ML20083C382
| ML20083C382 | |
| Person / Time | |
|---|---|
| Site: | Shoreham File:Long Island Lighting Company icon.png |
| Issue date: | 12/20/1983 |
| From: | Mark Miller KIRKPATRICK & LOCKHART, SUFFOLK COUNTY, NY |
| To: | Atomic Safety and Licensing Board Panel |
| References | |
| ISSUANCES-OL-3, NUDOCS 8312230103 | |
| Download: ML20083C382 (40) | |
Text
'
00CKETED UNITED STATES OF AMERICA USHRC NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSION Before the Atomic Safety and Licensing kbahk' 22 NO 39
,;;7,;7
- n. ti m n:-,
.i In the Matter of
)
)
LONG ISLAND LIGHTING COMPANY
)
)
Docket No. 50-322-OL-3 (Shoreham Nuclear Power Station,
)
Unit 1)
)
(Emergency Planning)
)
SUFFOLK COU.9TY'S RESPONSE TO LILCO'S MOTION TO STRIKE CERTAIN PORTIONS OF SUFFOLK COUNTY TESTIMONY ON TRAFFIC ISSUES AS INCOMPETENT OR CUMULATIVE AND SUFFOLK COUNTY'S RESPONSE TO THE NRC STAFF'S MOTION TO STRIKE (IN PART) THE DIRECT TESTIMONY OF SUSAN C.
SAEGERT REGARDING CONTENTION 65 (EVACUATION TIME ESTIMATES)
I.
Introduction and General Response On November 18, 1983, Suffolk County filed its direct tes-timony on Contentions 65, 23 and 25 (the " Group I issues").
Among the witnesses submitting testimony on Contentions 23 and 65 on behalf of Suffolk County were Philip B. Herr, an Associ-ate Professor of City Planning in the Department of Urban Studies and Planning, Massachusetts Institute of Technology; Peter A.
Polk, a transportation planner with PRC Engineering (hereinafter, "PRC Voorhees") of McLean, Virginia; Bruce William Pigozzi, an Assistant Professor of Geography at j
Michigan State University; and Inspector Richard C. Roberts, Inspector Joseph L.
Monteith, Deputy Inspector Philip McGuire, Deputy Inspector Michael J. Turano, Jr. and Captain Edwin J.
O
/
$$k2gggc O 00
-p6
Michel of the Suffolk County Police Department (hereinafter, "SCPD").
On November 28, 1983, LILCO moved to strike certain por-tions of the testimony of these Suffolk County witnesses.
The testimony that LILCO seeks to strike is related to traffic issues raised in Contentions 65, 23.D and 23.H.
On the same date, the NRC Staf f moved to strike certain portions of the County's testimony,' including a portion of the direct testimony of Susan C.
Saegert on the issue of driver behavior.
LILCO contends that the " vast majority" of the testimony it seeks to strike "refl.ect either statements by a witness (or witnesses). outside his field or fields of expertise, or adop-tion and concurrence by cross-reference with statements attributed to another Suffolk County witness qualified to tes-tify on a given point, by a witness not so qualified."
LILCO Motion at 1.
According to LILCO, the result in the first in-stance is incompetent testimony, i.e.,
"testitaony which is not established as probative or material, as required under S2.743(a) of the Commission's Rules of Practice."
Id.
The result in the second instance, according to LILCO, is also in-competent testimony; in addition, LILCO asserts that it is "without stated independent basis and thus cumulative, or -
l f
L
' unduly repetitive' within the prohibition of 52.743(a)."
Id..
LILCO also contends that there are a "few scattered instances" of irrelevant or "otherwise inadmissible" testimony.
Id.
LILCO's arguments lack merit on all grounds.
Contrary to LILCO's assertions, none of the testimony sought to be stricken by LILCO can fairly be characterized as incompetent testimony.
That is, the testimony sought to be stricken under both of LILCO's two definitions of " incompetent testimony" is highly probative of the issues raised in Contentions 65, 23.D and 23.H.
Moreover, it is offered by witnesses fully qualified to testify before this Board.
In this regard, it must be noted that while LILCO in a number of instances asserts that a particular County witness is not qualified to offer particular testimony, it never establishes with " particularity," as required by 10 CFR S2.730(b), the basis for this view.
LILCO thus has failed to meet its burden of pleading.
It must be remembered that the testimony challenged b'y LILCO on the ground that it is incompetent testimony is offered by witnesses (i.e., Professors Herr and Pigozzi and the SCPD witnesses) who have a broad cange of experience and expertise.
Thus, Professor Herr is well qualified to discuss all aspects of emergency planning, including planning for expected human behavior in an emergency situation.
Similarly, Professor Pigozzi, as a geographer and a social scientist, is also quali-fled to discuss the kinds of traffic issues raised in the Coun-ty's contentions, as are the SCPD witnesses.
