ML20207T547
| ML20207T547 | |
| Person / Time | |
|---|---|
| Site: | Shoreham File:Long Island Lighting Company icon.png |
| Issue date: | 03/18/1987 |
| From: | Falzone R HUNTON & WILLIAMS, LONG ISLAND LIGHTING CO. |
| To: | Atomic Safety and Licensing Board Panel |
| References | |
| CON-#187-2847 OL-5, NUDOCS 8703240119 | |
| Download: ML20207T547 (7) | |
Text
_
if/ 7 LILCO, M:rch 18, 1987 00CKETED USNRC UNITED STATES OF AMERICA NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSION
'87 tiAR 20 P2 34 Before the Atomic Safety and Licensing Board {ffkTb 0C BRA!;CH In the Matter of
)
)
LONG ISLAND LIGHTING COMPANY
) Docket No. 50-322-OL-5
) (EP Exercise)
(Shoreham Nuclear Power Station,
)
l Unit 1)
)
LILCO'S MOTION TO STRIKE PORTIONS OF THE_ DIRECT TESTIMONY OF GREGORY C. MINOR ON BEHALF OF l
SUFFOLK COUNTY CONCERNING CONTENTION EX 36 1
Pursuant to 10 C.F.R. S 2.743(c), the Long Island Lighting Company (LILCO) hereby moves to strike certain portions of the " Direct Testimony of Gregory C. Minor on Behalf of Suffolk County Concerning Contention EX 36," on the ground that it is be-yond the scope of Contention EX 36 and therefore irrelevant to the issues being liti-gated under Contention EX 36. Specifically, LILCO moves to strike the following por-tions of Intervenors' testimony on Contention EX 36.
A. Testimony That Raises Traffic Related Issues LILCO moves to strike those portions of the Intervenors' testimony that attempt to introduce traffic issues into the litigation of Contention EX 36. The gist of Conten-tion Ex 36 is that during the exercise the EOF was projecting that a wind shif t would direct the plume away from the original downwind zones as early as 3:00 p.m. and that l
LERO personnel therefore should have considered changing the protective action ree-ommendation from evacuation to sheltering for those persons in the original downwind l
zones who had not yet lef t their homes. Intervenors allege that it "may have been more appropriate, and resulted in more dose savings" for those persons to shelter until af ter the wind had shif ted.
I 8703240119 B70318 jpfdy ADOCK050g32 DR Despite Intervenors' detailed description in the contention of the facts that al-legedly warranted consideration of "an alternative protective action," there is no men-tion whatsoever of any traffic considerations that warranted such consideration. Inter-venors now suggest, for the first time, in their testimony on Contention EX 36, that LILCO cannot " validate the decision to continue calling for evacuation of more than 20,000 people still in their homes at the time when changes were occurring or predicted to occur in wind and traffic conditions." If the County had intended to litigate the im-pact of both the wind shif t and traffic conditions on protective actions, it should have stated this intention in Contention EX 36. It is settled NRC case law that only issues fairly raised by a contention are the subject of later adjudicatory proceedings. Carolina Power and Light Co. (Shearon Harris Nuclear Power Plant), ALAB-852, slip op. at 22 (October 31,1986); Philadelphia Electric Co. (Limerick Generating Station, Units 1 and 2), ALAB-819,22 NRC 681,709 (1985). Accordingly, the following references to traffic considerations in Intervenors' testimony should be stricken on the ground that they are beyond the scope of Contention Ex 36 and therefore irrelevant to any issue raised therein.
Page and Line Text to be References Stricken page 8 lines 1-5 The sentence "In addition, in describing the evacuation time estimates used in the proce-dure and a related ' Evacuation Time Estimate Senstitivity Study,' the procedure cautions that the ' study should be reviewed by the Radiation flealth Coordinator and Evacuation Coordinator.' Id., S 3.3."
page 9, lines 5-7 The sentence "In addition, pre-calculated evac-uation time estimates and updated actual in-formation about road conditions should have been available to the RHC from the Evacuation Coordinator."
page 10, lines 11-15 The sentence "He also used the evacuation time estimates in the LILCO Plan which as-sumed a ' Guided' evacuation, and he assumed
~Q
- y
. s that Traffic Guides would be in position and providing ' guidance' throughout the Exercise in arriving at his recommendation. Watts Depo.
