ML20195D359
| ML20195D359 | |
| Person / Time | |
|---|---|
| Site: | Shoreham File:Long Island Lighting Company icon.png |
| Issue date: | 05/25/1988 |
| From: | Irwin D HUNTON & WILLIAMS, LONG ISLAND LIGHTING CO. |
| To: | Gleason J, Kline J, Shon F Atomic Safety and Licensing Board Panel |
| Shared Package | |
| ML20195D302 | List: |
| References | |
| OL-3, NUDOCS 8806230101 | |
| Download: ML20195D359 (36) | |
Text
' ' ^ ~ '
r ;. .. .. ?; . .. 7..~. ..- .; . .
McNTox & WII.I.IAxs to7 rest m. sen..e 8'.o. sex iss e
- a. . .,$m. . au. == s. *
- RscsMown. VtmoIwta 2001e .e. .a... .:
.~. ..:.- . . :. . .... ...
..... v. s . . . . . . .. 7. . . . c o
':.'.;*::.:;*.':.~.'.lll na........
..7 ,..
, m . . .u . . ......
,, g........
May 25, 1988 l
"..'.". ....;.*.?!...t"?/!'".
- ' " " " ';'
- 11.".' * * "' "
n a. . ... J. ,:. "*::h'.::".T:llll"'
.. '.n.. ... .,....
' ,.a.. 24566.300001 l
...,........ ,.. 8358 l
James P. Gleason, Chairman SY TELECOPIER Dr. Jerry R. Kline t Mr. Frederick J. Shon Atomic Safety and Licensing Board East-West Towers 4350 East-West Highway Sethesda, Maryland 20814 i
Shoreham EBS Issues Gentlemen:.
l Yesterday, LILCO served Revision 10 to .he Shoreham offsite
, cmergency Plan on the Board and all activo psettes to this pro-caeding by Federal Express. The contents of Revision 10 are synopsized in the covering letter and matrix secompanying it.
One aspect of Revision 10 relevant to the current proceed-ings is a modification of the Emergency Broadcast System to ac-count for the change in status of radio station WPLR, of which LILCO had notified the Board by letter dated May 16, 1988.
History has indicated that an agreement-based special EBS l
network is vulnerable to political opposition. Accordingly, Revision 10 shifts primary reliance for EBS coverage for the Shoreham Emergency Planning Zone from an agreement-based system l
tailored for Shoreham to the official New York State ESS plan.
That plan designates the Nassau and Suffolk Counties as a dis-tinct 888 operational area and establishes a 30-station Long Is-land network anchored on WCBS in New York City. In the event of a radiological emergency at Shoreham, LILCO would utilize the New York State plan to enlist the assistance of the Suffolk County Executive or, in the alternative, New York State, in activating this EBS. That cooperation would be presumed under the realism principle codified 10 CPR $ 50.47(c)(1).
As further alternate backup means of EBS activation, Revi-sion 10 provides for the followings 8806230101 880620 DR ADOCK0500g2
Effi10N '
o ' ? AM5 Atomic Safety and Licensin ; i' -i May 25, 1988 Page 2
- 1. direct activation of the official New York E85 upon in-formation directly from LERO, as a matter of WCBS's management discretion, as permitted by FCC regulational
- 2. direct activation of the Shoreham EBS through WPLR upon information directly from LERO, as a matter of WPLR's management discretion, as permitted by FCC regulations.
Details of these changes are set forth in the following pages of Revision 10:
Plans pages 3.8-6 through 3.8-8 Procedures: OPIP 3.1.1, Att. 10, pages 86, 86a OPIP 3.8.2 pages 1, la, 4, 4a.
LILCO believes that these revisions adequately resolve all EBS issues. Since access to WPLR remains in the Shoreham offsite plan, the matter of its signal coverage may still be before this Board. Any other matters relating to the E31 construct described in Revision 10 would be for the Intervenors to raise by.a timely contention (if one can be f ramed, which LILCO doubts), consistent j with Commission regulations and the previous history of this mat-I tor, particularly the commission's decision in CLI-87-05, 24 NRC 884 (1987), this Board's Memorandum and Order (Ruling on Conten-tions Relating to the Emergency Broadcast System) (February 24, 1988) (unpublished), and the facts admitted in connection with LILCO's Second Renewed Motion for Summary Disposition of the "Legal Authority" Issues (Contentions 1-10) (March 20, 1987).
Respectfully subpitted,
.s v ( ~
Donald P. Irwin James N. Christman K. Dennis Sisk cc Edwin J. Reis, Esq.
William R. Cumming, Esq.
Lawrence C. Lanpher, Esq.
Richard J. Zahnleuter, Esq.
91/6176 l
l l
UNITED STATES NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSION IN THE MATTER OF:
t I
- )
)
}
l LONG ISLAND LIGHTING COMPANY ) Docket No. 50-322-OL-3 (Shorehara Nuclear Power Station, ) ( E nergency Platining !
