ML20027E522

Motion to Strike KT Erikson & s Cole 821012 Testimony on Contention EP 5(A) Re Role Conflict.Testimony Unrelated to Issues Raised in Contention.Certificate of Svc Encl

ML20027E522
Person / Time
Site:	Shoreham File:Long Island Lighting Company icon.png
Issue date:	11/09/1982
From:	Mccleskey K HUNTON & WILLIAMS, LONG ISLAND LIGHTING CO.
To:	Atomic Safety and Licensing Board Panel
Shared Package
ML20027E520	List: ML20027E519 ML20027E522 ML20027E533 ML20027E545
References
ISSUANCES-OL, NUDOCS 8211150462
Download: ML20027E522 (11)

Text

_ __

LILCO, November 9, 1982 UNITED STATES OF AMERICA NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSION Before the Atomic Safety and Licensing Board In the Matter of )

)

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

)

(Shoreham Nuclear Power Station, )

Unit 1) )

LILCO's Motion to Strike the Testimony of Kai T. Erikson and Stephen Cole on Suffolk County Contention EP 5(A) -- Role Conflict I.

On October 12, 1982, Suffolk County filed testimony from Dr. Kai Erikson and Dr. Stephen Cole on contention EP 5(A). The contention reads as follows:

Suffolk County contends that LILCO has failed to provide reasonable assurance that on-site assistance from off-site agencies will be forthcoming in the event of a radio-logical emergency at the Shoreham site (see, e.g., Plan at 5-8 and 6-15). LILCO has therefore not met the requirements of 10 C.F.R. $$ 50.47(b)(1),(2),(3),(8),(12), and (15), 10 C.F.R. Part 50, Appendix C, Item A, and NUREG 0654 . . . . Thus:

A. It does not appear that LILCO has addressed or analyzed the possi-bility that off-site personnel and/or on-site augmenting personnel expected to report to the Shoreham site for emergency duty would fail to report (or report in a timely IG

9 manner) because of conflicting family (or other) duties that would arise in the event of a radiological emergency.

As will be explained below, much of the Suffolk County testimony on EP 5(A) is unrelated to the issues raised in that contention. Under the NRC's rules of practice, testimony must be relevant to the issues in contention. 10 C.F.R. 5 2.743(c).1/ And irrelevant testimony is the proper subject of a motion to strike. See 10 C.F.R. Part 2 Appendix A, V(d)(7).

The Board has the power to implement these provisions, both through its general power to regulate the conduct of a hearing, 10 C.F.R. $ 2.718, and through the specific authority under 10 C.F.R. 5 2.757(b) to strike argumentative, repetitious, cumula-tive or irrelevant evidence. Accordingly, LILCO moves to strike the portions of Dr. Erikson's and Dr. Cole's testimony specified below.

1/ Title 10 C.F.R. $ 2.743(c) provides:

Only relevant, material, and reliable evidence which is not unduly repetitious will be admitted. Immaterial or irrelevant parts of an admissible document will be segre-gated and excluded so far as is practicable.

l l

II.

Contention EP 5(A) deals with onsite assistance from emergency workers located offsite at the time a radiological emergency is declared at Shoreham. In particular, the County contends that emergency workers expected to report to the Shoreham site for emergency duty may not report because of con-flicting family or other duties (" role conflict").

At the prehearing conference of April 14, 1982, the Board restricted the issues regarding emergency planning "on which we can proceed to litigation" (Tr. 760). That area was defined as "the licensee's actions under its emergency plan, whether those actions be on-site or off-site." Tr. 760; see Order of April 20, 1982, at 7. As admitted, EP SA was expressly limited to role conflict that may be experienced by emergency workers called to Shoreham. The contention, on its face, states that limitation, and the Board explained in admitting the contention in Phase I of the emergency planning hearings rather than Phase II, that "I am talking about the emergency workers reporting on site, though. Whether that ,

record is useful or not when you talk about what non-emergency workers or emergency workers off-site do, we will consider when we get to the next phase." Tr. 7346.

)

r __ . _ _ _ _ _ . . _ _ _ _ _ . _ __ . - . _ _ _ _ _ _ , . _ _ . , _ _ _ . , _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ , _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ . _ _ . _ _ - _ .

The County has chosen to ignore this limitation and address role conflict in general. The testimony goes beyond the scope of the contention in several respects.

A. School bus drivers Suffolk County has failed to limit its testimony to the emergency workers offsite who are expected to respond onsite in the event of an emergency at Shoreham. Instead the County addresses the alleged role conflict that may be experienced by school bus drivers, basing its conclusions regarding role con-flict in part upon a survey of the school bus drivers in the vicinity of Shoreham.

