ML20212R655
| ML20212R655 | |
| Person / Time | |
|---|---|
| Site: | Shoreham File:Long Island Lighting Company icon.png |
| Issue date: | 01/20/1987 |
| From: | Zahnleuter R NEW YORK, STATE OF |
| To: | LONG ISLAND LIGHTING CO. |
| References | |
| CON-#187-2332 OL-5, NUDOCS 8702030026 | |
| Download: ML20212R655 (15) | |
Text
33y W ituCORRESPONU M DATE: January 20,1987 00LPjiED
'87 JAtt 28 A8:35 UNITED STATES OF AMERICA NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSION
{y Before the Atomic Safety and Licensing Board in the Matter of
)
)
LONG ISLAND LIGHTING COMPANY
)
Docket No. 50-322-OL-5
)
(EP Exercise)
(Shoreham Nuclear Power Station,
)
Unit 1)
)
)
STATE OF NEW YORK'S RESPONSE To "LILCO'S FIRST SET OF INTERROGATORIES AND REQUESTS FOR PRODUCTION OF DOCUMENTS TO NEW YORK STATE" The State of New York objects to LILCO's first set of interrogatories and I
document requests on relevancy grounds and on other grounds that have been set forth previously.2 The Shoreham exercise, which took place in the absence of the execution of state and local g vernments' sovereign powers, is, by definition,
\\
insuf ficient to satisfy regulatory requirements. Thereft.e, no comparisons with Uther
\\
exercises may be made.
l LILCO's First Set of Interrogatories and Requests for Production of Documents to New York State (November 3,1986).
2 State of New York's Response to LILCO's First Set of Interrogatories and Requests for Production of Documents (November 19,1986); State of New York's Opposition to LILCO's Motion to Compel (December 4,1986): State of New York's Opposition and Response to LILCO's Motion to File a Reply (December 19, 1986).
8702030026 870120 gDR ADOCK 0500 2
3 t
. Nevertheless,in compliance with the Board's Memorandum and Order of December 19,1986, the State of New York, without walving its objections, responds as follows.
LILCO Interrogatory No.1 Please identify by (1) plant, (2) date, (3) scope (10-mile, 50-mile EPZ, both), (4) scale (full-scale or partial), and (5) nature (regular, remedial, etc.) each FEMA-graded emergency planning exercise for nuclear power plants in which New York State personnel have participated (by developing, reviewing, or approving exercise scenarios and/or objectives, or by participating in the exercire itself) during the last five years.
Response
This interrogatory seeks information about exercises that occurred in New York State in the last five years. In the Governments'second set of interrogatories to LILCO, dated December 19,1986, the Governments asked LILCO to identify non-Shoreham exercises upon which LILCO intends to rely, and to identify exercise participants and facts relating to the exercises upon which LILCO intends to rely. In its response (dated January 5,1937 -- well af ter the Board's December 19,1936 Memorandum and Order), LILCO identified several exercises but did not identify exercise participants and facts relating to the exercises upon which LILCO intends to rely. LILCO stated on page three: " 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."
The State of New York answers portions (1) and (2) of Interrogatory No. I as follows:
Ginna (January 21,1932, June 22,1933, September 26, 1985)
Indian Point 3 (March 3,1932, August 24,1983, November 28,1984, April 10,1985) indian Point 2 (March 9,1933, June 4,1936)
. Fitzpatrick (August 11, 1982)
Nine Mlle Point 1 (September 28,1983, November 13, 1985)
Concerning portions (3), (4) and (5) of Interrogatory No.1, this information is 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 LILCO as it is to the State of New York. Furthermore, the depositions of Messrs. Daverio (January 5,1987), Weismantle (January 9,1987) and Behr (January 13,1987), all of whom are LILCO employees or consultants, make it clear that LILCO has access to and already has possession of all of the FEMA post-exercise assessments corresponding to the plants identified above. This is also in accord with LILCO's statements on pages three and two, respectively, of its January 5,1987 response to the Governments' December 19,1986 second set of interrogatories to LILCO: "(A)t the present time it (LILCO) intends to rely on FEMA post-exercise reports as the source of information about other exercises" and "(F)or plants located in Region 2, LILCO has examir.ed all ' full participation' exercises." Since both the State of New York and LILCO possess the FEMA post-exercise assessments in question, and since the burden of determining the content of these documents is the same for LILCO as it is for the State of New York, the FEMA post-exercise assessments require no explanation.3 LILCO Interrogatory No. 2 Please identify all New York State personnel who have been involved, at any time in the last five years, in the development, review, or approval of scenarios and/or objectives for FEMA-graded exercises for nuclear power plants in New York State.
