ML20151T800
| ML20151T800 | |
| Person / Time | |
|---|---|
| Site: | Shoreham File:Long Island Lighting Company icon.png |
| Issue date: | 04/20/1988 |
| From: | Lanpher L, Latham S, Zahnleuter R KIRKPATRICK & LOCKHART, NEW YORK, STATE OF, SOUTHAMPTON, NY, SUFFOLK COUNTY, NY, TWOMEY, LATHAM & SHEA |
| To: | LONG ISLAND LIGHTING CO. |
| References | |
| CON-#288-6164 OL-3, NUDOCS 8804290161 | |
| Download: ML20151T800 (33) | |
Text
(r: ,
l1 4 / 49'
~'
[ @ 0CORRESPONDENC$
00LKETED USNRC Aoril 20. 19pa APR 25 P6:01 UNITED STATES OF AMERICA gfFICECFIfUtiAn(
NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSION Lav!CE OCKEigtA Before the Atomic Safety and Licensino Board
)
In the Matter of )
)
LONG ISLAND LIGHTING COMPANY ) Docket No. 50-322-OL-3
) (Emergency Planning)
(Shoreham Nuclear Power Station, )
Unit 1) )
)
GOVERNMENTS' OBJECTIONS TO LILCO'S SECOND SET OF
- INTERROGATORIES REGARDING CONTENTIONS 1-2, 4-8, AND 10 Pursuant to 10 CFR $ 2.740b(b), and in accordance with this Board's oral ruling of April 11 and Confirmatory Memorandum and Order of April 12 ("April 12 Order"), Suffolk County, the State of New York, and the Town of Southampton (the "Governments")
hereby note their objections to LILCO's Second Set of Interrogatories and Document Requests Regarding Contentions 1-2, 4-8 and 10 (March 24, 1988) ("Interrogatories").
Interrogatories not addressed in these objections will be addressed in the Governments' Answers which will be filed on April 22, 1988, also in accordance with the Board's April 11 oral ruling and the Board's April 12 Order. The April 22 Answers may contain certain additional objections, but the Interrogatories
$$g" A PD g G g i
3
o addressed there will be answered notwithstanding those objections.
GENERAL OBJECTIONS
- 1. The Governments object to LILCO's Interrogatcries to the extent that they seek information about emergency planning for nuclear power plants other than Shoreham, the actions of governments other than the Governments, emergency plans other than the LILCO Plan, and emergencies other than a radiological emergency at Shoreham. The requested information is not relevant to the issue before the Board, which concerns only the nature of a "best efforts" response by the Governments to a Shoreham ,
emergency. Egg Confirmatory Memorandum and Order (Ruling on LILCO's Motions for Summary Disposition of Contentions 1, 2, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, and 10, and Board Guidance on Issues for Litigation)
(Feb. 29, 1988) at 2-3. ,
In addition, LILCO's Interrogatories which seek such information are not within the scope of relevant inquiry l established by the NRC's new emergency planning rule. As the NRC stated in adopting the new rule:
The final rule makes clear that every emergency plan is to '
be evaluated for adequacy on its own merits, without reference to the specific dose reductions which might be accomplished under the plan or to the capabilities of any other olan, l !
I
r 52 Ped. Reg. 42084 (November 3, 1987). LILCO's Interrogatories are in direct contravention of this NRC directive. Accordingly, LILCO's attempts to obtain information about other plants, other governments, other plans and other emergencies are irrelevant and not reasonably calculated to lead to the discovery of admissible evidence. Egg 10 CFR S 2.740(b)(1).
- 2. Suffolk County objects to the numerous Interrogatories addressed to it which seek information about the State and other counties within the State. The information requested is not within the possession or control of Suffolk County and thus cannot be provided to LILCO by Suffolk County.
- 3. The Governments also object to LILCO's Interrogatories to the extent that they seek information on how counties other ,
than Suffolk County would respond, or what plans or procedures they would use, follow or rely upon in drills, exercises, or in the event of a radiological emergency (att, e.g., Interrogatory No. 52). These numerous interrogatories call for speculation which the Governments are unable to provide. The counties about which LILCO seeks such information are separate governmental entities which have independent authority to determine their own actions prior to and during emergencies. Accordingly, the t
Governments cannot predict what these counties would do, how they would respond, what plans they would use, or other such matters.
If LILCO wants this information, it should obtain it from the counties in question. The Governments note that the information is as accessible to LILCO as it is to the Governments.
- 4. The State of New York objects to the questions addressed to it which seek information about Suffolk County and other counties within the State. The information requested is not within the possession or control of the State and thus cannot be provided to LILCO by the State.
- 5. The Governments object to LILCO's Interrogatories to the extent that they seek the identification of documents, or production of documents themselves, which are in the possession, custody or control of counties other than Suffo2k County. Such counties are separate, independent governmental entities. The documents are as accessible to LILCO as they are to the Governments, and if LILCO wants these documents, it should obtain them from the counties in question.
