ML20069B828

From kanterella
Jump to navigation Jump to search
Motion to Strike Certain Intervenor Prefiled Testimony Under Commission Questions 3 & 4 Re Emergency Planning Filed on 830311.Licensees Denied Any Meaningful Right to Discovery from Witnesses.Certificate of Svc Encl
ML20069B828
Person / Time
Site: Indian Point  Entergy icon.png
Issue date: 03/14/1983
From: Brandenburg B
CONSOLIDATED EDISON CO. OF NEW YORK, INC.
To:
Atomic Safety and Licensing Board Panel
References
ISSUANCES-SP, NUDOCS 8303170279
Download: ML20069B828 (33)
v • d • e


Text

. .

hff[ED l

'03

!!AR 15 AIO:51 UNITED STATES OF AMERICA r -*T-NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSION 2[y$'.I,! ,

ATOMIC SAFETY AND LICENSING BOARD .

Before Administrative Judges:

James P. Gleason, Chairman Frederick J. Shon Dr. Oscar H. Paris

x

)

In the Matter of ) Docke t Nos . 50-247-SP

) 50-286-SP CONSOLIDATED EDISON COMPANY OF NEW YORK, )

INC. (Indian Point, Unit No. 2) )

) March 14, 1982 POWER AUTHORITY OF THE STATE OF NEW )

YORK-(Indian Point, Unit No. 3) )

)

x CON EDISON'S MOTION TO STRIKE INTERVENOR TESTIMONY UNDER QUESTIONS 3 AND 4 Brent L. Brandenburg Assistant General Counsel CONSOLIDATED EDISON COMPANY OF NEW YORK, INC.

4 Irving Place New York, New York 10003 (212) 460-4333 l

8303170279 830314

{DRADOCK05000 gO3 l

\--_- . .._ . . .._. . - _ ~ , - . , _ - . - -

TABLE OF CONTENTS Page INTRODUCTION 1 All of Intervenor's 4 Question 3 and 4 Testimony should be stricken because licensees have been denied any meaningful right to discovery from these witnesses The Separate Testimony 6 of various Intervenor Witnesses identified in the March 11 list should be stricken for the independent ,

reasons' set forth below. -

Kai T. Erikson 6 Jane Courtney 7 Betty Ramey 8 Joan Harding King 8 Edward J. Connelly 9 Earle R. Eleffson 9 Agata Craig 10 Jamie Green 10 Mary P. Bulleit 10 1

Ellen Burgher 11 I

David S. Siegel 11 John Iurato 12 Lynn Doughty 12 Murry Melbin 12 Helen Burnham 12 Vincent Savastano 13 .

Susan M. Teasdale 13 Theodora Dyer 13 Donald Sberra 14 s Toby Gersony 14 l

Susan Simon 14 Monya Berg Brown 15 Eileen L. Vinci 15 Nancy Sheer -

15 Eileen McGovern 16 C1' e land S. Conklin 16 Myles Lavelle 16 Robert T. Johnson 17 Reverend David B. Wayne 16 Reverend Robert W. Hare 17 David A. Churchill 17 Barbara Gochman 18 Vincent J. Rubeo 18 i

11

Mary Lou Gohring 18 Richard Lang 19 John Moore 19 Ronni Witkin Schwartz 20 Jane Capon 20 Madeleine & Marc Holzer 20 Linda Puglisi -

21 Sally Ziegler 21 Arthur B. Zelman 22 Helen Ancona 22 Fern Naron-Shiek 23 Sonny Hall 23 Richard F. Herbek 23 Raymond Bowles 24 Lois Jessup 24 Evan Litty 25 i

.i 4

iii

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSION ACOMIC SAFETY AND LICENSING BOARD Before Administrative Judges:

James P. Gleason, Chairman Frederick J. Shon Dr. Oscar H. Paris

x

)

In the Matter of )

) Docket Nos. 50-247-SP CONSOLIDATED EDISON COMPANY OF NEW YORK, ) 50-286-SP INC. (Indian Point, Unit No. 2) )

) March 14, 1983 POWER AUTHORITY OF THE STATE OF NEW )

YORK (Indian Point, Unit No. 3) )

)

x CON EDISON'S MOTION TO STRIKE INTERVENOR TESTIMONY UNDER QUESTIONS 3 AND 4 Pursuant to the Board's March 7, 1983 Mailgram Order, Consolidated Edison Company o# New York, Inc. (" Con Edison") hereby moves for an order striking certain of the prefiled testimony of the intervenor witnesses under Commission Questions 3 and 4 which has been proposed in "Intervenors Witness List for Commission Questions 3 and 4" dated March 11, 1983.

