ML20206T319
| ML20206T319 | |
| Person / Time | |
|---|---|
| Site: | Shoreham File:Long Island Lighting Company icon.png |
| Issue date: | 04/16/1987 |
| From: | Zahnleuter R NEW YORK, STATE OF |
| To: | Atomic Safety and Licensing Board Panel |
| References | |
| CON-#287-3173 OL-3, NUDOCS 8704230159 | |
| Download: ML20206T319 (13) | |
Text
l
~
f-
,2$ l23 00CMETED USNPC Aoril 16, 1987
+
~ ~87 NH 20 P2 3 4
UNITED STATES OF AMERICA NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSION CFFIC ~~ ".
.:e Before the Atomic Safety and Licensino Board,0M ai p
)
In the Matter of
)
)
LONG ISLAND LIGHTING COMPANY
)
Docket No. 50-322-OL-3
)
(Emergency Planning)
(Shoreham Nuclear Power Station,
)
Unit 1)
)
)
)
STATE OF NEW YORK MOTION FOR LEAVE TO FILE REBUTTAL TESTIMONY The State of New York hereby seeks leave to file limited rebuttal testimony, sponsored by State witnesses David T. Hartgen and Richard C. Millspaugh, based on new LILCO data which could not be addressed in the State's April 13, 1987 Direct Testimony.
(
I.
BACKGROUND One of the issues in this proceeding is the capacity of the routes leading to the reception centers to accommodate the traf-fic that will be generated as a result of an advisory that some l
l or all of the EPZ population should report to LILCO's reception centers.
If the approach routes to the reception centers do not have sufficient capacity to handle expected traffic demand, then 8704230159 870416 a
PDR ADOCK 05000322 DJ G
?
e the reception centers will be unable to perform their intended function and, therefore, this Board will be unable to find that they are adequate.
During discovery, LILCO provided the Governments with an analysis conducted by a LILCO consultant, KLD Associates, which purported to analyze, and then drew certain conclusions about, the capacity of the routes to LILCO's reception centers.
The analysis, dated September 26, 1986, shall be referred to as KLD TR-192.1/
On February 24, 1987, LILCO's expert witness on the recep-tion center traffic issues, Mr. Lieberman (a Vice-President of KLD Associates), was deposed, during which time KLD TR-192 and its conclusions were explored.
Mr. Lieberman also testified during that deposition that he intended to conduct a more detailed analysis of the routes and intersections on approach paths to the reception centers using Hichway Caoacity Manual software.
Following the deposition, counsel for Suffolk County requested that LILCO produce any further analyses conducted by Mr. Liebermann.
Egg Attachment 1 hereto.
LILCO responded that it was unlikely that Mr. Lieberman's analysis would be completed much before the filing date for LILCO's direct testimony (March 30, 1987).
Egg Attachment 2 hereto.
1/
KLD TR-192 is Attachment M to LILCO's March 30 Testimony. - - - - _ -..
1 9
i l
LILCO counsel's prediction was accurate; LILCO provided no further analysis to the parties until March 30, 1987, when LILCO filed its direct testimony on the reception center issues.
That testimony contained not only KLD TR-192, but also a new analysis, which will be referred to here as KLD TR-201, consisting of 28 pages and an appendix.2/
While KLD TR-201 purported to be a more detailed analysis of route capacity than is reflected in KLD TR-192, LILCO did not provide any of the data underlying the analysis in KLD TR-201.
Therefore, on April 2, 1987, LILCO was requested to provide all of the underlying data for the analysis.
Those data, consisting of over 1,000 pages and covering many different intersections, were received by counsel on April 6, 1987, and were provided to the State's experts on April 7, 1987.
Pursuant to this Board's scheduling orders, the State's Direct Testimony on the reception center issues was due in the hands of the parties and the Board by April 13, 1987.
The State met that deadline.3/
However, given the very large volume of data to be reviewed and the short amount of time left before the Direct Testimony was due,$/ it was impossible for the State's 2/
KLD TR-201 is Attachment S to LILCO's Testimony.