Indeed, by virtue of their many years of experience and extensive and rigorous training, it would be difficult for any witness to be more qualified than are the SCPD witnesses.
Because the testimony offered by the County is competent testimony which is probative and material to the issues raised, LILCO has no basis for complaining that it is "without stated independent basis."
Indeed, under the NRC's rules, there is no requirement that testimony have an " independent basis" to be admissible.
However, even if there were such a requirement, the bases for the County's testimony are sufficiently indepen-dent to withstand LILCO's objections to its admissibility.
l There are additional reasons why the Board should reject LILCO's request to strike the County's testimony for lack of independent bases.
LILCO offers no reasons or otherwise explains why a particular witness' testimony, or a specific passage of such testimony, should be stricken.
Rather, LILCO merely claims that all the testimony cited in its motion is "without stated independent basis."
LILCO again has therefore.
not met its burden of demonstrating, on a case-by-case basis, why its requested relief should be granted.
See 10 CFR S2.730(b).
In fact, LILCO has alleged lack of independent basis every time that a County witness has cited to another witness' testi-mony.
This shorthand form of challenging the admissibility of testimony should be rejected by the Board.
Referencing other testimony does not mean that a witness has no independent basis for his or her own opinion.
Rather, such references were used to indicate that other County witnesses also are qualified to testify on and did agree with a given point, or to lay the fac-tual predicate for a witness' own testimony.
In this way, the County avoided unnecessarily repeating testimony.
Further, LILCO's claim that the County's testimdny is cu-mulative, or " unduly repetitive," is not well taken.
LILCO again has not explained how the testimony it seeks to strike is cumulative.
Rather, LILCO merely alleges as a general proposition that because the testimony is without stated inde-pendent basis, it is necessarily cumulative.
LILCO Motion at 1.
As demonstrated above, however, LILCO's factual premise in support of this proposition is plainly wrong.
Further, again, LILCO has f ailed to comply with the Section 2.730(b) mandate
that a movant " state with particularity" the grounds for its motion.
LILCO's wholly generalized allegations do not come close to complying with NRC requirements.
Equally unpersuasive is LILCO's contention that some of the testimony should be stricken because it is irrelevant or "otherwise inadmissible."
LILCO Motion at 1.
The testimony which LILCO claims is irrelevant was the subject of a separate motion to strike.
See LILCO's " Motion to Strike Portions of the Testimony of Peter A.
Polk."
This motion was rejected by the Board, which found the testimony to be relevant and there-fore admissible.
LILCO's "otherwise inadmissible" objection goes to those portions of the County's testimony which refer-l ence testimony on the Group II issues not yet filed.
The fact that testimony has not yet been filed should not preclude the County's witnesses from referencing such testimony in the Group I testimony which has been filed.
Moreover, in their Group I testimony LILCO's own witnesses similarly referenced certain Group II testimony.
- See, e.g.,
LILCO testimony on Contentions 23 and 65.C.2 and 65.F, at 27.
The County's testimony is highly interrelated and, from an overall perspective, one issue bears on another.
Cross-referencing the testimony that will be filed on the Group II issues will assist the Board and the other parties and is intended to help prevent duplication of witnesses and testimony later on.
II.
Discussion A.
LILCO's Motion to Strike Set forth below is a listing of those portions of the County's testimony sought to be stricken by LILCO.
This listing corresponds to the format of LILCO's motion to strike.
The pertinent testimony pages were attached to the LILCO motion.
1.
SCPD Testimony Regarding Emergency Planning Contentions 65 and 23.H (Evacuation Time Estimates and EPZ Access Control)
LILCO's i
Cross-Reason County Page Reference to Strike
Response
7, fn.3 N/A Incompetent SCPD witnesses (legal are competent to opinion) testify on N.Y.
Vehicle and Traf-fic Law. LILCO has made no at-tempt to demon-strate otherwise.
9, line-15,
- Pigozzi, Cumulative; No requirement no indepen-that there be an thru 11, line 5 Herr,
dent basis independent basis i
but, even if I
required, it l-exists here since i
SCPD witnesses are qualified to testify about l
LILCO's l
underestimation of mobilization times.
Testimony neither t
cumulative nor
" unduly repetitious."
Reference to Pigozzi and Herr testimony put in to prevent repe-tition and for convenience of Board and parties.
11, lines 16-19 Pigozzi Cumulative; No requirement
~
no indepen-that there be an dent basis independent basis but, even if required, it exists here since SCPD witnesses are qualified to testify about KLD's assumptions regarding strict adherence by evacuees to pre-scribed routes.
Testimony neither cumulative nor
" unduly repetitious."
Instead, it lays factual. basis for conclusions drawn on pages 11-13.
Reference to Pigozzi testimony put in to prevent repetition and for convenience of Board and parties.
