ML20028A448
| ML20028A448 | |
| Person / Time | |
|---|---|
| Site: | Shoreham File:Long Island Lighting Company icon.png |
| Issue date: | 11/16/1982 |
| From: | Mcmurray C KIRKPATRICK & LOCKHART, SUFFOLK COUNTY, NY |
| To: | Atomic Safety and Licensing Board Panel |
| References | |
| ISSUANCES-OL, NUDOCS 8211220174 | |
| Download: ML20028A448 (15) | |
Text
_ _
.A UhlYc UNITED STATES OF AMERICA NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSION .g N0'/19 410:iS Before the Atomic Safety and Licensing Board # l9 -
)
In the Matter of )
)
LONG ISLAND LIGHTING. COMPANY ) Docket No. 50-322 (OL)
) (Emergency Planning (Shoreham Nuclear Power Station, ) Proceedings)
Unit 1) )
)
SUFFOLK COUNTY'S RESPONSE TO MOTIONS TO STRIKE FILED BY LILCO AND THE NRC STAFF Suffolk County filed written direct testimony on Phase I emergency planning issues on October 12, 1982. On November 9, 1982, LILCO and the NRC Staff filed motions to strike all or
' portions of the County's direct testimony on contentions EP 5A l
! (Role Conflict), EP 14 (Dose Assessment Models), and EP 2B/SB (Traffic Congestion). The County herein responds to those motions which, the County respectfully submits, are without basis and should be denied.
EP SA The County's review of LILCO's onsite emergency response plan led to its concern that there was no reasonable assurance that LILCO could obtain timely on-site emergency assistance from persons offsite because LILCO's plan failed to address the issue of role conflict among emergency workers. The County consequently submitted contention EP 5A which reads as follows:
8211220174 821116 PDR ADOCK 05000322 G PDR tsd3
4 EPS: OFFSITE RESPONSE ORGANIZATION AND ONSITE RESPONSE AUGMENTATION (SC, joined by NSC and SOC)
Suffolk County contends that LIL'CO has failed to provide reasonable assurance that onsite assistance from offsite agencies will be forthcoming in the event ,
of a radiological embrgency at the-Shoreham site (see, e.g., Plah at 5-8 and 6-15).
LILCO has therefore not met the requirements of 10 C.F.R. SS50.47 (b) (1) , (2) , (3) , (8) , (12) and (15), 10 C.F.R. Part 50, Appendix E, Item A, and NUREG 0654. In addition, LILCO has not demonstrated adequately that it will be able to augment its onsite emergency response staff in a timely manner (see Plan, Ch. 5). LILCO has also, therefore, failed to meet the requirements of 10 C.F.R. S50.47 (b) (1) and (2). Thus:
A. It does not appear that LILCO has addressed or analyzed the possi-bility that offsite personnel and/or onsite augmenting personnel expected to report to the Shoreham site for emergency duty, would fail to report (or report in a timely manner) because of conflicting family (or other) duties that would arise in the event of a radiological emergency.
To support its contention, Suffolk County filed the direct testimony of two experts, Drs. Kai T. Erikson and Stephen Cole, who have done work in the field of role conflict -- particularly with respect to workers who may be expected to perform emergency duties in the event of an accident at the Shoreham plant. In their testimony, both experts referred to recent studies they conducted on behalf of Suffolk County of volunteer firemen and school bus drivers in the Shoreham area. Both studies revealed ,
that substantial numbers of those emergency workers would fail to report for duty in.a timely manner during a radiological
emergency because they would first look after the safety of their own families. Those results hold clear implications for adequate emergency preparedngss at the Shoreham plant.
LILCO has now moved to strike substantial portions of the County's EP 5A testimony which, if granted, would leave in evidence only a few pages of Dr. Erikson's testimony.1/ Even more ambitiously, the NRC Staff has moved to strike all of the County's testimony and exhibits. Both parties claim that in discussing the role conflict surveys described above, which focused on workers who would perform emergency duties primarily offsite, the County's testimony is outside the scope of the
- contention and thus irrelevant (LILCO Motion at 2-3; NRC Staff i
i . Motion at 4). These claims, however, are groundless.
