ML20082J459
| ML20082J459 | |
| Person / Time | |
|---|---|
| Site: | Shoreham File:Long Island Lighting Company icon.png |
| Issue date: | 11/30/1983 |
| From: | Bouve J HUNTON & WILLIAMS, LONG ISLAND LIGHTING CO. |
| To: | Atomic Safety and Licensing Board Panel |
| References | |
| ISSUANCES-OL-3, NUDOCS 8312020167 | |
| Download: ML20082J459 (16) | |
Text
LILCO, November 30, 1983 a.
DCK'KETED USNRC UNITED STATES OF AMERICA NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSION
'83 DEC -1 A10:43 Before the Atomic Safety and Licensing, Board,.c c:.
..M ? 'j..
In the Matter of
)
)
LONG ISLAND LIGHTING COMPANY
) Docket No. 50-322-OL-3
) (Emergency Planning (Shoreham Nuclear Power Station, )
Proceeding)
Unit 1)
LILCO'S RESPONSE TO SUFFOLK COUNTY'S MOTION TO STRIKE PORTIONS OF LILCO TESTIMONY ON CONTENTIONS 23, 25 AND 65 On November 28, 1983, Suffolk County filed its "Suffolk County Motion to Strike Portions of LILCO Testimony on Contentions 25, 23 and 65."
The portions of LILCO's testimony that the County seeks to have stricken are the following:
1.
Cordaro et al. on Contention 25 (Role Conflict), Question and Answer 37, pages 39-40.
2.
Cordaro et al. on Contention 25 (Role Conflict), Question and Answer 38, page 41.
'3.
Cordaro et al. on Contention 25 (Role Conflict), second, third and fourth para-graphs of Answer 65, pages 78-79 (i.e.,
the portion of the answer labeled "second").
4.
Cordaro et a l_. on Contention 25 (Role Conflict), last portion of Answer 82 (third full paragraph on page 106 through first full paragraph on page 108).
5.
Cordaro et al. on Contention 23 (Shadow Phenomenon), Question and Answer 72, pages 135-136.
B312O20167 831130
' (1Ed QDRADOCK 05000322 h,.
PDR 00\\
3503
r
- m 6.
Cordaro et al. on Contention 65 (Evacuation Time Estimates), last portion of Answer 5 (last paragraph of Answer, beginning on page 16 and continuing to Question 6 on page 17);
Cordaro et al. on Contention 25 (Role Conflict), Questions and Answers 29, 30 and 31 (pages 29-30) and Attachment 7.
7.
Cordaro et al. on Contention 65 (Evacuation Time Estimates), Question and Answer 20, pages 46-47.
The stated basis for striking them is that they "are not rele-l vant or material to the contentions being discussed, and they provide no probative or reliable evidence or data upon which the Board could base a finding" (County motion 2).
The fact is, however, that each portion of the LILCO testimony cited by Suffolk County is relevant, and the County's motion to strike should be denied entirely.
Each of the seven portions is discussed separately below.
1.
Cordaro, et al. on Contention 25 (Role Conflict) Question and Answer 37, pages 39-40 l
The County seeks to strike a portion of the LILCO testimo-ny that helps to explain why the notion that " role conflict" is i
a problem in emergencies is widespread and why people who have not made a specialty of studying disasters believe that it is a problem.
Part of the County's complaint appears to be that the answer does not give enough details, a complaint that ignores (1) the details in other parts of the testimony and (2) the 1
~-
,-y
. fact that the County can develop details on cross-examination if it wishes.'
The rest of the County's complaint seems to be that Question 37 is not relevant to the " role conflict" issue.
As with Question 65, parts of which the County also seeks to strike, Question 37 helps to explain why even some researchers who study the field.(see pages 52-71 of LILCO's testimony) can come to have the wrong ideas about what happens in emergencies.