School bus drivers are not among those "off-site personnel expected to report to the Shoreham site for emergency duty." Nowhere does the LILCO emergency plan rely upon school buses or school bus drivers to respond onsite. Therefore, even assuming that the results cf surveys of the bus drivers are predictive of their future behavior,2/ testimony on (1) the ability or inability of school bus drivers to perform their tasks due to role conflict, and (2) the surveys upon which 2/ LILCO does not concede that surveys should be relied upon as a basis for predicting future behavior of emergency workers; LILCO's testimony on EP 5(A) indicates that in LILCO's view one cannot predict future response to an emergency situation from the answers given to surveys.

conclusions regarding potential role conflict of bus drivers are based, is outside the scope of contention EP 5(A) and therefore irrelevant.

Accordingly, those portions of the County's testimony on EP 5(A) which discuss role conflict among school bus drivers should be struck. The pertinent portions of Dr. Erikson's tes-timony are the following:

page 7, line 22 ("and school bus drivers, both groups of")

page 7, line 24 (" School bus drivers, for instance, could")

page 8, lines 1-2, 18-23, and line 24 ("of Brookhaven")

page 9, lines 3-4 (excluding " men" on line 3) page 10, lines 4-15 Attachment 3 in its entirety.3/

The pertinent portions of Dr. Cole's testimony are the following:

1 3/ Attachment 4 (a draft report by Dr. Cole, summarizing the ,

results of the surveys) is listed in the summary of Dr. '

Erikson's testimony as an attachment. Erikson EP 5(A)

Summary at 2. It is not, however, referenced in Dr.

Erikson's testimony, and Dr. Erikson states in his testi-mony that he has not reviewed the results of the surveys compiled by Dr. Cole. Therefore, Attachment 4 is omitted from the list of the portions of Dr. Erikson's testimony that should be struck.

l l

page 2, lines 12-18 (excluding "The second survey" on line 18) page 5, lines 8-23 page 6 page 7 page 8, lines 1-3 Attachment 3 in its entirety Attachment 4 --

page 3, line 11 (" school bus drivers and"), lines 13-15 (" school bus drivers are needed to drive school children from schools within the evacuating zone to shelters outside of the evacuation zone."),

and line 19 ("both school bus drivers"); pages 4-7 (excluding "The survey of volunteer firemen was conducted on the" at page 7.); pages 12-22; page 37, line 17, through page 39, line 14; page 39, line 27 (excluding " prepared") through page 41, line 2; pages 46-50.4/

B. Volunteer Firemen Suffolk County has failed to limit its testimony to the role conflict that emergency workers offsite may experience when called upon to respond onsite. Instead, the County addresses the alleged role conflict that volunteer firemen may experience while performing evacuation, rescue, or firefighting duties offsite during an evacuation of the population within the ten-mile emergency planning zone.

4/ If the Board grants this motion to strike on both of the portions of Attachment 4 on school bus drivers and the portions on volunteer firemen (discussed in part II(B) of this motion), Attachment 4 may be struck in its entirety.

1 LILCO relies on volunteer fire departments (principally Wading River Fire Department) to provide fire-fighting and ambulance services onsite if those services are required during a radiological emergency. LILCO Emergency Response Plan at 5-8. The County's testimony, however, focuses entirely upon the services volunteer fire departments may provide in an evac-uation. The survey of volunteer firemen, upon which Dr.

Erikson's and Dr. Cole's conclusions regarding role conflict among firemen are based, addresses the firemen's response offsite during an evacuation, not onsite during an emergency at Shoreham. Dr. Cole states in his draft report on the survey (Attachment 4 to his testimony at 3-4) that "[t]he two surveys we conducted [of school bus drivers and of volunteer firemen]

had as their primary goal to estimate what proportion of both school bus drivers and volunteer firemen could be counted upon to report quickly for their evacuation assignments." (Emphasis added.) None of the questions in the survey focus upon role conflicts in connection with reporting onsite, or postulate that the firemen may report to the site. The question highlighted in the County's testimony, for example, discusses firemen reporting to work "to help with the evacuation." Cole testimony at 3-4; see Erikson testimony at 9-10.

l

. l l

l The volunteer firemen reporting "to help with the evac-uation" are not "offsite personnel and/or onsite augmenting personnel expected to report to the Shoreham site for emergency duty" within the meaning of contention EP 5(A). The conclu-sions in the testimony based upon a survey of volunteer firemen working offsite during an emergency, and the survey itself, are outside the scope of EP 5(A) and are therefore irrelevant.

