ML20079F687

Motion to Admit Supplemental Testimony of Mc Cordaro, Ja Weismantle & Eb Lieberman on Phase II Emergency Planning Contentions 23.D & 65 for Good Cause

ML20079F687
Person / Time
Site:	Shoreham File:Long Island Lighting Company icon.png
Issue date:	01/16/1984
From:	Irwin D HUNTON & WILLIAMS, LONG ISLAND LIGHTING CO.
To:	Atomic Safety and Licensing Board Panel
Shared Package
ML20079F689	List: ML20079F687 ML20079F691
References
ISSUANCES-OL-3, NUDOCS 8401190167
Download: ML20079F687 (7)

Text

.

LILCO, January 16, 1984 00CHETED USNPC UNITED STATES OF AMERICA NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSION '84 JAN 18 A10:58 0FFICE OF SECRf.itJ '

00CHETING & SEPyc Before the Atomic Safety and Licensing Boar 4ANCH In the Matter of )

)

LONG ISLAND LIGHTING COMPANY ) Docket No. 50-322-OL-3

) (Emergency Planning Proceeding)

(Shoreham Nuclear Power Station, )

Unit 1) )

LILCO'S MOTION TO ADMIT SUPPLEMENTAL TESTIMONY OF MATTHEW C. CORDARO, JOHN A. WEISMANTLE AND

-EDWARD B. LIEBERMAN ON PHASE II EMERGENCY PLANNING CONTENTIONS 23.D AND 65 FOR GOOD CAUSE Pursuant to.this Board's Bench Order of December 12, 1983 ,

(Tr. 1289-90), its written Order of' December 23, 1983 and its ratification on January 4, 1984 of the LILCO-Suffolk County

} " Joint Motion for Adjustment of Schedule," LILCO files herewith I e attached " Supplemental Testimony of Matthew C. Cordaro, John A. Weismantle and Edward B. Lieberman on Behalf of Long 1

Island Lighting Company'on Phase II Emergency Planning Conten-

~

tions 23.D and 65" for good cause as shown below.

On November-28, 1983, LILCO moved for documentary and dep-osition discovery on and the right of response to the " Direct Testimony of Peter A. Polk on Behalf of Suffolk County Re- 1

' ~

garding Contentions 23.D (Shadow Phenonemon) and 65 (Evacuation j Time Estimates)" (hereinafter, " Polk Testimony"), filed f,

8401190167 840116 PDR ADOCK 05000322 G PDR , ,/}-

. 3 };

f

November 18, 1983. LILCO's motion was filed because, despite diligent efforts on discovery, LILCO had not earlier been able to learn that Mr. Polk was preparing computer-assisted evacua-tion time estimates for the Shoreham 10-mile EPZ, or that he was the Suffolk County witness preparing estimates of the fre-

. quency of occurrence of automobile accidents and of automobiles running out of fuel'during an evacuation. LILCO's Motion for Discovery and Response to Polk Testimony, November 28, 1983, at 2-6. In each case the estimates presented in the Polk Testimo-ny differed markedly from thoce prepared by LILCO and reported in its direct. testimony, ulso filed November 18, 1983.

On December 12, 1983 this Board granted LILCO's request

.for discovery on the Folk Testimony (Tr. 1289-90), and indi-1 cated that.further testimony would be permitted on the basis of a showing of good cause to be made after discovery or subse-quent cross-examination. On December 23, in granting a paral-lel suffolk County motion for further discovery concerning the work of' Edward Lieberman, LILCO's expert witness on traffic is-

!. _ sues, the Board indicated that any supplemental testimony should be filed, along with a showing of good cause, within two

. weeks after completion of such supplemental discovery. " Order Granting in Part Suffolk County's Motion for Discovery . . . ,"

December 23, 1983, at 4. The date for filing any further tes-timony on Group I traffic issues was subsequently fixed at f l January 16 by the January 3, 1984 Joint Motion for Adjustment

/

. 1 -

of Schedule (page 2, 1 2), which was accepted by this Board in pertinent respects on January 4, 1984. The supplemental dis-covery of Messrs. Polk and Lieberman, meanwhile, was completed on" January 6,-1984.