INTRODUCTION In response to the Board's March 7 Order intervenors have proposed that the Board hear testimony from a total of a

99 witnesses during the five emergency planning hearings days allocated to intervenors.* If adopted, this proposal would require licensees to cross-examine an average of more than nineteen witnesses per day. Adopting this proposal would seriously undermine licensees' rights to pursue adequate cross-examination, as witness after witness is paraded before the Board and licensees attempt to conduct whatever meaningful cross-examination can be conducted by licensees during the total of one hour allocated to each witness. Adopting this proposal would result in adopting some sort of bizarre

" Beat the Clock" approach to hearing and resolving important factual and policy questions.

The " turnstile justice" approach to this proceeding embodied in intervenors ' proposal was compounded by the panelization " solution" previously proposed by the intervenors to the problem created by the sheer mass of their testimony.

Intervenors have now abandoned panelization (See Intervenors Witness List dated March 11, 1983), but this device may well be the object of efforts to revive it as the week wears on-and 99 witnesses do not seem capable of all being heard.

As a tool to manage the proceeding, panelization of witnesses who have independently prepared disparate pieces of testimony is a sham and chimera which would deprive opposing parties of

  • Intervenors have also requested that four other witnesses be scheduled on other hearing dates. This motion dces not address this request or the testimony of these four witnesses.

1

c their due process rights to confront and cross-examine. This fact was recognized by both the Board (Tr. 6938) and Judge Laurenson (Transcript of February 25, 1983 Special Conference at 80).

The denial of licensees' rights embodied in the intervenor "99 witness" proposal of March 11 is further exacerbated b3 the refusal of the Board to vary the times established for the cross-examination of witnesses. As we noted in our " March 8, 1983 Motion for Modification of the Board's March 7, 1983 Ordc2" (at 4), it might very well be ,

possible to cross-examine the great bulk of intervenor wit-nesses within"the Board's time limitations. However, it will not be possible to conduct adequate cross-examination of intervenors' expert witnesses within such a time period.

Licensees now find themselves in an impossible i

situation. Licensees only learned late in the afternoon of March 11 which witnesses intervenors are to be offered for cross-examination, and when. The schedule adopted by the Board imposes on licensees the burden of winnowing through almost a hundred pieces of testimony to determine which should be the subject of the present motion to strike, l

while at the same time preparing staccato cross-examination for those witnesses who will presumably begin testifying the day after filing the instant motion to strike.

In order that the Commission is presented with the

?

I l

l . _ . . . -. - -.- - .-

~

record of something resembling the focused proceeding it intended, and in order to preserve some semblance of a meaning-ful right of cross-examination, it is essential that the number of intervenor witnesses be drastically reduced and that the Board resist efforts to return to panelization during the hearing days of March 15-19 and 22. This motion asks the Board to strike various pieces of intervenor testi-mony for various reasons. Among the reasons for striking testimony is that it is cumulative of other testimony. As we noted in our March 8 motion (at 5, n.) it should not be for licensees or even the Board to decide which of a number of possible witnesses making the same point should be heard.

This should have been done by intervenors.

4 ALL OF INTERVENOR'S QUESTIONS 3 AND 4 TESTIMONY SHOULD BE STRICKEN BECAUSE LICENSEES HAVE BEEN DENIED ANY MEANINGFUL RIGHT TO DISCOVERY FROM THESE WITNESSES Licensees have two panels off-site emergency planning witnesses, both of whom have been fully deposed by intervenors. Licensees on the other hand, have been able to d'epose only three of the 170 witnesses proposed by intervenors since we have been continually stymied in attempting to have intervenors witnesses reduced to a realistic number. Literally until Friday, March 11 were licensees kept in the dark as to just who the intervenors c

witnesses would be, despite repeated requests to the Board

  • that legitimate intervenor witnesses be identified.

Until March 11, if licensees wished to pursue their rights to discovery under the NRC.'s Rules of Practice they '

were faced with only the wholly unrealistic altern'ative of taking 170 depositions. This situation has not been relieved in any meaningful way by intervenors' latest suggestion that 99 witnesses be heard in 5 days. Because intervenors have steadfastly refused to propose anything but an army of witnesses without regard to burdensomeness or redundancy, and because this number has not been

. substantially reduced by the eve of hearings, intervenors

~

have denied and frustrated licensees' rights to discovery, and intervenors' Questions 3 and 4 Testimony should accordingly be stricken.