Accordingly, those portions of the County's testimony on EP 5(A) which discuss role conflict among volunteer firemen reporting to work offsite during an emergency should be struck.

The pertinent portions of Dr. Erikson's testimony are the following:

page 7, lines 21-24 page 8, lines 2-17 and line 24 page 9 through page 10, line 3 page 10, line 15, through page 11, line 5 Attachment 2 in its entirety.

The pertinent portions of Dr. Cole's testimony are the following: i page 2, line 19 (beginning "The second survey")

page 3 through page 5, line 7 page 8, lines 12-13 ("of volunteer firemen")

Attachment 2 in its entirety j

l 1

Attachment 4 --

page 3, line 12 (" volunteer firemen"), lines 15-17 (beginning " volunteer firemen are"), and lines 19-10 (" volunteer firemen"); page 4, line 1 ("and volunteer firemen"); page 7, line 27; pages 8-11; pages 23-35; page 41, line 3, through page 45; pages 51-56.

III.

For the reasons stated, the portions of Suffolk County's testimony on contention EP 5(A) discussed above should not be admitted as evidence in this proceeding.5f Respectfully sumitted, LONG ISLAND LIGHTING COMPANY

[d4,fA. /F Arb W. 'ra'ylgE7ev61ey, 'II5 " -~ ~

James N. Christman Kathy E. B. McCleskey Hunton & Williams P. O. Box 1535 Richmond, Virginia 23212 DATED: November 9, 1982 Sj If this motion is granted as to the testimony on school bus drivers and the testimony on volunteer firemen, Dr.

Cole's testimony and Attachments 2, 3, and 4 will be struck entirely. The County's remaining testimony on EP 5(A) will consist of (1) Dr. Erikson's testimony, pages 1-6; page 7, lines 1-20; and page 11, lines 6-22, plus (2)

Attachment 1.

LILCO, Novcmbar 9, 1982 4

CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE In the Matter of LONG ISLAND LIGHTING COMPANY (Shoreham Nuclear Power Station, Unit 1)

Docket No. 50-322 (OL)

I hereby certify that copies of LILCO's Motion to Strike the Testimony of Kai T. Erickson and Stephen Cole on Suffolk County Contention EP 5(A) -- Role Conflict were served upon the following by first-class mail, postage prepaid, by Federal Express (as indicated by an asterisk), or by hand (as indicated by two asterisks), on November 9, 1982:

Lawrence Brenner, Esq.** Secretary of the Commission Administrative Judge U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Atomic Safety and Licensing Commission Board Panel Washington, D.C. 20555 U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission Atomic Safety and Licensing Washington, D.C. 20555 Appeal Board Panel U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Dr. Peter A. Morris ** Commission Administrative Judge Washington, D.C. 20555 Atomic Safety and Licensing Board Panel Atomic Safety and Licensing U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Board Panel Commission U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Washington, D.C. 20555 Commission Washington, D.C. 20555 Dr. James H. Carpenter **

Administrative Judge Daniel F. Brown, Esq.

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

David J. Gilmartin, Esq.

Bernard M. Bordenick, Esq.** Attn:

Patricia A. Dempsey, Esq. ""

David A. Repka, Esq. County Attorney U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Suffolk County Department of Law Commission Veterans Memorial Highway 11787 Washington, D.C. 20555 Hauppauge, New York Stephen B. Latham, Esq.* ga Herbert H. Brown, Esq.** Twomey, Latham & Shea Lawrence Coe Lanpher, Esq. 33 West Second Street Karla J. Letsche, Esq. Hill, P. O. Box 398 Kirkpatrick, Lockhart, Riverhead, New York 11901 Christopher & Phillips 8th Floor Ralph Shapiro, Esq.*

1900 M Street, N.W. Cammer and Shapiro, P.C.

Washington, D.C. 20036 9 East 40th Street 10016 New York, New York Mr. Mark W. Goldsmith Howard L. Blau, Esq.

Energy Research Group 4001 Totten Pond Road 217 Newbridge Road 11801 02154 Hicksville, New York Waltham, Massachusetts MHB Technical Associates Matthew J. Kelly, Esq.

1723 Hamilton Avenue State of New York Suite K Department of Public Service San Jose, California 95125 Three Empire State 12223 Plaza Albany, New York Mr. Jay Dunkleberger New York State Energy Office Agency Building 2 Empire State Plaza 12223 Albany, New York fjg

~'~~

K t y E. B. McCles'6y Hunton & Williams 707 East Main Street P.O. Box 1535 Richmond, Virginia 23212 DATED:

November 9, 1982