ML20206T416
| ML20206T416 | |
| Person / Time | |
|---|---|
| Site: | Shoreham File:Long Island Lighting Company icon.png |
| Issue date: | 04/17/1987 |
| From: | Case D KIRKPATRICK & LOCKHART, SUFFOLK COUNTY, NY |
| To: | Atomic Safety and Licensing Board Panel |
| References | |
| CON-#287-3166 OL-3, NUDOCS 8704230175 | |
| Download: ML20206T416 (11) | |
Text
_
3 / 646 9
00CKETED AprEPET7, 1987 UNITED STATES OF AMERICA 17 A I 20 P5 :23 NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSION Before the Atomic Safety and Licensino Boardr n,.
GGCu if.
^!
- t.x
- .-
)
In the Matter of
)
)
Docket No. 50-322-OL-3 LONG ISLAND LIGHTING COMPANY
)
(Emergency Planning)
)
(Shoreham Nuclear Power Station,
)
Unit 1)
)
)
SUFFOLK COUNTY MOTION FOR LEAVE TO FILE REBUTTAL TESTIMONY Suffolk County (the " County") hereby moves for leave to file limited rebuttal testimony which will address the testimony of NRC witness Lewis G. Hulman concerning the number of people who may be affected by a Shoreham accident.
The testimony that the County seeks to file will be prepared by Gregory C. Minor and Steven C. Sholly, both of whom have already been identified as witnesses in this proceeding.
I.
BACKGROUND On March 6, 1987, the County received the NRC Staff's Second Supplemental Response to Defendant's First Set of Interrogatories
("Second Supplemental Response"), which contained the NRC Staff's final designation of is witnesses.
This Second Supplemental Response designated Mr. Lewis Hulman as a witness and, for the first time, the Staff informed the County that the Staff intended 870423o175 070417 gDR
[g ADOCK 0500 2
to rely on probabilistic risk assessments, consequence analyses and similar technical analyses for the purpose of addressing the issue of how many people will arrive at the reception centers.
Indeed, even at that late date, the technical nature of Mr.
Hulman's testimony was not made explicit by the NRC's witness designation, but was only indicated by the technical documents on which the Staff stated Mr. Hulman intended to rely.
Mr. Hulman was deposed by the County on March 10, 1987.
At that deposition, Mr. Hulman confirmed that he intended to conduct a technical analysis of the number of people who would likely be affected by a plume released during a Shoreham accident.
Mr.
Hulman also stated at his deposition that he had not yet reached even tentative conclusions and had not completed any calculations.
Hulman Deposition at 8.
Faced with this unexpected and incomplete technical analysis, counsel for the County requested the results of Mr. Hulman's calculations on the record.
In addition, three hours after the deposition, the County designated Messrs. Minor and Sholly as anticipated wit-nesses and proffered them for deposition.
Letter of Christopher M. McMurray to James N. Christman, William R. Cumming and Richard G. Bachmann, March 10, 1987.
LILCO subsequently moved to strike Messrs. Minor and Sholly as witnesses.
On March 16, 1987, the Board convened a telephone conference to discuss the LILCO motion.
During that conference,
_2_
n a
the County stated that because Mr. Hulman had yet to prepare any analysis, Messrs. Minor and Sholly would likely testify in rebuttal.
When counsel for the NRC asserted that Mr. Hulman's testimony would be limited to a meteorological analysis, the Board encouraged counsel to work together to reach an understanding as to the limits of Mr. Hulman's testimony.1/
Pursuant to the Board's suggestion that counsel work together to ascertain the scope of Mr. Hulman's testimony, on March 18, 1987, counsel for the County sent a letter to the NRC Staff seeking both a clarification of Mr. Hulman's proposed testimony and the results of Mr. Hulman's calculations.
This letter is attached to this Motion as Exhibit 1.
Counsel for the Staff never responded to the March 18 letter from Suffolk County.
In fact, it was not until April 10, 1987 that counsel for the County received the calculations which are the basis for Mr.
Hulman's testimony.
Thus, the County received no information as to the nature of Mr. Hulman's testimony until three days before the County's testimony was due in the hands of the Board and the parties.
Moreover, Mr. Hulman's calculations were indecipherable without his testimony as to the purpose of the calculations, the source of the data, and the methodology used.
Thus, it was not 1/
The LILCO motion to strike was denied by this Board during the March 16, 1987 telephone conference.
The Board's ruling is set forth in the Memorandum Memorializing Ruling on Motion to Strike Two Designated Individuals as Witness (March 17, 1987).
B e
-until after April 13 -- the day the County's direct testimony was due and filed -- that the County could begin to understand Mr.
Hulman's calculations.