3/
Egg Direct Testimony of David T. Hartgen and Robert C.
Millspaugh on Behalf of the State of New York Regarding LILCO's Reception Centers.
1/
As a practical matter, there were only 3 days available between the time the data were received and the time when testimony was required to be finalized.
Due to necessary production time and the fact that the testimony had to be processed and copied in time for it to be in the hands of the (footnote continued) -_
i experts to analyze KLD TR-201 and all of the underlying data in time to incorporate all of their findings into their Direct Testimony.
Where possible, KLD TR-201 was addressed in the State's direct testimony.
This includes testimony regarding the assumptions on which KLD TR-201 is based.
- See, e.o.,
Direct Testimony of David T. Hartgen and Richard C. Millspaugh on Behalf of the State of New York Regarding LILCO's Reception Centers (April 13, 1987) at 9-10, 29.
That testimony, of course, would not be repeated in'the State's rebuttal testimony.
Analyses of LILCO's data demonstrate that LILCO's analysis is misleading.
Without informing the Board or the parties in its testimony or documentation, LILCO has manipulated its data to inflate intersection capacity and levels of service artificially.
On the basis of this analysis, LILCO's expert concludes that the routes to LILCO's reception centers are adequate.
Rebuttal testimony is, therefore, required to demonstrate that the conclusions reported by KLD TR-201, and the LILCO testimony based on those conclusions, are unreliable.
II.
DISCUSSION Rebuttal testimony may be filed where " good cause" is shown.
Here, good cause is shown for the following reasons.
(footnote continued from previous page)
Board and the parties by April 13, all testimony was required to be in final form by Friday, April 10.
e e
i First, the testimony offered by the State could not have been included in the State's April 13, 1987, Direct Testimony on the traffic issues.
KLD TR-201 was not received by the State before March 30, 1987, and none of its underlying data were pro-vided before that time.
Indeed, the underlying data were received by the State's witnesses less than one week before their testimony was due.
Because KLD's analysis consisted of over a thousand pages, it could not be properly reviewed and incor-porated into the State's Direct Testimony before the filing date of April 13, 1987.
It should be noted that the State did make a good faith effort to review the text of KLD TR-201 and to comment where possible on the validity of that report.
However, without the underlying data, which were received well after the filing of LILCO's testimony, and on which the Governments have not even had the opportunity for discovery, there was simply no opportunity to complete the analysis.
Second, good cause is demonstrated because the testimony which the State offers is relevant to the issues before the Board and important to the Board's understanding of those issues.
The State's analysis of the underlying data, when compared to KLD TR-201, demonstrate that the KLD turn movement data have been manipulated to support the conclusions drawn in KLD TR-201 and the LILCO Testimony.
In addition, in an apparent attempt to..
t increase the level of service of various intersections on paper, KLD has used turn movements which do not exist at the analyzed intersections.
Had appropriate input data been used by LILCO, the results of the KLD analysis would have shown substantial congestion at intersections around the reception centers -- with levels of service far below what KLD estimates.
The State's proffered testimony will thus have a direct bearing on the relia-bility of LILCO's evidence.
Third, the State's rebuttal testimony will not be cumulative and will be narrowly focused on those points which the State's experts were not able to comment upon in their direct testimony because of the lack of underlying data to complete their analyses.
For these reasons, the State has shown good cause to file rebuttal testimony on the narrow issues it has described, and accordingly, seeks leave from this Board to file such testimony.5/
5/
The State is in agreement with the proposed schedule for filing rebuttal testimony set forth in Suffolk County counsel's letter to the Board of April 13, 1987.
Specifically, that proposed schedule calls for the filing of testimony on May 4, 1987, motions to strike due on May 11, 1987, and responses to such motions due on May 18, 1987. _
9 III.
CONCLUSION For the foregoing reasons, the State's Motion for Leave to File Rebuttal Testimony should be granted.
Respectfully submitted, It i
Richard Zi n euter Deputy Spetffal Counsel to the Governor of the State of New York Executive Chamber, Room 229 Capitol Building Albany, New York 12224 Attorney for Governor Mario M. Cuomo and the State of New York April 16, 1987. -... -..
