ML20209E801
| ML20209E801 | |
| Person / Time | |
|---|---|
| Site: | Shoreham File:Long Island Lighting Company icon.png |
| Issue date: | 04/24/1987 |
| From: | Christman J HUNTON & WILLIAMS, LONG ISLAND LIGHTING CO. |
| To: | Atomic Safety and Licensing Board Panel |
| References | |
| CON-#287-3272 OL-3, NUDOCS 8704300125 | |
| Download: ML20209E801 (40) | |
Text
'
- 3t72
! n LILCO, April 24,1987 l
Dot h(HCTEC UW UNITED STATES OF AMERICA TI APR 27 N1:25 NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSION l
f0N$ibNi~$ $
UNW Before the Atomic Safety and Licensing Board in the Matter of
)
)
LONG ISLAND LIGl! TING COMPANY
) Docket No. 50-322-OL-3
) (Emergency Planning)
(Shoreham Nuclear Power Station,
)
Unit 1)
)
LILCO'S ANSWER OPPOSING INTERVENORS' MOTION TO STRIKE Lit.CO TESTIMONY This is LILCO's response to the "Suffolk County, State of New York and Town of Southampton Motion to Strike Portions of LILCO's Testimony on the Sultability of Re-ception Centers," dated April 20,1987 (hereinaf ter " Motion"). The Intervenors move to strike two portions of LILCO's written testimony:
1.
the testimony of Dale E. Donaldson concerning a l
" precursor" document to NUREG 0654 (LILCO Testimony at 8 Question and Answers 8-1!); and 2.
the testimony of Charles A. Daverlo concerning the al-leged monitoring capacitics of relocation centers for selected nuclear plants other than Shorcham (LILCO Testimony at 12, Question and Answer 16 & Table).
Motion at 1. For the reasons stated below, the Intervonors' motion should be denied and LILCO's te.itimony should not be stricken.
i
- 1. Donal&on Testimony A.
Relevance The Intervenors first move to striko Mr. Donaldson's testimony because it is "tr-relevant." The ground for this motion is apparently that Mr. Donaldson did not person-ally draf t NUREG 0654 by himself. This unremarkable fact is, however, not dispositive.
I I
Q N
Qeosg l
o b
l First, the Intervenors'"rclevance" argument goes to weight rather than admissi-l bility. Clearly a precursor document is of some relevance in interpreting the final guidance documentt it is part of the "legislativo history." Indeed, Str. Donaldson says "our draf t was used by a FESIA/NRC Stocring Committoo... as a basis for NUREG-0654" (LILCO Testimony at 8). Also, although Intervenors attach pages 9-12 and 16-18 of Str. Donaldson's deposition as the " relevant portions," they leave out page 40 of the same deposition, whero Str. Donaldson says "I can say that f rom my knowledge of 654 in general that those assumptions and philosophics [ that is, the ones in his procursor doc-t ument] are still there." Sco Attachment 1 to this Answer. The Intervonors aro enti-l tied to cross-examine Str. Donaldson as to why he thinks his document was a " basts" for l
NUREG-0654. Ilut their argument, which is that the precursor document does not shed much light on the meaning of Criterion J 12, is the sort of argument that ought to be mado in proposed findings, r.ot in a motion to excludo evidence.
Second, the Intervenors' motion Ignores the way a legal caso is put together. It is rare that a single piece of testimony is the whole of a party's case on an issue. Rath-cc, a caso is put together with a series of " links," some f rom one witness, somo from an-other. When put together, these links form a chain of evidence that proves the caso.
Sometimes some of the links are provided by a dif forent party's testimony.
In the Instant case, thero is a chain of documents from NUREG 0396 to NUREG-0654 to the Krlmm memorandum. Another LILCO witness has testified about NUREG-0396 (sco LILCO Testimony 11. Answer 15). An NRC Staff witness has testified about the " considerations (that] led to the development of Criterlon J.12 in NUREG-0654."
Testimony of Falk Kantor on the Stonitoring of Evacuees, flied April 13,1987, at 3-5.
Evidenco about the precursor document provides another link. Storeover, it is LILCO's position that theso various links are consistentII one with anothert this consistency l/
For example, it appears to Li!.CO that Str. Donaldson's understanding of NUREG-l 0654 is consistent with NRC Staff witness Kantor's, as expressed both in Mr. Kantor's deposition ( Attachment 2 to this Answer) and in his writton testimony.
1 3
l over timo provides good evidence that the Krimm memorandum ls a correct interpreta-tion. The Intervenors' attempt to separato out one small picco of the evidence and claim it is " irrelevant" because it is not the whole story is simply wrong.
Third, the Intervonors cito (510 tion at 4 n.2) the Catawba case, in which they say "the Appeal Board excluded from evidence a staff working paper which had been not-ther adopted nor sanctioned by the Commission itself and which neither represented or l
purported to represent Commission polley." Duke Power Co. (Catawba Nuc! car Station.
Units 1 & 2), ALAll-335, 4 NRC 397. 416 (1976). Ilut it appears that the staff working paper discussed in Catawba was altogether different from the precursor document at l
1ssue hero. The precursor document is part of the "leglstativo history" of NUllEG-0654.
I The working paper in Catawba was a subsequent document that was apparently offered 1
as expert opinion that an earlier promulgated regulation was not mott indeed, it was l
apparently part of a process that might havo led to changl_ng the regulation. Sco Consolidated Edison Co. of New Yorhin_c (Indian Point Station, Unit No. 2), ALAll-200, a
7 AEC 971(1974).
Finally, even if it had no relevance whatsoever to the meaning of NUREG-0654 itself, Sir. Donaldson's experience working on the precursor document would be role-vant as bearing on his qualifications to testify. Sir. Donaldson is testif ying not only as a participant in the draf ting of NUREG-0654, but also as an emergency planning expert, a former NRC Staff inspector, and a person who helped respond to and investigate tho l
Thil accident. It is rolovant to his qualifications that he helped to author a document 1
l that eventually went into the creation of the present emergency planning guidelines.
l i
11.
Ilest Evidence 1
l Next the Intervonors argue that Str. Donaldson's recollection of the "procursor document" is not the "best eviderico." The contrary is the case. The "best evidenco" rule says the party must present the orignal of a document unless it is not available.2/
2/
NRC regulation 10 C.F.R. S 2.743(f), watch regulrcel an original of each exhiblt to be provided, except by permission of the presiding offlecr. does not appear to havo any bearing on the lisue hero.
