ML20155C567
| ML20155C567 | |
| Person / Time | |
|---|---|
| Site: | Shoreham File:Long Island Lighting Company icon.png |
| Issue date: | 06/03/1988 |
| From: | Zahnleuter R NEW YORK, STATE OF |
| To: | LONG ISLAND LIGHTING CO. |
| Shared Package | |
| ML20155C552 | List: |
| References | |
| OL-3, NUDOCS 8806140253 | |
| Download: ML20155C567 (20) | |
Text
4 June 3, 1988 UNITED STATES OF AMERICA NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSION Before the Atomic Safety and Licensing Board
)
In the Matter of
)
)
LONG ISLAND LIGHTING CCMPANY
)
Docket No. 50-322-OL-3
)
(Emergency Planning)
(Shorehan Nuclear Power Station
,..)
Unit 1)
)
)
STATE OF NEW YORK'S RESPONSE TO LILCO'S SECOND SET OF INTERROGATORIES REGAPDING CONTENTIONS 1-2, 4-8, AND 10 This pleading responds to the Board's oral ruling on May 10, 1988 requiring the State of New York to provide additional answers to LILCO's Interrogatories 50-64, 67-74, 76-83,85-105, 108, 112-113, 115-118, 120, and 122-123.
General Objections Concerning all of these interrogatories, the State of New York asserts the following general objections that were previously made in the Governments' Objections to LILCO's Second Set of Interrogatories Regarding contentions 1-2, 4-8, and 10 (April 20, 1988), and were not overruled by the Board:
8806140253 080603 ADOCK05000g2 PDR O
s s
1.
.The St' ate of New York objects to LILCO's Interrogatories to the extent that they call for speculation, which the State of New York is unable to provide. The counties about that LILCO secks such information are separate governmental entities that have independent authority to determine their own actions prior to and during emergencies. According-ly, the State of New York cannot predict what these counties would do, how they would respond, what plans they would use, or other such mat-ters.
If LILCO wants this information, it should obtain it from the counties in question. The State of New York notes that the informativr.
is as accessible to LILC0 as it is to the State of New York.
2.
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 of New York.
3.
The State of New York objects to LILCO's Interrogatories to the extent that they seek the identification of documents, or production of j
documents themselves, which are in the possession, custody or control of counties, including 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.
_2-s'
Additional Responses 50.
For subparts (a) through (e), whatever plans and procedures exist are contained within the New York State Radiological Emergency Preparedness Plan for Concercial Power Plants ("New York State Plan"), which speaks for itself and needs no sutmarization. Although the New York State Plan contains detailed county plans for each plant located in New York State except Shoreham, the New York State Plan does not contain such detailed countyplansforout-of-stathhlants, and, therefore, is not site-specific for the plants identified in subparts (a) through (e).
The New York State Plan has already been provided to LILCO.
51.
a) behenectady, Washington, Rensselaer, Colutbia, Greene, Albany, Saratoga b) Suffolk, Nassau c) Suffolk, Westchester, Putnam, Dutchess, Columbia d) Washington, Rensselaer, Columbia c) Staten Island Borough 52.
The State of New York is not aware of any plans and procedures that the pertinent counties might "have, use, follow or otherwise rely upon,"
with the possible exception of the New York State Plan.
Beyond that, the State of New York is unable to speculate, as explained in General Objections 1, 2 and 3. s-
53.
The State of New York does not know how each such county would respond because these counties have not conducted drills or training directed to ingestion pathway and recovery and reentry responses.
54.
The only responsive "training sessions, drills, and exercises.
for an ingestion pathway and recovery and reentry response" that the State of New York is aware of are two meetings attended by a REPG representa-tive in April 1988 regarding Yankee Rowe.
55.
Yes, New York State participated in the April 1968 Yankee Rowe exercise to the extent warranted by the objectives, which have already been provided to LILCO. Through counsel, the State of New York states that the State of New York is not required by FEMA to participate in'this or any exercise because FEMA has no such authority.
56.
Representatives of the State Health Department, State Department of Transportation, State Department of Agriculture and Markets, State Police, State Eccrgency Management Of fice and Radiological Emergency Preparedness Group ("REPG") participated in the Yankee Rowe Exercise to the extent warranted by and corresponding to the objectives, which have already been provided by LILCO.
57.
The objectives are responsive, and they have been previously provided to LILCO.
58.
Rensselaer County participated in the Yankee Rowe exercise in the sense that a county representative reviewed a notification telephone call. is
59.
See answer to Interrogatory No. 58.
60.
See answer to Interrogatory No. 54 61.
See answer to Interrogatory No. 52.
