ML20196G549
| ML20196G549 | |
| Person / Time | |
|---|---|
| Site: | Shoreham File:Long Island Lighting Company icon.png |
| Issue date: | 02/29/1988 |
| From: | Leugers M HUNTON & WILLIAMS, LONG ISLAND LIGHTING CO. |
| To: | Atomic Safety and Licensing Board Panel |
| References | |
| CON-#188-5758 OL-3, NUDOCS 8803090241 | |
| Download: ML20196G549 (7) | |
Text
h LILCO, February 29,1988 1
00CKETE0 USNRC UNITED STATES OF AMERICA NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSION
.g ggg _7 p3 ;$$
Off!CE OF $!di.iAhY Before the Atomic Safety and Licensing Board 00CKrimG A stevict BRANCH In the Matter of
)
)
LONG ISLAND LIGHTING COMPANY
) Docket No. 50-322-OL-3
) (Emergency Planning)
(Shoreham Nuclear Power Station,
) (School Eus Driver Issue)
Unit 1)
)
LILCO'S RESPONSE TO MEW YORK STATE'S MOTION TO COMPEL OF FEBRUARY 12,1988 New York State has moved to compel LILCO responses to the State's Interroga-tory Nos. 9,10,11, and 12. State of New York's Motion for Order Compelling LILCO and the NRC Staff to Respond to the State of New York's First Set of Interrogatories and Request for Production of Documents ("Motion") at 4 (Feb.12,1988). LILCO op-poses the State's motion.
The basis for this opposition is that there is nothing to compel. The State al-ready has the answer to Interrogatory No.11, which seeks information about the com-pensation of LERO school bus drivers. In a supplemental response to the State's inter-rogatories, filed today in order to eliminate this needless dispute, LILCO is providing additional answers (despite LILCO's objections) to Interrogatories Nos. 9 and 10 (about the compensation of LERO and regular school bus drivers) and is clarifying the answer to Interrogatory No.12 (about discussions or conversations between LILCO and NRC Staff counsel). Therefore, there is nothing further to compel on these interrogatories.
I. Introduction Discovery is permitted as to any non privileged matters that are relevant to the subject of the proceeding or are "reasonably calculated to lead to the discovery of
$3onan ME!!a" 3
Y
. i admissible evidence." 10 C.F.R. S 2.740(b)(1). It is true, as the State asserts (Motion at 3), that "discovery is liberally granted" in full, non-remand proceedings. But this case is a narrow remand of a specific issue: the alleged affect of role conflict on the availabil-ity of school bus drivers. Moreover, despite the Intervenors' attempts to expand this proceeding, which the Board rejected by granting LILCO's motion in limine on February 12, neither a remand nor an initial proceeding is a license to litigate every conceivable detail of an emergency plan. Louisiana Power & Light Co. (Waterford Steam Electric Station, Unit 3), ALAB-732,17 NRC 1076,1106-07 (1983).
U. Discussion Not much information is put into dispute by the State's motion. For one of the interrogatories (No.11), the State already has the answers. For two of the interrogato-ries (Nos. 9 & 10), the State has part of the answer, and LILCO is providing the rest in a supplemental response today. LILCO has also clarified its previous answer to the re-maining interrogatory, No.12, which seeks irrelevant information about contacts be-tween LILCO and NRC Staff counsel. Consequently, there is no dispute for the Board to settie.
A.
New York State Interrogatory No. 9 New York State Interrogatory No. 9 is set out in full in the State's motion (Mo-tion at 4-5), and so LILCO does not repeat it here. In short, it asks LILCO to state the amount of money or other consideration that each non-LILCO school bus driver will be given by LILCO for (a) participating in classroom training, (b) participating in drills, (c)
(
actually responding during a Shoreham emergency, (d) a bonus, and (e) any other reason.
LILCO objected and continues to object to this interrogatory because it is not relevant, not reasonably calculated to lead to the discovery of admissible evidence, and contrary to LILCO's policy of withholding proprietary information about how LERO and non-LERO emergency workers are compensated.
l l
m
..g LILCO continues to believd that the information sought in this interrogato-ry is irrelevant, because it addresses a level of detail that is beyond the scope of legiti-mate inquiry on the issue of role conflict of school bus drivers. The only relevant point is the one mentioned by the State on page 7 of its Motion, M, that FEMA and the NRC Staff have said that compensating bus drivers is a factor in resolving role conflict. See Motion at 7. The precise amount that each driver receives for each hour in the class-room, for each hour of drill participation, as a bonus, ey., is a detail of implementing the Plan that has little bearing on its workability and thus is beyond the scope of legiti-mate, relevant inquiry.II In a supplemental response filed today LILCO is providing the answer to parts (a) and (b): non-LILCO participants will receive their regular wages, plus overtime pay as appropriate, for time spent in classroom training and participating in drills and exer-cises. While the exact figure is subject to negotiation between LILCO and the bus com-panies, LILCO estimates that this compensation will be approximately $10 an hour.
LILCO is also providing the answer to part (c) (LILCO does not contemplate paying any non-LERO emergency worker any compensation for responding during an actual emer-gency) and part (d) (non-LILCO participants will receive a year-end bonus of some as yet undetermined amount, subject to negotiation between LILCO and the bus compa-nies). Thus Interrogatory No. 9 has been fully answered.
l B.