It also explains why one has to view critically studies (like those of the hospital administrators relied on by Suffolk County) that report alleged cases of role abandonment or other asocial conduct.
Finally, Question 37 explains one mechanism that tends to " reinforce role obligations" and make role aban-donment less likely.
The fact is that Suffolk County's Contention 25 propounds a theory of human behavior that has been influenced by " rumor" and " lore," as well as Hollywood films, anecdotes, and folk wisdom.
Testimony about this folk wisdom is relevant to explain how those myths came to be and to show that they are without basis in " empirical reality," as the answer to Question l
37 puts it.
Moreover, the County did not seek to strike identical tes-timony when LILCO filed it in Phase I.
The Phase I testimony on " role conflict," which the County did not seek to strike,
l and the Phase II testimony, which the County does seek to strike, are set out below:
Phase I testimony 3
l
[ Dynes, Mileti]
One final note.
- Often, subsequent to an emergency, there will be stories about cases where individuals did not fulfill their emergency roles.
(Some of these rumors are likely to be reported in hearings as fact.)
It is highly unlikely that such anecdotes are based in empirical reality, but the retelling makes them a part of the post-emergency " reality."
Such stories, in the absence of evidence, are perhaps best seen as constituting moral tales, rather than as reflections of reali-ty.
They represent, as a part of the verbal tradition, the lore that emergency responsi-bility is important and that the consequences of lack of attention to it has unfortunate results.
Thus, such stories tend to reinforce role obligations for the future rather than describe examples of failures in past behavior.
The certainty I
with which people defend such stories gives clues to the moral nature of their purpose.
Testimony of Matthew C. Cordaro.
on Phase I Emergency Planning Contention 5(A) -- Role Conflict 17-18 (Oct. 12, 1982).
Phase II testimony
[ Dynes, Mileti]
Often, subsequent to an emergency, there will be stories about cases where individuals did not fulfill their emergency roles..
(Some of these rumors are likely to be reported in hearings as fact.)
It is highly unlikely that such anecdotes are based in empirical reality, but the
- retelling makes them a part of the post-emergency " reality."
Such stories, in the absence of evidence, are perhaps best seen as moral tales, rather than as reflec-tions of reality.
They represent, as a part of the oral tradition, the lore that emer-gency responsibility is important and that the lack of attention to it has unfortunate results.
Thus, such stories tend to reinforce role obligations for the future rather than describe examples of failures in past behavior.
The certainty with which people defend such stories gives clues to the moral nature of their purpose.
Testimony of Matthew C. Cordaro.
. on Phase II Emergency Planning Contention 25 (Role Conflict) 39-40 (Nov. 18, 1983').
2.
Cordaro, et al. on Contention 24 (Role Conflict) Question and Answer 38, page 41 The County next seeks to strike a question about which group of experts the Board should believe.
This is a question that any board looking at this case would have to ask itself, and it is unquestionably relevant.
The County's complaint appears to be, once again, that there is not enough detail in the answer.
The objection indi-cates that the answer is "so generalized that it has no proba-1 tive value."
But the opinions expressed in that question, of course, are those of qualified experts.
Dr. Mileti's opinion is based in part on his discussions with fellow experts; Dr.
Dynes's opinion is based on his own research plus his
, familiarity with the literature (see page 3 of the testimony);
the literature is discussed in some detail at pages 52-71 of the testimony.
If the County wants more detail about those opinions, it can develop them on cross-examination.
In the meantime, more basis has already been given in Question 38 than the County has given for many of its contentions; typically it cites as its basis merely the " training, experience and expertise" of its consultants.
The County's hearsay objection is misguided.
Hearsay is admissible in NRC proceedings.
Duke Power Co. (William B.
McGuire Nuclear Station, Units 1 and 2), ALAB-669, 15 NRC 453, 477 (1982).
Dr. Mileti was present at the conference session he discusses, and his report of what happened there is as reli-able as any evidence is likely to be.
3.
