ML20206U062
| ML20206U062 | |
| Person / Time | |
|---|---|
| Site: | Shoreham File:Long Island Lighting Company icon.png |
| Issue date: | 04/18/1987 |
| From: | Christman J HUNTON & WILLIAMS, LONG ISLAND LIGHTING CO. |
| To: | Atomic Safety and Licensing Board Panel |
| Shared Package | |
| ML20206T406 | List: |
| References | |
| OL-3, NUDOCS 8704230299 | |
| Download: ML20206U062 (9) | |
Text
t LILCO, April 18,1987 4
4 00CHETED USNRC UNITED STATES OF AMERICA NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSION
'87 APR 21 Pl2:08 0FTICE Cr Ennpv DOCHETmG < ' gy!c;-
Before the Atomic Safety and Licensing Board gaf.U;G In the Matter of
)
)
LONG ISLAND LIGHTING COMPANY
) Docket No. 50-322-OL-3
) (Emergency Planning)
(Shoreham Nuclear Power Station,
)
Unit 1)
)
LILCO'S MOTION TO STRIKE TESTIMONY OF RADFORD ET AL.
LILCO hereby moves to strike the following portions of the " Testimony of Edward P. Radford, Gregory C. Minor, Susan C. Saegert, James H. Johnson, David Harris and Martin Mayer on Behalf of Suffolk County Concerning LILCO's Reception Centers (Monitoring and Decontamination Procedures)," dated April 13,1987 (hereinaf-ter "RMSJHM").
I. RMSJHM pp. 20-28 LILCO moves to strike Section V.B (pp. 20-28) of the RMSJHM testimony, except for the single passage beginning with "The high levels of evacuee stress" on page 23, line 15, and ending with " address their particular concerns" on page 24, line 6.
The basis for this motion to strike is that this part of the County's testimony seeks to re-open the already-litigated issue of hostility and aggressive behavior by the public. See the accompanying LILCO's Motion to Strike Testimony of Stephen Cole et al. For com-parison, the Intervenors' 1984 proposed findings on " Aggressive Behavior" are Attach-nient i to this motion.
The second paragraph on page 20 repeats the County's of t-repeated testimony that " people view radiological contamination as more dangerous than almost any other l
8704230299 870418 i
PDR ADOCK 05000322 i
g PDR
o 6 type of hazard." It then repeats other testimony that people on Long Island are partic-ularly concerned about radiological contamination, based on Dr. Cole's polls. It goes on to postulate (page 22) that because of the stress of a radiological emergency, people will have three " behavioral results": " diminished ability to follow instructions; persist-ent and extensive questioning of LILCO personnel; and, on occasion, aggressive behav-for towards LILCO personnel." RMSJHM p. 22, middle paragraph.
As documented in the accompanying Motion to Strike Testimony of Stephen Cole et al., the issues of diminished ability to follow instructions and hostile or aggressive behavior have been litigated already. In 1984 the County said that stress would make drivers unable to evacuate the EPZ; now the County is saying that stress will make peo-pie interfere with timely monitoring at the reception centers. The issue, and the evi-dence, are the same now as they were in 1984.
The single passage in which the County's testimony might be said to be within the scope of the present reception center issues is the paragraph beginning at the bot-tom of page 23 and running through line 6 on page 24, and LILCO does n_ot move to strike this. (LILCO does move to strike the last sentence in that paragraph, on lines 7-8, because it once again raises the already-litigated issue of hostility.) This passage as-serts that members of the public will have questions for LILCO traffic guides and that this may delay the monitoring process; it is admissible.
However, the question and answer beginning on page 25 and ending in the middle of page 27, which addresses Dr. Mileti's testimony, once again simply reopens old issues, rearguing the County's position on " anxiety and hostility." In particular, the subject of panic discussed here was addressed, among other places, in LILCO's written testimony of 1983. Cordaro et al., ff. Tr.1470, at 133-34.
. 5 II. RMSJHM pp. 30-31 LILCO moves to strike the sentence beginning on line 4 on pe2] 30 (Further-more, the anxiety of contaminated individuals will cause delays in the decontamination process.") This refers to the issue of evacuee anxiety that has previously been litigated.
The question and answer on pages 30-31 attempt to explain "how evacuee anxieties will cause delays in LILCO's decontamint:fon procedures." This is yet another attempt to reopen the already-litigated issues of anxiety, hostile behavior, and inability or unwillingness to follow emergency advisories.
a.
III. RMSJIIM p. 38 LILCO moves to strike the sentence beginning on line 11 on page 38 ("Further-more, the behavioral problems which will occur as a result of LILCO's decontamination procedures will also cause lengthy delays in the decontamination process.") This sen-tence apparently refers to the testimony on hostility, aggression, inability to process information, and inability or unwillingness to follow advisories, all of which have been litigated before.
Respectfully submitted, K,
_fV James N. Christman Stephen W. Miller Hunton & Williams 707 East Main Street P.O. Box 1535 Richmond, Virginia 23212 DATED: April 18,1987
--__~-,y
,m..
