:
- a. Would Suffolk County and the State of New York try to provide control of access to the Shoreham 10-mile EPZ if it had to be evacuated in a radiological emergency?
- b. Would the State and County provide access control durina the evacuation? If so, would the State and County forbid people to enter the EPZ? If not, what would the "Access control" consist of?
- c. Would the State and County provide access control after the EPZ had been evacuated? If so, why?
- d. Where would police (or other personnel) be stationed to provide access control? List all locations,
- e. How many personnel would be required to provide this
, access control?
l I
t
- f. How long would it take Suffolk County and the State to have people in place to provide this access control?
l l
l 25 -
Answer to Interrocatory No. 38.
The Governments object to this Interrogatory on the ground that it calls for speculation by the Governments. Notwithstand-ing this objection, the Governments state that, for the reasons set forth in their April 13 Offer of Proof, they have not adopted any plan or trained or planned for responding to a Shoreham emergency. Accordingly, they are in no position to provide further responsive information.
LILCO Interrocatory No. 39
- 39. Identify any and all plans and procedures that New York State and Suffolk County would use, follow, or otherwise rely upon performing the Contention 10 functions. Please provide copies of all such plans and procedures.
Answer to Interroaatory No. 39.
None has been identified or exist.
LILCO Interrocatory No. 40
- 40. Please state each and every reason why Intervenors believe that their implementation of the Contention 10 functions as described in their responses to Interrogatories 37-38 would be their "best efforts," whereas following the LILCO Plan would not.
Please list each and every factor that Intervenors claim would prevent their "best efforts" response from satisfying the applicable NRC requirements.
Answer to Interrocatory No. 40.
Egg Answer to Interrogatory No. 19.
LILCO Interroaatory No. 41
- 41. With respect to the Contention 4 functions, please state whether New York State and Suffolk County, as part of a "best efforts" response to a radiological emergency at Shoreham, would do anything other than generally follow the LILCO Plan.
Answer to Interrocatory No. 41.
For the reasons set forth in the Governments' April 13 Objection and Offer of Proof, the Governments will not follow LILCO's Plan.
LILCO Interrocatory No. 42
- 42. Unless the answer to Interrogatory No. 41 is a simple no, please identify the processes, methods, or means which New York State and Suffolk County (SCPD) would use, undertake, or employ to remove obstructions from public roadways in the event of a radiological emergency at Shoreham. in an attach-ment to Intervenors' Response in Oppo,Specifically, sition to LILCO's Motion for Summary Disposition of Contentions 4 and 9 (Feb. 10, 1988),
Intervenors list several "material facts as to which there exists I a genuine issue to be heard on matters raised by LILCO's Motion l for Summary Disposition of Contentions 4 and 9." With respect to I
these "material facts," in your response to this interrogatory please include answers to the following questions which Inter-venors raised:
- a. Who from New York State and Suffolk County would be in "overall charge" of an effort to remove road obstruc-tions? Who would actually remove read obstructions and how would they remove them? (Statement of Material Facts.)
- b. How would the removal of road obstructions be "coordi-nated with such other functions as guiding traffic and selecting alternate evacuation routes?" (Id.)
- c. How would a decision to develop and implement a plan to remove road obstructions be implemented? How long would it take to implement such a plan? (Id.)
- d. How long would it take to mobilize and dispatch per-sonnel into the field to remove road obstructions?
Would a "sufficient" number of qualified personnel be "available, willing, and able to implement a plan to remove road obstructions?" (1d.)
Answer to Interrocatory No. 42.
The Governments object to this Interrogatory on the ground that it calls for speculation by the Governments. Notwithstand-ing this objection, the Governments state that, for the reasons
set forth in their April 13 Objection and Offer of Proof, they hav'e not adopted any plan, or trained or planned for responding to a Shoreham emergency. Accordingly, they are in no position to provide further responsive information.
LILCO Interroaatory No. 43
- 43. To the extent not already provided in your response to Interrogatory No. 42, please state how the State and County would remove road obstructions in a Shoreham emergency by answering the following:
- a. Would Suffolk County and New York State direct or permit LERO road crews to remove obstructions?
i l
- b. Other than LERO vehicles, what vehicles would the State and County use to remove obstructions?
- c. How many such vehicles are available?
- d. Where are these vehicles garaged? Provide addresses and the number of vehicles at each address.
- e. Are these vehicles available to the State or County at all times? If not, when are they unavailable?
- f. What personnel would the State and County use to remove obstructions?
- g. Where are the drivers and personnel needed to remove obstructions during ordinary business hours?
- h. Where would the State and County station vehicles and personnel for the purpose of removing road impediments once a Shoreham emergency had begun?
- i. If during a Shoreham emergency a LERO road crew were in a position to remove a road impediment materially faster than the State or County could do it, would the State and County permit the LERO road crew to remove the impediment? If not, why not?
- j. How does Suffolk County remove road impediments ordi-narily (that is, when there is no Shoreham emergency)?
Does the County use county vehicles, privately owned tow trucks, or something else? Who owns these vehi-cles? (List owners and number of vehicles for each owner.) How many such vehicles are available to the County?
28 -
____..____.1____-___.___-. __
Answer to Interrocatory No. 43.
The answer to subparts a and i are no, as set forth in Mr.
Halpin's and Dr. Axelrod's testimony. The Governments object to the remainder of this Interrogatory (except subpart j) on the ground that it calls for speculation by the Governments.
Notwithstanding this objection, the Governments state that, for the reasons set forth in their April 13 Objection and Offer of Proof, they have not adopted any plan or trained or planned for responding to a Shoreham emergency. Accordingly, they are in no position to provide further responsive information. With respect l
to subpart j, road impediments are generally removed by private ;
contractors licensed by the Towns located in Suffolk County. The numbers of sucia private contractors and their identities are not known precisely by the County, but the information is probably available from lists maintained by the Town Clerk of each Town.
LILCO Interrocatory No. 44
- 44. Identify any and all plans and procedures that New York State and Suffolk County would use, follow, or otherwise rely upon in performing the Contention 10 functions. Please provide copies of all such plans and procedures.
Answer to Interrocatory No. 44.
None has been identified or exists.
LILCO Interrocatorv No. 45
- 45. Please state each and every reason why Intervenors believe that their implementation of the Contention 4 functions as described in their responses to Interrogatories Nos. 42-43 would be their "best efforts," whereas following the LILCO Plan would not. Please list each and every factor that Intervenors claim would prevent their "best efforts" response from satisfying applicable NRC requirements.
4 Answer to Interroaatory No. 45, 111 Answer to Interrogatory No. 19.
LILCO Interroaatory No. 46
- 46. State whether New York State and Suffolk County, as part of a "best efforts" response to a radiological emergency at ,
Shoreham, will use LILCO's ingestion pathway and recovery and I reentry procedures as set forth in the LILCO Plan. If the answer !
is no, state why New York State and Suffolk County would not use I LILCO's procedures.
Answer to Interrocatory No. 46.
For the reasons set forth in the Governments' April 13 l
Objection and Offer of Proof, the Governments will not follow LILCO's Plan.
LILCO Interrocatory No. 47
- 47. If the answer to Interrogatory No. 46 is no, state whether New York State and Suffolk County will use the New York State Radiological Emergency Preparedness Plan's (hereinafter "State Plan") procedures for an ingestion pathway and recovery and reentry response to a Shoreham emergency. If the answer is yes, identify what portions of the State Plan would be used and whether that response would be adequate to satisfy the applicable regulatory requirements. If the answer is no, state why New York State and Suffolk County would not use the State Plan.
Answer to Interrocatory No. 47.
The Governments object to this Interrogatory on the ground that it calls fcr speculation by the Governments. Notwithstand-ing this objection, the Governments state that, for the reasons set forth in their April 13 Objection and Offer of Proof, they have not adopted any plan or trained or planned for responding to a Shoreham emergency. Accordingly, they are in no position to provide further responsive information. The State notes, however, that the REPG Affidavit of February 10, 1988 makes clear that the State Plan could not be so used.
4
LILCO Interrocatory No. 48 4 8. ' State whether New York State and Suffolk County would set up a recovery committee to direct all recovery and reentry activi-ties in response to a Shoreham emergency. If the State and County would not set up such a committee, state what the State and County would do instead. If the State and County would set up such a committee, state who would be on the committee and what their responsibilities would be.
Answer to Interrocatory No. 48.
The Governments object to this Interrogatory on the ground that it calls for speculation by the Governments. Notwithstand-ing this objection, the Governments state that, for the reasons set forth in their April 13 Objection and Offer of Proof, they have not adopted any plan or trained or planned for responding to a Shoreham emergency. Accordingly, they are in no position to provide further responsive information.
LILCO Interrocatory No. 49
- 49. If New York State and Suffolk County would not use LILCO's or New York State's procedures, state what New crk State and Suffolk County would do to provide for the following during a Shoreham emergency, as listed in the State Plan at IV 2-3" (a) Sampling and monitoring of radiation and evaluation of data.
(b) Decontamination activities, including waste disposal.
(c) Security, including police and fire protection for affected area.
(d) Medical service.
(e) Electric power and telephone communications.
(f) Food and water supply.
(g) Operability of sanitary systems.
l 1
(h) Transportation.
(i) Sources of heat.
(j)
Conditions and needs of the affected population.
Answer to Interrocatory No. 49.
The Governments object to this Interrogatory on the ground that it calls for speculation by the Governments. Notwithstand-ing this objection, the Governments state that, for the reasons set forth in their April 13 Objection and Offer of Proof, they
. have not adopted any plan, or trained or planned for responding to a shoreham emergency. Accordingly, they are in no position to provide further responsive information.
LILCO Interrocatory No. 65 65.
If it is true that New York State has sufficient resources to respond to an emergency at the Millstone, Haddam Neck, Oyster Creek, and Indian Point nuclear power plants that affects the areas of the State located within the Shoreham 50-mile EPZ, state why, at page 7 of the "Affidavit of James D. Papile, James C.
Baranski and Lawrence B. Czech" ("REPG Affidavit") supporting Intervenors' Response to LILCO's Motion for Summary Disposition of Contentions 7 and 8 (Feb. 10, 1988), REPG says "[t]he State has no sufficient resources to respond to a Shoreham emergency."
answer to Interrocatory No. 65.
As stated in the Governments' April 13 Objection and Offer of Proof, the State has not adopted any plan for Shoreham. Thus, no resources have been allocated to respond to a Shoreham emergency.
LILCO Interroaatory No. 66
- 66. State whether the State and the counties and other pertinent jurisdictions within the 50-mile EPZ for Shoreham would respond in the same manner to a Shoreham emergency as they would to a radiological emergency at Millstone, Oyster Creek, Haddam Neck, or Indian Point. If the answer is no, explain why the State's and the counties' responses to a Shoreham emergency would not be the same and describe how they would be different.
0 .
Answer to Interrocatory No. 66.
The Governments cannot speak for the "counties and other pertinent jurisdictions within the 50-mile EPZ for Shoreham,"
other than Suffolk County. The Governments also object to this Interrogatory on the ground that it calls for speculation by the Governments. Notwithstanding this objection, the Governments state that, for the reasons set forth in their April 13 Objection and Offer of Proof, they have not adopted any plan, or trained or planned for responding to a Shoreham emergency. Accordingly, they are in no position to provide further responsive information.
LILCO Interrocatory No. 75
- 75. Is it the Intervenors' position that preparation, in the form of training, drills, and exercise, for a plume exposure response to a radiological emergency is adequate preparation for an ingestion pathway and recovery and reentry response?
Answer to Interroaatory No. 75.
No.
LILCO Interrocatory No. 84
- 84. The REPG Affidavit at page 8 states: "From experience at other sites in New York State, we have learned that the only way the State and local government personnel have been able to develop adequate site specific response capabilities is through detailed planning, interfacing with personnel, drilling, and exercising." Identify the "other sites and the "experience" referred to in the REPG Affidavit.
Answer to Interrocatory No. 84.
The "other sites" are other nuclear plants in the State of New York. The "experience" consists of FEMA comments following exercises and drills.
LILCO Interrocatory No. 106 106. In denying LILCO Material Fact No. 4 REPG states that "the State has not developed procedures that are applied generically to other plants. Rather, all procedures of the State are tailored to site-specific situations . . . . "
If this statement is true, explain why the Intervenors admitted that the State has a "generic State plan" that is applied to all nuclear power plants. Identify "all procedures of the State that are tailored to site-specific situations" and identify those "site-specific situations.
Answer to Interrocatory No. 106.
This Interrogatory is based on the premise that "the Intervenors admitted that the State has a ' generic State plan' that is applied to all nuclear power plants." In response to LILCO Material Fact No. 3, REPG did not make such an admission, but, rather, agreed with the statement that "The State Plan is comprised of (1) a ' generic state plan' that is applied to all nuclear power plants and (2) appendices containing the county plans for all nuclear power plants in New York State other than Shoreham." LILCO has apparently misinterpreted the statement in the REPG Affidavit. An explanation of the relationship between the "generic State plan" and the site-specific plans, the identity of the procedures tailored to site-specific situations, and the identity of the site-specific situations is presented in paragraphs 5, 6 and 7, as well as other portions, of the REPG Affidavit.
LILCO Interrocatory No. 107 107. State what additional ingestion pathway and recovery and reentry activities must be taken in response to a radiological emergency that require "detailed interfacing and practice sessions" that the LILCO Plan does not address. See REPG Affidavit at 18-13.
l I
Answer to Interrocatory No. 107.
As the REPG Affidavit states in response to LILCO Material Fact No. 6, "Ingestion pathway and recovery and reentry activities are complex . . .. [T]here is considerable leeway for State and local governments to decide what actions are appropriate . . . . Absent such detailed pre-planning, it is likely that a response would be Ad h22, ineffective and inadequate." For the reasons set forth in the Governments' April 13 Objection and Offer of Proof, the State of New York has not engaged in such pre planning and has not adopted any plan for responding to a Shoreham emergency. The State of New York is thus in no position to provide further information.
LILCO Interrocatory No. 109 109. Identify what "staff members" would (provide) the "local chief executive" of Suffolk County with "information and recom-mendations" about recovery operations during a Shoreham emer-gency. See REPG Affidavit at 19-20. Identify what information and recommendations are referred to here.
Answer to Interrocatorv No. 109.
The Governments object to this Interrogatory on the ground that it calls for speculation by the Governments. Notwithstand-ing this objection, the Governments state that, for the reasons set forth in their April 13 Objection and Of5er of Proof, they have not adopted any plan, or trained or planned for responding to a Shoreham emergency. Accordingly, they are in no position to provide further responsive information.
{
l
LILCO Interrocatory No. 110 110. State what is the basis for the statement "any recovery committee which may be appointed is tailored to the specific site and to the specific details of the emergency." REPG Affidavit at
- 20. Give examples where this has been done during training, drills or exercises.
Answer to Interrocatory No. 110.
The basis for the statement, "any recovery committee which may be appointed is tailored to the specific site and to tne specific details of the emergency" is based on, among other things, the diversity of the affected community in terms of sociological, economical, industrial, agricultural and other matters, and the variation of the structures of local govern-ments. As examples, some counties have local health departments and others do not, some counties have a coun:.y executive who is empowered to make certain decisions and some counties have a different form of government involving a chairman who may or may not be empowered to make certain decisions. The nature of the accident would also dictate the nature of the recovery committee.
LILCO Interrocatory No. 111 111. In response to LILCO Mater'ial Fact No. 14, REPG states that "a variety of other persons may have primary responsibility" for the activities identified in that Material Fact. REPG Affidavit at 20. Give examples where this has been done during training, drills or exercises.
Answer to Interrocatory No. 111.
Other persons, whose responsibilities and activities are self-explanatory, include personnel from the Red Cross, religious organizations, the Salvation Army, psychological therapy groups, local agricultural or business organizations, etc.
-.1,-
- LILCO Interrocatory No. 114 114'. In reference to LILCO Material Fact No. 26, state what other facts would be considered before information about recovery actions would be disseminated to the public. See REPG Affidavit at 23.
&nswer to Interrocatory No. 114.
The Governments object to this Interrogatory on the ground that it calls for speculation by the Governments. Notwithstand-ing this objection, the Governments state that, for the reasons set forth in their April 13 Objection and Offer of Proof, they have not adopted any plan, or trained or planned for responding to a Shoreham emergency. Accordingly, they are in no position to provide further responsive information.
LILCO Interrocatory No. 119 119. Who in the New York State government and who in the Suffolk
. County government are most knowledgeable about how the State and County would respond to a Shoreham emergency with respect to each of the following functions:
- a. guiding traffic
- b. blocking roadways, erecting barriers in roadways, and channeling traffic
- c. removing obstructions from public roadways, including towing private vehicles
- d. activating sirens and directing the broadcasting of emergency broadcast system messages
- e. making decisions and recommendations to the public concerning protective actions
- f. making and implementing decisions and recommendations to the public concerning protective actions for the ingestion exposure pathways
- g. making and implementing decisions and recommendations to the public concerning recovery and reentry
i
- h. performing access control at the EPZ perimeter?
Answer to Interrocatory 111 With respect to the State of New York, Commissioner David Axelrod has been identified to testify regarding the State's response. Suffolk County Executive Patrick Halpin has been designated to testify regarding the County's response.
LILCO Interrocatory No. 121 121. If Shoreham were in fact operating at 100 percent power, would (a) the State of New York and (b) Suffolk County do any-thing to improve their present state of preparedness to respond to a radiological emergency? If so, precisely what would (a) the State and (b) the County do?
Answer to Interrocatory 121.
The Governments object to this Interrogatory on the ground that it calls for speculation by the Governments. Notwithstand-
, ing this objection, the Governments state that, for the reasons set forth in their April 13 Objection and Offer of Proof, they 1
. . -. .- - _ . _ . - - - - - - - - . ,.. - . _ _ , - _ _ _ . . . ._.._.,---.D.2. - . . . - - - . - - . - - .
have not adopted any plan for responding to a Shoreham emergency.
Accordinglps,they are in no positien to provide further responsivt information.
E. Thomas Boyle Suffolk County Attorney Duilding 158 North County Complex Veterans Memorial Highway Hauppauge, New York 11788
( b Lawrence C. Lan'pher
/
Karla J. Letsche Christopher M. McMurray /
KIRKPATRICK tr LOCKHART 1800 M Street, N.W.
South Lobby - 9th Floor Washington, D.C. 20036-5891 Attorneys for Suffolk County Fab'ian G. Pa}ffnino/ '&
/
M Richard J. Zahnl Mter Special Counsel to the Governor of the State of New York Executive Chamber, Room 229 Capitol Building Albany, New York 12224 Attorneys for Mario M. Cuomo, Governor of the State of New York Stephen /W. Latham '
b /m Twomey, Latham & Shea /
P.O. Box 398 33 West Second Street Riverhead, New York 11901 Attorney for the Town of Southampton i
i
, - , - - -, ,-----0 *
.- ...~ . ....