The State of New York is unable to speculate as explained in General Objections 1, 2 and 3.
62.
For Indian Point only, the personnel responsible for the activities delineated in Interrogatory No. 49 are identified in the New York State Plan. For the other three plants, see Interrogatory answer 50 (b), (c) and (e).
In the absence of a site-specific plan for these three plants and training of any kind, the State of New York is unable to speculate about who would be responsible, as explained in General Objections 1, 2 and 3.
i 63.
For Indian Point only, the functions and activities of the agencies j
listed in subparts (a) through (f) are set forth in the New York State Plan. For the other three plants, see Interrogatory answer 50 (b), (c) and (e).
It is not possible to state how these functions and activities would differ from functions and activities performed for Shoreham because, for the reasons set forth in the Governments' April 13 Ob-jections and Offer of Proof, the State of New York has not adopted any plan or otherwise trained or planned for responding to a Shoreham energency. Accordingly, the State of New York is in no position to provide further responsive inforcation. j i
)
a 64.
As explained in General objections 1, 2 and 3, the State of New York is unabic to speculate abcut what would prevent "other counties and other oertinent jurisdictions in New lork State" fron using the "plans, procedures and resources" referred to in the interrogatory. What Irevents the State of New York fron responding to a Snorcham accident in 1 ac same way that the State of New York night respond to an energency at he referenced plants is that the State of New York doesn't know what plans, procedures and resources would be needed for a Shoreham accident because, for the reasons set forth in the Governnents' Objection and Otfer of Froof, the State of New York has not adopted any plan or otherwise trained or planned for responding to a Shoreham ecergency.
Accordingly, the State of New York is in no position to provide further responsive inforcation.
67.
The interrogatory appears to aak whether coordination of ingestion pathway and recovery and reentr3 act'eities has occurred among four entities (State of New York, Suffolk County, utilities, and offsite response organizations) for Millstone; then for Oyster Creek; then for Haddam Neck; then for Indian Point. The answer is that for each nuclear power plant, coordination among the four entities has not occurred.
68.
Ingestion pathway and recovery and reentry responses for the listed counties are contained in each individual county plan and the New York 9 tate Plan, all of which have been previously provided to LILCO and all of which can be read by LILCO. The plans are used for each county only.
l 69.
Nine Mile Point /Fitzpatrick: Oswego, Wayne, Cayuga, Onondaga, Madison, Oneida Lewis, Jefferson, Ontario. Seneca s-
Ginna: Wayne, Monroe, Orleans, Genesee, Livingston, Ontario, Yates, Senect., Cayuga, Onondaga, Steuben, Wyoming, Oswego Indiai Poi.nt: Orange, Putnam, Rockland, Westchester, Sullivan, Ulster, L w York City, Dutchess, Nassau, Suf folk As explainad !.n General Objections 1, 2 and 3, the State of New York is unable to speculate about what county plans and procedures would actual-ly be "used, followed or otherwise relied upon by that county" or if a county docs not have plans and procedures, "how they would respond."
70.
Ultimate responsibility in this area is assigned to the New York State Disaster Preparedness Commission and, in turn, to the Radiological Emergency Preparedness Group, directed by James Papile.
71.
With respect to (b), see General Objections 1, 2 and 3.
With respect to (a) and Indian Point, the New York State Plan, including the county plans for the counties within the 50 mile EPZ, identifies persons who would "m ke an ingestion pathway and recovery and reentry response."
With respect to (a) and Millstone. Haddam Neck and Oyster Creek, the State of New York is unable to answer because no county plans exist and i
no drills, execcite or training concerning an ingestion pathway and recovery and reentry response have occurred.
72.
Wayne and Monroe Counties have participated in the activities set forth in subparts (a) through (f) in connection with an exercise on October 28 and 29, 1987. The Nov York State Plan, including the Wayne and Monroe Ceunty Plans, were used and the appropriate state and county officials identified in those plans participated.
See also the chronology of,,
eveats' leading up to this exercie=, which has already been provided to LILCO. See answer to Interrogatory No. 76.
1 73.
See answer to Interrogatories Nos. 72 end 76, and General Objections 1, 2 and 3.
74.
The New York State Plan identifies the local offices, functions and activities of the State Department of Health, State Department of Transportation. State Department of Agriculture and Markets, State t
Police, State Energency Management Organization and Radiological Emer-gency Preparedness Group. The.New York State Plan has been provided to LILCO and can be read by LILCO.
- 76. As to the last sentence regarding "documents used by these counties,"
see General Objections 1, 2 and 3.
The counties of Orleans, Genesee.