J
4 The rule is that "In proving the terms of a writing, where the terms are material, the original writing must be produced unless it is shown to be unavailable for some reason l
other than the serious f ault of the proponent." E. Cleary (ed.). McCormick on Evidence 704 (3d ed.1984). For example, Rule 1004 of the Federal Rules of Evidence says that l
"[t]ho original is not required, and other evidence of t!.o contents of a writing... is admissible if --
(1) O iginals lost or destroyed. All originals have been lost or l
have been destroyed, unicss the proponent lost or destroyed them in bad faith; or (2) Original not obtainable. No original can bo obta!ned by any availablo judicial process or proceduret...
So far as LILCO knows, the precursor document no longer exists. Mr. Donaldson does not have it, and LILCO certainly does not.
in any event, the authoritics seem to agrco that the best evidence rule app!!cs to proving the " content" or the " terms" of a writing. E. Morgan, llasic Problems of Stato and Federal Evidence 335 (5th ed.1976); E. Cleary (ed.), McCormick on Evidence 704 (3d ed.1984). licro the precise centents of the procursor document are not as impor-tant as the Intent of the draf ters, and Mr. Donaldson's testimony is the best evidence of 1
that. As he has testified (LILCO Testimony at 8), the draf tors of the precursor docu-ment believed that only a small percentage of the EPZ would require monitoring.
C.
Preludice I
Finally, the Intervonors argue that Mr. Donaldson's testimony "would greatly prejudico the Governments." This argument does littic except repeat the two earlier arguments about " relevance" and "best evidence." The Intervonors claim, without sup-port, that " admission of the testimony will deny the governments the opportunity to conduct effectivo croscoxamination of Mr. Donaldson" and that the Board must have the precursor document to " assess the credibility of the testimony." These representa-tions are incorrect; the Intervenors have shown no reason why a missing document l
prevents them or the Board from asking questions.
d II. The Testimony as to Other Emergency Plans The Intervenors argue that a question and answer about the monitoring capabill-ty of several counties in New York State should be stricken because they are " unreliable hearsay" and " irrelevant." Hearsay is ordinarily admissible in administrative proceed-ings and has been admitted many times in this one. Tr.14,925 (Judge Laurenson). The Intervenors would have to show something especially unreliable about the testimony in question to succeed in having it excluded. They have not done so.
First, the Intervenors say that " multi-leveled" hearsay is inherently unreliable.
They have used this argument before, and the Board has rejected it.EI The argument goes to weight and not admissibility.
Second, the Intervenors say that "LILCO's refusal to identify the sources con-tacted makes the hearsay testimony even more unreliable"(Motion at 7).M in fact, the 3/
For example:
The assertion (in LILCO's Testimony on Contentions 24.E.
24.F.2, 24.F.3, 24.M. 61.C and 68-71 (Schools)] that some unidentified school administrators made alleged determina-tions is double hearsay, based solely on an out-of-court writ-ten statement of an unidentified County employee, which purports to repeat out-of-court expressions of the opinions of unidentitled school administrators. There is no basis for a finding that the statements by LILCO's witnesses are rell-able.
Suffolk County Motion to Strike Portions of LILCO's Group !!-B Testimony (Mar. 28, 1984 at 19. This motion to strike was denied. Tr. 9145, 4/
The Intervenors say that "[hlearsay testimony is only properly admissible in ad-ministrative proceedings where it is accompanied by sufficient indicla of reliability,"
citing Richardson v. Perales 402 U.S. 389, 407-08 (1979): Carter-Wallace Inc. v.
Gardner, 417 F.2d 1086,1095-96 (4th Cir.1969), cert, denied sub nom. Carter-Wallace
- v. Finch. 398 U.S. 938 (1970). Neither of these cases is applicable here.~
Perales was a truck driver who filed a clatm for disability insurance benefits under the Social Security Act. The Social Security Administration denied his claim.
Af ter administrative hearings, the hearing examiner found that Perales had not met his burden of proof; the examiner relied on medical reports by doctors who did not testify (footnote continued)
~.
s 4
.g.
names of the people from whom LILCO got its information are not important, nor are they essential to the Intervenors' case. It is simply not credible that the Intervenors are not able independently to verify or rebut LILCO's information about.the capabilities of New York counties.
As for harrassment and intimidation, there is ample evidence that this concern of LILCO's is well founded. See LILCO's Answer Opposing Intervenors' Motion to Com-pel of April 13,1987 (Apr. 23,1987). And there is precedent in this proceeding for not l
revealing names of individuals. See Tr. 9674. See also Attachment 4 to this Answer, s
(footnote continued) plus testimony by a doctor who had not examined Perales. The issue before the Su-preme Court was whether physicians' written reports could constitute " substantial evi-dence" supportive of a finding of nondisability.
The Court concluded that the written reports could be received into evidence and could constitute substantial evidence despite their hearsay character. 402 U.S. at 402. The Court rejected Perales' argument that the reports were " mere uncorroborated hearsay." Moreover, Perales was complaining because no live witness was presented for cross-examination: LILCO is producing a live witness.
In C_arter-Wallace the Commissioner of Food and Drugs subjected a particular, drug to special controls. The drug manufacturer petitioned for review of the Commid stoner's order. Among other things, the manufacturer objected to a government exhib-it, a summary purporting to show that an auCit of 99 pharmacies had shown a shortage of 796,000 tablets of the drug (417 F.2d at 1095):
The witness through whom the summary was introduced was not f amiliar with all of the underlying data, and some of the underlying documents were not available for use in cross-examination. While hearsay evidence is generally admissible in an administrative hearing, we think the deficiencies con-cerning the underlying data made it difficult for the govern-ment to establish the reliability of its audit and precluded meaningful cross-examination by Carter-Wallace.
Id. However, other evidence supported the finding that there had been a significant di-version of the drug from legitimate channels. Id. at 1096.
Obviously the dictum quoted above depends heavily on the specific facts of the in Carter-Wallace the witness was not familiar with all the underlying data, and case:
with the facts of that case the deficiencies precluded meaningful cross-examination.
This sort of dictum offers no basis whatsoever to exclude different testimony in an al-together different proceeding, before cross-examination has even been attempted.
s which indicates what can happen to a bus company that plays a part in emergency planning.
The Intervenors argue that LILCO's refusal to name names denies them "any op-portunity to conduct an appropriate investigation of the basis of the table for purposes of effective cross-examination." This is nonsense. It is inherently incredible that New York State and Suffolk County lack "any opportunity" to find out what the capabilities I
of New York counties are. Indeed, the Intervenors have a number of choices. They can leave the LILCO testimony unexamined and argue in their findings, as they are trying to argua now, that it is unreliable and entitled to little weight. They can cross-examine LILCO's witnesses on it and try to prove the unreliability of the evidence. They can go to the public document rooms themselves and try to prove that the public documents show the capacities of other reception centers to be more than 20 percent (although this evidence would now be untimely, since the Intervenors could have produced it long ago).