3 This respense is analogous to LILCO's statement on page eight of its January 5,1987 response to the Governments' December 19,1986 second set of interrogatories to LILCO seeking the texts of EBS messages: "Both parties possess the documents in question, and the burden of determining 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."
.ts.
The following individuals have, at some time over the last five years, had some involvement in the development, review, or approval of scenarios and/or objectives for FEMA-graded exercises for nuclear power plants in New York State:
James D. Papile James Baranski Lawrence B. Czech Donald B. Davidoff Bruce D. McQueen Stephen M. Clemente LILCO's counsel has indicated to the State of New York's counsel that the purpose of this Interrogatory is to identify for possible deposition New York State personnel knowledgeable on the subject of scenarios and objective development, review and approval for FEMA-graded exercises for nuclear power plants in New York State. Because the extent and nature of the " involvement" and knowledge of the above listed individuals has varied widely and, in some instances, has been minor and duplicative, the State of New York particularly identifies James Papile as a person who could be available for deposition by LILCO, although the State of New York does not by this act waive it relevancy and other stated objections. Mr. Papile is currently serving as the Director of the New York State Radiological Emergency Preparedness Group ("REPG") andhe has been involved in all FEMA-graded exercises for nuclear power plants in New York State for the last five years. He has extensive knowledge concerning the exercises identified in response to Interrogatory No. I herein and the subject of Interrogatory No. 2 herein.
l In an effort to facilitate deposition scheduling in conformance with the current discovery schedule, the State of New York's counsel have determined that Mr. Papite could be available for a deposition in Albany, New York, on February 3,1937, provided that LILCO formally notices his deposition and that the deposition of Mr. Kessler, currently tentatively scheduled for February 3,1987, is moved to an open date in the schedule agreed upon by all parties.
I i
_3 LILCO Interrogatory No. 3 Please provide copies of all(1) final scenarios, (2) final objectives which were developed, reviewed, or approved by the New York State personnel identified in response to the previous interrogatory,(3) all documents prepared by New York State personnelidentified by response to the previous interrogatory as part of their development, review, or approval of those scenarios and/or objectives, and 4) FEMA post-exercise assessments for each such exercise.
Response
Documents responsive to portions (1),(2), and (3) of this Interrogatory will be provided promptly under separate cover.
Concerning portion (4), these documents are already in the possession of LILCO.
See the response to Interrogatory No. I herein.
LILCO Interrogatory No. 4 For each FEMA-graded exercise for nuclear power plants in New York State in which New York State personnel have participated or have developed, reviewed, or approved the scenario and/or objectives, in the last five years please identify (1) the total number of hospitals located in the emergency planning zone and (2) the number of hospitals that participated in the exercise. Please provide the same information for schools (public, private, parochial and nursery), and for nursing homes and adult homes.
Response
The total number of hospitals, schools, nursing homes and adult homes located in the emergency planning zones for the plants identified in response to Interrogatory No.
I herein is the same as the total number of hospitals, schools, nursing homes and adult homes that participated in the exercises for those plants. The total number of hospitals, schools, nursing homes and adult homes that participated in those exercises can be obtained from the corresponding FEMA post exercise assessments, which already are in the possession of LILCO. See the response to Interrogatory No. l herein.
. i LILCO Interrogatory No. 5 Please identify all FEMA-graded exercises, within the last five years, for nuclear power plants located in New York State as well as those located in other states, in which New York State personnel have participated in the ingestion pathway portion of the exercise. Please identify all New York State personnel who participated in those exercises.
4
Response
Information regarding participation in ingestion pathway portions of exercises identified in response to Interrogatory No. I herein can be obtained from the corresponding FEMA post-exercise assessments, which already are in the possession cif LILCO. See the response to Interrogatory No. I herein. New York State personnel have not participated in the ingestion pathway portion of any FEMA-graded exercises, within the last five years, for nuclear power plants located in other states.
