ML20080J606
| ML20080J606 | |
| Person / Time | |
|---|---|
| Site: | Shoreham File:Long Island Lighting Company icon.png |
| Issue date: | 02/08/1984 |
| From: | Mcmurray C KIRKPATRICK & LOCKHART, SUFFOLK COUNTY, NY |
| To: | Atomic Safety and Licensing Board Panel |
| References | |
| ISSUANCES-OL-3, NUDOCS 8402150135 | |
| Download: ML20080J606 (8) | |
Text
.
m
\\
vouw en U ~. ' T C UNITED STATES OF AMERICA NUCLEAR REGU' ATORY COMMISSION
'84 FEB 14 A10:43 Before the Atomic Safety and Licensing _ Board 00CKEItrM *. 5Ei v; Bfn NCH s
)
In the Matter of
)
)
LONG ISLAND LIGHTING COMPANY
)
Docket No. 50-322-OL-3
)
(Emergency Planning)
(Shoreham Nuclear Power Plant,
)
Unit 1) 1
)
SUFFOLK COUNTY'S MOTION FOR LEAVE TO FILE REPLY TO LILCO'S ANSWER OPPOSING SUFFOLK COUNTY MOTION FOR LEAVE TO FILE REBUTTAL TESTIMONY Oh CONTENTION 23 On February 1, 1984 Euffolk County (hereinafter "the County") filed a motion 1 for leave to file rebuttal testimony by Drs. Stephen Cole and Andrea Tyree on Contention 23.
The rebut-tal testimony,S! which was submitted to the Board the next day, addresses one narrow issue.
That issue is whether a paper co-authored by Dr. John Sorensen,2! a LILCO witness on Contention 23, supports LILCO's assertions in its Contention 23 direct test-imony that pre-accident fear of radiation was not a significant cause of the well-documented evacuation of over 144,000 people at A! Suffolk County Motion For Leave To File Rebuttal Testimony On Contention 23 (February 1, 1984).
S/ Rebuttal Testimony Of Stephen Cole And Andrea Tyree On Behalf Of Suffolk County Regarding Contention 23 (Evacuation Shadow Phenomenon).
2 John Sorensen and Brad Richardson, Evacuation Behavior at TMI:
Review and Reexamination (unpublished).
74 8402150135 840208 gDRADOCK05000 h
O}.
-2_
TMI, but rather that the large overresponse at TMt was predomi-nantly the result of poor emergency information.
(LILCO Testi-mony at 52-55, 61).
Dr. Cole's and Dr. Tyree's tertimony demon-strates through the use of regression analyses that LILCO's wit-nesses have inappropriately relied upon Dr. Sorensen's paper in support of those assertions and that, in fact, the paper fully supports the County's position.
On February 6, 1984, LILCO filed its answer to the County's motion.
The County's review of LILCO's answer reveals that LILd0 has mischaracterized the County's arguments and the facts.
Cort-sequently, the County hereby moves this Board for leave to reply to LILCO's answer or, in the alternative, for a conference call during which the County will be given an opportunity to address LILCO's answer.
The particular points in LILCO's answer that the County seeks leave to address are as follows:
1.
LILCO's argument that the Rebuttal Testimony is iniptv-per because the County could have cor. ducted its analy-sis solely from Cynthia Flynn's TMI data and without the be.nefit of Dr. Sorensen's paper.
(LILCO Answer at 7).
This argument entirely misses the point that the purpose of the rebuttal testimony is to rebut LILCO's inappropriate use of Dr. Sorensen's paper.
The fact that Flynn's data were available for the County's
i b
{
O
,, f-t F
j analysis has nothing to do with the fact that LILCO's e
witnesses have misrepresentied the analysis of those i
data contained in Sorensen's article.
2.
LILCO's a'ssertion that the County. was made aware of the Sorensen, article in August of 1983.
(LILCO Answer at t-3).