- n. s 8
, .. .__ -- - A *g C 'fR, tG-(5 ' , :'/ -
" - ?lL J _ __
" Ch[II'.F I]lSPECTOR '
, . .. 1/_5_/1. 3 . .
h xx .. , . . . .. . .
(
. ..i.. . : . ......... - -_
- . . . .. . . . . . . . . . w....... - . . - . - - - -
. . (. -A NOTIFICATION TO THE COUNTY EXECUTIVE If f s::i .'s ic.ediately, the Duty officer will nesi!y a repres.intative of the Office syn..:. ef a newsucrthy or ma)cr incident.
of the County T.xecutive in the The representatives to be contacted are:
Monday - Friday, 0900-1700 l
Contact one of the following (call in order as listed):
THOMAS McATEER CHIEF DEPUTY COUNTY EXECUTIVE LAR?.Y 3CHWARTZ DEPU1'Y COUNTY EXEC'".*IVE DENNIE McCARTHY ASSI3 TANT TO COUNTY EXECUTIVE T.11 Other Times and Bolidays D ?N!3 McCARTHY ASSISTANT TO COUNTY EXECUTIE The Duty Officer will t i: .e , date, note in the Duty Officer's Log the to rake contact andinperson the log.contacted or will document attempts END l
Acril 22. 1988 UNITED STATES OF AMERICA NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSION Before the f.tomic Safety and Licensino Board t
) !
In the Matter of ) {
}
LONG ISLAND LIGHTING COMPANY I
) Docket No. 50-322-OL-3 l
) (Emergency Planning) '
(Shoreham Nuclear Power Station, )
Unit 1) )
i
)
1 i
' CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE I he W certify that copies of GOVERNMENTS' ANSWERS AND ADDITION 1
'ECTIONS TO LILCO'S SECOND SET OF INTERROGATORIES REGARDING JENTIOMS 1-2, 4-8, AND 10 have been served on the following this 22nd day of April, 1988 by U.S. mail, first class, except as otherwise indicated.
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 Commission.
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 Dr. Jerry R. Kline Federal Emergency Management Agenc, 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.*
Hunton & Williams Fabian G. Palomino, Esq. P.O. Box 1535 Richard J. Zahnleuter, Esq. 707 East Main Street Special Counsel to the Governor Richmond, Virginia 23212 Executive Chamber, Rm. 229 State Capitol Albany, New York 12224 2.
1 1
1 JoeiBlau,Esq. Anthony F. Earley, Jr., Esq. !
Director, Utility Intervention General ~ Counsel i N.Y. Consumer Protection Board Long Island Lighting Company Suite 1020 175 East Old Country Road Albany, New York 12210 Hicksville, New York 11801 l
E. Thomas doyle, Enq. Ms. Elisabeth Taibbi, Clerk Suffolk County Attorney Suffolk County Legislature Bldg. 138 North County Complex Suffolk County Legislature Veterans Memorial Highway Office Building Hauppauge, New York 11788 Veterans Memorial Highway Hauppauge, New York 11788 l
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 1
Ms. Nora Bredes Docketing and Service Section Executive Director Office of the Secretary Shoreham Opponents Ccalition U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Comm.
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 New York State Department of Law Suffolk County Executive 120 Broadway, 3rd Floor H. Lee Dennison Building Room 3-118 Veterans Memorial Highway New York, New York 10271 Hauppauge, New York 11788 MHB Technical Associates Dr. Monroe Schneider ;
1723 Hamilton Avenue North Shore Committee Suite K P.O. Box 231 j San Jose, California 95125 Wading River, New York 11792 Mr. Jay Dunkleburger Richard G. Bachmann, Esq.
New York State Energy Office Edwin J. Reis, Esq.
Agency Building 2 Office of the General Counsel Empire State Plaza U.S. Nucinar Regulatory Comm. ;
Albany, New York 12223 Washington, D.C. 20555 David A. Brownlee, Esq. Mr. Stuart Diamond Kirkpatrick & Lockhart Business / Financial l 1500 Oliver Building NEW YORK TIMES l Pittsburgh, Pennsylvania 15222 229 W. 43rd Street ,
l l
1 1
I
DouhlasJ.Hynes, Councilman Adjudicatory File Town Board of Oyster Bay Atomic Safety and Licensing Board Town Hall Panel Docket (ASLBP)
Oyster Bay, New York 11771 U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commissio; Washington, D.C. 20555
, 7_. a. .
L Ronald R. Ross KIRKPATRICK & LOCKHART 1800 M Street, N.W.
South Lobby - 9th Floor Washington, D.C. 20036-5891
- By Federal Express
~3-
Attachment 3 L. . . . _ , _ . . __ - - - - - -- . . - - . - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - ' -
LILCO, April 16,1988 i
UNITED STATES OF AMERICA NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSION j l
i Before the Atomic Safety and Licenstnr Board In the Matter of ) ,
) l LONG ISLAND LIGHTING COMPANY ) Docket No. 50-322-OL-3
) (Emergency Planning)
(Shoreham Nuclear Power Station, ) (Best Efforts 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, I will take the deposition upon oral examination of Patrick Halpin on matters concerning i New York State's and Suffolk County's participation in a "best efforts" response to a Shoreham emergency as it relates to Contentions EP 1-2, 4-8, and 10. The deposition will be taken before a notary public and court reporter on Tuesday, April 19,1988, at 1:00 p.m. and thereaf ter until the taking of the deposition may be completed, at the of-fices of the Suffolk County Executive, the H. Lee Dennison Building, Hauppauge, New York.
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, to include those documents requested to be produced in "LILCO's Second Set of
. Interrogatories and Requests for Production of Documents Regarding Contensions 1-2, 8805170266 080502
{DR ADOCK 05000322 PDR
2-4-8, and 10 to Suffolk County, New York State, and the Town of Southampton," dated March 24,1988.
Respectfully submitted, N_
ounse r ] Isla Lig ing Company Hunton & Williams 707 East Main Street P.O. Box 1535 Richmond, Virginia 23212 DATED: April 16,1988
LILCO, April 16, 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 copies of NOTICE OF DEPOSITION for Patrick Halpin were served this date upon the following by Federal Express as indicated by one asterisk, or by first-class mail, postage prepaid.
James P. Gleason, Chairman George W. Watson, Esq.
- Atomic Safety and Licensing Board William R. Cumming, Esq.
513 Gilmoure Drive Federal Emergency Management Silver Spring, Maryland 20901 Agency 500 C Street, S.W., Room 840 Richard G. Bachmann, Esq.
- Washington, D.C. 20472 U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission Office of the General Counsel Stephen B. Latham, Esq.
- Washington, D.C. 20555 Twomey, Latham & Shea 33 West Second Street Herbert H. Brown, Esq.
- P.O. Box 298 Lawrence Coe Lanpher, Esq. Riverhead, New York 11901 Karla J. Letsche, Esq.
Kirkpatrick & Lockhart Mr. Patrick Halpin
- South Lobby - 9th Floor Suffolk County Executive 1800 M Street, N.W. H. Lee Dennison Building Washington, D.C. 20036-5891 Veterans Memorial Highway Hauppauge, New York 11788 Fabian G. Palomino, Esq.
- Richard J. Zahnleuter, Esq.
Special Counsel to the Governor Executive Chamber Room 229 State Capitol Albany, New York 12124
~
Mahdo Hunton & Williams 707 East Main Street P.O. Box 1535 Richmond, Virginia 23212 DATED: April 16,1988
d Attachment 4 r
,, .-- _x. m.._ ., -__ , _ _. _. , .- -_ .---_ . _ , _ . _ . _ . . . _ _ . . _ . . _ _ . - _ _ ..
LILCO, April 16,1988 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, ) (Best Efforts Issue)
Unit 1) )
NOUCE OF DEPOMEON PLEASE TAKE NOTICE that the Long Island Lighting Company, by counsel, pur-suant to 10 C.F.R. 5 2.740a of the Nuclear Regulatory Commission's Rules cf Practice, will take the deposition upon oral examination of David Axelrod on natters concerning~
New York State's and Suffolk County's participation in a "best efforts" response to a Shoreham emergency as it relates to Contentions EP 1-2, 4-8, and 10. The deposition will be taken before a notary public and court reporter on Friday, April 22,1988, at 1:00 p.m. and thereaf ter until the taking of the deposition may be completed, at the of-fices of the New York State Department of Health, Empire State Plaza, Albany, New York.
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, to include those documents requested to be produced in "LILCO's Second Set of Interrogatories and Requests for Production of Documents Regarding Contensions 1-2, 8805170277 000502 gDR ADOCK 05000322 PDR
,
- y- w -- -- ,
--wr-
.g.
4-8, and 10 to Suffolk County, New York State, and the town of Southampton," dated March 24,1988.
Respectfully submitted, Y
ou a g d nting Company Hunton & Williams 707 East Main Street P.O. Box 153!,
Richmond, Virginia 23212 DATED: April 16,1988
f LILCO, April 16, 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 copies of NOTICE OF DEPOSITION for David Axelrod wero
, served this date upon the following by Federal Express as indicated by two asterisks, or by first-class mall, postage prepaid.
James P. Gleason, Chairman George W. Watson, Esq.
- Atomic Safety and Licensing Board William R. Cumming, Esq.
513 Gilmoure Drive Federal Emergency Management Silver Spring, Maryland 20901 Agency 500 C Street, S.W., Room 840 Richard G. Bachmann, Esq.
- Washington, D.C. 20472 U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission Office of the General Counsel Stephen B. Latham, Esq.
- Washington, D.C. 20555 Twomey, Latham & Shea 33 West Second Straet Herbert H. Brown, Esq.
- P.O. Box 298 Lawrence Coe Lanpher, Esq. Riverhead, New York 11901 Karla J. Letsche, Esq.
Kirkpatrick & Lockhart Mr. David Axelrod
- South Lobby - 9th Floor Commission, New York State 1800 M Street, N.W. Departmerit of Health Washington, D.C. 20036-5891 Empire State Plaza Tower Building rabian G. Palomino, Esq.
- Albany, New York 12237 Richard J. Zahnleuter, Esq.
Special Counsel to the Governor Executive Chamber Room 229 State Capitol Albany, New York 12224 dA4/
Mar %Jo rs Hunton & Williams 707 East Main Street l
P.O. Box 1535 Richmond, Virginia 23212 DATED: April 16,1988
Attachment 5 6
f
_.- _ ..- .., __-- ., ~. ~.-,_ , . _ . _ , - _ . . - , . - - - - __
, Huwrow & WILLIAxs 707 EAsv NAiN sim..? p.o.somasss
. =
. ..v6.v.=
.v.mus. m w. R:cwwown. V aoIw A eoe:e ..... w.
, .?.-";0 "i.*.J.'.".". v. s. . o ~ . .e4 7. . . . o o '5" .~a.'.'. *.";;*" '
re u . . . . . ..... .. ....
n u . . . .. ," *.......:*,,...
..a..
. .".L *a L. . .... . .,. ..
.. u ..... ...
,,,,,,,3,$,",,,, Apri1 18, 1988 a " "~ ~ ; a y,; **='~*
.... :. .::=....
................... ~:::=:::::::.: -
..k. e..
...u ,...s .........
7250 BY TELECOPY Lawrence Coe Lanpher, Esq.
Kirkpatrick & Lockhart South Lobby - 9th Floor 1800 M Street, N.W.
Washington, D.C. 20036-5891
Dear Larry:
I was unsuccessful in reaching you by telephone this afternoon to confirm the time and place of the deposition of County Executive Halpin tomorrow. Shortly after 5:00 PM, I did reach your secretary, who informed me that the deposition would begin at 2:00 PM at the County Executive's office on the 9th Floor of the Dennison Building in Hauppauge. Since then, Chris McMurray has confirmed this information in conversations with Don Irwin.
In light of this scheduling, let me reiterace what Don Irwin ,
has indicated previously. L1LCO does not agree in advance that this deposition, or any of the others currently noticed by LILCO, can be completed in the few business hours apparently allocated by the County, and LILCO intends to pursue the deposition as necessary through the evening hours and from day-to-day until it is completed.
Si cprely yours, K nnis Sisk 201/374 cc Christopher M. McMurray, Esq.
Richard J. Zahnleuter, Esq.
Richard G. Bachmann, Esq.
William R. Cumming, Esq.
i
\
l' HUNTON & WILLIAMS 7o7 CAar P4AiN Stasat P.o. Box (53 5
.O. =.vsv..n. .ws.w es. w.
R cawown. V aonw 4 eoe a .........
n . . .- .,.""M.
. . ... ',7.a.a'.*.0;;*.
......o,7.".'.7.*;'
. v.a. o~. .o. 7.... co
............... v.a e.44 . ... ..::; .. ..
n a ".." .." ""l.'" "" *....
. . . . ....... ..a4....,"'!**,.......
n a -..............
Apri1 21, 1988 * . o n . . n. . .*. . 6..-.
a . ,.. .....
. 6..- se.,...........
na s.f..*n.".."
- 'h,.. . ,..
2 4 5 6 6 . 3 0 0 0 01
".u..
... . .... 7250 BY TELECOPY Lawrence Coe Lanpher, Esq.
Kirkpatrick & Lockhart South Lobby - 9th Floor 1800 M Street, N.W.
Washington, D.C. 20036-5891 Halpin Deposition
Dear Larry:
County Executive Patrick Halpin, the County's chief --
indeed only -- witness on the realism /best efforts issue, was made available for deposition for only 2 hours2.314815e-5 days <br />5.555556e-4 hours <br />3.306878e-6 weeks <br />7.61e-7 months <br /> between 2:00 PM and 4:05 PM, on Tuesday, April 19. Before the deposition, we, on behalf of LILCO, had repeatedly requested that the deposition begin earlier in the day. We had also stated that we intended to pursue the deposition, if necessary, into the evening hours and from day-to-day until it was completed. At the deposition, at 4:05 PM, I made it clear on the record that LILCO had not completed its questioning on Mr. Halpin's proposed testimony, the affidavit filed therewith, and various attachments thereto, and that no other party (including counsel for the NRC) had had an opportunity to question the witness. I stated for the record that LILCO had further significant questions and would not agree to adjourn the deposition but would agree to continue it at a later date, subject to the agreement of counsel. In response, you posed a re-direct question to the witness, which opened an area ("delegation of police power authority to LILCO personnel") upon which I intended to cross-examine but did not have time to reach; I also noted that for the record. You then made the witness unavailable.
In a telephone conversation today, I asked whether Mr. Halpin would be made available for the continuation and completion of hir. deposition. You stated that he would not.
You further stated that if LILCO needed to make a motion, you
s Huwrow & WILtzAwa Lawrence Coe Lanpher, Esq.
Kirkpatrick & Lockhart April 21, 1988 Page 2 would respond. This is to inform you that LILCO intends to move for an ceder compelling the County to make Mr. Halpin available for the completion of his deposition.
Si erely yours, L
K nnis Sisk 201/374 cc Richard J. Zahnleuter, Esq.
Richard G. Bachmann, Esq.
William R. Cumming, Esq.
F e
Attachment 7 (Bound separately) 1 M/
Attachment 8 (Bound separately)
I Attachment 9 I
i
. . _ _ - - - - _ _ - _ . _ _ _ _ _ _ _ . . - - _ _ . _ - - _ _ _ . _ _ _ . _ . . . - ,_ _ _ . _ . . - _ - - -_ ~ . . - _ . - _ _ _ _ - -
1 UNITED STATES OF AMERICA NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSION
_ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ - _ _ - _x Before the Atomic Safety and :
Licensing Board In the Matter of Decket
- 50-322-LONG ISLAND LIGHTING COMPANY OL-3 SHOREHAM NUCLEAR POWER STATION : (Emergency UNIT 1 Planning)
. ...--__________x April 25, 1989 3:04 p.m.
Deposition of FRAN'K P. PETRONE. taken by LILCO.
pursuant to Notice and Board Order, at the Suffolk County County Attorney's Office. Veter is Memorial Highway. Hauppauge. New York, before tert E.
Levy, a Certified Shorthand Reporter . 1 Notary Public within and for the State of New York.
Doyle Reporting, Inc.
CERTIFIED STENOTYPE REPORTERS Computenzed Transenption 369 LEXINGTON AVENUE WALTER SHAPIRO. CSR NEW YORX. N.Y.10017 '
CHARLES SHAPIRO. CSR (212)867 8220
1 4 2 FRANK P. PETRONE. residing 3 at 3 Buckingham Drive. Dix Hills, New York 4 11746. having been fiedt duly sworn by the 5 Notary Public (Robert E. Levy), was 6 examined and testified as follows:
7 EXAMINATION BY '
8 MR. DAVIES:
9 Q. Mr. Petrone. What is your current 10 occupation?
11 A. I'm the county executive assistant 12 for County Executive Patrick Halpin.
13 Q. And the title is county executive 14 assistant?
15 A. Correct.
16 Q. Is that the full title?
17 A. Yes. it is.
18 Q. What are your areas of 19 responsibility?
20 A. My areas of responsibility are the 21 current Shoreham proceedings as well as working in 22 the area of energy.
23 Q. What are your responsibilit ies for 2* the current Shoreham proceedings?
25 A. My responsibilities for the Shoreham D0YLE REPORTING. INC.
1 24 . Petrone 2 won't press for an answer. Until then I 3 think I'm relevant and you think my 4 questions are not relevant.
5 MR. MILLER: In that regard we won't 6 be doing much talking.
7 Q. The question pending is whether the a County of Suffolk has a civil defense plan, I 9 think.
10 A. O.K., from what I can recall, the 11 County of Suffolk has an emergency plan and as 12 part of an emergency plan, through New York State 13 and through ultimate federal funding, they do have 14 some semblance of a civil defense component.
15 O. When you say some semblance of a 16 civil defense component, is that how you 17 characterize the civil defense plan?
10 A. Basically if -- we can Icok back to 19 what the federal government has required and that 20 is that they have been requiring for many years an 21 all-encompassing type of emergency planning 22 provided that there were no other regulations that 23 were promulgated through the federal government 24 that required specific planning for specific types 25 of emergencies and civil defense was a component D0YLE REPORTING, INC.
1 25 Petrone 2 that is part of an overall generic type of 3 emergency type of planning.
4 Q. And the generic emergency planning to 5 which you refer is not disaster specific. is that 6 correct?
7 A. It could be. There could be various 8 appendixes attached to an emergency. Plan but by 9 and large. the emergency response plan is somewhat 10 generic.
11 Q. Is the emergency response plan I
j 12 designed to both prevent and mitigate disasters?