12, lines 13-20 Pigozzi Cumulative; No requirement no indepen-that there be an dent basis independent basis but, even if required, it -
exists here since SCPD witnesses are qualified to testify about congestion that will be caused by l
large number of pre-evacuation trips.
Testimony neither cumula-tive nor " unduly repetitious."
Reference to Pigozzi testimony put in to prevent repetition and for convenience of Board and parties.
28, line 18, Contentions Cumulative; Not cumulative, thru 29, line 2 39-41, 44.D, no indepen-since not E and F dent basis addressed else-(Training);
where.
No re-Contention 15 (Cross-quirement that reference to there be indepen-testimony not dent basis, but, yet filed) even if required, it exists here since SCPD witnesses are qualified to tes-tify about training of traf-fic guides.
Ref-erence to future testimony for convenience of Board and parties, and made necessary by split filing dates.
31, line 11, Pigozzi Cumulative; No requirement thru 32, line 15 no indepen--
that there be in-dent basis; dependent basis incompetent but, even if required, it )
exists here since SCPD witnesses are qualified to testify about in-crease in evacua-tion times caused by evacuees deviating from prescribed routes. SCPD witnesses are also qualified to discuss why evacuees will de-viate from pre-scribed routes.
Thus, testimony not incompetent.
Nor is testimony either cumulative or " unduly repetitious."
Reference to Pigozzi testimony put in to prevent repetition and for convenience of Board and parties.
32, line 20, Herr Cumulative; Testimony not in-t thru 33, line 2 incompetent competent, since SCPD witnesses are qualified to testify on why prescribed routes are illogical and will not be followed by evacuees.
Nor is testimony either cumulative or
" unduly repetitious."
Reference to Herr testimony put in to prevent _. - _ - _
repetition and for convenience of Board and parties.
42, lines 4-5
- Pigozzi, Cumulative Testimony neither
- Herr, cumulative nor Saegert
" unduly repetitious."
Reference to Pigozzi, Herr and Saegert testimony put in to prevent repetition and for convenience of Board and parties.
f 43, lines 13-20
- Saegert, Cumulative; Testimony neither Contention 15 incompetent; cumulative nor no indepen-
" unduly dent basis.
repetitious."
Cross-Reference to reference to Saegert testimony testimony not put in to prevent yet filed.
repetition.
No requirement for independent basis, but, even if required, it exists here since SCPD witnesses are qualified to discuss driver behavior.
- Thus, testimony is not incompetent.
Reference to fu-ture testimony for convenience of Board and other parties and made necessary by split filing dates.
45, lines 15-17, Newsday Hearsay; not LILCO also atta-article reliable ches newspaper articles to tes-timony (Ginna incident).
See LILCO testimony on Contentions 23, 65.C.2 and 65.F, Attachment I
11.
Hearsay not grounds for striking testimo-ny.
LILCO makes l
no showing that article is unreliable.
46, lines 8-17
- Saegert, Cumulative; Testimony neither Contentions incompetent; cumulative nor 39-41, 44.D, no indepen-
" unduly E,
F dent basis.
repetitious."
Cross refer-Reference to ence to tes-Saegert testimony timony not put in to prevent yet filed.
repetition.
No requirement for independent basis but, even if required, it exists here since SCPD witnesses are qualified to l
testify regarding how insufficient training affects LILCO's traffic control plan.
I Thus, testimony is not incompe-tent.
Reference to future testi-mony for conve-nience of Board and parties, and made necessary by split filing dates.
D-52, lines 11-12
- Herr, Cumulative; Testimony neither Pigozzi no indepen-cumulative nor dent basis
" unduly repetitious";
conclusions stat-ed are those of SCPD witnesses.
(References to Herr, Pigozzi are only to note that other witnesses have indepen-dently reached same conclu-sions.)
No re-quirement for in-dependent basis, but even if required, it exists here since SCPD witnesses are qualified to testify about flaws in LILCO's traffic control plan.
56, lines 3-10 Saegert Cumulative; Testimony neither no indepen-cumulative nor dent basis:
" unduly incompetent repetitious."
Reference to Saegert testimony put in to prevent repetition and for convenience of Board and parties.
No re-quirement for in-dependent basis, but, even if required, it exists here since SCPD witnesses are qualified to testify regarding driver behavior 13 -
and conduct.
Thus, testimony is not incompe-tent.
56, lines 11-15
- Pigozzi, Cumulative; Testimony neither Herr no indepen-cumulative nor dent basis;
" unduly incompetent repetitious";
SCPD witnesses l
summarize testi-mony on Conten-tion 65.C.1 to present context.
No requirement for independent basis, but, even if required, it exists here since SCPD witnesses are qualified to testify about consequences of evacuees l
deviating from LILCO's pre-scribed routes.
l Thus, testimony l
is not incompe-tent.
58, lines 2-9 Saegert Cumulative; Testimony neither no indepen-cumulative nor dent basis;
" unduly incompetent repetitious."
