ML20209B065
| ML20209B065 | |
| Person / Time | |
|---|---|
| Site: | Shoreham File:Long Island Lighting Company icon.png |
| Issue date: | 01/30/1987 |
| From: | Mcmurray C, Zahnleuter R KIRKPATRICK & LOCKHART, NEW YORK, STATE OF, SUFFOLK COUNTY, NY |
| To: | LONG ISLAND LIGHTING CO. |
| References | |
| CON-#187-2382 OL-3, NUDOCS 8702030512 | |
| Download: ML20209B065 (13) | |
Text
_.
2L 3 F 2-WT50.COHithbPUNDENc4 00CYETED US'mc January 30, 1987
'87 FEB -2 P3 :46 UNITED STATES OF AMERICA NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSION i Fr Before the Atomic Safety and Licensina Board
)
In the Matter of
)
)
LONG ISLAND LIGHTING COMPANY
)
Docket No. 50-322-OL-3
)
(Emergency Planning)
(Shoreham Nuclear Power Station,
)
Unit 1)
)
)
RESPONSE OF SUFFOLK COUNTY AND STATE OF NEW YORK TO LILCO'S FIRST SET OF INTERROGATORIES AND REQUEST FOR PRODUCTION OF DOCUMENTS REGARDING RECEPTION CENTERS 4
Pursuant to 10 C.F.R.
$$ 2.740b(b) and 2.741(d), Suffolk County and the State of New York (the " Governments"), by their undersigned attorneys, hereby respond to LILCO's First Set of Interrogatories and Request for Production of Documents Regarding Reception Centers (January 16, 1987)
(" Discovery Requests"),
subject to the general and specific objections set forth below.
GENERAL OBJECTIONS The Governments object to LILCO's discovery requests on the ground that LILCO has yet to provide the Board or the parties with an estimate of the number of persons who will arrive at LILCO's reception centers for monitoring and, if necessary, 0h 8702030512 870130 PDR ADOCK 05000322
(
G PDR J
l
decontamination.
Such an estimate was required by ALAB-855, 24 NRC __ (December 12, 1986), and LBP-85-31, 22 NRC 410 (1985).
Furthermore, LILCO has not provided the Governments with the revisions to its Plan which are necessary to address the deficiencies found by the RAC.
Without this information, it is impossible for the Governments to prepare their case or answer the discovery requests fully.
Without waiving this objection, the Governments respond as follows.
SPECIFIC OBJECTIONS AND ANSWERS TO INTERROGATORIES AND REOUESTS FOR PRODUCTION OF DOCUMENTS Discovery Recuest No. 1:
Please identify each witness Intervenors expect to call to testify on factors that might make the Reception Centers unsuitable to serve as reception centers for EPZ evacuees.
For each witness, other than experts, that Intervenors expect to call, state the subject matter on which he is expected to testify and the substance of the facts to which he is expected to testify.
For each witness that Intervenors expect to call as an expert witness, state the subject matter on which he is expected to testify, the substance of the facts and opinions to which he is expected to testify, and the summary of the grounds for each such opinion.
Response to Discovery Recuest No. 1:
The Governments have not determined those witnesses they expect to call to testify regarding the reception center issues.
As the identity of such witnesses becomes known to the Govern-ments, the Governments will seasonably supplement their responses pursuant to 10 C.F.R. S 2.740(e).
Discovery Recuest No. 2:
For each witness, please provide a copy of his most current cirruculum vitae, resume, or statement of professional qualifications.
Resoonse to Discovery Recuest No. 2:
Egg Response to Discovery Request No.
1.
Discovery Recuest No. 3:
Please list any NRC, legislative, or other legal proceeding in which each witness has testified on any matter concerning the care of evacuees from or other victims of large-scale disasters or emergencies.
Response to Discovery Recuest No. 3:
Egg Response to Discovery Request No. 1.
Discovery Recuest No. 4:
Please provide a copy of any pre-filed testimony listed in response to Interrogatory 3 above.
Response to Discovery Recuest No. 4:
Egg Response to Discovery Request No.
1.
Discovery Recuest No. 5:
Please identify all articles, papers, and other documents by or co-authored by each witness on the subject of the care of evacuees from, or other victims of, large-scale disasters or emergencies.
Response to Discovery Recuest No. 5:
Egg Response to Discovery Request No.
1.
l l
l l t
- - _ - ~.
Discovery Reauest No. 6:
J Please state whether each witness has prepared, or has had prepared, any written studies, reports, analyses, or other documents with respect to any of the following:
(a)
Care of evacuees from, or other victims of, large-scale disasters or emergencies.
(b)
Monitoring of people or vehicles for radiological contamination.
(c)
Decontaminating people who have been contaminated by radioactive materials.
(d)
Handling or disposal of radioactive waste or of things contaminated by radioactive materials.
l Response to Discovery Reauest No. 6:
Sag Response to Discovery Request No.
1.
t l
I Discovery Reauest No. 7:
Unless the answer to Interrogatory 6 above is a simple negative, please identify and provide a copy of each document.