J

  • On June 14, 1982 the Licensees moved to strike intervenors emergency planning testimony. (Licensees motion for an Order Striking Direct Testimony)

In response to the motion the Board directed in-tervenors to reduce the number of their witnesses (Tr. 1064). When intervenors failed to do this, the Board first indicated that intervenors would limited to 50 witnesses (Tr. 1191), but then ruled that individual witnesses could be grouped as panels (Tr. 1198). Con Edison's February 7, 1983 Proposal For Scheduling Remaining Testimony on Commission Questions 3 and 4 (at pp. 4-5) re-emphasized the need for this Board to require intervenors to

specify their witnesses as soon as possible.

l

THE SEPARATE TESTIMONY OF VARIOUS INTERVENOR WITNESSES IDENTIFIED IN THE MARCH 11 LIST SHOULD BE STRIKEN FOR THE INDEPENDENT REASONS SET FORTH BELOW In addition to the basi,s for striking'intervenors' emergency. planning testimony due to their thwarting of licensees discovery rights as set forth above, numerous I

. separate pieces of intervenor testimony should be stricken as not properly falling within Commission Questions 3 or 4, or the Board's contentions thereunder as set forth in its February 7, 1983 Memorandum and Order. (The sequencing of witnesses set forth below follows the order in which such witnesses are scheduled to appear per intervenors' March 11 witness list.)

Tuesday, March 15, 1983

  1. 148 Kai T. Erikson ,

The supplemental portion of the testimony is the i subject of a separate motion, dated March 9, 1983. The main testimony submitted in June 1982 suffers from several of the flaws of the supplemental testimony and should also be stricken. In particular, there is no mention of compliance or non-compliance with NRC/ FEMA guidelines, nor is there any suggestion of further specific, feasible offsite emergency e

\

l procedures which Erikson claims should be implemented at Indian Point.

  1. 134 Jane Courtney This testimony should be stricken as immaterial and beyond the scope of the questions posed by the Commission.

. Although the witness acknowledges that she lacks specialized knowledge or background regarding Indian Point, she offers several conclusory statements speculating on human behavior in the event of an emergency without providing any.. factual bases for these statements. These include unsupported statements about how persons other than herself (e.g. other parents, bus drivers, teachers, police, fire and ambulance' -

personnel) will behave. Unspecified references are~ made to

" congested road systems" and the need for additional equip-ment. ,

Although the testimony is purportedly offered in support of several contentions under Question-3, nowhere in the testimony is there an allegation of a failure to comply with NRC and FEMA guidelines or regulations. Similarly, although the testimony also references Contention 4.2, the testimony lacks any suggested specific feasible improvement in of f-site emergency planning but rather simply concludes that "an evacuation plan [is] totally unworkable" (at 2). This testimony thus cannot be considered as either Question 3 or Question 4 testimony. .

Finally, this testimony is cumulative of testimony

9 l

l l

already heard and of other intervenor testimony consisting as it does of generalized concerns about how people behave l and how an evacuation will be difficult to implement. As Judge Laurenson (at 17) noted in his Recommended Decision, these subjects have already been addressed by testimony of county and local officials.

  1. 21 Betty Ramey Con Edison objects to the admission of this testimony, which has been offered under Contentions 3.1 and 3.4. There is no allegation that the Indian Point radiological emergency plans fail to comply with NRC or FEMA guidelines, and this testimony is thus not proper testimony under Commission Question 3. Similarly, with regard to Contention 3.4, the testimony does not include any evidence that licensees' emergency procedures are so deficient that they cannot be relied upon to notify authorities in case of an emergency.

Rather there are simply references to four incidents at the Indian Point units and the times that Ms. Ramey's radio

station carried reports of their occurrence. There is no showing that any of these incidents involved a failure to notify appropriate authorities of an incident which required such reporting.
  1. 41 Joan Harding King This testimony should be struck as irrelevant to the proceeding, and because it consists solely of hearsay statements. Ms. King's testir.ony consists of her recounting of what was said to her by three individuals during Ms.

King's visits to two hospitals. The testimony is also irrelevant since it has not been shown how, even if these hearsay state-ments were true, the statements evidence non-compliance with NRC or FEMA guidelines. This testimony is not proper Question 3 testimony. Similarly, the testimony does not offer any specific improvements in of f-site emergency procedures and, thus, is not proper Question 4 testimony. Finally, this tes-timony should also be struck because Ms. King has previously made a limited appearance statement. See 10 CFR S 2.715(a).

  1. 150 Edward J. Connelly The bulk of Mr. Connelly 's testimony deals with his experience as a member of the Volunteer Ambulance Corps and what he would do in case of emergency. The testimony consists of one person's statement of his beliefs of what he would do in an emeggency. Since the witness is not a behavioral expert, his testimony does not properly arise under Contention 3.2, and is in any event duplicative of testimony offered by others. Mr. Connelly's statements regarding his discussions with other Corps members are unreliable hearsay.
  1. 35 Earle R. Eleffson This testimony should be stricken as duplicative of testimony already in the record. This testimony includes conclusory statements about " inadequacies" of emergency 4

planning and " jammed traffic routes" without specifying the routes or the alleged inadequacies. This testimony is simply another citizen's unsupported speculation question-ing whether emergency workers will perform their assigned responsibilities under the plan.

