ML20209E889

Lilco Answer Opposing Intervenor Motion to Compel of 870413.* Motion to Compel Untimely.Reason for Not Providing Sources of Info Cited in 10CFR2.740(b)(2).W/Certificate of Svc

ML20209E889
Person / Time
Site:	Shoreham File:Long Island Lighting Company icon.png
Issue date:	04/23/1987
From:	Christman J HUNTON & WILLIAMS, LONG ISLAND LIGHTING CO.
To:	Atomic Safety and Licensing Board Panel
References
CON-#287-3273 OL-3, NUDOCS 8704300145
Download: ML20209E889 (27)

Text

3 2,h LIL CO, April 23,1987

• a 00LKETED USNRC UNITED STATES OF AMERICA NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSION 87 APR 27 A11:09 0Ff tL Of i[u t Ani Before the Atomic Safety and Licensing Board 00 gkc In the Matter of )

)

LONG ISLAND LIGHTING COMPANY ) Docket No. 50-322-OL-3

) (Emergency Planning)

(Shoreham Nuclear Power Station, )

Unit 1) )

LILCO'S ANSWER OPPOSING INTERVENORS' MOTION TO COMPEL OF APRIL 13,1987 On April 13, 1987, the Intervenors filed their "Suffolk County and State of New l York Motion to Compel LILCO to Provide Sources of Data Relled Upon in Testimony" (hereinaf ter " Motion to Compel"). The Interver. ors ask the Board to compel LILCO to produce "the information requested in the County's April 2,1987, letter" (Motion to Compel at 6; see also id.1). The sole purpose of the Motion to Compel, apparently, is to require LILCO to disclose the names of several individuals from whom it got infor-mation about monitoring capabilities in New York State. LILCO opposes the Motion to Compel for the following reasons.

L LILCO lias Already Provided The Basis For Its Testimony In the first place, LILCO has already provided the documents on which its writ-ten testimony is based. The County's April 2 letter reads in pertinent part as follows:

First, on page 12 of the testimony, Chuck Daverlo dis-cusses monitoring capacities at certain plants based on " con- I tacts made by [his] staff with county and utility personnel at

)

several [ sites]." Please identify the county and/or utility personnel contacted with respect to each site, the date such l i

contact was made, and by whom such contact was made. In )

addition, please provide all documents reflecting such con-tacts.

h 2

• Letter from Christopher M. McMurray to hmes N. Christman, April 2,1987, at 1.  !

i The answer referred to on page 12 of LILCO's written testimony reads as follows:

A. (Daverio] Based on contacts made by my staff with county I

and utility personnel at several sites, the following table was developed:

EPZ Percent of Population 4 County Utility Population Monitored in 12 Hours

1. Westchester NYPA/ Con Ed 125,000 58%

2. Rockland NYPA/ Con Ed 80,000 4%

+

3. Orange NYPA/ Con Ed 20,000 100 %

4. Monroe RG&E 30,000 100 %

5. Wayne RG&E 23,000 50%

6. Oswego NYPA/ Niagara 43,000 8% ,

1 Mohawk Af ter this information was gathered, my staff reviewed State and county plans and FEMA assessment reports to see if addi-1 tional data were available. This review indicated that these publicly available documents do not provide enough informa-

tion to determine monitoring capabilities.

The part of this testimony referred to in the County's April 2 letter (beginning with 4

" Based on" and ending with the Table) is based on two documents, a report of Richard Watts of September 16, 1986, reflecting the " contacts made"M and a memorandum from Brant Aldikoff of November 10, 1986, which used the data from the September 16 re-

, port to calculate capacities of relocation centers in percentage terms.M These num-

bers were revised during the writing of the final written testimony the week-end of March 21-22, as reflected in the testimony itself.

i

! 1/ The September 16 report memorializes about eight pages of handwritten notes of phone conversations and about 20 pages from the Wayne County and Monroe County

, emergency plans.

2/ The Motion to Compel suggests that there are other documents because Messrs.

Watts and Aidikoff are not LILCO employees but consultants. Suffice it to say that Mr.

Daverio indicated in his deposition that he considers consultants to be on his " staff."

Transcript of Deposition of Charles A. Daverio, March 13,1987, at 5,12-13.

i 1

LILCO provided Suffolk County with both these documents by letter of April 3, 1987,"in order to avoid a needless dispute." Thus, the County has already received the documents on which the testimony is based. Further information must be obtained from cross-examination, or should have been obtained during the depositions the County took of Mr. Watts and Mr. Daverlo on March 12 and 13,1987, respectively.

It is true, however, that LILCO deleted from the Watts memorandum the names3 / of the people with whom Mr. Watts had spoken to get the information. Appar-ently the only purpose of the Motion to Compel is to get those names. For the reasons given below, LILCO should not have to disclose them.

II. The Request Is Untimely LILCO identified the two documents described above for the Intervenors on February 4,1987, describing them as follows:

5. Report prepared by Richard Watts for Douglas Crocker, dated September 16,1986, on capacities of relocation centers for plants other than Shoreham.

6. Memorandum of November 10, 1986, from Brant Aidikoff to legal counsel (Lee Zeugin) regarding monitoring capacities for plants other than Shoreham.