Reference to Saegert testimony put in to prevent repetition and for convenience of Board and parties.
No re-quirement for in-dependent basis, but, even if required, it exists here since f
14 -
SCPD witnesses are qualified to testify regarding driver behavior.
Thus, testimony is not incompe-tent.
59, lines 10-18
- Herr, Cumulative; Testimony neither
- Pigozzi, no indepen-cumulative nor Saegert dent basis;
" unduly incompetent repetitious";
SCPD witnesses summarize testi-mony on Conten-tion 65.C.2 to present context.
No requirement for independent basis, but, even if required, it exists here since SCPD witnesses are qualified to render opinion regarding driver behavior and potential for conflicts with traffic guides.
Thus, testimony is not incompe-tent.
64, lines 1-4 Polk Cumulative; Testimony neither no indepen-cumulative nor dent basis
" unduly repetitious."
Reference to Polk testimony put in to prevent repe-tition and for convenience of Board and
, parties.
No re-quirements for independent,
r l
l l
basis, but, even l
if required, it exists here since their experience and familiarity with traffic conditions make SCPD witnesses i
l qualified to tes-l tify about like-l lihood of l
accidents and I
breakdowns.
65, lines 7-8 Polk Cumulative; Testimony neither no indepen-cumulative nor dent basis
" unduly repetitious."
Reference to Polk testimony put in to prevent repe-tition and for convenience of Board and parties.
No re-quirement for in-dependent basis, but, even if required, it exists here since their knowledge and experience of traffic
[
conditions make the SCPD witnesses quali-I fled to testify about likelihood of breakdowns.
.16 -
- 2. Herr Testimon'/ Regarding Contentions 65 and 23.D i
LILCO's Cross-Reason County Page Reference to Strike
Response
9, lines 16-19 Contentions Cumulative; Objection that 68-69; Con-no indepen-testimony is cu-i tention 25 dent basis; mulative not well incompetent taken; indeed, l
testimony on Con-(Cross-tentions 68-69 reference to has not yet been testimor.y not filed.
No re-yet filed) quirement that there be an inde-pendent basis, but, even if required, it exists here since Herr is qualified to testify about the feasibility of scbcul evacua-tions.
- Thus, testimony is not incompetent.
17, line 5 Pigozzi Cumulative; Testimony neither no indepen-cumulative nor dent basis
- unduly repetitious."
Reference to Pigozzi testimony put in to prevent repetition and for convenience of Board and parties.
No re-quirement that there be an inde-pendent basis; but, even if required, it exists here since
' Herr is qualified to testify about KLD's aobiliza-tion time assumptions.._ - _
17, lines 14-18 Contentions Cumulative; Testimony neither 68-69 no indepen-cumulative nor dent basis;
" unduly incompetent repetitious,"
I since testimony (Cross-on Contentions reference to 68-69 not yet testimony not filed.
Testimony yet filed) cross-referenced l
for convenience of Board and parties, and made necessary by split filing dates.
No re-quirement that there be an inde-pendent basis, but, even if required, it exists here since Herr is qualified to testify about school evacua-tions.
- Thus, testimony is not incompetent.
21, line 19, Pigozzi Cumulative; Testimony neither thru 22, line 1 no indepen-cumulative nor dent basis;
" unduly incompetent repetitious."
Reference to Pigozzi testimony put in to' prevent repetition and for convenience of Board and parties.
No re-quirement that there be an inde-pendent basis, but, even if required, it exists here since Herr is qualified to testify about f
KLD's time estimates.
- Thus,
testimony is not incompetent.
26, lines 12-19
- Saegert, Cumulative; Testimony neither
-SCPD no indepen-cumulative nor
' dent basis;
" unduly incompetent repetitious."
Reference to Saegert and SCPD i-testimony put in to prevent repe-tition and for convenience of Board and parties.
No re-quirement that l
there be an inde-l pendent basis, but, even if s
required, it exists here since Herr is qualified to testify about why evacuees may not follow pre-scribed routes.
Thus, testimony is not incompe-tent.
26, line 20,
- Pigozzi, Cumulative; Testimony neither thru 27, line 13 SCPD no indepen-cumulative nor dent basis;
" unduly incompetent repetitious."
Reference to Pigozzi and SCPD testimony put in to prevent repe-tition and for convenience of Board and parties.
No re-quirement that
]
there be an inde-
{
pendent basis, but, even if required, it
+
s A 19 -
~
e I
0 k
e
_____________i.__._
exists here since Herr is qualified to testify about traffic control by LILCO's traf-I I
fic guides and driver reactions to LILCO's traf-fic control scheme.
- Thus, testimony is not incompetent.
27, line 20,
- Pigozzi, Cumulative; Testimony neither thru 28, line 10 Saegert no indepen-cumulative nor dent basis;
" unduly incompetent repetitious."
Reference to Pigozzi and Saegert testimony put in to prevent repetition and for convenience of Board and parties.