Good cause exists for the filing of this supplemental tes-4 timony :n1 the three issues on which the Board granted LILCO discovery.1/ In each case the Polk Testimony indicates results that are significantly at variance with those reflected in .

LILCO's November 18, 1983 testimony. Prior to the filing of that testimony, LILCO had not learned, despite diligent ef-forts, of the content or even the pendency of Mr. Polk's three analyses. Prior to the discovery granted by the Board's December 12, 1983 Order LILCO had no access to the materials or i

the thought process underlying those analyses. With that dis-l covery, LILCO has come to understand the analytical process whose results are presented in the Polk Testimony. In each of the three cases, the bases for the marked contrast between the results presented in initial direct testimony have become 1/ Document discovery in the case of the evacuation time es-timates consisted of detailed input listings, approximately 2000 pages of output listings, and a key to the computer model used by Mr. Polk, along with detailed listings of and a map showing assumed population distribution and traffic assign-i.

ments. LILCO's review of these documents was confirmed by a i deposition of-Mr. Polk on January 6, 1984. Discovery ascer-f tained that there were no further documents or analyses

! underlying Mr. Polk's estimates of accident frequency and auto-mobiles running out of gasoline, beyond those attached to his November 18, 1983 testimony, i

l l

L_,_ _ _. , _ . _ _- - . - . - . - _ _ . _ . - _ _

4 apparent. The Supplemental Testimony being filed herewith ana-lyzes and explains these differences in detail. '

With respect to the first analysis, that of evacuation time estimates, discovery revealed two basic facts: first, that the EVACPLAN model used by Mr. Polk, unlike the DYNEV model used by Mr. Lieberman, does not account for roadway network interconnections or such physical realities of roadways as length and the existence of turning embayments or turn signals, and hence does not yield results that are as dependable as those produced by the DYNEV model, all else being equal. Sec-ond and more visibly important, direct testimony had shown ap-

. parently radical differences between LILCO's and Suffolk Coun-ty's evacuation time estimates from the.EPZ. (LILCO's estimates for a full 10-mile EPZ evacuation under normal weath-er conditions in summer vary from just under 5 hours5.787037e-5 days <br />0.00139 hours <br />8.267196e-6 weeks <br />1.9025e-6 months <br /> to about 7 1/2 hours, depending upon the extent of voluntary evacuation from beyond the EPZ and the presence or absence of special traffic controls. Those in the Polk Testimony show traffic not clearing'for 17 hours1.967593e-4 days <br />0.00472 hours <br />2.810847e-5 weeks <br />6.4685e-6 months <br /> on the Sunrise Highway just beyond the southern edge of the'EPZ,.and 18 hours2.083333e-4 days <br />0.005 hours <br />2.97619e-5 weeks <br />6.849e-6 months <br /> on the LIE just west of the EPZ.) Discovery revealed that these differences are entirely a function of volunteer evacuation from the East End which originates outside the EPZ, never enters it, and is mere-ly modeled at selected intersections along the EPZ's southern and southwestern boundaries. Detailed evaluation of Mr. Polk's 9

y- , - r -v -

--r -w- ~.m,+- * ,r-,-. -r--,v -w.-w--me - - - ,--*,,,w v .~v,- - - -----o--- , - - - - s-= -.c- ----- --=- = = -=-- - -----

computer runs shows that all traffic evacuating from within the EPZ reaches the EPZ boundary at all locations, including the Sunrise' Highway and the LIE, within 7 hours8.101852e-5 days <br />0.00194 hours <br />1.157407e-5 weeks <br />2.6635e-6 months <br /> 30 minutes after the start of an evacuation. Further, when the real EPZ evacua-tion time of 7 hours8.101852e-5 days <br />0.00194 hours <br />1.157407e-5 weeks <br />2.6635e-6 months <br /> 30 minutes for Mr. Polk's model is used and Mr. Polk's assumptions about evacuation conditions are com-pared with'the most nearly comparable evacuation runs performed by LILCO (Case 27: Summer, normal weather, uncontrolled, 50%