Third, the Intervenors argue that reception centers for nuclear facilities other than Shoreham are irrelevant. This bankrupt argument has already been tried and re-jected many times in this proceeding. See, eg., Memorandum and Order (Ruling on LILCO's March 18, 1987 Motion to Compel) (Mar. 25, 1987), slip op. at 4; Memorandum Memorializing Ruling on Motion to Compel Response to LILCO's Interrogatories and to Produce Documents (Mar. 17, 1987); Memorandum and Order (Ruling on LILCO's Mo-tions to Compel New York State to Answer LILCO's First Set of Interrogatories and for a Protective Order) (Dec. 19,1986), at 5-6; Order Granting LILCO's Motion to Compel Expedited Production of the New York State Emergency Preparedness Plan (Feb. 28, 1984), at 4; Tr. 3697-98, 7890-92. The testimony in question is about the required plan-ning basis for the number of people that must be provided for at reception centers. In-tervenor New York State is apparently taking the position that the requirement is 100
$ percent, it is clearly relevant that other nuclear plants, for which New York State is responsible for emergency planning, are not meeting this standard.
Finally, the Intervenors' argument that LILCO's testimony is inadmissible is in-consistent with their own testimony. New York State witnesses are testifying that there is a requirement to provide for 100 percent of the EPZ. See Direct Testimony of James D. Papile et al. (Apr. 13,1987), at 15. This opinion is " based upon our experi-ences in conducting federally-evaluated exercises and our experience in the FEMA plan review process," id. Apparently this basis is itself hearsay. For one thing, the depcsi-tion of the same witnesses indicates that their confidence that other nuclear plants meet the 100% standard is based not on personal knowledge but on statements by FEMA and county personnel. See Attachment 3 to this Answer. See also the Direct Testimo-ny of James D. Papile et al. (Apr. 13,1987), at 8, where the witnesses say their inter-pretation of NUREG-0654 is consistent with " comments... received from FEMA per-sonnel."
III. Conclusion For the reasons cited a'mve, the Intervenors' April 20, 1987, motion to strike portions of LILCO's written testimony should be denied.
Respectfully submitted, D
E !ed James N. Christman Hunton & Williams 707 East Main Street P.O. Box 1535 Richmond, Virginia 23212 DATED: April 24,1987
TIM. SCRIPf
~
OF PROCEKU::. GS
~
UNITED STATES OF AMERICA NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSION BEFORE THE ATOMIC SAFETY AND LICENSING BOARD
- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -x In the Matter of:
Docket No. 50-322-OL-3 LONG ISLAND LIGHTING COMPANY (Emergency Planning)
(Shoreham Nuclear Power Station, Unit 1)
. _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _x DEPOSITION OF DALE EDWARD DONALDSON Washington, D.
C.
Wednesday, March 11, 1987 ACE-FEDERAL REPORTERS, INC.
Stenotupe Reporters 444 North Capitol Street Washington, b.C. 20001 (202) 347-3700 Nationwide Coverage 800-336-6646
30148.1 KSW 39 i
1 Q
You indicated earlier that you had nc idea how 2
specific provisions of J.12 got incorporated into NUREG-0654; 3
is that correct?
4 A
In other words, who wrote J.12 as a separate and 5
distinct item?
l 1
6f Q
Right.
I 7 ll A
How did it appear?
No, I do not.
S j-Q You don't know how the 12-hour time period came to '
i 9l be encompassed within that?
j 10l A
No.
11 Q
And you also don't know how the language 12
" personnel and equipment available should be capable of 13 {,
monitoring within about a 12-hour period" --
14-A Again, nothavingwrittenthosespecificwordsandl 1S [
not knowing the individual who wrote them, I would have no 16; knowledge of who, what, when, where, why or how.
17 Q
Now you indicated earlier that in drafting your 18 plan or your draft of the plan, along with.two other 19 gentlemen, you incorporated certain assumptions within that 20 plan.
21 A
Yes.
22 Q
Do you know if those assumptions were incorporated ACE. FEDERAL REPORTERS, INC.
202-347-3700 Nationwide Coverage 800-336-6646
30148.1 KSW 40 4
1 within the language of J.12?
2 A
That would be hard to say.
I can say that from my 3
knowledge of 654 in general, that those assumptions and 4
philosophies are still there.
They have not been diluted 5
out.
Whether that particular clarification of item J.12 is 6;
contrary to that I really couldn't say, unless I talked to I
l 7!
the individual who wrote it.
In my mind it is not l
8l inconsistent with the way I read and understand it with the l
9; rest of 0654.
It is not inconsistent with our original j
t 8
i 10 philosophy, in that it doesn't set a specific figure.
i 11 3 Q
Do you intend to give any testimony concerning 12 actual sites and traffic flow within the sites at the i
13 j reception centers?
{
14 1 A
No.'
l 15 ]
Q Do you intend to give any testimony concerning the t 161 length of time it would take to arrive at reception centers?
17 ll A
No.
18 4
Do you intend to give any testimony concerning the 19 adequacy of the monitoring equipment at the reception 20 centers?
21 A
No, I don't.
I 22}
Q Do you intend to give any testimony concerning the ACE-FEDERAL REPORTERS, INC.
202-347 3700 Nationwide Coverage 800-336-6646
o 30148.1 KSW 41 i
decontamination procedures at the reception centers?
2 A
No.
3 Q
Do you intend to give any testimony concerning, 4
other than what we have already discussed, the number of I
5 people who might arrive at the reception centers?
6l A
I want to answer you, I don't know what you mean.
N 7 fl I have already discussed it and I think that's certainly one 8
of the areas that I'm trying to clarify for you.
9' Q
The clarification, as I understand it, is that you 10 are going to testify concerning the percentage assumptions lij that went into your thinking when you drafted the precursor 12 of NUREG-0654?
13,,
A That's a correct assumption, yes, and the i
1 14,
inspection criteria that might be applied or the review i
1 i
15}
criteria, looking at those, it is all related, yes.
l ll 16 ll Q
Review criteria, I don't think we talked about i
17 that.
What's that?
18 2
654 in itself comprises a set of criteria against 19 which plans are evaluated.
In the case of licensee plans of 20 the NRC, there's a fairly detailed document and I think it is 21 temporary instruction 15- -- 12-1544, I may be wrong on-that 22
-- that essentially amplifies on those so the criterion 654 l
I l
l ACE-FEDERAL REPORTERS, INC-202-347-3700 Nationwide Coverage 800 336-6646
30148.1 KSW 42 l
1:
that applies to a licensee and gives a guidance to the 2:
inspectors in evaluating the plans and procedures for 3
adequacy.
I'm not aware that there's a companion document 4l that exists for off. site.
lI 5i Q
okay, 0654 is on-site?
l6i A
No, it addresses I
7b Q
Excuse me, wrong question.