  1. 11 Agata Craig The testimony neither alleges non-compliance with NRC/ FEMA guidelines, nor offers any suggested improvements in of f-site emergency planning. Thus, it is not proper Question 3 and 4 testimony.
  1. 12 Jamie Green The testimony neither alleges non-compliance with NRC/ FEMA guidelines, nor offers any suggested improvements in of f-site emergency planning. Thus, it is not proper Question 3 and 4 testimony.
  1. 131 Mary P. Bulleit This testimony should be stricken. That portion of the testimony dealing with the possible non-performance of bus drivers is duplicative of other testimony in this proceeding. The reference to statements made to Ms. Bulleit by a teacher are unreliable hearsay. Ms. Bulleit's state-ment about hearing "several sirens on several occasions" is irrelevant since it is not alleged that Ms. Bulleit heard or did not hear the sirens on March 3, 1982. The reference to

, Con Edison's past performance lacks any specifity or support.

- e Finally, the testimony neither alleges non-compliance with NRC/ FEMA guidelines,"nor offers proposals for specific improvements in offsite emergency planning.

  1. 138 Ellen Burgher.

This testimony should be striken because it seeks to draw into question the suf ficiency of the plume exposure pathway EPZ for Indian Point. However, the testimony does not attempt to deal with the factors listed in Contention 4.1,,as possible bases for expansion of the EPZ and thus it is irrelevant to this Contention. Rather, this testimony references testimony apparently offered by " Leonard Sohlon" in another proceeding to establish that a " credible accident" would have impacts well beyond the 10 mile EPZ. This is not among the factors listed in Contention 4.1, nor is there any Indian Point-specific accident modeling.

Wednesday, March 16, 1983

  1. 81 David S. Siegel Con Edison objects to and asks to be stricken those portions of the testimony which deal with Mr. Siegel's discussion with White Plains school administrators and with the " questions" of his professional staff and parents, the last two paragraphs in the witnesses' testimony. These portions of his testimon'y are hearsay.

This testimony is also duplicative, in large part, 4

4 _

of the testimony of John Iurato, intervenor witness #87.

  1. 87 John Iurato Con Edison ask that this testimony be stricken as 4 duplicative of the testimony of Mr. Siegel. In addition, the testimony should be struck because Mr. Iurato has previously ,
made a limited appearance statement.

^

i

  1. 110 Lynn Doughty This testimony, which deals with the feasibility of evacuating school children, should be stricken as

'duplicative of testimony already received since it deals with the possible non-performance of bus drivers in an emer- -

gency and the possible reactions of parents, subjects which

~

have already been addressed in detail.

  1. 168 Murray'Melbin This testimony deals with alleged problems related to responses to emergencies that occur during the night.

These " problems" are irrelevant to the questions posed by the ,

, Board and raise only generic issues. Further, there is no

allegation of non-compliance with NRC/ FEMA guidelines, nor 4

are any of f-site emergency procedures suggested to deal with the issues raised by Dr. Melbin. The testimony is not proper Question 3 or 4 testimony and should accordingly be stricken.

. #79 Helen Burnham i

!~

This testimony should be struck because Ms. Burnham 1

[

! l i

.m -. , , , , , ,, , , ,_ -. , , - . _ - - , , _ - - - - . - - . . - . . _ - _ . - - . . . . - _ . = - . , . - - - . - - - - - - . - . - - - , , - -

has already testified at the limited appearance hearings.

494 Vincent Savastano This testimony is not proper Questions 3 and 4 testimony and should be stricken, since it neither alleges

. non-compliance with NRC/ FEMA guidelines, nor suggests any '

specific of f-site emergency procedures.

~

4133 Susan M. Teasdale This testimony of a parent who states that during a radiological emergency she would go to her child's school to pick him up is duplicative of the testimony of many other witnesses. The testimony does not allege non-compliance with NRC/ FEMA guidelines and regulations and does not offer any .

I specific of f-site emergency procedures. It is thus not proper Questions 3 and 4 testimony and should be stricken.

(147 Theodora Dyer That portion of this testimony dealing with Ms.

Dyer's dif ficulty in understanding the maps in the booklet

" Indian Point Emergency Planning and You" should be stricken.

The testimony does not allege that the maps do not comply o

with particular NRC/ FEMA guidelines and thus this testimony is not proper Question 3 testimony. Although Contention 4.7 deals with possible improvement in notifying and informing certain section of the public, Ms. Dyer's criticisms do not deal with those sections of the public.

That portion of Ms. Dyer's testimony which deals

~

with what she would do if there were an emergency while her l l

l

children are in school is duplicative of the testimony of others and should also be stricken.