- 6. The Governments object to all of the Interrogatories addressed herein on the ground that they are overly burdensome, t
and this is especially true for the 63 interrogatories (over half of those submitted by LILCO) seeking information about emergency planning for plants other than Shoreham, by governmental l
authorities other than the Governments, or for emergencies other than radiological emergencies. Not only are such questions not relevant (ggg General Objection No. 1), but by their sheer number, they place an undue burden on the Governments. For instance, a great many of the Interrogatories ask for multiple pieces of information on a "county-by-county" basis for every county located in any 50-mile ingestion pathway EPZ within the State. Egg Interrogatory Nos. 51-54, 58-60, 68-74, 76-78, 85, 87, 88-89, 91-94, 96-98, 103, 113, 115. To attempt to assemble the requested information and provide' answers to the Interrogatories objected to here would take many weeks or months beyond the current deadline imposed by the Board. It is unfair to impose such a burden on the Governments, especially in light of the absence of any relevant purpose for posing the Interrogatories. Because this objection is stated for all of the Interrogatories addressed here, it will not be repeated in the specific objections below.
SPECIFIC OBJECTIONS LILCO Interroaatory No. 8
- 8. With respect to each of the following functions,
- a. activating the early warning sirens and directing the broadcast and contenta vf emergency broadcast system (EBS) messages in the event of a radiological emergency at Shoreham (hereinafter the "Contention 5 functions"),
- b. making decisions and official recommendations to the public as to the appropriate actions necessary to protect the public health and safety, including deciding upon protective actions which will be communi-cated to the public, in the event of a radiological emergency at Shoreham (hereinafter the "Contention 6 functions"),
- c. directing traffic, blocking roadways, setting up bar-riers in roadways, and channeling traffic in the event of a radiological emergency at Shoreham (hereinafter the "Contentions 1 and 2 functions"),
- d. performing access control functions at the EPZ perimeter in the event of a radiological emergency at Shoreham (hereinafter the "Contention 10 functions"),
- e. removing obstructions from public roadways, including the towing of private vehicles, in the event of a radiological emergency at Shoreham (hereinafter the "Contention 4 functions"),
- f. making and implementing decisions and official .
recommendations to the public concerning protective actions for the ingestion exposure pathway in the event of a radiological emergency at Shoreham (hereinafter the "Contention 7 functions"), and
- g. making and implementing decisions and official recommendations to the public concerning recovery and reentry in the event of a radiological emergency at Shoreham (hereinafter the "Contention 9 functions"),
please list each and every factor that Intervenors claim would prevent a "best efforts" response by New York State and Suffolk County, generally following the LILCO Plan, from satisfying the applicable NRC requirements.
I Answer to Interroaatorv 8.
The Governments object on the ground that the premise of the Interrogatory -- that the Governments would generally follow the LILCO Plan -- is false and lacking in any factual basis. For the reasons set forth in the Governments' April 13 Objection to Portions of February 29 and April 8 Orders in the Realism Remand and Offer of Proof and Attachments thereto (hereafter, "April 13 Objections and Offer of Proof"), the Governments will not adopt l or follow LILCO's Plan.
' LILCO Interroaatory No. 50 i
- 50. Identify all plans and procedures that New York State has and would use, follow, or otherwise rely upon to make an l
ingestion pathway and recovery and reentry response to a l
radiological emergency at (a) the Yankee Rowe nuclear power plant
- (Massachusetts), (b) the Millstone nuclear power plant (Connecticut), (c) the Haddam Neck nuclear power plant
! (Connecticut), (d) the Vermont Yankee nuclear power plant (Vermont), and (e) the Oyster Creek nuclear power plant (New Jersey). Indicate which of the plans and procedures are site-specific rather than generic. Provide copies of all documents.
i
[
4 .
Answer to Interrocatory No. 50.
Egg General Objections Nos. 1, 2 and 5.
LILCO Interrocatory No. 51
- 51. Identify, on a plant-by-plant basis, all counties in New York State that are located in the ingestion pathway EPZs of the nuclear power plants listed in Interrogatory No. 50.
&nswer to Interroaatory No. 51.
Egg General Objections Nos. 1 and 2. In addition, the Governments object on the grounds that the information sought is as easily accessible to LILCO through public sources as it is to the Governments.
LILCO Interroaatory No. 52 ..
- 52. Identify, on a county-by-ccunty basis, all plans and procedures that the counties listed in response to Interrogatory No. 51 have or would use, follow, or otherwise rely upon for an ingestion pathway and recovery and reentry response to a radiological emergency at the nuclear power plants identified in Interrogatory No. 50. Indicate which of the plans and procedures are site-specific. Provide copies of all documents.
Answer to Interroaatory No. 53 Egg General Objections Nos. 1, 2, 3 and 5.
LILCO Interroaatory No. 53
- 53. State, for the counties listed in response to Interrogatory No. 51 that do not have plans and procedures for an ingestion pathway and recovery and reentry response, how each such county would provide for an ingestion pathway and recovery and reentry response to a radiological emergency.
0 Answer to Interroaatory No. 53.
Egg General Objections Nos. 1, 2; and 3.
LILCO Interroaatory No. 54 r
- 54. Identify all training sessions, drills, and exercises that have been or will be conducted by a county or by New York State to prepare for an ingestion pathway and recovery and reentry response to a radiological emergency at the nuclear power plants listed in Interrogatory No. 50. Identify which counties were or will be involved in each training session, drill, and exercise.
I Answer to Interroaatory No. 54.
Egg General Objections Nos. 1, 2 and 3.
LILCO Interroaatory No. 55
- 55. State whether New York State will participate in the FEMA-graded ingestion pathway exercise for the Yankee Rowe nuclear -
power plant ("Yankee Rowe Exercise"), that will be held in April 1988. Is New York State required by FEMA to participate in this exercise?
Answer to Interroaatory No. 55.
Egg General Objections Nos. 1 and 2.