LILCO's Responses and Objections to Intervenors' First Set of Interrogatories and Re- ,

1 quest for Production of Documents Regarding Reception Center Issues Dated January 21,1987 (Feb. 4,1987), at 13 (see Attachment 1 to this Answer). At the same time LILCO refused to produce them, claiming a privilege under the work product doctrine. l l

3/ Although both the title of the Motion to Compel (Motion to Compel LILCO to Provide Sources of Data) and its text indicate that only the names are at issue, the County also asked in its April 2 letter for the dates of the contacts. These dates were deleted from the Watts Memorandum along with the names of individuals. To narrow the possible area of dispute, LILCO hereby provides the dates that were deleted:

Rockland County, 9/2/86; Wayne County, 7/15/86; Monroe County, 9/5/86; Orange County, 9/5/86; Putnam County, 9/5/86; Westchester County, 9/5/86; Oswego County, 9/12/86; State of New Jersey, 7/15/86 and 9/15/86.

1

The Intervenors' April 2 request for these documents thus came almost two months af ter LILCO first identified and refused to produce them. The April 13 Motion to Com-pel comes even later.

Clearly, then, the County's April 2 request for the documents and the Interve-nors' April 13 Motion to Compel are untimely because of the 10-day fl!!ng requirement in 10 C.F.R. S 2.740(f)(1). Indeed, the Board recently denied one of LILCO's motions to j compel on this ground. See Memorandum Memorializing Ruling on Motion to Compel Response to LILCO's Interrogatories and to Produce Documents (March 17,1987), slip op. at 3. The same rule should apply to the Intervenors.

III. The Intervenors Cannot Show

" Substantial Need" Or " Undue Hardship" There is an independent reason why the information requested by the Interve-i nors is not required to be produced. The two documents that have already been pro-duced, and the names deleted from them, are clearly " trial preparation materials."M They were prepared at the request of counsel and solely for the purpose of producing written testimony in this proceeding.

That being so, the provisions of 10 C.F.R. S 2.740(b)(2) apply:

(2) Trial preparation materials. A party may obtain dis-

, covery of documents and tangible things otherwise discov-erable under paragraph (b)(1) of this section and prepared in anticipation of or for the hearing by or for another party's representative (including his attorney, consultant, surety, in-demnitor, insurer, or agent) only upon a showing that the party seeking discovery has substantial need of the materials J in the preparation of [his] case and that he is unable without undue hardship to obtain the substantial equivalent of the materials by other means. In ordering discovery of such ma-terials when the required showing has been made, the presid-ing officer shall protect against disclosure of the mental im-pressions, conclusions, opinions, or legal theories of an 4

4/ The Intervenors do not claim that producing the documents themselves, without the names, was a waiver of the privilege. Nor could they support such a claim if they niade it. .

J

- , . _ _ _ _ _ -. _ - - - , , _ _ _ _ . , _ . _ ._______ , _ _ . _ _ _ , . . _ _ . _ . _ _ _ _ . , _ _ . , . . . . . ._..,.--w,,___. - .,

I attorney or other representative of a party concerning the proceeding.

(Emphasis added.) To obtain trial preparation materials under this provision a party must show that he has " substantial need of the materials in the preparation of his case" and that he is " unable without undue hardship to obtain the substantial equivalent of the

materials by other means." The Intervenors have not made, and cannot make, either of these showings. The issue is the monitoring capability (that is, number of monitors and amount of monitoring equipment) for reception centers for nuclear plants other than Shoreham in New York State. LILCO has supplied the names of the counties. It is-incredible - and indeed the Intervenors do not claim - that they cannot obtain infor-mation about the monitoring capabilities by other means.EI Indeed, they admit (Motion j

I to Compel at 4-5) that they have access to information about reception center j capacities.

The Intervenors' claim that they need information from LILCO is weakened still i further by (1) their continuing, though incorrect, claim that the sort of information at issue is irrelevant and (2) tre fact that the reception centers hearing has just been -

l postponed, giving them addit!nnal time to get the information from public sources.

IV. Tha Potential For Harassment Is Real r

Since the undcrlying do;uments used to prepare the written testimony have al-ready been supplied, the Intervenors' Motion to Compel apparently reduces to a mere demand for the names of the individuals from whom LILCO got its information.

i l 4

Leaving aside the untimeliness and the lack of real need for this information, an inde- l i

pendent reason for not requ'.cing it to be revealed is the very real potential for l

g/ Instead, they say (Motio. to Compel at 4) that the fact that they have no sub-stantial need is "beside the point." In light of the words of S 2.740(b)(2), it is clearly not beside the point.

4

$ j l

harassment and intimidation and for interference with LILCO's ongoing legitimate need to talk with government officials and others.

Intervenors disclaim any intent to harass. However, there is no question that -

activities by the Intervenors have contributed to LILCO's difficulties in doing emergen-cy planning6 / See the earlier-filed Affidavit of Charles A. Daverio in Support of i LILCO's Motion for Protective Order (Nov. 18,1986) (Attachment 3 to this Answer).II At one point Suffolk County even enacted an unconstitutional Local Law attempting to make it a crime to participate in an emergency planning exercise. See LILCO v.

County of Suffolk, 628 F. Supp. 654 (E.D.N.Y.1986). As another example, counsel for Suffolk County met one evening in June 1986 with an organization of Suffolk County bus drivers in an effort to induce them to refuse to cooperate with the Shoreham Plan.N I

During the course of this proceeding a number of organizations have assisted LILCO in emergency planning. But not all of the positive working relationships that l existed in the past are still intact. As is stated more fully in Attachment 3, this is in part the cumulative result of governmental opposition and harassment, sensational i

6/ Indeed, the history of LILCO's attempts to provide reception centers itself is a i

case history of just how difficult emergency planning can be when the state and local i

goverments refuse to cooperate. See, e_g., Cordaro et al., ff. Tr.14,707, at 13-14.