The County agrees with LILCO and the NRC Staff that the i
thrust of EP SA is whether there will be sufficient onsite assistance from emergency personnel who are offsite at the beginning of an ac.ident. However, a fundamental error under-lying LILCO's and the NRC Staff's claims is their overly restrictive view of what constitutes relevant evidence.2/
LILCO and the NRC Staff would seem by their motions to take the position that any evidence of human behavior offsite is, in all cases, irrelevant to human behavior onsite. The bounds 1/ See LILCO's Motion at 9, n. 5.
2/ " Relevant evidence" means evidence having any tendency to make the existence of any f act that is of consequence to the determination of the action more probable or less probable than it would be without the evidence. [ Rule 401, Federal Rules of Evidence]
9 4-of relevance, they appear to argue, are defined by the fence surrounding the Shoreham plant. That narrow interpretation of relevance, however, is unsupportable.
Of clear relevance to the issue of the need to address role conflict in an emergency plan are the following questions:
--What is role conflict?
--Will role conflict be more pronounced during a radiological emergency?
--What are the implications of role conflict for emergency planning?
--How should an organization charged with planning for an emergency address the issue of role conflict?
The testimony that LILCO seeks to strike responds directly to those pertinent questions. The fact that they are addressed by discussion of radiological emergency workers not necessarily assigned to onsite tasks does not render their testimony irrelevant.
In fact, LILCO's experts themselves buttress.their testimony with several references having no direct relation to onsite emergency workers at Shoreham. For instance, LILCO's expert, Russell Dynes, supports his testimony by citing 6,000 interviews conducted at Ohio State University of:
"not just police chiefs, but sergeants and patrolmen; not just physicians, but nurses and attendants; not just heads of public works decartments, but supervicors and crew memaers." [ Emphasis added]
LILCO EP SA testimony at 8. Dynes and Dennis S. Mileti explain further that their opinion that emergency workers will perform their responsibilities:
"...is evidenced by the high performance levels exhibited in emergencies by members of police and fire departments, public works departments, highway de'?artments, emergency medical personnel, aospital personnel, and other workers with clear emerc'ency responsibility. " [ Emphasis added]
LILCO EP 5A testimony at 16.1/
The above testimony by LILCO refers to many types of workers not expected to appear onsite at Shoreham for emergency duty and to interviews and studies not dealing with Shoreham. Neverthe-less, LILCO has included this testimony as relevant evidence to support its position that role conflict will not impede its emergency response. Suffolk County's similar use of studies pertaining to role conflict among certain workers is no less relevant. In fact, Suffolk County's studies, focused precisely on radiological emergency workers in Suffolk County, is the best evidence available. The fact that the actual workers surveyed would be expected to respond primarily offsite during a radio-logical emergency goes to the weight of the surveys, not their admissibility.
Furthermore, both LILCO's and the NRC Staff's arguments that the survey of volunteer firemen bears no relation to onsite P
emergency duties ignore important facts. Suffolk County's survey included five fire departments in the Shoreham vicinity.
3/ See also LILCO's experts' references to a general article on role conflict by Lewis Killian (LILCO SA testimony at 6),
" stories" about emergency workers who did not fulfill their l roles (LILCO SA testimony at 17), and the " extensive history" i of evidence which supports their position (LILCO SA testimony l
at 22) , none of which refers to onsite emergency personnel. Note
! also that LILCO itself has brought into issue the efficacy of conducting the very types of surveys Suffolk County has conducted l
(LILCO testimony at 19-21).
4/
Four of those departments - provid,e mutual aid to the Wading ~
River Fire Department. Under the mutual aid program, those four departments might have the occasion to perform onsite emergency duties. See LILCO Motion for Summary Disposition of the Traffic Congestion Issues at 7, 9; Affidavit of Nicholas J. Di Mascio on Emergency Vehicles at 5; LILCO plan at 5-8.