I LILCO Interrocatory No. 56
- 56. Identify the nature of New York State's participation in the Yankee Rowe Exercise. Include (a) the extent of the State's participation, (b) a list of the activities the State will be responsible for and the State personnel who will be responsible for each activity, and (c) a list of the State personnel who will participate in the exercise and the function each will serve in preparing for or participating in the exercise.
- r. . _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ . _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ - _ _
0 4 .
Answer to Interrocatory No. 56.
Egg General Objections Nos. 1 and 2.
LILCO Interroaatory No. 57
- 57. Identify all plans, procedures, training materials, drill schedules, drill scenarios, and any other documents that the State has used or will use to prepare for and participate in the Yankee Rowe Exercise. Provide copies of all documents.
Answer to Interrocatory No. 57.
Egg General Objections Nos. 1, 2 and 5.
LILCO Interrocatory No. 58
- 58. Identify each and every county in New York State that will be involved in preparing for and participating in the Yankee Rowe Exercise. For each county identify what activities that county will be responsible for and who at each county will be -
responsible for that activity.
Answer to Interronatory No. 58.
Egg General Objections Nos. 1, 2, and 3.
LILCO Interroaatory No. 59
- 59. Identify, on a county-by-county basis, all plans, procedures, training materials, drill schedules and scenarios, and any other documents that the counties identified in Interrogatory No. 58 will use to prepare for and participate in the Yankee Rowe Exercise. Identify which of these documents are site-specific. Provide copies of all documents.
Answer to Interroaatory No. 59.
Egg General Objections Nos. 1, 2, 3 and 5.
9-
0 LILCO Interroaatory No. 60
- 60. Identify all training and drills that have been or will be conducted by the State and the counties identified in Interrogatory No. 58 in preparation for the Yankee Rowe Exercise.
Identify and provide any documents concerning the training and drills.
Answer to Interroaatory No. 60.
Egg General Objections Nos. 1, 2, 3 and 5.
LILCO Interrocatory No. 61
- 61. State whether New York State and the counties and other pertinent jurisdictions in New York State within the 50-mile EPZ of Shoreham are capable of responding to a radiological emergency that requires ingestion pathway and recovery and reentry activities within the ingestion pathway EPZs of (a) the Millstone Nuclear Power Plant, (b) the Oyster Creek Nuclear Power Plant, (c) the Indian Point Nuclear Power Plant, and (d) the Haddam Neck Nuclear Power Plant and whether they have sufficient resources to
- undertake such a response. If the answer is yes, explain how New York State and the counties and other pertinent jurisdictions would respond and what resources they would use. Identify all plans and procedures that would be used and all documents showing that there are sufficient resources. State whether any of these plans, procedures, or other documents are site-specific to their locations.
Answer to Interroaatory No. (1 Egg General Objections Nos. 1, 2, 3, and 5.
LILCO Interroaatory No. 62 l 62. Identify who of the Intervenors would be responsible for the emergency functions and activities identified in Interrogatory No. 49 during the recovery phase of a Millstone, Haddam Neck, Oyster Creek, or Indian Point radiological emergency. To the extent not already identified, identify all plans and procedures i
that would be used, followed, or otherwise relied upon. Provide j copies of all documents.
i l
l i
Answer to Interroaatory No. 62.
Egg General Objections Nos. 1 and 5.
LILCO Interroaatory No. 63
- 63. Identify what emergency response functions and activities the following agencies would be responsible for during a Millstone, Haddam Neck, Oyster Creek, or Indian Point radiological emergency affecting the areas of New York State within the Shoreham 50-mile EPZ and state how those functions and activities would differ from the functions and activities which those agencies would have to perform to make an ingestion pathway and recovery and reentry response for Shoreham: (a) State Department of Health, (b) Department of Agriculture and Markets, (c) Departments of Environmental Conservation, (d) State Police, (e) Department of Transportation, (f) State Emergency Management Office (SEMO), and (g) the Radiological Emergency Preparedness Group (REPG).
Answer to Interroaatory No. 63.
Egg General Objections Nos. 1 and 2. -
LILCO Interroaatory No. 64
- 64. Identify, on an item-by-item basis, what is different about Shoreham that prevents the State and the other counties and other pertinent jurisdictions in New York State within the 50-mile EPZ of Shoreham from using the same plans, procedures, and resources that are used for an ingestion pathway and recovery and reentry response to a Millstone, Haddam Neck, Oyster Creek, or Indian Point radiological emergency.
Answer to Interroaatory No. 64.
Sgt General Objections Nos. 1, 2, and 3.
LILCO Interroaatory No. 67
- 67. Identify whether ingestion pathway and recovery and reentry activitien have been coordinated between the State and Suffolk County and the utilities and offsite response organizations for Millstone, Oyster Creek, Haddam Neck, and Indian Point nuclear
power plants. Identify any and all such activities. Identify all documents documenting these activities. Provide copies of all such documents.
Answer to Interroaatory No. 67.
Egg General Objections Nos. 1 and 5.
LILCO Intatrrocatory No. 68
- 68. Ident;ify all county plans and procedures, and the specific sections and pages of these plans and procedures, that would be used by the following counties for an ingestion pathway and recovery.ind reentry response: Orange, Putnam, Wayne, Monroe, Westchester, Oswego, and Rockland. State whether the plans are used for each county only or for other counties. Identify any other counties for which such plans would be used.
&ng,tter to Interroaatory No. H.