13 A. There is a prevention mitigation and 14 a recovery to a disaster as part of a plan.
15 Q. It also covers recovery as a separate 86 concern?
17 A. To an extent.
18 Q. Does the plan assign responsibility 19 for different activities in response to disasters
- 20 to different agencies within the county 21 government?
22 A. Well, any emergency plan does that.
23 yes.
24 Q. Does the plan also call for 25 coordination between the county and other DOYLE REPORTING. INC.
1 26 Petrone 2 governmental units within the county such as towns 3 and villages?
4 A. Yes.
5 Q. And is that coordination with respect 6 to prevention, mitigation and recovery?
7 A. I can't recall.
O Q. Is the Police Department one of the 9 agencies whose cooperation is contemplated in the 10 plan?
11 A. Yes. it is. I believe.
I 12 Q. Is the Department of Health Services f
- 13 one of the agencies?
14 A. I believe so.
t 15 Q. The Fire Dopartment?
16 A. That will vary because there are 17 several fire departments, many of them having
- 18 somewhat different expertise.
19 Q. Does the plan call for or contemplate OO cooperation with any nongovernmental agencies or
- 21 entities in responding to disasters?
l 22 A. I believe so.
l
- 23 Q. Has there been communication between 24 the county and a.ly of those nongovernmental 25 entities or agencies concerning a response to a DOYLE REPORTING. INC.
1 107 Petrone 2 information to the public so that you could -- if '
3 you basically could rely on the fact that that 4 would provide some training. Hurricanes, yes. I '
5 would say, because there is a time frame that you 6 are working within. And if it is going to be 7 helpful to the public to do that. I'm sure the 8 county would.
9 MR. MILLER: 0.K., Mr. Petrone. I 10 believe that is the end of the deposition.
11 I have one --
12 MR. DAVIES: Mr. Miller. if you have 13 questions, t5av come when I have concluded 24 mine. I am not finished.
15 MR. MILLER: I understand you are 16 not finished.
17 MR. DAVIES: Then you don't have the 18 right. sire to ask questions because I'm 19 not done.
20 MR. MILLER My questions are not 21 worth fighting with you aceut so I will not 22 ask my questions.
23 NR. DAVIES: You don't have the 24 right to because I'm not finished with my 25 questions.
DOYLE REPORTING. INC.
- t tog Petrone 2 MR. MILLER: Please stop 3 interrupting me.
4 MR. DAVIES: You've interrupted my 5 questioning.
6 MR. MILLER: I have been so 7 incredibly patient with your questioning.
8 sir, which is not relevant, not focused.
9 not probative of this witness. You've 10 wasted two hours of our af ternoon's time.
11 I've been a real gentleman today and I'm 12 now through and this deposition is through.
13 This witness has been here for two hours 14 and five minutes. I will not ask my
$5 questions, sir. This deposition is over.
86 I will not f i ght with you about that 17 matter.
18 MR. DAVIES: I do not concur with 19 you on that.
20 (Continued on following page) 21 22 23 24 25 DOYLE REPORTING. INC.
s S'j 4 I
1 109 Petrone
< 2 MR. MILLER: Take it to the '
3 Licensing Bureau.
a o MR. DAVIES: We will.
5 MR. MILLER: Good luck.
6 (Time noted: 5:05 p.m.)
7 i
, 8 9
10 Subscribed and sworn to 4
11 before me this
~
i 12 day of , 1988.
r 13 '
14 l
t 15 '
l 16 17
[
18 .
)
19 r
{ 20
, 21
- 22
- 23 i24 <
j25 i
(
I L
i t Attachment 10
- - ..- y__. ,y , _ , ,_y .g w-,. .., , ,. . -.,- ,, - - - y ,- - - -
m , --_ -,..,_ --. _ - ,
c-1-
UNITED STATES OF AMERICA NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSION
_ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ - _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _n Before the Atomic Safety and :
Licensing Board In the Matter of Docket
- 50-322-LONG ISLAND LIGHTING COMPANY OL-3 SHOREHAM NUCLEAR POWER STATION : (Emergency UNIT 1 Planning)
_ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _x April 26, 1998 9:36 a.m.
Deposition of RICHARD C. ROBERTS, taken by LILCO, pursuant to Notice and Board Order, at the Suft'olk County Police Department,
. Yaphank Avenue, Yaphank. New York, before Robert E. Levy, a Certified Shorthand Reporter and Notary Public within and for the State of New York.
Doyle Reporting, Inc.
CERTIFIED STENOTYPE REPORTERS Computertzed Transcription 369 LEXINGTON AVENUE WALTER SHAPIPO. CSR NEW YORK. N.Y.10017 CHARLES SHAPIRO, CSR (212) 867 8220
_.-,------nn.-;---_,.,,,- . . , , , , , - , - , - - - ~ - , - - , . - - - - - - - - - . , - - - , , .-,,-a --1,-.--,--, - - - , ,
1 39 Roberts 2 more than a hundred people on duty during a given 3 . time?
4 A. During the day, Wednesday?
5 Q. Yes.
6 A. Well, there would be more than a 7 hundred of ficers during the day on Wednesday.
8 Q. Are your -- is your work force 9 lighter on weekend days, Saturdays and Sundays?
10 A. Yes, it is.
11 Q. Are there any other days of the week 12 when it is lighter than the Wednesdey dote we have 13 chosen?
14 A. It would depend on the character of 15 the day, particular holiday.
16 Q. Weekdays otherwise are fairly 17 standard?
18 A. Oh, yes. That is because of the 19 level of interaction between many of the day ,
20 workers, not necessarily in uniform, who perform i
21 int erf ace with other governmental entities.
22 Q. Chief Roberts, did you participate in 23 the government's answers and additional obj ections 24 to LILCC's second not of interrogatories regarding 25 contentions 1 through 2, 4 through 8, and 10, if DOYLE REPORTING. INC.
1 40 Roberts 2 you know?
3 A. Not too good at remembering those 4 numbers of the several contentions. but let me 5 offer this: I did give an affidavit and it was 6 dated Februcry of this year.
7 MS. STONE: Let's mark this as O Exhibit 4.
9 (Document marked Roberts Exhibit 4 10 for identification, as of this date.)
11 MR. MILLER: Ms. Stone, maybe this 12 Mill save time.
13 If you want to make this an exhibit, 14 that is fine. I will stipulate that 15 information pertaining to the Suf folk 16 County Polica Department that is included 17 within our response, Suffolk County's is response to LILCD's interrogatories, was 19 marshaled through Chief Roberts.
20 If you want to show Chief Roberts a 21 particular interrogatory and ask him about l
22 the interrogatcry, maybe that will save l
1 23 time.
24 Q. Chief Roberts, I show you what has 25 buen marked as Exhibit 4 to this dewosition and i
l D0YLE REPORTINEB, INC.
L
s x 1 j41 Roberts 2 ask you if you recognize this document? And feel 3 free to look through it.
4 A. Thank you.
5 (Pause) 6 I've never seen this document before.
7 Q. O.K. I realized earlier you told me 8 that you could not verify how many officers there 9 were on any given shift, but I want to ask you 10 further --
11 A. No ma'am, I don't want to get picky, 12 but we left it at a day shift Wednesday.
13 Q. Yes.
14 A. O.K., then you said would your l 15 staffing -- I understood your subsequent comments 16 to be would the staf fing be less on a weekend or 17 any single day of the week and I said depending on i
l 1
18 the character of the day, if it was within the l
l 19 week or what have you.
l 20 o I'm sorry to interrupt you.
21 Q. My question is I'm trying to figure 22 out on any given day approximately how many of l 23 these 2600 sworn of ficern are actually on duty l
l 24 daytime, as opposed to evening time, as opposed to 25 the graveyard shift. and that is what I'm trying l
l DOYLE REPORTING, INC.
l 1 163 Roberts 2 A. I would aak somebody at the warning 3 point.
4 Q. What is Mr. Regan's j ob?
5 A. Mr. Regan, to my knowledge, is 6 director of the Office of Emergency Preparedness.
7 County of Suffolk.
8 MR. MILLER: I believe the time is 9 up. Ms. Stone.
l 10 MS. STONE: All right. I will stop 11 under protest. I will make two comments.
12 Not only did we not agree to the 13 four-hour deadline, I've had to use 14 consider able time out of this deposition 15 time to find a way to limit my questions 16 and there are quite a number of follow-up 17 questions that I've not been able to persue 18 here today so on behalf of LILCO. I would l 19 have to say that in our view this 20 deposition is not concluded and there are 1 21 maj or substantive areas which we have not 22 yet had an opportunity to cover.
23 NR. MILLER: I understand you 24 disagree with the position that the county 25 has taken in this matter.
I i
I l
DOYLE REPORTINO..INC.
1 i JL l
1 164 Roberts 2 For the record, I simply will say 3 that I believe we have been here now for 4 four hours and 15 minutes and essentially 5 in that time frar.e, maybe 10 minutes has l 6 been devoted to relevant, probative and i
l 7 meaningful questioning of this witness.
8 Almost all of the questions which have been 9 asked of this witness are not relevant to 10 this proceeding and it has not been a 11 productive use of anyone's time.
I 12 So if you have a complaint, I guess 13 you will take it to the licensing board and
,14 . we will respond.
15 Chief Roberts, there is one thing 16 that I --
17 MS. STONE: I believe we don't have i
18 time for redirect. When the depos'ition is 19 concluded, you may give redirect. You tell 20 me this witness has to go at quarter to 2.
) 21 MR. MILLER: There is a statement 22 made by Chief Roberts that was incorrect.
23 I would like to ask if he would like to
) 24 make the clarification.
25 You earlier testified, Chief
)
) DQYLE REPORTING, INC.
i Attachment 11 I
l i
l f
l t
y., . . . . , - . . , - g .. ., . .__ -
1 UNITED STATES OF AMERICA NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSION
______________-____x Before the Atomic Safety and :
Licensing Board l In the Matter of Docket
- 50-322-i LONG ISLAND LIGHTING COMPANY OL-3 f SHOREHAM NUCLEAR POWER STATION : (Emergency l UNIT 1 Planning)
_ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _x I Apri1 29, 1988 1:15 p.m.
Deposition of LAWRENCE B. CZECH, JAMES D. PAPILE and JAMES C. BARANSKI, taken by LILCO, pursuant to Notice and Doard Order, at the State Capitol i
Building, Washington, Avenue and State Street, l
Albany, New York, before Michael H. Stephany, a Certified Shorthand Reporter and Notary Public within and for the State of New York.
l i
Doyle Reporting, Inc.
CERTIFIED STENOTYPE REPORTERS
)
Computented Transcnption 369 LEXINGTON AVENUE WALTER SHAPIRO. CSR NEW YORK. N.Y.10017 CH ARLES SH APIRO. CSR (212)867 8220
)
1 26 2 question. I got lost somewhere.
3 MR. SISK: Let me ask you, to your 4 knowledge, have there ever been any 5 exercises, federally graded or not, f 6 involving Suffolk County with respect to 7 any nuclear power plant?
8 MR. ZAHNLEUTER: I would like a 9 clarification about -- what you mean when 10 you say Suffolk County? Do you mean 11 Suffolk County government, Suffolk County 12 . geography?
13 What is it that you are speaking of?
14 MR. SISK: Well, let me ask you 15 Suffolk County governmert officials first.
16 MR. BARANSKI: I am not aware of 17 any.
18 MR. SISK: Are you aware of any 19 involving Suffolk County geographics?
20 MR. BARANSKI: I am aware that 21 Shoreham was located in Suffolk County.
22 I am aware that L ILCO did conduct a 23 federally observed exercise two years ago, 24 I think.
25 MR. OISK: Now with that exception, D0YLE REPORTING, INC.
t
i 1 27 2 let me ask you this: Are you aware of any
( 3 exercises involving Suffolk County with 4 respect to the Millstone plant?
5 MR. BARANSKI! No, sir, I am not.
t 6 MR. SISK: To your knowledge, has 7 there been any training of any Suffolk 8 County personnel with respect to the
) 9 ingestion pathway response for the 10 Millstone power plant?
11 MR. ZAHNLEUTER: I would like to 12 obj ect at this point because we are beyond 13 qualifications and background and I think 14 this is an irrelevant inquiry.
) 15 But you may answer.
16 MR. BARANSK!: I have no basis to 17 answer that question.
18 MR. SISK: Do you know whether there 19 has been any training of Suffolk County 20 personnel?
> 21 MR. BARANSKI: I do not know.
22 MR. S:SK: Has there been any 23 training, to your knowledge, of state 24 personnel with respect to any ingestion 25 pathway response for the Millstone plant?
l r
l l D0YLE REPORTING. INC.
t 1 28 2 (Discussion of f the record among the 3 witnesses) 4 MR. BARANSKI: I am not aware of any 5 training that was conducted for the 6 Specific re5Ponse to the Millstone plant.
7 MR. SISK: Can you tell me what 8 exercises have been conducted within the 9 State of New York with respect to ingestion 10 pathway responses for any nuclear power 11 plant?
12 MR. ZAHNLEUTER: I would like a 13 continuing obj ection to these matters about 14 other power plants.
15 I won't mention it again.
16 MR. SISK: I understand.
17 MR- BARANSKI: Since I became 18 exercise director in ' 85, we have conducted 19 one federally evaluated ingestion pathway h/ u a.
20 for the.Ese $ facility.
21 MR. SISK: And when was that l 22 conducted?
23 MR. BARANSKI: October of '87.
24 MR. SISK: To your knowledea, in 25 your capacity as exercise director for l
D0YLE REPORTING. INC.
1 74 2 this page contains, that the 50-mile EPZ
)
3 around Millstone encompasses all or some 4 portion of Suffolk County, New York?
5 MR. CZECH: I know that it includes I 6 at least some portica of Suffolk County. I 7 don't know if it includes all of Suffolk, 8 the 50-mile EPZ.
) 9 MR. SISK: Now, has the state REPG 10 conducted any training for a response 11 within Suffolk County and within the 1
12 50-mile ingestion pathway for Millstone? .
13 MR. LANPHER: I obj ect to the 14 question. He already testified to that and
/ 15 he said no. It is repetitive.
16 MR. SISK: I apologize. I thought I 17 defined it to the county earlier, but let's 18 be clear. Has the state conducted any 19 training or been involved in any training 20 with respect to such a response?
21 MR. CZECH: Not for Suffolk County 22 or Shoreham. Or -- I am talking for state 23 people in the Shoreham Suffolk County area.
24 There has been no training.
25 MR. SISK: Let me j ust be sure.
DOYLE REPORTING. INC.
1 75 2 There has been no training of state 3 Personnel for such a response with respect 4 to Millstone?
5 MR. CZECH: That's correct.
6 MR. SISK: And let me j ust be sure.
7 I believe that you testified earlier 8 there has similarly been no exercise with 9 respect to a state response in the 10 ingestion pathway for Millstone?
11 MR. CZECH: That's correct.
12 - MR. SISK Let me note for the 13 record that I do have a number of questions 14 with respect to the state plan for these 15 witnesses.
16 I am going to ask a few of those at 17 this j uncture, and if there is time at the 18 and of the deposition, I will return to it.
19 MR. ZAHNLEUTER: Let me caution you 20 that Mr. Papile must leave at 4:30. so I
+
21 would suggest that you keep that in mind.
22 MR. SISK: That was stated earlier.
23 MR. SISK: Mr. Czech, with respect 24 to Part 1, Section 3 of this plan, which is 25 entitled. "Response," it --
DOYLE REPORTING, INC.
1 l-1 85 2 Is that another one of the
) 3 references that you were thinking of 4 earlier?
5 MR. CZECH: That's correct.
) 6 MR. SISK: In the interest of time, 7 I am going to depart from my questioning mn 8 this document and its details for a moment -
) 9 and return to it later, if there is time.
10 Let me ask this general question.
11 General Papile, does this generic portion i 12 . of the state plan identify any state 13 resources that could be -- and I am not 14 asking that in a legal sense -- I am asking 15 that in a practical sense -- does this 16 document identify any state resource that 17 could be employed in responding to a 18 radiological accident at the Shoreham 19 plant?
20 MR. ZAHNLEUTER: I obj ect . I obj ect 21 because that document speaks for itself and 22 the question pertains to Shoreham. It 23 calls for speculation.
24 MR. SISK: Can you answer the 25 question. General Papile?
DOYLE REPORTING. INC.
1 86 2 MR. PAPILE: Well, my counsel 3 Presented it real well.
4 I think it's asking for speculation 5 and I can't speculate because I don't know 6 what we really have and so forth and so on.
7 I can't speculate.
8 MR. SISK: General Papile, let me 7 set down to this c little bit on a nuts and 10 bolts level.
11 The state does have a Radiological 12 Emergency Response Group, doesn't it?
14 MR. SISK: What's the title of your 15 agency?
16 MR. ZAHNLEUTER: We covered this. I 17 think this is a repetitive inquiry.
18 We are wasting time.
19 MR. PAPILE: Which agency, sir?
20 MR. SISK: REPG.
21 MR. PAPILE: The Radiological 22 Emergency Preparedness Group?
23 What's the question?
24 MR. SISK: Your agency.
25 MR. PAPILE: What was the question?
I DOYLE REPORTING. INC.
1 87 2 MR. SISK: The question ia -- and I 3 don't mean to be cute: You do exist, don't 4 you?
5 MR. PAPILE: Yes, we do.
6 MR. SISK: Isn't there a State 7 Department of Health?
8 MR. PAPILE: Yes, there is.
9 MR. SISK: In fact, there are a 10 number of state agencies that are set forth 11 in Article 2-S, are there not?
12 MR. PAPILE: Yes, there are.
13 MR. SISK: And the heads of those 14 various agencies have positions on the 15 Disaster Preparedness Commission, don't 16 they?
17 MR. PAPILE: Yes.
18 MR. SISK: Ignoring legal questions 19 which lawyers can debate at a later date, 20 and focusing on practical questions, would 21 it be possible for any of those agencies to 22 respond in any capacity to a radiological 23 accident at Shoreham?
24 MR. PAPILE: No. It is not 25 possible.
D0YLE REPORTING. INC.
1 88 2 MR. ZAHNLEUTER: I obj ect to this 3 question because it's impossible to ignore 4 the legalities of any situation.
5 I also obj ect because it calls for 6 speculation, and the witness has already 7 answered.
8 MR. SISK: General Papile, why is it 9 not possible?
10 MR. PAPILE: There is no plan.
11 MR. SISK: Does that complete your 12 answer?
13 MR. PAPILE: For now.
14 MR. SISK: When you said, "there is 15 no plan," can you tell me what you mean?
16 M R .' PAPILE: There is no plan for 17 that situation.
18 MR. SISK: Meaning that there is no 19 Shoreham specific radiological emergency 20 response plan?
21 MR. PAPILE: Agreed.
22 MR. SISK: Now I will ask you -- let 23 me ask this question of Mr. Czech.
24 Will you turn to page Roman numeral 25 III-18 of this document. Section III-18.
D0YLE REPORTING. INC.