12-1544 --
I 3]
i A
It is TI/2515.
NRC temporary instruction.
1 9 l' Q
Is that temporary instruction concerning on-site?
i 10 A
On-site only, that's correct.
i 11{
Q How does tha.t shed any light on off-site?
12j A
I don't think that it would other than the fact i
13h that it provides amplified detail that would answer questions 14 for the on-site area.
It doesn't really help for off-site 150 because there's not such a document for doing the off-site 1
16.l evaluations.
i 17; Q
So I don't understandhowyouaregoingtotestifyl 18 then a,s to inspection criteria for J 12.
19 A
In other words from having been a member of the 20 Federal Regional Advisory Committee for Regions 1, 2 and 3, 21, which then was the Federal Preparedness Agency, of which the 22 NRC was a part, we did review state plans and how we went N
r i
i l
}
l 1
ACE-FEDERAL REPORTERS, INC.
)
202-347-3700 Nationwide Coverage 800-336-6646
30148.1 KSW 43 1
about those reviews and how one might evaluate that 2
particular criterion.
In other words, as a professional 3
reviewer, as it were, how I might look at that criterion as 4
it relates would be the manner in which my testimony would 5!
address.
6 Q
So --
7 A
What would I look for.
g 8 !
Q You never had the opportunity to conduct an 9,
inspection in which ycu had to interpret J.12, did you?
10 A
Not J.12 in itself, no.
11 Q
No --
12 A
The application of the philosophies behind J.12 i
13!
and 654, yes.
N i
14 i Q
All right --
l a
15C A
- Hundreds, i
o 161' Q
This is prior to the publication of NUREG-0654 17!
that you did these reviews?
18 A
No, not really.
We were involved in a complete 19 review of programs during the time when the switchover from 20 the NRC -- responsibility from the office of state programs 21 to the Federal Emergency Management Agency, and FEMA, until 22 they were fully involved, the transfer of the responsibility ACE-FEDERAL REPORTERS, INC.
202-347-3700 Nationwide Coverage 800-336-6646
+
30148.1 44 KSW of the lead for review of state plans was being transferred i
1 l
i 2
over to FEMA.
[
3 We still participated, the NRC, that is, Region 1, 4
participated on the RAC, which is the Regional Advisory 5
Committee, and the field assistance cadre, which assisted 6I states and locals in develops response plans to meet whatever j i
i 7l criteria would be in effect at the particular time, so I did B ji conduct evaluations of both licensees and reviews of aspects i
d 91 of certain state plans in accordance with guidance that was i
10 in existence at the time.
I think we should again 11 distinguish between 0654, let's call it revision no-name, and,I revision 1, because J.12'as a stand-alone item again, 12l 13[
remember, appeared in Rev. 1 to 654.
}
- l 14 ',
Q But did not appear prior to that?
i 153 A
Did not apoear orior to that.
16:
Q So are you going to testify or do you expect to 17 testify concerning what you would look for in satisfying 18 J.12 ? -
19 A
I think that's the essence of what helps to shed 20 light on the philosophy behind J.12, yes.
21 Q
What would you look for?
22!
A Well, again as I mentioned before, from the plans l
i ACE FEDERAL REPORTERS, INC.
202 347 3700 Nationwide Coserage 800-336 6646
-6 30148.1 KSW 45 l
1 standpoint we would expect to find that the provisions or the !
2 recognition of the need for the possibility of off-site 3
monitoring, local residents would be there.
That recognition 4
as I had said before, would in terms of adequacy or 5
acceptability, would be evaluated in light of the overall 6
response scheme.
We would see that it is recognized through 7
the fact that some organization has a responsibility to do i
8' it, that there is a recognition of the need that in order to I
9 do it, you have to have some kind of equipment, that to get 10 this equipment you have to have some provisions for making 11 that equipment available, whether it be set-asides, whether 12 it be agreements with other organizations, whether it be 13 marshalling of those forces at the time of the event.
- Again, 14 we would have to look at it in the overall scheme.
4 i!
15]
The main thing is that logic would have to rule in 0
16 ?
the recognition of that particular planning criterion, and l
17 that it would be addressed within the particular scheme of 18 the response organization itself.
States vary in the 19 allocation of budgets.
Some have local budgets, some have 20 state budgets, so in terms of evaluating it we would look at i
21 all those aspects.
That's why the sort of nebulous term 22
" provision" is used to allow maximum latitude to all i
ACE FEDERAL REPORTERS, INC.
202-347-3700 Nationwide Coverage 800 336-6646 1
r
.o
11g xSCluPI'
^""""""'
OF PROCHEDIN~GS l
i UNITED STATES OF AMERICA NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSION BEFORE THE ATOMIC SAFETY AND LICENSING BOARD 1
- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -x In the Matter of:
Docket No. 50-322-OL-3 LONG ISLAND LIGHTING COMPANY (Emergency Planning)
(Shoreham Nuclear Power Station, Unit 1)
_ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _x DEPOSITION OF LEWIS G.
'HULMAN and FALK KANTOR Washington, D.
C.
Tuesday, March 10, 1987 ACE-FEDERAL REPORTERS, INC.
Stencture Reporters 444 North Capitol Street Washington, D.C. 20001 (202) 347-3700 Nationwide Coverage 800-336-6646
~
30125.0 i
KSW 57 I
would you or another expert in the field measure 2
contamination levels?
Would it be in curies or what units 3
would you use to describe the level of contamination that a 1
4 person had on him?
5 WITNESS HULMAN:
The simplest way is with a Geiger i
6 counter, and my recollection is that the Geiger counter's 1
7 sensitivity is so low that it is not directly related to j
8 dose.
It is not a measure of potential or absorbed dose.
9 You have to go to a different kind of monitoring, 10 scintillation counters, for example, not Geiger counters, in t
11 order to get evidence of potential or received dose.
Because. ' l 12 the sensitivity of Geiger counters is so low, the actual 13 doses people within the plume might receive may not be 14 relevant to a monitoring question.
i 15 ;
MR. CHRISTMAN:
Mr. Kantor, you said at one point j
. i 1.6 il that you had examined the development of the J.12 evaluation 17 crite_rion.
I'm now interested not in your discussions with 18 Mr. McNutt about the FEMA guidance, but your knowledge of the 19 background of criterion 3.12 itself.
Can you describe what i 1 20 you know about the history, the thought behind criterion
! l 21 J.12, how it was written, what process the NRC went through 1'
l 22 to get it written, that sort of. thing, if that is not a i
CEEEDERALEEDADTEDLIMc
a 30125.0 KSW 58 1
question that calls for hours of discourse, that is.