  1. 60 Donald Sbarra This testimony does not allege non-compliance with NRC/ FEMA guidelines nor does it propose specific off-site emergency procedures. Thus it is not proper Questions 3 and 4 testimony and shoul'd be stricken. Rather it deals in general terms with the problems of developing any evacuation plan. Although Mr. Sbarra is deaf he does not suggest alternative means of notifying or informing deaf persons and thus his testimony would not be proper testimony under Contention 4.7.
  1. 90 Toby Gersony This testimony dealing with the possible responses of parents, bus drivers and school personnel to a radiological emergency is duplicative of testimony already in the record, I and should therefore be stricken.
  1. 65 Susan Simon This testimony, which deals in very general terms with the problems of evacuating the elderly, is duplicative of the testimony of many other witnesses. The testimony is not proper under Contention 3.10 since, although it expresses _

a general concern for evacuating the elderly it does not allege any failure of the current Indian Point emergency plans to conform with NUREG-0654, Rev. 1, Evaluation Criterion II.J.10.d.

K

~

  1. 77 Monya Berg Brown This testimony is not proper Question 3 or 4 testimony and should be stricken. It does not allege failures to comply with NRC/ FEMA guidelines. Although the testimony deals with possible difficulties in hearing the sirens in certain circumstances (e.g. while asleep) there is no allega-tion of a f ailure to comply with NRC guidelines. In addition, the siren portion of the testimony is irrelevant to Contention 4.7 since it does not deal with possible problems of the population sub-groups referred to in that contention.

That part of the testimony dealing with bus drivers is duplicative of testimony from others.

The remainder of the testimony is not related to contentions in this case.

  1. 46 Eileen L. Vinci This testimony deals with Routes 202 and 6 and briefly summarizes the witnesses' experiences with the roads.

The testimony should be stricken as immaterial and irrelevant ,

to Contentions 3.3 since there has been no attempt to show how the " facts" impact the Parsons, Brinckerhoff, Quade and Douglas estimates of evacuation time.

  1. 112 Nancy Sheer This testimony should be stricken as it neither alleges noncompliance with any NRC/ FEMA guideline, nor proposes any improvements in off-site emergency planning.

Remarks about " winding, narrow and slippery" roads are duplicative of the testimony of others, as are comments about bus drivers and the failure of the sirens as originally installed. Finally, that portion of the testimony dealing with psychological stress (i.e. paragraph 7) is beyond the scope of this proceeding. See Board's October 1, 1982 Memorandum and Order at 32-34.

  1. 144 Eileen'McGovern This testimony, which alleges that the plants are

" deteriorating", is not proper Questions 3 and 4 testimony and should be stricken.

. Thursday, March 17, 1983

  1. 98 Cleland S. Conklin The testimony of Cleland S. Conklin should be stricken because it does not allege non-compliance with NRC regulations. Mr. Conklin has been offered by RCSE/WBCA as a witness on Question 3. However, because this witness makes no specific allegations on licensees' non-compliance with NRC guidelines, this testimony is irrelevant and merely burdens the hearing schedule with superfluous materials.
  1. 24 Myles Lavelle The testimony of Myles Lavelle should be stricken because it does not allege non-compliance with NRC regulations.

It is claimed that the subject of his testimony is Question 3, however neither refers to the controlling NRC regulations nor alleges licensees' non-compliance with the regulations.

s Thus, this testimony is irrelevant because it is beyond the scope of Question.3.

  1. 17 Robert T. Johnson -

The testimony neither alleges non-compliance with NRC/ FEMA guidelines, nor offers any suggested improvements in

, 'of f-site emergency planning. Thus, it is not proper Questions 3 and 4 testimony.

, #97 Reverend David B. Wayne The testimony of David B. Wayne should be stricken

  • because it Coes not allege non-compliance with NRC regulations.

While Parents Concerned About Indian Point have offered Reverend Wayne on Question 3, he makes no specific allegations of licensees' non-compliance with NRC guidelines. Thus, Reverend Wayne fails to meet this prerequisite and his testimony is consequently irrelevant.

  1. 96 Rev. Roberty W. Hare This testimony should be struck since Rev. Hare already made a limited appearance statement.
  1. 127 David A. Churchill The testimony of David A. Churchill should be stricken because it does not allege non-compliance with NRC regulations. While WBCA and Parents have offered.Mr. Churchill as a witness on Question 3 he makes no specific allegations of licensees' non-compliance with NRC guidelines. Thus, this

. _ ~ __ _.__

testimony is irrelevant because it is beyond the scope of Question 3.

  1. 115 Barbara Gochman .

The testimony of Barbara Gochman should be stricken because it does not allege non-compliance with any NRC/PEMA guidelines. Ms. Gochman is to testify on behalf of Parents, ostensibly on the subject of Question 3. However, this' wit-ness neither refers to any NRC regulations nor alleges li-censees' non-compliance with'such regulations. Thus, this testimony is beyond the scope of Question 3.

