ML20212L122
| ML20212L122 | |
| Person / Time | |
|---|---|
| Site: | Shoreham File:Long Island Lighting Company icon.png |
| Issue date: | 01/21/1987 |
| From: | Matchett S HUNTON & WILLIAMS, LONG ISLAND LIGHTING CO. |
| To: | Atomic Safety and Licensing Board Panel |
| Shared Package | |
| ML20212L105 | List: |
| References | |
| OL-5, NUDOCS 8701290325 | |
| Download: ML20212L122 (13) | |
Text
P 4
LILCO, January 21,1987 g
h 1
UNITED STATES OF AMERICA DOCKETED NC NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSION
'87 JAN 27 P3 :01 Before the Atomic Safety and Licensinst Board CFF 30Cr In the Matter of
)
)
LONG ISLAND LIGHTING COMPANY
) Docket No. 50-322-OL-5
) (EP Exercise)
(Shoreham Nuclear Power Station,
)
Unit 1)
)
LILCO'S REPLY TO RESPONSE OF SUFFOLK COUNTY ET AL. IN OPPOSITION TO LILCO'S MOTION TO COMPEL ANSWERS TO LILCO'S FIRST REQUEST FOR ADMISSIONS Intervenors filed their Response in Opposition to LILCO's Motion to Compel
- Suffolk County, the State of New York, and the Town of Southampton to Respond to LILCO's First Request for Admissions and Third Set of Interrogatories (hereinaf ter "Op-position") on January 15, 1987. This is LILCO's reply tc that Opposition.M I. Introduction In their December 22 response to LILCO's request for admissions, Intervenors
~
claimed that they were " unable" to respond for several reasons.E mong those reasons A
were the assertions that (1) the timeline was too voluminous; (2) some of the entries in the timeline are summaries of the actual messages or logs, and Intervenors cannot agree to the characterizations in the summaries; and (3) Intervenors cannot admit or deny whether the events occurred at the times indicated because some of those events were simulated. Response at 3. Since LILCO deemed Intervenors' response inadequate and improper, it filed a motion to compel a more complete response on January 5,1987.
1/
The procedural antecedents in this dispute are set out in LILCO's Motion to Com-pel (January 5,1987) at pp.1-3.
2/
Nowhere did they assert or suggest that they had ever attempted to respond.
They merely admitted a few basic f acts and then declined to respond further.
l g12pg0cS 32 P R G
F
+
. -(
~
Intervenors filed their Opposition to LILCO's motion to compel on January 15, 1987. In that Opposition, Intervenors renew their claim that they cannot respond fur-ther and that they have already responded as fully and adequately as possible. Opposi-tion at 1, 4.
-However, this time Intervenors base their response in part on a pur-
. ported 5 hour5.787037e-5 days <br />0.00139 hours <br />8.267196e-6 weeks <br />1.9025e-6 months <br /> attempt to respond to specific timeline entries. Because of the alleged difficulty encountered during that 5 hour5.787037e-5 days <br />0.00139 hours <br />8.267196e-6 weeks <br />1.9025e-6 months <br /> period, Intervenors have refused to file the kind of specific admissions or denials that 10 CFR S 2.742(b) contemplates. In short,In -
tervenors refuse to respond specifically to LILCO's request for admissions not because they are unable to so respond, but because they are unwilling to do so.
Such unwillingness should not excuse Intervenors from filing an appropriate response to LILCO's request.
f Nor should Intervenors' self-congratulatory descriptions of,their other efforts undertaken allegedly to " streamline" this case cloud the Board's vision and excuse Inter--
~
venors from responding to LILCO's requests for admissions. Instead of providing the specific, substantive responses to the admission requests that LILCO seeks and to which l
l LILCO is entitled under the rules, Intervenors think it enough that they have admitted a few general matters concerning the Exercise timeline,M appeared to be open to 3/
Intervenors expand on the three arguments mentioned in their December 22 Re-sponse and add at least one new argument. That argument is that Intervenors can nei-ther admit nor deny the accuracy of LILCO's timeline because "the number and location of Government observers during the Exercise were severely limited" and those observ-ers "were not privy to the numerous discussions that make up much of the message forms and logs upon which the timeline supposedly relles." Opposition at 6. LILCO ad-dresses this argument infra.
g Intervenors dutifully report that they have admitted the following:
I l
1.