2 WITNESS KANTOR:
I talked to the individuals that 3
were involved in the development of the criterion, which was 4
about the 1979, 1980, about 1980 time frame.
Their rationale 5
was that based on their knowledge and understanding of 6
accidents, protective action strategies as were being l
7 developed or as had been developed, and from those 8!
considerations, they thought it was appropriate and prudent 9
that off-site organizations should have a capability to 10 monitor individuals who might be affected by a release or who 11 might think they are affected.
Part of it was to allay 12 public fears or concerns.
13 MR. CHRISTMAN:
Did you say, am I correct in 14 recalling that you said that generally speaking the staff 15 thought and still thinks that that number of people that b
1.6 !
might show up, even in a radiological emergency, would be 17 only a fraction of the EPZ population, perhaps a small 18 fraction?
i 19._
WITNESS KANTOR:
It was thought that only, first 20 of all, only a relatively small percentage of the population 21 of an EP2 would be affected for the type of accident that 22 forms the planning basis.
There was an understanding that, A c,- r e n e n. 5 0
30125.0 KSW 59 l
l 1
and it is built into the concept of emergency planning, that 2
there are accidents for which you would have to expand your 3
response efforts.
You might have to go beyond the EPZ.
You 4
might have to do some ad hoc measures.
You might have to 5
rely on other sources to increase your capability.
You might i
6 have to rely on everything up to and including the federal i
7 response capability for the large-scale, low-probability,
,j l
8 worst-case type of accidents.
That was a concept considered
- l 9
also, so the criterion that went in effect would be an Il i
10 initial screening or monitoring to determine the extent of a
- j 11
' problem if one did exist.
12 MR. CHRISTMAN:
I see.
Let me ask you just a 13 couple of questions about the history of other accidents, and 14 I'm interested not in hurricanes, tornadoes or floods, not 15 natural hazards, but only technological hazards, including i
1.6 radiological ones.
I don't think there's any more I
17 information to be got out on the table this morning, but I 18 want all the information there is about radiological 19 accidents.in the past, any of the small number of 20 radiological accidents that there have been in history.
The t
21 documents you have provided this morning suggest that in TMI, 22 for instance, not very many people used the mass public i
i Arm.FunFR AT NEDADTEDC IMr'
b I
30125.0 l
KSW 60 1
relocation centers.
Do you know anything more about the 2
history of that accident with respect to how many people used 3
the reception centers at TMI?
There were public shelters set 4
up at TMI, were there not?
5 WITNESS KANTOR:
It is my. understanding that there 6
were, I think, two reception cente.rs or relocation' centers 7
designated.
I have not really at this point looked in any 8
great detail into what occurred at TMI, other than just 9
reading rapidly through some publications that are 10 available.
11 MR. CHRISTMAN:
Are there any experiences from the 12 other radiological accidents you know about for example, 13 Genet, thatwouldprovidedataonnumberofpeopleusingsome!
14 kind of mass shelter?
They probably didn't set up shelters t
l 15 i at Genet, did they?
I'm wondering if there were any other
.l 16 cases where people may have set up mass shelters and we might
'l 17 derive data about people who used them, any other 18 radiological emergencies than TMI?
19 WITNESS KANTOR:
There's been Chernobyl that 20 happened recently here, and a document has just been 21 published.
It is the joint agency factual report of the 22 Chernobyl accident.
It is a NUREG document -- I believe I I
As-FEDERALREPORTERS. INC
- ~-
J l
30125.0 j;
ll KSW 61 l
I wrote it down, NUREG-1250, that's just recently been 2
published and it does have a discussion there of emergency 3
planning and related issues, but information from that
)
4 accident is of course still coming in, and in fact, at this 1
5 very time there's an NRC delegation in Russia and has this l<tI i
6 week made a visit to Chernobyl, so we're looking to get more j'
7 information from that accident, but I might say that from 8
what we have seen so far and what we know and understand of 9
Chernobyl, we find nothing in there that would cause us to 10 question our guideline number that we are now using for 11 monitoring and at relocation centers.
l 12 MR. CHRISTMAN:
I have no more questions.
l l
13 MR. CASE:
I have a couple of follow-up l
14.
questions.
With regard to the. history of the development of 1
15 J.12, who did you talk to to get that history?
h I
1.6 WITNESS KANTOR:
I talked to a couple of 17 individuals that were involved in the development of the i
18 NUREG-0654 document.
19 MR. CASE:
Who were those individuals?
20 WITNESS KANTOR:
The individuals I talked-to were 21 Mr. Brian Grimes, Mr. Ray Priebe, who are currently employees 22 of the NRC, and a Mr. Dale Donaldson, who is a consultant arf.EEDERAERonnn:ns hv-
i l
30125.0 l
KSW 62 1
now, and has been identified as a witness for LILCO in this 2
proceeding.
Those were my primary sources of information.
3 There are other members of the staff that were involved in i
4 the TMI response including myself that had some general l
5 knowledge of the situation.
6 MR. CASE:
And Mr. Hulman, you have to educate me 7
in light of some of the other questions.
What is it that i
8 your conditional analyses is going to do?
Are you going to 9
possibly assume a different set. of accidents in performing 10 that analyses?
11 WITNESS HULMAN:
At this, point, I have in my mind 12 doing two assessments.
The first assessment is, given an 13 accident, regardless of the. magnitude of the accident, 14 regardless how many curies of various fission products get 15 released, conditional -- what I call conditional probability 16
-- what is the probability of how many people will be within 17 the footprint?
It has nothing to do with the accident 18 probability or the consequences.
Just a footprint 19 calculation.
Then to provide perspective on that, I intend 20 to assess what has been analyzed in the past with respect to 21 Shoreham accidents or accidents at reactors similar to 22 Shoreham.
AcF8FDFR AL RnponrnatIwc
TRANSCRIF1 OF :?3DCKKDINGS UNITED STATES OF AMERICA NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSION BEFORE THE ATOMIC SAFETY AND LICENSING BOARD
- - - - - - - - - - -x In the Matter of:
Docket No. 50-322-OL-3 LONG ISLAND LIGHTING COMPANY (Emergency Planning)
(Shoreham Nuclear Power Station, Unit 1)
_ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _x DEPOSITION OF j
JAMES C.
BARANSKI, JAMES D.
PAPILE and LAWRENCE B.
CZECH Albany, New York Wednesday, February 25, 1987 ACE-FEDERAL REPORTERS, INC.
5tenctupe Reporters 444 North CapitolStreet Washington, D.C. '0001 (202) 347-3700 Nationwide Coverage 800-336-6646
9441 01 01 21 m rycimons 1 as a matter of policy?
2 A
(Witness Baranski)
I am not going to say 3
policy.
I'm going to say in conjunction with the 4
development of the county plan, those are the numbers we S
used to put a handle on what the problem could be.