Refer-ence also lays further founda-tion for Herr opinion that conflicts will increase evacua-tion times.
No requirement for independent basis, but, even if required, it exists here since Herr is qualified to testify about i
the effects of deviation from prescribed routes.
- Thus, testimony is not incompetent.
31, line 10,
- Pigozzi, Cumulative; Testimony neither thru 32, line 8
- Saegert, no indepen-cumulative nor SCPD dent basis;
" unduly incompetent repetitious."
Reference to Pigozzi, Saegert and SCPD testimo-ny put in to prevent repeti-tion and for con-venience of Board and parties.
Reference also lays further fac-tual predicsta for Herr testimo-ny that LILCO's traffic control scheme will cause confusion and delays.
No re-quirement for in-dependent basis, but, even if i
required, it exists here since Herr is qualified to testify about delays caused by confrontations between LILCO's traffic guides and motorists.
Thus, testimony is not incompe-cent.
33, lines 11-13 SCPD Cumulative; Testimony neither no indepen-cumulative nor dent basis;
" unduly incompetent repetitious."
Reference to SCPD testimony put in to prevent repe-tition and for convenience of Board and --
f parties.
No requirem9nt for independent basis, but, even if required, it exists here since Herr is qualified to testify about traffic signals and control de-vices.
- Thus, testimony is not incompetent.
41, line 17, Polk Cumulative; Testimony neither thru 42, line 6 no indepen-cumulative nor dent basis
" unduly repetitious."
Reference to Polk testimony put in to prevent repe-tition and for convenience of Board and parties.
No re-quirement for in-dependent basis, but, even if required, it exists here since Herr is qualified to testify about KLD's low accident figures.
47, line 10, Saegert Cumulative; Testimony neither thru 48, line 4 no indepen-cumulative nor dent basis; "un.:aly incompetent repetitious."
Reference to Saegert testimony put in to prevent repetition and to indicate that Saegert also discusses the driver.
performance study, from a psychologist's viewpoint.
Ref-erence is also for convenience of Board and parties.
No re-l quirement that there be an inde-pendent basis, but, even if required, it exists here since Herr is qualified to testify about the study in question, which l-is cited indepen-dently from Saegert.
- Thus, testimony is not incompetent.
51, line 16, N/A Relevance LILCO objects thru 52, line 4 that the testimo-ny_ concerns persons outside the 10-mile EPZ and is therefore irrelevant.
This same objection was made in LILCO's Motion to Strike the Polk testimony.
The Board rejected that Motion and should similarly reject LILCO's relevancy objection to the Herr testimony, which discusses the shadow phe-nomenon and its effect on i
evacuation times.,
52, lines 8-10
- Johnson, Cumulative; Testimony is nei-Zeigler no indepen-ther cumulative dent basis; nor " unduly incompetent repetitious."
Reference to Johnson and Zeigler testimony sets the factual predicate for Herr's shadow phenomenon testi-mony and is put in to prevent repetition and
{
for the conve-I nience of the Board and parties.
No re-quirement that there be an inde-pendent basis, but, even if required, it exists here since Herr is qualified to testify about the effect of the shadow phenonenon on evacuation times.
- Thus, testimony is not incompetent.
53, linas 15-20 Polk Cumulative; Testimony neither no indepen-cumulative nor dent basis;
" unduly relevance repetitious."
Reference to Polk testimony put in to prevent repe-tition and for i
convenience of l
Board and parties.
No re-quirement for in-dependent basis, but, even if u
required, it exists here since i
Herr is qualified 4
to testify about the shadow phe-nomenon and its effect on evacua-tion times.
LILCO's relevancy objections same as those made to i.
the Polk testimo-i ny which were rejected by the Board.
3.
Polk-Testimony Regarding Contentions 65 and 23.D i
LILCO's Cross-Reason County Page Reference to Strike
Response
3, line 16, Cole, et al.
Relevance:
LILCO argues that thru'4 line 15 concerns only the testimony persons concerns only outside persons outside 10-mile EPZ the 10-mile EPZ, and should be stricken.
This.
argument was rejected by the Board in ruling on LILCO's Motion to Strike the Polk testimony.
Despite LILCO's characterization
(" concerns only persons outside 10-mile EPZ"),
the testimony in fact addresses only the LILCO EPZ and discusses how long it will take persons to evacuate that 25 -
,=4-9 y
+.y
,-4.-,
..-~,-,-r,-
,re,y-y.,..,,,-,y.-
.-,..---,,..,-y_w-,
3, _, -,-~y,w,._,
i area.
Thus, the testimony clearly l
is relevant.
3, line 1, N/A Relevance:
LILCO filed a thru 10, line 6 see separate separate Motion Motion to to Strike this Strike [ Polk testimony.
The testimony]
Motion was denied by the Board.
