ML20214G595
| ML20214G595 | |
| Person / Time | |
|---|---|
| Site: | Shoreham File:Long Island Lighting Company icon.png |
| Issue date: | 11/19/1986 |
| From: | Zahnleuter R NEW YORK, STATE OF |
| To: | LONG ISLAND LIGHTING CO. |
| References | |
| CON-#486-1649 OL-5, NUDOCS 8611260144 | |
| Download: ML20214G595 (11) | |
Text
{{#Wiki_filter:# gElATED CORRESPONDENyt.,_ November 19, 1986 DOCKETED USNRC UNITED STATES OF AMERICA NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSION Before the Atomic Safety and Licensing Board GFFICL :: :, l 00CXfity,, ) 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 LOCUMENTS LILCO served its "First Set of Interrogatories and Requests for Production of Documents to New York State" on November 3, 1986. The State of New York.hereby responds to these k I interrogatories and requests for production of documents pursuant f ~ f to the NRC's Rules of Practice, 10 CFR Sections 2.740, 2.740b and 2.741. I. General Response A. The State of New York objects to all interrogatories g and requests for production of documents insofar as they purport to require information or documents outside of the possession, custody or control of the State of New York. 9 i t 8611260144 861119 PDR ADOCK 05000322 G PDR 1)303
T . II. Specific Responses LILCO's Interrogatory and Request for Production No. 1 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 ir. the exercise itself) during the last five years.
Response
A. Without waiving further objections, the State of New York objects to this interrogatory as overly broad, unduly burdensome, and not relevant in that the information sought is not reasonably calculated to lead to the discovery of admissible evidence. With respect to relevancy, none of the contentions j challenge the design of the Shoreham exercise scenario or FEMA's l 1 generic processes for review of exercises. Instead, the H contentions consider the Shoreham exercise scenario, the Shoreham exercise itself and FEMA's evaluation process as a given. The Margulies Board clearly recognized this when it ruled that matters involving other exercises at other nuclear power plants are irrelevant to this proceeding: s
. f Applicant claims, however, that for such a contention to be admissible Intervenors would have to allege that j the scenario was materially different from other FEMA-approved scenarios at other nuclear plants. Applicant's stated requirement is erroneous. The correct requirement is that the emergency preparedness exercise meet the regulation standard of 10 CFR 50.47 and App. E. Whether the exercise per se is not materially different from other FEMA-approved scenarios at other nuclear plants is irrelevant.1/ [ Emphasis added] Since the Governments do not allege that FEMA's methodology or procedures for design and execution of the Shoreham exercise are any different than those it customarily uses for other exercises, the information sought in this interrogatory can in no way lead to the discovery of admissible evidence pertaining to the admitted contentions. LILCO's Interrogatory and Request for Production No. 2 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. 1/ Prehearing Conference Order (Ruling on Contentions and Establishing Discovery Schedule), October 3, 1986, at 7. [
'l . Response A. Without waiving further objections, the State of New York objects to this interrogatory as overly broad, unduly burdensome, and not relevant for all of the reasons specified in in the preceeding response. LILCO'S Interrogatory and Request for Production No. 3 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 j State personnel identified by response to the previous interrogatory as part of their development, review, or approval of I those scenarios and/or objectives, and (4) PEMA post-exercise i assessments for each such exercise.
Response
A. Without waiving further objections, the State of New York objects to this request for production of documents as overly broad, unduly burdensome and not relevant for all of the reasons specified in the preceeding response. LILCO's Interrogatory and Request for Production No. 4 4. For each FEMA graded exercise for nuclear power plants in New York State in which New York State personnel have i i i -{ i
. 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
A. Without waiving further objections, the State of New York objects to this interrogatory as overly broad, unduly burdensome and not relevant for all of the reasons specified in the l preceeding response. LILCO's Interrogatory and Request for Production No. 5 5. Please identify all PEMA-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.
Response
A. Without waiving further objections, the State of New York objects to this interrogatory as overly broad, unduly burdensome and not relevant for all of the reasons specified in the preceeding response.
. LILCO's Interrogatory and Request for Production No. 6 6. For each PEMA graded exercise for nuclear power plants in New York State in 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 information: a. the number of buses, ambulances and ambulettes that participated in the exercise, b. the number of reception centers and congregate care centers that 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 evacuees and vehicles at reception centers, d. a description of the equipment, number of pe rsonnel and facilities that were used during the exercise for the monitoring and decontamination of evacuees from nursing and adult homes, the number of traffic impediments that were posed to e. the emergency response organization, f. the number of traffic posts th'at were staffed, the number of traffic control personnel that staffed them, and the number of traffic posts that were observed by
- FEMA, g.
whether rumor control capabilities were tested and the method used for testing.
