ML20214W689
| ML20214W689 | |
| Person / Time | |
|---|---|
| Site: | Shoreham File:Long Island Lighting Company icon.png |
| Issue date: | 06/08/1987 |
| From: | Latham S, Mark Miller, Palomino F KIRKPATRICK & LOCKHART, NEW YORK, STATE OF, SOUTHAMPTON, NY, SUFFOLK COUNTY, NY, TWOMEY, LATHAM & SHEA |
| To: | Atomic Safety and Licensing Board Panel |
| References | |
| CON-#287-3725 OL-5, NUDOCS 8706160133 | |
| Download: ML20214W689 (10) | |
Text
? 372.5
- p.
s-bE%.(0 June 8, 1987_ct Jai 11 A10:15 UNITED STATES OF AMERICA NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSION Before the Atomic Safety and Licensina Board
)
In the Matter of
)
)
LONG ISLAND LIGHTING COMPANY
)
Docket No. 50-322-OL-5
)
(EP Exercise)
(Shoreham Nuclear Power Station, )
Unit 1
)
)
SUFFOLK COUNTY, STATE OF NEW YORK AND TOWN OF SOUTHAMPTON OPPOSITION TO BOARD CONSIDERATION OF LILCO'S CALCULATIONS RELATING TO THE CHANGE IN TOTAL POPULATION DOSE AS A RESULT OF MOBILIZATION DELAYS DURING THE FEBRUARY 1:1, 1986 EXERCISE During the hearings on March 30 and 31, the Board asked questions regarding the simulated total population dose received by the EPZ population during the February 13 Exercise, based on the accident that was hypothesized to have occurred during the Exercise, and the impact, if any, upon that dose due to the mobilization delays experienced by LILCO's Traffic Guides.
In response to these Board questions, LILCO offered to calculate the impact and change in dose resulting from the delays in mobilizing its Traffic Guides.
This offer was accepted by the Board.
Sgg Tr. 2017-18, 2022-30.
~
3 50:s G
4 y
On May 5, 1987, LILCO served on the Board and other parties its calculations, accompanied by affidavits from LILCO witnesses Daverio and Lieberman.
Ege Contention Ex 40 -- Calculation -of Change in Total Population Dose as a Result of Mobilization Delays, dated May 4, 1987 (hereafter, " Calculations").
These Calculations demonstrate, according to LILCO, that for the delays in mobilizing LILCO's Traffic Guides experienced during the Exercise, there is no significant change in total population dose.
For the reasons set forth below, Suffolk County, the State of New York and the Town of Southampton (hereafter, the " Govern-ments"), in accordance with the Board's May 26 request (Tr.
7350), respond to and oppose any consideration by the Board of LILCO's Total Population Dose Calculations, and submit that such Calculations should be rejected.
l.
Th'e Many Assumptions Made by LILCO Make the Calculated Effect on Dose of the Delays in Traffic Guide Mobilization Virtually Meanincless As recognized by the Board when it requested LILCO to perform calculations to determine the change in total population dose resulting from the delays in the Traffic Guide mobilization experienced during the February 13 Exercise, the validity of such calculations depends upon the reasonableness of the assumptions i
! L
I t,
made by LILCO.
E.a. Tr. 2023 (Judge Shon) ("one could make many different' kinds of assumptions, so many in fact that you could get all kinds of. answers").
Despite this admonition by the Board, LILCO's Calculations are based upon an array of assumptions that appear to be suspect.
Although the Governments do not address the merits of LILCO's Calculations in this opposition, included among such questionable assumptions are the following:
o That dose rate values not included in the tables of Section 6.5 of the Exercise Scenario were assumed to be at background levels and, accordingly, were set at zero (Calculations at 3);
o That Appendix E to Appendix A of the LILCO Plan, con-taining the results of LILCO's computer simulations of evacuation traffic, provided a legitimate way to deter-mine the population distribution within the EPZ as a function of time (Calculations at 3-4);
o That Appendix E to Appendix A of the LILCO Plan pro-vided a legitimate way to determine the change in popu-lation dose resulting from LILCO's delays in implemen-ting the one-way flow treatment along a portion of Rocky Point Road and North Country Road (agg Calcula-tions at 5-7).
Should any one or more of these assumptions, or others made by LILCO, be invalid, then LILCO's proffered total population dose calculations would be virtually meaningless.