1 118 2 MR. SISK: Could you answer the i 3 question, General Papile?
4 M*. PAPILE: Purely speculation. I 5 couldn't answer that.
6 MR. SISK: General Papile, did you 7 testify previously that in the absence of a 8 site-specific radiological plan for 9 Shoreham, the state REPG would not be able 10 to respond to a radiological accident at 11 Shoreham?
12 MRe ZAHNLEUTER: Mr. Sisk, why don't 13 you provide Mr. Papile with a specific, or 14 the specific instance of his testimony to 15 which you are referring?
16 MR. SISK: Let me ask you, is that 17 a correct characterization of your 18 testimony?
19 MR. LANPHER: I obj ect. I believe 20 that's not a correct characterization. I 21 think he stated he didn't know how or if he 22 could respond, and again, it is calling for 23 speculation.
24 MR. SISK: Let me note for the 25 record that -- and I will do this very D0YLE REPORTING, NC.
1 119 2 briefly -- that during the deposition of 3 Mr. Halpin, Mr. Lanpher corrected a 4 response that had been given previously to 5 the same fact by witness Halpin four times.
6 It was subsequently modified by witness 7 Halpin.
8 I will stand on the answer 9 previously given and reflected in the 10 transcript by General Papile. it is not my 11 recollection that that was his answer. And 12 I will leave it at that.
13 General Papile, would the state, 14 would the Disaster Preparadness Commission 15 and the REPG be able to respond to an 16 emergency at the Shoreham nuclear power 17 plant in the absence of an approved Suffolk 18 County radiological emergency Pr#Paredness 19 plan?
20 MR. LANPHER: I obj ect. I don't 21 know what you mnan by "respond."
22 Do anytha e or do something that 23 would be adequate?
24 MR. ZAHNLEUTER: I would like to add 25 to that, "be able to" is also vague.
D0YLE REPORTING. INC.
1 120 2 MR. SISK: I will accept a portion
3 of Mr. Lanpher's correction.
4 Would the state be able to do 5 anything?
I 6 MR. PAPILE: It is pure speculation. i 7 I don't know.
8 MR. SISK: General Papile, can you ,
9 tell me what resources, departments.
10 agencies or instrumentalities of the state 11 you would be able to direct if the governor 12 .
ordered you to respond to an emergency at 13 the Shoreham nuclear power plant?
14 MR. ZAHNLEUTER* I obj ect. One of 15 the grounds f or my obj ection is you 16 included in your question or statement, 17 "you would be able to direct." Now that's 18 a vague instruction, because I am not sure 19 if that means Mr. Papile as a person, as a 20 general, as director of REPG, in whatever 21 capacity he may have.
22 I also obj ect, as we have said over 23 and over again here today, that relates to 24 the implausibility of this hypothatical and 25 the fact that it calls for speculation.
DOYLE REPORTING, INC.
1 121 2 MR. LANPHER: I also obj ect because 3 I don't believe it has been established 4 that REPG has any direction responsibility 5 in the event of a radiological emergency.
6 I believe that's Dr. Axelrod or the 7 governor, those are the people who direct, S not REPG.
9 MR. SISK: Can you answer?
10 MR. PAPILE: I have no director 11 responsibility. I would have to take 12 orders from higher up.
13 MR. SISK: In your capacity as the 14 head of the REPG and given the knowledge 15 that you have obtained in that capacity, 16 can you tell me what state resources, and 17 by that I mean departments, agencies, 18 personnel, the governor could direct to 19 respond to an emergency at the Shoreham 20 nuclear power plant if he choose to do so?
21 MR. LANPHER: I obj ect , calling for 22 speculation about what the governor would 23 do or Dr. Axelrod would do as designee.
24 MR. SISK: I have asked what 25 resources they could use.
i i
l DOYLE REPORTING, INC.
1 122 2 MR. ZAHNLEUTER: I have the same 3 obj ect ion.
4 MR. PAPILE: Without a plan. it 5 would be pure speculation. I wouldn't want 6 to answer that without a plan.
7 MR. SISK: By without a plan. do you 8 mean witnout a Suffolk County approved a
9 plan?
10 MR. PAPILE: With any plan. As of 11 this time. I see no plan.
12 MR. SISK: Would a plan other than a 13 plan approved by Suffolk County suffice?
14 (IR . ZAHNLEUTER: I obj ect on the 15 grounds of vagueness of that question. It 16 has no limits or bounds other than a county 17 plan. I think you need to define that 18 question before it can be answered 19 intelligently.
20 MR. SISK: Can you answer the 21 question?
22 MR. PAPILE: I can't answer the 23 question, 24 MR. SISK: General Papile, is the 25 state, and by that I mean the EPC and the
! DOYLE REPORTING. INC.
1 154 2 lines of communicatior, or means of 3 communicationi rather, that are currently 4 in place between any of the member agencies 5 of the Disaster Preparedness Commission and 6 any officials in Suffolk County?
7 MR. CZECH: The -- of course, this 8 is not an area that I have any expertise
~
9 in, the only one that would come to mind as 10 a possibility is the state police band 11 network which ties in the state police with 12 local police throughout the state, NYSPIN.
13 MR. SISK: Are either of you aware, 14 by virtue of prior review of any portion of 15 the LILCO plan or otherwise, of the fact 16 that LILCO has established a system of 17 sirens for public notification in the event 18 of an emergency at the Shoreham plant?
19 MR. CZECH: The only way that I am 20 familiar with that is in reference to l
21 interrogatories, but I have not seen any 22 planning portion or anything dealing with 23 sirens or siren systems.
24 MR. BARANSKI: Neither have I.
25 MR. SISK: Let me ask you this, i
l DOYLE REPORTING, INC.
I 1 155 ,
2 gentlemen. Referring back to your 3 affidavit, the affidavit which I believe 4 was marked as Exhibit 2 to the deposition, 5 it contains headings referring to "Ingested 6 Pathway Responses" and "Recovery and 7 Reentry."
8 I recognize you have stated you have 9 haven't reviewed the LILCO plan in its 10 entirety.
11 Have you reviewed the LILCO plan 12 insofar as it relates to those two areas, 13 that is, ingestion pathway and recovery and (
14 reentry?
15 MR. BARANSKI: I have not.
16 MR. CZECH: Neither have I.
17 MR. SISK: Have you reviewed 18 portions of the plan that relate to 19 ingestion pathway and recovery?
20 MR. CZECH: I have not.
i 21 MR. BARANSKI: Neither have I.
22 MR. SISK: Now, let me cont inue with 23 the affidavit.
24 Mr. Czech, refer to the bottom of 25 page 3 of that document. The last sentence
@@YM3 CT39@RTING, 8NC.
5 4
1 161 2 and answered also.
3 MR. SISK: Can you answer the 4 question?
5 MR. CZECH: Not any better than I 6 did before.
7 MR. SISK: Let me refer you to the 2 fifth page of the affidavit, page 7. I'm 9 sorry, the fifth page of the affidavit, 10 paragraph 7.
11 There is a reference in the second 12 sentence of that paragraph to the suppert 13 role of counties in the ingestion pathway 14 Phase.
15 Now, Mr. Baranski, does Suffolk 16 County play a support role in the ingestion 17 Pathway phase for the Millstone plant in 18 Connecticut?
19 MR. BARANSKI: Without a plan, 1 20 can't speculate on what Suffolk County 21 would do.
22 MR. SISK: I am asking whether 23 Suffolk County plays a support role in the 24 ingestion pathway phase for the Millstone 23 nuclear power plant.
DOYLE REPORTING, INC.
m . . .
l 1 162 2 MR. LANPHER: And Mr. Baranski 1
3 answered that precise question.
4 MR. SISK: Does it have a support 5 role in any plan for the Millstone nuclear 6 power plant.
7 MR. BARANSKI: Since I haven't 8 reviewed any plans for Millstone, I can't 9 answer that.
10 MR. SISK: Does Nassau County play a 11 support role in the ingestion pathway phase 12 for the Indian Point power plant?
13 MR. BARANSKI: Dy the very nature of 14 an ingestion pathway problem and looking at 15 the Indian Point site, we have not dealt 16 with Nassau County for an ingestion 17 pathway.
18 MR. SISK: The New York State 19 plan -- I'm sorry, the New York State plan 20 does not deal with Nassau County as far as 21 ingestion pathways?
22 MR. BARANSKI: No, sir, I am not 23 saying that at all.
24 If you looked at the maps and you 25 showed us the maps and Nassau County is s
DOYLE REPORTING. INC. _ __
1 la3 2 involved Partially with the 50-mile EPZ of 3 Indian Point -- now we have not stressed 4 Nassau's involvement in an ingestion 5 pathway exercise to date at Indian Point.
6 MR. SISK: Well, my question to you 7 makes specific reference to the statement 8 in the affidavit of -- and I beli2ve and I 9 will j ust note this for the record, that 10 the map contained on page K-9 of the state 11 plan appears to encompass a large portion 12 of Nassau County in the Indian Point 13 50-mile EPI. .
14 My question is, does Nassau County f
15 play a support role in the ingestion 16 pathway phase or any plan for the Indian 17 Point plant?
18 (Discussion off the record between 19 Mr. Baranski and Mr. Czech) 20 MR. ZAHNLEUTER: While the witnesses 21 are conferring. Mr. Sisk, it's five 22 o' clock.
23 I will allow the questioning to 24 continue for a few more minutes, but I 25 suggest that you begin to wrap up this DOYLE REPORTING. INC. __ _________
1 164 2 deposition.
3 MR. BARANSKI: By the very 4 definition of the plan and the areas that 5 are affected within the 50-mile EPZ. if 6 there were an ingestion problem in Nassau 7 County, they would be in a support rols.
8 MR. SISK: Can you refer me to any 9 document which sets forth that support 10 role?
11 MR. BARANSKI: Not right offhand.
12 MR. SISK: How would they be 13 involved in a support role?
14 MR. BARANSKI: In the event of an 15 ingestion pathway situation, j ust like it 16 was at the Ginna exercise, we may call upon 17 the counties to support us in the various ;
- 8
. activities that are involved in the 19 ingestion pathway problem.
20 MR. SISK: Does the state have any 21 specific plans or agreements with Nassau 22 County to play that specific type of 23 support role?
24 Do you know, Mr. C:ech?
25 MR. CZECH: As far as I know, at
_D0YLE_ REPORTING, _INC. __
L i 165 i
2 this stage, we have not developed those 3 with Nassau County.
4 MR. SISK: Now let me refer you to 5 page 6 -- I'm sorry, it's tho bottom of 6 page 5 and the tcp of page 6 of this 7 affidavit.
8 There is a passage in paragraph 8.
9 In the interest of time, I won't read that 10 into the record.
11 I will ask you to simply review that 12 very quickly.
13 MR. LANPHER: All of paragraph 8 or 14 j ust some portion of it? -
15 MR. SISK: Yes, all of par & graph 8.
16 Now, with respect to that paragraph, 17 there is a particular area -- the second 18 sentence of that paragraph refers to i 19 experience at other sites in New York
- i 20 State.
i 21 Let me ask once again whether this 22 statement means that, and if it doesn't 23 mean it, tell me so.
t 24 But does this statement mean that 25 planning, training and drilling enhance DOYLE REPORTING. INC.
1 166 2 site-specific response capabilities for 3 radiological emergencies?
4 MR. CZECH: I would say, yes.
5 MR. BARANSKI: Yes.
6 MR. ZAHNLEUTER: With that, Mr.
7 Sisk, the time for this deposition has 8 expired.
9 It's after five o' clock, probably 10 seven or eight minutes after fivn o' clock, 11 so this deposition must conclude.
12 MR. SISK: 0.K.
13 I will note for the record that, as 14 with certain previous depositions, I have 15 attempted to conduct as much questioning as
- r. 16 I can on an issue-by-issue basis.
17 Of course, counsel can have 18 disagreements as to assues which -- ones I 19 believe are relevant and ones the other 20 side believe are not.
21 I have tried to stick to issues 22 which I believe, to LILCO, are quite 23 relevant to this proceeding.
24 I do have have a number of 25 questions, as I nctud earlier, about the
.__ . _ 60
1 167 2 specifics of the New York State 3 radiological emergency response plan, how -
4 specific provisions of that plan were 5 developed. whether they conform or are 6 built upon federal regulations and specific 7 parts of federal regulations. I have a 8 number cf questions continuing on the 9 affidavit that the witnesses currently have l 10 before them.
11 I will also note for the record that 12 this affidavit was one of the documents 13 expressly referred to by the board in 14 denying LILCO's motion for summary 15 disposition, and there are a number of 16 questions relating to that document which 1 17 have.
I 18 'fhere are a number of additional 1
19 questions I have which relate to the 20 county's responses, the county's and 21 st&te's responses or lack of responses to 22 LILCO's interrogatories. Some of those ,
23 also specifically relate to the content of 24 this affidavit. ,
25 I have not completed LILCO's I
i 3 P DOYLE REPORTING. INC.
t
1 168 2 questioning. and. as with previous 3 depositions, I will state for the record 4 that we are prepared to go forward this 5 evening, tomorrow, next week at any time 6 the witnesses are available to complete the 7 deposition.
8 But we are not prepared to agree or 9 consent to terminate the tieposition at this 10 time.
11 MR. ZAHNLEUTER: As far as the State 12 of New York is concerned, the deposition is 13 concluded.
14 (Time noted: 5:09 p.m.)
15 16 .
17 Subscribed and sworn to 18 before me this 19 day of . 1988.
20 j 21 22 23 24 3 25
_ ._. . _ ___ _ _ . . , . _ _ _ Mn
\
Attachment 12 1
- 06. 21 00 03 1G PM po2 KIRIO)ATRICK & LOCKHART SOUTH Lotay. mt PLocR
-- Mws 1800 W STPEIT, N.W. mwr WASHNOTON, D.C. 20045001 mm man leal'E M E1 A M .5 MAh4 FL INN taanoe ano man oss meu tu e u em is , g .
T4bCCfM Oss ritMae NTTEE50M, PA taggwe MICHAEL 3, MILLER Mla M64de April 21, 1988 BY "'ELECOPY James N. Christman, Esq.
Hunton & Williams P.O. Box 1535 707 East Main Street Richmond, Virginia 23212
Dear Jim:
I On behalf of Ouffolk County and New York State, I am providing you with the dates, times and locations for next week's depositions of County and State personnel Monday, April 25, 1988 Time SCPD Commissioner Daniel Guido 11:00 a.m. - 1:00 p.m.
Suffolk County Police Department Headquarters Yaphank, New York Frank P. Petrone 3:00 p.m. - 5:00 p.m.
Suffolk County Attorney's Office Hauppauge, New York Tuesday, April 26, 198_6 Time Asst. Chief of Detectives Richard C. Roberts 3: 00 a.m. - 1: 00 p.m.
Suffolk County Police Departunt Yaphank, Now York
- 04. 21. Oc 03: 1G PM Po3 KRKPATRICK & LOCKMART James N. Christman, Esq.
April 21, 1988 Page 2 Friday, April 29, 1986 .Tja*.
)
Donald DeVito 9:00 a.m. - 12:00 noon Albany, New York Masers. Papile, Czech & Baranski 1:00 p.m. - 5:00 p.m.
(as a panel)
Albany, New York The depositions of Mr. DeVito and Messrs. Czech, Papile and Baranski will take place in the same conference room that has been reserved for tomorrow's depositions of David Hartgen and Commissioner Axelrod.
As the above schedule reflects, Dr. Harris and William Regen are not available for deposition next week. Not reflected in this schedule is the deposition of FEMA's FCC witness on the remanded EBS issues. It is my understanding that this witness will be deposed on Tuesday, April 26, beginning at 2:00 p.m. The deposition will be held at our Washington offic3. -
sincerely,
- 21 Michael 5. Miller ces Richard J. zahnleuter, Esq. (By Telecopy)
Stephen B. Latham, Esq. (By Telecopy)
William R. Cumming, Esq. (By Telecopy)
Charles A. Barth, Esq. (By Telecopy) l l
-a ,,---n, - . ..-, - - - - - ---.-,------------s
Attachment 13 i
t f
i NEW YORK STATE RADIOLOGICAL D4ERGENCY PREPAREDNESS PLAN FOR COMMERCIAL POWER PLANTS Prepared for the Disaster Preparedness Comission '
of the '
State of New York P
i l
i :
i i
i r
l l
i 1
l Sy the Radiological Emergency Preparedness Group April ,198 7 l
i i
~
O New York State Radiologic 41 Emcrgency Preparecness Plan PART II - SECTION I - Procedure F F. TRAINING, DRILLS AND EXERCISES -
1.0 Purpose The purpose of this procedure is to provide tile vehicle by whicn personnel with emergency responsibilities will ne trained initially, periodically retrained, and testea oy means of drills and exercises in tne performance of tne functions that may be required of tnem in the implementation of tnis Plan.
2.0 Scope 2.1 Radiological emergency preparedness plans require trained personnel to implement them. Tne State Radiological Emergency Preparedness Group (REPG) will coordinate tnis' training for emergency personnel and puulic o f fici al s. Training ana retraining of State and local officials is provided througn a variety of programs, such as formal courses, seminars, conferences, emergency operation simulations (EOS's), and experience gained in response to drills and exercises as well as actual emergencies.
State and local agencies with emergency response functions will designate
, individuals within these organizations who are to be trained in functions l\ tnat are unique to a radiological emergency. Functions tnat are normal for the agency's usual role, i.e., teaching a police ufficer to direct traffic, are not considered nere. The personnel selected for raciological preparedness training will include tnose from tne following categories:
o Cornand and Control Personnel e Key agency personnel assigned to State, district or County Emergency Operations Center (EOC) staffs e Radiological monitoring teams and radiological assessment personnel e Personnel monitoring and decontamination personnel e Police, security and fire fignting personnel e Medical anc rescue personnel e Personnel assigneo to tne evacuation of tne general puolic, special populations anc nou111ty impaireo incividuals e Communications personnel n e Reception and C;ngregate Care Center personnel e Public information personnel. ,
F-l Rev. 10/66
2.2 A major portion of the State's and eacn plume exposure county's emergency response organization will be exercised. Exercises will be seneduled to provide tnat all major elements of tne respective State and county organizations are tested in accordance witn 10CFR50 anc 44CFR35u (see 4.2). These exercises will be conoucted, at diff e, rent times and uncer various weatner conditions.