Egg General Objections Nos. 1, 2, 3 and 5. Moreover, LILCO possesses copies of the plans in question and is capable of making the requested determinations on its own.
LILCO Interroaatory N>. 69
- 69. Identify, on a plant-by-plant basis, each county in the
each operating nuclear power plant in New York. For each county, identify all county plans and procedures that would be used, f followed, or otherwise relied upon by that county for an l
l ingestion pathway and a recovery and reentry response to a i
- l l
radiological emergency. If the county does not have plans and ,
procedures, state how they would respond.
Answer to Interroaatory No. 69.
i Egg General Objections Nos. 1, 2, 3 and 5. In addition, the Governments object on the ground that the identification of the counties at issue is as easily accessible to LILCO through the NRC public document room or other public sources as it is to the Governments.
LILCO Interrocatory No. 70
- 70. Identify, on a county-by-county basis for each county in New York State in the ingestion pathway EPZ of a nuclear power plant, who in the New York State government is most knowledgeable about emergency preparedness of each county to make an ingestion pathway and recovery and reentry response. i Answer to Interroaatory No. 70.
Sig General Objections Nos. 1 and 2.
LILCO Interrocatory No. 71 ,
- 71. For the areas of New York State within the 50-mile EPZ of Shoreham, identify who (a) in the New York Stats government and (b) in the cour. ties and other pertinent jurisdictions in those areas is most knowledgeable about the emergency preparedness of the counties and other pertinent jurisdictions in those areas to '
make an ingestion pathway and recovery and reentry response to a Millstone, Haddam Neck, Oyster Creek, and Indian Point radiological emergency.
r
t Answer to Interrocatory No. 71.
Egg General Objections Nos. 1, 2', and 3.
r LILCO Interroaatory No. 72
- 72. For each county listed in Interrogatory No. 68 and identified in your response to No. 69, identify, for each of the following sub-parts, each county that has participated in (a) an ingestion pathway exercise, (b) any drills of ingestion pathway plans and procedures, (c) any training of ingestion pathway plans or procedures, (d) an exercise dealing with recovery and reentry activities, (e) in any drills of recovery and reentry plans and procedures, and (f) in any training of recovery and reentry plans and procedures. For each subpart, identify the dates that that activity occurred, what plans and procedures were used, and who participated.
Answer to Interrocatory No. 72.
Sig General Objections Nos. 1 and 2.
LILCO Interrocatory No. 73
- 73. For each sub-part in Interrogatory No. 72, identify all documents containing documentation of the activities listed in Interrogatory No. 72. Provide copi.es of all such documents. ,
Answer to Interrocatory No. 73.
Egg General Objections Nos. 1, 2 and 5.
LILCO Interrocatory No. 74 i
- 74. Identify, on a county-by-county basis for each county in New York State in an ingestion pathway EPZ of a nuclear power plant, l the local offices of the State that are involved in responding to a radiological emergency. State what function they serve and the activities they are responsible for.
l l
l l !
i
r-
-O Answer to Interroaatory No. 74.
Egg General Objections Nos. 1 and 2.
LILCO Interroaatory No. 76
- 76. Identify which counties in the ingestion pathway EPZ of the Ginna Nuclear Pcwer Station were involved in preparing for the Ginna ingestion pathway exercise ("Ginna Exercise") held in October 1987. For each county describe the roles they played in preparing for and participating in the Ginna Exercise. Identify all documents used by these counties to prepare for and participate in the Ginna Exercise.
Answer to Interroaatory No. 76.
Egg General Objections Nos. 1, 2 and 5.
LILCO Interroaatory No. 77 77.
On a county-by-county basis for all counties except Wayne and Monroe, identify by date when the State and the courtles identified in response to Interrogatory No. 76 (a) met to prepare for the Ginna Exercise, (b) trained for the Exercise, and (c) drilled in preparation for the exercise. Identify and provide all documents containing documentation of these events.
Answer to Interroaatory No. 77.
l Egg General Objections Nos. 1, 2 and 5.
1 l
LILCO Interroaatory No. 78 l
- 78. State for each county in the Ginna ingestion pathway EPZ whether each county's EOC was activated and whether it remained operational throughout the Ginna Exercise. For each county whose EOC was not activated or which did not remain operational throughout the exercise, explain who directed the county's operations and from where.
6 - --
Anster to Interroaatory No. 78.
Eag General Objections Nos. 1 and 2.
LILCO Interroaatory No. 79
- 79. Do the Intervenors believe (see 10 C.F.R. Part 50, App. E (F)(3)(e)) that it'is sufficient to demonstrate at least once every five years the State's capabilities to make an ingestion pathway response through an exercise held at only one nuclear power plant site in the State? If the answer is no, state (a) for which sites in the State that the State's capabilities must be tested in a separate exercise and (b) whether the counties within the 50-mile EPZs of these sites must also participate in a FEMA graded exercise to demonstrate their ability to make an ingestion pathway response.
Answer to Interrocatory No. 79.
Egg General Objection No. 1. In addition, the Interrogatory is objectionable because it is vague and ambiguous. To the extent that the interrogatory seeks an interpretation of law, the Governments object on the ground they are not required to provide any such interpretation.
LILCO Interrocatory No. 80
- 80. If the answer to the first part of Interrogatory No. 79 is yes, state how a single ingestion pathway exercise, like the Ginna Exercise, demonstrates the ability of New York State and l
the counties in the ingestion pathway EPZs of the other nuclear power plants in the State to make an ingestion pathway response at any other nuclear power plant in the State.