The County's review of Mr. Hulman's testimony reveals that it contains a technical analysis of the " conditional probability 7
of the number of people within the 10 mile Emergency Planning Zone (EPZ) which could be within the plume of an accidental release of radioactivity from Shoreham."
Hulman Testimony at 1.
His testimony provides the basis for another NRC witness to conclude that an adequate planning basis for the number of people who might arrive at the reception centers for monitoring is 20%
of the EPZ population.
Kantor Testimony at 7.
Even a quick reading of Mr. Hulman's testimony shows that the procedures used in deriving the probabilities of the number of people who would be affected by a plume released from Shoreham is quite technical and based on computer generated calculations.
In particular, Mr. Hulman uses a Gaussian dispersion model to assess plume dispersion, and has made several assumptions as to the meteorological and demographic conditions.
Analyses of Mr. Hulman's testimony and data conducted by the County's experts show that his calculations are misleading.
For instance, the cases he has evaluated are unjustifiability restricted and he has artificially limited his base case.
Moreover, some of his assumptions, such as those concerning 3 i I
meteorological conditions, are unfounded.
Rebuttal testimony is therefore necessary to show that the conclusions drawn by Mr. Hulman (and Mr. Kantor) are unreliable.
II. DISCUSSION Rebuttal testimony may be filed where " good cause" is shown.
In this case, good cause is shown for three reasons.
First, the rebuttal testimony offered by Messrs. Minor and Sholly could not have been included in the County's April 13, 1987 direct testimony.
Despite the efforts of the County, the Staff did not provide Mr. Hulman's calculations until three days before the County's testimony was filed.
Moreover, even this limited piece of information could not be analyzed in the absence of Mr.
Hulman's testimony, which was filed around April 13, 1987.
Second, good cause is demonstrated because the proposed rebuttal testimony is relevant to issues before the Board and necessary for the Board to evaluate the evidence presented by the Staff.
It is undisputed that LILCO's planning basis for the reception centers is one of the key issues in this case.
LILCO has submitted testimony on this issue and related issues (LILCO testimony at p. 3-23), as has the County (Direct Testimony of Stephen Cole, et al. on behalf of Suffolk County regarding Reception Centers (Planning Basis)), the State of New York (Direct Testimony of James D.
Papile, et al. on behalf of the I l 1
l I
d State of New York regarding LILCO Reception Centers at 5-15)),
FEMA (Direct Testimony of Thomas E. Baldwin, Ihor W. Husar qd Joseph Keller at 7), and now the NRC Staff.
The Staff has attempted to address the planning basis by assessing the
" footprint" of a likely plume from a Shoreham accident.
The l
County's review of the NRC Staff's testimony, however, shows that J
it is misleading and therefore not valid.
The County's rebuttal testimony will identify the flaws in lir. Hulman's analysis.
Third, good cause exists because the County's rebuttal testimony will not be cumulative and will be narrowly focused.
Messrs. Minor and Sholly have not submitted any testimony on Mr.
Hulman's " footprint" analysis because the County could obtain neither the underlying calculations nor an explanation of Mr.
Hulman's calculations or methodology.
Now that the County has this information, it will be able to focus its rebuttal on Mr.
Hulman's testimony.2/
Conclusion 1
1 l
l For the foregoing reasons, the County's Motion for Leave to File Rebuttal Testimony should be granted.
1/
The County continues to support to the proposed schedule for filing rebuttal testimony set forth in the Suffolk County and State of New York Motion for Rescheduling of Relocation Center Hearing to Commence Upon Completion of Exercise Litigation (April
/
13, 1987).
Specifically, that proposed schedule calls for the filing of rebuttal testimony on May 4, 1987, filing of motions to strike on May 11, 1987, and filing of responses to such motions on May 18, 1987...
Respectfully submitted, Martin Bradley Ashare Suffolk County Attorney H. Lee Dennison Building Veterans Memorial Highway Hauppauge, New York 11788 G %
8.
Lawrence Coe Lanpher Christopher M. McMurray David T. Case KIRKPATRICK & LOCKHART 1800 M Street, N.W.
South Lobby - Suite 900 Washington, D.C.
20036-5891 Attorneys for Suffolk County April 17, 1987
e EXHIBIT 1 KIRKPATRICK & LOCKHART SOUTH LOBBY - 9TH floor EXCHA.%E PLACE 1800 M STREET. NX p sTATEsuzfr fi[j:
WASHINGTON, D.C. 200 4 5891 14;8 BRJCkILL AtENCE ~
hdAML FL 11111 TturHoNE cc:t 77 sam iwsiu44ut Tuzx 440209 KL DC et Iwe ouvtR sen.DLso TELECOP:ER CO2) 7759100 P!TTSBURCH. FA 15:22%C9 11 TITE 11 DutECT DIAL NUh4BER
$412) 3554%0 (202) 778-9084 March 18, 1987 BY TELECOPY Richard G. Bachmann, Esq.