1/ The Daverio affidavit was attached to "LILCO's Opposition to Suffolk County's Motion for Order Compelling LILCO to Respond . . ." filed in the -05 proceeding on November 21,1986.

8/ In another example, the Suffolk County government recently gave a great deal of attention to whether a certain lease should be renewed for a bus repair garage on County property. The garage is leased by a company that supplies buses for the LILCO l

emergency plan. The County Executive apparently had the county attorney review the proposed renewal, and the County Legislature also contemplated not renewing the lease, citing the County ordinance that attempts to prohibit emergency planning for Shoreham. See Newsd_ay, January 30,1987, at 70: Newsday, February 5,1987, at 21.

The Presiding Officer of the Legislature was quoted in the newspaper as saying the bus company's participation in the plan was "an illegal device to force the licensing of

. Shoreham upon us." Newsday, January 30,1987, at 70.

_- - - - - - , _ - - -.n - , - , .-,

. , , ,. . . , - - , _ _ . - . . - , . , , . , , . . , , . . , _ . . , n.- . , . , -w . - . , , ..-...s-

reporting in the media, and efforts deliberately designed to intimidate individuals or groups from participating in the Shoreham plan or to induce them to withdraw from co-operation.

One example is the Nassau Coliseum. As recently as the winter of 1985-86 LILCO enjoyed a good wcrking relationship with that facility, but af ter the FEMA exer- ,

cise on February 13, 1986, the Nassau County Board of Supervisors, in response to pres-sure from groups opposed to the operation of Shoreham including representatives of New York State and Suffolk County, enacted an ordinance prohibiting the use of the Coliseum in connection with the Shoreham Plan. Resolution No. 782, Nassau County Board of Supervisors (June 16,1986).W Also, representatives, or persons posing as representatives, of various private or-ganizations on Long Island have undertaken further efforts to destroy the relationships developed by LILCO to implement the Shoreham offsite plan. As is attested to by the Daverio Affidavit,113, the Coalition for Safe Living, a group based in Nassau County, has claimed credit for the events involving the Nassau Coliseum and radio station WALK, and has as its avowed intent to attempt to damage or destroy other organiza-tional affiliations with LERO and the Shoreham offsite emergency plan. As is further attested to by the Daverio Affidavit,114, reports provided to LILCO indicate that per-sons purporting to be representatives of various educational or health-care associations have telephoned representatives of various organizations affiliated with the Shoreham i offsite plan and attempted to induce them to withdraw publicly from further 9/ Similarly, in February this year Newsday reported:

Next week, Richard Kessel, head of the state Consumer Pro- l tection Board and a Democrat, intends to appear before the GOP-controlled (Nassau County] Board of Supervisors to press for additional county moves against Shoreham.

Newsday, February 20,1987, at 7.

cooperation with LILCO. At least one of these persons inaccurately represented, as i

part of this invitation, that another named organization had already withdrawn from such cooperation.

Once the names of individuals are revealed, nothing prevents outsiders, not con-trolled by the Intervenors but in sympathy with them, from applying pressure. More-over, one does not have to agree with the words " harass" or " intimidate" to recognize that a mere phone call from the State of New York, whose opposition to Shoreham is well known, can have a decided chastening effect.E!

It is also obvious that LILCO has a legitimate and substantial need to be able to talk to people, including governmental officials,EI in order to obtain information about emergency planning. This is particularly the case since LILCO is the one that has had to take responsibility for emergency planning because of the Intervenors' refusal to. It is just as obvious that people who receive inquiries from LILCO will not want to answer them once they know their names may be dragged into the Shoreham controversy.

There is precedent in this case for protecting the identities of individuals, and even other entities, from disclosure. For example, during cross-examination on the M/ As an example of what can happen, see Attachment 2 to this Answer, a letter ,

that, as far as LILCO can tell, was never answered.

i 11/ In its April 3,1987 letter to Suffolk County counsel, LILCO indicated that its reasons for redacting the names of individuals in Mr. Watts' report were the same as in its response to the Intervenors' Interrogatory No.12 in "LILCO's Response and Objec-tions," particularly the ground that disclosure might subject individuals to harassment 1 and intimidation. In addition to harassment and intimidation "LILCO's Response and {

Objections" included the grounds that disclosure might have a chilling effect on routine communications LILCO may need to make to ensure the safety of Shoreham or to 1 j

conduct its ordinary business operations on Long Island. Dis- )

closure would also interfere with LILCO's First Amendment I rights to freedom of speech and to petition its government for redress of grievances.

See Attachment 1, at 11.

e

. ] reception center issues in 1984 Suffolk County attempted to obtain the names of the fa-cilities with which LILCO and the Red Cross were negotiating for use as a reception center. The Board declined to require LILCO witnesses to name the facilities. Tr.

14,806,07. See also Tr. 9674 (Board allows names of individual LERO trainees to be

) redacted).

l In light of the fact that the Intervenors have no real need for the names of the l Individuals, this likelihood of harassment, intimidation, or pressure (whatever one chooses to callit) clearly weighs in favor of nondisclosure.

i V. The Impell 14ecort Is Also Not Discoverable In the Motion to Compel and the County's April 2 letter the Intervenors do not 4 request the document underlying the second part of the answer in LILCO's testimony (which begins "[a]f ter this information was gathered"). Nevertheless, LILCO addresses l

that document now, in case the Intervenors later claim that it was included within the scope of the Motion to Compel.MI i The basis of the second part of testimony is a report prepared by Impell, a con-I sultant to LILCO, dated March 13,1987.E Its expected arrival was revealed to the i

12/ LILCO is pretty certain the Motion to Compel does not ask for the Impell Report i because the Report is never mentioned. Since LILCO told the Intervenors the title and  ;

i date of the Report on March 17 (see Attachment 4), surely the Intervenors would have mentioned it by name in the Motion to Compel if they had wanted it.

i 1_3/ Recently the -05 Board declined to order LILCO to produce a similar report. The i report there was also by Impell and also relied on public information, namely FEMA post-exercise reports. The Board ruled as follows:

We agree with LILCO that further answers to these questions are not required. LILCO has identified the infor-mation on which it intends to rely. There is no requirement that it further identify for intervenors the facts it deems relevant or important within that body of information.