(
Answer to Interroaatory No. 80.
iqa General Objections Nos. 1 and 2. Egg also Answer to Interrogatory No. 79, above.
I l
LILCO Interroaatory No. 81
- 81. If the Intervenors believe that the Ginna Exercise demonstrates the capabilities of the State and other counties to respond to an emergency at other nuclear power plants, state whether the Ginna Exercise demonstrates the capabilities of New York State and the counties and other pertinent jurisdictions in the Shoreham 50-mile EPZ to make an ingestion pathway response to a Shoreham emergency. If the answer is no, explain why not.
Answer to Interroaatorv No. 81.
Egg General Objections Nos. 1 and 2. In addition, the Interrogatory is objectionable because it is vague and ambiguous.
LILCO Interroaatory No. 82
- 82. Do the Intervenors believe that for each nuclear power plant in New York State an ingestion pathway exercise must be conducted (a) to satisfy NRC requirements and (b) to demonstrate that the counties are adequately prepared for an ingestion pathway response? If no, explair. why not.
Answer to Interroaatory No. 82.
Egg General Objections Nos. 1 and 2. In addition, the Interrogatory is objectionatle because it is vague. To the extent that the Interrogatory seeks an interpretation of law, the Governments object as they are not required to provide any such interpretation.
LILCO Interroaatory No. 83
- 83. Identify all documents critiquing the Ginna Exercise, including any informal reports, articles, or summaries prepared by the State, counties or utility; and draft FEMA post-exercise reports and the final FEMA post-exercise report. Provide copies of all such documents.
Answer to Interroaatory No. 83.
See General Objections Nos. 1, 2; 3 and 5. The Governments also object on the ground that much of the information requested is as easily accessible to LILCO as to the Governments.
LILCO Interroaatory No. 85
- 85. Identify, on a county-by-county basis for each county in New York State in a 50-mile EPZ of a nuclear power plant, the "routines" referred to on page 4 of the REPG Affidavit in the sentence "there are also many additional routines developed at the State and county level via close interaction of personnel which are not' reflected in the generic State Plan or the county audenda." Identify any documents that contain these "routines."
If the "routines" are site-specific to the particular counties, identify the counties to which the routines apply. State whether these routines apply to all counties in New York State located in l an ingestion pathway EPZ of a nuclear power plant. Provide I copies of all identified documents, Answer to Interroaatory No. 85.
f Sag General Objections Nos. 1, 2 and 5.
LILCO Interroaatory_Mo. 87 l
l l
- 87. On a county-by-county basis for all counties in New York l State located in an ingestion pathway EPZ of a nuclear power plant, identify the "detailed State and local government drills and exercises" referenced at the bottom of page 5 of the REPG l Affidavit.
Answer to Interroaatory No. 87 Sgg General Objections Nos. 1 and 2.
LILCO Interroaatory No. 88
- 88. Identify the bases and actual experiences and activities that support the statement at page 6 of the REPG Affidavit "that
the various counties respond very differently to ingestion pathway and recovery and reentry matters." Provide specific examples of (a) how the counties resp 6nd differently and (b) the implication of these differences.
Answer to Interrocatory No. 88.
jbut General Objections Nos. 1 and 2.
LILCO Interroaatory No. 89
- 89. Identify, on a county-by-county basis for all counties in New York State located within an ingestion pathway EPZ of a nuclear power plant, the "detailed, albeit somewhat informal procedures and techniques" referenced at page 6 of the REPG Affidavit which "enhances the real framework for an integrated response." Identify and provide copies of all documents that contain these "procedures and techniques" for each county.
Answer to Interroaatory No. Q9.
Eeg General Objections Nos. 1, 2 and 5.
LILCO I.nterroaatory No. 90
- 90. In discussing the proper protective response options available for making decisions about agricultural land on page 8 of the REPG Affidavit, REPG states that "substantial information is needed on soil conditions, crop rotations (and), water flow patterns . . . ." State (a) whether all of this information was mado available during the Ginna Exercise, (b) whether it was actually used during the Ginna Exercise, and (c) whether this information is kept updated for each county in New York State that is located in an ingestion pathway EPZ of a nuclear power plant. Identify, on a county-by-county basis, who is responsible for gathering and updating this information. If it is collected by State personnel, identify what local offices are responsible for this task and where this information is kept. Provide copies of all documents containing this information.
Answer to Interroaatory No. 90.
Sag General Objections Nos. 1, 2 and 5.
LILCO Interroaatorv No. 91
- 91. In reference to page 8 of the REPG Affidavit, identify for each county in New York State located in an ingestion pathway EPZ of a nuclear power plant (a) what county personnel "are needed to provide these data," (b) who according to "pre planning" "will perform particular tasks," (c) what these "particular tasks" are, and (d) the training and evaluation of these personnel necessary to do these "particular tasks." Identify all documents containing this "pre-planning," training, and evaluation.
Provide copies of all such documents.
Answer to Interroaatory No. 91.
Egg General Objections Nos. 1, 2 and 5.
LILCO Interroaatory No. 92
- 92. Identify, on a county-by-county basis for all counties in New York State located in an ingestion pathway EPZ of a nuclear power plant, "the procedures, dedicated resources (and] trained personnel" that New Y3rk State has identified "for ingestion pathway data collection and analysis" referred to on page 9 of the REPG Affidavit. Provide copies of all such documents.
Answer to Interrocatory No. 92.
Egg General Objections Nos. 1, 2 and 5.