U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission Office of General Counsel Washington, DC 20555 RE:
Docket No. 50-322-OL-3 Testimony of Lewis G.
Hulman
Dear Mr. Bachmann:
I am writing in an attempt to clarify some confusion resulting from statements concerning Mr. Hulman's testimony which were made to the Board during the conference call of March 16, 1987.
In particular, you suggested that Mr. Hulman's testimony would be limited to the meterological aspects of consequence analysis.
If Mr. Hulman's testimony is so limited, please explain how Mr. Hulman's testimony will address meterology without any discussion of other aspects of consequence analysis.
In addition, as I stated at the deposition of Mr. Hulman, Suffolk County requests a copy of Mr. Hulman's calculations and analyses as soon as they are completed.
Please call if you have any questions.
Sincerely yours, M
David T. Case cc:
All counsel DTC/irc, EXHIBIT 1 i
00LKETED Aoril 17, S$hh UNITED STATES OF AMERICA NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSION OfflCE 37 S Gt' AE Y T
Before the Atomic Safety and Licensino BBQfNI hk C
)
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 the SUFFOLK COUNTY MOTION FOR LEAVE TO FILE REBUTTAL TESTIMONY have been served on the following this 17th day of April, 1987 by United States mail, first class, except as otherwise noted.
Morton B. Margulies, Esq., Chairman
- Joel Blau, Esq.
Atomic Safety and Licensing Board Director, Utility Intervention U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission N.Y. Consumer Protection Board Washington, D.C.
20555 Suite 1020 Albany, New York 12210 Dr. Jerry R. Kline*
William R. Cumming, Esq.*
Atomic Safety and Licensing Board Spence W. Perry, Esq.
U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission Office of General Counsel Washington, D.C.
20555 Federal Emergency Management Agency 500 C Street, S.W.,
Room 840 Washington, D.C.
20472 l
l
4 Mr. Frederick J. Shon*
Anthony F. Earley, Jr.,
Esq.
Atomic Safety and Licensing Board General Counsel U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission Long Island Lighting Company Washington, D.C.
20555 175 East Old Country Road Hicksville, New York 11801 Ms. Elisabeth Taibbi W. Taylor Reveley, III, Esq.*
Clerk Hunton and Williams Suffolk County Legislature Post Office Box 1535 Suffolk County Legislature 707 East Main Street Office Building Richmond, Virgiria 23212 Veterans Memorial Highway Hauppauge, New York 11788 Mr. L.
F. Britt Stephen B. Latham, Esq.
Long Island Lighting Company Twomey, Latham & Shea Shoreham Nuclear Power Station 33 West Second Street North Country Road Riverhead, New York 11901 Wading River, New York 11792 Ms. Nora Bredes Docketing and Service Section Executive Director Office of the Secretary Shoreham Opponents Coalition U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Comm.
195 East Main Street 1717 "H" Street, N. W.
Smithtown, New York 11787 Washington, D.C.
20555 Mary M. Gundrum, Esq.
Hon. Michael A. LoGrande New York State Department of Law Suffolk County Executive 120 Broadway, Third Floor H.
Lee Dennison Building Room Number 3-116 Veterans Memorial Highway New York, New York 10271 Hauppauge, New York 11788 MHB Technical Associates Dr. Monroe Schneider 1723 Hamilton Avenue North Shore Committee Suite "K"
Post Office Box 231 San Jose, California 95125 Wading River, New York 11792 Martin Bradley Ashare, Esq.
Fabian G. Palomino, Esq.*
Suffolk County Attorney Richard J.
Zahnleuter, Esq.
I Bldg. 158, North County Complex Special Counsel to the Veterans Memorial Highway Governor of the State Hauppauge, New York 11788 of New York Executive Chamber, Room 229 Capitol Building Albany, New York 12224 Mr. Jay Dunkleburger Richard G. Bachmann, Esq.*
New York State Energy Office U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Comm.
Agency Building 2 Washington, D.
C.
20555 Empire State Plaza i
Albany, New York 12223 i. - - _. _ _ -
a e
David A.
Brownlee, Esq.
Mr. Stuart Diamond Kirkpatrick and Lockhart Business / Financial 1500 Oliver Building NEW YORK TIMES Pittsburgh, Pennsylvania 15222 229 West 43rd Street New York, New York 10036 Douglas J. Hynes, Councilman Town Board of Oyster Bay Town Hall Oyster Bay, New York 11771 hM tb David T. Case KIRKPATRICK & LOCKHART 1800 "M" Street, N. W.
South Lobby - Ninth Floor Washington, D.
C.
20036-5891
- Via Telecopy April 17, 1987....
- _ _ - -