Memorandum and Order (Feb. 3,1987), at 2 (-05 proceeding). ,

1 l 4

I

~ . , _ . - -_ , - _._. . . _ _ . _ _ _ . - , , _.- --. _ - . _ _

Intervenors during a deposition of Mr. Daverio on March 13, 1987. The County asked i for the document on that date, and LILCO counsel advised that it would probably be withheld as work product. Transcript of Deposition of Charles A..Daverio, March 13, 1987, at 135. On March 17 LILCO notified the County that the report was work product and said that it would let Suffolk County know by the end of the week whether it would i

nevertheless be produced (Attachment 4 to this Answer). By letter telecopied to l.

Suffolk County on March 20,1987, LILCO notified Suffolk County that LILCO would not produce the document (Attachment 5 to this Answer). Hence the refusal to produce the I

document was on March 20,1987. The 10-day period of 10 C.F.R. S 2.740(f)(1) expired on March 30,1987. Thus the County's Motion to Compel of April 13 would be untimely if it asked for the Impell Report.N Moreover, the Impell Report relies on publicly available information. Impell went to four FEMA regional offices and reviewed state and local governmental ra-diological emergency plans and FEMA post exercise assessment reports for 40 exer-cises. Impell also talked to several people (six or fewer, according to the Report) in the

. FEMA offices. Suffolk County and the state of New York are able to do the same with-out undue hardship.

Finally, the Impell Report was used for written testimony only to justify the j statement " publicly available documents do not provide enough information to deter-

mine monitoring capabilities" (LILCO Testimony at 12). There is -no need for the i

14/ In an analogous situation the -05 Board denied a County motion to strike testimo-ny or to provide additional discovery. In preparation of its written testimony on Con-tention EX 50 in the -05 exercise litigation LILCO had prepared a " content analysis."

, The Intervenors asked for the document during a deposition on January 20, 1987.

LILCO objected, because the content analysis was work product, on February 9,1987.

i LILCO filed its written testimony, and the County moved to strike part of the testimo-

, ny about the content analysis or to have further discovery. (By this time LILCO had ,

voluntarily provided the content analysis.) The Board denied further discovery on '

grounds of untimeliness. Memorandum and Order (Ruling on Suffolk County's Motion to I Strike Portions of LILCO's Testimony on Contention EX 50), at 4 (Apr. 3,1987).

?

\ .. , - - . ,- _- ,,. _ - . . , - - . . - , - , , , . _ -- ~ . - , - , ,-,. . - . . .

Intervenors to have LILCO's trial preparation materials to rebut this statement, if in-formation to rebut it exists.

VI. Protective Order Since the Intervenors' Motion to Compel is untimely, LILCO does not believe a protective order is required -- merely a denial of the Motion to Compel. In the alterna-tive, however, LILCO asks for a protective order pursuant to 10 C.F.R. S 2.740(c). That section provides as follows:

(c) Protective order. Upon motion by a party or from whom discovery is sought, and for good cause shown, the presiding officer may make any order which justice requires to protect a party or person from annoyance, embarrassment, oppression, or undue burden or expense, including one or more of the following: (1) that the discovery not be had; (2) that the discovery may be had only on specified terms and condi-tions, . . . (4) that certain matters not be inquired into, or that the scope of discovery be limited to certain mat-ters; . . . .

In light of the real possibility of harassment and chilling of LILCO's ability to talk to outsiders about emergency planning, LILCO should not have to reveal the identities of the people f rom whom it got information.

i i

Respectfully submitted, l -

h. Y

ames N. Christman i Hunton & Williams I 707 East Main Street P.O. Box 1535

• I Richmond, Virginia 23212 '

DATED: April 23.1987 l

Attachm:nt.1 LILCO, February 4,1987  !

1 UNITED STATES OF AMERICA - l NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSION l l

Before the Atomic Safety and Licensing Board In the Matter of )

)

LONG ISLAND LIGHTING COMPANY ) Docket No. 50-322-OL-3

) (Emergency Planning)

(Shoreham Nuclear Power Station. )

Unit 1) )

LILCO'S RESPONSES AND OBJECTIONS TO INTERVENORS' FIRST SET OF INTERROGATORIES AND REQUEST FOR PRODUCTION OF DOCUMENTS REGARDING RECEPTION CENTER ISSUES DATED JANUARY 21,1987 LILCO hereby responds to the "Suffolk County, State of New York and Town of Southampton's Interrogatories and Request for Production of Documents to LILCO Re-garding Reception Center Issues," dated January 21,1987.

I. GENERAL ANSWERS AND OBJECTIONS TO ALL INTERROGATORIES, DEFINITIONS AND INSTRUCTIONS A.

All documents referenced in these answers which are not enclosed will be provided within the 30-day production period (that is, by February 20,1987) to the ex-1 tent LILCO does not object to their production. In some instances, LILCO may make  !

i

, the documents available for inspection at LILCO's place of business within the 30-day l

production period. t

, l B. LILCO continues to object to that portion of Suffolk County's definition j

V.(4) which seeks to include the " medical drill" held on February 9,1986 in the exercise  !

l litigation, though the objection is not relevant to these responses.