shadow), the results are almost astonishingly similar: the LILCO analysis is 7 hours8.101852e-5 days <br />0.00194 hours <br />1.157407e-5 weeks <br />2.6635e-6 months <br /> 35 minutes for evacuation of the EPZ under these conditions. Thus, properly understood,. Mr. Polk's analyses actually confirm LILCO's rather- than challenge them.

. The attached Supplemental Testimony makes these points clear.

With respect to.the frequency of accidents, the Folk Tes-timony estimates on the order of 141 accidents (Polk Testimony at 10-12 and Attachment 1) -- higher than LILCO's estimate by a factor of about 30 to 40. Review of the literature cited as a l

L basis by Mr. Polk reveals a straightforward oversight by him in its interpretation. That literature shows that accident fre-

! quency correlates not simply with vehicle speed, as the Polk Testimony suggests, but with vehicle speed in relation to the prevailing speed of traffic at the time of the accident. Cor-l rection of this error again eliminates the disagreement between L Mr. Polk's analyses and LILCO's, as the attached Supplemental l Testimony points out.

/

I .

Third, with respect to the frequency of automobiles run-ning out of gasoline -- estimated by Mr. Polk at 277 cars --

Mr. Polk has used outdated 1976 information on the gasoline I

consumption characteristics of the U.S. automobile fleet and has made an error in manipulation of the data assumed by him.

, The result is an overstatement by a factor of about three. In any event, Mr. Polk's testimony neglects the fact that LILCO will have refueling trucks dispersed at 7 locations on major roads through the EPZ, each of them capable of providing 3 gal-lons of gasoline to over 400 cars -- i.e., more than enough to 4

address the situation hypothesized by Mr. Polk all by itself.

This also is made clear by the attached Supplemental Testimony.

! Each of the above points is made in the attached Supple-l mental Testimony. Each would have been made in LILCO's initial direct testimon;' if the information now availabie to LILCO had been available then. Each of these points clarifies areas of l

l previously unexplained difference between LILCO's and Suffolk  ;

County's traffic analyses. The Supplemental Testimony I containine them thus aids in the process this Board has repeat-edly expressed its concern for -- narrowing and clarifying is-sues by means-of testimony filings that meet head-on. Presen-tation of the information in the attached Supplemental

. Testimony is also the most efficient means of presentation: it would be virtually impossible to elicit.from an adverse expert witness the analysis of Suffolk County's evacuation time l .

I

- _ . - _ ~ _ - . _ .. _. . _ _ . . _ ._ _ _.-_ _ . __. _ _. _ _ _ _ . . _ , _ _ _ - .

x-- .- ~

estimates contained in the Supplemental Testimony. Efficiency also commends filing it now rather than as rebuttal after ques-

, tioning of Suffolk County's witnesses on their direct testimo-ny; that questioning can be better focused now than it could have been otherwise. Further, since the testimony makes use of no information other than that provided by Suffolk County on

, supplemental discovery or already in the record otherwise, there should be no aspect of surprise in it for the County.

For the foregoing reasons, LILCO believes that good cause exists for permitting the filing of the attached Supplemental Testimony, and moves that the Board accept it.

Respectfully submitted, LONG ISLAND LIGHTING COMPANY

~ Donald P. Irwin Lee B. Zeugin Hunton & Williams 707 East Main Street P.O. Box 1535

, Richmond, Virginia 23212 l

DATED: January 16, 1984 1

i

_ _. . , _ . _ . - , , _ _ _ _ _ _ . . . . , , , , , . , _ . _ _ _ . . _ . , .