LILCO Interroaatory No. 93
- 93. If the Intervenors believe that "[t]he level of training required for a proper ingestion pathway response is illustrated by preparation for the Ginna exercise" which "involved close to nine months," REPG Affidavit at 9-10, state whether the same type and amount of training and preparation has already been conducted for all other counties in New York State in an ingestion pathway EPZ of a nuclear power plant. Identify which counties have been prepared to the (same or greater) extent. If the same type and amount of preparation has not been conducted with respect to any counties in New York State in an ingestion pathway EPZ of a nuclear power plant, state why such preparation has not been conducted and whether t here are plans to do so.
Answer to Interroaitory No. 93.
Egg General Objections Nos. 1 and 2.
LILCO Interroaatory No. 14
- 94. State whether the cc unties in the Ginna ingestion pathway EPZ were capable of makir.g an ingestion pathway response to a Ginna radiological emergeacy prior to this "close to nine months" of preparation identified on page 10 of the REPG Affidavit. If the answer is yes, explail why nine months of preparation was needed.
Answer to Interroaatc ry No. 94.
Egg General Objection 1 Nos. 1 and 2.
LILCO Interrocatory No. 95
- 95. State whether the Stat:e will change its approach to planning for an ingestion pathway response in light of the two "important lessons learned as a result;of the Ginna exercise" identified on page 10 of the REPG Affidav?t. If yes, state what changes the State will make. If no, explain why changes will not be made, i
r l Answer to InterrocatorQ No. 95.
f l Egg General Obje<'tions {los. i and 2. In addition, the Interrogatory is objectionab}e because the term "change its
\
l approach to emergency plannifg" is vague and ambiguous.
l l LILCO Interroaatory No. 96 l
- 96. Identify, on a county-by county basis for each county in New York that is located in an inpestion pathway EPZ of a nuclear power plant, the location of tee local cooperative extension offices that would participate in an ingestion pathway response.
4 e
,21 -
T 4
Answer to Interroaatory No. 96.
Egg General Objections Nos. 1 and 2. In addition, the information sought is as accessible to LILCO as it is to the Governments.
LILCO Interroaatory No. 97
- 97. Page 10 of the REPG Affidavit cites two "examples" of site-specific implementing procedures that concern an "adequate local communication network for use by the ingestion sampling teams,"
and "an adequate operations base for the ingestion sampling teams." For each county in New York State that is located in an ingestion pathway EPZ of a nuclear power plant, identify (a) the
- "site-specific implementation procedures" for these two i
! "examples," (b) who is responsible for implementing these procedures, and (c) and tre.ining or drills that have taken place t
l concerning these procedures. Provide copies of all documents l
relating to these procedures and the training .nvolving these procedures.
Answer to Interroaatory No. 97.
t l Egg General Objections Nos. 1, 2, 3 and 5.
I l
I 1
1 LILCO Interroaatory No. 98
- 98. The REPG Affidavit at 10 says that there are "detailed procedures" which go "beyond the generic Plan and county-specific agenda . . . which implement the tasks identified in the Plan.
Identify, on a county-by-county basis for each county in New York State that is located in an ingestion pathway EPZ of a nuclear power plant, these detailed procedures, and state which tasks in the State Plan they are used to implement. Provide copies of all such documents.
Answer to Interroaatory No. 98.
Egg General Objections Nos. 1, 2 and 5.
LILCO Interroaatory No. 99
- 99. State whether it would take nine months to a year for the counties in New York State in an ingestion pathway EPZ of a nuclear power plant to be prepared to make an ingestion pathway and recovery and reentry response that would be adequate to satisfy the applicable NRC requirements. If the answer is no, state how long it would take the counties to become prepared.
Answer to Interroaatorv No. 99.
Egg General Objections Nos. 1 and 2. In addition, this Interrogatory calls for speculation.
LILCO Interrocatory No. 100 100. Identify when the State and County EOCs on Long Island have been activated in the past, why they were activated, what activities took place, and who was responsible for those activities.
Answer to Interroaatory No. 100.
Egg General Objections Nos. 1, 2 and 4. The State has no EOC on Long Island. The Suffolk County EOC has never been activated for a Shoreham-related emergency. Any information sought regarding Nassau County should'be obtained from Nassau County.
LILCO Interroaatory No. 101 101. Has New York State or Suffolk or Nassau County ever implemented their recovery procedures on Long Island in response to a man-made or natural disaster or emergency? If so, identify each occurrence? For each occurrence, identify (a) who in the State and County was involved in this response, (b) what roles they were responsible for, and (c) what activities took place.
Answer to Interrocatorv No. 101.
Egg General Objections Nos. 1, 2 and 4.
LILCO Interroaatory No. 102 102. If the "counties near Shoreham have not dedicated the resources or trained the personnel to support a state ingestion pathway response," REPG Affidavit at 12, state how they will support an ingestion pathway response to a Millstone, Haddam Neck, Oyster Creek, or Indian Point radiological emergency.
Answer to Interroaatory No. 102.
Egg General Objections Nos. 1, 2, and 3.
LILCO Interroaatory No. 103 103. At page 11 of the REPG Affidavit it states that the State Plan does not define responsibilities "since the precise details of how a county can respond are only worked out in "discussions" about how the counties can assist the State in an ingestion pathway response. For each county in New York State in an ingestion pathway EPZ of a nuclear power plant, state when the State has had these "discussions," who attended these "discussions," and, for each county, the "precise details" of the "assistance" that each county will provide the State in an ingestion pathway response. Identify when these "discussions"
- 24 -
have been "refined" during "drills, table top exercises, and similar training sessions. . . . "
Answer to Interroaatory No. 103.