Cordaro et al. on Contention 25 (Role Conflict), second, third and fourth paragraphs of Answer 65 (i.e.,
the portion of the response labelled "second") pages 78-79 This part of the testimony again explains why it is that people, including some experts, have come to believe that role conflict is a problem in emergencies.
Anything that helps explain how the County's theory of human behavior (which the Indian Point board called unorthodox") came to be is relevant and probative.
+m.
- 4.
Cordaro et al. on Contention 25 (Role Conflict), last portion of Answer 82 (third full paragraph on page 106 through first full paragraph on page 108)
The County seeks to strike the LILCO witnesses' descrip-tion of some of the incidents in which LILCO employees have performed public service, sometimes at the risk of their own lives.
The County says that "[t]he described actions by LILCO employees did not involve the kind of role conflict that would be experienced in a radiological emergency."
This is really just quarrelling with the evidence.
The issue is how various people will behave in an emergen-cy.
The County has alleged that a variety of emergency workers (Red Cross personnel, for example) will abandon the public in order to protect their own families.
In addition, the County has singled out LILCO employees and alleged that they will flee not only to protect their families but to protect themselves..
LILCO's testimony shows that in many cases LILCO employees have served the public and even risked their lives to save people other than their own families and themselves.
(This is evi-dence of actual past behavior, not opinions about future behavior.)
The County itself put this into issue; it cannot now exclude evidence bearing on the issue.
The fact that LILCO employees have performed selfless acts in the past is of course not the entire answer to the issue, but it is a piece of it.
' 5.
Cordaro et al. on Contention 23 (Shadow Phenomenon), Question and Answer 72, pages 135-136 The County seeks to strike as irrelevant the LILCO wit-nesses' statement that the intervenors have put forth "the most derogatory possible picture of the people of Long Island, al-4 le'ging that the public will be panicky, hysterical, irrational, selfish, accident-prone, larcenous, and defiant of law and au-thority."
The County argues that this statement is irrelevant because (1) it is false, (2) there is no factual basis for.the assertion, and (3) these words are not the words of the County.
The County has given no basis for a finding that this tes-timony is irrelevant.
It only argues that the testimony is not true.
That is for the Board to decide after hearing all the evidence.
In addition, the testimony is not held out as a statement by the County; it is LILCO's characterization of the County's position on human behavior in emergencies.
One need look no farther than the intervenors' contentions to provide a " factual basis" for the statement.
The intervenors state that Long Islanders will " evacuate voluntarily contrary to instructions" (Contention 23.D); " travel into contaminated areas and receive health-threatening radiation doses" (Contention 23.H); "look to the needs of their families or others for which they have re-sponsibility (including themselves) before they report (if at
\\
.m..
all) to their designated emergency response positions or otherwise respond to a request by LILCO for assistance" (Contention 25); "be reluctant to leave a relatively safe area outside the EPZ to enter a more dangerous area within the EPZ to exercise command and control, supervisory, or other emergen-cy responsibilities" (Contention 25.A); fail to remain at work to drive buses and supervise school dismissal so that school children can be evacuated (Contentions 25.C and D); " refuse to shelter and will, instead, choose to evacuate" (Preamble to Contentions 60-62); engage in " aggressive behavior [that] w'ill stem in part from fear of a radiological emergency.
and in part from confrontation with-[LILCO traffic guides, resulting in]
traffic blockages, confusion, accidents, and possibly injuries" (Contention 65.C.2); experience " stress and anxiety induced by a radiological emergency at Shoreham [that] will di-minish driving skills and awareness, and impede the processing of information necessary for a driver to make decisions and drive properly" (Contention 65.F); cause accidents due to
" driver inattention [and] failure to obey the rules of the road" (Contention 66); and engage in " looting, vandalism and theft" (proposed Contention 53.A, not admitted).
These state-ments, in LILCO's view, describe behavior that is " panicky, hysterical, irrational, selfish, accident-prone, larcenous, and defiant of law and authority."