Unit 1 ) (School Bus Driver ';2ae)
)
)
)
Location: Hauppauge, New York Pag , , 3. y . 3 j Date: l'ay 2 6, 1988
.................--================'==""""""""""""
HERITAGE REPORTING CORPORATION opuntR*=un 1224 L Street. N.W.,58 to488 WamWagton, D.C. 2 95 (282) 62sdess l
l l
r 20424 1
position I must state on behalf of my client and I 2 hope the Board appreciates that.
3 JUDGE GLEASON: Gentlemen, you are 4 excused. We appreciate your testimony very much.
5 MR. MILLER: May we take a break?
6 JUDGE GLEASON: We will take a 10 minute 7
break and then come back.
8 (Brief recess.)
9 JUDGE GLEASON: I think we will start 10 with the EBS issue first. I am not sure, Mr.
11 Christman, I have a full understanding of their 12 letter. It appears to be, in some respect, a motion 13 to dismiss an issue or motion at least to say we 14 shorldn't proceed with the EBS issue. There is a 15 sentence that I really didn't understand. It is the 16 sentence that reads, "In the event of a radiological 17 emergency at Shoreham, LILCO would utilize the New 18 York State's plan- " on the first page, second to 19 last paragraph-- "would utilize the New York State 20 plan to enlist the assistance of the Suffolk County 21 executive or in the alternative, New York State 22 activated the EBS." I don't understand that,in light 23 of where the emergency plan is today, that it calls 24 for some effort at direct contact with county 25 executive.
r 6
'O 4 20425
- 1. MR. CHRISTMAN: Well, this is intended ll 2 to merely summarize the provisions of Rev 10, which I 3
think were attached to this, most likely.
4 JUDGE GLEASON: They-weren't attached to 5 my copy. Some summary of them was put in the letter
, 6 itself.
7 I guess really I would like to 8
know--maybe the other parties would to--just what 9 this letter represents.
2 10 MR. CHRISTMAN: L The letter represents 11 the following. The current plan is Rev 10, which I r
12 think has been served on people by now. '
In light of 13 the Rev 10 provision, which makes the primary EBS the 14 ordinary State one, WCBS as the what is called !
15 CPSC-1, I believe--in light of that change, the l
l 16 coverage question involving WPLR is, I suppose, a 17 less important issue. WPLR is still to be a member l
18 station and triggers the tone alerts. Therefore, the l
19 intervenors may still wish to go forward with that 20 issue of that coverage. But it now involves the l
21 coverage of what is essentially a backup or 22 supplemental part of the plan.
1 23 I suppose whap we are saying is that we 1 24 anticipate the intervenors will want to go ahead with ;
t 25 the coverage question of WPLR, which is still a part P e
mes meem u m g ==== =
-. - .,--,,..n.
20426 i
1 of the plan, though as a supplemental part, and we 2 are prepared to go forward with that. We can 1
3 schedule those hearings if the inte.rvenors wish. As 4
to the rest of the plan, which involves WCBS, there 5 is no outstanding contention.
6 JUDGE GLEASON: Mr. Miller?
7 MR. MILLER: Judge Gleason, it is i 8 difficult for me to respond because 1t this time all 9 I have seen is this two-page letter. I have not seen 10 Revision 10, which I have think has been served in 11 our office in Washington, D.C. but, of course, we 12 have been here. I need to see Revision 10 and see 13 what Revision 10 says about the EBS. I think at a 14 minimum--I don't quite understand the proposal even I
i 15 still, even after Mr. Christman's comments.
t But I 16 would assume that at a minimum if we were to proceed 17 in some fashion with EBS litigation, given these 18 changes that have occurred, we would have to, at a ,-
19 minimum, begin with some discovery so that we, the 20 County at least, can have a better understanding as 21 to what is going on here, because I am confused.
22 MR. ChRISTMAN: The Board may wish to 23 order discovery. The discove,ry wouldn't go to WPLR.
24 I can tell you now, there is not going to be much to i 25
! discover. It is not as though LILCO has, as far as I
7 20427 1 know, very many documents about this issue. We are i 2 using now as a primary means of notifying the public 3 what is the standard State EBS, the same one that was 4 described in our second renewed motion for summary 5 disposition, I might add, and some facts about which 6 were admitted by the intervenors.
7 MR. MILLER: For example, Judge Gleason, 8 Mr. Christman referenced the fact WPLR would remain 9 the station that would activate tone alert ra'dios 10 within the EPZ He says nothing about how LILCO 11 would attempt to activate broadcast receivers at 12 other radio stations within LILCO's proposed EBS 13 network. Is that going to be WPLR0 Is it some other 14 radio station? Whatever station that is, is it
. 15 capable of doing that sort of activation? There are l
l 16 a lot of questions I think that need to be addressed.