6 0
You used the number 100 percent of the 10-mile i
7 j EPZ uniformly throughout the State plan for radiological 8
emergencies as a planning basis; is that right?
9 A
That has been FEMA's requirement upon us when 10 they have evaluated the plans.
11 O
FEMA requires you to plan to receive at reception 12 centers 100 percent of the 10-mile EPZ for nuclear power 13 plants; is that right?
14 A
That's our understanding from FEMA.
15 i O
And all three of you have the same understanding?
16 l A
(Witness Papile)
That's true.
17 !
A (Witness Czech)
That is true.
18 0,
Fine.
Let's take the Ginna Nuclear Power Plant.
19 Are you telling me that the responsible agencies have the 20 capacity to monitor the entire population of the Ginna 10-21 mile EPZ within about 12 hours1.388889e-4 days <br />0.00333 hours <br />1.984127e-5 weeks <br />4.566e-6 months <br />?
l 22 MR. ZAHNLEUTER:
I object based on relevancy to l
ACE FEDERAL REPORTERS, INC.
202 347-3700 Nationwide Coverage 80 4 336 6646
6 9441 01 01 22 m'rysimons 1 this OL-3 proceeding, but you may answer if you can.
2 MR. LANPHER:
I share the cbjection and I'll make 3
it a continuing one in the event you g~o into other findings.
4 MR. CHRISTMAN:
You may go ahead and answer if 5
you can.
j i
6 (Pause while the witnesses confer. )
7 !
MR. CHRISTMAN:
The witnesses are conferring.
I
{
8 MR. LANPHER:
Which is proper.
9 j MR. CHRISTMAN:
No one has said it isn't.
10 !
(Discussion of f the record. )
I I
l
\\
11 _
BY MR. CHRISTMAN:
12 l O
Do you fellows have an answer?
13 A
(Witness Baranski)
From a planning basis around 14 the Ginna facility we d a plan on 100 percent of the EPZ.
I 15 !
O Let me ask the question again.
Do you mean that i
16 :
the responsible agencies are capable of monitoring the 17 entire population of the 10 mile Ginna EPZ within about 12
)
i 18 hours2.083333e-4 days <br />0.005 hours <br />2.97619e-5 weeks <br />6.849e-6 months <br />?
19 MR. ZAHNLEUTER:
A continuing objection.
I 20 MR. CHRISTMAN:
Yes, I understand that.
,L 21 What's the answer?
22 WITNESS BARANSKI:
The answer is yes.
f ACE-FEDERAL REPORTERS, INC.
l 202-347-3700 Nationwide Coverage 800 336-6646
6 9441 01 01 23 r
ysimons 1 BY MR. CHRISTMAN:
2 0
They are presently capable of doing that?
3 A
(Witness Baranski)
We believe from a planning 4
basis, that's correct.
5 0
What do you mean we believe from a planning 6
basis?
7 A
We have not during an exercise, nor has it been 8
an objective by FEMA to demonstrate that whatever the EPZ 9
population is around Ginna be put through an appropriate 10 number of reception centers to be registered and monitored I
11 within the 12-hour period as defined in 0654.
12 0
Does anyone on the panel know what the population 13 of the Ginna 10-mile EP2 is?
14 l A
(Witness Papile)
Oh, sure we do.
Approximately i
15 i 30,000 in Monroe County and about 22 or 24 thousand from 16 Wayne County approximately.
There are two counties though.
i l
17 '
0 So we're talking about 54,000 people?
18 A
Two counties.
You've got to separate the two.
19 Two counties are working on that many people.
20 0
I understand.
To make sure that we're clear, the 21 !
testimony of the three of you is that the responsible 1
22 agencies are presently capable, by which I mean they have j
I i
i ACE-FEDERAL REPORTERS, INC.
}
202 347 3700 Nationwide Coverage 800-336-6646
\\
6 9441 01 01 24 marysimons 1 the locations, the equipment and the trained personnel to j
i 2
monitor that number of people within about 12 hours1.388889e-4 days <br />0.00333 hours <br />1.984127e-5 weeks <br />4.566e-6 months <br />, 3
correct?
4 A
We think so and FEMA thinks so.
Since we have 5
350 approval for the two counties, we also thinks FEMA I
6 thinks so.
(
7 0
And, Mr. Czech, you agree with that, I take it?
I 8
A (Witness Czech)
Yes, I do.,
1 9
A (Witness Papile)
May I ask a question here.
Do i
10 you know what 350 approval is?
\\
l l
11 0
Yes.
l.
12 MR. CHRISTMAN:
Why do you care whether I know 13 what it is or not?
14 MR. ZAHNLEUTER:
I object to this discussion.
l 15 '.
MR. CHRISTMAN:
Your objection will be noted on 16 i the record.
- l f
17 Why do you ask the question, General Papile?
l 18 WITNESS PAPILE:
Well, I wasn't sure that when I i
/
1 19 said 350 that you understood it.
i 20 MR. CHRISTMAN:
Well, if I don't, I'll ask you.
21 l BY MR. CHRISTMAN:
l 1
i I
22 i O
Let's take the Indian Point 2 and 3.
How many I
l l
I ACE FEDERAL REPORTERS INC.
l 202 347-3700 Nationwide Coverage 800-336-6646
e 9441 01 01-25 m rysimons 1 people are in the 10-mile EPZ around those plants?
I 2
MR. ZAHNLEUTER:
To be clear, I wish to have a 3
continuing objection to all questions about other nuclear 4
power plants in New York State.
5 MR. CHRISTMAN:
Noted.
6 i BY MR. CHRISTMAN:
I 7
l Q
What is the population of the 10-mile EP3 around 8
the Indian Point plant?
i t
9 l (Pause while the witnesses confer.)
l j
10 A
(Witness Baranski)
Approximately 260,000 in four i
11 counties.
i i
12 0
Is it your sworn testimony that the responsible 13 i agencies are presently capable of registering and monitoring i
14 all of those people within about 12 hours1.388889e-4 days <br />0.00333 hours <br />1.984127e-5 weeks <br />4.566e-6 months <br />?
15 Mr. Baranski?
16 i A
(Witness Baranski)
We believe so.
i 17 Q
General Papile and Mr. Czech, do you believe so, 18 too?
19 A
(Witness Papile)
Yes.
20 A
(Witness Czech)
Yes.
21 0
General Papile, what is your basis for believing I
22 that?
i l
I I
I l
ACE-FEDERAL REPORTERS, INC.
I 202 347-3700 Nationwide Coverage 800 336-6646
9441 01 01 26 m rysimons 1 A
(Witness Papile)
We have tested it and we have 2
timed the people at what we call the personnel monitoring 3
centers and we try to beat the time limit.