Thir, assertion ignores the fact that the Sorensen article was one of 106 documents cited in response to a
~
~,
' discovery reccest addressing a different issue than the one addressed in the Rebuttal testimony.
Thus, the g
(
August 8[cisclosure of the existence of the article in i
no way revealed LILCO's intention to.mischaracterize s.e 3
v il the data contained ir. the article o$ to ase the article t i >
to support its position concerning the non-significance
,x7 of pre-accident fear.
Thus, even'though it could be
?
f
't a.59ued t. hat-the County knew of the existence of the e +
article by virtue of its appearance-on-a LILCO biblio-s' graphy, there can be no dispute about the fact that
,l*
-r'
/;
c wior to'. November 18)sthe County was not on notice of
- the use LILCO actually made of the'Soren' san article in pfits direct testimony.
3.
LILCO's suggestion that the County could have deposed
- r. Sorensen, with meaningful results, in the approxi-
,kately two week period between his identification as a
,,c
?
s e
[witnessandthe'filingdateforGroupI testimony.
i, a
~
Q -. d y
.l
/j
^'
,L y
/
r is
/
' (LILCO Answer at 4).
This is the same time period during which Group I testimony was being prepared.
There was, literally, no time during that period during which a deposition could have been conducted.
4.
LILCO's suggestion that the County's rebuttal testimony is untimely.
(LILCO Answer at 5-6).
This ignores the fact that the Board established a date for filing motions for leave to file rebuttal testimony -- a date which the County met.
This also ignores the fact that Dr. Cole, one of the witnesses, was preparing for the
. January Grcup I hearings, and that he thus was unavail--
able to devote substantial effort to the rebuttal test-imony until the last few days of January.
5.
LILCO's argument that the County's rebuttal testimony will delay completion of Group I issues.
(LILCO Answer at 6).
The fact is that this short piece of rebuttal testimony will not cause any delay in these proceed-ings.
Further, in raising this hollow " delay" argu-ment, IILCO points to no prejudice which it suffers.
Indeed, there can be no possible prejudice given the fact that the Shoreham plant will not be needed for at least 10 years and since the ever-increasing diesel problems preclude any operation for the foreseeable future.
. The County also seeks to address LILCO's motion in the alternative to file rebuttal testimony of its own.
Conclusion For the reasons stated abo've, this Board should grant the County's motion for leave to file a reply to LILCO's Answer Opposing Suffolk County Motion For Leave To File Rebuttal Testi-many On Contention 23, or in the alternative, the Board should convene a conference call to allow the County an opportunity to reply to LILCO's Answer.
Respectfully submitted, Martin Bradley Ashare Suffolk County Attorney Suffolk County Department of Law H.
Lee Dennison Building Veterans Memorial Highway Hauppauge, New York 11788 1
C3wrenceiCoe Lanpher' Karla J.
Letsche Christopher M.
McMurray KIRKPATRICK, LOCKHART, HILL, CHRISTOPHER & PHILLIPS 1900 M Street, NW Washington, DC 20036 Attorneys for Suffolk County Dated:
p /((f
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-3
)
(Emergency Planning)
(Shoreham Nuclear Power Station,
)
Unit 1)
)
)
CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE I hereby certify that copies of SUFFOLK COUNTY'S MOTION FOR LEAVE TO FILE REPLY TO LILCO'S ANSWER OPPOSING SUFFOLK COUNTY MOTION TO LEAVE TO FILE REBUTTAL TESTIMONY ON CONTENTION 23 dated February 8, 1984, have been served to the following this 8th day of February 1984 by U.S. mail, first class, except as otherwise noted.
James A.
Laurenson, Chairman
- Ralph Shapiro, Esq.
Atomic Safety and Licensing Board Cammer and Shapiro U.S.
Nuclear Reguiatory Commission 9 East 40th Street Washington, D.C.
20555 New York, New York 10016 Dr. Jerry R.
Kline
- Howard L.
Blau, Esq.
