ML20082E064
| ML20082E064 | |
| Person / Time | |
|---|---|
| Site: | Shoreham File:Long Island Lighting Company icon.png |
| Issue date: | 11/22/1983 |
| From: | Mcclesky K HUNTON & WILLIAMS, LONG ISLAND LIGHTING CO. |
| To: | |
| References | |
| ISSUANCES-OL-3, NUDOCS 8311280030 | |
| Download: ML20082E064 (10) | |
Text
,
v.
-I LILCO, November.22-loat uvunut0 USNRC UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSION 13 EY 25 A10:07 -
Before the Atomic Safety and Licensing Boa'rdEh3 $ f ' '
In the Matter,of
)
)
LONG ISLAND' LIGHTING COMPANY
)
Docket No'. 50-322-OL-3
)
(Emergency Planning Proceeding)
.(Shoreham Nuclear Power Station, )
Unit 1)
)
LILCO's Prehearing Conference Report of Counsel
_ Pursuant to the Board's October 13, 1983 Order Scheduling 1983 Conference of Counsel, asmodifiedbyptsOctober31, Order, LILCO files the following report on matters coming be-fore this Board.
1.
Stipula tions:
No stipulations exist at this point-among the parties.
Between now and December 1, LILCO expects to seek stipulations as to the authenticity and admissibility of various documents and the qualifications of witnesses.
2.
Exhibits and Other Documentary Evidence to be Offered:
LILCO expects to offer, in support of its case on Group I is-sues, the following documents:
a.
All direct testimony filed by LILCO on November 18, 1983; b.
All attachments.to direct testimony filed by LILCO
. on November 18, 1983; c.
The Shoreham Local Offsite Radiological Emergency Response Plan, including Appendix A and Imple-menting' Procedures.
LILCO will designate those portions on which it particularly relies, with the 8311280030 831122 1
DR ADOCK 05000322 J
4
- remainder of the document available for back-ground, context and citation as necessary; d.
Certain materials obtained in discovery, to be used in cross-examination of County witnesses.
These materials will be listed in LILCO's prelimi-nary proposed findings of fact and conclusions of law, to be filed on November 28.
LILCO does not presently intend to introduce in support of its direct case any materials obtained in discovery but not already cited in direct testimony.
3.
Witnesses Expected to Testify:
LILCO'S expected wit-nesses will be as indicated in its prefiled direct testimony, namely:
I.
Behavioral Issues A.
Shadow Phenomenon, Driver Behavior (Contentions 23, 65.C.2, 65.F)
Matthew C. Cordaro Russell R. Dynes William G.
Johnson Dennic S. Mileti David N. Richardson 1/
John H.
Sorensen John A. Weismantle B.
Role Conflict (Contention 25)
Matthew C. Cordaro Russell R. Dynes William G.
Johnson Dennis S. Mileti John H.
Sorensen John A. Weismantle II.
Traffic Issues A.
Evacuation Time Estimates (Contention 65) 1/
Mr. David N. Richardson appears on this panel for the sole purpose of answering any questions on the survey performed for LILCO by Yankelovich, Skelly, and White.
LILCO requests that a specific day be designated for Mr. Richardson to appear to an-swer questions.
.~
Matthew C. Cordaro John A. Weismantle Edward B. Lieberman B.
Shadow Phenomenon (Contentions 23.C.,
D., H.)
Matthew C. Cordaro John A. Weismantle Edward B.
Lieberman 4.
Estimated Length of Time to Present Case:
LILCO pres-ently expects to-cross-examine County witnesses for a period on the order of two days or less on shadow phenomenon, two days or less on role conflict, and five days or less in toto on the traffic issues.
Proposals for the order and structure of the hearings, to be outlined in item 6 below, may have a bearing on the duration of the hearing on " Group I" issues.
5.
Status of Settlements:
Suffolk County has stated on the record in this proceeding that it does not consider emer-gency planning issues to be susceptible of settlement (Tr. 367, August 9, 1983).
LILCO attempted by letter in October to ini-tiate settlement discussions on two issues.
To date, the Coun-ty has not replied.
Settlements have materially simplified and narrowed issues in contention in previous phases of this case.
LILCO believes that they could perform the same function here, and would always be receptive to serious negotiations at the instance of che Board or other parties.
6.
Stipulations or Recommendations Covering the Order or Sequence od Contentions:
A.
Order of Issues
. -._ = _ -, --
t I
4_
LILCO believes-that if major issue clusters can be dis-cerned among the " Group I". testimony filed, the hearing should proceed issue-by-issue, with all parties' cases being heard on each issue cluster before proceeding to the next, rather than each party presenting its' entire case before the next party takes the stand.