2.3 In addition to tne seneduled exercise, drills snall be concucted as follows:
o Communication oetween State EOC, the appropriate district set 40 60C and local government COCs witnin tne Plume Exposure pathway EPZ will be tested at least montnly, e Comunications between State 60C anc Connecticut, New Jersey, Pennsylvania and Canada radiological emergency response organization, dll within tne ingestion patnway for Nuclear f 4Cilities locatea in New York, will be tested at least qudrterly, o Communications uetween NFOs, State EOC, appropriate !EM0 district EOC, local EOCs and field assessment teams will be exercisea annually.
e Radiological Healtn staf f and local organizations will conduct annual radiological monitoring drill s. The arills may incluce tne collection and analysis of water, vegetation, soil end air samples; tne communications used for reporting sample results, and tne means for keeping recoros of enese semple results. Tnese drills will ce included as part of mnual exercises, o The btate Radiological Healtn staf f will conduct semi-annual Health Pnysics drill' involving one of tne nuclear generatirig f acilities.
Tnese drills will involve ootn tne State's and local organizations' analysis of, and response to, conoitions arising from simulatea elevated airuorne and liquid samples ano airect radiation measurements in tne environment. To tne extent possiole tnese drill s will oe included as part of tne requirea seneculec NFO exercises.
e All or any portion of the State and/ur county plans may be drillea as nec es sa ry.
3.0 Resoonsibilities J.1 The New York State Radiological Emergency Prepereaness uruup (REPb) coordinates tne planning and conduct of emergency response training for personnel wno will implement radiological emergency preparedness p14ns.
Tne State Emergency .4anagement Office (SEMO) in courcination witn tne REPG will:
e Receive technical guidance from the State Healtn Department and FETA on tne aopropriate application of CD Radiological Defense resources to peacetime radiological emergency response.
o Factor the aoove guicance into tne development of appropriate training ac tivi tie s.
l e Conduct femal courses for Emergency Operations Center staff anu Raujological Honitor Instructors at State ana local level.
1 F-4
[^'S e
('" / Manage the home Study Course "Introduction to Radiological Monitoring" (HS-3), as tne basic introduction to raciation and radiation detection.
Distrioution of course material is tnrougn a single contact point with eacn appropriate State agency, local jurisdiction or otner large emergency response organization..
e Manage tne Radiological Training Assistance Program whicn provides reimoursement to local instructors for classroco training in Radiological Defense monitoring, o
Provide to State agencies and localities tecnnical assistance in tne development instructors, of tneir own training capavility including training tnej r e
Provide tecnnical assistance on tne planning, conducting, and evaluation of exercises and drills, e
Receive training onandtne provide use offor staff new and otner agencies as appropriate, instru radiological emergency responses, mentation and equipment procured for e
Assist in identifying and recruiting appropriate State and local Civil Preparedness applicants for federally conouctec or otner appropriate emergency response training activities and courses.
activities incluce planning, operations, ano response coursesTnese training
/ sponsored by the Feoeral Emergency Management Agency wnien are geareo
()) specifically for State and local Emergency response personnel. Inese courses include topics suen as ra ciological accident assessment, analysis, monitoring anc response operations.
3.2 The REPG coordinates witn represent 4tives of the fluclear Facilities, appropriate counties, Feceral anc State agencies in exercising toe New YurK State emergency response organizations, inese responsibilities include:
e Tne designation of elements of tne Plan tnat are to be exercised, to ensure regulationstnat(see all elements 4.4) underare exerci:eo varicus in accuraance conditions anc times., witn tne feceral e
The establisnment of the exercise's easic cojectives ano any appropriate evaluation criterio, e The cate and time of the exercise, o
The agencies, officials and organizations tnat are expected to pa rti cip a te.
e The scenario events. to oe usea to incluce a senecule of real and simulatea e
The designation and training of exercise coservers.
,m
\ e Arrangements for materials to be provided to RAC anc other observers.
e Arrangements for a critique of each exercise. '
F-3
3.3 Each agency or organization liaving an ei.1ergency response responsioility will insure tnat appropriate training is made available to tneir emergency response personnel, incluaing annual refresner training.
i Training of appropriate personnel for accicent assessment ana evaluation will be tne responsibility of the Department of Health. State agencies are responsiole for tne continuance anc implementation of training programs relating to tneir respective agency's operating procecures and coorcinate their training efforts related to raciological emergencies with REPG.
In addition, tnese agencies and organizations will conouct crills to develop, test and maintain tneir capaDilities. These responsibilities i nclude:
o Communications drills to insure tne soility to understand and tra'nsmit
, tne unique terminology associated witn a radiological emergency.
e Radiological monitoring drills, e As appropriate, medical emergency crills at tne local level and nealtn pnysics crills at tne State level.
e Other drills as may De required to improve tne capacilities of emergency response personnel.
3.4 Local Emergency Services ana uisaster Prepareuness Cooroinators aro responsiole for, anc cooroinate witn, State REPG for tne following:
e Identification of local training needs and requirements.
e Request of appropriate training courses, wnicn includes designation of times and locations, e
Recruitment of trainees to incluae Directurs anc Coordinators of response organizations, racto'.ogical monitors, emergency service personnel (fire, police, first aid, medical support, and rescue), and otner appropriate personnel, e Development of local training capaoility as requirec.
e Assist, as applicaDie, in tne conduct of training. Inis incluces tne use of local instructor capabilities sucn as for toe training of raciological monitors, etc.
e Conauct and participate in drills ano exercises to improve tne capaDilities of their emergency respense personnel.
4.0 Imolementation 4.1 In addition to agencies' existing training programs, specializea emergency response training courses are offered to key personnel of tnose agencies witn emergency response responsioilities. Tne types of training courses to be of ferec, anc tne titles and assignments of those nuo snould participate are:
F-4
s
/ Type of Course Ref. Attachment Participants i .
Puolic Officials Conferences (POC) 1 Agency neads, and local government enief executives.
Emergency Operations Simulation 2 ' Agency heads, EOC staff and emergency planning personnel State Radiological Training Courses J Raciological EOC staffs, Raciological Monitors and Instructors, Livil Defense Staff, and as appropriate, personnel assigned to Racio-logical related duties.
(see Attachment 3).
Evaluation of and Response to 4 Radiological EOC staff s, Radiation Emergencies (as Medical anc Puolic sponsored by tne Federal Safety Personnel (as Government) appropriate)
NFO sponsored training 5 Civil Defense personnel courses /uplic Safety personnel, radiological monitors and EOC staf f s, 4.2 Exercises will oe conducted to test tne integrated capaoility of a major V portion of the State's and appropriate County's radiological emergency preparedness plan and organization. ' An exercise will include moo 1112ation of State and local personnel and resources acequate to verify tue capacility to respond to an accident scenario requiring response. The State end appropriate local governments will concoct an exercise jointly witn a nuclear power facility in accorcance witn the federal regulation set fortn in 10CFR5u, "Domestic Licensing of Production and Utilization Facilities", Appencix E dnd "CFR350, "Review and Approval of State and Local Raciological imergency Plans anc Prept edness" Tne State will encose, on 4 rotational oasis, the site (s) at wl ch tne iequired exercise (s) is to oe conouctec. Priority is given to ne i facilities seeking an operating license from NRC, and wnien nave not t d an exercise involving the State plan at that facility site. Tne scena-. o snouli ce varieo from exercise to exercise sucn tnat all major elecen of t' plans and prepareuness organizations are testec. Eacn full ses ' v2 cise will incluce as many actual (nanos on) activities as possible - .n tne resources available for tne exercise. Inclucco will be exercising the decision making process (assessment and' evaluation),
deployment of .aonitoring personnel and making reewaencations of protective action respc.1se options to responsiale officials. La.
enforcement and fire personnel will be exercisec on access anc traffic control and security. Exercises will include puolic information activities to cemonstrate coorginatec efforts uy tne State, local officials and int licensee in Aeeping the puolic infomec.
m T
[Q
' Qualified ooseners feca Feceral, State or local guvernments will critique tne exercises. State anc local observers will ce provices dppropriate pre-exercise oriefings anc, if requirec, additional trai ni ng. Provisions will oe mace to start en exercise between o:uo p.m.
and uionignt, and anotner cetween midnight and UNU a.W. once every six years.
F.3
A critique will be scheduled as soon as practiedole af ter each exercise to evaluate tne aoility of organizations to respond to the plan.
Eacn organization establisnes the means for evaluating ooserver and participant comments on areas needing improvement, incluaing emergency plan procedural enanges, and for assigning responsioility for implementing corrective actions. Each organization establisnes management control to ensure tnat corrective actions are implementec.
4.3 Orills involving varying numoer of personnel and organizations are used to provide practical training. When conducting sucn a dri11, empnasis is on the effectiveness of procecures and use of actual emergency equipment. Observers will be assigneo to evaluate tne performance of tne participants. Drills to test smaller segments of the plan will ue nela more frequently than exercises. Althougn a drill is of ten a component of an exercise, drills will be conducted, in adoition to tne scneaulea exercise, at tne frequencies specified in Paragraph 4.3 above. Orill s will be supervised and evaluated by qualifiea instructors. Communica tion drills are conductea for both rddio and hard line modes (RECS) and include tne testing of operators' uncerstanding and ability to understand tne content of messages transmitted / received. Radiological monitoring drills teach and test procedures for tne collection, analysis, recording and reporting of radiation readings. Drills of otner einergency functions will ue concucted to ennonce the capaoilities of those persons performing such functions.
4.4 Upon completion of an exercise or drill, tne evaluator ano coserver comments will De collected and evaluated. Plan revisions, arising from the lessons learned, will oe incorpordted in plans and proceaures as appropriate.
4.5 State and Local training will be given as detailea in tne following mdtrix l Attachment O Part III - IF).
Training reports from eacn County will oe forwarded to the REPo quarterly. Tnis report will include:
e Training given in tne previous quarter e A scnecule of proposed retraining or new training for tne next quarter e Course title, projecteo date, aucience A complete State and County Training report will ce forwarced to the Federal Emergency llanagement Agency in accordance witn Feta guicelines.
Specific files on indivicuals and their training will remain on file witnin the entity responsiole for the Primary Training role. Review of sucn files ano lesson plans may oe requested oy FDiA from REPG, O
F-o l
l
PART II - See.1 - Proc. F ATTACliHENT 1 PUBLIC OFFICI ALS CONFERENCES (POCs)
The New York State Emergency lianagement Office routinely conducts POCs for !
State, County and City level government officials and is cesignated to acqJaint them witn sneir emergency responsiuilities, need for planning, training, and coordinated effort. l This course includes
- 1
- 1. Review of FEl4A's emergency role.
4
- 2. Discussion of tne New Yorn State Civil Defense anc Disaster laws outlining local emergency responsioilities, including a description of l the State District and Local command and control structure ano responsic111 ties, f
- 3. Stressing the need for Local Executive Orders assigning specific ,
) emergency response functions to local officials.
_ 4 Tne concept of an emergency operations center.
- 5. Advising of training tnet is availaDie and tne sequence in wnien it is given.
- 6. Emphasis on the benefits of a well organized and coordinateo government that is aDie to act in time of emergency.
- 7. Tne importance of local resource inventory,
- 8. The metnocs for recognizing and identifying nazarcous materials.
l l
1 Rev. 10/e5
)
O PART II - Sec. 1 - Proc. F ATTA; MENT 2
. EERGENCY OPERATIONS 5!!iulATION
- 1. GENERAL COURSES
- A. Planning and Operations:
1 1 Tne Role of Leadership.
2.
Principles and tecnniques for developing emergency plans in accordance with Federal and State criteria.
3 Emergency Operations Center procedures.
4 Principles for successful energency operations, including evacuation.
B. Comnunications:
i
- 1. Alerting procedures for staff and puolic.
2.
Development and periodic testing of primary and bact-up communications.
- 3. Utilization of procecures to verify notificattori(s).
4 Prucedures radio networts, for operating RECS, NAWAS, RACES, and local government
- b. Message center operating procedures.
)
I I
Re. 10/05
4 k
PART II - Sec. I - Proc. F ATTACHRINT 3 t
, New York State Radiological Training Courses Appropriate f or Peacetime Raciological Emergency desconse l
I I. RADIOLOGICA'. EMERGENCY PREPAREDNESS PROGRAM i
Tne following is a listing of tne various types of courses specifically !
giveri for the REP tretning of emergency worners.
- 1. REP Monitoring Course - Tnis course is designed for RD0's, RM's and emergency workers and adoresses all aspects of peacetime radiological incidents. It nas been utilized as an effective, trainer tool for many of tne trained county RD0's throughout tne S ta te. (8 Hr. )
- 2. REP Exposure Control Lourse - Tnis course has oeen developed for emergency workers specifically for nuclear power plants and has become tne core of instruction, following the subject matter dealing with radiological exposure control from the Emergency Worker Response Manuel. (4 dr.) -
- 3. REP PN Course - This course deals with tne specific aspects of PHC operations for radiological monitors. Variations of tnis course also allows for personnel from Social Services, Department of Heal th, etc. , to receive this training for their responsibility witn respect to PMC operations. Please note that this course snould oe I
taken after the 4 liour Exposure Control course by Radiological '
t Monitors uno will ue stationed at PHC. (4 Hr.)
l 4 REP Management Course - Third Dioca of instructions is intenced for
, REP emergency managers, coorcinators ano supervisors, t.e., County i
SEMO Directors, State Agency personnel, etc., wno nave responsibilities for directiny field emergency workers. (3 Hr.)
i 5. REP Instructor Course - This course is designed to afforo potential
! REP Trainers, preferaoly witn adult educetton experience witn the
- necessary information to conduct tne 4 Hour REP Exposure Control i Course. (l'4-18 Hr. )
l II. EMERGENCY OPERATIOWS PERSONNEL AND RADIOLOGICAL N0NITOR INSTRUCTOR r
- Lour 5E5 1
The following courses are supplemental to the REP Program and are j conducteo by State instructors for snose local or State Civil
- Prepareoness personnel wno are involved in reatological emergency
! response program oevelopment, EOC cperations ano training of l radislogical monitors: j
- a. Basic Radiological Defense Officer (RDo-Basic) l Intended to provide tne basic knowledge ano skills necessary to I
qualify selected inoivtauals to perforui functions required of an RDO ;
in nuclear attack or peacetime accident emergencies. This course is i required for Raciological Monitor Instructors. (15-JU students, JU !
nours).
1 Rev. 10/8b
i PART II. - Sec. I - Proc. F ATTahMENT J
- b. RADEF Operations Workshop i
Designed to provide Civil Preparedness staff, Radiological Defense Officers, and tneir assistants with an introduction to tne plan, techniques, and tools used in Radiological Operations. Th e raciological monitoring and reporting system is evaluated ano tne EOC Raciological area is preparea for attacx or peacetime raciological operations (s-10 stucents/crse., 6-12 nours),
- c. Radiological Defense Management Seminar Intenced to p
- ovide local Chief Radiological Defense Officers and local Civil Defense Coordinators / Directors witn necessary management background to accomplish the successful development and maintenance of a viable RADEF program for wartime or peacetime response at local covernment level (20-40 participants, 6-8 nours),
- d. Radiologica. 'tonitor Instructor (RMIJ t
Designed to qualify selected incivicuals to conduct radiological monitor training in tneir respective juri'sdictions or agencies.
Recommendea for Radiological Monitor Instructors. (IS students, 24 nours),
- e. CD Peacetime Radiological Emergency Resuonse (PRER) Mon 1turing
~
0esigned to provide training applicable for use by local Civil Prepareaness personnel or State agencies in planning for, responcing to, and recovering from a peacetime radiological emergency in -
support of tne responding lead agency. (15-au stucents, 4-d nours).
111. RADIOLOGICAL MONITORidG LOURSES Ine f ' lowing courses are administered ano concucted by local instructors using materials provided of tne State. State agencies will also use these courses to train tneir own persunnel. Tnese courses are for raciological monitors from emergency services or otner organizations or industries wnich nave a response role for peacetime raciological I incidents. Tne primary purpuse of tnis training as related to nuclear accidents is to provide a capamility for exposure control of emergency workers and tne public tnrougn cetection and removal of surface contamination. Emphasis will also oe placed on personnel external dosimetry and exposure records:
- a. Radiological Monitoring, HS-3 An 8-hour programed nome study course wnicn serves as an introduction to tne nature or raciation and civii Jefense raajat1un detection instruments.
D. Radiological Monitoring - vractical An 8-nour follow-up course to tne Home Study HS-3 course whicn uses a numcer of exercises in the use of CD radiation detection instruments.
2 l
?
PART 11 - Sec. I - Proc. F ATTwhMEriT 4 Federally soonsorea Trainino Courses Courses dealing with the evaluation of and response to 'raciation emergencies are sponsored by the Federal Government. 00H coordinates the student selection witn SEMO. Courses listed in tne latest edition of tne "Emergency Management Institute, Seneaule of Courses".
Raciological Emergency Preparedness Course Radiological Accident Assessment Course Radiological Emergency Response Team Training Medical Planning and Core in Radiation Accidents - for Physicians Fundamentals Course for Raciological Monitors Basic Radiological He?.lth Course Radiological Emergency Prepareaness worksnop Radiological Monitoring Refresner Course 9 '
. l i
]
- note: All courses offerec ey tne EMI progren are also availaole state. ice througn NY State Emergency Management Of fice, j Rev. 10/85 l
) PART II - Sec. I - Proc. F ATTACdMENT 5 G
Nuclear Facility Operator Courses The nuclear facilities provide periodic training and retraining for local emergency services located in tne vicinity of the facility. Training and/or drills are typically provided on an annual casis for fire, hospital and amoulence personnel. The nuclear facilities provice instructors at certain Conferences of Public Officials and Emergency Operations simulations ana provice staff to assist in preparation of scenarios used in the simulatea emerg enci es. (Refer to Training Procecures, Part IV, County REKP. )
In addition, the Nuclear Facility Operators are providing resources to accompitsn tne required initial training of county staff. State and local officials provide input into tne cevelopment of these training programs as well as the individual lesson plans. A typical matrix of topics ano target clients for tne initial local training is snowr; in Table 1. State and local personnel will provide training for new indivicuals ana pertucic retraining on ongoing basi s.
s I.
x J
]
s 1 Rev. 10/85
n s s s>W3
=t pH '
$i . we =tNoo. - *ssn 3eeeoiae:ses f o'
S s +tt~e 1o r e
R e SE i E t !
c G Cl n P
)
R A e E m/ y I
I
(
OT S .
P i
s e A g R S
f(t ,
g E t R A!
c n t e Y J
t g e a
- g TO t
C 0 l C C G g )
t ,
g R I I
E 1 l
oE I il I I' A K S O g OT P OE E M R E DR D1 4 R e U . E PID SS t
C.
g j
D SS SS S a S I S Y Yl YY l Y YJ Y t Y E Y 3A J t f MI 4 t F 4
1 S 4 I I
< 4 t
Y -
y T
y I.