Then we'll 4
divide the time limit into the total number of people and 5
see if we can do it in 12 hours1.388889e-4 days <br />0.00333 hours <br />1.984127e-5 weeks <br />4.566e-6 months <br />.
6 0
What is the time limit?
Do you mean the time 7
limit per person?
8 !
A Per person.
l I
9 0
What is that time limit?
10 A
We're using between two and three minutes.
11 Q
And how many monitors do you have available, or 12 monitoring people do you have available to do the work?
13 l A
I have no idea how many ar'e available.
The 14 counties have the monitors.
15 0
You have no idea.
Do you know how much equipment 16 is available to do the monitoring?
17 l A
I don' t know that either.
The counties have an 18 inventory of the equipment.
l 19 0
Do either of the other two of you know the answer 20 to how many people or many monitors there are available?
t 21 A
(Witness Baranski)
No, sir, I do not.
22 A
(Witness Czech)
No, I don' t.
l' ACE. FEDERAL REPORTERS, INC.
}
202-347-3700 Nationwide Coverage 800-336 6646
9441 01 01 27 r m/simons 1 Q
Explain to me again then how you conclude that 2
they are capable of monitoring all these people sithin about 3
12 hours1.388889e-4 days <br />0.00333 hours <br />1.984127e-5 weeks <br />4.566e-6 months <br />?
4 General Papile?
e 5
A (Witness Papile)
What we did was say two minutes 6
per person and how many people going through, or the J
I 7
mathematical computation.
j l
8 Q
But, in add ition, don ' t you need for that l
9 mathematical computation some information about the number 10 of monitoring people and monitoring equipment?
11 A
Oh, that was taken into consideration.
By the l
]
12 l
mathematical computation, if you've g,ot three teams, you can l
l I
13 do three people in three minutes.
14 O
So somewhere there is the information about the l
i 15 i number of teams?
16 A
Oh, yes.
It's in the plan.
17 !
O In the county plans?
i 18 A
Yes, sir.
19 Q
And all of those numbers by which one could make i
20 this calculation you refer to then is in the State plan and 21 the county appendices?
i 22 A
I hope so.
Yes, sir.
I k
ACE-FEDERAL REPORTERS, INC.
202 347 3700 Nationwide Coverage 800-336-6646 i
0 l
)
o 9441 01 01 28 m-ysimons 1 Q
So anyone taking that publicly available document l
2 could make that calculation and would come to the same j
3 conclusion that you do, which is that all those people in 4
the EPZ can be monitored in about 12 hours1.388889e-4 days <br />0.00333 hours <br />1.984127e-5 weeks <br />4.566e-6 months <br />, do you think?
5 A
Yes, and FEMA d oes, too.
6 (Pause while the witnesses confer.)
7 l 0
Do you all have anything to add to your answer 8
now that you've talked it over?
l 9
A (Witness Baranski)
No.
10 0
I take it by a rough calculation that you would 11 need perhaps 700 to 1,000 monitoring teams to do that many i
12 people in about 12 hours1.388889e-4 days <br />0.00333 hours <br />1.984127e-5 weeks <br />4.566e-6 months <br />.
Does that sound about right?
4 13 !
A (Witness Papile)
I don ' t know.
I 14 Q
You don ' t know?
i 15 !
A well, if you've figured it out.
16 l 0
Well, do you know roughly if there are 700 to l
17 1,000 monitoring teams available for those four counties?
18 A
No, I don ' t.
19 Q
None of you knows that?
20 A
(Witness Baranski)
It's in the county plans.
I 1
21 don't have that info rmation.
22 0
But you must think there are that many because l
ACE FEDERAL REPORTERS, INC.
)
202 347-3700 Nationwide Coverage 800-336 6646
9441 01.01 29 y
ysimons 1 you think that it can be done.
2 A
(Witness Papile)
We don ' t know.
3 0
You don't know?
4 A
No.
i 5
Q Mr. Baranski, do you know?
6 A
The number that are available?
No, I do not 7
because that is in the county plans.
I ' ve\\ s tated that 8
before.
I 9
Q But you think it can be done.
On what basis?
10 A
On what basis?
The basis is that the county 11 plans are undergoing review by FEMA.
FEMA has not 12 identified the lack of resources for reception centers as a 13 deficiency for the Indian Point plans to the best of our 14 knowled ge.
15 0
I see.
So you're relying on FEMA's review l
16 l
process in this instance?
17 A
That's part of it.
18 Q
What's the other part?
19 (Pause while the witnesses confer.)
20 Now that you have conferred, could you answer.
21 A
Certainly.
I 22 Q
What's the other part?
ACE. FEDERAL REPORTERS, INC.
202 347 3700 Nationwide Coverage 800 336-6646
9441 01 01 30 m-ysimons 1 A
The other part is the county confidence level as 2
well.
Does the county feel that they're satisfied with it.
3 Q
I see.
So it's a combination of the FEMA review 4
, process and the county review process, if you will, or the 5
couatz's say so.
6 A
Identification' of the resources and so forth, 7
sure.
I 1
8 0
Mr. Czech, do you agree with that?
I l
9 j
,A (Witness Czech)
Yes.
10 0
Let's take the Oswego site, _the Fitzpatrick and 11 Nine Mile Point plants.
What is the population of the 10-12 mile EPZ around that site?
13 A
(Witness Papile)
Around 30,000 give or take.
14 I'm not sure.
15 0
And I take it it follows ' from what you 've already 1
16 l said, but let me ask you anywayh yobr opinion is,
(
General 17 Papile, that the responsible agencies are presently capable 18 of monitoring those roughly 30,000 people in about 12 hours1.388889e-4 days <br />0.00333 hours <br />1.984127e-5 weeks <br />4.566e-6 months <br />?
19 5
Yes.
20 0
Do you have any idea how many monitoring teams 21 there are available to those counties?
22 A
No, I don ' t.
They have two different sites and i
ACE-FEDERAL REPORTERS, INC.
202-347 3700 Nationwide Coverage 800 336-6646
o.
9441 01 01 31 m'rysimons 1 they have sites from other counties and people from other 2
counties helping them.
3 Q
I see.- So they can draw on other counties?
4 A
Yes, they do.
I 5
Q Does anyone on the panel-have any idea of the 6
number of resources that area available for an accident at 7
that plant, and by resources I mean the number of monitoring 8
instruments, the number of teams, the number of people or l
9 the number of reception centers.
10 A
(Witness Baranski)
That information is contained 11 in the county plans.
12 Q
But you're saying that none of you ha*ve it 13 carried around in your head?
14 !
A No, sir.
i 15 A
(Witness Czech)
That's correct.
16 l A
(Witness Papile)
No.