4-Tr. at 51-52."
O page 13, lines 18-22 The sentences "In addition, subse pent to the x:
initial evacuation recommendation, two major impediments to evacuation were introduced into the scenario at 10:40 and 11:00 a.m.
These impediments and their impact on evacu-ation traffic conditions are discussed in testi-mony on Contentions 40 and 41."
page 18, line 24 The phrase "in light of actual traffic i-thru page 19, line 1 conditions" page 20, line 6 The phrase "and traffic conditions"
/
page 21, lines 7-13 The sentence "For example, rather than relying throughout an accident upon pre-calculated estimates of evacuation times, the RHC should analyze real data which be-comes available as to the effectiveness of pre-ordained traffic routes or guidance and the impact of traffic impediments and the validity 0
of assumptions which went into the l
pre-calculated times estimates.5" f
page 21, lines 19-25 The footnote "I understand that the FEMA Ac-
/
cident Assessment Evaluator at the EOC made a similar observation that the RHC should be 4
consulted when an impediment to evacuation is encountered because he needs to have the best available information on road conditions and evacuation times to factor into protective ac-tion decisions. Deposition Transcript of Paul A. Giardina (January 22,1987), at 90-100."
page 22, lines 3-4 The parenthetical"(which may have been blocked by impediments)"
t B.
Testimony About Protective Action Recommendations Unrelated to Contention EX 36 LILCO next moves to strike those portions of Intervenors' testimony that discuss protective action recommendations other than those mentioned in Contention EX 36 on the ground that they are beyond the scope of the contention and therefore not relevant to any issue raised therein. It is clear from the express language of the contention that the only protective action recommendations at issue are LERO's protective action ree-ommendations that people in zones A-M, Q and R continue to evacuate. The contention reads:
Specifically, LERO personnel had no apparent basis for the decision to recommend that people in the original downwind zones - i.e.. zones A-M, Q and R
- should as late as 3:48 leave their homes and at-l tempt to evacuate if they had not done so earlier.
l EBS messages simulated every 15 minutes between l
12:06 and 3:48 contained such a recommendation.
The documents generated at the EOC fall to indicate that any calculations or dose projections were per-formed to determine if this remained an appropriate recommendation for the entire period during which it was broadcast. There is no indication that the con-tinuing appropriateness of such a recommendation was ever even carefully considered by LERO person-nel in the EOC.
Despite the fact that there is no mention whatsoever in Contention EX 36 of any protective action recommendations other than LERO's initial evacuation recommenda-tion at 10:10 a.m. and recommendations between 12:06 p.m. and 3:48 p.m. that people in zones A-M, Q and R continue to evacuate,Intervenors now submit testimony dis-cussing the recommendation that LERO workers ingest potassium iodide, the recom-mendation that people in zones N, O, P and S evacuate, and LERO's instruction that people in zones A, B, F, G, K and Q report to the Coliseum for monitoring and possible decontamination. This testimony clearly is not relevant to any issue raised in Conten-tion EX 36. Accordingly, the following portions of Intervenors' testimony should be stricken.
Page and Line Text to Be References Stricken or Modified page 11, line 11 The entire answer should be stricken, except thru page 12, line 15 for Intervenors' testimony on page 12, lines 16-21 that the original evacuation recommen-dation for people in zones A-M, Q and R was reaffirmed throughout the Exercise.
a
- r A
l $-
e r
?-
page 11, lines 8-10 Intervenors' question "During the Exercise, were any protective action decisions made by LERO personnel subsequent to the original evacuation decision at 10:107" should be modified to read, "During the Exercise, did LERO personnel continue to recommend that people in zones A-M, Q and R evacuate?"
Conclusion For the reasons stated above, LILCO reques:S that this Board strike those portions of the Direct Testimony of Gregory C. Minor On Behalf of Suffolk County Concerning Contention Ex 36 that rate either traffic related issues or protective action recom-mendations unrelated to Contention EX 36.
