ML20215D547
| ML20215D547 | |
| Person / Time | |
|---|---|
| Site: | Shoreham File:Long Island Lighting Company icon.png |
| Issue date: | 06/12/1987 |
| From: | Case D KIRKPATRICK & LOCKHART, SUFFOLK COUNTY, NY |
| To: | Atomic Safety and Licensing Board Panel |
| References | |
| CON-#287-3741 OL-3, NUDOCS 8706190056 | |
| Download: ML20215D547 (9) | |
Text
{{#Wiki_filter:,
- G'
) ..V..s June 12, ih$$ft i UNITED STATES OF AMERICA '87 JW 16 P3 :26 NUCLEAR REGULATORY' COMMISSION Before the Atomic Safety andLicensinaBoard{[{ ) .In the Matter of ) ) LONG ISLAND LIGHTING COMPANY ) Docket No. 50-322-OL-3 ) (Emergency Planning) (Shoreham Nuclear Power Station, ) (Unit 1) ) ) RESPONSE OF SUFFOLK COUNTY TO LILCO's MOTION TO STRIKE PORTIONS OF THE. REBUTTAL TESTIMONY OF GREGORY C. MINOR AND STEVEN C. SHOLLY On MayL27, 1987, Suffolk County submitted a Renewed Motion for Leave To File Rebuttal Testimony and attached the' Rebuttal-Testimony of Gregory C. Minor and Steven C. Sholly (" Minor and Sholly Rebuttal Testimony"). The Minor and Sholly Rebuttal Testimony addresses the Direct Testimony of witness Lewis G. Hulman of the U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission. In particular, I the Minor and Sholly Rebuttal Testimony focuses on the unrealistic assumptions and misleading results which are inherent in.the three case ~ studies Mr. Hulman uses to estimate the conditional probability of the number of people in the EPZ who could be within the plume of an accidental release of radioactivity from Shoreham. L 8706190056 870612 PDR ADOCK 05000322 O PDR 3so3
) i l i .p The NRC Staff neither objected to nor moved to strike any portion of the Minor and Sholly Rebuttal Testimony. Eeg NRC Response to Renewed Suffolk County Motion for Leave to File i Rebuttal Testimony (June 4, 1987). LILCO did not object to the . Minor.and'Sholly Rebuttal, Testimony, but has-moved to strike two portions of that testimony. LILCO Motion to Strike Portions of Minor /Sholly Rebuttal Testimony (June 4, 1987) at 1.1/
- However, LILCO's basis for striking portions of the' Minor and Sholly l
Rebuttal Testimony'is the same basis that LILCO asserted in 1/ The precise language of the first piece of testimony LILCO moves to strike is as follows: As we testified in our direct testimony, LILCO's environmental report indicates that winds are persistent in one direction for periods of six hours or longer only about 14% of the time. This means that changes in the. wind direction are likely to occur over the period of release following an accident at Shoreham. Given that a postulated release of ' radioactivity is a stochastic phenomenon, it is clear that there is a substantial chance of one or more wind direction changes over any given four-hour period. Minor and Sholly Rebuttal Testimony at 5. The second piece of testimony that LILCO moves to strike is as follows: As we stated in our direct testimony, wind j direction changes are more likely to occur than not. Thus, during the course of the development of an accident and the release and movement of the plume away from the plant, there is likely to be a wind shift. This would cause the plume to meander across more than one sector which would involve a much j greater portion of the population. Minor and Sholly Rebuttal Testimony at 8-9. j
i attempting to strike _the Direct Testimony of Minor and Sholly. Sag LILCO Motion to Strike Testimony of Cole et al. (April 18, 1987) at 26.1/ In particular, LILCO argues that the Minor and Sholly Rebuttal Testimony addresses wind shifts -- an issue which LILCO claims has been previously litigated. LILCO's argument was properly rejected when this Board addressed the LILCO motion to strike the Direct Testimony of Minor and Sholly, and LILCO's motion to strike the Minor and Sholly Rebuttal Testimony should be similarly rejected. See Memorandum and Order (Ruling on LILCO's Motion to Strike the Testimony of Stephen Cole et al.) (June 9, 1987) at 11 (Section M). Indeed, as the NRC Staff has recognized, the Minor and Sholly Rebuttal Testimony on wind shifts "does address matters contained in the Staff's direct testimony and is therefore relevant rebuttal testimony." NRC Staff Response to LILCO's Motion to Strike Minor /Sholly Rebuttal' Testimony (June 11, 1987) at 2. To strike this testimony would 2/ On April 13, 1987, Suffolk County submitted the testimony of Stephen Cole, Susan C. Saegert, James H. Johnson, Jr., David Harris, Martin Meyer, Gregory C. Minor and Steven C. Sholly. (Cole et al. testimony). In the. Cole et al. testimony, Messrs. Minor and Sholly addressed the inadequacies of LILCO direct testimony analyzing the likely release characteristics and consequences of a Shoreham accident.