The County's survey asked the question whether the volanteer firemen would report for evactation and firefighting duty in the event of a radiological emergency, or whether they would first look after their own families' safety. The fact that more than one-l l
third of the volunteer firemen surveyed indicated that they would not report promptly to evacuate an area outside the plant during a radiological emergency has unquestionable relevance to whether they would respond onsite-(closer to the source of danger) during a similar emergency. It defies logic that firemen would take care of their families if requested te report offsite, but would give their families less attention if requested to report onsite under the same emergency circumstances. Thus, the declared intended behavior of the firemen, as displayed by the survey is relevant to whether they or the Wading River Fire Department could be counted upon by LILCO to perform onsite duties. Clearly, the thrust of the facts revealed by the survey is that LILCO has to address this problem and resolve it. Otherwise , the public safety will be endangered. In light of these facts, the survey of volunteer fire-men clearly is relevant and, therefore, admissible as evidence in the Phase I consideration of role conflict.
4/ Those departments are: Rocky Point, Ridge, Miller Place, and Riverhead.
l EP 14 In testimony submitted by Dr. Fred Finlayson on EP 14,b!
the County expressed its concerns that LILCO's dose assessment models were inadequate.in that they: (1) calculated whole body doses without consider!.ng contributions from inhalation or ground contaminatior$; (2) neglected important fission product source terms; and (3) estimated the release rates of noble gases and halogens based upon arbitrary assumptions concerning the ratio of those fission products in the mixture released. LILCO has moved to strike substantial portions of Dr. Finlayson's testimony claiming that it seeks to litigata a probabilistic risk assessment conducted for LILCO by SAI Laboratories (here-inafter "PRA") and thus is in violation of the Board's Prehearing Conference Order of July 27, 1982. LILCO further complains that the Board should strike other portions of Dr. Finlayson's testimony discussing Gaussian plume dispersion models because LILCO purportedly finds no direct mention in Dr. Finlayson's resume (Attachment 1) of his expertise in this area.
LILCO's claim that the County has attempted to litigate the PRA in its testimony on EP 14 is puzzling and without any 5/ EP 14 reads as follows:
ACCIDENT ASSESSMENT AND DOSE ASSESSMENT MODELS (SC, joined by SOC and NSC)
LILCO's plan fails to provide reasonable assurance that adequate methods, systems and equipment for assessing and monitoring actual or potential off-site consequences of a radiological emergency condition are in use, and therefore does not comply with 10 C.F.R. 550.47 (b) (9) .
support in the record. A review of the many pages that LILCO seeks to strike reveals only Dr. Finlayson's discussion of LILCO's dose assessment-models and the defects he perceives to be inherent in those models. Nowhere does Dr. Finlayson question, challenge or take issue with the PRA conducted by SAI.5/ In fact, one'is hard-pressed to find in those pages any references whatsoever to the PRA.
While Dr. Finlayson does refer, at pp. 10-11, to a table (Attachment 3) reproduced directly from the PRA, it is only for the purpose of identifying the fission products that might be released from the Shoreham plant during certain accidents.
SAI has determined what those releases might be and Dr. Finlayson has simply accepted and used those data to show that calcula-tions excluding those fission products will lead to lower dose estimates (Finlayson testimony at 11). Surely, the fission pro-1 ducts likely to be released during an accident are relevant to assessment of doses that would be received through contact with them. The fact that the source of the evidence is LILCO's own PRA makes it no less relevant. In no way, however, does Dr.
Finlayson's testimony place the accuracy of those release values or any other part of LILCO's PRA in issue. Thus, the County is at a loss to understand the basis for LILCO's claim.2!
t l 6/ This is not to imply that the County finds no fault with
- j. LILCO's PRA, but only that the issue has not been raised by l Dr. Finlayson's testimony.