In LILCO's view three basic issue clusters exist among the " Group I" issues --
(1) behavioral issues, which purport to describe human behavior during a radiological emergency, (2) traffic issues, which attempt to estimate the time an evacuation would take under the postulated conditions, and (3) accident consequences issues, which are addressed in the. testimony of Dr. Finlayson et al.'and which in LILCO's view i
are inadmissible -- an'd they should be brought on for trial in f:
that order.
The logic of this basic sequence is evident, for instance, from the extensive cross-referencing in the County's
" traffic issues" testimony back to the underlying " behavioral issues" testimony.
The Finalyson testimony can be presented last if it is admitted over LILCO's motion to strike, which will be filed by November 28.
Within the " behavioral issues" category, it makes sense to try the " shadow" issue, dealing with the behavior of potential evacuees,-before the " role conflict" issue, dealing with the i
i-discharge of responsibilities by emergency workers seeking to i
l aid potential evacuees.
With respect to the " traffic issues,"
it makes" sense to deal with the baseline analysis of the 10-mile EPZ before examining the effect of a " shadow phenomenon,"
which' superimposes persons outside the 10-mile EPZ on top of l
t 1
-ww.,
..-. r
,,,,-,--cm-m---
rwv-ev
, ~.-4----
w++r---w-e-w wr ew
.-e-w - r-, --w w-
rw=--w==-
,.r.-w-w+-wwr=ww-wew-e-.--v-
it.
However, traffic issues could conceivably be tried all at one time as long as-it was only the traffic portions of the
" shadow" issue which were being considered.
If this framework is adopted, LILCO's witnesses would be presented in panels in the order autlined in item 3 above.
Without attempting to presuppose the order in which other par-ties would present their testimony, a first reading of Suffolk County's November 18, 1983 direct testimony suggests that it divides itself among these issue groupings as follows:
I.
Behavioral Issues A.
Shadow Donald J. Zeigler and James H. Johnson, Jr.(1)2/
Stephen Cole (2).
Susan C.
Saegert (15)
B.
Role Conflict Kai T. Erikson and James H. Johnson (3)
Stephen Cole (4)
Donald J. Dilworth (5)
David Harris (6)
Robert W. Petrilak (7)
Dr. George Jeffers, et al. (8)
Nick J. Muto, et al. (9)
Juanita Zuckerman, et al. (10)
Leon Campo (served separately)
II.
Traffic Issues I
A.
Evacuation Time Estimates Richard C. Roberts, et al. (11) l Philip Herr (12)
Peter A. Polk (13)
William Pigozzi (14) l 2/
The parenthetical number following each item of the testi-mony corresponds to the order in which it was listed in the November 18, 1983 cover letter from Karla J. Letsche, which accompanied the County's filing.
B.
Evacuation Shadow Richard C. Roberts, et al. (11)
Philip Herr (12)
Peter A. Polk (13)
William Pigozzi (14)
III. Accident Consequences Fred C.
Finlayson, et al.
The direct testimony on behalf of the Staff is also readi-
'ly. divisible as indicated above, with Dr. Urbanik testifying on traffic issues and Mr. McIntire testifying on all issues gener-ally.
B.
Order of Parties LILCO recommends that the Board require the panels (as de-scribed above) of all three parties to testify at one time, proceeding issue-by-issue.
This procedure was adopted in the
" safety phase" hearings in this matter on the issue of Post-
~ Accident Monitoring (SC Contention 27/ SOC 3).
The opportunity for direct exchange of views among experts afforded by this procedure was of value to the Board and all parties on that issue.
LILCO believes that this procedure could be even more useful in this proceeding, where on numerous issues the experts meet head-on.
The Board would be aided in assigning relative weight to these experts' views by having the opportunity to hear them, and the resulting opportunity for colloquy among them, all at one time.
This procedure would also, in all prob-ability, materially shorten the proceeding without diluting the quality of information presented.
,r,,-
Clearly, if the parties proceeded issue-by-issue another possibility would be for each party to present its case indi-1.
vidually;in sequence, e.g.,
LILCO, Suffolk County, the NRC Staff.
i 6.
Recommendations for Additional Topics to be Discussed on December 1:
LILCO has received the Board's November 18 Order-setting various additional matters for hearing on December 1.
At this time, LILCO has the following observations i
on those matters:
a.
Site and Length of Hearing:
As the Board knows, LILCO believes the quality of work possible to be performed at hearings wil'1 suffer if the location changes frequently and the hearings are conducted out of facilities that do not provide the Board or the parties with adequate office space.
LILCO is looking for alternate space to that presently ar-ranged fo; (the County office buildings in Hauppauge and Riverhead) and hopes to have one or more proposals for the Board and the parties by December 1.
i.
b.