(
16, lines 3-5 SCPD Cumulative; The testimony is J
l no indepen-neither cumula-dent basis tive nor " unduly repetitious."
Reference to SCPD testimony put in to prevent repe-tition and for convenience of Board and parties.
No ra-quirement that there be an inde-pendent basis, but, even if required, it exists here since Polk is qualified to testify about the effect of l
disabled vehicles on evacuation times.
- Indeed, the SCPD testimo-ny supports his conclusions.
4.
Pigozzi Testimony Regarding Contentions 65 and 23.D LILCO's Cross-Reason County Page Reference to Strike
Response
7, line 20, Herr Cumulative; Testimony neither thru 8, line 10 no cumulative nor.
i independent
" unduly basis; incom-repetitious."
petent Reference to Hert testimony put in to prevent repe-tition and for convenience of Board and parties.
In addition, refer-ence to Herr tes-timony sets the further factual basis for the need to have accurate time estimates and why LILCO's estimates are not accurate.
This testimony is independently stated and is rendered by a qualified witness.
- Thus, the testimony is not incompetent.
12, lines 6-17
- Erikson, Cumulative; Testimony neither
- Johnson, no indepen-cumulative nor Herr dent basis;
" unduly incompetent repetitious."
Reference to Erikson, Johnson and Here testimo-ny put in to prevent repeti-tion and for con-venience of Board and parties.
In addition, refer-ence to this tes-timony provides further factual k'
bas,is for Pigozzi testimony that additional,
pre-evacuation trips will in-crease evacuation times.
This tes-timony is ren-dered by a quali-fled witness and is independent of the referenced testimony.
- Thus, the testimony is not incompetent.
20, line 13,
- Herr, Cumulative; Testimony neither thru 21, line 13;
- Saegert, no indepen-cumulative nor 22, line 21, SCPD dent basis;
" unduly thru 23, line 5 incompetent repetitious."
Reference to Herr, Saegert and SCPD testimony put in to prevent repetition and for convenience of Board and parties.
In addition, the referenced testi-mony sets the further factual basis for Pigozzi testimony regarding the effect on LILCO's time estimates of evacuees deviating from prescribed routes._ Pigozzi has an indepen-dent basia for saying that devi-ation will occur.
Moreover, he is qualified to tes-timony on this point.
Thus, the testimony is not incompetent. - - _ _ _ _ _ _ _ - _ _ _ _ _ _ _ - _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _.
24, lines 18-22 Saegert Cumulative; Testimony neither no indepen-cumulative nor dent basis;
" unduly incompetent repetitious."
Reference to Saegert testimony put in to prevent repetition and for convenience of Board and parties.
Refer-enced testimony 1
also sets the further factual basis for discussing the effect on LILCO's time estimates of route deviations.
No requirement that there be an independent basis, but, even if required, it exists here since Pigozzi is quali-fied to testify on the likelihood and effects of deviation from prescribed routes.
- Thus, testimony is not incompetent.
25, lines 1-3,
- Herr, Cumulative; Testimony neither 6-8
- Saegert, no indepen-cumulative nor SCPD dent basis
" unduly repetitious."
Reference to Herr, Saegert and SCPD testimony put in to prevent l
repetition and for convenience I
of Board and I
l parties,. _ _ _ _ - _
Referenced testimony also sets the further factual basis for discussing effect on LILCO's time estimates of de-viation from pre-scribed routes.
No requirement that there be an independent basis but, even if required, it exists here since testimony is stated specifi-cally to be based on Pigozzi's own views of the LILCO Plan.
28, lines 8-12 SCPD Cumulative; Testimony neither no indepen-cumulative nor dent basis;
" unduly incompetent repetitious."
Reference to SCPD l
testimony put in
~'
to prevent repe-tition and for I
convenience of Board and parties.
No re-quirement that there be an inde-pendent basis but, even if required, it exists here since Pigozzi is quali-fied to testify about noncompliance by i
evacuees with LILCO's pre-scribed routes.
Thus, testimony
\\i <-
is not inccmpetent.
34, line 20,
- SCPD, Cumulative; Testimony neither thru 35, line 16
- Herr, no indepen-cumulative nor Saegert dent basis;
" unduly incompetent repetitious."
Reference to SCPD, Herr and Saegert testimony put in to prevent repetition and for convenience of Board and parties.
Refer-enced testimony also sets further factual bases in support of Pigozzi's conclu-sion that LILCO's time estimates are underesti-mated.
No re-quirement that there be an inde-pendent basis but, even if required, it exists here be-cause testimony discusses LILCO's low evacuation time estimates and the effect of confusion and delays on evacua-tion time estimates.
Pigozzi is quali-fied to testify on this point and testimony is therefore not in-competent. -
37, 1*ne 20, SCPD Cumulative; Testimony neither thru 38, line 5 no indepen-cumulative nor dent basis;
" unduly incompetent repetitious."