The County is free to
characterize these statements as it chooses.
That the County
-disagrees with LILCO's characterization does not make LILCO's characterization irrelevant.
In addition, the last paragraph of the answer the County seeks to strike sets forth the notion that (1) if human behavior makes planning impossible on Long Island, it is impos-sible everywhere, and (2) the County therefore challenges the NRC's emergeacy planning regulations.
This notion is central to LILCO's position on the shadow phenomenon.
It is highly relevant, probative, and material.
The County has not show'n it to be otherwise.
6.
Cordaro et al. on Contention 65 (Evacu-ation Time Estimates), last portion of Answer 5 (last paragraph of Answer, be-ginning on page 16 and continuing to Question 6 on page 17; Cordaro et al. on Contention 25 (Role Conflict), Questions and Answers 29,.30 and 31 (pages 29-30) and Attachment 7 The County says that testimony that suffolk County police will probably show up to help in an emergency is inadmissible.
In effect, thi County is asking that the testimony ignore what would really happen in an emergency and be limited to an artificial scenario in which only LERO (and, apparently, a panicky public) would exist.
It treats the hearing as a hypothetical exercise instead of a search for facts.
f
-11_
It is true that the LILCO Transition Plan does not rely on Suffolk County police.
But it is also true that the police' would likely show up in an emergency.
This gives added assur-ance that there will be enough emergency workers.
The LILCO testimony goes to show that LERO itself will not be short-handed because of role abandonment and that, in a'ddition, it can be expected that there will be additional people to help out.
Nothing in NRC practice requires an applicant to limit its evidence to only a portion of the resources that will, in f'act, be available in an emergency.
The evidence should try to ap-prise the Board of what will really happen.
LILCO's testimony does that.
As for the part of the testimony about Suffolk County's resources being withheld, this provides background and context to explain the otherwise surprising fact that a utility proposing to operate a nuclear power plant in a large, wealthy County like Suffolk should not take advantage of the substantial resources of the County in doing emergency plan-ning.
Moreover, it is relevant to meeting the legal standards governing this proceeding.
It must be remembered that we are operating under the part of 10 C.F.R.
S 50.47 that allows deficiencies in emergency plans if there are " adequate interim compensating actions" or other extenuating circumstances.
10 l-
C.F.R. S 50.47(c)(1) (1983).
The inability of the utility to compel a local government to participate is one factor to be taken into account in deciding whether a reactor may continue to operate.
See Consolidated Edison Co. of New York (Indian Point, Unit Nos. 2 and 3), CLI-83-ll, 17 NRC
, slip op. 3 (May 5, 1983); Consolidated Edison Co. of New York (Indian Point Units 2 and 3), CLI-82-38, 16 NRC slip op. 9 (Dec.
22, 1982).
7.
Cordaro et al. on Contention 65 (Evacu-ation Time Estimates), Question and Answer 20), pages 46-47 In moving to strike Question and Answer 20 of the testimo-ny of Cordaro, et al. on Contention 65 (Evacuation Time Estimates), Suffolk County asserts that the testimony is "ir.
relevant to the issue of whether LILCO's evacuation time estimates for Shoreham are accurate and reliable."
Suffolk County Motion at 8 (emphasis in original).
Simply stated, evacuation time estimates for other nuclear power plants are relevant in judging the accuracy of other evacuation times estimates, like those prepared for Shoreham.
As NRC Staff witness Thomas Urbanik noted in his deposition of September 14, 1983, roadway capacity and population demand -- the number of people to be evacuated -- can serve to produce rough estimates of expected evacuation times.
See Urbanik Deposition at 77-78.
l
_13_
-These estimates can then be compared with more detailed evacuation time estimates to judge the plausibility of the de-4 tailed estimates. to the testimony of Cordaro, et ajL. provides just this type of comparison.