- I 3 I I
I g CI a
in Y S i g,
t R I4 l l 0 0 i l
l l
t l tl t
A t
O 1 1 r O O O O Ol g
1 O D D E o MI P D D D D D c I A ' S- S S S S S S S S R (
i Y Y PTgl i 3
2 J
I Y
J t
Y l
Y l
V 4
Y 4
"i f t t t t g
g g
gg n g
i o e, i es d u
a t e e svi t n ao .a t
n n a
p l t s c y p(kT t t a t
- s. a a, eea i es r l c t I L - et -s i t
a i
p S S r s t e s. t l t T
A o
f f l
- o. onu s t. . u a. i f f Ct ?
I C t l o
I S l o o s so e i o a 1 i s a *a f f es i i s
i e e e m :
- a. et .a .
ooe c t r
da c c cs a et s e e
s D *. s C. f i c ";t. i a i e !
!. . t nT s e . t t I o s.
I I I D
f I f i a T ue i v n :s uf t t g
E ,
f o
f O
f) c n
A t nf e
'oe*r fol e . os e
e .
". soA f
uonol.e ey cmin e t l 3 p n, e n t
- r. . e y e r t
t I
l% :a l .
l . t g 't m s e l
e r s.
t s s t
l a s. l i
j I l I a. n. e a. A :
l t s.
i it t e o. f .a p u e s i s
vi
?
a.
l o
D E S ni oc mac. n oe I l
e r v p y : nit
- e. a l i
eg . a a.l
- eI e vv tI , o t
- a. f r h h nl i W i s.
C s a A o f
i q
s qe s i t ga
. s AI t Sl 8 l' I t I' t '
)
f i
t f t e- ll C
)
) =t n
eg . . q et i n i l ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) l )
1 liA 4
1 A RS D A D AI CDEI G t - l l
I 8 E I r
t f -
- t. y s
s o5 t. n l e
n s e l . .
i gi n n s n. d e s
e s i e i. n D s s w g i -
y e
E i f i t s D: e. re
-(
ou g a
s s
o e
s l s.
- 1 s. u :
j u a.
s l
? t a n1 sa i s .
i t a se v o t.
-e I t A .
s.
a s l s.
I / c ) i i ]
n _ c. )8
- s. . . t 1
e t 's .
l e
n .
i.i n. i -
s fot s . l t a l - .
l a_i? v l l i
ye m'.s s . l l i
u f o (
t T. _ el I. -
i n
l s. a. n l
s a .
e
. i ?.
3 s
s c n e e A e_t:s l' s. s e. s en a .
n.
H s. ( n. -
p ti n s ms e
?
e
- c. e.
a, T i. e r o. a s o l
- a. s
- l.
- s. i e
- a. : e o t t *. w r I F olol t ecn-n rn l.
s s.e r s g
u A t
- i. o.
O t a. s.- -e e. e i ) es- .-
J i 's l e 1
.- i 1 I
I rV % ell l n
. f S n sI ' e. o [
U. E o ) ) ) ) )
anD :vl i I l' 1
1 A I t
t i s ;
I l
( 1 T 3_
1 O Y C T 1 2 3 4 e
_ . _ s- -
Talate 1 (cose t d. ) .o UTI$T1 pg:l<3orggjg g, f*
4 COIJIMt1 I col.tittti II Col.t tttti III O)t.titita Iv N Pl4IMAltY '
TYP!3 Ol* Tl4A l tll tas ; til:l:Di'D TitAl til lM Sept'IM>ItT p[30tigtcrs an.
e AllDI E!!CE Itl2;Poric. Ilt I I.I TY ADDITit erIAI. TFAlril:l<S
- M) office of tienta l lie.s i t ta a tJ) office of tientaI
- .o, l<e t a s d.s t n on .
o O) Offiec of P.s k t, a s.d en Su~ce rat n on e P) Tliruway Aot1.oraty
- 5. l(.ul s ol og n e .e l l*lan St .it e Aqencie:. as 1. i . t c.I flYS I41:1M; t3YS In)
Overview .enel polscy al.>ove t s a n ni s.y o
(,. L'e assu'nu sii ca t s on A) l<ll:S 1. ODP St.ati 1. IlVS I:fkl I. f3YS l<l'l4;
- 2. Warning I'osnt St .nl f 2.a. I:iN ) Tr.s in W.o r saisaq 2.a. IJYS f(1:l't; es Point Tr.s t ese r 1,. W as saing Poisit Th.naner 1,. IdYS i<l:14; Ts. sin Staff
- 1. 11Hb lea st a act 't . a . 1310 Tra i s: Di.trict . 1.a. fly:. Fl:10 Director la. 1:ths Dist rict Director Train St.a t I
- 1. I n stl .l . a . IJh3 4.a. IIYS l< t:14; l>. IJYS 141-:14; O) leark - og. Sy .e e sei 1. I:t b > St .it i I. Ini 1. th .ne (s o l<til;) 2. W.a r sii nq Paint Stall 2.a. 1;rk s Tra i n Wa r ss i ray 2.a. thun-Point Tr.a i sse r la. W.a r en i say Po i n t Traisacr la. 1)SP +4 ).
en se Ts .a i si St .s f I
.tr
-p. .
- 1. 1:t10 Da si r iet 4.a. If10 Traen Distraet 1.a. tk en - 4n les a cet or l.. I fin b Dest ict le. thaeu-
.- f.l~
- s et les e e etor T* .e a so *;t .s t I a.
e i f)
- Ts .s i on lit :.t it:t c. Ik up*
14.e. l s o Ts .s i s.e s 9 9 el. let ?.t e's et 14.p l i o Ts .sisutr Ts.s in St af t el. t& #8"
______-__; __. - _ . - - - - - - - - - - - ~ - - " ~ " " ~ ^^ ~^ ~ ~
s
- 70' k
! Taurd I 'h j i.s j (cs tit. . ) -; ,
1 STATl; PERSoutlEI. r COI.UtIN I _
COI,tillt! 11
'o cog,ging yII
- t COf.13t#8 IV 4 s . ;i
.4 PRIMARY n TYPES Ol* TRAINIth; t1El:DED TRAlllING AtIDII ta 's Sippg' ORT RESOtlRCES '
E._ pot 4?;I 81II.ITY sa t ADDITIOt1Af.1 RA INERS r.:
- 4 Inoll, flVS s<l:11; 9 j 4.a. 1310 Traisi REPG 4.a. None ' "
!*. REPG Train Staff t). Nr>s te O. l'util e t&.t I ( i c.a t 4 ori 1:sc
.'s t
- t '
i
- ( I se*.iss e- ?.y?.t em NYS EMO [. 33yS Rgpc f3 -
. art iv.at is e a s closeline; - -
St .a t e- l it!') * !
18 I*a e l.l Tc.ess ; - State 1. l'ic ial tken s t or i seq 6
Aqencseh 1. IlYS IJW) 1.
b
- R e.am NYS REIC $
- 2. Ps rssuneel tieuni t oriss<J i j .l . ...m
.'. NYS Eft) 2. IsVS REPG .[
t 3. Inece >n t .imi sia s s on i .l . NYS Et10 'l . IlYS REPG '
i s., 4 Pintel a c Serest i t y 4. NYS State Police 4. IMO
1 I Trasessor t a t iose (Cosamun ica t ions)
E. Intersisl 11.C '
A. P.A. Sys t .-m St. ate :talt 1 : sie lis-l e s. : NYS EHO 1. i el. c a *, s e n sn al.c a t. l None l 11 Its lef iseq:s '
C. leuusee n ? ,
l'.
I:s t e t so.a l - I '* C 4 o IM '
IM* Director? ;
( t1WAS) (i e. e t .4 8.. x l HYS IM) County i (C<mumin ica t loeis) ;
NYS HEPG G. Speri.I l'.ees I a t ies State C.11 as.<l Speca.aI 'NYS REfC Par i t i t s ea, NYS EMO q2 n et tr at i
- 7. Psitel s e I n f..r m.e t s nes Sy*; tem es rs i State Aq.ncies, PI(N e si St.ste PlO NYS REPG e. fI _
d6 1 47* e v
we
_- n.m -+ ,,---w,en,.,,-r -
we . -e - -- , c.---- --.- --
h m~p*u'
- ge er s m 8' ls.
b
- e v1
- o " . *1
)'s ::.. , g a ;s e
.a s .
S )u o "
R *g n S E E l l C
CI I R E V l l
M I R oT 0
I S S l
l I: I .
Y 4
t t f A l t
- t. r
- O t
TO R I G* 1 l 1 C- OT G E -
I' I I < 1 i
i tl b! S S r S A. Y l
Y -
a J
f t l' Y__
l I I' I
t I t t
i t t G t
it Y J
( t._
4 -
t.
1 1 I 1 a )
W 1
1 I
O A
I I
I o
t f
- F
! t t 1 C I A ;
-a I
t I 1 1- g S r l' 1 4
1- y Y e j J t t l' t
- I t
2
) O I
S 4
1 e la :l 9
l t e s I' -
e b o; a t
s.
cT l
- s T i (A l T
i l
s a
s I e .
i t I : _
'g .
c i
c 3 h t a t.
I ar c i i 4 r t.
I I
> A e 1
t O tit eev A 1
C- A- t
- a. w C r t l !' c S l i
l l l' D es l e
l t e c
_ ai a
r D. s t e *.
1
- vi e I
1 3
sla na e s, t.
in a e e e G e >t
= c n.
l a
l t
s t
c cc i -
.t.
4 ia c
c, a
s..
A o e. s t
l 1 s e
I I' A -
n g
t e :
i T v m. e i .ea ,
e i f g l 1 t.
a . a I F t t O c s. -e i
n t.
e a r o i a. :
9 t .
e
_ t 1 t l i n e i
- l E o ceL . t i t
l.
I l' .r iel i l c o e s O Y I t t s. a. l I C T . . .
)
( 9 0
_ 1 b
< 1 !'i I. !
j ilik 1 ,i \lll ,
iI ;i i !
Ta IOCAL PI;RSONNEl, cot.I'f tt! I Ci ll.IIMil 11 COLT):tN III COLilHN IV d w
H PRIMARY TRAINING SUPPORT RESOURCES '
TYPI5 OF TRAIIJIHG Hl:l:Dt'I) AllDII: hcl 2 RESPONSIBILITY '#'
ADDITIONAL TRAINERS N
- 1. !!onitorinsg Teamj ,
g l l
e Al Collece clo .c l' a r c , Pol s e.e , ll.altle Depart- County RDO REPG, NYSDOII
>*.M c.,m. set a l.i t .a y
ment;, .an! Volunteens (l'i c l e t ) 3 0,
It) 1 c a r.one.. l m.ne s t s,r e ses; l* s a c, m Po l i c c , ii. .il t le IMI.a r t men t s . County RDO l'MO , NYSDOli, REPG ol em. s . . s.. y .-evice .in.1 Voliant i e s :,
- w. . . L . . :
C) Det o nt.n se...e e..n of I's e e , Police, ite a l t la Departments County RDO EMO, NYSDOII, REPG pe s t.e n n . l .n.l an<l Volunt eca s
. . j u a g .em s . t l D) II.asul t a n ; of I ..t . es t s .s i l y I*i s e, Polsce, Amtrulance Ilealth Utility NYSDOff, ENO r esat arns raa t e.1/ 8 ss jis reat Dept,., as d llosp a t a l s County RDO, REPG V a (_ t s m .
I:) .Sa nep l e Co l i cc t s . .n St .a te or Gaunt y Per ,os.ncl NYSDoll State Agencies sl . ol.t a t es I a c t.1 ..ang sl e*. ( M.M , DEC)
Is. :;t at e ..ra.e l y e n _, ,
- 2. Done A,.. .rin s.t Co nan t y Of t' i c.* o t' Om. regency NYSDOff EPA / FEMA, Analy.i. (1:# C) Ps ep. r. iln.* s :, County RDO Uti1ity
- 3. I:va l ua t s on (I:i x -) Claief I:xecut ive, Attm i s. i s t ra to r County Director of County RDO, NYSDOff, (Tho:,e who make ih cisions) I'mergency I*reparedness ItEPG
'm >
<r 3 m
o 3
,e 06
Trblo 2 (cont.)
LOCAL PI'HSOrlt3EL cot.lil4!3 1 COI.titita II COI.titit? III cot.t1Mt3 IV ao
- )*
- n PRIt1AltY P4 TYI'ES Ol' TRAINItJG til:l:DED TRA I!!!iJG F4 AI)DI E!1CE SI1PPORT RESOURLES HrSPOriSII!!!.ITY ADDITIOt3AI, TRA[t!ERS 8
- 4. I'xpot.iare Cont rol~
- Ps a l i ce , l'i r e , Amlaularice and sn t1 Rescue Sqiaa.l*;, l'ul,l i c Wrer k s, o Rino's, ilus Drivers, Asne a can n Heel Cross, Corsperathve 1xtension .
e It Art:S, Ileal t le th Is.s t t me:nt , au Special Se vices, Civil Ain es o
Patrol, Volunteers a
- n 5 l< ail i o l og n e.e l llans Count y I'mergency Se rvice- County Tsaining REPG Workers As Lasted Abovs. Coo r d a n.s t o r or A) County Pl.no 164 rect s,r of Ehrgency I's epa a e?dness D) State Plari ta'.*S REPG tJosie on C) Federal Plast l'I:MA REPG
- 11) titility
- Utility IW.PG (s . CofMaalf.I Cat Iole A) RECS RtCS Osieratorr Count y ittio, Tra issing 14YS 12k p, REPG Caxan dissat or or Di rect or of Dnergesicy t'ra gearedness in bac k-up Sy:;t em Casunty Dnesqency Personner! County Director of tJYS Er$1, U*ility Amateur Rad a o Ope ra t o :., t)ne rgeticy Prepa re-dr.ess, Voluetteers, litiI3ty Cosasit y RisO, C(menors i ca-t insis (sf fice r
.i >
C) Public tkatafication se <*
Ells Pe r sonne l , S a s eri In s t s.st or Coutsty Director of St .s t e PIO, itEPG
, f L' 1: met gency Prepar e.Iness, t4YS l'Jk) *"
County PIOS, tit. i l i t y PIDs , Ce nan t y lein ) or Ta a s seing ' d',
County IXX' St.nff and of t scer N
Dnergency itesposise IA> ken s m
9 m .
4 e
,,.-.y
,'h '
(
s j i
/
1 l
[ \
'v -qf l %
i i
(cont. . ) ~J 10 CAL PERSOtit#EL COI.UMia I COLiltita II
_COf tJtite III COLUM!1 IV m PRIMAL 4Y N TYPI:S OF THAltalt3G 1301:DI:D TRAlt31 t3G "
AtID I I.tiCE SlJPPORT RESOURCES RF. SPOT 3SI BI LITY ADDITIOt3AL TRAltJERS Is) l'ield Te.ims Field tionit orinig Teavs, Personnel County Director of Monit.o ing Te.uns, IMcon t anii na t ion REPG, NYS EHO a2mergency Preparedness, $
Utility P Te.ims , Reception and Congregate County RDO, or Care Centens Training Officer n e
I.) I n t c a n.s i I>< County COC Staff Count y Director of m REPG g Emergency Preparedness O, l') I x t e i n.. I l s ic t o EOC Count y Di rector of IJne r gesacy *s .
County Director of t4YS Etto (IIAWAS) (tut.a f ax) Prep.a s edness ased Staf f thierrest ncy Preparedsiess.
County Rfx) or Training Officer G) Special Pacalatles
" County Director of Dnerychcy County Director of Pacp.iredness an.1 Staff
- NYS Doll, t4YS DSS, thiergency Preparedness, REPG Special Pacility Operators County RDO or Training Officer
- 7. Put el i c I nl .ir ma t is,n Syste m Count y I'IO ., Utality PIDs, State PIO - REs0 County Director Conant y 1:t C St a f f and On. i lency Iscsposise uo Le r e.
RI:PG
- 8. Protceteve Artsosa a ourit y Dep.s r t ment s as l a st ed County Director of NYS CHO in tI flech.inin sm t o therqency Preparedness
.=>s .li na te t lie a e ?.g u ne.e .act a vi t tes attes s lee pa s.t ect i ve act s on lia:, t=en ordered
- ) . P
_l<c i _a_.
_ _ ? _b_e r_T_s__.s i se i n_q. _ _ Intr 1-8 Per 1-8 Per 1-8 es H"g tr g
9
~g
,us C.
New York State Radiological Emergency Preparedness Plan !
PART II - Sec. I l
-K. RADIOLOGICAL ItiGESTION EXPOSURE PROCEDURE
- 1.0 INTRODUCT!ON The purpose of this procedure is to estaolish a framework for the '
responsibilities of the New York State Dis. ster Preparedness Coranission (OPC) with respect to the radiological ingestion exposure pathway and provides response for emergencies at commercial nuclear power plants, and identifies State agency emergency management readiness, response and i recovery activities.
The contents of this document reflect the current policies and criteria associated with the radiological ingestion exposure pathway from the operating nuclear power plants located within New York State, as well as ,
those that border the State, and therefore requirJ an ingestion exposure pathay component for response. Attachment i depicts operating nuclear power plants for which this procedur,e has been developed. l The information identified in this procedure relies upon the ability of the DPC, through appropriate State agencies, to accomplish the following:
e activate appropriate State agencies' field staff; e collect, transport and analyze ingestion pathway samples; e assess and evaluate the potential impact of ingestion pathway contamination; i e alert local governments of the emergency and the potential for adverse public health impact. !
The CPC is responsible to the Governor for the implementation of the raciological emergency preparedness program. This procedure calls for j State agency coordination among federal and local governments, the nuclear facility operators, and the private sector for information, technical assistance or resources as necessary. ,
i In response to an ingestion pathway incident, State, County and Federal governments will all be responsible for specific roles ano activities in
- a cceroinated response. *he State's role, which is built around existing regulatory authority and ongoing programs, incluees
e assessment of impact j e evaluation of response options '
e implementation of necessary response actions The role of the Feceral government, which would be assisting the State 1 through Department of Energy, the Feceral Radiological Monitoring and l Assistance Plan, and the Feceral Radiological Emergency Prepareoness Plan ,
would include:
K -1 dev S/87
e technical resource supplement e personnel e monitoring and assessment e laboratories The impacted county (ies) would be called upon to provide the following support:
e maintenance of ongoing monitoring programs (i.e., public water i- supply) e proviet information on local agricultural activities e guiding State / Federal responders e support State response for ingestion concerns ,
The licensee which owns the af facted plant would continue to work to i stabilize and return the plant to pre-accident conoitions. Offsite monitoring would also be supplied by the utility to supplement the county / State resources.