  1. 86 " Vincent J. Rubeo This testimony of Vincent Rubeo should be stricken because it does not allege non-compliance with any NRC/ FEMA guidelines. Mr. Rubeo is to testify on behalf of Parents, ostensibly on the subject of Question 3. However, this witness neither refers to any NRC regulations nor alleges licensees' non-compliance with such regulations. Thus this testimony is beyond the scope of Question 3.
  1. 125 Mary Lou Gohring .

The testimony of Mary Lou Gohring should be stricken because it does not allege non-compliance with any NRC/ FEMA guidelines. Ms. Gohring is to testify on behalf of RCSE/ Parents, ostensibly on the subject of Question 3. However, this witness neither refers to any NRC regulations nor alleges licensees'

non compliance with such regulations. Thus this testimony is beyond the scope of Question 3.

Friday,. March 18, 1983 ,

  1. 50 Richard Lang The testimony of Richard Lang should be stricken because it is repetitive and adds no new material to these hearings. Mr. Lang discusses the effects of an evacuation on emotionally disabled adults in Westchester County. This testimony merely duplicates testimony of this nature submitted by Charles Awalt and repeats many general statements submitted by intervenor witness Gladys Burger.
  1. 51 John Moore That part of the testimony of John Moore which is repetitive of general statements of other intervenor witnesses should be stricken to prevent burdening the hearings with duplicate materials. Mr. Moore discusses the fact that handicapped children may require medication. Additionally, he believes that many teachers who are also mothers will be concerned about their own children. Witnesses Charles Awalt and Betsy Bergman discuss these very problems in their testimony. It is unproductive to permit such cumulative testimony in these hearings.

1 4

  1. 54 Ronni Witkin Schwartz The testimony of Ronni Witkin Schwartz should be stricken because it is cumulative of other testimony and does not benefit the hearings with any new material.

The fact that the roads may be " jammed" with other evacuees has been discussed during lengthy county testimony. Moreover, other

~

intervenor witnesses have discussed the problem of administering medication to the handicapped (See Charles Awalt's testimony on this issue). In addition, the belief that teachers will abandon their students to rush home to'their own children has

! already been considered during county testimony and additionally, Betsy Bergman, another intervenor witness makes this point in her testimony.

  1. 164 Jane Capon Those parts of the testimony of Jane Capon, which discuss bus drivers ' refusals to evacuate children and teachers' refusal to remain behind with their students should be stricken because these statements are cumulative and add I

no new material to these hearings. The fact that bus drivers may refuse to transport children has already been discussed

by various county witnesses. Additionally, intervenor witness, Betsy Bergman, considers the possibility that teachers may abandon their pupils in order to assist their own families.
  1. 141 Madeleine & Marc Holzer Those parts of the testimony of,Madeleine and Marc i

1-i

l Holzer which discuss the inadequate exiting roads of Croton and the inadequate warning sirens should be stricken because they repeat statements made by another intervenor witness. Shirley S. Gunn, a Croton teacher, adequately discusses the Croton roadway system problem and the siren concerns. It is unnecessary to duplicate these statements as this merely burdens the hearings with superfluous materials.

  1. 161 Linda Puglisi That part of the testimony of Linda Puglisi which states the belief that the Indian Point plant should be closed because it is "too worn and old proven by the numerous leakages throughout the past couple of years" should be stricken because it is outside the scope of Questions 3'and 4. This statement does not specifically address non-compliance with NRC regulations nor does it provide suggestions for improving of f-site emergency planning and consequently it is irrelevant.
  1. 100 Sally Ziegler That part of the testimony of Sally Ziegler which discusses reluctance of day care workers to accompany their students to reception centers should be stricken because it is repetitive and adds no new material to these hearings. The fact that teachers might abandon their pupils was discussed during Rockland County hearings before this Board. It serves no purpose to duplicate this material but rather, burdens the rigorous hearing schedule.
  1. 10 Arthur B. Zelman The testimony of Arthur B. Zelman should be stricken because it is outside the scope of Commission Questiona 3 and
4. Dr. Ze?Jan offers no testimony which alleges licensees' non-compliance with NRC regulations. Moreover, he does not suggest improvements in off-site emergency planning. Rather, he presents problems which can occur if a child is not informed of evacuation plans. Thereafter, he presents additional, more serious problems which can occur if a child is informed about evacuation plans and the reasons for it. Since Dr.

Zelman's testimony provides no suggestions which tend to ,

improve of f-site emergency planning, this testimeny is ir-

. relevant.

Tuesday, March 22, 1983

  1. 135 Helen Ancona That part of the testimony of Helen Ancona which discusses previous incidents at Indian Point should be stricken because it is beyond the scope of Commission Questions 3 and
4. It alleges no specific non-compliance with NRC and FEMA regulations. Additionally, it suggests no possible improvements on off-site emergency planning. Rather, this testimony deals with an October 17, 1980 incident and Indian Point's overall performance rating. This material is irrelevant to the present proceeding. In addition, this should be stricken because

Ms. Ancona has already testified during the limited appearance statement hearings.