Livingston, Ontario. Yates Seneca, Cayuga, Onondaga, Steuben. Wyoming and Oswego were involved in the October '87 Ginna exercise in the sense i
that they received notification and communication. Wayne and Monroe j
Counties participated to the extent that counties in a 10 mile EPZ j
normally participate, as set forth in the New York State Plan, including the Wayne and Monroe County Plans, all of which have already been l
provided to L1LCO.
c 77.
See the chronology of events already provided to LILCO.
Among other things, on 6/18/87, a meeting occurred among state and local emergency moaagement officials. On 8/27/87, a meeting occurred among county chief i
executives and state officials. On 9/!2/87 and 9/23/87, meetings 8_-
s s
occurred among state officials and local personnel, including couperative extension personnel.
78.
The Wayne and Monroe County EOC was activated and remained operational.
The other counties in the 50 mile EPZ did not activate an EOC, except in the sense that notification and communications were received, hence no "county operations" were directed.
79.
The State of New York objects because the interrogatory is vague and calls for a legal conclusion. The State of New York, through counsel, states that 10 CFR Part 50, Appendix E, Section IV.F.1, requires that a site-specific ingestion pathway and pluce EPZ demonstration must be made for each NTOL plant (including Shorehan) as a precondition to licensing above 5% power.
See also GM PR-1.
LILCO's counsel may analyze the applicable regulations and guidance if LILCO wishes an interpretation of applicable regulations and guidance; the State of New York has no obligation to perform such a service for LILCO.
80.
See ansvar to Interrogatory No. 79.
81.
A single Ginna exercise does not demonstrate the ability of the State of New York to respond to an emergency at other nuclear power plants because the State of New York has not drilled or trained concerning
' ants other than Ginna, including Shoreham. This is the best answer L assible given the confusing nature of the question. '
4 82.
See answer to Interrogatory No. 79.
To reiterate, the State of New York, through counsel, states that 10 CFR Part 50, Appendix E Section IV.F.1, requires a successful ingestion pathway demonstration for Shoreham.
83.
See General Objections 1, 2 and 3.
The draft FEMA post-exercise report for Ginna has been returned to FEMA at FEMA's request and no final report has been provided to the State of New York.
85.
The phras e "routines' applies to all counties in the state that could be involved !n an emergency in an ingestion pathway EPZ capacity.
It encompasses pre-exercise cectings, post-exercise meetings, discussions on radios and telephones, discussions during training, etc.
The~
"routines" are learned and practiced by all ingestion pathway counties and are not, to the knowledge of the State of New York, embodied or cenpiled in any written cocpendium.
86.
The main assu=ption (from which other assumptions are derived) that is unwarranted is that counties play a minor role.
Counties are the primary, first line of defense and play a major role in an emergency.
LILCO fails to appreciate this paramount concept and that shortcoming pervades LILCO's assumptions.
87.
The "detailed State and local government drills and exercises" refer to seven years worth of experience chronicled in FEMA's post-exercise assessments, all of which have been provided by the State of New York to s'
.~
LILCO or can be easily obtained by LILCO on its own, and all of which
' can be studied by LILCO.
88.
The answer to Interrogatory No. 110 regarding recovery and reentry is just as applicable to this interrogatory concerning both ingestion pathway and recovery and reentry.
89.
See answer to Interrogatory No. 85.
90.
(a), (b) Not all of this informatien was "made available" or "actually used" during the Ginna Exqrcise because the scenario did not require all of this data. Appropriate information was available for' decision making.
(c) Information is updated by various agencies to greatly varying extents. See General Objections 1, 2 and 3 regarding information compiled by counties and other entities independent of the State of New York, such as the Cooperative Extension. LILCO should contact these entities directly since they are independent of the State of New York.
91.
See General Objections 1, 2 and 3.
As indicated in the answer to Interrogatory No. 90, maay agencies become involved in an emergency and I
the extent of their involvement is dependent on the nature of each emergency; it is not possible to be core precise.
Additional ingestion pathway training is needed, particularly for those counties outside the plume exposure EPZ. '
l
- 92. The quotations referred to in the interrogatory originate from this centence:
"No New York State agency has worked out procedures, dedicat-ed resources or trained personnel for ingestion pathway data collection and analysis at the Shoreham site."
The sentence is structured around New York State agencies and Shoreham, but the interrogatory is structured around a "ccunty-by-county basis for all counties in New York State."
The originating sentence does not pertain to counties and, hence, the State of New York is unable to provida responsive informa-tion.
93.
Soce training and preparation has been conducted for sone counties in the Nine Mile Point /Fitzpatrick ingestion pathway because these counties are corron to the Ginna ingestion pathway.