Based upon the Government's preliminary review of the description and the results of the total population, dose calculations attached to L:LCO's Calculations, it would appear that many of LILCO's l
l j l t
w b
n y assumptions, including those set forth above, would be contested by the Governments and shown to be invalid.1/
Accordingly, the Board should reject LILCO's Calculations.
2.
Even Assuming the Validity of the Many.
Assumptions Made by LILCO,.LILCO's Calculations May Not Be Considered by the Board Absent Discovery by the Governments Even assuming arauendo the validity of the many assumptions cade by LILCO, LILCO's proffered total population dose calcula-tions may not be considered by the Board absent discovery by the 1/
' Curiously, LILCO's proffered Calculations focus upon only one of many locations which were not manned by LILCO's Traffic Guides in a timely manner during the February 13 Exercise:
1.e.,
the portion of Rocky Point Road and North Country Road (links
( 2,102) and (102,1) ) which, under the LILCO Plan, would be converted.to one-way flow in the event of an EPZ evacuation.
LILCO's failure to take into account the many other locations not timely manned by its Traffic Guides during the Exercise provides an additional reason for this Board to reject LILCO's proffered Calculations.
Furthermore, with respect to the suspect nature of the many j
assumptions made by LILCO in performing its dose calculations, one example is sufficient to demonstrate why the Governments
. believe that this Board should reject LILCO's Calculations.
In determining the population distribution within the EPZ at particular times during the Exercise, Appendix E to Appendix A of the LILCO Plan was used by LILCO.
Calculations at 3.
Appendix i
E's results, however, are based upon assumptions made by LILCO concerning, for example, when evacuees would begin evacuating the EPZ, the routes they would travel, and the time that would be required to complete their evacuation trips.
- See, e,a.,
Calculations at 5 (LILCO's computer simulations of evacuation traffic allowed LILCO "to determine the total number of vehicles associated with each link as a function of time," including those l
vehicles still at home, those awaiting access onto a traffic
nk, and those on the link itself).
All these assumptions, plus 3
c:hers, would be challenged by the Governments.
I
, I j..
,,. _... ~.. - - -. -... _.,
-... -.m.
__- ~ - -
. _~ - -
- 4 4-4.L s
1 Governments and, following such discovery, an adequate oppor-tunity for the Governments to address the merits of LILCO's pro-
- i
ffered Calculations.
It has already been acknowledged by the Board that if LILCO's proffered data are considered by the Board, then that i
data would be subject to scrutiny by the other parties to this proceeding, including the right to cross-examine those persons --
Messrs. Daverio'and'Lieberman -- who sponsor the proffered data.
itt Tr. 2027-28.2/
In addition, the Governments would have the
~
right to offer direct-evidence regarding LILCO's proffered calcu-4 4
'ations and the effect of delays in mobilizing LILCO's Traffic Guides on total population dose during the Exercise.
Tr. 2028.
Beforehand, of course, the Governments would be entitled to con-
. duct discovery regarding the calculations performed by LILCO.3/
Absent such discovery and an opportunity for the Governments to present their own calculations regarding the effect of LILCO's L
(
2/ -
It is unclear whether Mr. Daverio would even be available for cross-examination, given the recent injury suffered by him and reported to-the Board and other parties in Ms. McCleskey's June 4 letter.
l --
3/
For example, it would be necessary for the Governments to be provided data concerning the timing-and direction of the plume and plume dispersion during the February 13 Exercise.
Such data are necessary in calculating the simulated total population dose received by the EPZ population during the Exercise, and have never before been provided to the Governments.
i-l b,
- ~.
y O,'
- r N
il[
- r
's
.,/
-Traffic Guides' mobilization delays on the dose received by the d1 EPZ population during the ebruary 13 Exercise, the Board should not-consider 3LILCO's Cal'culations.
y-r O
f
'/
.t u:
3.
Conclusion
?,
3 e 4
}l, In su.m,, the suspect nature of the many assumptions made by
)-
LILCO, thefabsence of any discovery by the Governments, and~the i
~ delay to these proceedings that could result from such discovery and, thereafter, from putting together and proffering direct 1
evidence on the issues raised-by LILCO's proffered total popula-tion dose calculations lead to the conclusion that the Board' should reject LILCO's Calculations.