Egg General-Objections Nos. 1, 2, and 3.
LILCO Interrocatory No. 104 104. If the State and all the counties have not had these "discussions," state (a) why they have not occurred, (b) when they will occur, and (c) how the counties can be prepared at this time to assist the State in an ingestion pathway response if these "discussions" have not occurred.
Answer to Interroaatory No. 104.
Egg General Objections Nos. 1 and 2.
LILCO Interroaatory No. 105 105. In de nying LILCO Material Fact No. 2 REFG states "the State and local government personnel who will be responsible for carrying out particular recovery and reentry and ingestion pathway functions are not primarily identified in the Plan."
REPG Affidavit at 17. Identify these "unidentified" State and loca) goverr, ment personnel who will be responsible for recovery and reentry activities for each county in New York State located within a 50-mile EPZ of a nuclear power plant.
Anuwer to Interroaatory No. 105.
Egg General Objections Nos. 1 and 2.
l LILCO Interrocatorv No. 108 l
108. In response to LILCO Material Fact No. 8 REPG stated that even though the Monroe County Plan says the State Plan has complete instructions on recovery, the State Plan does not have complete instructions. REPG Affidavit at 19. Explain how the Monroe County Plan statement can be true. If it is only true "in context," please identify the context that makes it true.
l
4 e Answer to Interroaatory No. 108.
Egg General Objections Nos. 1 and 2.
LILCO Interroaatory No. 112 112. Explain the Intervenors' "understanding (about) what actually would occur in Monroe County with respect to the County Executive" that is more "complex" than that indicated in LILCO Material Fact No. 17. REPG Affidavit at 21. Identify the detailed preparation and planning referenced in the REPG response excluding Monroe County's preparation for the 1987 Ginna Exercise.
Answer to Interroaatory No. 112.
See General Objections Nos. 1 and 2.
LILCO Interroaatory No. 113 113. In response to LILCO Material Fact No. 21, REPG states that the "State Department of Health is nqt the only agency that has responsibilities for analyzing all of the exposure pathways
. . ." REPG Affidavit at 22. Identify on a county-by-county basis for each county in New York State in a 50-mile EPZ of a nuclear power plant all other agencies that have this responsibility.
Answer to Interrocatory No. 113.
Egg General Objections Nos. 1 and 2.
LILCO Interroaatory No. 115 i
i 115. In response to LILCO Material Fact No. 41, REPG states that "particular counties provide more or less support, depending on l
(various] factors. . . ." REPG Affidavit at 26. On a county-by-county basis for each county in New York State located in a 50-mile EPZ of a nuclear power plant what "more or less support" is provided in comparison to that listed in LILCO Material Fact No. 41.
i
e Answer to Interroaatory No. 115.
Egg General Objections Nos. 1 and 2.
LILCO Interroaatory No. 116 116. In response to LILCO Material Fact No. 54, REPG states that the Ginna Exercise tested "the State ingestion pathway procedures for local governments in the vicinity of Ginna only." State what parts of the State Plan were not tested during the Ginna Exercise and if the State plans to test these parts at another exercise, Answer to Interroaatory No. 116.
Egg General Objections Nos. 1 and 2.
LILCO Interroaatory No. 117 117. Identify and describe any and all portions of Suffolk County that are within the plume exposure EPZ of the Millstone Muclear Power Plant in Connecticut.
Answer to Interroaatory No. 117.
l Egg General Objections Nos. 1 and 2. The Governments also object on the ground that the information sought is as easily accessible to LILCO through public sources as it is to the Governments.
1 l LILCO Interroaatory No. 118 118. Identify any and all plans and procedures that Suffolk County would use, follow, or otherwise rely upon to respond to a radiological emergency at the Millstone plant which required the implementation of protective measures, including, but not limited to, evacuation of the portions of Suffolk County identified in Interrogatory No. 117. Provide a copy of all such documents.
Answer to Interroaatory No. 118.
Egg General Objections Nos. 1 and 4.
LILCO Interrocatory No. 120 120. Please provide a copy of any and all existing plans and procedures for responding to emergencies, whether radiological or nonradiological, affecting Suffolk County, including, but not limited to, chemical spills, fires, hurricanes, explosions, and earthquakes. Please include any and all plans for dealing with accidents involving shipments of radiological materials to Brookhaven National Lab, the Shoreham Nuclear Power Station, hospitals and other medical facilities, and industrial facilities.
Answer to Interroaatory No. 120.
Egg General Objections Nos. 1 and 4.
LILCO Interrocatory No. 122 .
122. With respect to New York State, how do the answers to Interrogatories Nos. 10, 13, 15, 16, 21, 22, 23, 30, 37, and 42 differ from what the State would do in a radiological emergency at other operating nuclear power plants in New York State?
Answer to Interroaatory No. 122.
Egg General Objections Nos. 1 and 2.
LILCO Interroaatorv No. 123 123. To the extent not already requested, please provide all (sic] copies of all documents identified in response to the above interrogatories.
a Answer to Interroaatory No. 123.
Egg General Objections Nos. 1, 2; 3, 4 and 5. To the extent documents are identified in the Governments' April 22 Answers in response to non-objectionable questions, they will be provided.
OBJECTIONS STATED BY COUNSEL Counsel state all objections and answers not requiring verification.