17 Frankly, I am not in a position right now to 18 articulate them all for the Board.
19 MR. CHRISTMAN: I had no intention of 20 summarizing REV 10. I think it would be 21 inappropriate a rid I might get it wrong. Remember, we 22 had, in addition to the State EBS we now rely on, we 23 had the two separate Shoreham-specific EBS, the first 24 of which had WALK as its flagship. All of the 25 stations in the original EBS using WALK as the h b
f.
20428 1 flagship, which was litigated and resolved, are tied 2 into the State EBS using WCBS as the flagship 3 station.
4 JUDGE GLEASON: Are they all a part of a tho State system?
6 MR. CHRISTMAN: The WALK--all of the 7 original stations--
8 JUDGE GLEASON: All of the other 9 stations are--
10 MR. CHRISTMAN: Are part of the State 11 system. And I believe that is probably one of the 12 admitted facts that was attached to our second' l 13 renewed motion, as a matter of fact. We would have 14 to check.
15 JUDGE GLEASON: Mr. Bachmann, do you 16 have something to add to this?
17 MR. BACHMANN: I am also a little i
18 confused about a statement in this letter. There l 19 seems to be some sort of an implication here that if l
20 there is to be litigation on EBS it would come under i
21 the heading of best efforts or realism argument. I 22 notice at the end of the cut-off paragraph they talk 23 about cooperation being presumed, et cetera. I am a l
24 little bit confused as to exactly what is going on.
25 Of course, I, too, have not seen Rev 10.
e n M Df1T r p 3TDPD TR A f1 A PD T DT T A M / V o t,e.em-d I n ri o v
20429
. i 1 MR. CHRISTMAN: I don't think it is part i 2 of the realism litigation, though that is not an 3 unreasonable thing for Mr. Bachmann to say. I do
-4 think it'is possible the new rule may have a bearing 5 on this issue just as it does on the legal authority 6 contentions.
7 JUDGE GLEASON: Why don't we resolve, at 8 least currently, and provide an opportunity for 9 parties to have discovery with respect to whatever it 10 is you are proposing. We ought to keep that within a 11 relative short period of time. Ten days, let's say.
12 Then at that time, within a period of, let's say, 13 five days after that, the Board to receive a motion p 14 or paper from the parties as'to how they want to 15 proceed or if they want to proceed with respect to 16 the issue and the Board will resolve it.
I 17 Is that satisfactory?
18 MR. MILLER: Judge Gleason, I am j 19 responding a little bit in a vacuum because I have 20 not seen Revision 10.
21 JUDGE GLEASON: None of us has.
l 22 MR. MILLER: All I ask, I think the 23 first step from at least the County's perspective is 24 to get back to Washington and look et Revision 10 and 25 then, assuming Revision 10 can be reviewed quickly O AM DTIT T:'D ATfW D T D a n f C r D T DT T o lf / te a u. . a .= 4 4=Aa"
. _ - -_ - ~ _ . . , , .
~
20430 1 enough, I suppose that your proposal, your schedule 2 could be adhered to. But I would want the caveat 3 that if we get to Revision 10 and it is a fairly 4 broad-ranging revision to the plan, that we may need l 5 to come back to the Board and say it is going to take 6 more than ten days for discovery and more than five 7 days after that to put in the paper ao the Board.
8 JUDGd GLEASON: Mr. Christman, the only 9 references in Revision 10 are these two paragraphs on 10 page two of the letter?
11 MR. CHRISTMAN: Are you saying are the 12 only portions of Rev 10 that relate to the E B S'?
13 JUDGE GLEASON: That relate to the EBS 14 issue. You don't know either?
15 MR. CHRISTMAN: I think so, but, you 16 know--
17 JUDGE GLEASON: If they are more 18 extensive, if you just telephone the parties and tell 19 them which pages are involved, that will expedite 20 things.
21 MR. CHRISTMAN: Every time you do a 22 revision, sometimes if you change a number or name, 23 it ripples through and you have 50 pages of changes 24 but it is all a little, bitty minor thing. This is.
25 the substance, this is it, what we described here.
e n t e n t t T C' D ATDPh TD A M A F D T DT T n M / k ni.. .a - A laAnv
20431 1 We will certainly do what you suggest, review it. .
If 2 there is anything they need to know about, they will 3 tell them by phone.
4 JUDGE GLEASON: If there is a problem 5 within the ten days, we would like to be notified, 6 We hope to keep it in the ten days.
7 MR. BACHMANN: I am considering the fact 8 that we have got hearings next week, three of those 9 days we will be in the courtroom. Monday is a -
gl 10 holiday.
11 JUDGE GLEASON: Just bring--ten days is l
12 a long period of time. You will be here three days 1
i 13 next week.
14 Mr. Zahnleuter? Were you going to make 15 the same objection?
l 16 MR. ZAHNLEUTER: I had the same concern.
17 This ten days will occur in the midst of hearings and 18 the exercise and there is an awful lot to do.
19 JUDGE GLEASON: I guess I am assuming 20 that the discovery is not really going to be very 21 lengthy because there isn't--
MR. CHRISTMAN: Judge Gleason, I think I 22 23 can virtually guarantee that LILCO does not have more 24 documents.