New York State Interrogatory No.10 Interrogatory No.10 seeks essentially the same information as No. 9, but with respect to LERO school bus drivers. Motion at 7. It seeks the amount LILCO will pay to LILCO-employed LERO school bus drivers for (a) classroom training, (b) drills, (c) 1/
The State mentions on page 6 of its Motion that one document produced in dis-covery by LILCO reveals the amount LILCO pays to rent buses from one bus company.
Motion at 6. That fact has nothing to do with Int.rrogatories 9,10,11, and 12, which concern compensation of bus drivers and contacts between LILCO and staff counsel, and thus does not support the State's arguments.
o.
. \\
2 studying or training for the Class 2 license, (d) actual response to a Shoreham emergen-cy, (e) a bonus, and (f) any other reason. Motion at 8.
LILCO objected and continues to object to this Interrogatory because it seeks ir-relevant information. The compensation paid to LERO workers might be relevant if the issue were role conflict of LERO workers. But that issue was put to rest in this Board's PartialInitial Decision and is not part of this remand proceeding.
In any event, there is no reason for dispute over Interrogatory No.10 because the State already has most of the answers and is being provided the rest today in a supple-mental response. The answers to (a), (b), and (c) are cited on page 5 of the State's mo-tion ("LILCO employees would receive their regular hourly wages plus overtime pay where appropriate").2/ The answers to parts (d) and (f) (the answer to both is zero) are provided in LILCO's supplemental response. The answer to (e) ($500.00) is mentioned on page 6 of the State's motion. Thus, there is nothing for the Board to compel regarding Interrogatory No.10.
C.
New York State Interrogatory No.11 Interrogatory No.11 is irrelevant for the same reason as Interrogatory No.10:
the information sought goes to role conflict of LERO workers, which has been litigated and resolved and is not part of this remand.
Moreover, here again there is nothing for the Board to compel. Interrogatory j
No.11 asks a "simple yes or no question about whether LILCO-employed bus drivers will receive money and other considerations in addition to receiving their regular hourly wages." Motion at 9-19. Since the answer is prominently mentioned in the State's mo-tion (at pages 6 and 9), it is unclear why the State moved to compel an additional re-sponse.
2/
The State anticipated that LILCO would object to disclosing the amount of the l
LILCO employees' regular wages and overtime pay and states that it is willing to accept an unquantified answer. Motion at 9.
The answer to Interrogatory No.11 clearly is "yes".
As the State notes, Mr. Crocker has stated the following:
LILCO employees who agree to become auxiliary school bus drivers would receive their regular hourly wages for training and drills plus overtime pay where appropriate.
Motion at 9. Moreover, in Mr. Crocker's deposition he stated that the LERO bus drivers will receive a year-end bonus of $500 for performing their LERO bus driver duties satis-factorily. Id. at 6. Interrogatory No.11 has been fully answered.
D.
New York State Interrogatory No.12 Interrogatory No.12 asked LILCO whether it "ever met (on or about January 14, 1988 or at any other time), or engaged in telephone conversations or discussions, with the NRC or FEMA regarding in any way IILCO's schools evacuation proposal?" Motion at 1.
In its supplemental response, LILCO has clarified its previous answer so as to eliminate any possible confusion. (The answer is no.) Thus, there is no dispute on Inter-rogatory No.12.
III. Conclusion LILCO has answered all of the State's Interrogatories, so there is nothing to com-pel. The Board should deny the State's Motion to Compel.
Respectfully submitted, W-A YW.
L'"y'#8"*"' G /p Scott D. Matchett Counsel for Long Island Lighting Company llunton & Williams 707 East main Street P.O. box 1535 Richmond, Virginia 23212 DATED: February 29,1988
LILCO, February 29,1988 000KLILD U)NnC
'88 HAR -7 P3 :55 CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE OCki bYikif 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 LILCO'S SUPPLEMENTAL RESPONSES AND OB-JECTIONS TO NEW YORK STATE'S FIRST SET OF INTERROGATORIES AND RE-QUESTS FOR PRODUCTION OF DOCUMENTS and LILCO'S RESPONSE TO NEW YORK STATE'S MOTION TO COMPEL OF FEBRUARY 12,1988 were served this date upon the following by Federal Express as indicated by two asterisks, or by first-class mall, post-age prepaid.
James P. Gleason, Chairman "
Atomic Safety and Licensing Atomic Safety and Licensing Board Board Panel 513 Gilmoure Drive U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission Silver Spring, Maryland 20901 Washington, D.C. 20555 Dr. Jerry R. Kline **
George E. Johnson, Ecq. **
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 Flocr East-West Towers, Rm. 430 1800 M Street, N.W.
4350 East-West Hwy.
Washington, D.C. 20036-5891 Bethesda, MD 20814 Fabian G. Palomino, Esq. **
Secretary of the Commission Richard J. Zahnleuter, Esq.
Attention Dock 9 ting and Lervice Special Counsel to the Governor Section Executive Chamber U.S. Nuc! car Regulatory Commission Room 229 1717 H Street, N.W.
State Capitol Washington, D.C. 20555 Albany, New York 12224 Atomic Safety and Licensing Appeal Board Panel U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission Washington, D.C. 20555
r Alfred L. Nardelli, Esq.
Jonathan D. Feinberg, Esq.
Assistant Attorney General New York State Department of
.120 Broadway Public Service, Staff Counsel Room 3-118 Three Rockefeller Plaza New York, New York 10271 Albany, New York 12223 Spence W. Perry, Esq. **
Ms. Nora 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. **
Sulfolk 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 h
, James N. Chrittman Hunton & Williams 707 East Main Street P.O. Box 1535 Richmond, Virginia 23212 DATED: February 29,1988 l