Response
s A. Without waiving further objections, the State of New York objects to this interrogatory as overly broad, unduly t 4 n 4 +w- -.,-.s-,
. burdensome and not relevant for all of the reasons specified in the preceeding response. LILCO's Interrogatory and Request for Production No. 7 7. Did any PEMA-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
A. Without waiving further objections, the State of New York objects to this interrogatory and request for production of documents as overly broad, unduly burdensome and not relevant for all of the reasons specified in the preceeding response. LILCO's Interrogatory and Request for Production No. 8 8. 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
A. Without waiving further objections, the State of New Acrk objects to this interrogatory as overly broad, unduly
_g_ O burdensome and'not relevant for all of the reasons specified in the preceeding response. LILCO's Interrogatory and Request for Production No. 9 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
A. Without waiving further objections, the State of New York objects to this interrogatory as overly broad, unduly burdensome and not relevant for all of the reasons specified in the preceeding response. Objections Stated by Counsel All objections are stated by counsel. Fabian G. 7aJokkho, Esq. Richard J.Wahnleuter, Esq. Special Counsel to the Governor Executive Chamber Room 229 State Capitol Albany, New York 12224 l 1 l
VERIFICATION Richard J. Zahnleuter, being duly sworn, deposes and says: that he is currently serving as Deputy Special Counsel to the Governor; that he has been involved in matters related to the ~ Shoreham Nuclear Power Plant since 1982; that he has personal knowledge of the subject matter of this litigation; that he has read the answers and knows the contents-thereof; and that based upon such information of which he has personal knowledge and 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 verifies the foregoing on behalf of the State of New York. Rich ahnleuter State of New York ) SS: County of Albany ) Sworn to before me this 19th day of November, 1986., ANIE VAZE S. L A'AY Notary PuWc. Statt. 0; No.. Verk QuaP,ed in Albany Ccunty Reg. foo.463s987 g hg (* p,ommiston Espires (Rn flML ]) - ha,kd Nota Publi ) w
MED COftRF.SqN.. m. November 19, 198b0t KEIL E 9HPC UNITED STATES OF AMERIC.'. NbCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSION
- B6 NOV 25 A11 :31 Before the Atomic Safety and Licensing Board GFFICt t 1
>= 00ChLitt L ;ivid BRANCH ) 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' STATE OF NEW YORK'S RESPONSES TO LILCO'S FIRST SET OF INTERROGATORIES AND REQUESTS FOR PRODUCTION OF DOCUMENTS have been served this 19th day of November, 1986 by U.S. Mail, first class, except as otherwise noted. John H. Frye, III Spence W. Perry, Esq. Chairman William R. Cumming, Esq. Atomic Safety and Licensing Board Office cf General Counsel U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission Federal Emergency Management Washington, D. C. 20555 Agency 500 C Street, S.W., Room 840 Washington, D. C. 20472 Dr. Oscar H. Paris Mr. Frederick J. Shon Atomic Safety and Licensing Board Atomic ~ Safety and Licensing Board l U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Washington, D. C. 20555 Commission Washington, D. C. 20555 i
E Bernard M.--Lordenick, Lsq. Anthony F. Earley, Jr., Esq. U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission General Counsel Washington, D. C., '20555 Long Island Lighting Company 175 East Old Country Road Hicksville, New. York 11801 Mr. William Rogers W. Taylor Reveley, III, Esq. *- Clerk Hunton & Williams Suffolk County Legislature 707 East Main Street Suffolk County Office Building Richmond,. Virginia 23212 Veterans Memorial Highway Hauppauge, New. York 11788 Mr. lb. F.-Britt Stephen B. Latham, Esq. Long Island Lighting Company Twomey, Latham & Shea Shoreham Nuclear Power Station 33-West Second Street North Country Road Riverhead, New York 11901 Wading River, New' York 11792 Ms. Nora Bredes Docketing and Service.Section Executive Director Office-of the Secretary, Shoreham Opponents Coalition-U.S. Nucelar Regulatory Commission' '195 Eact Main Street 1717 H Street, N.W. - Smithtown, New York 11787 Washington, D. C. 20555 MHB Technical Associates Honorable Peter Cohalan 1723 Hamilton Avenue, Suite K Suffolk County Executive San Jose, California 95125 H. Lee Dennison Building Veterans Memorial Highway Hauppauge, New York'-11788 n i' i Martin Bradley-Ashare, Esqe Mr..Phillip McIntire Suffolk County Attorney Federal Emergency Management i 158 North County Complex Agency Veterans Memorial Highway 26 Federal Plaza Hauppauge, New York 11788 New York, New York 10278 David A. Brownlee Michael S. Miller Kirkpatrick & Lockhart Kirkpatrick & Lockhart 1500 Oliver Building. 1900 M Street, N.W., Suite 800 c Pittsburgh, Pennsylvania 15222 Washington, D. C. 20036 i A4 / By Federal Express ~ /g) j
- Fabian G.( Palbmino, Esq.
Special Coudsel to the Governor Executive Chamber, Room 229 1 November 19,~1986 State Capitol Albany, New York 12224 ) 4 d. ~.; : Li-m}}