The Exercise documents "were in f act prepared by the LERO players indicated on such documents during the Exercise";
2.
"The notations contained in (the Exercise documents] were made at approximately the times indicated on the docu-(footnote continued)
Y stipulation on Exercise documents and other matters, and filed their own set of lengthy admission requests (Opposition at 8-11). But those efforts are not adequate substitutes for proper responses.
II. Discussion Intervenors make three principal arguments in their Opposition to LILCO's mo-tion to compel. Two are new or partly new; the third is repetitive of an argument men-tioned in Intervenors' December 22 Response. LILCO will respond to each seriatim.
A.
Intervenors Are Able to Admit or Deny the Accuracy of the Timeline Intervenors assert that they can neither admit nor deny the accuracy of the timeline, for two reasons. First, Intervenors claim that they lack personal knowledge of the facts because their opportunity to observe Exercise events was unduly restricted and because their observers "were not privy to the numerous discussions" that form the bases for many of the message forms and logs. Opposition at 12. Second, Intervenors claim they can neither admit nor deny any timeline entries because some events were simulated, and Intervenors do not know which events were "real" and which were "sim-ulated." Id at 13. Both arguments are unpersuasive.
2 First, Intervenors were given (and took advantage of the) ample opportunity to observe the Exercise. At least 18 observers from Intervenors' ranks were present at (footnote continued) ments;"
3.
The Exercise documenn "are a complete set of documents generated during the Exercise," and 1
4.
Other tMn the Exercise documents, "there are no other doc-uments generated by LERO players during the Exercise re-flecting events that occurred during the Exercise."
Opposition at 9.
l l
various LERO and LILCO facilities on the day of the Exercise; in many instances there were two or more observers at one location.5 Intervenors were permitted to observe the Exercise to a greater degree than has been allowed at any other exercise at any other nuclear plani. They cannot be heard to complain now that their ability to ob-serve Exercise events was unfairly limited.
It is true that Intervenors' observers were somewhat limited as to where they could roam within some facilities. Those limitations were necessary give,n the large number of observers present from both sides, the large number of LERO personnel re-sponding during the Exercise, and the importance of not interfering with player perfor-mance. Such reasonable time and place restrictions are used at every other exercise and are justifiable given the importance of the FEMA graded exercise to a utility's 11-cense application.
Intervenors complain that their observers "were not permitted during the Exer-cise to speak to any of the LILCO players or to get close enough to review at that time log entries or messages which were prepared." Opposition at 12. But it is not at all clear what more - if anything - Intervenors would have learned had they been permit-ted to speak to players and watch players writing in their logs.EI This is all the more true because Intervenors have been provided with every player log ahd every message o
form produced during the Exercise.2! It matters nok t5at Intervenors' observers did not 6
i-1/
Intervenors' personnel were present at the h0C, EOF, ENC, SSO, all three staging areas, the reception center, and all field locations.
'3 g/
For one thing, the players probably would not'have spoken to Intervenors' ob-servers during the Exercise because the players were busy doing their jobs - i.ep re-sponding to a (simulated) Shoreham accident. For the same reason, the players did not speak to other observers; indeed, LILCO's observers sere instructed not to speak with LERO players in order not to interfere with player response. Second, in many cases key players did not write in their own logs. They had administrative assistants (secretaries) keeping those logs. Intervenors' suggestion that they should have been permitted to ob-l serve secretaries keeping logs is ridiculous and would have produced no benefit.
l I/
Intervenors have admitted that the Exercise documents in their possession are a l
complete set of documents generated during the Exercise. Opposition at 9.
s t
s.
w 1 o actually watch every message being written or every log entry being recorded.
Second, Intervenors' continuing refusal to reckon with the events of the Exercise I constitutes nothing less than a refusal to because some of those events were simulated come to grips with the whole concept of a FEMA graded exercise. By definition, an ex-ercise postulates a simulated or hypothetical accident sequence and measures the re-sponding organizations' ability to provide adequately for public health and safety. Many events during the day are only simulated in order to avoid imposing needless inconve-nience on the public or for a variety of other valid reasons. Nevertheless, in grading the Exercise FEMA (and all other parties) must evaluate the response as if those events actually occurred. That premise is so basic to this proceeding, and any other exercise review, that it hardly merits serious debate or continued argument.