LILCO Interrogatory No. 6 1
For each FEAM-graded exercise for nuclear power plants in Ne York State ir. the last five years in which New York State personnel have participated or have developed, reviewed, or approved the scenario and/or objectives for the exercise, please provide the following informations a.
the number of buses, ambulances and ambulettes that participated in the
- exercise, t
b.
the number of reception centers and congregate care centers that i
participated in the exercise and the theoretical capacity of those facilities, c.
a description of the equipment, number of personnel and facilities that were used during the exercise for the monitoring and decontamination of 2
evacuees and vehicles at reception centers, i
d.
a description of the equipment, number of personnel and facilities that were used during the exercise for the monitoring and decontamination of evacuees from nursing and adult homes, e.
the number of traf fic impediments that were posed to the emergency response organization, f.
the number of traf fic posts that were staffed, the number of traffic control personnel that staffed them, and the number of traffic posts that were observed by FEMA, 3
g.
whether rumor control capabilities were tested and the method used for f
testing.
i
. Response a.
The numbers of buses, ambulances and ambulettes that participated in the exercises identified in response to Interrogatory No. I herein can be obtained from the corresponding FEMA post-exercise assessments, which already are in the possession of LILCO. See the response to interrogatory No. I herein, b.
The number of reception centers and congregate care centers that participated in the exercises identified in response to Interrogatory No. I herein can be obtained from the corresponding FEMA post-exercise assessments, which already are in the possession of LILCO. See the response to Interrogatory No. I herein.
The theoretical capacity of reception centers that participated in the exercises identified in response to Interrogatory No. I herein varied according to the number of emergency response personnel deployed to the reception centers.
The theoretical capacity of the congregate care centers that participated in the exercises identified in response to Interrogatory No. I herein is as follows:
Ginna (January 21, 1982) 4,343 Ginna (June 22, 1983) 1,375 Cinna (September 26, 1985) 3,970 Indian Point 3 (March 3,1932) 3,033 Indian Point 3 (August 24, 1933) 2,567 Indian Point 3 (November 28, 1984) 4,642 Indian Point 3 (April 10,1935) - no congregate care centers participated Indian Point 2 (March 9,1933) 6,210 Indian Point 2 (June 4,1936) 3,195 Fitzpatrick (August 11, 1982) 700 Nine Mile Point 1 (September 23, 1933) 1,300 Nine Mlle Point 1 (November 13, 1985) 300 c.
The equipment that was used during the exercises identified in response to Interrogatory No. I herein for the monitoring and decontamination of evacuees and vehicles at reception centers was the CDV-700 monitoring device.
The number of personnel that was used during the exercises identified in response to Interrogatory No. I herein for the monitoring and decontamination of 1
e-.e,e r
,,-----.v-
-.+ - - -
-<w
-e.em.-- - - -
-.-,---4.
- - ~ -
.<------*--e
=e
-S-evacuees and vehicles at reception centers varied according to the nature of the exercise objectives. Further information regarding the number of personnel is not in the possession of the State of New York.
The facilities that were used during the exercises identified in response to Interrogatory No. I herein can be obtained from.he corresponding FEMA post-exercise assessments, which already are in the pocsession of LILCO. See the response to Interrogatory No. I herein.
d.
In the exercises identified in response to Interrogatory No. I herein, New York State personnel did not monitor or decontaminate evacuees from nursing and I
adult homes. Further information regarding the equipment, number of personnel and facilities that were used during the exercises identified in response to Interrogatory No. I herein either is not in the possession of the State of New York or can be obtained from the corresponding FEMA post-exercise assessments, which already are i
in the possession of LILCO. See the response to Interrogatory No. I herein.
e.
The number of traffic impediments that were posed to the emergency response organization in the exercises identified in response'to Interrogatory No. i herein can be obtained from the corresponding FEMA post-exercise assessments, which already are in the possession of LILCO. See the response to Interrogatory No. I herein.
f.
