ML20235M145
| ML20235M145 | |
| Person / Time | |
|---|---|
| Site: | Shoreham File:Long Island Lighting Company icon.png |
| Issue date: | 07/10/1987 |
| From: | Zahnleuter R NEW YORK, STATE OF |
| To: | Atomic Safety and Licensing Board Panel |
| Shared Package | |
| ML20235M147 | List: |
| References | |
| CON-#387-4038 OL-3, NUDOCS 8707170076 | |
| Download: ML20235M145 (8) | |
Text
..
r y3q6
.e DOLKETED USNBC
,t July 10, 1987
'87 Ja_15 ' R2 :02 UNITED-STATES OF AMERICA NUCLEAR' REGULATORY COMMISSION
, n n.
00N i uJ. a
'hI Before the Atomic Safety and Licensino Board"# "
l
)
In the Matter of
)
)
LONG ISLAND. LIGHTING COMPANY
)
Docket No. 50-322-OL-3
)
(Emergency Planning)
(Shoreham Nuclear Power Station,
)
Unit 1)
)
)
l l
STATE OF NEW YORK MOTION FOR LEAVE TO FILE RESPONSE TO REBUTTAL TESTIMONY OF EDWARD B.
LIEBERMAN The State of New York (the " State") hereby moves for leave to file a Response to Rebuttal Testimony of Edward B.
Lieberman.
The proposed response is attached hereto as Part III of the Rebuttai Testimony of David T.
Hartgen and Roberg C. Millspaugh on Behalf of the State of New York-CondbFn'ing KLD'TR-201A and LILCO's Rebuttal Testimony of May 27, 1987.fg l
1 1!.
l 1/ ^By Order dated June 12, 1987, the Board permitted LILCO to supplement its prefiled testimony by the addition of KLD TR-201A j
as Attachment T.
See Memorandum and Order (Ruling on LILCO's i
Motion to' Substitute Written Testimony) (June 12, 1987).
The l
Board's ruling provided the State of New York the opportun,ity to submit rebuttal testimony regarding KLD TR-201A. Id. at 3.
1 8707170076 870710 i
ADDCK0500g2 3
PDR 1__z_
5
- b. I 1
l On May 27, 1987, LILCO's traffic witness, Edward B.
Lieberman, submitted rebuttal testimony which addresses the I
direct testimony of the State's traffic experts, David T. Hartgen and Robert C. Millspaugh.
In his rebuttal, Mr. Lieberman asserts that the State's analysis is fundamentally flawed because:
1 (1) the State allegedly double-counted background traffic, thus a
inflating the demand on available road capacity; (2) the State i
allegedly directed all traffic in its analysis to the reception centers; and (3) the State's analysis was allegedly incorrect in assessing volume-over-capacity ratios (V/C ratios) greater than 1.0.
Mr. Lieberman also made a few other inaccurate criticisms.
l These assertions were not based on questioning of Dr. Hartgen or Mr. Millspaugh, but presumably were made on the basis of Mr. Lieberman's assessment of certain documents (mostly con.puter outputs) he received from the State.
Having reviewed Mr. Lieberman's testimony, it is apparent that he has miscon-strued one of the fundamental aspects of the State's analysis, which in turn has led to the submission of testimony which is inaccurate.
Specifically, Mr. Lieberman has not understood, and Y
thus has misrepresented, how the State's analysis addressed background traffic.
From this misunderstanding flow his incor-rect assertions.
If left unaddressed, Mr. Lieberman's misunder-standing of the State's analysis will mislead the Board and hamper its attempts to consider the important traffic issues l
I before it.
4 1
)
l
I l
The. State is not attempting, through this response'to I
Mr. Lieberman's testimony, to submit new analyses -- there I
are no new data or analyses included in the discussion of Mr. Lieberman's testimony.
Rather, the State is merely attempting.to set the record straight in an area of some considerable technological complexity.
l There is good cause for filing a Response to the rebuttal testimony of Mr. Lieberman.
First, as noted above, a review of that testimony shows that Mr. Lieberman has significantly misin-f I
terpreted the State's analysis on certain points.
In order for i
the Board to have a complete record on which to render its decision, the State's response must be admitted.
Indeed, the Board has recognized that "it is important that the Board have t
available to it the most complete information possible."
Memorandum and Order (Ruling on LILCO's Motion to Substitute Written Testimony) (June 12, 1987), at 3.
Accordingly, it has allowed LILCO to supplement the record with additional traffic analyses.
Id.
By the same rationale, the Board permitted LILCO's witness, Mr. Donaldson, to supplement the record with additional testimony concerning Criterion J.12 of NUREG 0654.
