ML20087G762

From kanterella
Jump to navigation Jump to search
Response Opposing Lilco 840309 Motion to Strike Portions of Direct Testimony of Pb Herr on Contention 22.D Re Inadequacy of Lilco Emergency Planning Zone.Related Correspondence
ML20087G762
Person / Time
Site: Shoreham File:Long Island Lighting Company icon.png
Issue date: 03/16/1984
From: Mcmurray C
KIRKPATRICK & LOCKHART, SUFFOLK COUNTY, NY
To:
Atomic Safety and Licensing Board Panel
Shared Package
ML20087G767 List:
References
OL-3, NUDOCS 8403200131
Download: ML20087G762 (5)
v • d • e


Text

,

d

/ iEI Ai to Luul.1Sn6vLf 6 000KETED UNITED STATES OF AMERICA USNRC

- NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSION T4 MAR 19 A10 31 Before the Atomic Safety and Licensing Board 0FFl2 0F SEC6ti A!-

90CKETINS 4 EFVU i BRANCL'

) I

!' In the Matter of )

)

LONG ISLAND. LIGHTING COMPANY ) Docket No. 50-322-OL-3

) (Emergency Planning)

(Shoreham Nuclear Power Station, )

Unit 1) )

)

SUFFOLK COUNTY'S RESPONSE TO LILCO'S MOTION TO STRIKE PORTIONS OF THE DIRECT TESTIMONY OF PHILIP B. HERR ON CONTENTION 22.D -- INADEQUACY OF LILCO'S EPZ On March 9, 1984, LILCO moved to' strike certain portions of the Direct Testimony Of Philip B. Herr On Behalf Of Suffolk

. County Regarding Emergency Planning Contention 22.D -- Inadequacy of LILCO's EPZ. The County responds as follows:

LILCD seeks to strike the portion of Professor Herr's testi--

many extending from page 13, line 1 through page 14, line 6 which -

discusses why the present configuration of the EPZ, running as it does through the populated centers of Riverhead and Port Jeffer-

! son,.makes perimeter' control extremely difficult. Professor Herr-concludes that in the case of Riverhead, moving the EPZ' boundary eastward -- that is, away from the middle of Riverhead's business district -- would make perimeter control less difficult by reduc-ing the number of roads crossing the EPZ boundary. (Herr Testi-mony On Contention 22.D at 13). Similarly, he notes that in the 8403200131 840316 PDR ADOCK 05000322 g _ . PDR,

_ c _ _ . . . ._ _ . _ . _ _. . _ _ _ _ __ - . _ ,

.. 1 l

l l

I -

2-Port Jefferson area the present EPZ configuration causes the EPZ 7

boundary to be crossed by streets in about two dozen instances, only a few of which are manned by LILCO traffic guides. Again, t

Professor Herr concludes that a restructuring of the western-EPZ boundary could reduce the perimeter control problem in the Port Jefferson area. (Herr. Testimony On Contention 22.D at 13-14).

I LILCO seeks to strike this testimony on two related grounds.

The first asserted ground is premised on one sentence from Professor Herr's testimony which notes that the need for peri-meter control on the eastern boundary will arise, in some mea-sure, because of " East Enders" attempting to travel west. LILCO

, claims that, as a result of his reference to East Ende.s, Professor Herr is attempting to relitigate the issue of the evac-uation shadow phenomenon -(Contention 23) which is outside the scope of the Contention 22.D.- LILCO's'second asserted ground-is-that the issue of perimeter control' was_ addressed,.at least in

, the Riverhead area, by the Suffolk County Police Department's

, Direct Testimony on Contention..:23.H. Therefore, LILCO again complains that Professor Herr's discussion of. perimeter control i

is an attempt "to relitigate_(Contention 23.H] in the guise-of Contention 22.D." Both of LILCO's. objections are without; merit._

We will' address.LILCO's second' asserted ground first.