Effect of Delay of RAC Review:
LILCO agrees with the Board that the schedule for completion of the l
RAC review is logically not tied to'the schedule l
for this litigation, and that any change in the scheduling of Group II~ issues should be justifi-able only on an issue-by-issue basis.
c.
Resolution of " Legal Contentions"'l-10:
LILCO does not anticipate filing any further papers on this matter'before December 1.
LILCO's views are set out in the November 11 Joint Status Report.
LILCO will be prepared to discuss these items further on December 1 at the Conference of Counsel.
LILCO has no further matters to propose at this time for the December 1 agenda.
l l
l-
.., _ _.. ~...
__. _. -.,..,. -. -.,,,_ ___ m.-.---.
LILCO will be seeking the views of the other parties and, if possible, reach agt ament on these matters between now and the time of the Conference of Counsel on December 1.
Respectfully submitted, LONG ISLAND LIGHTING COMPANY l $
d h/
"~
~'
Dbnald[P. Irwin James N. Christman Kathy E. B. McCleskey Hunton & Williams 707 East Main Street P.O.
Box 1535 Richmond, Virginia 23212 DATED:
November 22, 1983 l
+
LILCO, November 22, 1983 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 Prehearing Con-ference Report o.
Counsel were served this date upon the fol-lowing by firse-class mail, postage prepaid, or (as indicated by one asterisk) by hand, or (as indicated by two asterisks) by Federal Express.
James A. Laurenson,*
Secretary of the Commission Chairman U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Atomic Safety and Licensing Codmission Board Washington, D.C.
20555 U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission Atomic Safety and Licensing East-West Tower, Rm. 402A Appeal Board Panel 4350 East-West Hwy.
U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Bethesda, MD 20814 Commission Washington, D.C.
20555 Dr. Jerry R.
Kline*
Atomic Safety and Licensing Atomic Safety and Licensing Board Board Panel
(
U.S. Nuclear Regulatory U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission Commission l
I East-West Tower, Rm. 427 Washington, D.C.
20555 4350 East-West Hwy.
Bethesda, MD 20814 Bernard M.
Bordenick, Esq.*
David A. Repka, Esq.
Mr. Frederick J. Shon*
Edwin J. Reis, Esq.
L Atomic Safety and Licensing U.
S. Nuclear Regulatory l
Board Commission l
U.S. Nuclear Regulatory 7735 Old Georgetown Road Commission (to mailroom)
East-West Tower, Rm. 430 Bethesda, MD 20814 4350 East-West Hwy.
Bethesda, MD-20814
Eleanor L. Frucci, Esq.*
Stewart M. Glass, Esq.**
Attorney Regional Counsel Atomic Safety and Licensing Federal Emergency Management Board Panel Agency U.
S. Nuclear Regulatory 26 Federal Plaza, Room 1349 Commission New York, New York 10278 East-West Tower, North Tower 4350 East-West Highway Stephen B.
Latham, Esq.**
Bethesda, MD 20814 Twomey, Latham & Shea 33 West Second Street David J. Gilmartin, Esq.
P.O. Box 398 Attn:
Patricia A.
Dempsey, Esq. Riverhead, New York 11901 County Attorney Suffolk County Department Ralph Shapiro, Esq.**
of Law Cammer & Shapiro, P.C.
Veterans Memorial Highway 9 East 40th Street Hauppauge, New York 11787 New York, New York 10016 Herbert H. Brown, Esq.*
James Dougherty, Esq.*
Lawrence Coe Lanpher, Esq.
3045 Porter Street Christopher McMurray, Esq.
Washing ton, D.C.
20008 Kirkpatrick, Lockhart, Hill Christopher & Phillips Howard L. Blau 8th Floor 217 Newbridge Road Hicksville, New York 11801 1900 M Street, N.W.
Washington, D.C.
20036 Jonathan D. Feinberg, Esq.
Mr. Marc W. Goldsmith New York State Energy Research Group Department of Public Service 4001 Totten Pond Road Three Empire State Plaza Waltham, Massachusetts 02154 Albany, New York 12223 MHB Technical Associates Spence W. Perry, Esq.**
1723 Hamilton Avenue Associate General Counsel l
Suite K Federal Emergency Management i
San Jose, California 95125 Agency 500 C Street, S.W.
l Mr. Jay Dunkleberger Room 840 New York State Energy Office Washington, D.C.
20472 Agency Building 2 l
Empire State Plaza Ms. Nora Bredes l
Albany, New York 12223 Executive Coordinator Shoreham Opponents' Coalition 195 East Main Street Smithtown, New York 11787 AFLtB. M%kn 3
l Hunton & Williams l
707 East Main Street P.O. Box 1535 Richmond, Virginia 23212 l
DATED:
November 22, 1983
.