ML20214P267
| ML20214P267 | |
| Person / Time | |
|---|---|
| Site: | Shoreham File:Long Island Lighting Company icon.png |
| Issue date: | 05/27/1987 |
| From: | Case D KIRKPATRICK & LOCKHART, SUFFOLK COUNTY, NY |
| To: | Atomic Safety and Licensing Board Panel |
| Shared Package | |
| ML20214P269 | List: |
| References | |
| CON-#287-3632 OL-3, NUDOCS 8706030283 | |
| Download: ML20214P267 (4) | |
Text
-_ _ _
000KEiEP May 27, 1987 UNITED STATES OF AMERICA NU'JsEAR REGULATORY COMMISSION OFF10. e 1.m ac>
Before the Atomic Safety and Licensina Board 00CKi i 1 :
PVG 4
)
In the Matter of
)
)
LONG ISLAND LIGHTING COMPANY
)
Docket No. 50-322-OL-3
)
(Emergency Planning)
(Shoreham Nuclear Power Station,
)
(Unit 1)
)
)
RENEWED SUFFOLK COUNTY MOTION FOR LEAVE TO FILE REBUTTAL TESTIMONY Suffolk County hereby renews its request to this Board for leave to file the limited rebuttal testimony of County witnesses Gregory C. Minor and Steven C. Sholly.
The proposed testimony, a copy of which is attached hereto,' addresses the testimony of Lewis G. Hulman of the U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission on Monitoring of Evacuees.
Since Mr. Hulman's analysis was not available to the County witnesses until around April 13, 1987, i
Mr. Hulman's testimony could not have been addressed in the County's April 13, 1987 Direct Testimony The reasons supporting the County's request are set forth in the County's original motion concerning this matterl/ and are 1/
Suffolk County Motion for Leave to File Rebuttal Testimony (footnote continued) fo{f603EEER ggggr
^
"E!*
mp@y
P i
I.
incorporated herein by reference.
As explained in further detail in the proposed rebuttal testimony, Mr. Hulman's testimony analyzes three " case" studies and concludes that 20% of the population is a " conservative" estimate of the number of people who might be exposed to a plume in the event of a Shoreham accident.
However, Mr. Hulman's case studies are based on unrealistic assumptions and the three cases he postulates generate calculations which are misleading.
In particular, Mr.
Hulman's analyses fail to account for wind shifts, plume dispersion, precipitation and evacuation scenarios.
Because of these flawed assumptions, two of Mr. Hulman's three cases are completely inaccurate, and the second would require substantial modification for it to be of any value.
The requisite " good cause" for filing rebuttal testimony is demonstrated in the County's Original Motion.
First, the rebut-tal testimony could not have been included in the County's Original Testimony because County witnesses could not address Mr.
Hulman's analyses until his testimony was provided.
Specifically, Mr. Hulman uses three " Cases" in developing his testimony, and the County witnesses had to review each one of those cases to assess Mr. Hulman's testimony.2/
Second, the (footnote continued from previous page)
(April 17, 1987)
(" Original Motion").
A copy is attached hereto for the Board's convenience.
2/
Reg pages 6-10 of the Rebuttal Testimony of Gregory C. Minor and Steven C.
Sholly, where the assumptions of Hulman Cases 1 through 3 are specifically addressed.
mr t*
i proposed rebuttal testimony is relevant to the planning basis for the reception centers -- an issue which is central to this proceeding and has been addressed by all the parties.
Third, the County's rebuttal testimony is not cumulative and will be narrowly focused, for it addresses only Mr. Hulman's u stimony and the flaws in his analyses.
Indeed, the NRC, FEMA and LILCO recognized the " good cause" for the instant rebuttal testimony and did not oppose the County's Original Moticu.3/
CONCLUSION For the reasons set forth above, and for the reasons set forth in the County's Original Motion, the County's renewed motion to file rebuttal testimony should be granted.
3/
The NRC and FEMA responded to the County's original motion to file rebuttal testimony by stating that they did "not object to the filing of such testimony orovided that the rebuttal testimony is confined to the scope of Mr. Hulman's direct testimony and the parties will have the opportunity to move to strike the rebuttal testimony..."
NRC Staff Response to Suffolk County's Motion for Leave to File Rebuttal Testimony (April 23, 1987) at 1.
LILCO responded similarly, for it stated that the County "may indeed have ' good cause'," but reserved its right to move to strike testimony.
LILCO Response to Suffolk County Motion for Leave to Pile Rebuttal Testimony (April 27, 1987).
As can be seen on a review of the County rebuttal testimony, it is limited to Mr. Hulman's testimony.
Moreover, the Board has issued an Order providing for an opportunity to move to strike.
Memorandum and Order (Setting Schedule for Filing Rebuttal Testimony) (May 14, 1987) at 3.
The Renewed Suffolk County Motion for Leave to Pile Rebuttal Testimony should therefore be granted as unopposed..
m
i.
Respectfully submitted, Martin Bradley Ashare Suffolk County Attorney Building 158 North County Complex Veterans Memorial Highway Hauppauge, New York 11788 M
Christopher M. McMurray David T. Case KIRKPATRICK & LOCKHART 1800 "M" Street, N. W.
South Lobby - Ninth Floor Washington, D.
C.
20036-5891 Attorneys for Suffolk County May 27, 1987...
- - _ -.