[f? /'
KIRKPATRICK & LOCKHART C
SOUTH LOBBY 7TH floor EXCHANot ras 1800 M STREET, N.W.
WASHINGTON, D.C. 20045891 gir3 227m 1428 BluCKEli AVENUE MIAMI, FL 331JI TEllfHONE 002) 7769000 005) 3744:il nux 44cm n oc u i,ooOuvia -
TE11 COPIER C02) 7769100 P!TT58UltCH, PA 15222-5379 CHRISTOPHER M. McMURRAY (202) 77& 9054 March 10, 1987 VIA HAND James N. Christman, Esquire Hunton and Williams 707 East Main Street Post Office Box 1535 Richmond, Virginia 20212
Dear Jim:
Edward Lieberman stated at his recent deposition that he intended to conduct additional analyses beyond those reflected in KLD TR-192.
Please provide us with all documents reflecting such additional analyses.
Yours truly, Christopher M. McMurray CMM/ mas
^
emmelumn p
0 p
t HUNTON Sc WILLIAMS 707 East MAIN STREET P.o. Box 1535 Rscu wown, va zionwz A ese:2
,co
..a,
.uc aooo *tae=svLvania avtwuC. N w P O monsesso at* vonn. =cw voan icoor wa sw*N. ton o. C. aOO3e TELEPoocht at: 30etooO Tr6 emong aoa ess-ssoo TE L E pw o N E 804-788-8200 tetta seas 4e wu=f us ria:sv vimonwin sawn towan TELEX 6844251 our ma== oven sovant p o. som 3 e e s e o som sos Noaroom, venomia assa mattion, woarn camouma a7oca ttttemont so4.eas ssos trLapwows e e neo-sooo TsLam7ssere roast vc==ssser sama suitomo reso e-ai
..sooc ao*
March 17, 1987 o =om as' P. o. mon #14 7 MNouveLLE, tressetssEE 37eo#
Fa35 FAm. VtRoiNea 3:030 TELgre,ong sis-e37 43ss ttLa *nons vos ssa-aaoo FILE ho Diatet osat no so4 7es.
FEDERAL EXPRESS Christopher M. McMurray, Esq.
Kirkpatrick & Lockhart South Lobby - 9th Floor 1800 M Street, N.W.
Washington, D.C.
20036-5891
Dear Chris:
I am trying to finish up some odds and ends left over from d is cove r y.-
Here is what I've found.
1.
You've asked for specifications of the collapsible storage tanks.
They are attached.
These specifications may have been provided to you previously, but I have not had time to veri-fy that.
2.
You've asked about the analyses or data that Dennis Mileti said he was considering.
We are still considering.
No data have been collected, and no analysis done.
3.
You've asked about the KLD reanalysis of traffic is-sues.
The reanalysis is in progress this week.
There is no re-port, draft or otherwise, and there will not be until the analy-sis has been done.
It looks to me as though the reanalysis will be done just in time to include it in our testimony, but not much before.
4.
You've asked about the information Chuck Daverio men-tioned in his deposition last Friday.
I have received a copy of that report today.
It is a March 13, 1987, report prepared by the Impell Corporation called " Review of Radiation Moni-toring/ Decontamination Capabilities for the General Public in Ra-diological Emergency Plans."
It is " work product" in the classic sense, since it was prepared solely for litigation and at the re-quest of the lawyers.
Moreover, the information was gathered from public sources which I believe anyone could tap if he were to take the trouble to do it.
I shall simply have to make a judgment as to whether we are willing to turn this document over
./
f H UNTON & WILLI AM s Christopher M.
McMurray, Esq.
March 17, 1987 Page 2 to you notwithstanding the fact that it is work product.
I will either provide it, or let you know otherwise, by the end of this week.
5.
Finally, you have asked for certain work of Mike Lindell.
As you know, some of this material was provided at his deposition.
Other material is packed away in boxes in Seattle and will be hard to find.