25 JUDGE GLEASON: If you need more time, COMPUTER AIDED TRANSCRIPTION / keyword index
~
i 20432 1 move the Board to grant more time.
I 2 MR. CHRISTMAN: If we, contrary to my 3 firm expectations, produce a large number of 4 documents, of course, there may be good cause but we 5 can resolve that when we come to it.
6 MR. ZAHNLEUTER: It is more than 7 documents. It may entail a deposition which would 8 require an open day in the schedule and that may not 9 occur within ten days. I am not sure because -
10 JUDGE GLEASON: If you have problems, 11 Mr. Zahnleuter, just let us know.
12 The Board has reviewed the filings of
{ 13 the parties concerning the realism issues and the 14 Board's orders of February 29th and April 8th of this 15 year. They include--I will list them--LILCO 's prima 16 facie case dated April 1st, the intervenors' 17 objections to the Board's orders and its offer of 18 testimony of Mr. Halpin and Dr. Axelrod dated April 19 13th, LILCO's response to intervenors' objections 20 dated April 22nd, the staff's response to 21 intervenors' objections dated April 28th, the 22 intervenors' response to LILCO's April 22nd response 23 dated May the 2nd, LILCO's supplement to its response 24 of April 22nd, dated May 2nd, the intervenors' reply 25 to the staff's April 28th response dated May 6th, the rOMPliTER A T nF D TR ANS ep T DT TnH / Vau'an ed indav
i . 20433 1
staff's response to LILCO's supplemental response 2
dated May 13th, and the intervenors' response to 3
LILCO's supplement dated May 13th.
4 In order to maintain some semblance of a 5
schedule, a regular semblance of a schedule in the 6
realism contentions, we are announcing at this time 7
our decision with respect to those filings. That 8 decision is as follows:
9 First, the Board is not dismissing the 10 realism contentions as requested by LILCO and the 11 staff despite the intervenors' failure to produce 12 evidence of the State and suffolk County's 13
{ prospective responses in the event of a radiological 14 accident at Shoreham. The reason for this ruling is 15 that the interface best efforts responses of 16 Attachment 10 to LILCO's emergency plan have not 17 received an evidentiary foundation, nor have the 18 questions raised previously with respect to it by the 19 Licensing Board and the Commission. Those questions 20 raised by the Licensing Board and the Commission.
21 Two, the Board will neither accept nor 22 reject at the present time intervenors' proffered 23 testimony, Mr. Halpin and Dr. Axelrod, because we p 24 consider it premature for any Board action at this 25 time. Such testimony, as well as LILCO's testimony o m . , n,,- n n ..mmm - - . . . - - - . _ _ _ . .
EMANUELSON ANo CHURCH ATTORNEYS AND COUNsELLCRs PLEAss nupty foi
" '" 20s CHURCH STREET
",".'."'s,'/"^".".". NEW HAVEN. CONNECTICUT osslo *"* *
wo. an,w ci.vaca sa n g, (([g["gn,,",[,,,, ,
rue.uowsas.si wa .in inicisu =wassow June 6, 1988
,, ,, ,',l,, l,, ,,,
8 *" "' " s
......s............
Donald P. Irwin, Esquire Hunton & Williams 707 East Main Street P.O. Box 1535 Richmond, Virginia 23212 Dear Dont I am in receipt of a Memorandum from Manuel Rodrigues relative to a verbal agreement which he reached with you laar. veek with regard to a "June 7-9 exercise" for Shoreham. Pursuant to that agreement, General Comunicorp Inc. (WPLR) as agreed with Long Island Lighting Company (LILCO) as follows:
- 1. WPLR will not participate in the broadcast over the 1 sir of any signal or test this week or at any time in the future. _
- 2. A representative from LILCO and the Federal Energy Management Agency (PEMA) will be given access to the studios of W7tR tomorrow, June 7, 1988.
- 3. The representatives of LILC0 and FEMA will be permitted to inspect the equipment purchased by LILCO pursuant to the July 27, 1987, agreement between WPLR and LILCO.
4 The purpose of this inspection will be to determinet (a) That the designated phone line for Shoreham does operate.
(b) That a message over the phone can be recorded.
(c) That such message could have been broadcast by WPLR, although as noted above, it will not be broadcast.
(d) That the WPLR operator in charge is familiar with the use of this system.
- 5. Pursuant to the July 27, 1987 agreement, notice was given to LILCO through you on June 3, 1988, that as the result of its sale of the Shoreham property, the agreenent between WPLR and LILCO wig terminate ninety (90) days from June 3, 1988. WPLR shall be under no obligation to pay LILCO any amount for the coat of equipment installed pursuant to such agreement and LILC0 will release and discharge WPLR from any and all claims, demands, euits and expenses and shall hold WPLR free end 1
1 y - ,, w w,-ww, ----o , ~~----,----r-n --' '
EM ANUELSON AND CHURCH
, Mr. Irvin ,
June 6, 1988 '
Page Two harmless from any claims, demands, suits and expenses resulting from the July 27, 1987 agreement and/or its participation with Shoreham. l I would appreciate your signing a copy of this letter indicating LILCO's agreement or signifying such approval on a separate response to this letter.