Such a result would leave-liA4 the record as it stood on April 1, 1987, by which time the
- -.i,
. cross-examination'of the LILCO and Suffolk County witnesses on Contention Ex 40 had been completed.
Put another way, LILCO's proffered Calculations should not be accepted into the evidentiary record of this case, and such Calculations should nor j
be used or considered by the Board in reaching a decision with l
respect to the underlying substantive issues raised-by Contention l-Ex 40.
l.
i l
l t
l l
1 l
l-6
5 Respectfully submitted, Martin Bradley Ashare Suffolk County Attorney Building 158 North County Complex-Veterans Memorial Highway Hauppauge, New York 11788 Lawrence Coe Lanpher Karla J.
Letsche Michael S. Miller KIRKPATRICK & LOCKHART 1800 M Street, N.W.
South Lobby - 9th Floor Washington, D.C.
20036-5891 Attorneys for Suffolk County NM/h.
Mbid/Jfk 4
Fabian G. Palomine' Special Counsel to the Governor of the State of New York Executive Chamber, Room 229 Capitol Building Albany, New York 12224 Attorney for Mario M.
- Cuomo, Governor of the State of New York b.
bf/M Stephen B. Latham ' /
Twomey, Latham & Shea P.O. Box 398 33 West Second Street Riverhead, New York 11901 Attorney for the Town of Southampton 7-
e
~C M i!
' *;i June 8, 1987
'87 JJN 11 A10:16 UNITED STATES OF AMERICA
[. [d.,
NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSION Before the Atomic Safety and Licensino Board
)
In'the Matter of
)
)
LONG ISLAND LIGHTING COMPANY
)
Docket No. 50-322-OL-5
)
(EP Exercise)
(Shoreham Nuclear Power Station,
)
Unit 1)
)
)
CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE I hereby certify that copies of SUFFOLK COUNTY, STATE OF NEW YORK, AND TOWN OF SOUTHAMPTON OPPOSITION TO BOARD CONSIDERATION OF LILCO'S CALCULATIONS RELATING TO THE CHANGE IN TOTAL POPULATION DOSE AS A RESULT OF MOBILIZATION DELAYS DURING THE FEBRUARY 13, 1986 EXERCISE have been served on the following this 8th day of June, 1987 by U.S. mail, first class, except as otherwise noted.
John H. Frye, III, Chairman
- Dr. Oscar H. Paris
- Atomic Safety and Licensing Board Atomic Safety and Licensing Board U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission Washington, D.C.
20555 Washington, D.C.
20555 Mr. Frederick J. Shon*
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 9
w w
4
?
g,.
a -
w
r-4 i
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 11801 Albany,- New York 12210 Ms. Elisabeth Taibbi, Clerk W. Taylor Reveley, III, Esq.**
Suffolk County Legislature Hunton & Williams Suffolk County Legislature P.O.
Box 1535 Veterans Memorial Highway 707 East Main Street Hauppauge, New York 11788 Richmond, Virginia 23212 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 Directer 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, 3rd Floor H.
Lee Denison Building Room 3-116 Veterans Memorial Hignway New York, New York 10271 Hauppauge, New York 11788 MHB Technical Associates Dr. Monroe Schneider 1723 Hamilton Avenue North Shore Committee Suite K P.O.
Box 231 San Jose, California 95125 Wading River, New York 11792 Martin Bradley Ashare, Esq.
Fabian G.
Palomino, Esq.**
Suffolk County Attorney Special Counsel to the Governor Bldg. 158 North County Complex Executive Chamber, Rm. 229 Veterans Memorial Highway State Capitol Hauppauge, New York 11788 Albany, New York 12224 Mr. Jay Dunkleburger Richard G.
Backmann, Esq.*
New York State Energy Office Oreste Russ Pirfo, Esq.
Agency Building 2 George E. Johnson, Esq.
Dmpire State Plaza U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Comm.
Albany, New York 12223 Office of General Counsel Washir,gton, D.C.
20555
r.
3 David A.
Brownlee, Esq.
Mr. Stuart Diamond Kirkpatrick & Lockhart Business / Financial 1500 Oliver-Building NEW YORK TIMES Pittsburgh, Pennsylvania 15222 229 W.
43rd Street New York, New York 10036 Michael S. Miller KIRKPATRICK & LOCKHART 1800 M Street, N.W.
South Lobby - 9th Floor Washington, D.C.
20036-5891 By Hand By Telecopy d
L l
h