An additional problem is that Mike Lindell, who I believe is in Atlanta at present, has been away from his phone, and I have not been able to reach him; however, I will keep trying.
Yours very truly, James N.
Christman 126/6205
Attachment:
5 pages of tank specs (with certain commercial information deleted) i l
t N
COLKETED USNFC DATE: April g IM 20 P2:43 0FFIE ;
tu- /. r 00CKEi m 4 ',fP.Yf 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 STATE OF NEW YORK MOTION FOR LEAVE TO FILE REBUTTAL TESTIMONY have been served on the following this 16th day of April 1937 by U.S. mail, first class, except as noted by an asterisk.
Morton B. Margulies*
Dr. Jerry R. Kline
- Chairman Atomic Safety and Licensing Board Atomic Safety and Licensing Board U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission East-West Towers East-West Towers 4350 East-West Highway 4350 East-West Highway Bethesda, MD 20814 Bethesda, MD 20314 Mr. Frederick 3. Shon*
Spence W. Perry, Esq.*
Atomic Safety and Licensing Board William R. Cumming, Esq.
U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission Office of General Counsel, East-West Towers Federal Emergency Management Agency 4350 East-West Highway 500 C Street, S.W., Room 840 Bethesda, MD 20814 Washington, D.C. 20472
4 Anthony F. Earley, Jr., Esq.
Joel Blau, Esq.
General Counsel Director, Utility Intervention Long Island Lighting Company N.Y. Consumer Protection Board 175 East Old Country Road Suite 1020 Hicksville, New York 11301 Albany, New York 12210 Ms. Elisabeth Taibbi James N. Christman*
Clerk Hunton & Williams Suf folk County Legislature 707 East Main Street Suffolk County Legislature Richmond, Virginia 23212 Office Building Veterans Memorial Highway Hauppauge, New York 11783 Stephen B. Latham, Esq.
Twomey, Latham & Shea Mr. L. F. Britt 33 West Second Street Long Island Lighting Company Riverhead, New York 11901 Shoreham Nuclear Power Station North Country Road Docketing and Service Section Wading River, New York 11792 Of fice of the Secretary U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission Ms. Nora Bredes 1717 H. Street, N.W.
Executive Director Washington, D.C. 20555 Shoreham Opponents Coalition 195 East Main Street Hon. Michael A. Lo Grande Smithtown, New York 11737 Suffolk County Executive H. Lee Dennison Building Veterans Memorial Highway Mary M. Gundrum, Esq.
Hauppauge, New York 11783 New York State Department of Law 120 Broadway,3rd Floor Dr. Monroe Schneider Room 3-116 North Shore Committee New York, New York 10271 P.O. Box 231 Wading River, New York 11792 MHB Technical Associates 1723 Hamilton Avenue Lawrence Coe Lanpher, Esq.*
Suite K Kirkpatrick & Lockhart San Jose, California 95125 1900 M. Street, N.W.
Suite 800 Martin Bradley Ashare, Esq.
Washington, D.C. 20036 Suffolk County Attorney Building 158 North County Complex Richard Bachman*
Veterans Memorial Highway U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission Hauppauge, New York 1173S Washington, D.C. 20555 Mr. Jay Dunkleburger Douglas 3. Hynes New York State Energy Office Town Board of Oyster Bay Agency Building #2 Town Hall Empire State Plaza Oyster Bay, NY 11771 Albany, New York 12223
i c.
I David A. Brownlee, Esq.
Mr. Stuart Diainond Kirkpatrick & Lockhart Business / Financial 1500 Oliver Building NEW YORK TIMES Pittsburgh, Pennsylvania 15222 229 W. 43rd Street New York, New York 10036
/
/ ),,.
/
p \\(, f,W lfWj i (', (g fye t, f!?lL%(;
~^
/
I Deputy Special 'Couds'e? E_sq.
Richard J. Zahnleute_r t 'to the Governor Executive Chamber Capitol, Room 229 Albany, New York 12224
- By Federal Express.