  1. 105 Fern Narod-Shiek The testimony of Fern Narod-Shiek should be stricken because it is repetitive of testimony of others, and additionally because this witness has already testified during a limited appearance hearing held on January 21, 1982. Ms. Narod-Shiek's comments on bus drivers have already been received during the Ro'ckland County hearings. It would be superfluous to accommodate more bus driver testimony.
  1. 39 Sonny Hall The testimony of Sonny Hall should be stricken because it does not allege any non-compliance with NRC regulations. UCS/NYPIRG and-Parents have offered this witness to testify on Commission Question 3, but the testi-mony fails to allege licensees' non compliance with NRC and FEMA guidelines. Consequently, this testimony is beyond the scope of Questions 3 and 4 and is therefore irrelevant.
  1. 36 Richard F. Herbek Those parts of the testimony of Richard F. Herbek which discuss bottlenecks on evacuation routes listed for Croton and asdequate evacuation of Croton's 1,622 school children should be stricken because it merely duplicates other intervenors' testimony. Shirley S. Gunn adequately discusses the poor g _ _ _

road system leading out of Croton. Additionally , David Siegel '

and John Iurato discuss the evacuation ..

of school children.

Consequently, these parts of Mr. Herbek's testimony are duplicative and unnecessary.

  1. 85 Raymond Bowles e

i That part of the testimony of Raymond Bowles which discusses depressed real estate property values within the EPZ should be stricken because it is outside the scope of Questions 3 and 4 and therefore irrelevant. This portion of Mr.

Bowles testimony does not discuss licensees' non-compliance with,NRC regulations nor does it suggest measures to improve off-site emergency planning. Consequently, it is irrelevant and does not benefit these proceedings.

  1. 126 Lois Jessup The testimony of Lois Jessup should be stricken because it is outside the scope of Questions 3 and 4 and duplicative. That part of the testimony which requests instructions from the licensees for individuals residing outside the EPZ who often travel into the EPZ is beyond the scope of Question 4. Specifically, Contention 4.7 is not addressed to individuals residing outside the EPZ.

j- Those parts of Ms. Jessup's testimony which discuss road jams have been addressed during the week of Rockland County testimony. Additionally, Ms. Jessup's concern for l

evacuating visitors at various state parks is adequately addressed by Robert T. Johnson (#17). Finally, the testimony should be struck due to the fact that Ms.Jessup has previously offered a limited appearance statement.

  1. 56 Evan Litty Those parts of the testimony of Evan Litty which discuss the emergency planning brochure and sudden death syndrome should be stricken because they are outside the scope of Questions 3 and 4. Although Litty did not receive ,

an emergency planning brochure, this fact is irrelevant because she does not reside within the EPZ, and is there-fore is not covered by Contention 4.7.

The witness' testimony regarding her electricity recently being cut off during a storm similarly does not arise under Questions 3 and 4.

Respec ully submitted, a F Brent L. Brandenburg CONSOLIDATED EDISON COMPANY OF NEW YORK, INC.

Licensee of Indian Point Unit 2 4 Irving Place New York, New York 10003 (212) 460-4333 Dated: New York, New York March 14, 1983 Of Counsel:

Thomas J. Farrelly

\

UNITED STATED OF AMERICA

, NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSION ATOMIC SAFETY AND LICENSING BOARD Before' Administrative Judges:

James P. Gleason, Chairman Dr. Oscar H. Paris Frederick J. Shon .

,---------------------------------x .

CONSOLIDATED EDISON COMPANY OF  : Docket Nos. 50--247-SP NEW YORK, INC. (Indian Point,  : 50-286-SP Unit No. 2)  :

POWER AUTHORITY OF THE STATE OF  : March 14, 1983 NEW YORK, (Indian Point,  :

Unit No. 3)  :

x CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE

, I certify that I have served copies of Con Edison's Motio n to Dismiss Intervenor Witnesses by hand on parties indicated by asterisk and by postage prepaid by United States mail on all the parties.

Docketing and Service Branch d7Mr. Frederick J. Shon Office of the Secretary Administrative Judge U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Atomic Safety and Licensing Commission Board Washington, D.C. 20555 U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission d(James P. Gleason, Esq., Chairman Washington, D.C. 20555 Administrative Judge ,

513 Gilmoure Drive jf' James A. Laurenson Silver Springs, Maryland 20901 Administrative Judge Atomic Safety and Licensing 3 Dr. Oscar H. Paris Board Administrative Judge U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Atomic Safety and Licensing Commission Board Washington, D.C. 20555 U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission Washington, D.C. 20555

i Joan Miles Alan Latman, Esq.