4 i

C. LILCO continues to object to Paragraph L of Suffolk County's Definitions  !

and Instructions on the ground that disclosure of such information would constitute an  ;

1 invasion of privacy of those individuals, which may subject them to harassment and i intimidation, l l

i

__ . . . . _ - _ ~ -

Response

Already identified in response to other interrogatories.

Intervenors'Interroratory No.12 Identify all communications between LILCO and any governmental bodies con-cerning LILCO's use of the Hicksville, Bellmore, and Roslyn Operations Centers as ception centers. Provide all documents concerning such communications.

Response

Letters from the Towns of Hempstead and North Hempstead are already in the possession of the Intervenors; likewise a letter of January 8,1987 yn from the Ros Water District Board of Commissioners. All correspondence with FEMA and the ,

namely Rovision 8 of the emergency plan and its cover letter, is also in the Interve hands.

GCG objects to the disclosure of oral communications with individual govern ment ottien2 c employees on the ground that disclosure might subject the individua to harassment and intimidation and have a chilling effeet on aroutine ons communic ti LILCO may need to make to ensure the safety of Shoreham or to condu business operations on Long Island. Disclosure would also rinterfere with LILC Amendment rights to freedom of speech and to petition its government ess of for redr grievances.

Intervenors' Interrogatory No.13 Identify by date and location any drills or exercises held at LILCO's recepti centers to determine their adequacy or the adequacy of LILCO's procedures for mo toring and handling evacuees at the reception centers.

ResDonse: None.

l l

Interve30rs' Interroratory No.14 the use of the Bellmore, Hicksville, and Roslyn ters. Provide all documents concerning such communications en-Operatio

_ Response:

Revision 8 of the emergency plan and the coverletter thereto. See the ob-jection in the response to Interrogatory No.13 above.

~12-t IntervenorhInterroratory No.15 Identify any documents concerning the management or treatment of vehicle traffic in and around the reception centers. Provide all documents identified in re-sponse to this interrogatory.

Response: The principal document is " Capacity Analysis of Highways in the Vicinity of l

Reception Centers for Evacuees from within the Shoreham Station Emergency Planning Zone," by KLD Associates, Inc., dated September 26,1986.

The following documents are in the custody of Edward Lieberman at KLD Associ-ates, Inc.:

1.

Correspondence between KLD and ATI,15 Park Row, New York City, the company that collected traffic data for the KLD study identified above.

2. Documents containing information on traffic signal timing and sketches of key intersections and places on streets leading to the three reception cen-l ters. .

3. Computer print-outs (perhaps 100 pages) showing traffic counts.

4. Memorandum from Jeff Sobotka of LERIO containing informo tion about the flow of traffic within each reception center, including sketches for each reception center.

5. Hand calculations of traffic volumes (perhaps 300 pages).

These documents will be made available to Intervenors by February 20,1987.

III. PRIVILEGED DOCUMENTS The following documents are privileged under both the attorney-client privilege and the work product doctrine:

1. Memorandum of January 16,1987 from LILCO counsel (James N.

Christman) to LILCO emergency planning personnel and lawyers (Robinson, Daverio, Crocker, Aidikoff, McCaff rey, Weismantle, Irwin, and McCleskey) regarding preparation for hearing, witness identification, and issues for hearing.

2.

Draf t of LILCO's testimony questions on reception centers, dated January-23,1987, prepared by counsel (Christman) af ter consultation with witness-es. >

3.

Memorandum of December 17,1986 by members of LILCO Legal Depart-ment (Anthony F. Earley, Jr., and Warren S. A rthur) to Ira L. Freilicher, a LILCO vice president, about legal issues regarding the reception centers.

4 4.

Memorandum of January 26,1987, from LILCO's General Counsel (Anthony I

F. Earley, Jr.) to LILCO's Chairman of the Board regarding LILCO's re-sponse to inquiries regarding the three reception centers.

The following documents are privileged under the work product doctrine:

5. Report prepared by Richard Watts for Douglas Crocker, dated September 16,1986, on capacities of relocation centers for plants other than l Shoreham.

6. Memorandum of November 10,1986, from Brant Aidikoff to legal counsel (Lee Zeugin) regarding monitoring capacities for plants other than l

Shoreham.

7.

Undated memorandum by Brant Aidikoff on revised reception center plan-ning basis, prepared for meeting with counsel. Copies in custody of Brant Aidikoff, Charles Daverio. Douglas Crocker, Richard Watts, and Lee Zeugin.

IV. OBJECTIONS STATED BY COUNSEL All objections and references to objections are stated by counsel.

Respectfully submitted,

h. ?J James N. Christman Hunton & Williams 707 East Main Street P.O. Box 1535 Richmond,. Virginia 23212 DATED: February 4,1987 l

I l

Attachment 2 Huwrow & WILLI Aus 707 EAs? MAIN sTRer? P. o. Box 1535

[d x.

wAsaiN oro N. o. C. Rrenwown.VrmonwrA saata ens =o 24566.000003 N ew Yon M. New YORM o, arc' Los ANotLts,CALeromheA Ta t e rn o w t 804-78J 8200 o ao ==* 'a=-8 701 R Attio M. NomTN C AR O LIN A No n roL M. Vs Ro t NI A K N Ox ylLL E. Tc N N E S S t t March 26, 1984 BY TELECOPIER Karla J. Letsche, Esq.