B.
Intervenors Mischaracterize the Accuracy and Purpose of the Timeline Intervenors' whole Opposition mischaracterizes the timeline and LILCO's repre-sentations about it. For example, Intervenors appear alarmed that "many items noted on message forms were not on the timeline at all" and that "not one of the sixty-eight entries checked contained the ' complete text of the log or message form from which they were drawn' ". Opposition at 7. Intervenors conclude that "the timeline is not a complete and accurate chronology of the Exercise" and therefore they should not be forced to spend time responding to it. Id.
But LILCO never claimed that the tinieline represented a verbatim transcript of every message form and every log. Indeed, it would have defeated the purpose of the timeline if every word and every number from every log or message were recorded in it, since the resulting document would have been much larger and less usable. Instead, the timeline contains summaries or shorthand notations of those messages or log entries 1/
LILCO addressed this argument in its Motion to Compel at pp. 9-10.
s f,
\\
y that were too long or too complex, and LILCO so represented it. LILCO stated that the timeline "provides a complete chronology od th'e events on the day of the Exercise that were noted on message forms or in players' log books." Motion to Compel at 4 (empha-sis supplied). The timeline does just that - it reflects all the important events that occurred during the Exercise, without the clutter of excess verbiage or immaterial ac-tivities.
n 1.
The Timeline Does Not Contain Numerous Omissions Intervenors cite several examples purporting to show that " numerous messages noted in player message forms are absent from the LILCO timeline." Opposition at 14.
For example, Intervenors point to an entry marked "15:30" on a LERO message form 1
and assert that the timeline does not mention that entry at 15:30. They are absolutely correct; the timeline does r.at mention that e.Ossage form at 15:30.E That is because the' 15:30 " entry" that Intervenors speu of is merely a scribbled notation on what is ob-vlously a 15:10 message form. (Sce Intervenors' Attachment A). Accordingly, that message form is entered in the timelina at 15:10 where it belongs.N The 15:10 entry, reflecting the primary message from the Road Logistics Coordinator to Road Crew 2008, reads " Proceed to gas tanker location 3008." That instruction was certainly the central purpose of the message and represents accurately the gist of the contents of that message form.
Intervenors' make the same mistake with regard to the other two examples cited. They point to a "LERO message at 10:24 to Staging Areas, from the Lead 9/
Intervenors know exactly where in the timeline this message form is located since they use it as an example in part B.3(b) of their Opposition and append the rele-l vant timeline portion as Att.K.
l t
1.0/
Each timeline represents one message form or one log entry. Separate timeline entries were usually not created for every thought or every secondary message recorded 3
' on each message form.
?,
i 9
N
a-V Communicator" which reads " Sirens sounded /EBS message instructing public to evacu-ate zones A-M, Q, R," and complain that the timeline contains no such entry at 10:24.
Opposition at 15. But it is clear from the face of the message form (see Intervenors' Att. C) that the message form was created at 10:30. Accordingly, if one flips to the 10:30 portion of the timeline one sees the 10:30 message (in fact, one sees 5 of them) from the Lead Communicator to the Staging Area Coordinators, and it reads " Reception Center activated at 10:15." This entry is clearly an accurate summary of the primary message that was communicated between the named LERO players at 10:30.
Finally, with regard to Intervenors' Attachment E, it is true there is no 8:40 timeline entry reading " send oosimetry record keeper to Peconic Ambulance Jamesport Yard - Call (me) when arived [ sic]." On the timeline that message form was entered at 8:37 (the first time noted on the form) and summarized as " Notification of Peconic Ambulance and Riverhead Staging Area." The second parcel of information on that form was noted in a separate message at 8:40 from the Public Service Liaison to the Riverhead Staging Area Coordinator, and summarized as follows: " Dos. Record Keeper to Peconic Ambulance Service." If that entry confuses Intervenors, they can consult the 8:40 timeline entry for (the log of) the. Emergency Medical / Public Services Coordinator which reads "Public Service Coord. called Riverhead, send dosimetry to Jamesport Yard,". In any case, the referenced message form was not omitted from the timeline.