When considering ingestion pathway responses and actions, short term and long term aspects of this response must be kept in mind. Short term consideration would be given to establishing intensive monitoring, sampling and evaluation programs aimed at preventing contamination of ingestion pathways or minimizing consumption of contaminated foodstuffs or water. Long term considerations will include restoration of contaminated areas, and dealing with the economic impacts of an ingestion ;
pathway accident. '
Technical Feceral support is an integral part of New York State's ingestion pathway response. In the early hours or a radiological emergency, support will be proviced through the U.S. Department of Energy's Radiological Assistance Plan (RAP). Technical expertise with sophisticated monitoring, sampling and laboratory analysis capability will be provided from the Brookhaven Area Office with US00E and Brookhaven National Laboratory staff. Advance RAP teams are also availble from the Knolls Atcmic Power uboratory, West Valley Demonstration Project Environmental Measurements Laboratory and the Pittsburgh Naval uboratory. USDOE will provide sophisticated aerial monitoring capability and plume modeling using ARAC. USDOE resources from Region I will be supplemented as required from other DOE facilities including the ha tional Laboratories. If the emergency concitions warrant, the Federal Radiological Nonitoring and Assessment Plan (FRhAP) will be implemented to obtain Federal interagency technical support.
FRMAP is acministered ey USDOE.
Sampling teams, which will be fielced by NYS in response to ingestion concerns can be c:mprisec of representatives from the Departments of Health. Agriculture ano iarkets, Envircnmental Conservation.
Transportation, and local C::Derative Extension /USDA, depending upon the situation. 00T will provice the vehicles f or the transport of the sampling teams to the recessary locations, and will coordinate transportation of samples to Albany for analysis at the 00H labs.
Eac'h State agency which nas a response in ingestion pathway will use existing agency procecures cased upon the responsibilities defined in the NYS REP Plan.
K-2 Wev. 8/87 ;
m
2.0 CONCEPT OF OPERATIOf45 The concept for this procedure stems from those existing governmental and utility responsibilities currently identified within this plan. The procedures contained in the REPP form the basis for State response to an ingestion exposure pathway incident. bever, unlike the plume exposure pathway, the radiological exposure concerns from the ingestion pathway are not as direct and may not require immediate protective actions. The information contained within this procedure centers arounc these ingestion pathways: (see Attachment 2) .
iiilk Foodstuffs Animal f eeds Water From an emergency management and public health perspective, the milk patNay is of primary concern. The radioactive materials would enter the human food chain by the f ollowing steps: deposition of radioactive material to pasture lanc, ingestion and concentration of this radioactive material by lactating aninals resulting in contamination in milk, and consumption and further concentration by the population. Thi s two-step concentration of radioactive materials plus the short time period between deposition and ingestion by the public, and the potential detrimental imoact upon children and infants who are most sensitive to the biological effects of radiation are what make the milk patnway a critical concern.
For potential ingestion exposure pathways State agencies have precared procedures which would ce implemented under the direction of the Chairman of the CPC who is cesignated as the lead agent on behalf of the Governo r. 4propriate State agency procedures contain information for sampling, detecting the presence of contamination, analyzing and evaluating of the proclem, and recommending and implementing protective actions.
Protective response measures associatea with the ingestion exposure patnway incluce preventive protective actions anc emergency protective actions.
e Preventive protective actions are those employeo to prevent or recuce the concentration of raoicactivity on agricultural products, with minimal impact resulting on tne f oco supply, o Emergency protective actions are those taken by government officials to remove milk, water anc f oce procucts f rem puolic and animal consumotion tnrougn emoargo or tnroug disposition, f
- lesponse levels for creventive ano erergency Frotective actions uuices ;
are cased on v.S. Fo:c ano ; rug Mministration guicance, shoan in '
Attachment 3 (USFDA PC si . f hotification anc *nf:r at t:n; an: cc:rcinati:n of agency Response anc !
Recovery Procedure s, f I
l X3 Rev. 8/S7 -
4 Coordination and communication are necessary to effectively implement i ingestion exposure protective actions. New York State, through the State Emergency Management Office (Sell 0) system, vill coordinate all operational and informational requirements with local governments and bordering states and provinces. SEMO will insure that this information is coordinated among appropriate officials as necessary in accordance with the State Disaster Preparedness Plan and the REPP. In addition, i
State agencies, as appropriate, will maintain periodic contact with counterparts ir, contiguous states and provinces to provide specific details pursuant to respective responsibilities.
3.0 ALERT AND NOTIFICATION Procedures for the alert and notification of State agencies for a nuclear power plant accident are contained in Part III, Section 1 of this plan, and will be used as appropriate for mobilization of State agencies for the ingestion exposure pathway response. This ingestion procedure deals with the responsibilities of State Government for alert and notification to local government and other appropriate officials in the event of an ingestion pethway concern.
Upon confirmation by Radiological Accident Assessment personnel that radiological ingestion is of concern, SEMO will implement procedures for alert and notification of all potentially affected local governments. .
State radiological assessment personnel will provide a listing of those counties within the actual or potentially affected areas and continual status updates. SEMO will notify: Radiological Emergency Preparedness ,
Group, appropriate State agencies who send representatives to the State and District EOC's, and potentially affected local governments. In adcition, notification will be made to other states and provinces (as appropriate) and the Federal Emergency Management fqency who will in turn '
notify appropriate Federal agencies and Canadian officials.
Attachments 4, 5, and 6 ccmprise SDiO's procedures for alert and notification, by operating nuclear power plant site, for the ingestion expmure pathway. l I
4 Ir the event that expeditious notificttien to county emergency management ofdces is required, 5010 will use the National Warning System (NAWAS). !
NMAS provides the capability for simultaneous netification of local governments on the circuit. l The alert and notification procedures, as defined for the three operating nuclear power plant sites in New York, can be expanded to cover all NYS, ,
or different areas of NYS, as the situatian warrants. Subsecuent to icentification of the area of impact, other SDt0 Listrict Offices can use >
similar notification procecures in that area.
As a means of augmenting alert and notification for an incident, State agencies will employ their respective ccmmunications systems, such as the Division of State Police 's :nformation System, tepartments of Transportation and Environmental Conservation Radio Systems, etc. l K-4 Rev. 8/87
4.0 COMMAND AND CONTROL RE5p0NSIBILITIES In the event of a nuclear power plant incident Command and Control Operations are managed from the State EOC in Albany. From this location, the Chairman of the DPC as the Governor's designet and other State officials direct the emergency management response and recovery operations. The Comand Room is augmented by State and District EOC operations, radiological assessmen*, and evaluation, connunications and t
public information. These components provide the necessary information to Comand Room personnel to facilitate the State's decision making.
From the Command Room decisions concerning State response and recovery are provided. Local officials will be informed of all decisions to.
insure continuity of the operation.
The objectives of the Comand Room operation are:
e to assess the magnitude of the situation; e define radiological impact; e implement procedures to respond to the situation; e implement protective measures; e initiate public information proceoures; e coordinate all actions with appropriate local government officials.
With respect to a plume exposure pathway response, Command Room personnel use the existing "Executive Hotlines", which are dedicated landlines, to coordinate emergency management actions with County Executive personnel.
In the event of an ingestion exposure pathway concern, this procedure will continue with those counties on this circuit. For other counties potentially impacted in this pathway, Comand Room personnel will direct SEMO to coorcinate the dissemination of information. This will be done through SEMO District Offices. Attachment 7 depicts Command Room informational flow and coordination responsibilities for the ingestion exposure pathway.
The f ollowing is a checklist of Comand Rocom activities which will be completed in the event of an inE,estion exposure pathway incident:
assess the magnituce of the ingestion pathway ccncern; determine appropriate protective actions to be employed to protect public health, property and the environment; imolement protective actions or measures as required in coordination with local officials; i
cooroinate tne cissemination of puolic information through the Joint i tews Center (wnere on exists); j keep local officials informed of protective action recomencations f (PAR $), the implementation of PARS ano public information; I determine the recuirement f or Federal resources that may be necessary to augment the State efforts pursuant to the Federal Radiological Emergency Response Plan the Federal kadiological Monitoring and Assessment Plan, or the U.S. Department of Energy's Radiological g Assistance Plan; K-5 Rev. S/S7
^
- provide periodic briefings to the Governor from Chairman of the DPC on the status and projection of the incident and provide recomendation on the requirement for a State Disaster Emergency Declaration pursuant to kticle 2-8 of State Executive Law;
- as the incident progresses, evaluate protective' actions and adjustment as necessary in the interest of public safety;
- provide periodic updates on the status of the management of the
! incident to all components in the State EOC;
- manage the implementation of short and long term State recovery actions;
- insure that all information is coordinated with other bordering states and provinces, Federal authorities and the nuclear facility operator.
5.0 ORGANIZATIONAL RESP 0NSIBILITIES In the event of a radiological ingestion exposure pathway accident. State agencies will provide the necessary resources to protect public health, property and the environment. State agencies involved in the ingestion exposure pathway response will use their own specific agency procecures.
Activities will be coordinated by SEHO at the State EOC and in the appropriate District EOC. Attachment 8 is a matrix of State Agency responsibilities. The f ollowing is a listing of the State Agency responsibilities associated with the radiological ingestion pathway: ,
- a. Decartment of health As the State's lead agency for the protection of public nealth for radiological incidents, 00H will:
e collect samples of potable water, soil and vegetation; e take environmental radiation measurements; e provide laboratory analysis for samples taken in the field; e recorrena protective actions; e assist in the coordination and delivery of public information relating to protective actions implementect e serve as the focal point in the State EOC for the analysis aiia assessment of radiological information; e provide technical training as required.
- b. Ceoartment of Acriculture ana Na-'ets e maintain an inventory of dairy f arms, fece processing plants and ;
stock f arms; e collect samples of milk, produce, and aninal feeds; !
e recon end protective actions; e implement protective actions as appropraite for milk produce ano animal feeds; i o embargo procuce and milk in contaminated areas; j e restrict use of animal feeds; e provide information and direction to all f armers within the affected areas; K-6 Rev. S/87
e assist in the development and release of public infomation; e coordinate with appropriate local agencies (Cooperative Extension, USDA) for necessary resources; e provide technical training as required. .
- c. Deoartment of Environmental Conservation i
e collect samples of environmental flora and fauna; e using agency resources, transport samples to laboratory f acilities; e implement protective actions with respect to environmental flora and f auna; e assist in public information for protective actions; e support comunications using agency resources.
- d. Division of State Police e provide division resources to support communications; e expedite the delivery of samples for laboratory analysis e maintain access control points.
- e. Department of Transportation e act as transportation coordinator for collection and transportation of samples to appropriate laboratories; e provide department resources for delivery of samples to appropriate laboratory for analysis; e assist in the maintenance of access control points; e support comunications with agency resources; e provide resources for tran porting ingestion field teams.
- f. State Emercency Management Office e provide coordination for response anc recovery activities for the State EOC and the SD40 District Offices; e provide notification to Federal, State and local governments; e assirt the State DOH in radiological assessment at the State E0C; e provide training and awareness to State ano local officials; e ccordinate the celivery and implementation of resources to sustain operatinal requirements; e support comunications with agency resources,
- g. Radiolocical Emergency preparedness Group e coercinate the State's Public :nformation Program; e assist in the implementation of pr0tective actions; e ccorcinate tne overall ingestion patnay planning cceponents of the State's procecure; e provide liaison to appropriate Federal agencies; e provide training and awareness to State anc local officials.
6.0 FIELO CFERAT:0N nESNNS:BILITIES County Emergency Operations Centers will coordinate information and requests for assistance with their respective representative in the SUl0 District Office.
K-7 Rev S/37
7.0 PUBl.!C INFCRMATION RESPONSIBILITIES The potential magnitude and impact of an ingestion exposure pathway incident requires an extensive public alert and notification capability on the part of State and local government. There is a requirement for notification to the general public, agricultural industry, retail and wholesale food and commodity distributers, industrial representatives and other appropriate entities.
Procedures exist in the State REPP for Public Information during a nuclear power plant incident. Through the use of a Joint tews Center (JNC), wnich is located near to the potentially affected area, local, I
State Federal and utility public information officers coordinate and disseminate all information to the general public on the status of the incident and protective measures to be employed for public safety. Th e JNC (where one exists) is the one designated location for the release of information to the public during an ingestin pathway emergency, if kept operational by hew York State.
The JNC may, at the discretion of New York State, continue to operate f or at least the initial portions of an ingestion pathway concern.
For long term ingestion pathway activities, the public information function may return to Albany. In the event that no JNC exists in the areas with ingestion pathway impact, the information may be provided to the public from Albany or another designated location.
To provide effective public information releasts to the general public, ,
the ?ew York State Emergency Broadcast System (EBS) can be activated if determined to be necessary. The primary means f or accessing EBS for dissemination of protective action recorrendations will be with the assistance of 1ccal access (county) personnel. If the EBS cannot be accessed locally, or if a large region must be notified simultaneously, SEMO will coercinate the issuance of the nessage via EBS as appropriate.
While the JNC is operational, all public information news releases and EBS messages will be compiled and written at the JhC. This information will be provided to the representative for the Public :nformation function at the State EOC upon completion.
A-5 Rev. 8/87
6 - >l f?/A *^ed r
s
.v e. em
' ta {
g set - d.
,4 *: . -. : ' * : p7 g*'l *
.Q .
, 5- . -. . ... ,.- . ,',msg.. ...
i s . .:.;.w ll :.
.:::%- : @e.=':::t e
...., . M - .
- > .1 -
- .!::1
- I 39::, .
- e
.' q-
.:q" "l y
- ll( * / M : ' '
q
.-}-,
I' : .*'.
A -3
'. ~.
... . . ,. . . .: .m. --: . . N:-
5
.... t 1.:
. R. . . .
g . u ...
. E ' * '
x..
.. v.
. . ~ .
.a W., f.l... *
'Iem*?.*,,.** : .
. * =b. . .:
e .
. .-)
'O d
- ,..e-H. 4 . . .%
i
- ! W . *>
, T:>:
C
", . 2.:. -
. +e W UJ
.:. * . .: ; v:-.... .
s+
- .:4.:.s$ -<. :- . .
C .b<
w%
. +- . , ar; c)
- .* .< .L.J M
, . . . ' . .:Y:...
- t:: ,
p D g . .? =
.h
+:
. .p i. .'f- . :. : . -==
- N
. . . c.
6
+.9.pgr
. 4 ;, .
... y'.W o n n
~ .:w.n. . .
.u
. =. .g ?
w u O
i
.~.; .:::
L #
= = C
&C<
=
= c
= .
i.
O .
. o= u s .
- El[ =
m t.n Jw
- U2 O (.. Do 2m eU
(N O T U S L 0)
K-10 Rev. 8/87 1
Attacnment 2 AIRBORNE L100 D RELEASE 07#
RELEASE
- u LAND SURFACE l'.:*.!E RS!O N Ano SU 3.'.tE R$10 N SHORELINE CONTAMINATION n
MA*4 EXTERNAL 1
AIR 33R*4E .
LIQUl0 REL!ASE RELEASE tr4 f Cr i E Q /0,y
!- Ec
, gQ S0lt j u e
- L* /
I l
5 ff#
POTABLE FISH l'iM AL ATIO N VE3tTATION : A NI'.t A L S ~
WATER SEA F000$
s _
a a
% $ Y ..h f O
/c, h l g\@
$ ,3 gc'j'
~ N' V'
, . ..L .
PATH *,'AYS FOR EXTFRNAL AND INTERNAL EXPOSURE OF MAN FROM AIRBORNE AND LIQUID RELEASES OF RADICACTivE EF /LUENTS g,3; Rev. 4/57
)
(N O T U S E D) i i
K -12 Rey, 8/87
~ =- . . . _ _ _ __ __
DfRIVID RESPONSC LEVELS fOR EMERCDICY PAG Radionuclide I-131 Cs-134 Cs-137 -
Sr *C Sr-89 Source of Sampic
- I s f a nt- Adul t I nf a nt-Adul t "I nfant-Adul t"* Infant-Adult Infant-Adul t init ial teePosit inn 1. 3 1 11 . 0 20.0 40.0 30.0 50.0 5.0 20.0 80.0 1600.0 ^
( f. s o ur. ell (u C /w 21 Peak ic t i vi ty :
~.'
C Pastute tu Ci/t9) 0.5 7.0 8.0 17.0 13.0 19.0 1.8 8.0 30.0 700.0 11: 16 f u Ci/1) 0.15 7.0 1.5 3.0 2.4 4.0**** 0.09 0.4 1.4 30.0 Tota 1 IntaLe fu Ci) 0.9 10.0 40.0 70.0 70.0 80.0 2.0 7.0 26.0 400.0 Dose Crmnitncnt (ren) 15.0 15.0 5.0 5.0 5.0 5.0 5.0 5.0 5.0 5.0
- tscut2orn intant critical populatinn segment
' I r.1 a n t" sof ers to cle 11 less than 1 year of age
~
- u Ci = micro curie (s)
Base d on 11:41-to-flan PJ tl4ay 2
- Pcat ac ti vity in ecat, u L /Lg a = square met'er 1 4' kg = kilogram (s) g o,
I
- IIE*fISI
,, Ref e rence: Depart: rent of licalth and lluman Services y
' f e.od .sn.1 fleug Aihminis t a tion h U ic fesal lirisister, Voltoe 47,110. 205, October 22, 1962 .S t'
-..-1,-y. vw= 3 - . _--w ._w _.._,wr -
-.w-. w . ----,c.,.-v. e--ge . . - .., .,,.-,%e-%- ,,c. , , - ,
Attaenment 3b .
( ,
DERIVED RESPONSE LEVELS FOR PREVERTIVE PAG Radienucl'ide - 1-131 C -134 Cs-137 $r-90 Sr-89 SOURCE OF SA'7LE Initial Deposition 0.13 2.0 3.0 0.5 6.0 (Grourd) :
(u Cf/m2) ;
Peak Activity:
i Pasture (uCi/k 0.05 0.8 1.3 0.18 3.0 Milk (u Ci/1) g)* 0.015 0.15 0.24 0.009 0.14 ,
t i
( Total intake (u Ci) 0.09 4.0 7.0 0.2 2.6 l Cose C:eniteent (ren) 1.5 0.5 0.5 0.5 0.5 :
- Fr e s h 'a'e i g h t 3 NOTE: This table uses inf ants as the critical segment of the peculation.
for I-121, the nea::rn inf ant is the critical :::ulation segment. Fo r -
the etner ra:icnuclices "infant" refers to a ch11c less than 1 year of age. ,.