Kirkpatrick, Lockhart, Hill, Christopher & Phillips Eighth Floor 1900 M Street, N.W.

Washington, D.C. 20036

Dear Tip:

It has come to LILCO's attention that someone identi-hg fled only as a " female attorney" representing Suffolk County recently called the nuns at St. Joseph's College in Patchogue and questioned them sharply regarding their involvement in the emergency plan for Shoreham. I would be grateful if you would determine.who the female attorney is and list the dates, per-sons spoken to and key items of her discussion with St.

, Joseph's regarding the emergency plan for Shoreham. If that t

individual called and questioned persons from any other facili-ties or organizations about their involvement in the LILCO Plan, please include information regarding those contacts as well.

Yours very truly, f

Kathy E. B. McCleskey l

l l

O

Attachment 3

. LILCO, November 18, 1986 UNITED STATES OF AMERICA NUCLEAR REGULATORY CCMMISSION Before the Atomic Safety and Licensinc Board In the Matter of )

)

LONG ISLAND LIGHTING COMPANY ) Docket No. 50-322-OL-3

) (Emergency Planning (Shoreham Nuclear Power Station, ) Proceeding)

Unit 1) )

i AFFIDAVIT OF CHARLES A. DAVERIO IN SUPPORT OF LILCO'S MOTION FOR PROTECTIVE ORDER Charles A. Daverio, being duly sworn, deposes and says as follows:

1. I am employed by Long Island Lighting Company ("LILCO")

as Assistant Department Manager, Nuclear Operations Support Department. My professional qualifications are bound into the record of this proceeding following Tab 6 at Tr. 4068. I have personal knowledge of the facts recited in this affidavit because I have supervised or been involved in LILCO's emergency prepared-ness effort for Shoreham Nuclear Power Station since January 1980.

2. Those activities have included oversight of the Local Emergency Response Organization (LERO) and negotiations with out-side organizations who assist LILCO in implementing its Emergency Plan (the Plan).

_2-

3. Since 1982, controversy surrounding the operating

' license proceedings for Shoreham has created an increasingly hos-tile and bitter environment in which LERO vorkers and other indi-viduals associated with outside organizations who assist in the i

implementation of the Plan must work and live.

4. In addition to the governmental intervenors in this proceeding numerous Long Island private groups, including the i Shoreham Opponents' Coalition for Safe Living, People's Action Coalition, and Parents Opposed to Shoreham have opposed and con-tinue to oppose the licensing of Shoreham. Part of their opposi-tion efforts have included distribution of inaccurate and inflam-matory propaganda, and telephone and other contacts with outside organizations to coerce or otherwise induce them into severing all ties with LILCO.

5. State, County and local officials have also voiced a

strong opposition to the Shoreham plant and its emergency plan.

The opposition of Governcr Mario Cuomo and Suffolk County Execu-tive Peter Cohalan is well known. They are parties to this pro-

.ceeding. Other local officials such as Hempstead Presiding Supervisor Thomas Gulotta have recently been quoted as opposing Shoreham's operation. (See attached articles from Newsdav, "Hempstead Fights Use of LILCO Site in Shoreham Plan," dated November 15, 1986, and frcm the New York Times, " Town Fights LILCO Evacuation Center," dated November 15, 1986.

6. As a result of this virulent opposition to.the Shoreham

plant on the part of these citizen groups, politicians and i

i I

others, many organizations which once assisted in the imple-mentation of the Plan have withdrawn. (See attached articles from Newsdav, "Hempstead Fights Use of LILCO Site in Shoreham Plan," dated November 15, 1986, and from the New York Times,

" Town Fights LILCO Evacuation Center," dated November 15, 1986.

7. The withdrawal of organizations from participation in the Plan has accelerated since the February 13, 1986 FEMA graded Ex~ercise as detailed below.

8. In May and June of this year a local group called Par-ents opposed to Shoreham Evacuation solicited signatures from Suffolk County school bus drivers to signify their agreement with the following statements:

"l) I will not participate in implementing any LILCO emergency plan for Shcreham, and

2) I cannot and vill not agree to drive a school bus in the event of an accident at Shoreham."

A copy of this petition is attached to this affidavit.

9. Since the Exercise the Nassau Coliseum, which had served as the reception center for evacuees in case of a site emergency, was prohibited from participating in the Plan by a Nassau County ordinance dated June 16, 1986. A copy of the ordinance is attached to this affidavit.

10. Supervisor Th'omas Gulotta's remarks on the Nassau County ordinance attest to the continuing nature of this hostile political climate:

"The resolution on the calendar today does not preclude this Board (of Supervisors] from taking further

r. .

_4_

steps with regard to this issue (whether Shoreham should receive an operating license] in the future." Enactment of this ordi-nance was actively political and supported by the Coalition for Safe Living. A copy of these remarks is attached.

11. By letter dated August 13, 1986, Alan S. Beck, Presi-dent and General Manager, WALK Radio, informed Ira Freilicher, Vice-President, LILCO, that WALK Radio had withdrawn from partic-ipation in the Plan. A copy of this letter is already in the record of this proceeding.

12. By letter dated September 2, 1986, Oak Hollow Nursing Home withdrev from further participation in the Plan until such time as Shoreham receives an operating license. A copy of that letter is attached to this affidavit.