L short, Intervenors are unable to find certain entries not because LILCO omit-ted them, but because they do riot (or will not) look in the appropriate location. That error should not excuse their responsibility to respond fully to LILCO's other requests for admission.
, g 2.
RLe Timeline Does Not Contain Widespread Inaccuracies Intervenors claim that the timeline entries "do not, as LILCO claims, ' reflect ei-ther the complete text of the log or message form from which they are drawn or in some cases lengthy notations on Exercise documents have been summarized."' Opposi-tion at 16-17. Intervenors draw this conclusion from a purported review of only 68 (about 21/2%) of the approximately 2,780 entries contained in the timeline. Moreover, they appear to draw it solely from a review of LERO message forms, and not player logs, since all of the examples cited by Intervenors are from message forms.MI Thus it seems that Intervenors' " review" of the timeline and citation of examples was a selec-tive one designed to support the intended conclusion of their Opposition - 1.g, that the timeline is fatally fraught with error and Intervenors should not have to respond to it.
i Nevertheless, even when the cited examples are examined, they f all to support Intervenors' sweeping allegations of inaccuracy, a.
First,Intervenors cite the 14:30 LERO message form from the Traffic Con-trol Coordinator at the EOC to the Evacuation Coordinator at the EOC which reads as follows:
The staging area lead traffic guides have reported traffic flow to be normal with the exception of the detour at Rt. 25A and Miller Pl. Yaphank Rd. Detoured traffic on North Country Road, while heavy, is moving at a reduced pace. All evacua-tion route spotters have made contact and report traffic to be light.
The timeline summarizes that message as follows: " Traffic flow normal except 25A" and " Lead Traffic Guides report normal traffic flow."EI This information is also l
M/
As a general matter, entries in player logs are shorter than message form entries 1
and as a result are more'likely to have been transcribed verbatim into the timeline.
The only major exception is the Rad Health Coordinator's log, which contains lengthy dose calculations.
M/
There are several copies of most message forms, depending on how many persons possessed a copy when the Exercise was over. For completeness, the timeline includes (footnote continued)
reflected in the 14:30 log entry of the Evacuation Coordinator, which says " Traffic flow is light except at Route 25A and Miller Place." LILCO submits that this message was accurately summarized.
b.
Next, Intervenors cite the 15:10 message form from the Road Logistics Coordinator to Road Crew 2008. That message was discussed previously in this Reply.
See n.9 and accompanying text. As stated there, the timeline accurately summarizes the substance of the message and does not leave out " critical" information.
c.
Third, Intervenors cite the 11:25 message form from the Logistics Support Coordinator to the Health Facilities Coordinator, which reads as follows: " Truck dis-patched from Brentwood to Oak Hollow Nursing Home to transport medicine and health equipment to LaSalle Military Academy." The timeline summarizes that message as follows: " Truck to transport nursing and health equipment to military academy." In-tervenors complain that " nursing" was substituted for " medicine" and that critical in-formation was omitted. LILCO submits that the referenced substitution and omissions are not material and that the timeline accurately summarizes the gist of the message form (especially since the two timeline entries immediately preceding this one confirm that a truck was dispatched from Brentwood). However, if Intervenors cannot agree with this characterization they can simply deny this request and explain why they deny i
l it, it is not reason enough to excuse their response to the rest of the timeline.
d.
Fourth, Intervenors cite the 11:44 message form from the Private School Coordinator to the Homebound Coordinator, which reads as follows: "All homebound residents listed on the Homebound Evac. List, pages 1 through 9 have been contacted and their transportation confirmed.
There were no exceptional problems."
The (footnote continued) most if not all such forms. Thus, the gist of the message form is of ten easily confirmed by looking at other timeline entries concerning the same message form.
r.
. t timeline summary reads as follows: "All homebound residents have been contacted and their transportation confirmed." The omission of the page reference in the summary does not detract materially from the timeline's accuracy. The gist of the message is accurately reproduced. Nevertheless, if Intervenors do not wish to admit to this entry, they are free to say so and give their reasons.
e.