- Refere.ce: '
Ce:2rteen: cf pealth tr Munan Services l Fe:c an: v; A .inistrati:n F# : # 21 t e - t t i e r . *.*: l . e
- 7, .'io . 2 C 5, O c t:ti r 22, 1932 i u Ci/m2 = micro curies per square meter '
u Ci/kg = micro curies per kilogram (
i u C1/1 = micro curies per liter
- k. i s
K-14 Rev. 8/87 .
l
-i--__
A28acnmeng
- INGESTION EXPOSURE PATH;!AY Alert and Notification Procedure Indian Point Nuclear Power Plant Sites i
Upon confir: nation of an ingestion exposure pathway concern from the Indian Point i Nuclear Power Plant sites, the State Emergency Management Office (SEMO) Headquarters Staff will employ the following alert and notification procedure:
GOVERiOR
- DISASTER PREPARE 0 NESS COMMISSION COMMISSIONER OF HEALTH SEMO .
~
STATE AGCiCY LIAISONS HEADOUARTERS STAFF
- FEDEPAL EMERGC4CY
- FEDEPAL AGEiCIES MNIAGEMCiT AGCICY I >
v
+ BORDERING STATES
-* S010 NORTHERi. CCITRAL LAKE A'40 WESTER 4 O! STRICT OFFICES h
5EMO 5 C40 ,
j SOUTHER 4 EASTERi DISTRICT DISTRICT I
4 V y l WESTCHESTE .
LOCAL C4ERGEiCY
- 0 %'iG E MXiAGEMCiT OFF
- C ES
- FUTN 'M -
l ROC KL A'40 OUTCHESS l
NASSAU l
. SUFFOLK ULSTER NEW YORK CITY t
.)
Note: The SCt0 District Offices notify their regional State agency liaisons anc etner i local emergency managetent offices as a:propriate. [
K-15 Rev. S/37
(
l 1
(N O T b S i 0) "
l I
i Rev. 8/87 t
c a m ent ;
kNGESTION Exp05URI PATHUAy Alert and Notification Procedure Nine Mile Point /FitzPatrick Sites Upon confimation of an ingestion exposure pathway concern from the Nine Mile Point or FitzPatrick nuclear power plants, the State Emergency Management Office (SEMO)
Headquarters Staff will employ the following alert and notification procedure:
i GOVERIOR
-* DISASTER PREPAREDNESS COMMISSION COMMISSIONER OF HEALTH S EMO 4 STATE AGCICY LIAISONS HEADQUARTERS STAFF
+ FEDERAL EMERGCiCY l FEDERAL AGCiCIES MANAGEMCIT AGCICY h
-+ C AN ADA - 0'iTAR10 PROV!NC E
+ BORDERING STATES SEMO WESTER 1, EASTERl & SOUTHEPi DISTRICT OFFICES y +
5EM0 5EM3 5EMO C cit .AL LAKE NORTH ERi O! STRICT DISTRICT DISTRICT T V y
ONTARIO LOCAL OSWEGO CAYUGA EliERG CICY O'iO*iD AG A SCIEC A MA'4 AG E4Cii J EFF ERS0'i W AY.l E OFFIC ES L E.ilS ON EIDA MADISN {
Note: The 500 01 strict Offices notify their regional State agency liaisons anc otrer local e?ergency manage ent offices as appropriate.
K-l? Rev. S/67
-. n
(N O T U S E D) .
i K -18 Re y, 8/8 7
Attacnment 6 I:1 GEST!0'4 EXPOSURE PATHWAY ;
Alert and Notification Procedure Ginna Site i Upon confirmation of an ingestion exposure pathway concern from the Ginna Nuclear Power Plant, the State Emergency Management Office (SDio) Heacquarters Staff will employ the following alert and notification procedure:
1 i
i GOVER40R 4
015 ASTER PREPARE 0 NESS C0ld!SSION COMMISSION ER OF HEALTH i
SEMO -> STATE AGEiCY LI AISONS :
HEADQUART ERS STAFF _p FEDEFAL EMERGEICY ' I
' FEDEPAL AGCICIES MA'iAGEMCIT AGCICY h !
1
4 SEMO NORTHER 1, EASTERi A'40 SOUTHERI O! STRICT
- OFFICES l
[
l v 4 :
5 010 S EMO SEN LAKE WESTERI C CITFAL O! STRICT O! STRICT O! STRICT ;
V y 1r !
WAYN E !CIRO E O5WEGO !
O P.EA'15 CNON0;GA :
C'iT A RIO YATES LIVINGSTON i STUESCI GEiESEE SCIEC A WYCMING j CAYUSA Note: The SEMO District Offices notify their re;ienal State agency liaisons anc etner i local emergency managerent offices as appropriate. [
K-19 Pev. S/57 i
. I' t
(N 0 T U S E 0) ,
f I
I K-20 Rev 8/87
Cosasand Public and --- - - - - FOR Information Control
/
State 90
$ tate pg Assesseeent tae a se a t t s e s aaowtas Operations and T Evaluation N
\ ,
N 05000 RAP _tae D0ff Radiological '
Liaison 'a=atwais Laboratory-Albany s (
tocal Government Field Analysis or
? National-Lab 1
f i Sample Local Goverronent SEMO District
USDOE Team Collection l Technical Staff - - -------- Coordinator Point l D10/500 Van (s) j; Je n
RAP Field c,Mhg, Teams som et a s and Dispatch f
State Ingestion _
i.
Sampling Teams sa.,tas n N 2 "O 0
R !2 5 . E INFORMATION ft0W IOR INGESil0N PATHWAY RESPONSE y 7++-wew--ptus-t yt----mm----wW-F r -ur --
-r- ---
v+-- -*--&*=v""*- e+-'T* tr-T-rt==-" -iemy--=g-M-h--- -y+twi
- w m - -,-imac-
.---3%t-im-- **=+-r e-7-q y_ e - Mu -<---p 4 q'g-- t -e r me - - -
v- d
f 1
I U O 7 0 5 E 0) s I
h I
I t
i K-22 Rey, epgy A
f
?s ra t l s TO l' l c is: *4 .
P at rc e ee t s
e I
s i
e C'88tos3**OC. .
ed na ap w np a
rp en p
9 .
r pi at na o ao ge pt sr Y ar ear ta a ce rl e o r eo s nE oa r lt &t t em rem a
d dg k m m m D u ni ne tn Ce He e E _
r ec tr On an n P _
sa g at t
S t
nt s rt k
t A _
sl Oe a R _
fn iO t o eO rf eo O T
.- GE n tf f !
h rm fc iy e v s 1
E _
o .
oe c aE A H !
3 u P tn g e 7 l ur e o iv r a d pg l oi i l e
i nr c t e n c o u h _
n c e n l s- y - -
- t. a r . oCnM e
X s s s s t nC>eCoOeN O** QeeeN ,.asgs seie h
a .
oC>eCoOeN s s Oe Ooes s
t X l g nLtoeaMwCt i e i aeaCau ts s s d
e
. X a*3n se O4aCeee,Cp~
1 s s t
_ l I1; n.0aaoee 3e8es is
. e s4 a
i .
n - X m*so. 4- e Os epCee e, i
s Ctp e -
i n0 * -
t
_ t e X m*es i .ie . O4aKeee.Cte~ s!
s T
d s. C : e. soCf.es4ae 5 sig A 1 .. : 8ss . es:a S K
t X i e
- ae swe S j
_ c l n*spee i. CCseNeet /
3{
s R k X e E nC>eCoDeN Oe mpOuc ,.sse s s s e a e S
/ l P
r X X X O e
s
_ E. sa C se s.i 0 se p es o em O C O ** vss(
seiLaee N S
p ;Oo s eess8e
- s . t a 4. OC Oe s 40Cs I X 9 cDoeosees e 0O3c4> 8, I
- s e6 .
a0 pe, e e. o s 8 e0C o e s 0N O o;3 e e s s L i X I b t s.
8
' iese= ' T I
i l X X .
COoeen se O0Cpe Os s e p0eCos w
e E S
_ t i
u s*3n. O44Coee,Gs~ s I
F p
i
- ~..ee 1
e X O
_ s : .- x R
_ u* e n i .n +- o O e e s s C e e se, C tp~
a r
- X osat:te
< - ,i< r e
0e1eeeSes
- - 5 'i e I
N e X .asOpOope,>e .(ae CDstOC C e
E i oeteaeest a4-i (sM S i: 1 : ' ;
T i
m nani. 4eieCaasc0C Oe4 g
s p X X X s ge0sWu..>e s I l
e X- ,
' a~ -
s*
ss8e 9e O
N
_ m e X X X X sos 4 o e.Ce0s8e4*OC O...e e s e
e1 8e P n A T
t e X OoOsoe,:se68e0C e Os eCnie98eoC e
- e4 -
H b p
.s es:: e e. e 0.ersC sn
< 1; : W
_ l A o X X s. JesiO Cs4eOCe e t w Y 4;)sen t P
osos e. s*es ee pes e a ssr se e OCs a a s X X . L
> .eeeeI'iaaal n A l n N
X ne.ssu**e.oCs e
e s a0 re lee N I
- e. a : e s.e g s,'i . e t' 8r s. g a i
se iit :
N X OoOesssa**s8eOC O **' CO C e 4 3' 8 i 9 4 s f 1 u C
- oo9Co> DeaCN8sOuetDse es <8e 8t e
X s.
- e e >s<e C u >. O.p e e sea s s ** O g es OeCpes pe X X x Oo:aaOCe- ;
ra*
u1s*OCn "e , a e
y,- <** =
s
(N O T U S E D) e K-24 pey, g/37
1 l
l I
I
)
Attachment 14
. - - - . _. pw
General Objection 3 General (information General Objection 2 about the General Objection 5 General "No Plans *
(SC does not radiolostcal Object 90n 4 (NYS and SC "Opeculation" Objection (No Objection 1 possess in- response of (NYS does not do not pos- Objection Interrog- (other plans plans and formation other possess seas docu- (April 13 procedures etary and emergen- about the counties information
' monts related objection have been Number clos irrele- State or would be about any to other Contains soQe identified or want) other speculative) counties) countles)1/ response) 'esist) Answers countles) 8 X 9 X 10 X II X X 12 X X 13 x f 14 X2/
15 X
, t$ X
, t? X i
18 X 19 x 20 X
- , 21 X X
{ 22 X X
( 23 X X l 24 X i
^
25 x
- l/ A sixth "General Objection." on the ground of burdensomeness, was never invoked by Intervenors.
2/ Intervenors further objected to Interrogatory No. 14 on the ground that it "assumes a fact (distributton of the brochure) that
, csnnot occur since LILCO lacks lega authority to distribute such a brochure."
i a
J
- 2.
}
G.n.rai Objection 3 l General (information General
$ Obje:tton 2 about the General Objection 5 "No plans" General (SC does not radiological Objection 4 (NYS and SC "Speculation" Objection,(No l Objection 1 possess in- response of (NYS does not do not pos- Objection plans and-l Interrog- (other plans formation other possess sees docu- (April 13 procedures
! atary and emergen- about the counties information ments related objection have been i Number ctes irrele- State or would be about any to other contains sole identified or j vant) other speculative) counties) countles) response) entst) Answers
! counties) 28 x
}
1 27 x 28 x 29 x 30 x
! 31 x 4 32 x I
33 x 34 x
- 35 x 33 x I
37 x
) 38 x 5
3 39 x I
- 40 x 41 x l
! 42 x i
- 43 x x a 44 x i
4
3.
General Objection 3 General (information General Ob-Objection 2 about the General joction 5 "No Plans" Generet (SC does not rectological Objection 4 (NYS and SC "Speculation" Objection (No Objection 1 possess in- response of (NYS does not do not pos- Objection plans and Interrog- (other plans formation other possess sess docu- (Aprt1.13 procedures ctory and emergen- about the counties information monts related objection have been Number ctes irrele- State or would be about any to.other contains sole identtfted or vant) other speculative) countles) countles) response) entst) Answers counttes) 45 X 43 X 47 X 43 X 49 X 50 X X X 51 X X 52 X X X X 53 X X X 54 X X X 55 X X 56 X X 57 X X X 53 X X X 59 X X X X 60 X X X X 61 X X X X S2 X X 63 X X 64 X X X. .
n . - -
4.
General Objection 3 General (informatton General Objection 2 about the General Objection 5 "No Plans" General (SC does not radiological Objection 4 (NYS and SC "Speculation" Objection (No Objection 1 possess in- response of (NYS does not do not pos- Objection plans and Intorrog- (other plans formation other possess seas docu , (April 13 procedures story and emergen- about the countles informatton monts related objectton have been Number clos irrele- State or would be about any to other contains sole identIfled or want) other speculative) counties) counties) response) entst) Answers countles) 65 X 66 x 47 X X 68 X X X X C9 X X X X 70 X X 71 X X X 72 X X 73 X X X 74 X X 75 X 76 X X X 77 X X X 78 X X 79 X 20 X X OS X X 82 X X 83 X X X X
. . ~ ... - - . s 5..
General Objection 3 General (information General Objection 2 about the General Objection 5 General "No Plans" (SC does not radiotoolcal Objection 4 (NYS and SC "Speculation" Objection (No Objection 1 possess in- response of (NYS does not do not pos- Objection plans and 1 Interrog- (other plans formation other possess seas docu- (April 13 procedures atory and emergen- about the counties information monts related objection Number have been cies trrele- State or would be about any to other contains sole identified or 1
vent) Oth er speculative) countles) counties) response) entst) Answers countles)
M X
C5 X X X 4
CS 87 X X E8 X X 89 X X X 90 X X X 91 X X X 92 X X X
.i 93 X X
} 94 X K 95 X X 96 X X 97 X X X X i
i 93 X X X 99 X X 1n0 X X X j 101 X X X i'
102 X X X 4
d
.- .. - - - .n __ - .,.
G.
Gen 3ral Objection 3 General (1nformat1on General Objection 2 about the General Objection 5 "No Plans
- Generat (SC does not radiological Objection 4 (MVS and SC "Speculation" Objection-(No-Objection 1 possess in- response of (NYS does not do not pos- Objection plans and Interrog- (other plans formation other possess sess docu- (April 13 procedures otory and emergen- about the counties information monts related objection Number Ctes irrele- have been State or would be about any to other Contains sole identified or vant) other speculative) counties) countles) response) entst) Answers counttes) 103 X X X 104 X X 103 X X 106 X*3,/
107 X 103 X X X 109 X 110 X*
111 X*
112 X X 113 X X 114 X 115 X X 116 X X 117 X X 118 X X 119 X*
120 X X 3/ While Intervenors answered some Interrogatories without objection. in several instances their answers were not fully responstve and provided little or no useful information. Such answers are identified by the notation "*".
7.
General
- Objection 3 General (informatton General
, Objection 2 about the General Objection 5 "No Plans" General (SC does not radiological Objection 4 (NYS and SC "Speculation" Objection (No Objection 1 possess in- response of (:2VS does not do not-pos- Objection plans and l Interrog- (other plans formation other possess sees docu- (April 13 procedures story and emergen- about the counties information monts related objection have been Number clos irrele- State or would be about any to other contains sole identified or want) other speculative) countles) counties) response) exist) Answers countles) 1 J
1 121 X l
122 X X 123 X X X X X 1
I N
I 4
I l
a i
l, i
i l
i 4
h i
4 4
y LILCO, May 2 1938 DOLKETED U5NPC
'8B MY -5 P4 :23 CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE OFFICL OF LHW!
00CKliiNG A SEnvlCL BRANCH In the Matter of LONG ISLAND LIGHTING COMPANY (Shoreham Nuclear Power Station, Unit 1)
Docket No. 50-322-OL-3 I hereby certify that copies of SUPPLEMENT TO LILCO'S RESPONSE TO GOV-ERNMENTS' APRIL 13 OBJECTION AND MOTION IN THE ALTERNATIVE TO COMPEL DISCOVERY were served this date upon the following by Federal Express as indicated by one asterisks, or by first-class mail, postage prepaid.
James P. Gleason, Chairman
- Adjudicatory File Atomic Safety and Licensing Board Atomic Safety and Licensing 513 Gilmoure Drive Board Panel Docket Silver Spring, Maryland 20901 U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission Washington, D.C. 20555 Dr. Jerry R. Milne
- Atomic Safety and Licensing Richard G. Bachmann, Esq.
- Board U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission One White Flint North East-West Towers, Rm. 427 11555 Rockville Pike 4350 East-West Hwy. Rockville, MD 20852 Bethesda, MD 20814 Herbert H. Brown, Esq.
- Mr. Frederick J. Shon
- Lawrence Coe Lanpher, Esq.
Atomic Safety and Licensing Karla J. Letsche, Esq.
Board Kirkpatrick & Lockhart U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission South Lobby - 9th Floor East-West Towers, Rm. 430 1800 M Street, N.W.
4350 East-West Hwy. Washington, D.C. 20036-5891 Bethesda, MD 2')814 Fabian G. Palomino, Esq.
- Secretary of the Commission Richard J. Zahnleuter, Esq.
Attention Docketing and Service Special Counsel to the Governor Section Executive Chamber U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission Room 229 1717 H Street, N.W. State Capitol Washington, D.C. 20555 Albany, New York 12224 Atomic Safety and Licensing Alfred L. Nardelli, Esq.
Appeal Board Panel Assistant Attorney General U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission 120 Broadway Washington, D.C. 20555 Room 3-118 New York, New York 10271
{
5 George W. Watson, Esq.
- Ms. Nora Bredes William R. Cumming, Esq. Executive Coordinator Federal Emergency Management Shoreham Opponents' Coalition Agency 195 East Main Street 500 C Street, S.W., Room 840 Smithtown, New York 11787 Washington, D.C. 20472 Evan A. Davis, Esq.
Mr. Jay Dunkleberger Counsel to the Governor New York State Energy Office Executive Chamber Agency Building 2 State Capitol Empire State Plaza Albany, New York 12224 Albany, New York 12223 E. Thomas Boyle, Esq.
Stephen B. Latham, Esq.
- Suffolk County Attorney Twomey, Latham & Shea Building 158 North County Complex 33 West Second Street Veterans Memorial Highway P.O. Box 298 Hauppauge, New York 11788 Riverhead, New York 11901 _
Dr. Monroe Schneider Mr. Philip McIntire North Shore Committee Federal Emergency Management P.O. Box 231 Agency Wading River, NY 11792 26 Federal Plaza New York, New York 10278 Jonathan D. Feinberg, Esq.
New York State Department of Public Service, Staff Counsel Three Rockefeller Plaza Albany, New York 12223
$N/$/_ ,
C OV Hunton & Williams 707 East Main Street P.O. Box 1535 Richmond, Virginia 23212 DATED: May 2,1988