With best regards. I am l Sincar ly yetfes, A.6 (
l!erbded L. Emanualson, Jr.
HLE/ gal ec: Manuel V. Rodrigues
. Peter H. Starr.
- Douglas Crocker 1
l l
l l
l 1
-KIRKPATRICK & LOCKHART SOUTH LOBBY 9TH FLCOR EXCHANGC PLACE 1800 M STREET, N.W. 8TA" S WASHINGTON, D.C. 200 4 5391 ,,m ::7m 14:S BRIC AVENUE w.uu, n m u TELEPHONE GQ 774m Wh 1:4 4:12 TELEX 440209 KL DC L1 igo ous pg,qtotNG TEtEconEx am ::$9ix nrnsCRos. , rg:::-Sm June 10, 1988 FEDERAL EXPRESS Donald P. .Irwin, Esq.
Dennis Sisk, Esq.
Hunton & Williams P.O. Box 1535 707 E. Main Street Richmond, Virginia 23212
Dear Don and Dennis:
Chris McMurray has related to me a conversation he had with you this afternoon concerning EBS discovery. Since Chris had to leave the office, I am responding.
As. Larry Lanpher mentioned to Dennis this morning, it is our e understanding of the Board's discovery order on EBS matters that that discovery was opened by the Board on May 26 so that the parties could discover what LILCO's Revision 10 proposal is all about. Thus, the Board stated (at page 20429):
Why don't we resolve, at least currently, and provide an opportunity for parties to have discovery with respect to whatever it is you are proposing. We ought to keep that within a relative (ly] short period of time. Ten days, let's say. Then at that time, within a period of, let's say, five days after that, the Board
[is] to receive a motion or paper from the parties as to how they want to proceed or if they want to proceed with respect to the issue and the Board will resolve it.
Thus, the discovery we are proposing to take concerning Revision 10 (i.e., the Crocker deposition) is what is contem-plated by the Board's statements on May 26. Subsequently, after
,. .g K$KPATRICK & LOCKHART Donald P.;Irwin, Esq.-
Dennis Sisk,-Esq.
June 10,1988 Page 2 the parties'h' ave filed their status reports on June 20, more discovery may be appropriate, depending upon the posture of the issue and any decision reached thereon by the Board. In~ advance of that, however, the kinds of discovery LILCO is proposing.(as I understand it, depositions of Messrs. Randolph, Bennett, Bilello, and Jones of.the County and Mr. Silverman of the State) is not contemplated by the Board, particularly since these persons obviously have had no role in LILCO's Revision 10 or its local EBS.
As Larry hinted at the start of the conference call today,.
and as he mentioned to Dennis in a telephone call prior to the conference call, we thought this EBS matter would likely come up during the conference call. For whatever reason, it did not. In the present circumstances, however, it would be difficult to proceed with more EBS depositions next week in any event.
As you know, Mike Miller and I have shared EBS responsi-bilities. Mike Miller-can consult on the telephone, but as of now, I do not know when he will be back in the office. He is certainly unavailable for any travel such as would be entailed to prepare witnesse for depositions, etc. It is likely, therefore, that if further EBS discovery is required, other attorneys from.
the D.C. office will have to get up to speed on the EBS matter.
That will necessarily take some amount of preparation, raaking it a real hardship to even contemplate extensive EBS depositions next week.
In addition, it is unclear why LILCO desires EBS depositions of the County personnel listed above. As I understand LILCO's Revision 10, LILCO is proposing to rely upon the State EBS system and, as a backup, to use its WGT.I/WPLR "local EBS." I do not understand what potentially relevant data might be available from County personnel regarding Revision 10.
Perhaps as a first stop toward attempting to resolve this,
- you might attempt to explain why the County personnel are i pertinent on Revision 10 EBS issues. They were originally noticed on both EBS and "best efforts" matters. Given the l Board's ruling today on the "best efforts" matters, it seems likely that that proceeding will come to a halt. Thus, these l
deponents would be presented solely for purposes of testimony l concerning LILCO's Revision 10 EBS proposal. Again, I do not see L how they could have relevant data concerning that proposal and l thus cannot see why they should be presented for deposition, even
! if the Board's May 26 oral ruling were construed to allow l discovery by LILCO.
l
4 . _ . _ _ _ . . . _ . . . . . - . - . _ . . _ _ . ._ . -._ . _. - - _ _ . _ _ . . . . . _ .. _ . _ . . . . -
KIRKPATRICK & LOCKHART-
' ' Donald P. , Irwin , Esq.
Dennis Sisk, Esq.