Administrative Judge 217 Newbridge Road Atomic Safety and Licensing Board Hicksville, New York 11801 U.S.
Nuclear Regulatory Commission Washington, D.C.
20555 W.
Taylor Reveley, III, Esq.#
Hunton & Williams P.O.
Box 1535 707 East Main Street Mr. Frederick J.
Shon
- Richmond, Virginia 23212 Administrative Judge Atomic Safety and Licensing Board Mr. Jay Dunkleberger U.S.
Nuclear Regulatory Commission New York State Energy Office Washington, D.C.
20555 Agency Building 2 Empire State Plaza Edward M.
Barrett, Esq.
Albany, New York 12223 General Counsel Long Island Lighting Company James B. Dougherty, Esq.
250 Old Country Road 3045 Porter Street, N.W.
Mineola, New York 11501 Washington, D.C.
20008 Mr. Brian McCaffrey Stephen B.
Latham, Esq.
Long Island Lighting Company Twomey, Latham & Shea 175 East Old Country Road P.O.
Box 398 33 W st Second Street Hicksville, New York 11801 e
Riverhead, New York 11901 Jeff Smith Marc W. Goldsmith Shoreham Nucle'ar Power Station Energy Research Group, Inc.
P.O.
Box 618 400-1 Totten Pond Road North Country' Road Waltham, Massachusetts 02154 Wading River, New York 11792 Joel Blau, Esq.
MHB Technical Associates New York Public Service Commission 1723 Hamilt'on Avenue The Governor Nelson A. Rockefeller Suite K Building San Jose, California 95125 Empire State Plaza Albany, New York 12223 Hon. Peter F. Cohalan Suffolk County Executiv3 Martin Bradley Ashare, Esq.
H.
Lee Dennison Building Suffolk County Attorney Veterans Memorial Highway H.
Lee Dennison Building Hauppauge, New York 11788 Veterans Memorial Highway Hauppauge, New York 11788 Atomic Safety and Licensing Board Ezra I. Bialik, Esq.
Panel Assistant Attorney General U.S.
Nuclear Regulatory Commission Environmental Protection Washington, D.C.
20555 Bureau New York State Department Docketing and Service Section of Law Office of.the Secretary 2 W rld Trade Center o
U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commiqsion New York, New York 10047 1717 H Street, N.W.
Washington, D.C.
20555 Atomic Safety and Licensing Appeal Board Bernard M.
Bordenick, Esq.*
U.S.
Nuclear Regulatory
+
David A. Repka, Esq.
Commission U.S.
Nuclear Regulatory Commission Washington, D.C.
20555 Washington, D.C.
20555 Jonathan D.
Feinberg, Esq.#
Stuart Diamond Staff Counsel Environment / Energy Writer New York State Public NEWSDAY Service-Commission Long Island, New York 11747 3 Rockefeller Plaza Albany, New York 12223
1
^
~3-Stewart M. Glass, Esq.
Gerald C. Crotty, Esq.
Regional Counsel Counsel to the Governor Federal Emergency Management Executive Chamber Agency State Capitol 26 Federal Plaza, Room 1349 Albany, New York 12224 New York, New York 10278 Fabian Palomino, Esq.#
Special Counsel to Nora Bredes the Governor Executive Director Executive Chamber, Room 229 Shoreham Opponents Coalition State Capitol 195 East Main Street Albany, New York 12224 Smithtown, New York 11787 Eleanor L.
Frucci, Esq.*
Atomic Safety and Licensing Board Panel U.S.
Nuclear Regulatory Commission Washington, D.C.
20555 Spence Perry, Esq.
Associate General Counsel Federal Emergency Management Agency Washington, D.C.
20472 d
Thristopi6r M.
McMurray KIRKPATRICK, LOCKHART, HILL, CHRISTOPHER & PHILLIPS 1900 M Street, N.W.,
Suite 800 Washington, D.C.
20036 DATE:
February 8, 1984 By Hand By Federal Express