LILCO's_ argument is based'oniaimischaracterization'ofLPrdfessor_-

Herr's testimony.on Contention 22.D. The purpose of_that testi-mony)is-to show that LILCO's EPZ,fasLcurrently drawn, actually Iv\

.r E <

1.. . , .

- , --..r .,, , . . - ,- ,. ,,,

p- -

7.

creates difficulties and confusion in several aspects of the emergency response, contrary to regulatory guidance that 2PZs should be drawn in ways consistent with local response needs, ,

capabilities, demography, access routes, etc. One such aspect of the emergency response which will be impaired by LILCO's present EPZ is perimeter control. As Professor Herr testifies, if LILCO had drawn the EPZ according to the planning principles he dis-cusses, perimeter control problems could have been reduced some-what by moving the boundary out of heavily populated areas, where there are many roads, and placing it in less densely populated areas where there are fewer roads. Professor Herr's discussion of perimeter control in this context is entirely different from.

the point made in the-testimony of the Suffolk County Police j Department on Contention 23.D. There, the SCPD witnesses con-cluded that, based-on the present configuration of the EPZ, .L!LCO did not propose to place traffic control posts at many of the locations where people could enter the EPZ. The SCPD witnesses' testimony discussed those-locations and why they should be manned by traffic control personnel. ,( SCPD Witnesses' Testimony on Contentions 65 and 23.H at 65-69 and Attachment 12). Professor Herr's testimony on Contention.22.D, on the other' hand, is not designed to pinpoint where traffic _ control posts'should be located given the present EPZ. Rather, he is testifying that by'

j. redrawing the EPZ, the problem of perimeter-control can be

. - .. . . . _ . , - ., _ . ~ _ . . . - - _ ..

. .?

reduced by reducing the number of roads entering the EPZ.

LILCO's knee-jerk reaction to the words " perimeter control" has apparently caused it to. fail to recognize the clear distinction.

LILCO's argument that Professor Herr's testimony is an l

attempt to relitigate Contention 23 (Evacuation. Shadow Phenome-non) is an equally inappropriate knee-jerk reaction to the term

" East Ender d and, apparently, is based only on the fact that similar terminology was used in the litigation of Contention 23.

Contrary to LILCO's assertions, however, the shadow phenomenon is not the issue that Professor Herr addresses in his testimony on Contention 22.D. Rather, as even LILCO acknowledges (Appendix A at IV-8), people may attempt to enter the EPZ for a variety of purposes during an evacuation. In particular, people from east of the EPZ (East Enders) may attempt to enter the EPZ wnile mov-ing westward (either intentionally or unintentionally). The purpose of Professor Herr's testimony is not to discuss the nature or scope of the evacuation shadow phenomenon, or the reasons for its existence, as was litigated in Contention 23.

The purpose of his testimony is to show that by redrawing the EPZ in a more rational manner, consistent with planning principles and regulatory guidance cited in Contention 22.D and its Pre-amble, the task of' perimeter control can be made less difficult.

This issue was not litigated in Contention 23 or in any previous contention.

e d

In short, Professor Herr's testimony is well within the scope of Contention 22.D and is not cumulative or unduly repeti-tious of any other contentions. Therefore, LILCO's objections are groundless.

Conclusion For the reasons set forth above, LILCO's Motion to Strike Portions Of The Direct Testimony Of Philip B. Herr On Contention 22.D should be denied.

Respectfully submitted, i

. Martin Bradley Ashare Suffolk County Attorney H. Lee Dennison Building Veterans Memorial Highway Hauppauge, New York 11788 I/ hg ,b, g .

sw , M ff. *' 7F L

~

LWrence Foe Lanpher#

Karla J. Letsche.

Christopher.M. McMurray KIRKPATRICK, LOCKHART, HILL, CHRISTOPHER & PHILLIPS 1900 M Street, NW Washington, DC 20036 Attorneys for Suffolk County' l

Dated: March 16, 1984 l

l i

l -

Retrieved from "https://kanterella.com/w/index.php?title=ML20087G762&oldid=2736853"