Response to Discovery Reauest No. 7:
Egg Response to Discovery Request No.
1.
Discovery Reauest No. 8:
Please identify and provide a copy of any document not l
already identified in response to Interrogatory 7 above on which l
Intervenors intend to rely in support of their position on the suitability of LILCO's Reception Centers.
Response to Discovery Reauest No. 8:
J The Governments have not yet identified the documents which l
they intend to rely upon in support of their positions on the reception centers issues.
j Discovery Recuest No. 9:
Please list each and every factor that Intervenors claim might make the Reception Centers unsuitable to serve as reception centers for EPZ evacuees.
k
). - -
Response to Discovery Recuest No. 9:
The Governments object to this interrogatory on the grounds that it is vague and overbroad.
Specifically, the Governments object that LILCO's request for a list of factors that "miaht make the reception centers unsuitable" asks the Governments to engage in pure speculation.
Without waiving this specific objection or the Governments' general objection, the Governments state that at this time, the Governments have determined that the following factors do make the reception centers presently identified by LILCO unsuitable to serve as reception centers:
(a)
LILCO's Plan does not provide an adequate estimate of 1
the number of persons who will arrive at the relocation centers for monitoring and decontamination.
LILCO has not provided adequate planning and resources for the monitoring and decontamination of, and the provision of other necessary services to, such evacuees.
The number of persons who will arrive at LILCO's reception centers is much larger than those reception centers (and the facilities, resources, and personnel committed to them) can serve.
(b)
The evacuation routes to the three LILCO reception centers, and the roadways around the reception centers, are inadequate.
Traffic congestion on the way to and in the vicinity of the facilities will render the l
l reception centers ineffective;
. 1 7
..._--,,__y-,
,c_
(c)
LILCO's traffic management system, including the use of LILCO's Traffic Guides, in and around the facilities is inadequate; (d)
Transportation and traffic problems will develop as a result of the reception centers' locations and their distance from the EPZ; 1
(e)
LILCO's proposed monitoring procedures are inadequate because they do not provide reasonable assurance that all evacuees arriving at the reception centers to be monitored will be monitored, and that contaminated persons will be identified, in a timely manner; (f)
There is inadequate shelter at the reception centers.
This not only affects the public health, but under j
certain circumstances will render LILCO's monitoring procedures ineffective; (g)
The reception centers, their facilities, and the resources provided by LILCO at the reception centers are physically inadequate to handle all arriving evacuees; are physically inadequate for monitoring and, if necessary, decontaminating such evacuees; and are physically inadequate to provide other necessary l
services to evacuees; (h)
LILCO has provided inadequate staff for monitoring, decontamination and the other purposes for which the reception centers have been designated;
. ~
= = _. - -
(i)
LILCO's proposal to transport all evacuees traveling on buses to the parking lot next to its Hicksville facility when that facility itself is also proposed by LILCO to be the LERO worker relocation center renders that facility inadequate for either function; (j)
The proposal to send the evacuees to the LILCO parking lots can never be implemented in a way to protect the public health and safety; (k)
The reception centers locations will give rise to a larger evacuation shadow phenomenon, as well as inhibiting evacuation and the timely processing of the evacuees at the reception centers; (1)
The use of the reception centers during an emergency threatens to contaminate the water supplies around the area of the reception centers.
Furthermore, waste products from the decontamination procedures could pose i
additional environmental hazards; (m)
The distance of the three facilities from the EPZ will increase the adverse health effects of those exposed to radiation during an accident; (n)
LILCO cannot lawfully use its facilities as relocation centers.
The Governments are still in the process of analyzing LILCO's Plan.
Additional factors regarding the unsuitability of LILCO's reception centers and procedures may be identified after
. i
further analysis and research.
Discovery may also serve to 1
identify further factors making the reception centers and procedures unsuitable.
Discoverv Recuest No. 10:
To the extent not covered by the answer to Interrogatory 9 above, please list every respect in which Intervenors claim that LILCO's plan or procedures for operating the Reception Centers are inadequate.
Response to Discovery Reauest No. 10:
Egg Response to Discovery Request No. 9.
Discovery Recuest No. 11:
Please provide an up-to-date list of all relocation enters (including reception centers, congregate care centers, and facilities combing both functions) designated under emergency 1
plans for nuclear power plants in New York State other than Shoreham.
Response to Discovery Reauest No. 11:
The Governments object on the ground that Discovery Request No. 11 seeks information which is irrelevant to this proceeding.
The issue in this proceeding is "whether LILCO's emeroency 1
i resoonse olan contains adequate provision for reception centers for use by the public in the event of a radiological emergency at Shoreham."
Memorandum and Order (Ruling on LILCO Motion to l
Reopen Record and Remand of Coliseum Issue) (December 11, 1986) at 16. (emphasis added).
Since this proceeding is specific to
[
the Shoreham plant, the provisions made for reception centers at I
other nuclear power plants are irrelevant, and are not proper subjects for discovery under 10 C.F.R. S 2.740(b)(1).
l t
l l i
Discovery Recuest No. 12:
For each relocation center listed in response to Interrogatory 11 above, state why that relocation center is acceptable to New York State in contrast to LILCO's Reception Centers, which are not acceptable to the State.