--y,
e Attaclunent 1 6
them go in their intended directions. This will result in delays, which have not been considered in LILCO's time estimates.
Pigozzi (Direct), ff.
Tr. 2909, at 34-35; Roberts et al., ff. Tr. 2260, at 46; Herr, ff.
Tr. 2909, at 30-31.
530.
Moreover, these interactions between traffic guides and motor-ists will necessarily require 2 traffic guides at each traffic post since any time a traffic guide diverts his attention to talk to 1 motorist, others will take advantage of the opportunity to proceed along routes that may be contrary to the rcutes prescribed by LILCO. Nevertheless, LILCO has assigned only 1 traffic guide to many of its traf fic control posts.
Id.,
at 30-31; Roberts et al., ff. Tr. 22o0, at 47-51; Plan, App. A, Fig. S.
These considerations compel us to conclude that LILCO's attempts to " dis-courage" traffic flows will actually cause delays, that these delays are not consicered in LILCO's evacuation time estimates, and that such esti-mates are thus further rendered inaccurate.
7.
Aggressive Behavior (Contention 65.C.2) 531. Contention 65.C.2 alleges that the interaction between LILCO's traffic guides and evacuees will lead not only to confusion, as discussed above, but also to aggressive behavior.
Since substantial numbers of peo-pie will try to deviate from LILCO's routes, attempts by traffic guides to enforce prescribed turn movements and other traffic control measures, or to
" discourage" deviation from prescribed routes, will lead to conflicts be-tween drivers and traffic guides.
Saegert, ff. Tr. 2259, at 13-14; Roberts
-360-
L; l
et al., ff. Tr..2260, at 49.
These conflicts may range.from verbal con-frontation to physical assault.
Tr. 2296 (Saegert). They will lead to confusion =and interrupt'lons in traffic flow, and will cause evacuation times to be increased. Herr, ff. Tr.'2909, at 31-32; Pigozzi (Direct), ff.
Tr. 2909, at 34-35; Tr. 3210-11 (Pigozzi).
532.
LILCO took the position that because people become more helpful, not more aggressive, in community emergencies, evacuees would accept con-trol by traffic guides and would not intitiate conflicts. Cordaro et al.
(Contention 65), ff. Tr. 1470, at 129; Tr. 1787-89 (Mileti); 1789-92 (Dynes); see Tr. 3449-51 (Crbanik); Urbanik, ff. Tr. 3430, at 15.
533.
Suffolk County's witnesses, on the other hand, testified that
- aggression.will occur for several reasons. First, many evacuees will see the traffic guides as frustrating their. goal of finding the safest route out:of the EPZ. Roberts et al., ff. Tr. 2260, at 50; Tr. 2297 (Saegert);
Saegert, ff. Tr. 2259, at 13-14.
Second, evacuees are unlikely to perceive LILCO's guides as having authority to direct traffic or prevent travel along certain routes.
Tr. 2297 (Saegert); Saegert, ff. Tr. 2259, at 14.371/
Third, the anger of some evacuees toward LILCO may be directed at the traffic guides since their employer will be seen as the cause of the danger.
Id., at 14-15; Tr. 2277 (Turano); 2324-25 (Monteith, McGuire);
371/
LILCO's traffic guides will not be wearing uniforms or other symbols of authority, although they may wear reflective vests.
Tr. 1963-66 (Weismantle).
-361-Y
s.
I
~3751-52 (Knighton).322/ Fourth, incompetence and mistakes by LILCO's inexperienced and inadequately trained traffic guides will give rise to driver frustration which may, in turn, lead to aggression. Finally, the guides will not be experienced in responding to people in a highly agitated state of mind.
Their inappropriate responses to motorists' aggression or anger may increase the motorists' anger. Saegert, ff. Tr. 2239, at 13-16.
See also, findings on Contention 15.D (Section II.B., suora).
It has been the experience of the SCPD witnesses that people under stress disobey or disregard the normal rules of the road and that fear, which will surely be present during a radiological emergency, can increase aggressive behavior.
Tr. 2264-70 (Turano, Monteith, Roberts, McGuire, Michel). Likewise, when-ever there are heavy stop-and go traffic conditions, drivers become aggres-sive'and more willing to disregard traffic laws. Roberts et al., ff. Tr.
2260, at 49-51; Tr. 2297-98 (McGuire, Michel).
534.
The New York witnesses concurred that aggression against traffic guides is likely during the stressful conditions of an emergency.
Such be-havior was evident at the 1980 Winter Olympics in Lake Placid where trans-portion problems caused many people to be uncooperative and, in some in-stances, to physically and verbally abuse state officials attempting to remedy the situation. Hartgen et al., ff. Tr. 3695, at 13-16.
Dr. M11eti disputed the relevance of the Lake Placid experience because the Olympics 322/ Thus, whereas natural disasters often unite communities against a com-mon threat, a Shoreham accident may involve social conflict and mis-trust. Saegert, f f. Tr. 2259, at 9-10.
8 l
-362-
=,
. _ _ =
4 f
F-n.
y:
2 allegedly did not represent a life-threatening situation. Cordaro et al.,
-ff. Tr. 3857, at 22-27.