2/ Indeed, it should be noted that LILCO did not move to strike Attachment 3. ,
I i
The Board's Prehearing Conference Order of July 27 precluded " litigation" of the PRA but did not call for exclusion of evidence relevant to the adequacy of LILCO's dose assessment models. Quite obviously, the County has not ,,
attempted in EP 14 to litigate LILCO's PRA in any sense of the word. In fact, the vast majority of the pages LILCO wishes to strike do not even discuss LILCO's PRA in any manner. In light of this fact, the County has remained within the confines of the Board's Order of July 27 and LILCO's motion based on a violation of that Order is groundless.
LILCO's claim that Dr. Finlayson's discussion of Gaussian plume models is outside his scope of expertise is equally with-out merit. Dr. Finlayson's resume is replete with examples l of his expertise in probabilistic risk assessment and consequence analyses for nuclear accidents. Inherent within that area of expertise is knowledge of tracking plunes and associated plume dispersal models. Thus,.LILCO's motion merely speculates regarding what LILCO believes should be in a resume, instead of relying upon any detailed factual showing. If LILCO questions Dr. Finlayson's qualifications, it should raise the concerns during voir dire and not in a motion to strike.
EP 2B/5B In contentions EP 2B and EP 5B, the County is concerned that traffic conditions during an evacuation might hinder LILCO's emer-gency response at the Shoreham plant. Specifically, the County has 1
- . _ - - - - , , - . - - - - - - - , - . , - - - - - . , . - . - - - , , - -- --. , , , - - _ _ _ _ , , , , , , _ , . - , - - . . - - - , - , - , . _ . , - -e- -
contended that traffic congestion during an emergency might prevent offsite personnel from responding onsite in a timely manner 8/ and cause delays in ambulance travel between the plant and Central Suffolk Hospital.E[' The County addressed these issues with .
written direct testimony from four experts: AndrewCblKanen, Dr. Kai T. Erikson, Dr. James H. Johnson and Dr. Stephen Cole.
~
8/ EP 5: Offsite Response Organization and Onsite Response Augmentation Suffolk County contends that LILCO has failed to provide reasonable assurance that onsite assistance from offsite 3
agencies will be forthcoming in the event of a radiological emergency at the Shoreham sita (see, e.g., Plan at 5-8 and 6-15). LILCO has therefore not met the requirements of 10 C.F.R. SS 50.47 (b) (1) , (2), (3), (8), (12) and (15), 10 C.F.R. Part 50, Appendix E, Item A, and NUREG-0654. In addition, LILCO has not demonstrated adequately that it will be able to augment its onsite emergency response staff in a timely manner (see Plan, Ch. 5). LILCO has also, therefore, failed to meet the requirements of 10 C.F.R. S 50.47 (b) (1) and (2) . Thus:
j B. LILCO has not adequately demonstrated the
! possible effects of traffic congestion
, during evacuation of the population upon the ability of offsite personnel and/or onsite augmenting personnel to respond promptly to the Shoreham site.
A! EP 2: Medical and Public Health Support l * * *
- l B. Furthermore, LILCO has failed to adequately demonstrate
! that ground transportation (Plan at 6-16) is adequate for conveyance of contaminated injured individuals to Central Suffolk Hospital under the congested traffic -
or radiological conditions that are likely to exist
] during a radiological emergency. Thus, LILCO has i
l failed to satisfy 10 C.F.R. S 50.47 (b) (12) , 10 C.F.R.
i Part 50, Appendix E, Item IV.E.6, and NUREG-0654, Item II.I.4.
i
- ~ ~ ~ . - , - _ , , . . , _ . . , . . . _ . . - . . . _ _ . . , . - - _ , . , . - - , - . , _ _ . , - - _ - - . _ - - . - - , . - . . . . - , - , - , - _ _ _ , . . - - - - . - , _
Mr. Kanen's testimony discusses the problems of traffic congestion that will occur in the event of an emergency. Drs. Johnson, Erikson and Cole discuss the " evacuation shadow phenomenon"1S/'
w'hich Mr. Kanen specifically identified.as a potential contributor to traffic congestion during an eme'rgency at the Shoreham plant ~ -
that could impede L LCO's emergency response (see Kanen testimony 8, 10-13).