The number of traf fic posts that were staf fed, the number of traffic i
control personnel that staf fed them, and the number of traffic posts that were observed by FEMA in the exercises identified in response to Interrgotory No. I herein j
can be obtained from the corresponding FEMA post-exercise assessments, which already are in the possession of LILCO. See the response to Interrogatory No. I herein.
i
. g.
Information regarding whether rumor control capabilities were tested and the method used for testing in the exercises identified in response to Interrogatory No.
1 herein can be obtained from the corresponding FEMA post-exercise assessments, which already are in the possession of LILCO. See the response to Interrogatory No. I herein.
LILCO Interrogatory No. 7 Did any FEMA-graded exercise conducted in the last five years in which New York State personnel participated include a hypothesized wind shift during the accident? If yes, please identify each such exercise. During any of those exercises, was an evacuation recommendation rescinded as a result of a wind shift? If so, please describe and identify and provide copies of pertinent documentation.
Response
With the exception of the January 21,1982 exercise at Ginna, every exercise identified in response to Interrogatory No. I herein included an hypothesized wind shif t. An evacuation recommendation was not rescinded as a result of a wind shif t in any of those exercises.
LILCO Interrogatory No. 3 Please identify all New York State personnel who have been involved in the development of programs to train and evaluate New York State personnel who are to respond to an emergency at nuclear power plants in New York State.
Response
This interrogatory seeks the names of individuals who have been involved in the training for exercises that occurred in New York State. In the County's first set of interrogatories and document requests to LILCO, dated October 10,1986, the County asked LILCO to identify the names of certain LERO and non-LERO LILCO employees as well as certain non-LILCO LERO members. In its response (dated October 27, 1986), LILCO did not reveal the sought-af ter names. LILCO stated on page two:
"(D)lsclosure of such information would constitute an invasion of privacy of those individuals, which may subject them to harassment and intimidation."4 4
See also LILCO's October 27,1986 responses to Interrogatories Nos. 6,8, 12,26 and 30.
. In addition, this interrogatory has no time period for which it seeks information.
There are numerous individuals scattered throughout assorted state agencies, some of whom are no longer employees of the State of New York, who at some time, may have had some " involvement," of one kind or another, in the development of " programs" to train and evalua:e New York State personnel who are to respond to an emergency at nuclear power plants in New York State.
Nevertheless, in a good faith eifort to comply with the Board's Memorandum and Order of December 19,1986, such individuals include:
James D. Papile Barbara Thomas Noble James Baranski Susan Carden Stephen Clemente Lawrence Czech J.R. Dillenback George Estel Bruce McQueen Marvin Silverman Donald B. Davidoff Karim Rimawi, Ph.D.
Edward Smith William Acquario Robert Knighton Richard Ahola Henry Binzer May Timer Brian Walsh Gene Milgram John DINuzzo Anthony Germano Jerry Heitzman Kevin Neary Robert Lowery Linda Buss Susan Rutledge LILCO's counsel has indicated that the purpose of this Interrogatory is to identify for possible deposition New York State personnel knowledgeable on the subject of training New York State personnel who are to respond to an emergency at i
l nuclear power plants in New York State. In light of the above discussion, the State of t
New York identifies James Papite as a person who could be available for deposition by l
LILCO, although the State of New York does not by this act waive its relevancy and other stated objections. Mr. Papite has extensive knowledge concerning the subject of j
this Interrogatory and his experience and availablility for deposition has been discussed l
In response to Interrogatory No. 2 herein.
I l
o 11-LILCO Interrozatory No. 9 What sample groups, sample sizes or sampling criteria are used by the persons identified in Interrogatory 8 to evaluate the ability of New York State personnel to respond to an emergency at a nuclear power plant or to evaluate the effectiveness of a training program.
Response
Evaluation techniques used by New York State personne! vary widely, depending upon the functions, experience, personnel, and type of training being evaluated, as well as the plant, location, type of emergency, other entities involved in the emergency response, and myriad other factors.
l db 4
Fabian G. Pal i,(f Richard 3. Z eorer Special Counsel to the Governor Executive Chamber State Capitol, Room 229 Albany, New York 12224 i
k i
.._,,,._,,.,_.._,_m_.n.-_-
,---w.
e
VERIFICATION i
James Papile, being duly sworn, deposes and says: that he is currently serving as the Director of the New York State Radiological Emergency Preparedness Groups that he has been involved in FEMA-graded exercises for nuclear power plants in New York State for the last five years; that he has read the answers and knows the contents thereof; and that based upon such information of which he has personal knowledge and 1
with which he has been provided, he is informed and believes the matters stated therein to be true to the best of his knowledge and belief, and on these grounds alleges that the matters stated therein are true and therefore verifles the foregoing on behalf of the State of New York.