Tr. 17721-22.
The proposed response identifies fundamental mis-understandings of the State's analysis by Mr. Lieberman and therefore, will assist the Board in evaluating both the State's and the KLD analyses.
l
I l
4'
_4-Second, the State's response is timely.
The State could not anticipate that Mr. Lieberman's rebuttal testimony would misin-l terpret and thus misrepresent the State's analysis; therefore, the State could not have included this testimony in earlier submittals.
Moreover, the proposed response is neither duplica-i tive nor lengthy; nor does it contain new data.
It merely sets-forth the misunderstandings contained in the rebuttal testimony and facilitates the development of a complete record.
f Finally, due to the complex nature of the analyses at issue -- and due to the fact that Mr. Lieberman has misunderstood them -- cross-examination of Mr. Lieberman is not an appropriate vehicle to correct the record.
The State cannot reasonably be expected to educate Mr. Lieberman on the true nature of the State's analyses through cross-examination.
Even if such cross-examination were feasible, it would require laborious and time-consuming probing of considerable detail because of the com-plexity of the subject matter.
This is not an effective use of the Board's or the parties' time.
In short, the most efficient way for the Board to consider evidence about how the State con-ducted its analysis is to hear it through direct testimony from the State's witnesses -- subject, as always, to examination by i
LILCO and the other parties.
1 1
1 i
l
-A
). ' CONCLUSION' J
J Based.on the foregoing, the State of New York respectfully submits that leave to file its Response to Rebuttal Testimony of-J Edward B.
Lieberman.'(Part III of the Testimony attached hereto) l should be granted.
i f
bf h
V
{.if '
Fabian G.
palonrino Richard J.
Zahnleuter Special Counsel to the. Governor of the State of New York Executive Chamber,-Room 229 Capitol Buildin'g Albany, New York 12224 Attorneys for Governor Mario M.
Cuomo and the State of New York
' July 10, 1987 l
I y
[.
i j
l 1
.uster July 10, 1987
^
i
'87 JUL 15 Pl2!0"7
-UNITED STATES OF AMERICA NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSION
]
g,it ii v i i
- # '. U Before the Atomic Safety and Licensing' Board 3dj[3 l
)
In the Matter of
')
)
LONG ISLAND LIGHTING COMPANY
)
Docket No. 50-322-OL-3
)
(Emergency Planning)
(Shoreham Nuclear Power Station,
)
Unit 1 )
)~
)
CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE I hereby certify.that copies of the STATE OF NEW YORK MOTION FOR LEAVE TO FILE RESPONSE TO' REBUTTAL TESTIMONY OF EDWARD B.
LIEBERMAN have been served on the following this 10th day of
-July, 1987 by United States mail, first class, except as i
otherwise noted.
Morton B.
Margulies, Esq., Chairman *- Joel Blau, Esq.
j Atomic Safety and Licensing Board Director, Utility Intervention i
U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission N.Y.
Consumer Protection Board Washington, D.C.
20555 Suite 1020 Albany, New York 12210 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
l
4 i
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 i
Office Building Richmond, Virginia 23212 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 i
Room Number 3-116 Veterans Memorial Highway New York, New York 10271 Hauppauge, New York 11788 i
MHB Technical Associates Dr. Monroe Schneider 1723 Hamilton Avenue North Shore Committee Suite "K" Post Office Box 231 1
San Jose, California 95125 Wading River, New York 11792 i
Martin Bradley Ashare, Esq.
Lawrence C.
Lanpher, Esq.*
j Suffolk County Attorney Christopher M. McMurray, Esq.
Bldg. 158, North County Complex David T.
Case, Esq.
Veterans Memorial Highway Ronald R. Ross, Esq.
j Hauppauge, New York 11788 Kirkpatrick & Lockhart
{
1800 "M" Street, N.W.
I Ninth Floor - South Lobby Washington, D.C.
20036-5891 Mr. Jay Dunkleburger Richard G.
Bachmann, Esq.*
New York State Energy Office U.S.
Nuclear Regulatory Comm.
Agency Building 2 Washington, D.
C.
20555 Empire State Plaza Albany, New York 12223 l l
(~.
.h t
ce 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
//~/
\\
('J W8Cd W :-(}f6/2 hh.-
Richard J Jah leuter, Esq.
Deputy Special Counsel to a
the Governor of the State of New York Executive Chamber, Room 229 Capitol Building l
Albany, New York 12224 j
- Via Federal Express July 10, 1987' i
9 I
3-l
__ _- ____- _____- ____ _ __ _