Reference to SCPD testimony put in to prevent repe-tition and for convenience of Board and parties.
Refer-enced testimony also sets forth further factual basis for testi-mony that capaci-ty and flow will be limited.
No requirement that there be an inde-pendent basis, but, even if required, Pigozzi is qualified to testify that a breakdown in traffic controls should be reflected in a computer model by decreased capaci-ty and decreased flow.
Thus, tes-timony is not in-competent.
39, lines 14-18
- Herr, Cumulative; Testimony neither
- Polk, no indepen-cumulative nor SCPD dent basis;
" unduly incompetent repetitious."
Reference to Herr, T>lk and SCPD testimony put in to prevent repetition and for convenience of Board and 32 -
parties.
Referenced testi-mony also sets further factual I
I bases for Pigozzi testimony that accidents and breakdowns will result in de-creased capacities and traffic flow, thus incressing evaeustion times.
No requirement that there be an independent basis, but, even if required, Pigozzi is quali-fled to testify on this point.
Thus, testimony is not incompe-tent.
43, lines 11-17 Saegert Cumulative; Testimony neither no indepen-cumulative nor dent basis;
" unduly incompetent repetitious."
Reference to Saegert testimony put in to prevent repetition and for convenience of Board and parties.
Refer-enced testimony also provides further factual bases for Pigozzi testimony regarding failure of KLD model to l
take into account l
reduchd driving skills.
No l
requirement that there be an inde-pendent basis but, even if required, it exists here since Pigozzi is quali-fled to testify on this point, and testimony therefore is not incompetent.
46, lines 14-19 Polk Cumulative; Testimony neither no indepen-cumulative nor dent banis;
" unduly relevance repetitious."
Reference to Polk testimony put in to prevent repe-tition and for convenience of Board and parties.
No re-quirement that there be an inde-pendent basis, but, even if required, it exists here since Pigozzi's views on LILCO's fail-ure to take into account evacuees from the East End are based on his own review and analysis of the LILCO Plan and the KLD traffic model.
LILCO's relevancy objection previ-ously rejected by the Board in denying LILCO's Motion to Strike the Polk testimo-ay.
.--,,s
B.
The NRC Staff's Motion to Strike the Saegert Testimony The NRC Staff has moved to strike one paragraph of the direct testimony of Susan C.
Saegert which begins on page 15 and continues to page 16.
The Staff claims that the Board should strike that paragraph because there has been no showing that Professor Saegert "has any expertise in traffic control or that there is any basis in fact for the proffered testimony."
Staff Motion at 2-3.
The Staff also claims that Professor Saegert's citation to the SCPD witnesses for support is
" superfluous."
Staff Motion at 3.
The Staff's complaints are without merit.
The paragraph at issue discusses the possibility that ag-gression may occur against LILCO's traffic guides as a result of their inability to implement effectively LILCO's traffic control scheme.
Professor Sacgert first refers to the testimo-ny of the SCPD witnesses to support her statement that directing traffic is a cbmplex undertaking requiring extensive training and experience, which LILCO personnel will lack.
The SCPD witnesses' testimony sets forth the factual predicate for Professor Saegert's further testimony that the mistakes and in-competence in traffic control that will result from these deficiencies may induce aggression by frustrated motorists.
Furthermore, she notes that if inexperienced traffic guides do. - -
n not respond appropriately to highly agitated drivers, further aggression could occur.
The Staff's argument that Professor Saegert lacks expertise-in traffic control misses the point of the cited paragraph, which is to address how aqqression will result from mistakes in traffic control committed by LILCO personnel.
The referenced testimony by the SCPD witnesses, rather than being superfluous, establishes the factual basis that such errors are likely to occur.
As an environmental psychologist, Professor Saegert is qualified to discuss how such mistakes, and result-ing delays, will affect the behavior of drivers who will be in a stressed state of mind.
Her testimony is thus well within the scope of her expertise.
Therefore, the Staff's argument has no basis, and should be rejected. _ _ _ - _ _ _ _ - _ _ _ _ _ _
.i
- .--.....==-a1-==--
- - -- z III.
Conclusion For the reasons set terth above, the Board should deny LILCO's " Motion to Strike Certain Portions of Suffolk County Testimony on Traffic Issues As Incompetent or Cumulative," and the NRC Staff's Motion to Strike a portion of the Saegert tes-timony.
Respectfully submitted, David J. Gilmartin Patricia A. Dempsey Suffolk County Department of Law H. Lee Dennison Building Veterans Memorial Highway Hauppauge, New York 11788 Lawrence Coe Lanpher Michael S. Miller Christopher M. McMurray KIRKPATRICK, LOCKHART, HILL, CHRISTOPHER & PHILLIPS 1900 M Street, N.W.
Washington, D.C.
