ML20205L744

NRC Staff Motion to Strike Suffolk County Testimony on Contention 47.* Suffolk County Testimony on Contention Ex 47 Fails to Describe Flaws Which Surfaced in Exercise.Testimony Should Be Stricken.Certificate of Svc Encl

ML20205L744
Person / Time
Site:	Shoreham File:Long Island Lighting Company icon.png
Issue date:	03/25/1987
From:	Johnson G NRC OFFICE OF THE GENERAL COUNSEL (OGC)
To:	Atomic Safety and Licensing Board Panel
References
CON-#287-2965 OL-5, NUDOCS 8704020184
Download: ML20205L744 (6)

Text

- - _ _ __ _ __ _ _ - _________ -

i ~2 - b5 00CKETED March 25,1987 USNRC l

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA ,

NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSION '87 MAR 27 P3 :42 l

. 0FFICE OF Sn.Pnn y BEFORE THE ATOMIC SAFETY AND LICENSING BOARIBOCHEimu r. sElevicF,-

BRAf!CH i In the Matter of )

)

! LONG ISLAND LIGHTING COMPANY ) Docket No. 50-322-OL-5

) (EP Exercise)

(Shoreham Nuclear Power Station, )

U Mt 1) )

i

, NRC STAFF MOTION TO STRIICE SUFFOLK COUNTY TESTIMONY ON CONTENTION 47 '

I. Introduction In its Prehearing Conference Order (Ruling on Contentions and Establishing Discovery Schedule), dated October 3, 1986, the Licensing i

Board admitted Contention EX 47. Contention EX 47 asserts that LILCO's failure to demonstrate the ability to register, monitor and decontaminate evacuees from special facilities who are transported to reception centers revealed a fundamental flaw in the LILCO offsite emergency plan. The i contention also contains extensive discussion of inadequacies in the LILCO plan , particularly in Revision 7 thereof, to show LILCO's failure to correct deficiencies in Revision 6. In admitting the contention, the 4 Licensing Board stated:

I

To the extent that Rev. 7 contains LILCO's 4

proposed remedies for flaws that surfaced during the exercise, it is relevant to the correctability of

, those naws. -

! 1 j Prehearing Conference Order, at 28. Testimony concerning the adequacy l

)

l of corrective plan revisions is only relevant to the contention, under the

].

Board's order, if flaws in the exercise are asserted. Since Suffolk 8704020184 870325

{DR ADOCK0500g2 gi

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

\

- County's testimony on Contention EX 47 O fails to describe or demon-strate flaws in the exercise, its testimony on revisions to the LILCO plan should be stricken as irrelevant.

l II. DISCTTSSION Under the Commission's Rules of Practice:

Only relevant , raaterial, and reliable evidence which is not unduly repetitious will be admitted.

10 C.F.R. I 2.743(c). The Licensing Board ruled in admitting Contention EX 47 that revisions to the LILCO plan made to remedy " flaws that surfaced during the exercise" are " relevant to the correctability of those flaws." Examination of Suffolk County's testimony on Contention EX 47 reveals no discussion at all of flaws which surfaced in the exercise.

Suffolk County appears to rely on assertions that the ability to register, 4

monitor, and decontaminate special facility evacuees was not demonstrated.

For example, Suffolk's witnesses state:

LILCO did not attempt to demonstrate during the Exercise any ability to register, monitor or decontaminate special facilities population.

Accordingly, the exercise results had the effect of confirming and demonstrating a fundamental void in LILCO's Plan: LILCO has and has demonstrated, no capability of registering, monitoring, or decontaminating special facility residents.

Testimony, at 21. Similarly the testimony states:

. . . Since there was no demonstration at all of the availability of facilities or the ability of LERO

> l

~

1/ Direct Testimony of David Harris and Martin Mayer on Behalf of Suffolk County Concerning Contentions EX 47, 22.a and 49, dated February 27, 1987; hereafter referred to as " Testimony."

l l

l

\

to perform registration, radiological monitoring, and decontamination of special facility evacuees, the Ercrcise provides literally no basis upon which it could be concluded that objective FIELD 21 was satisfied with respect to that large population of individuals.

Testimony, at 35. See also. Testimony, at 17-18.

If, as Suffolk County would like to testify, the ability to register, monitor and decontaminate special facility evacuees was not exercised, it la unclear how testimony about inadequacies in revisions to the LILCO plan not e::crcised, has any probative value in determining whether a l l

fundamental flaw exists in the plan, pursuant to the guidance in CLI-86-11, 23 NRC 577, at 581 (1986). On the other hand, if it was exercised directly or indirectiv, it is incumbent upon Suffolk County to present evidence of flaws. Without such evidence, testimony on correcta-bility is unnecessary and irrelevant under the Board's order.

Since this litigation is based on what transpired during the exercise, and Contention EX 47, in particular, requires Intervenors to go forward with evidence to establish a flaw, any testimony on this contention must show why what transpired at the exercise shows such a flaw. This Intervenors have not done. (For its part, Applicant has sought to show, in its testimony, that such registration, monitoring and decontamination as was done or simulated during the exercise raises no substantial question as to Applicant's ability to perform its functions with regard to special f facility populations. See LILCO's Testimony on Contention EX 47, at 8.)