Distinguish the other New York relocation centers from LILCO's Reception Centers with respect to each factor listed in response to Interrogatory 9 above.
Response to Discovery Recuest No. 12:
Egg Response to Request No. 11.
Respectfully submitted, Martin Bradley Ashare Suffolk County Attorney Building 158 North County Complex Veterans Memorial Highway Hauppauge, New York 11788
~
L'Hwrence Coe Lanphef Karla J. Letsche Christopher M. McMurray KIRKPATRICK & LOCKHART 1800 M Street, N.W.
l South Lobby - 9th Floor Washington, D.C.
20036-5891 Attorneys for Suffolk County
. l
AAJ 0 Lhd a Fabian G.' Pa'loprJho /
Richard J. ZahWieuter Special Counsel to the Governor of the State of New York Executive Chamber, Room 229 Capitol Building Albany, New York 12224 Attorneys for Marioit. Cuomo, Governor of the State of New York January 30, 1987 i
r 00ME TE:
v.n K January 30, 1987
'87 FEB -2 P3 :47 UNITED STATES OF AMERICA NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSION OFf..a 4
DCCP.t r...
,J Before the Atomic Safety and Licensino Boafd"
)
In the Matter of
)
)
LONG ISLAND LIGHTING COMPANY
)
Docket No. 50-322-OL-3
)
(Emergency Planning)
(Shoreham Nuclear Power Station,
)
Unit 1)
)
)
CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE I hereby certify that copies of RESPONSE OF SUFFOLK COUNTY AND STATE OF NEW YORK TO LILCO'S FIRST SET OF INTERROGATORIES AND REQUEST FOR PRODUCTION OF DOCUMENTS REGARDING RECEPTION CENTERS have been served on the following this 30th day of January, 1987 by U.S. mail, first class, except as otherwise noted.
Morton B. Margulies, Esq., Chairman Joel Blau, Esq.
Atomic Safety and Licensing Board Director, Utility Intervention U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission N.Y. Consumer Protection Board Washington, D.C.
20555 Suite 1020 Albany, New York 12210 l
Dr. Jerry R. Kline William R. Cumming, Esq.
Atomic Safety and Licensiqc km,.1 Spence W. Perry, 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 f
Washington, D.C.
20472 l
Mr. Frederick J.
Shon Anthony F.
Earley, Jr.,
Esq.
Atomic Safety and Licensing Board General Counsel U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission Long Island Lighting Company Washington, D.C.
20555 175 East Old Country Road Hicksville, New York 11801 Ms. Elisabeth Taibbi W. Taylor Reveley, III, Esq.*
Clerk Hunton & Williams Suffolk County Legislature P.O.
Box 1535 Suffolk County Legislature 707 East Main Street Office Building Richmond, Virginia 23212 Veterans Memorial Highway Hauppauge, New York 11788 Mr. L. F. Britt Stephen B.
Latham, Esq.
Long Island Lighting Company Twomey, Latham & Shea Shoreham Nuclear Power Station 33 West Second Street North Country Road Riverhead, New York 11901 Wading River, New York 11792 Ms. Nora Bredes Docketing and Service Section Executive Director Office of the Secretary Shoreham Opponents Coalition U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Comm.
195 East Main Street 1717 H Street, N.W.
Smithtown, New York 11787 Washington, D.C.
20555 Mary M. Gundrum, Esq.
Hon. Michael A. LoGrande New York State Department of Law Suffolk County Executive 120 Broadway, 3rd Floor H.
Lee Dennison Building Room 3-116 Veterans Memorial Highway New York, New York 10271 Hauppauge, New York 11788 MHB Technical Associates Dr. Monroe Schneider 1~/23 Hamilton Avenue North Shore Committee Suite K P.O.
Box 231 San Jose, California 95125 Wading River, New York 11792 Martin Bradley Ashare, Esq.
Fabian G.
Palomino, Esq.
Suffolk County Attorney Special Counsel to the Governor j
Bldg. 158 North County Complex Executive Chamber, Rm. 229 Veterans Memorial Highway State Capitol Hauppauge, New York 11788 Albany, New York 12224 Mr. Jay Dunkleburger Bernard M.
Bordenick, Esq.
New York State Energy Office U.S.
Nuclear Regulatory Comm.
Agency Building 2 Washington, D.C.
20555 Empire State Plaza Albany, New York 12223 i
David A. Brownlee, Esq.
Mr. Stuart Diamond Kirkpatrick & Lockhart Business / Financial 1500 Oliver Building NEW YORK TIMES Pittsburgh, Pennsylvania 15222 229 W.
43rd Street New York, New York 10036 Douglas J. Hynes, Councilman Town Board of Oyster Bay Tcwn Hall Oyster Bay, New York 11771 Via Federal Express
'ristopher M. McMurray for Saturday Delivery KIRKPATRICK & LOCKHART 1800 M Street, N.W.
South Lobby - 9th Floor Washington, D.C.
20036-5891
.-...