E. Thomas Boyle Suffolk County Attorney Building 158 North County Complex Veterans Memorial Highway Hauppauge, New York 11788
. A~A .
3.- - -
Lawrence C. Lanpher Christopher M. McMurray Ronald R. Ross -
KIRKPATRICK & LOCKHART 1800 M Street, N.W.
South Lchby - 9th Floor Washington, D.C. 20036-5891 Attorneys for Suffolk County
. bdd 3o% _-_
(RM)
Pabian G. Palomikof Richard J. Zahnleuter Special Counsel to the Governor of the State of New York Executive Chamber, Room 229 Albany, New York 12224 Attorneys for Mario M. Cuono, Governor of the State of New York
l
.e i
j 6NL Stephen B.
hM-Latham
( )
Twomey, Latham & Shea-33 West Second Street Riverhead, New York 11901 Attorneys for the Town ~of Southampton
)~
J 00LKETED AofipC20, 1988 UNITED STATES OF AMERICA NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSION 18 AR125 P6:01 Before the Atomic Safety and Licensino; Board ggarjur 00CXEilNG & EEAVIC[
BRANCH
)
In the Matter of )
)
LONG ISLAND LIGHTING COMPANY ) Docket No. 50-322-OL-3
) (Emergency Planning)
(Shoreham Nuclear Power Station, )
Unit 1) )
)
CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE I hereby certify that copies of GOVERNMENTS' OBJECTIONS TO LILCO'S SECOND SET OF INTERROGATORIES REGARDING CONTENTIONS 1-2, -
4-8, AND 10 have been served on the following this 20th day of April, 1988 by U.S. mail first class, except as otherwise indicated.
James P. Glea. son, Chairman Mr. Frederick J. Shon l
! Atomic Safety and Licensing Board Atoraic Safety and Licensing Board U.S. Nucleur Regulatory Commission U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission Washington, D.C. 20555 Washington, D.C. 20555 James P. Gleason, Chairman William R. Cumming, Esq.
513 Gilmoure Drive Spence W. Perry, Esq.
Silver Spring, Maryland 20901 Office of General Counsel Federal Emergency Management Agency Dr. Jerry R. Kline 500 C Street, S.W., Room 840 Atomic Safety and Licensing Board Washington, D.C. 20472 U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission Washington, D.C. 20555 W. Taylor Reveley, III, Esq.*
l Hunton & Williams Fabian G. Palomino, Esq. P.O. Box 1535
- Richard J. Zahnleuter, Esq. 707 East Main Street Special Counsel to the Governor Richmond, Virginia 23212 Executive Chamber, Rm. 229 t
State Capitol l Albany, New York 12224
M s
Joel Blau, Esq. ' Anthony F. Earley, Jr.,'Esq.
Director, Utility Intervention General Counsel N.Y. Consumer Protection Board Long Island Lighting Company Suite 1020 175 East Old Country Road Albany, New York 12210 Hicksville, New York 11801 E. Thomas Boyle, Esq. Ms. Elisabeth Taibbi, Clerk Suffolk County Attorney Suffolk County Legislature Bldg. 158 North County Complex Suffolk County Legislature Veterans Memorial Highway Office Building Hauppauge, New York 11788 Veterans Memorial Highway Hauppauge, New York 11788 Mr. L. F. Britt Stephen B. Latham, Esq.
Long Island Lighting Company Twomey, Latham & Shea Shoreham Nuclear Power Station 33 West Second Street North Country Road Riverhead, New York 11901 Wading River, New York 11792 Ms. Nora Bredes Docketing and Service Section Executive Director Office of the Secretary Shoreham Opponents Coalition U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Comm.
195 East Main Street 1717 H Street, N.W.
Smithtown, New York 11787 Washington, D.C. 20555 -
Alfred L. Nardelli, Esq. Hon. Patrick G. Halpin New York State Department of Law Suffolk County Executive 120 Broadway, 3rd Floor H. Lee Dennison Building Room 3-118 Veterans Memorial Highway New York, New York 10271 Hauppauge, New York 11788 MHB Technical Associates Dr. Monroe Schneider 1723 Hamilton Avenue North Shore Committee Suite K P.O. Box 231 San Jose, California 95125 Wading River, New York 11792 Mr. Jay Dunkleburger Richard G. Bachmann, Esq.
New York State Energy Office Edwin J. Reis, Esq.
Agency Building 2 Office of the General Counsel Empire State Plaza U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Comm.
Albany, New York 12223 Washington, D.C. 20555 David A. Brownlee, Esq. Mr. Stuart Diamond Kirkpatrick & Lockhart Business / Financial 1500 Oliver Building NEW YORK TIMES Pittsburgh, Pennsylvania 15222 229 W. 43rd Street New York, New York 10036
+
Douglas J. Hynes, Councilman- Adjudicatory File Town Board of Oyster Bay Atomic Safety and Licensing Board Town Hall Panel Docket (ASLBP)-
- Oyster Bay, New York 11771 U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission Washington, D.C. 20555
~
. L..a. .
T-Ronald R. Ross KIRKPATRICK & LOCKHART 1800 M Street, N.W.
South Lobby - 9th Floor Washington, D.C. 20036-5891
- By Federal Express l
l l
l l
I l
l l
-- ,.--,.,---,,--rn-.-.,-, -- -,---..--,,, , - , - , - - - , , - , , , , - , , , . .. - , ---- ., . - --,