\\
An pile State of New York
)
SS:
l County of Albany
)
O
_ day of January 1987.
Sworn to before me this C
/?
/
Y.AA
$'wh Notary Public R10MinJa J. 4A:C.CL riR fie* fork Notary pun.C. Stfc ce Quahfied in h Courity kr.t bg No.4766948 C:.retaimon Empires f*erth 30,19.37 Nc e' 1
i 9
1
)
)
WTED CORRESPONDENCE
^ M il::
- qv[
DATE: January, 5,1987
'87 JM 28 l\\8:35 ut-UNITED STATES OF AMERICA E
- cil NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSION Before the Atomic Safety and Licensing Board in the Matter of
)
)
LONG ISLAND LIGHTING COMPANY
)
Docket No. 50-322-OL-5
)
(EP Exercise)
(Shoreham Nuclear Power Station,
)
Unit 1)
)
)
CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE I hereby certify that copies of the State of New York's Response to LILCO's First Set of Interrogatories and Requests for Production of Documents to New York State have been served on the following this 20th day of January 1937 by U.S. mail, first class, except as otherwise noted.
I John H. Frye, Ill Dr. Oscar H. Paris Chairman Atomic Safety and Licensing Board Atomic Safety and Licensing Board U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission Washington, D.C. 20555 Washington, D.C. 20555 Mr. Frederick 3. Shon Spence W. Perry, Esq.
Atomic Safety and Licensing Board William R. Cumming, Esq.
U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission Office of General Counsel Washington, D.C. 20555 Federal Emergency Management Agency Washington, D.C. 20t472 1
e Anthony F. Earley, Jr., Esq.
Joel Blau, Esq.
General Counsel Director, Utility Intervention Long Island Lighting Company N.Y. Consumer Protection Board 175 East Old Country Road Suite 1020 Hicksville, New York 11801 Albany, New York 12210 Mr. William Rogers 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 Stephen B. Latham, Esq.
Twomey, Latham & Shea Mr. L. F. Britt 33 West Second Street Long Island Lighting Company Riverhead, New York 11901 Shoreham Nuclear Power Station North Country Road Docketing and Service Section Wading River, New York 11792 Office of the Secretary U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission Ms. Nora Bredes 1717 H. Street, N.W.
Executive Director Washington, D.C. 20535 Shoreham Opponents Coalition 195 East Main Street Hon. Peter Cohalan Smithtown, New York 11787 Suffolk County Executive H. Lee Dennison Building Veterans Memorial Highway Mary M. Gundrum, Esq.
Hauppauge, New York 11788 New York State Department of Law 120 Broadway,3rd Floor Dr. Monroe Schneider Room 3-116 North Shore Committee New York, New York 10271 P.O. Box 231
- Wading River, New York 11792 MHB Technical Associates 1723 Hamilton Avenue Lawrence Coe Lanpher, Esq.
Suite K Kirkpatrick & Lockhart San Jose, California 95125 1900 M. Street, N.W.
Suite 800 Martin Bradley Ashare, Esq.
Washington, D.C. 20036 Sulfolk County Attorney Building 158 North County Complex Bernard M. Bordenick, Esq.
Yeterans Memorial Highway U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission Hauppauge, New York 11788 Washington, D.C. 20555 Mr. Jay Dunkleburger New York State Energy Office Agency Building #2 Empire State Plaza Albany, New York 12223
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
/
/}
.e
_.fh A cf U
Richard J. Zptrynttgr Esq.
Deputy SpectarCo I to the Governor Executive Chamber Capitol, Room 229 Albany, New York 12224
- By telecopy.
i l
1
]
I l
J n.
.n,,,,.,.,
_,,.,_--._.n,...,, - ~ _ _ _,,
,.