13. A recent Nevsdav article, dated November 13, 1986 and attached to this affidavit, documents the efforts of a local group, Coalition for Safe Living (CSL), to induce cutside organi-zations either to refuse to participate in the emergency plan or withdraw from participation. The article quotes a spokesman for the group, Jeffrey Newman, as taking credit for withdrawal of the l

Nassau County Coliseum and radio station WALK, and announces the group's intentions with respect to other organizations, j l

14. LILCO has verified by telephone survey that within the last three weeks various LERO contractors have been contacted by individuals soliciting the contractors' withdrawal from partici-pation in the Emergency Plan. These individuals have identified themselves as members of an unspecified " Nurses' Association" and 1:

yy - - - - - - - --

y y---e-*ye

unspecified " Teachers' Associations." One caller, self-identified as a member of the " Nursing Association," inaccurately stated that another contractor had withdrawn from participation in the Plan and urged the recipient of the call to do the same.

15. Faced with Suffolk. County's refusal to participate in the Plan, the assistance of other organizations beyond LILCO and the existence of LERO are critical to implementation of LILCO's Plan which protects the health and safety of Long Island resi-dents.

16. In my opinion, identifying by name individuals associ-ated with outside organizations who assist in the Plan is an un-necessary invasion of privacy which will result in further intim-idation of these individuals and the organizations with which they are associated. In the past identification has seriously impaired LILCO's ability to secure and retain the cooperation of such organizations in implementing its emergency plan. It requires LILCO to expend enormous financial and staff resources to secure substitute organizations. These are resources which should be directed to protection of public health and safety instead of to repairing the damage done to good working relation-ships by outside political pressure.

l 17 Recent events show that such harassment and intimida-tions has increased since the February 13, 1986 Exercise and will continue for the foreseeable future.

l 1

-5

+ &

The foregoing facts are known by me to be true, of my own kncvledge. I am competent to testify to such facts, and would so testify if I appeared as a witness in a public hearing on this matter. , ,

/ '

/ s/ - - e=

(

s

./ <

</t/. f, /U -

[ Signature]

Subscribed and sworn to before me on Yru w k;/8, 19_2fo D hk O r Y

( S y g n a t u r e a n d t i(z l e ] X , A }

, U w&Q 1- lh /4SE,'

i l

l 1

I

Attachmtnt 4 i

Huwrow & WILLIAus 707 EAsr Mew Stactr P.O. Box #53 5 aooo at==syswa= a ave =us. = = Rscuwoxn. Vsmoxx A 20212 .ao .. .ws we e o aosinaso =tw vo==, =ew woma eco.,

was =oro=.o e aco3e essen o=g a.: so e . coo testa =oataoaess.sco TcLepwoNE 804 788 S200 ' rut =*asseo aw=r w r,mst v.mo,=.. sa== eo.s= TELEX 6844251 o=c ..== oven sov.ac

• o som sees = o so n *o s w o #*0 64. vemo maa a3s's male'G=. =omf** CAmobi=4 a*eca vtwa*=o=r so4 eas-ssoe essa *=ons e.o eso sooo

,..s , .==tas . e. . mo.m.

3aso cm..=.......o^o March 17, 1987 o =o = * *

= o son 47 ==onv.66t. ta==s s s' e t stoc.

...ma.m. vino.=,4 rac 3 0 estrawo=t eis e 3 7 4 3..

TELEP=o=E to3 ass azoo DimECT osas a o ao4 tee FEDERAL EXPRESS Christopher M. McMurray, Esq.

Kirkpatrick & Lockhart South Lobby - 9th Floor 1800 M Street, N.W.

Washington, D.C. 20036-5891

Dear Chris:

I am trying to finish up some odds and ends left over from discovery. Here is what I've found.

1. You've asked for specifications of the collapsible storage tanks. They are attached. These specifications may have been provided to you previously, but I have not had time to veri-fy that.

2. You've asked about the analyses or data that Dennis Mileti said he was considering. We are still considering. No data have been collected, and no analysis done.

3. You've asked about the KLD reanalysis of traffic is-sues. The reanalysis is in progress this week. There is no re-port, draft or otherwise, and there will not be until the analy-sis has been done. It looks to me as though the reanalysis will be done just in time to include it in our testimony, but not much before.

4. You've asked about the information Chuck Daverio men-tioned in his deposition last Friday. I have received a copy of that report today. It is a March 13, 1987, report prepared by the Impell Corporation called " Review of Radiation Moni-I toring/ Decontamination Capabilities for the General Public in Ra-diological Emergency Plans." It is " work product" in the classic ,

senso, since it was prepared solely for litigation and at the re- 1 quest of the lawyers. Moreover, the information was gathered j from public sources which I believe anyone could tap if he were to take the trouble to do it. I shall simply have to make a judgment as to whether we are willing to turn this document over a

i H UNTON Oc WILLI AM S Christopher M. McMurray, Esq.

March 17, 1987 Page 2 to you notwithstanding the fact that it is work product. I will either provide it, or let you know otherwise, by the end of this week.

i

5. Finally, you have asked for certain work of Mike Lindell. As you know, some of this material was provided at his deposition. Other material is packed away in boxes in Seattle and will be hard to find. An additional problem is that Mike Lindell, who I believe is in Atlanta at present, has been away from his phone, and I have not been able to reach him; however, I will keep trying.