The testimony proffered by Suffolk County has virtually no nexus to the February 13, 1986 exercises rather, it takes issue with the LILCO plans. It addresses no flaws or inabilities on the part of LILCO l i

emergency response workers to perform registration, monitoring or

i decontamination. Under the Board's order admitting this contention, this nexus is required. Without such nexus, the bulk of Suffolk County's Testimony is irrelevant, and inadmissible.

Therefore the following portions of the Testimony should be stricken. All the Testimony following page 8, line 17, after the word

" facilities," except:

page 17, line 21, beginning with "Both ," to j page 18, ending with " children," on line 3; from the question starting on page 20, line 18, through the answer to that question, ending on page 21, line 7;

from the question beginning on page 34, line 21, I through the answer to that question, ending on page 35, line 13.

i III. CONCLUSION j Suffolk County's Testimony on Contention EX 47 falls to describe flaws which surfaced in the exercise, and therefore testimony on corrective actions is irrelevant. As a result, the Testimony (except as noted) should be stricken.

Respectfully submitted,

[ '

rge . Jo son Counsel for RC Staff Dated at Bethesda, Maryland this 25th day of March,1987

i 1

k 00(,K E T EC-USHRC i - UNITED 9TATES OF AMERICA ,

l NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSION

'87 ftAR 27 P3:42 4

BEFORE THE ATOMIC SAFETY AND LICENSING BOAR 4FICE OF SE(}tI Ad Y DOCKETmG & '2EfNICL BRANCH In the Matter of )

)

I.ONO 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 "NRC STAFF MOTION TO STRIKE SUFFOLK COUNTY TESTIMONY ON CONTENTION 47" in the above-captioned proceeding

] have been served on the following by deposit in the United States mail, first class, or (*) deposit through the Nuclear Regulatory Commission's internal

] mail system, or (") by telecopter, this 25th day of March,1987:

{ John H. Frye III, Chairman" Joel Blau, Esq.

i Administrative Judge Director, Utility Intervention t Atomic Safety and Licensing Board Suite 1020 U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission 99 Washington Avenue

! Washington, DC 20555 Albany, NY 12210 Oscar H. Paris ** Fabian G. Palomino Esq.**

Administrative Judge Special Counsel to the Governor Atomic Safety and Licensing Board Executive Chamber U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission State Capitol Washington, DC 20555 Albany, NY 12224 l Frederick J. Shon** Jonathan D. Feinberg, Esq.

Administrative Judge New York State Department of 1 Atomic Safety and Licensing Board Public Service

! U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission Three Empire State Plaza j Washington, DC 20555 Albany, NY 12223 i

! Philip McIntire W. Taylor Reveley Ill, Esq.**

l Federal Emergency Management Donald P. Irwin, Esq.

1 Agency Hunton & Williams i 26 Federal Plaza 707 East Main Street

! Room 1349 P.O. Box 1535

} New York, NY 10278 Richmond, VA 23212 I

L--- -- . _ _.

. . . =- _. - - -_ _

3 Stephen B. Latham, Esq. Herbert H. Brown, Esq.

. Twomey, Latham a Shea Lawrence Coe Lanpher, Esq.**

4 Attorneys at Law Karla J. Letsche, Esq. l 33 West Second Street Kirkpatrick & Lockhart )

Fiverhead, NY 11901 South Lobby - 9th Floor i j . 1800 M Street, NW i t Atomic Safety and Licensing Washington, DC 20036-5891 i Board Panel

• U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission Jay Dunkleberger Washington, DC 20555 New York State Energy Office i

Atomic Safety and Licensing Agency Building 2 Appeal Board Panel

• Empire State Plaza U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission Albany, NY 12223 l Washington, DC 20555 i Spence W. Perry, Esq.

Martin Bradley Ashare, Esq. General Counsel Suffolk County Attorney Federal Emergency Management H. Lee Dennison Building Agency i, Veteran's Memorial Highway 500 C Street, SW Hauppauge, NY 11788 Washington, DC 20472 4

Dr. Monroe Schneider Robert Abrams, Esq.

l North Shore Committee Attorney General of the State l P.O. Box 231 of New York l Wading River, NY 11792 Attn: Peter Blenstock, Esq.

Department of Law j Ms. Nora Bredes State of New York Shoreham Opponents Coalition Two World Trade Center 195 East Main Street Room 40-14 Smithtown, NY 11787 New York, NY 10047 r Anthony F. Earley, Jr. William R. Cumming, Esq.**

General Counsel Office of General Counsel Long Island Lighting Company Federal Emergency Management 175 East Old Country Road Agency Hicksville, NY 11801 500 C Street, SW  !

Washington, DC 20472 Dr. Robert Hoffman Long Island Coalition for Safe Docketing and Service Section* l 1

Living Office of the Secretary P.O. Box 1355 U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission

{ Massapequa, NY 11758 Washington, DC 20555 4

Mary M. Gundrum, Esq. Barbara Newman New York State Department of Law Director, Environmental Health j 120 Broadway Coalition for Safe Living

3rd Floor, Room 3-116 Box 944 New York, NY 10271 Hunti gton, New York 11743 l

Kge El Joh$ son Counsel for NRC Staff

_ _ _ _ _ ____.___-_ _._ _____ . . _ - - . _ .