June 10, .1988 iPage 3 Crocker Please deposition. consider these matters and we can discuss them at the Sincerely yours, Michael J. Missal cc: ChristopherLM. McMurray s
r r
l l
.. . . ~ . ,,....
Huwrow & WII.z.r.4,xs 707 f.AST MAIN Sta t st P.O, Box 1535 a . c . .g = = .r6v. n i. .w r i. w s. =. w. Rterswoxn. Vimorwr A 20ste .o. .... c=.s w.s= , .' . c co es c'.o = s a .'s . .oo e c6 c...= s t e a . .s s i.s.a o TatcomoNs 804 7a8 3300 e rs t a .e ... #w =, we rini, vinc i=.. e = to n a. TcLex 0844251 o=sa.== v
........ .. o.. .c
. . = s.o .. . e
,=,.,............... .. s . .. .. . . . . . . . .
..g..,....,.....,
, , ,,, ..s....=. ..............,
......... ....a .... June 13, 1988 ='"ayy55,'.=;**'aa ,,
F. I . P. . . .= stSAS
,tLt.aCht .g6s yment 4 6 JP**3' 8 384 8100
"",*24566.300001
... . e m = .. . * * ' *
- 7 2 5 0 By 1 c a; , 4 By Hand Michaei M.asal, Esq. Richard J. Zahnleuter, Esq.
Kirkpau: v;.s & Lockhar t Assistant to special Counsel to South Lobby - 9th Floor the Governor 1800 M Street, N.W. State Capitol Washington, D.C. 20036-5891 Albany, New York 12224 EBS Discovery Dear Mike and Rick We received Mike Missal's June 10, 1988 letter regarding EBS discovery over the weekend. As we stated last week and I confirmed in my letter to Messrs. Lanpher and Zahnleuter on June 10, we disagree with your interpretation of the Board's order reopening EBS discovery. The Board's May 26, 1988 bench ruling gives no indication that the reopened EBS discovery period was to be a one-way street, as counsel for Suffolk County now maintains JUDGE GLEASON: Why don't we resolve, at least currently, and provide an opportunity for parties to have discovery with respect to whatever it is you are proposing.
Tr. 20,429 (emphasis added).
Further, I stated at the hearing on June 2, 1988, that LILCO has served (a]dditional notices of deposition which relate to the realism proceeding and some of which also overlap and relate to EBS.
There is one identified individual and one
. . . .. .. . .. . . . ....~. ....... . , ,
HUNTON & WII.I.I AM O Michael J. Missal, Esq.
Richard J. Zahnleuter, Esq.
-June 13, 1988 Page 2 other individual identified by position within the county government who should be knowledgeable about the County EBS and warning systems. We have identified one additional person from the state who should be knowledgeable about those as well..
Those depositions, while we don't have any agreement as to when they will be conducted, have been noticed for the week of June 6th, during the exercise, so we would hope to be able to complete some of our discovery or the discovery we need within the June 13th time frame.
Tr'. 20,667. The State and County persons noticed by LILCO may have knowledge of the technical adequacy of the State EBS.
Suffolk County and the State of New York failed to produce any of the deponents whom LILCO noticed on EBS issues for the week of June 6-10.*/ Instead, in a letter from Mr. Lanpher to me dated June 3, Suffolk County proffered available dates for Richard Jones, County Radiological Division, and John Bilello, Deputy Director, Emergency Preparedness Divison, of June 15, and June 16, respectively. In response to LILCO's notice of deposition of G. Berkeley Bennett, Mr. Lanpher stated that Mr. Bennett works with Messrs. Jones and Bilello at the Emergency Preparedness Division and represented that "(a) deposition of Mr. Bennett would be repetitive and redundant given the Jones and Bilello depositions. They should be able to respond to all questions." Mr. Lanpher further noted that "I dn not yet have any date for Mr. Randolph. I will contaJt you aoout that as soon as possible." Then, in a letter dated June 6, 1988 from Richard Zahnleuter to Donald P. Irwin, Mr. Zahnleuter indicated that Mr. Silverman could be made available on June 17 with the REPG panel, but not separately as LILCO had requested.
- / John Randolph, June 7; G. Berkeley Bennett, June 7; and Marvin Silverman, June 9 0
..... .. .w , . . - .............;..em r, HUNToN & WILLIAxs Michael J. Missal, Esq.
Richard J. Zahnleuter, Esq.
June 13, 1988 Page 3 It was not until my telephone conversation with Mr. Lanpher on the afternoon of June 9 that the County first suggested that the Board's May 26 order did not contemplate discovery by LILCO. Your objection, therefore, to producing the deponents noticed by LILCO is raised belatedly. Instead, Mr. Missal's letter of June 10 makes clear that the County's position now is that none of the deponents noticed by LILCO or proffered by the County on EBS issues will be produced */ As .
we stated in our' letter to the Board dated June 9, the Ttate's and the County's failure to produce deponents has precluded LILCO from completing EBS discovery, as ordered, by June 13.