See Interrogatory No. 69 to determine common counties. Counties in New York State nther than these coanon counties have not received the same type and amount of prepara-tion because there have been no other ingestion pathway exercises, the Ginna exercise being the first and only one, to this date. Additional training is needed, but not scheduled, for the Indian Point and Nine Mile Point area.
94.
See General Objections 1, 2 and 3.
The State of New York does not know whether the counties could have "made an ingestion pathway response" at that time, much less what the quality of that response would have been.
95.
Ingestion pathway responce planning will take the form of ongoing training with the counties in question. Training spread out over a 12
- s'
month period should provide a more meaningful indication of what re-sources will be availabic for an actual response.
96.
See General objections 1, 2 and 3.
Upon information and belief, county offices of emergency preparedness have the location of the local cooper-ative extension offices on file.
97.
(a) The "site-specific implementing procedures" are the responsibility of the counties. Ccunties work with state agencies, but the "site-specific implementing procedures" are actually developed by the counties.
See General Objections 1, 2 and 3.
(b) Counties are responsible for implementing these procedures.
(c) Training has occurrad in the Ginna area. The State used the New York State Plan and the counties utilized, upon information and beliet, their "site-specific implementing procedures."
98.
The REPG Affidavit at 10 does not state that "there are ' detailed procedures' which go 'beyond the generic Plan and county-specific agenda' [ sic)."
Rather, it states that the State Plan "depends on the development of detailed procedures -- going beyond the generic Plan and county-specific addenda." These "detailed procedures" are developed by counties and retained by them.
See General objections 1, 2 and 3.
99.
See General Objections 1, 2 and 3.
The State of New York is unable to speculate how much time would be required.
One unknown variable would.*
be whether counties would or could devote full-time or some other indeterminate amount of time to training, etc.
100. Through counsel, the State of New York states that the deposition of Donald DeVito, taken by LILCO, indicated that the State does not have an E00 on Long Island. A reading of the deposition transcript, however, indicates, for example, that some operations-during Hurricane Gloria f-were directed for a time from a makeshift field office on Long~ Island.
Concerning county EOCs on Long Island, see General Objections 1, 2 and 3.
l 101. The State of New York is unable to speculate on Suffolk or Nassau County's responses. See General Objections 1, 2 and 3.
Three respon-sive occurrences that involved the State Emergency Management Office
{
l consisted of crisis management responses during Hurricane Gloria, a l
1 coastal storm in 1984 and the Grucci firevorks explosion. Activities included seeking financial aid, supplying electric Eenerators, coor-dinating local agencies.
102. Without having the benefit of training and participating in an exercise, the State of New York is unab!e to state how the counties would or could support such an ingestion pathway response.
See General Objections 1, 2 and 3.
103. For a statement of when the State of New York had such discussichs, who attended them and what'was discussed, see the chronology vf events regarding the Ginna exercise. This document has already been produced.s
to LILCO.
For counties not involved in the Ginna exercise, no such discussions have occurred.
104. See Interrogatory Answer No. 103.
(a) Discussions have not occurred in instances where ingestion pathway exercises have not been held.
(b) and (c) See General Objections 1, 2 and 3.
The State of New York is unable to speculate about when discussions night occur in the future or whether they can result in any ceaningful preparation for an ingestion pathway respcnse.
105. Regarding local government personnel, see General Objections 1, 2, and 3.
Regarding State personnel, they are "not primarily identified" beceuse the individuals who will perform the functions set forth in the New York State Plan will be selected at the time of an accident based on criteria such as the type, time and location of the accident, and the degree of expertise required. Consequently, it is not possible to "identify" the "unidentified" State personnel, as this interrogatory attempts to do.
108. The New York State Plan does not contain complete instructions on recovery.
however, the context in which the Monroe Ccunty Plan is "true" is that stata agencies referred to in the New York State Plan depend "on internal "routines" and instructions to mount a recovery responce..-
4 112. As stated in the REPG Affidavit at 21, the degree of complexity would depend on detailed preparation and planning, plus the availability and knowledge of particular individuals at the tine of an accident.
113. See General Objections 1, 2 and 3. Other agencies that have the respon-sibility alluded to in the interrogatory are local (including counties) health departments, or other comparable local efficials, 115. See General' objections 1, 2 and 3.
"More or less support" is a term that cannot be reduced to a tangible entity.
It is highly variable and it depends on governmental infrastructure, instantanecus levels of capabilities, staffing, absenteeism, training, experience, etc.