- Sea, e.o.,
Cole et al. testimony at 51-55. As part of this testimony, Messrs. Minor and Sholly addressed wind shifts on Long Island and their impact on the LILCO analysis. LILCO's effort to strike this testimony was rejected by this Board. See Memorandum and Order (Ruling on LILCO's Motion to Strike the Testimony of Stephen Cole et al. (June 9, 1987) at 11 (Section M). 1 p L,1 deprive both~Suffolk County'and the Board of relevant testimony which is critical to an. assessment of Mr. Hulman's expert testimony. LILCO's motion should therefore be denied. \\ -{ 1 I. PISCUSSION: l I LILCO continues to assert that the issue of wind shifts'has been previously litigated and that this precludes Messrs. Minor nd Sholly from addressing opinions which' incorporate assumptions a concerning changes in wind direction. However, the issue addressed in previous litigation was not a generic examination of Long Island wind speed and direction changes, but a focused inquiry on whether wind speed and direction changes on Long. Island would require that a circular zone should always be evacuated as a protective measure in the event of a Shoreham -accident. Partial Initial Decision ("PID"), LBP 85-12, 21 NRC 644, 778-779. Some evidence on wind shifts was thus admitted in prior proceedings for the specific purpose of addressing the shape of the EPZ. Messrs. Minor and Sholly are now submitting different-evidence for a different purpose. Specifically, the Minor and Sholly Rebuttal Testimony addresses the flaws in Mr. Hulman's 1 ' expert testimony by examining, among other things, Mr. Hulman's 1 . assumptions concerning wind shifts. Indeed, the explanation of whether the' case studies in Mr. Hulman's testimony adequately q 1 . account for wind shifts must go beyond simple observations, for Mr. Hulman acknowledges his failure to account for wind shifts, but contends that he has included certain factors within his computations which remedy this failure.
- Egg, e.a.,
Hulman Testimony at 8. The Minor and Sholly Rebuttal Testimony explores exactly how Mr. Hulman's testimony fails to account for wind I shifts and how Mr. Hulman's efforts at compensation fall short. As the Staff has acknowledged, the portions of the Minor and Sholly Rebuttal Testimony addressing wind shifts clearly constitute proper rebuttal and do not relitigate any previous issue. Indeed, as the Board recognized in its previous ruling on the motion to strike the Direct Testimony of Minor and Sholly, testimony.on wind shifts is necessary to address the issues raised by expert opinion on plume dispersion.1/ The Board should therefore adhere to its previous ruling and reject LILCO's motion. ) l 2/ The Boards' exact language was "The testimony is relevant to provide a basis for the opinion of experts on wind shifts." . Memorandum and Order (Ruling on LILCO's Motion to Strike the testimony of Stephen Cole et al.) (June 9, 1987) at 11 (Section 'M). P. II. CONCLUSION For the foregoing reasons, LILCO's Motion to Strike Portions of the Minor.and Sholly Rebuttal Testimony should be denied. 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 Attorney for Suffolk County June 12, 1987 i
( DCU Ciii U yp" - June 12, 1987 UNITED STATES OF AMERICA NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSION andLicensinoBoarb"ih, Before the Atomic Safety ) In the Matter of ) ) LONG ISLAND LIGHTING COMPANY ) Docket No. 50-322-OL-3 ) (Emergency Planning) (Shoreham Nuclear Power Station, ) Unit 1) ) ) I CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE I hereby certify that copies of the RESPONSE OF SUFFOLK COUNTY TO LILCO MOTION TO STRIKE PORTIONS OF MINOR /SHOLLY REBUTTAL TESTIMONY have been served on the following this 12th day of ] June, 1987 by United States mail, first class, except as otherwise noted. q 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 ] l 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 j
l 1 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, Virginia 23212 i 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 l Martin Bradley Ashare, Esq. Fabian G. Palomino, Esq.* Suffolk County Attorney Richard J. Zahnleuter, Esq. Bldg. 158, North County Complex Special Counsel to the l Veterans Memorial Highway Governor of the State Hauppauge, New York 11788 of New York Executive Chamber, Room 229 Capitol Building Albany, New York 12224 l Mr. Jay Dunkleburger Richard G.
- Bachmann, Esq.**
New York State Energy Office U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Comm. i l Agency Building Two Washington, D. C. 20555 l Empire State Plaza i Albany, New York 12223 1 ., ~ 1 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 ,1 9 David T. Case KIRKPATRICK & LOCKHART 1800 "M" Street, N. W. South Lobby - Ninth Floor Washington, D. C. 20036-5891
- Via Telecopy-
- ViaLHand Delivery June 12,-1987 l
l -_____}}