LILCO should not have to go to the Board for an order every time it seeks discovery. Accordingly, we will address this issue in our briefing paper to be filed June 20, 1988 If you reconsider your position regarding producing the individuals LILCO has noticed for deposition, please let us l know. We are prepared to proceed this week, but we are not l prepared to further defer the filing of papers to the Board as l
t ordered on June 20.
Sincerely yours, R. dunmh QAk /
K. Dennis Sisk 201/374 cc: Richard'G. Bachmann, Esq.
William R. Cumming, Esq.
- / I have not yet succeeded in reaching Mr. Zahnleuter to determine whether Mr. Silverman will be produced on June 17; the State declined to produce him in time for a deposition prior to the June 13 discovery cutoff.
l S
=
0
. JMNSCRPT OF PROCEEDINGS UNITED STATES OF A!! ERICA NUCLEAR REGULATORY COliMISSION BEFORE THE ATO!!IC SAFETY AND LICENSING BOARD
_ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _x IN THE t1ATTER OF : DOCKET NO. 50-322-OL-3 LONG ISLAND LIGHTING CO!!PANY : (Emergency Planning)
(SHOREHAli NUCLEAR POWER STATION, UNIT 1) : (EBS Issue)
__ _ _ _ _ ___ _________x DEPOSITION OF DOUGLAS M. CROCKER_
Hauppauge, New York Monday, June 13, 1988 ACE-FEDERAL REPORTERS, INC.
Stenotypc thyrters 444 North CapitolStreet Washington, D.C. 20001 (202) 347-3700 Nationwide Coverage 800-336-6646
1 21
!Ol 01 1 Q When you say you would "speculate that we probably
/suew 2 asked for it," what do you base that on?
3 A Just general common sense that if you are trying 4 to work something out with somebody, you might formalize it 5 on paper.
6 Q What is, in as much detail as you can provide, 7 LILOO's current EBS system?
8 A It's as described in the Rev 10 to the Plan. We 9 would rely on CBS as the lead station, which in turn would 10 activate the host of stations that are on Long Island and I
11 are secondary stations to CBS.
12 Q Does LILCO's current EBS system lead by WCBS l 13 l , contemplate any participation by suffolk County personnel?
14 A The Plan envisions that when Suffolk County is 1
( 15 asked to either activate or give LERO authority to activate 16 the WCBS system that it would. That's Suffolk County's role 17 in that process.
18 Q Suffolk County's role is to activate the network; 19 is that correct?
20 A Or give us the necessary information to do it.
21 Q And, what personnel will be asked to activate the 22 system? I mean, Suffolk County personnel.
ACE-FEDER AL REPORTERS. INC.
I k x,,;n- .+ rns ,n e,
Il 01 22 Isuew 1 A It would be the Suffolk County Executive or his 2 designee, whoever is the Duty Officer at the time of the 3 emergency.
4 Q Aside from the Suf folk County Executive or, ar, yc 5 describe, his Duty Officer, does LILCO's.WCBS EBS system 6 contemplate any participation by Suffolk County personnel?
I 7 A Well, to the extent that if Suffolk County decide 8 to activate it and exchange information with WCBS, then the 9 may draw on their own staff to do more. I can't speak to 10 that.
11 Q Is that part of the LILCO Plan?
12 A The LILCO Plan does not describe how Suffolk 13 County's internal staff operations would actually accomplis 14 that. They have standard procedures for doing it.
15 But, those are not incorporated in our Plan.
16 Q The only Suffolk County personnel that is include 17 in the LILCO Plan is the Suffolk County Executive or his 18 designated officer; is that correct?
19 A Well, there is a lot of Suffolk County people 20 involved or referred to in the LERO Plan. In the EBS, the 21 intent is to go through the County Executive or whoever is 22 in charge at the time of the emergency and whatever staff h j ACE-FEDER AL R EPORTERS. INC.
bl winnuide cm e,3ce
23 3 J1 01 rsuew 1 may select.
2 Q Okay. When you say "whatever staff he may 3 select," in reference to what?
4 A in the LERO Plan, the Director is in charge but he 5 has a staff that helps him prepare EBS messages, call the 6 radio stations and do things of that sort. I assume the 7 County government has something similar to that.
8 The County Executive may elect to do this all 9 himself. But, I suspect he would have support staff helping 10 him.
11 Q That's not included in the LILCO Plan; is that 12 correct?
13 A Not explicitly as I laid it out. We count on 14 contacting the Executive or the Duty Officer. How he 15 handles it after that is up to him.
16 Q So, just so the record is clear, the only suffolk 17 County personnel that is referred to by the EBS portion of 18 the LILCO Plan is the Suffolk County Executive or his Duty 19 Officer?
20 A If you have the interface procedure there, we can 21 go through it.
2 Q Sure. This is Revision 10.
ACE-FEDERAL REPORTERS. INC.
I k w ,,me a . c m .....