However, the situation was indeed life'-threatening for thos'e exposed to the cold for extended periods.
Tr. 3743-44 (Albertin,.
Knighton).
LILCO's position that there would be no hestility against its 535.
traffic guides was further undercut by LILCO's own witness Dr. Dynes, who has written that personnel from organizations that play critical roles in emergencies are often the target of. direct hostility. This can happen when the organization is perceived to lack authority or when it is considered an i
"out group" (i.e. not part of the community).
Tr. 1796-97. 2043-46, 2077-78 (Dynes). We agree with the County's position that many people will-p.rceive LILCO as lacking legitimate authority to respond as it intends r
u.tder its Plan. Furthermore, there is no evidence that LILCO is considered i
part of the community in any communal sense. Thus, LILCO, as the perceived cause of the emergency, could very well be considered an "out group" orga-nization which the public will treat with hostility.
Based on Dr. Dynes' testimony and the testimony of the State and County witnesses, we find that I
aggression could well occur against LILCO's traffic guides and that, to the extent it occurs, it will increase evacuation times.
i 1
-363-I
(
,r.-.,c
. - -,.-.,,.m
__.,,, --,.._ m
...._,m...
.,.~._-,,,.,vy.-..y,_.
w,.
LILCO, April 18,1987 DCLYETED USunc W APR 21 Pl2:08 CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE OffitE r : x, Au 00CMEri%.s a wict" BRAtKy In the Matter of LONG ISLAND LIGHTING COMPANY (Shoreham Nuclear Power Station, Unit 1)
Docket No. 50-322-OL-3 I hereby certify that copies of LILCO's MOTION TO STRIKE TESTIMONY OF STEPilEN COLE ET AL., LILCO'S MOTION TO STRIKE TESTIMONY OF RADFORD ET AI., LILCO'S MOTION TO STRIKE TESTIMONY OF PAPILE ET AL., and LILCO'S MO-TION TO STRIKE DIRECT TESTIMONY OF JOHNSON AND SAEGERT were served this date upon the following by telecopier as indicated by one asterisk, by Federal Express as indicated by two asterisks, or by first-class mail, postage prepaid.
Morton B. Margulics, Chairman **
Atomic Safety and Licensing Atomic Safety and Licensing Appeal Board Panel Board U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission Washington, D.C. 20555 East-West Towers, Rm. 407 4350 East-West IIwy.
Atomic Safety and Licensing Bethesda, MD 20814 Board Panel U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission Dr. Jerry R. Kline **
Washington, D.C. 20555 Atomic Safety and Licensing Board Richard G. Bachmann, Esq. **
U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission George E. Johnson, Esq.
East-West Towers, Rm. 427 U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission 4350 East-West Hwy.
7735 Old Georgetown Road Bethesda, MD 20814 (to mallroom)
Bethesda, MD 20814 Mr. Frederick J. Shon **
Atomic Safety and Licensing Herbert H. Brown, Esq. **
Board Lawrence Coe Lanpher, Esq.
U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission Karla J. Letsche, Esq.
East-West Towers, Rm. 430 Kirkpatrick & Lockhart 4350 East-West Hwy.
South Lobby - 9th Floor Bethesda, MD 20814 1800 M Street, N.W.
Washington, D.C. 20036-5891 Secretary of the Commission Attention Docketing and Service Section U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission 1717 H Street, N.W.
Washington, D.C. 20555
r
. k.? Fabian G. Palomino, Esq. **
Jonathan D. Feinberg, Esq.
Richard J. Zahnleuter, Esq.
New York State Department of Special Counsel to the Governor Public Service, Staff Counsel Executive Chamber Three Rockefeller Plaza Room 229 Albany, New York 12223 State Capitol Albany, New York 12224 Ms. Nora Bredes Executive Coordinator Mary Gundrum, Esq.
Shoreham Opponents' Coalition Assistant Attorney General 195 East Main Street I
120 Broadway Smithtown, New York 11787 Third Floor, Room 3-116 New York, New York 10271 Gerald C. Crotty, Esq.
Counsel to the Governor Spence W. Perry, Esq. **
Executive Chamber William R. Cumming, Esq.
State Capitol Federal Emergency Management Albany, New York 12224 Agency 500 C Street, S.W., Room 840 Martin Bradley Ashare, Esq. **
Washington, D.C. 20472 Eugene R. Kelly, Esq.
Suffolk County Attorney Mr. Jay Dunkleberger H. Lee Dennison Building New York State Energy Office Veterans Memorial Highway Agency Building 2 Hauppauge, New York 11787 Empire State Plaza Albany, New York 12223 Dr. Monroe Schneider North Shore Committee Stephen B. Latham, Esq. **
P.O. Box 231 Twomey, Latham & Shea Wading River, NY 11792 33 West Second Street P.O. Box 298 Riverhead, New York 11901 Mr. Philip McIntire Federal Emergency Management Agency 26 Federal Plaza New York, New York 10278 f-ames N. Christman Hunton & Williams 707 East Main Street P.O. Box 1535 Richmond, Virginia 23212 DATED: April 18,1987