Yours very truly, 0 ___

n )

James N. Christman 126/6205

Attachment:

5 pages of tank specs (with certain commercial information deleted) i d

e Attachm:nt 5 HUNTON & WILLIAMS 707 EAST MAIN staccr P. O. Bo x 153 5 aoco pe==svtvaasia avr=ws. =

• Ricxxown. VamorwrA 20212 soo .ma- av e v.

p o ooxisaso =r* vo==. arw vo=a .ooer sves=8=oTose, o C. aco3e TELEp=*o=E ai2 309 tooo TELE ** ows aoa-ess asco TELEPHONE 804 788 + S200 is6tx 444s4e =v=t un riast vino,=ia mann vowen TELEX 6844251 ons ====ovra sowanc e o som sees e o som toe mourota. vino. .a assi4 a*Laio=. = car

• camotina a'soa Tatt*=o=c so4-eas ssoi tatap=o=s eso see sooo reast vt==ssste sa== ev Loimo aoso c=aiw an,oo.no^=

March 20, 1987 a o ao= = =

• o somsier ==o=vissa. Tc==Es s't a 3 7eos raiarax. vimoimia aroao tats o=c sin es? asse trota=onc fos asa azoo rios no o.accvointno so4 Fee.

BY TELECOPIER Christopher M. McMurray, Esq.

Kirkpatrick & Lockhart South Lobby - 9th Floor 1800 M Street, N.W.

Washington, D.C. 20036-5891 Reception Centers Discovery

Dear Chris:

LILCO will not voluntarily produce for you the Impell report I mentioned in my letter of March 17, 1987. It is, as I said, work product. Indeed, I believe a similar report has been treated as work pt:doct in the -05 proceeding.

I should say that I plan to reconsider the decision not to produce this document -ith some of my witnesses over the week-end. But in decidinc your actions you should not assume that the decision will change.

On other mattars, Mike Lindell is going to Seattle tomorrow and will attempt to produce the Longview opinion survey informa-tion. The process may be complicated by the form of the data, which I gather requires a particular computer program to read.

Nevertheless, I believe we will be able to provide the informa-tion.

LILCO is gathering for you the information about the number of security personnel at the reception centers.

Yours very truly,

. ,/)

/J'ames N. Christman

/

126/6205

LILCO, April 23,1987 00LKETEE

.U$NRC 1

'87 APR 27 All :09 CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE OFFICE OF 5U.buAe 00 CME fiNG !. WVlCE BRANCH In the Matter of i LONG ISLAND LIGHTING COMPANY (Shoreham Nuclear Power Station, Unit 1)

Docket No. 50-322-OL-3 i I hereby certify that copies of LILCO'S ANSWER OPPOSING INTERVENORS' MO- -

TION TO COMPEL OF APRIL 13,1987 were served this date upon the following by hand or telecopier as indicated by one asterisk, by Federal Express as indicated by two aster--

isks, or by first-class mail, postage prepaid.

j Morton B. Margulies, Chairman

• Atomic Safety and Licensing Atomic Safety and Licensing Appeal Board Panel Board U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission Washington, D.C. 20555

East-West Towers, Rm. 407 4350 East-West Hwy. Atomic Safety and Licensing l Bethesda, MD 20814 Board Panel U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission Dr. Jerry R. Kline

• Washington, D.C. 20555 t

Atomic Safety and Licensing Board Richard G. Bachmann, Esq.

• U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission George E. Johnson, Esq.

4 East-West Towers, Rm. 427 U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission

4350 East-West Hwy. 7735 Old Georgetown Road Bethesda, MD 20814 (to mailroom)

Bethesda, MD 20814 i Mr. Frederick J. Shon **

Atomic Safety and Licensing Herbert H. Brown, Esq. *

.i Board Lawrence Coe Lanpher, Esq.

, U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission Karla J. Letsche, Esq.

t East-West Towers, Rm. 430 Kirkpatrick & Lockhart 4350 East-West Hwy. South Lobby - 9th Floor Bethesda, MD 20814 1800 M Street, N.W.

, Washington, D.C. 20036-5891 '

i Secretary of the Commission Attention Docketing and Service Fabian G. Palomino, Esq.

• j Section Richard J. Zahnleuter, Esq.

' U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission Special Counsel to the Governor 1717 H Street, N.W. Executive Chamber Washington, D.C. 20555 Room 229

State Capitol Albany, New York 12224 i

. )

j '

. Mary Gundrum, Esq. Jonathan D.~ Feinberg, Esq.

Assistant Attorney General New York State Department of i

120 Broadway Public Service, Staff Counsel Third Floor, Room 3-116 Three Rockefeller Plaza New York, New York 10271 Albany, New York 12223 i

Spence W. Perry, Esq.

• Ms. Nora Bredes l William R. Cumming, Esq. Executive Coordinator l Federal Emergency Management Shoreham Opponents' Coalition i

Agency 195 East Main Street 500 C Street, S.W., Room 840 Smithtown, New York 11787 1

Washington, D.C. 20472 f Gerald C. Crotty, Esq.

! Mr. Jay Dunkleberger Counsel to the Governor i New York State Energy Office Executive Chamber j Agency Building 2 State Capitol i 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 i Mr. Philip McIntire Dr. Monroe Schneider

Federal Emergency Management North Shore Committee

] Agency P.O. Box 231 i 26 Federal Plaza Wading River, NY 11792 l New York, New York 10278 ,

i I

b. tfd M James N. Chdstman 4

l Hunton & Williams 707 East Main Street P.O. Box 1535 j Richmond, Virginia 23212

] DATED: April 23,1987

! l h

. _ _ . . . , _ . _ . _ . . _ . . _ _ _ , _ _ _ _ . _ , _ . . . _ . . _ . , _ _ . . _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ . . . . _ , _ , _ _ . ~ _ _ . . _ _ . _ . . . _ . . _ , - _ . , ,, .- _ --