24 i D1 01 (sueV 1 A All right. The Ibnguage in the procedure says the 2 Suffolk County Executive or his designee. But, desionee is.,
3 in my mind, synonymous with Duty Officer.
4 Q Could you reference the page?
5 A This is OPIP 3.1.1, Page 85 of 90 of Attachment 6 10.
7 Q Is that it?
i 8 A Yeah, that's it.
9 Q How would the -- and I believe you've heard it 10 testified to this, but just so we can get a new line of l
11 questioning going, how would the WCBS EBS network be 12 activated?
l l
13 A On receiving authorization from the Suffolk County 14 Executive or his concurrence that the network should be 15 activated, then the appropriate contacts are made with the 16 radio station. The message and the authentication are 17 provided to the station and they will broadcast it using 18 their normal EBS procedures.
i 19 Does the Plan -- does the LILCO Plan envision any
, Q 20 other options if the Suffolk County Executive or'his 21 designee does not give that authorization?
22 Yeah. In the unlikely event, that in my mind is A
I ace-FEDER AL REPORTERS. INC.
< u .; _ ,u. cm,.., .
TIMNSCRPT I
OF :?ROCEEDINGS UNITED STATES OF AftERICA NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSION BEFORE THE ATOIIIC SAFETY AND LICENSING BOARD
_ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _x IN THE !!ATTER OF
- DOCKET NO. 50-322-OL-3 LONG ISLAND LIGHTING COMPANY :
- (Emergency Planning)
(SHOREHA!! NUCLEAR POWER STATION, :
UNIT 1) : (EBS Issue)
_ _ _ _______________ _x l
l j DEPOSITION OF DOUGLAS M. CROCKER_
i
)
i l
l Hauppauge, New York j
Monday, June 13, 1988 l
ACE-FEDERAL REPORTERS, INC.
Stenotyv Rqvrters
' 444 North CapitolStreet Washington, D.C. 20001 i l
l (202) 347-3700 Nationwide Coverage 800-336 6646 i
I
- 01 j 80
'i
- 1l unnecessary change.
(uew 2' If circumstances change later, we might consider 3 using WGLI.
t 4 Q But, you don't know if WPLR is in the system?
h 5! They haven't agreed to be in the system based on the May 9th '
I I 61 letter; is that correct?
i l' i
7i A They, as indicated in the May 9th letter, are i
- 8. still willing to serve until we get a license. After that, i i i 9' they may continue to serve as a secondary.
10 Depending on tha course of what happens with 11 WCBS, we may not need another primary station. It's just --
12 the decision hasn't been made what to do with WGLI yet. We 13 are waiting for events to unfold.
14 Q But, it's your testimony that WPLR may or may not 15 participate in the system; is that correct, once a full i 16! power license is --
l 17 A Yeah. We have no contractual agreement with them 18 past full power licensing.
19 It's my understanding they may have some role, 20 but that's still evolving and still being negotiated.
l 21 Q You have said that WGLI may be used as a lead 22 station depending on circumstances. What are you waiting ace-FEDERAL REPORTERS, INC.
Nationwide Coverage
.tn. m %,
L.RAXSCRIPT OF ?ROCEEDIXGS UNITED STATES OF A!! ERICA NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSION BEFORE THE ATO!!IC SAFETY AND LICENSING .30ARD
_ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _x l :
IN THE f1ATTER OF
- DOCKET NO. 50-322-OL-3 LONG ISLAND LIGHTING cot!PANY :
- (Emergency Planning)
(SHOREHA!! NUCLEAR POWER STATION.
UNIT 1) : (EBS Issue)
__ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _x DEPOSITION OF DOUGLAS M. CROCKER Hauppauge, New York Monday, June 13, 1988 ACE-FEDERAL REPORTERS, INC.
Stenotyp> Pqorters 444 North Capitol Street Washington, D.C. 20001 (202) 347 3700 Nationwide Coverage 800-336 6646
e p1 01 19
- - ~
rsuew 1 A I believe they were to explore CBS's participation 2 in an EBS network dealing with Shoreham.
3 Q What were the results of these conversations?
4 A My sense is that they were generally in the l 5 affirmative, that they, you know, would support our effort.
6 But, there is no formal agreement.
7 Q What is that sense based on?
8 A 'onversations with my superiors who relayed the l
9 word dawn.
10 Q But, there is no formal agreement for CBS to 11 participate in the EBS?
12 A Not to my knowledge.
13 Q Is there any documentation concerning CBS's 14 participation in the EBS?
15 A There is the Plan and the Procedures, things of 16 that sort. Is that what you are asking me?
17 Q Other than the Plan and Procedures?
18 A I'm not aware of anything else.
19 Q I think your testimony is that your sense is that l
l 20 CBC was generally favorable towards participating; is that 1
21 correct?
1 1
22 A That's my understanding.
1 ACE-FEDER AL REPORTERS. lNC.
k sannmoee cnser.ee