20036 Attorneys for Suffolk County Dated:
December 20, 1983 UNITED STATES OF AMERICA NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSION Before the Atomic Safety and Licensing Board
)
l In the Matter of
)
)
LONG ISLAND LIGHTING COMPANY
)
Docket No. 50-322-OL-3
)
(Emergency Planning)
(Shoreham Nuclear Power Station,
)
Unit 1)
)
)
CERTIFICATE OF FERVICE I hereby certify that copies of SUFFOLK COUNTY'S RESPONSE TO LILCO'S. MOTION TO STRIKE CERTAIN PORTIONS OF SUFFOLK COUNTY TESTIMONY ON TRAFFIC ISSUES AS INCOMPETENT OR CUMULATIVE AND GUFFOLK COUNTY'S RESPONSE TO THE NRC STAFF'S MOTION TO STRIKE (IN PART) THE DIRECT TESTIMONY OF SUSAN C.
SAEGERT REGARDING CONTENTION 65 (EVACUATION TIME ESTIMATES), dated December 20, 1983, have been served to the following by U.S. mail, first class, except Where noted, this 20th day of December 1983.
- James A.
Laurenson, Chairman Ralph Shapiro, Esq.
Atomic Safety and Licensing Board Cammer and Shapiro U.S.
Nucl' ear Regulatory Commission 9 East 40th Street Washington, D.C.
20555 New York, New York 10016
- Dr. Jerry R.
Kline Howard L.
Blau, Eoq.
Atomic Safety and Licensing Board 217 Newbridge Road U.S.
Nuclear Regulatory Commission Hicksville, New York 11801 Washington, D.C.
20555
- W.
Taylor Reveley, III, Esq.
- Mr. Frederick J.
Shon Hunton & Williams Atomic SafrJ.y and Licensing Board P.O.
Box 1535 U.S.
Nuclear Regulatory Commission 707 East Main Street Washington, D. C.
20555 Richmond, Virginia 23212 Edward M.
Barrett, Esq.
General Couneel Mr. Jay Dunkleberger Long Island Lighting Company New York State Energy Office 250 Old Country Road Agency Building 2 Mineola, New York 11501 Empire State Plaza Albany, New York 12223 Mr. Brian McCaffrey Long Island Lighting Company Stephen B.
Latham, Esq.
175 East Old Country Road Twomey, Latham & Shea Hicksville, New York 11801 33 West Second Street Riverhead, New York 11901 By Hand
- By Federal Express
Nora Bredes Docketing and Service Section Executive Director' Office of the Secretary Shoreham Opponents Coalition U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Comm.
195 East Main Street Washington, D.C.
20555 Smithtown, New York 11787 Hon. Peter Cohalan Marc W. Goldsmith Suffolk County Executive Energy Research Group, Inc.
H.
Lee Dennison Building 400-1 Totten Pond Road Veterans Memorial Highway Waltham, Massachusetts 02154 Hauppauge, New York 11788 MHB Technical Associates
- Eleanor L.
Frucci, Esq.
1723 Hamilton Avenue Atomic Safety and Licensing Suite K Board Panel j
San Jose, California 95125 U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Comm.
l Washington, D.C.
20555 i
Joel Blau, Esq.
New York Public Service Comm.
Ezra I.
Bialik, Esq.
The Governor Nelson A. Rockefeller Assistant Attorney General Building Environmental Protection Bur.
Empire State Plaza New York State Dept. of Law Albany, New York 12223 2 World Trade Center New York, New York 10047 David J. Gilmartin, Esq.
Suffolk County Attorney Atomic Safety and Licensing H.
Lee Dennison Building Appeal Board Veterans Memorial Highway U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Comm.
Hauppauge, New York 11788 Washington, D.C.
20555 Atomic Safety and Licensing Jonathan D.
Feinberg, Esq.
Board Panel Staff Counsel, New York State U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission Public Service commission Washington, D.C.
20555 3 Rockefeller Plaza i
Albany, New York 12223 1 Bernard M.
Bordenick, Esq.
David A. Repka, Esq.
Stewart M.
Glass, Esq.
U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission Regional Counsel Washington, D.C.
20555 Federal Emergency Management Agency Stuart Diamond 26 Federal Plaza, Room 1349 Environment / Energy Writer New York, New York 10278 NEWSDAY Long Island, New York 11747 James B.
Dougherty, Esq.
l 3045 Porter Street, N.W.
Washington, D.C.
2Q008 _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _
~
a Spence Perry, Esq.
Associate General Counsel Federal Emergency Management Agency Washington, D.C.
20472 Mr. Jeff Smith Shoreham Nuclear Power Station P.O. Box 618 North Country Road Wading River, New York 11792 fibbd714#w Michael S.
Miller KIRKPATRICK, LOCKHART, HILL, CHRISTOPHER & PHILLIPS 1900 M Street, N.W.,
Suite 800 Washington, D.C.
20036 DATED:
December 20, 1983 l -_
_ _ _ _ _ _ - _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _