ML20207L895
| ML20207L895 | |
| Person / Time | |
|---|---|
| Site: | Shoreham File:Long Island Lighting Company icon.png |
| Issue date: | 01/05/1987 |
| From: | Donegan K HUNTON & WILLIAMS, LONG ISLAND LIGHTING CO. |
| To: | Atomic Safety and Licensing Board Panel |
| References | |
| CON-#187-2129 OL-5, NUDOCS 8701130023 | |
| Download: ML20207L895 (10) | |
Text
,.
'I 2/29 RELATED COMmunuq DOCKETED UNITED STATES OF AMERICA NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSION
'87 JAN -7 All :03 Before the Atomic Safety and Licensing Board
{f}i(
In the Matter of
)
)
LONG ISLAND LIGHTING COMPANY
) Docket No. 50-322-OL-5
) (EP Exercise)
(Shoreham Nuclear Power Station,
)
Unit 1)
)
LILCO'S RESPONSE TO SUFFOLK COUNTY, STATE OF NEW YORK AND TOWN OF SOUTHAMPTON SECOND SET OF INTERROGATORIES TO LILCO Pursuant to SS 2.740,2.740b, and 2.741 of the NRC Rules of Practice, LILCO re-sponds to Suffolk County's Second Set of Interrogatories dated and served upon LILCO on December 19,1986.II Suffolk County Interrogatory No.1 Identify each non-Shoreham exercise upon-which LILCO intends to rely in sup-port of its position on admitted Exercise contentions, and with respect to each such ex-crcise identify the following:
a.
Date of the exerche; b.
Plant (s) or facility (les) to which the exercise related; c.
Location (s) of f acilities identified in response to (t,);
I d.
Participants in the exercise; e.
Contentions as to which LILCO intends to rely upon the exercise to support its position; f.
All facts about, or data relating to, the exercise upon which LILCO intends torely; 1/
On November 5,1986 Suffolk County, the State of New York and the Town of Southampton filed a pleading entitled "First Request for Admissions and Second Set of Interrogatories Directed to LILCO." In this response. LILCO will distinguish between the two sets of interrogatories by the dates on which they were filed.
g1130023e70105
~
b G
ADOCK 05000322 PDR
1,
g.
Documents, concerning the exercise, upon which LILCO intends to rely; h.
Any other documents concerning the exercise known to LILCO, whether LILCO intends to rely upon them or not.
Remonse:
In general, LILCO objects to this interrogatory as seeking information protected by the work product doctrine. In addition, other subparts of the interrogatory are undu-ly burdensome since they seek information that is readily available in the public domain and is, accordingly, as available to Intervenors as it is to LILCO. Without waiving these objections, LILCO responds as follows.
(a). For each facility listed in responsa to subsections (b) and (c) below, LILCO has examined the exercise which served as the initial " full participation" exercise re-quired under 10 CFR Part 50, App. E to continue full power operation or, in the case of new plants, to allow operation above 5% power. In addition, for plants located in FEMA Region 2, LILCO has examined all " full participation" exercises.
(b) and (c). The facilities whose exercises LILCO has presently examined, and the states in which they are located, are as follows:
Beaver Valley (Pennsylvania)
Calvert Cliffs (Maryland)
Fitzpatrick (New York)
Ginna (New York)
Haddam Neck (Connecticut)
Indian Point #2 (New York)
Indian Point #3 (New York) i Limerick (Pennsylvania)
Millstone (Connecticut)
Nine Mile Point (New York)
Oyster Creek (New Jersey)
Pilgrim (Massachusetts)
Seabrook (New Hampshire)
Shearon Harris (North Carolina)
Braidwood (Illinois)
Zion (Illinois)
Byron (Illinois)
Calloway (Missouri)
Fermi #2 (Michigan)
Perry (Ohio)
\\ Quad Cities (Illinois)
Wolf Creek (Kansas)
Diablo Canyon (California)
Hope Creek (New Jersey)
Peach Bottom (Pennsylvania)
LILCO may examine additional exercises from other facilities in preparing its testimo-ny.
(d). Participants in any given exercise are plainly identified in the FEMA post-exercise reports which are publicly available in the NRC Public Document Room. This information is as readily available to Intervenors as it is to LILCO.
(e). At present, LILCO intends to rely on information from other exercises in its testimony on Contentions EX 15,16,21 and 50.
(f).
LILCO objects to this subpart as overly broad, unduly burdensome and vague. In addition, disclosure of the facts and data on which LILCO intends to rely and by implication, the facts from other exercises which it does not intend to use, would re-veal attorney thought processes. Accordingly, LILCO's choice of facts it will use is protected by the attorney work product doctrine.
(g) and (h). As just noted, the selection or rejection of documents reveals attor-ney thought processes and is protected by the work product doctrine. In addition, LILCO objects to subpart (h) as overly broad and unduly burdensome. Without waiving these objections, LILCO states that at the present time it intends to rely on FEMA post-exercise reports as the source of information about other exercises.
Suffolk County Interrugatory No. 2 Identify the times at which each of the following LERO News Releases were made available to the press during the February 13 Exercise and for each stato how it was made available and by whom:
a.
LERO News Release #1:
b.
LERO News Release #2:
c.
LERO News Release #3; d.
LERO News Release #4; e.
LERO News Release #5; f.
LERO News Release #6:
3 ;
g.
LERO News Release #7; h.
LERO News Release #8; i.
LERO News Release #9.
ReeDosse:
In its responses to Suffolk County's November 5,1986 Interrogatories and Re-quests for Admissions LILCO identified the times that the following LERO News Re-leases were made available to the press:
a.
LERO News Release #3: 11:10 AM (Admission No. 74) b.
LERO News Release #4: 11:56 AM (Admission No. 75) c.
LERO News Release #6: 2:10 PM (Admission No. 77) d.
LERO News Release #7: 3:07 PM (Admission No. 78).
Beyond these four release times, which are reported in players' logs, no record exists for determining the exact time given LERO news releases were provided to the press.
The burden of establishing approximate release times from existing documentation is the same for Intervenors as it would be for LILCO. The method of making the press re-leases available to the press and the persons responsible for their dissemination are de-scribed in OPIP 3.8.1.
Suffolk County interrogatory No. 3 Identify the times at which each of the following LILCO News Releases were made available to the press and for each state how it was made available and by whom:
a.
LILCO News Release #1:
b.
LILCO News Release #2; c.
LILCO News Release #3; d.
LILCO News Release #4 e.
LILCO News Release #5; f.
LILCO News Release #6 g.
LILCO News Release #7 h.
LILCO News Release #8 1.
LILCO News Release #9; j.
LILCO News Release #10:
k.
LILCO News Release #11:
1.
LILCO News Release #12 m.
LILCO News Release #13 n.
LILCO News Release #14; o.
LILCO News Release #15; p.
LILCO News Release #16;
i n q.
LILCO News Release #17; r.
LILCO News Release #18; s.
LILCO News Release #19.
Response
No record exists for determining the exact time given LERO news releases were provided to the press. The burden of establishing approximate release times from ex-1 sting documentation is the same for Intervenors as it would be for LILCO. The method for making the press releases available to the public and the persons responsible are de-scribed in EPIP 4-7.
Suffolk County Interrogatory No. 4 Identify all hospitals, special facilities, adult or nursing homes (other than the Central Suffolk Hospital, the Oak Hollow Nursing Center and Crest Hall Health Related Facility and the Riverhead Nursing Home and Health Related Facility), if any, which actually participated in the Exercise, or were consulted or contacted by LERO person-nel during the Exercise.
Response
Other than the f acilities named in this Interrogatory, no hospital, special facili-ty, adult or nursing home actually participated in the Exercise.
Suffolk County Interrogatory No. 5 With respect to each hospital, facility, or home identified in response to Inter-rogatory No. 4 above, identify who made the contact or consultation, and the nature and sutzstance of the contact or consultation.
Response
See LILCO's response to Interrogatory No. 4.
Suffolk County Interrogatory No. 6 State how many route alert drivers were dispatched during the Exercise to notify the ambulatory deaf.
Response
During the Exercise, sixteen route alert drivers were dispatched to notify the ambulatory deaf.
1 ;
Suffolk County Interrogatory No. 7 State when, if ever, during the Exercise, LERO or LILCO personnel at the ENC informed the media that LERO workers had been instructed to ingest KI (potassium iodide), and if the media was so informed, identify who did so and by what means.
Response
As stated in LILCO's responses to Intervenors' November 5,1986 Interrogatories and Request for Admissions (Admission No. 80), LERO ENC personnel did not inform the media that LERO workers were instructed to ingest KI, nor did LERO ENC person-nel receive any inquiries from the media about LERO workers ingesting KI.
Suffolk County Interrogatory No. 8 State how many road crew members had reported to the Patchogtie Staging Area as of 10:20 a.m. On the day of the Exercise.
Response
As of 10:20 a.m. on the day of the Exercise, thirteen road crew members had re-ported to the Patchogue Staging Area.
Suffolk County Interrogatory No. 9 Identify the time (s) during the Exercise when LERO bus drivers were dispatched from: a) the Patchogue Staging Area; and b) the Riverhead Staging Area, to pick up their buses from bus company yards and, thereaf ter, to proceed to their assigned bus transfer points.
R aponse:
LILCO objects to this interrogatory on the ground of relevance since it does not seek information regarding any admitted contention. Without waiving this objection, LILCO states as follows. LERO bus drivers who drove actual buses during the Exercise were dispatched at the following times:
l I
1 Dispatched from Bus Driver #
Staring Area Lef t Bus Yard 1(Patchogue) 11:15 13:15 2 (Patchogue) 10:45 11:22 3 (Patchogue) 10:21 10:56 4 (Patchogue) 11:23 12:02 5 (Patchogue) 11:20 11:55 6 (Patchogue) 10:48 11:42 7 (Riverhead) 11:43 11:52 8 (Riverhead) 11:45 11:55 The delay in Driver No. I leaving the bus yard resulted from his having gone to two different yards. The departure time is the time he lef t the second yard.
Bus drivers Nos.1,2,5,6, 7 and 8 were general population bus drivers. Bus driv-er No. 3 was a curbside pickup bus driver. Bus driver No. 4 was a special school bus driver. Dispatch times from staging areas for LERO bus drivers who did not drive buses during the Exercise can be readily obtained from individual dispatch forms that have previously been provided to Intervenors. No record exists of the tiine these drivers lef t their assigned bus yards.
Suffolk County Interrogatory No.10 State, as of the time of the Exercise, how many school bus drivers had been trained in potassium lodide policy or use and describe the training.
Response
Seaman Bus Company provides school bus drivers for Shoreham-Wading River School District. At the time of the Exercise,33 of Seaman's bus drivers had received training in the use of KI. This training includes modules 3 and 9 of the LERO training program.
g s
s Suffolk County Interrogatory No.11 State, as of the time of the Exercise, how many school bus drivers had been supplied with dosimetry equipment.
Response
At the time of the Exercise, no dosimetry equipment had been issued to school bus drivers.
Suffolk County Interrogatory No.12 State the precise text of each EBS message as " Issued" during the Exercise.
Response
LILCO objects to this interrogatory on the ground that it is overly broad and un-duly burdensome. Both parties possess the documents in question, and the burden of de-termining the content of these messages is the same for Suffolk County as it is for LILCO. Many of the EBS messages have no additions or deletions at all and therefore require no explanation. The rest are clearly marked and again require no explanation.
Respectfully submitted, Lefe'B. Zeugin
[/
Jessine A. Monaghan U
Karen L. Donegan Hunton & Williams 70? East Main Street P.O. Box 1535 Richmond, Virginia 23212 DATED: January 5,1987 l
,--_..,_-._-_m
I LILCO, January 5,1987 i
D'L v E i u.
I uw CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE
'87 JAN -7 All :03 1
In the Matter of C FFU 3,.,
LONG ISLAND LIGHTING COMPANY iiCCE ia.. am
- '3 (Shoreham Nuclear Power Station, Unit 1)
Docket No. 50-322-OL-5 I hereby certify that copies of LILCO'S RESPONSE TO SUFFOLK COUNTY, STATE OF NEW YORK AND TOWN OF SOUTHAMPTON SECOND SET OF INTERROGA-TORIES TO LILCO were served this date upon the following by Federal Express as indi-cated by,an asterisk (*), or by first-class mail, postage prepaid.
John H. Frye, III, Chairnian
- Atomic Safety and Licensing Atomic Safety and Licensing Board Panel Board U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission Washington, D.C. 20555 East-West Towers 4350 East-West Hwy.
Bernard M. Bordenick, Esq.
- Bethesda, MD 20814 Oreste Russ Pirfo, Esq.
Edwin J. Reis, Esq.
Dr. Oscar H. Paris
- U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission Atomic Safety and Licensing 7735 Old Georgetown Road Board (to mailroom)
U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission Bethesda, MD 20814 East-West Towers 4350 East-West Hwy.
Herbert H. Brown, Esq.
- Bethesda, MD 20814 Lawrence Coe Lanpher, Esq.
Karla J. Letsche, Esq.
Mr. Frederick J. Shon
- Kirkpatrick & Lockhart Atomic Safety and Licensing South Lobby - 9th Floor Board 1800 M Street, N.W.
U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission Washington, D.C. 20036-5891 East-West Towers, Rm. 430 l
4350 East-West Hwy.
Fabian G. Palomino, Esq.
- l Bethesda, MD 20814 Richard J. Zahnleuter, Esq.
Special Counsel to the Governor Secretary of the Commission Executive Chamber Attention Docketing and Service Room 229 Section State Capitol U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission Albany, New York 12224 1717 H Street, N.W.
Washington, D.C. 20555 Mary Gundrum, Esq.
Assistant Attorney General Atomic Safety and Licensing 120 Broadway Appeal Board Panel Third Floor, Room 3-116 U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission New York, New York 10271 Washington, D.C. 20555
~.
.~..
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 Gerald C. Crotty, Esq.
Mr. Jay Dunkleberger Counsel to the Governor New York State Energy Office Executive Chamber Agency Building 2 State Capitol Empire State Plaza Albany, New York 12224 Albany, New York 12223 Martin Bradley Ashare, Esq.
Stephen B. Latham, Esq.
- Eugene R. Kelly, Esq.
Twomey, Latham & Shea Suffolk County Attorney 33 West Second Street H. Lee Dennison Building P.O. Box 298 Veterans Memorial Highway Riverhead, New York 11901 Hauppauge, New York 11787 Mr. Philip McIntire Dr. Monroe Schneider Federal Emergency Management North Shore Committee Agency P.O. Box 231 26 Federal Plaza Wading River, NY 11792 New York, New York 10278 -
1 Jonathan D. Feinberg, Esq.
New York State Department of Public Service, Staff Counsel Three Rockefeller Plaza Albany, New York 12223 Ka'ren L. Donegan U
Hunton & Williams 707 East Main Street P.O. Box 1535 Richmond, Virginia 23212 DATED: January 5,1987
- - - -,, - - -. --