,i 17 i Q
Are you f amiliar with a FEMA guidance memorandum 18 dated December 24th,1985 authorized by one Richard W. Krimn 19 that addresses the number of people that might be expected 20 to show up at reception centers in a radiological 21 emergency?
Is any of the three of you aware of that l
22 document?
f ACE FEDERAL REPORTERS, INC.
202-347-3700 Nationwide Coverage 800 336 6646
9441 01 01 32 1
r-yaimons 1 A
(Witness Papile)
I am.
2 Q
Have you seen it?
3 A
Yesterday for the first time.
4 Q
Have either of the other of you gentlemen ever 5
seen that document?
6 A
(Witness Czech)
Not prior to yesterday.
7 A
(Witness Baranski)
Yes te rd ay.
8 O
But you both saw it yesterday?
I 9
A Yes.
10 0
And all three of you have read it then?
11 A
(Witness Baranski)
I have not read it 12 thoroughly.
13 l 0
Mr. Czech?
?
l l
14 A
(Witness Czech)
I have no read it thoroughly.
15 i 0
But you've glanced at it and skimmed it?
16 A
That's correct.
17 0
Do you agree or disagree with that?
18 A
(Witness Papile)
I disagree.
19 MR. ZAHNLEUTER:
Excuse me.
Mr. Christman, if 20 you are going to pursue that questioning, could you please 21 show them a copy of the document?
22 MR. CHRISTMAN:
No, I can't.
l ACE-FEDERAL REPORTERS, INC.
202-347-3700 Nationwide Coverage 800-336-6646
o 87.04/24 17:08 P02 i LERO HICKS ILLE NY
/
COUNTY OF SUFFOLK MICHAKI. A. LcGRANDE swm.m cou.m s.azcenyt DEPARTMENT F LAW wasmw sanos,rr As*Ang cou'm amET a wse au..co
,.c4%
w m a,,
April 2,
1987' Baumann & Sons Buses, Inc.
24 Emilroad Avenue East Northport, New York 11731 Re: Renewal of Lease at S u f f o_l k_ C o u n t y Airport Centlemen:
I am writing at the request of Suffolk County Executive Michael A. LoGrande in reference to the request of Baumann & Sons Buses, Inc.,
that it be granted a renewal of its lease, which expired August 31, 1986, of Bu i l d i n g No.
140 at the suffolk County Airport, 'We5thampton Be a c h, New York.
I cannot recommend such renewal.
The County's Resolution No. 908-1985, authorizing the prior lease between
~
Baumann and the C o u r. t y, recited that the lease was "for the purpose of bus maintenance" and the Baumann/ County lease itself specifically provided "that the Tenant's occupancy shall be for the sole' purpose of using said premises as bus repair."
Notwithstanding the forego;ng lease terms and without seeking any modification of the lease, Baumann has used the premises for at least one purpose which was incon-sistent with the lease terms:
as a bus staging depot and drill site under the Long Island Lighting Company emergency plan for the Shoreham power plant.
In view of such failure to follow the terms of the prior lease, a renewal would not be appropriate.
.,... i so.. e ise mora. cov=r-e co-u s 9%sCOm42 591 e 360 9 ' 4e TC*gmaaes antanomiAL seepsesey e
appeam namy epwu o g 7De e
o 87.04.24 17 05 PO3 LERO HICKS ILLE NY April 2, 1987 Saumann & Sons Buses, Inc.
Page 2 Re: Renewal of Lease Th e County will allow Bau= son to remain at the period of 60 days vbile you secure an present site for a alternate site.
Very truly yours,"?
f_
/
W
'~ ~
3RADLEY ASHARE MAETIM Suffolk County Attorney l
NBA:rg Copies:
County Executive Michael A.
LoGrande Cregory J. Blass, Presiding Offier, Legislature Clerk of the Legislature Commissioner A.
Barton Case, D.P.W.
Joseph M.
- LaTrenta, D.P.W., Aviation Division Kirkpatrick & Lockhart, Esqs.
/
Frank Petrone, County Executive Ae s is t an t
O' O
LILCO, April 24,1987 D0LKETED USNRC
'87 APR 27 21:25 CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE OFFICE OF H i. n. im 00CHEimG A HFVILI.
BRANCH In the Matter of LONG ISLAND LIGHTING COMPANY (Shoreham Nuclear Power Station, Unit 1)
Docket No. 50-322-OL-3 I hereby certify that copies of LILCO'S ANSWER OPPOSING INTERVENORS' MO-TION TO STRIKE LILCO TESTIMONY were served this date upon the following by telecopier as indicated by one asterisk, by Federal Express as indicated by two aster-isks, or by first-class mail, postage prepaid.
Morton B. Margulies, Chairman **
Atomic Safety and Licensing Atomic Safety and Licensing Appeal Board Panel Board U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission Washington, D.C. 20555 East-West Towers, Rm. 407 4350 East-West Hwy.
Atomic Safety and Licensing Bethesda, MD 20814 Board Panel U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission Dr. Jerry R. Kline **
Washington, D.C. 20555 Atomic Safety and Licensing Board Richard G. Bachmann, Esq. **
U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission George E. Johnson, Esq.
East-West Towers, Rm. 427 U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission 4350 East-West Hwy.
7735 Old Georgetown Road Bethesda, MD 20814 (to mailroom)
Bethesda, MD 20814 Mr. Frederick J. Shon **
Atomic Safety and Licensing Herbert H. Brown, Esq. **
Board Lawrence Coe Lanpher, Esq.
U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission Karla J. Letsche, Esq.
East-West Towers, Rm. 430 Kirkpatrick & Lockhart 4350 East-West Hwy.
South Lobby - 9th Floor Bethesda, MD 20814 1800 M Street, N.W.
Washington, D.C. 20036-5891 Secretary of the Commission Attention Docketing and Service Fabian G. Palomino, Esq. **
Section Richard J. Zahnleuter, Esq.
U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission Special Counsel to the Governor 1717 H Street, N.W.
Executive Chamber Washington, D.C. 20555 Room 229 State Capitol Albany, New York 12224
a Mary Gundrum, Esq.
Jonathan D. Feinberg, Esq.
Assistant Attorney General New York State Department of 120 Broadway Public Service, Staff Counsel i
Third Floor, Room 3-116 Three Rockefeller Plaza New York, New York 10271 Albany, New York 12223 l
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. **
Stephen B. Latham, Esq. **
Eugene R. Kelly, Esq.
Twomey, Latham & Shea Suffolk County Attorney 1
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 1
26 Federal Plaza Wading River, NY 11792 New York, New York 10278 i
l l
l 3ames N. Christman Hunton & Williams 707 East Main Street P.O. Box 1535 Richmond, Virginia 23212 DATED: April 24,1987