Finally, Intervenors complain that the 13:30 message form from Road Crew 2006 to the Road Logistics Coordinator at the EOC " appears on the timeline as being from Patchogue, not Yaphank." Of course, no LERO road crew is stationed in Yaphank; this particular road crew was dispatched from Patchogue to the gravel truck accident in Yaphank - hence the inadvertent substitution of "Patchogue" for "Yaphank." In all other respects, the timeline summary (" Gravel truck cleared off roadway") is accurate.
In any case, should this small difference make it difficult for Intervenors to admit to this entry, then they can deny it and explain. It should not allow them to avoid all re-sponsibility for responding to the timeline.
C.
The Timeline Is Not So Voluminous As to Prevent a Complete Response LILCO previously has responded to Intervenors' complaint that the timell'ne is too voluminous for response.EIIt is sufficient to note here that LILCO's Requests for Admission are ng a "far cry" from Intervenors' own requests. Intervenors submitted 223 such requests, each requiring LILCO to admit or deny that a certain event occurred. In order to answer each request, LILCO had to sif t not only through one log i
j or one message form as is requested by LILCO here, but many such logs and message forms, along with observer forms and whatever personal notes exist. LILCO also had to speak with various players or observers to gather their recollections.
1 M/
See LILCO's Motion to Compel at 4-5.
- s In contrast, each of LILCO's requests merely requires Intervenors to look at one specific message form or one log (which is clearly indicated) and determine if LILCO's timeline includes that particular entry and accurately summarizes it. That task is con-siderably simpler than the one that Intervenors' requests required LILCO to undertake.
Therefore, it is not that significant that LILCO's requests are greater in number than Intervenors'.
Finally, the Board should ignore Intervenors' generalizations and require Interve-nors to respond specifically to each admission request. That is, although Intervenors state that "many of the messages and their timing are substantively unimportant"(Op-position at 5), the Board should require specific admissions or denials regardless of what importance Intervenors assign to each. And although Intervenors believe that "many aspects or events during the Exercise... are of little if any direct relevance to the is-sues raised in the admitted contentions" (Opposition at 5), the Board should require them to state for each specific reauest whether they believe it is reievant or not. Uni-versal responses such as those tendered by Intervenors are insufficient.
III. Conclusion For the reasons set forth in this reply and in LILCO's Motion to Compel, LILCO respectfully requests that the Board grant LILCO's Motion and require Intervenors to s
provide a specific, complete response to LILCO's First Request for Admissions and Third Set of Interrogatories.
Respectfully submitted, Dofiald P. Irwin" Scott D. Matchett 1
1 Ilunton & Williams 707 East Main Street P.O. Box 1535 Richmond, Virginia 23212 DATED: January 21,1987
LILCO, January 21,1987 O
r ag+t.
CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE
'87 JAN 27 P3 :00 In the Matter of LONG ISLAND LIGHTING COMPANY
~
(Shoreham Nuclear Power Station, Unit 1)
[0Cb...
Docket No. 50-322-OL-5
- m.s. i I hereby certify that copies of LILCO's Motion for Leave to FM a~ Reply to Suffolk County et al's Response in Opposition to LILCO's Motion to Compel Regarding LILCO's First Request for Admissions and Third Set of Interrogatories, and LILCO's Reply were served this date upon the following by telecopier as indicated by an aster-isk, by Federal Express as indicated by two asterisks, or by first-class mall, postage pre-Pald.
John H. Frye, III, Chairman
- 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-Wait Towers i
4350 East-West Hwy.
Herbert H. Brown, Esq.
- i Bethesda, MD 20814 Lawrence Coe Lanpher, Esq.
Karla J. Letsche, Esq.
Mr. Frederick J. Shon
- Kirkpatrick & Lockhart l
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.
- 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.
i 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
r o 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 Chamble 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 Jonathan D. Feinberg, Esq.
New York State Department of Public Servico, Staff Counsel Three Rockefeller Plaza Albany, New York 12223
~
I ScotI D. MaterMt Hunton & Williams 707 East Main Street P.O. Box 1535 Richmond, Virginia 23212 l
DATED: January 21,1987 l
- -, ~ = = -
.----