A review of Attachment.7 shows that it provides comparisons of evacuation times for sectors of approximately the same area and population
. demand.
Thus, conclusions can be drawn about the relative ac-curacy of the Shoreham time estimates and, secondarily, about the adequacy of the EPZ roadway network (since roadway capacity j
is not fixed in the comparisons in Attachment 7, some relat'ive observations can be made about the ratio of roadway capacity to T
population demand, and hence, the adaquacy of the roadway net-
)
work).
In addition, a comparison of the evacuation times for the Shoreham EPZ to other evacuation times helps to dispel, at j
least in the setting of evacuation times, Suffolk County's con-l tinuing assertion that emergency planning is impossible on Long Island.
See Suffolk County Resolution No. 111-1983 at 5 l
l
'(1983).
l l
Accordingly, Question and Answer 20 are relevant to the issues of Contention 65, and this testimony should not be stricken.
1
Conclusion For the reasons stated, LILCO requests that the Board deny Suffolk County's motion to strike portions of LILCO's testimony on Contentions 23, 25 and 65.
Respectfully submitted, LONG ISLAND LIGHTING COMPANY By O
W,
' A:s 2.
mes N. Christman [/
athy E.
B. McCleskey Hunton & Williams P.O. Box 1535 707 East Main Street Richmond, VA 23212 DATED:
November 30, 1983
. = - _ -
_ _ - __..... ~.
LILCO, Novcmbar 30, 1983 OM METE:
CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE USNRC In the Matter of 83 0 0 -1 A10 :43 LONG ISLAND LIGHTING COMPANY (Shoreham Nuclear Power Station, UnipfM OF SEUEd,lu00CMETmG Docket No. 50-322 (OL)
SRANCH I hereby certify that copies of LILCO'S RESPONSE TO 4
SUFFOLK COUNTY'S MOTION TO STRIKE PORTIONS OF LILCO TESTIMONY ON CONTENTIONS 23, 25 AND 65 were served this date upon the following by first-class mail, postage prepaid, or (as indi-cated by one asterisk) by hand, or (as indicated by two aster-isks) by Federal Express.
o James A.
Laurenson,*
Secretary of the Commission Chairman U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Atomic Safety and Licensing Commission 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 Commisrion East-West Tower, Rm. 427 Washington, D.C.
20555 4350 East-West Hwy.
4 Bethesda, MD 20814 Bernard M.
Bordenick, Esq.*
l David A.
Repka, Esq.
Mr. Frederick J. Shon*
Edwin J.
Reis, Esq.
Atomic Safety and Licensing U.
S. Nuclear Regulatory Board Commission U.S. Nuclear Regulatory 7735 Old Georgetown Road Commission (to mailroom) 4 East-West Tower, Rm. 430 Bethesda, MD 20814 4350 East-West Hwy.
Bethesda, MD 20814
._n- - - - -~. -....-,-
4 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 Yoih, New York 10016 Herbert H. Brown, Esq.*
James Dougherty, Esq.*
Lawrence Coe Lanpher, Esq.
3045 Porter Street Christopher McMurray, Esq.
Washington, D.C.
20008 Kirkpatrick, Lockhart, Hill Christopher & Phillips Howard L.
Blau 8th Floor 217 Newbridge Road 1900 M Street, N.W.
Hicksville, New York 11801 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 Suite K Federal Emergency Management San Jose, California 95125 Agency 500 C Street, S.W.
Mr. Jay Dunkleberger Room 840 New York State Energy Office Washington, D.C.
20472 Agency Building 2 Empire State Plaza Ms. Nora Bredes Albany, New York 12223 Executive Coordinator Shoreham Opponents' Coalition 195 East Main Street Smithtown, New York 11787
\\
MG7 PT jK thy E.
B. McClesyff
~
Hunton & Williams
/
707 East Main Street P.O. Box 1535 Richmond, Virginia 23212 DATED:
November 30, 1983
-