Respectfully submitted,
?$ W Kathy E.B. McCleskey Renee R. Falzone Hunton & Williams 707 East Main Street P.O. Box 1535 Richmond, Virginia 23212 Dated: March 18,1987 1
^
LILCO, March' 18,'1987 001,KE1E0 usHEC CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE g gg In the Matter of CE OF ECM LONG ISLAND LIGHTING COMPANkCKE.Timi *> SEFVICI-(Shoreham Nuclear Power Station, Unit 1)
BRANCH Docket No. 50-322-OL-5
. I hereby certify that copies of LILCO'S MOTION TO STRIKE PORTIONS OF THE DIRECT TESTIMONY OF GREGORY C. MINOR ON BEHALF OF SUFFOLK COUNTY CONCERNING CONTENTION EX 36 were served this date upon the following by Feder-al Express as indicated by an asterisk, or by first-class mail, postage prepaid.
4 John H. Frye, III, Chairman
- Atomic Safety and Licensing Atomic Safety and Licensing Board Panel Board U.S.' Nuclear Regulatory Commission l
U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission Washington, D.C. 20555 East-West Towers 4350 East-West Hwy.
Oreste Russ Pirfo, Esq.
- Bethesda, MD 20814 -
Edwin J. Reis Esq.
U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission Dr. Oscar H. Paris
- 7735 Old Georgetown Road Atomic Safety and Licensing (to mailroom)
Board Bethesda, MD 20814 U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission East-West Towers Herbert H. Brown, Esq.
- 4350 East-West Hwy.
Lawrence Coe Lanpher, Esq.
Bethesda, MD 20814 Karla J. Letsche, Esq.
Kirkpatrick & Lockhart Mr. Frederick J. Shon
- South Lobby - 9th Floor Atomic Safety and Licensing 1800 M Street, N.W.
Board Washington, D.C. 20036-5891 U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission East-West Towers, Rm. 430 Fabian G. Palomino, Esq.
- 4350 East-West Hwy.
Richard J. Zahnleuter, Esq.
Bethesda, MD 20814 Special Counsel to the Governor Executive Chamber Secretary of the Commission Room 229 Attention Docketing and Service State Capitol Section Albany, New York 12224 U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission 1717 H Street, N.W.
Mary Gundrum, Esq.
Washington, D.C. 20555 Assistant Attorney General 120 Broadway Atomic Safety and Licensing Third Floor, Room 3-116 Appeal Board Panel New York, New York 10271 U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission Washington, D.C. 20555
Spence W. Perry, Esq.
- Ms. Nora Bredes William R. Cumming, Esq.
Executive Coordinator Federal Emergency Management Shoreham Opponents' Coalition Agency-195 East Main Street 500 C Street, S.W., Room 840 Smithtown, New York 11787.
Washington, D.C. 20472 Gerald C. Crotty, Esq.
Mr. Jay Dunkleberger Counsel to the Governor New York State Energy Office Executive Chamber.
Agency Building 2 State Capitol Empire State Plaza
- Albany, New York 12224 Albany, New York 12223 Martin Bradley Ashare, Esq.
s Stephen B. Latham, Esq.
- Eugene R. Kelly, Esq.
Twomey, Latham & Shea Suffolk County Attorney 33 West Second Street H. Lee Dennison Building P.O. Box 298 Veterans Memorial Highway Riverhead, New York 11901 Hauppauge, New York 11787 Mr. Philip McIntire Dr. Monroe Schneider Federal Emergency Management North Shore Committee Agency P.O. Box 231 26 Federal Plaza Wading River, NY ' 11762 New York, New York 10278 Jonathan D. Feinberg, Esq.
New York State Department of Public Service, Staff Counsel Three Rockefeller Plaza Albany, New York 12223 A
['
[
/
& & g & *f., wfgi L-fk Renee R. Falzone Hunton & Williams 707 East Main Street P.O. Box 1535 Richmond, Virginia 23212 DATED: March 18,1987 i
{
t ev,w
,w---e--
m, -, -- --
an-n
+zr,-,,,--,--o--.-wen,,,~c4--
.-,-ve
~,a-we-w,--w,,,
- - w