The NRC Staff has moved' the ' Board to strike several pages of Mr. Kanen's testimony and all of the testimony given by Drs.
1 i Johnson, Erikson and Cole. It argues that portions of Mr. Kanen's testimony should be struck because they deal "with traffic f
congestion generally in Suffolk County in the event of an emergency." NRC Staff Motion at 2. The NRC Staff complains further that the testimony of Drs. Johnson, Cole and Erikson is inadmissible because the " nexus between (the evacuation shadow] ' phenomenon' and the problems set out in Contentions EP 2B and 5B is so attenuated as not to be probative of the issues therein." NRC Staff Motion at 2-3. Contrary to the NRC Staff's claims, however, the testimony it seeks to strike is directly related to the issue of the impact of traffic congestion on LILCO's emergency response capability.
The pages of Mr. Kanen's testimony that the NRC Staff 1
wishes to strike (page 6 through page 13, line 9) discuss 10/ Drs. Johnson and Eriksen discuss the nature of the evacuation snadow phenomenon, its importance to rational emergency planning
- and the Long Island study on which they collaborated. Dr. Cole's testimony primarily addresses the manner in which the study was conducted.
four factors that could lead to traffic congestion if there wa. . emergency at the Shoreham plant. These four factors are: (1) work to home travel; (2) perimeter control; (3) evacua-tion; and (4) the evacuation shadow phenomenon. After discussing these four factorsh Mr. Kanen then applies them to the ability of ambulances to travel to Central Suffolk Hospital and the ability of offsite personnel to reach the Shoreham site (Kanen testimony at 13-18). Mr. Kanen's discussion of the four factors contributing to traffic congestion explain and provide the basis for his concl'sions u at pp. 13-18 of his testinony. Thus, it is not only highly relevant, but almost essential to a clear understanding of the problems raised in EP 2B and EP 5B.
Furthermore, as stated above, one of the key factors having an impact on traffic congestion that could impede travel to the Shoreham site or Central Suffolk Hospital is the evacuation
( shadow phenomenon (or voluntary evacuation) (Kanen testimony at 8, 10-13). That phenomenon could put many thousands of additional cars on the road, with an obvious impact on congestion (see Johnson testimony at 15-16). Drs. Johnson, Cole and Erikson have studied that phenomenon not only generally, but in Suffolk County in particular. Their testimony explains not l
only the nature of the evacuation shadow phenomenon as it exists in Long Island, but also provides relevant insight into the methodology of the study they conducted. Thus, it provides the l
underlying basis for a significant part of Mr. Kanen's testimony l
l l
I
which, as discussed earlier, identified the evacuation shadow phenomenon as a factor which could have an impact on the emergency responses at issue in EPs 2B and SB. ,
It is precisely this sort
,pf detailed, site-specific testimony that raises the County's h
vidence above the simplistic generalizations offered by the NRC Staff on these issues (See NRC Staff Supplemental Testimony of John 1. Sears Regarding Onsite Emergency Planning (Phase I) at 13-14, 19-20). Far from being " attenuated" from the issues raised, the testimony of Drs. Johnson, Cole and Erikson is highly relevant. Indeed, it is the best available evidence. The NRC Staff's motion to strike should, therefore, be denied.
1 Conclusion The motions filed by LILCO and the NRC Staff to strike all or portions of the County's testimony on EP 5A, EP 14 and i EP 2B/5B are without merit and should be denied.
1 Respectfully submitted,
- David J. Gilmartin Patricia A. Dempsey j Suffolk County Department of Law Hauppauge, New York 11788 i
nr 139,)/ / -
f '
$2 W Herbert'H. Brown ~
Lawrence C. Lanpher Christopher M. McMurray .