116. The parts of the New York State Plan that were not tested during the Ginna Exercise were the k'estchester, Rockland, Orange, Putnam and Oswego appendicies of the New York State Plan.
117. Plum Island and Fisher's Island are within Mi11 stone's plume exposure EPZ.
118. See General Objections 1, 2 and 3.
A copy of the Fisher's Island plan has already been provided by the State of New York to LILCO.
120. Copies of plans that may be responsive have already been provided to LILCO by the State of New York.
122. See Interrogatory Answer No. 63.
It is not possible to state what clic State of New York would do differently at Shoreham than at other nuclear plants because, for the reasons set forth in the Governments' April 13 Objections and Offer of Proof, the State of New York has not adopted any plan or otherwise trained or planned for responding to a Shorchen emergency. Accordingly, the State of New York is in no position to provide further responsive inforcation.
All objections have been, stated by ccunsel.
s f
ft ld axw.wu xtlba&c A
Richard J. Zhhn1gdtsr Deputy Speci'af Counsel to the Governor Executive Chamber Capitol, Room 229 Albany, NY 12224 Attorney for Governor Cuomo and the State of New York 1
l 1..
DATE: June 3, 1988 UNITED STATES OF AMERICA NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSION Defore 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 SERVIC_S I hereby certify that copies of the "State of New York's Response to LILCO's Second Set of Interrogatories Regarding Contentions 1-2, 4-8, and 10" have been served on the following this 3rd day of June 1988 by U.S. Mail, first class, except as noted by asterisks.
Mr. Frederick J.
Shon
- Spence W.
Perry, Esq.
Atomic Safety and Licensing Board William R.,Cumming, Esq.
U.S.
Nuclear Regulatory Commission Office of General Counsel, Washington, D.C.
20555 Federal Emergency-Management Agency' 500 C Street, S.W.,
Room 840 Washington, D.C.
20472 Dr. Jerry R.
Kline
- Mr. James P.-Gleason, Chairman
- 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 g%
Anthony F. Earley, Jr., Esq.
Joel Blau, Esq.
Genera'l Counsel Director, Utility Intervention Long Island Lighting Company N.Y. Consumer Protection Board 175 East Old Country Road Suite 1020 Hicksville, New York 11801 Albany, New York 12210 t
Ms. Elisabeth Taibbi Mr. Donald P.
Irwin
- Clerk Hunton & Williams Suf folk County Legislature 707 East Main Street Suffolk County Legislature P.O.
Box 1535 Office Building Richmond, Virginia 23212 l
i Veterans Memorial Highway Hauppauge, Few 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 Riverhead, New York 11901 North Country Road Wading River, New York 11792 Ms. Nora Bredes Docketing and Service Section.
Executive Director Office of the Secretary Shoreham opponents Coalition U.S.
Nuclear Regulatory Commission 195 East Main Street 1717 H Street, N.W.
Smithtown, New York 11787 Washington, D.C.
20555 Adrian Johnson, Esq.
Hon. Patrick G.
Halpin New York State Department of Lt.w Suffolk County Executive 120 Broadway, 3rd Floor H.
Lee Dennison Building Room 3-16 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 j
E. Thomas Boyle Lawrence Coe Lanpher, Esq.
- Suffolk County Attorney Kirpatrick & Lockhart l
Building 158 North County Complex 1800 M Street, N.W.
Veterans Memorial Highway South Lobby - Ninth Floor Hauppauge, New York 11788 Washington, D.C.
20036 Mr. Jay Dunkleburger Edwin J.
Reis ***
New York State Energy Office U.S.
Nuclear Regulatory Commission :
Agency Building #2 Washington, D.
C.
20555 Empire State Plaza l
Albany, New York 12223
9 Mr. James P. Gleason Douglas J.
Hynes Chairman Town Board of Oyster Bay Atomic Safety and Licensing Board Town Hall 513 Gilmoure Drive Oyster Bay, New York 11771 Silver Spring, MD 20901 David A. Brownlee, Esq.
Mr. Philip McIntrie Kirkpatrick & Lockhart FEMA 1500 Oliver Building 26 Federal Plaza Pittsburgh, Pennsylvania 15222 New York, New York 10278 Mr. Stuart Diamond Adjuicatory File Business / Financial Atomic Safety and Licensing NEW YORK TIMES Board Panel Docket 229 W. 43rd Street U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission New York, New York 10036 Washington, D.C.
20555
&b)
Kartha Raj'd ef /
Keyb rd Speciarist NYS e t.
of Economic Development Alfred E.
Smith Office Building 17th Floor Albany, New York 12225 (518) 474-1273 By Telecopier also By Federal Exprets By hand delivery l
ss