KIRKPATRICK, LOCKHART, LL, CHRISTOPHER & PHILLIPS 1900 M Street, NW, Suite 800 Washington, DC 20036 Dated: November 16, 1982 Washington, D.C.
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)
) (Emergency Planning (Shoreham Nuclear Power Station, ) Proceedings)
Unit 1) )
)
CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE I hereby certify that copies of "Suffolk County's Response To Motions To Strike Filed By LILCO And The NRC Staff" were sent on November 16, 1982 by first class mail, except where otherwise noted, to the following:
Lawrence Brenner, Esq.* Mr. Brian McCaffrey Administrative Judge Long Island Lighting Company Atomic Safety and Licensing 175 East Old Country Road Board Hicksville, New York 11801 U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission Washington, D.C. 20555 Ralph Shapiro, Esq.
Cammer and Shapiro Dr. James L. Carpenter
- 9 East 40th Street Administrative Judge New York, New York 10016 Atomic Safety and Licensing Board Howard L. Blau, Esq.
U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission 217 Newbridge Road Washington, D.C. 20L55 Hicksville, New York 11801 Dr. Peter A. Morris
- W. Taylor Reveley, III, Esq.**
Administrative Judge Hunton & Williams Atomic Safety and Licensing 707 East Main Street Board Richmond, Virginia 23212 U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission Washington, D.C. 20555 Mr. Jay Dunkleberger New York State Energy Office Edward M. Barrett, Esq. Agency Building 2 General Counsel Empire State Plaza Long Island Lighting Company Albany, New York 12223 250 Old Country Road Mineola, New York 11501
- By Hand ** By Federal Express i
2--
Stephen B. Latham, Esq. Mr. Jeff Smith Twomey, Latham & Shea Shoreham Nuclear Power Station Attorneys at Law P.O. Box 618 33 West Second Street North Country' Road Riverhead, New York 11901 Wading River, New York 11792 Marc W. Goldsmith MHB Technical. Associates Energy Research Group,'Inc. 1723 Hamilton Avenue 400-1 Totten Pond Road Suite K Waltham, Massachusetts 02154 San Jose, California 95125 Joel Blau, Esq. Hon. Peter Cohalan New York Public Service Suffolk County Executive Commis sion- ~ County Executive / Legislative The Governor Nelson A. Building Rockefeller. Building Veterans Memorial Highway Empire State Plaza Hauppauge, New York 11788 Albany, New York 12223 Ezra I. Bialik, Esq.
David H. Gilmartin, Esq. Assistant Attorney General Suffolk County Attorney Environmental Protection Bureau
_- County Executive / Legislative New York State Department of Law Building 2 World Trade Center Veterans Memorial Highway New York, New York 10047 Hauppauge, New York 11788 Atomic Safety and Licensing Atomic Safety and. Licensing Appeal Board Board Panel U.S.: Nuclear Regulatory Commission U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission Washington, D.C. 20555 Washington, D.C. 20555 Matthew J. Kelly, Esq. ,
Docketing and Service Section Staff Counsel, New York State '
Office of the Secretary Public Service Commission U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission 3 Rockefeller Plaza Washington, D.C. 20555 Albany, New York 12223
! Bernard M. Bordenick, Esq.* Daniel F. Brown, Esq.*
j David A. Repka, Esq. U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission i U.S. Nuclear' Regulatory Commission Washington, D.C. 20555
'. Washington, D.C. 20555 i
Stuart Diamond Environment / Energy Writer i NEWSDAY
! Long Island, New York 11747 .
, hW Christopher M. McMQrray'
- KIRKPATRICK, LOCKHART, HILL, CHRISTOPHER & PHILLIPS l Dated
- November 16, 1982 1900 M Street, NW, Suite 800 Washington, DC Washington, DC 20036 l
i
, - . _ . . - , ._-.---------,--,---_--_--,-,~,.r,,.-- . - - - . . - - - - . . - - - - - + - - , . _ , ,