Indian Point Coordinator 44 Sunset Drive New York City Audubon Society Croton-on-Hudson, New York 10520 71 W. 23rd Street, Suite 1828 New York, New York 10010 Richard M. Hartzman, Esq.

Lorna Salzman Greater New York Council on Friends of the Earth, Inc.

Energy 208 West 13th Street c/o Dean R. Corren, Director New York, New York 10011 New York University 26 Stuyvesant Street 972ipporah S. Fleisher New York, New York 10003 West Branch Conservation 443 Buena Vista Road Atomic Safety and Licensing New York, New York 10956 Board Panel U.S. Nuclear Regulatory ~ Mayor F. Webster Pierce Commission

  • Village of Buchanan Washington, D.C. 20555 236 Tate Avenue Buchanan, New York 10511 Atomic Safety and Licensing $LJudith Kessler, Coordinator Appeal Board Panel Rockland Citizens for Safe U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Energy Commission 300 New Hempstead Road Washington, D.C. 20555 New City, New York 10956 Richard L. Brodsky David H. Pikus, Esq.

Member of the County Legislature Richard F. Czaja, Esq.

Westchester County 330 Madison Avenue

. County Office Building New York, New York 10017 White Plains, New York 10601

$Phyllis Rodriguez, Spokesperson JrAmanda Potterfield, Esq.

Parents Concerned About New York Public Interest

. Indian Point Research Group, Inc. .

P.O. Box 125 9 Murray Street, 3rd Floor Croton-on-Hudson, New York 10520 New York, New York 10007

)fCharles A. Scheiner Janice Moore, Esq.

Co-Chairperson Office of the Execitive Westchester People's Action Legal Director Coalition, Inc. U.S. Nuclear Regulatory P.O. Box 488 Commission White Plains, New York 10602 Washington, D.C. 20555 Stewart M. Glass Regional Counsel, Room 1347 Federal Emergency Management Agency -

26 Federal Plaza New York, New York 10278 e

Paul F. Colarulli, Esq. Charles J. Maikish, Esq.

Joseph J. Levin, Jr., Esq. Litigation Division  ;

Pamela S. Horowitz, Esq. The Port Authority of' '

Charles Morgan, Jr., Esq. New York and New Jersey Morgan Associates, Chartered One World Trade Center 1899 L Street, N.W. New York, New York 10048 Washington, D.C. 20036 Ezra I. Bialik, Esq.

Charles M. Pratt, Esq. Steve Leipsiz, Esq.

Stephen L. Baum New York State Attorney Power Authority of the State General's Office of New York Two World Trade Center 10 Columbus Circle New York, New York 10047 New York, New York 10019 Alfred B. Del Bello Ellyn R. Weiss, Esq. Westchester County Executive William S. Jordan, III, Esq. 148 Martine Avenue Harmon & Weiss White Plains, New York 10601 1725 I Street, N.W., Suite 506 -

Washington, D.C. 20006 Renee Schwartz, Esq.

Paul Chessin, Esq.

4Joan Holt, Project Director Laurens R. Schwartz, Esq.

Indian Point Project Botein, Hays, Sklar & Herzberg New York Public Interest 200 Park Avenue Research Group New York, New York 10166 9 Murray Street New York, New York 10007 Stanley B. Klimberg New York State Energy Melvin Goldberg 2 Rockefeller State Plaza Staff Attorney Albany, New York 12223 New York Public Interest Research Group Ruth Messinger 9 Murray Street Member of the Council of the New York, New York 10007 City of New York District #4 Jeffrey M. Blum City Hall New York University Law School New York, New York 10007 423 Vanderbilt Hall Washington Square South Marc L. Parris, Esq.

New York, New York 10012 County Attorney County of Rockland Donald Davidoff, Director 11 New Hempstead Road Radiological Preparedness New City, New York 10010 Group Empire State Plaza Craig Kaplan, Esq.

Tower Building - Room 1750 National Emergency Civil Albany, New York 12237 Liberties Committee 175 Fifth Avenue - Suite 712 New York, New York 10010

Jonathan D..Feinberg New York State Public Service Commission David B. Duboff Three Empire State Plaza Westchester People's.

Albany, New York 12223 Action Coalition 255 Grove Street Steven C. Sholly White Plains, New York 10601 Union of Concerned Scientists Spence W. Perry 1346 Connecticut Avenue, N.W. Office of General Counsel Suite 1101 Federal Emergency Washington, D.C. 20036 Management Agency 500 C Street Southwest fDavid Lewis, Esq. Washington, D.C. 20472 Atomic Safety and Licensing a

Board Panel Andrew S. Roffe, Esq.

U.S. Nuclear Regulatory New York State Assembly Commission Albany, New York 12248 Washington, D.C. 20555 i Dated: March 14, 1983 New York, New York 0 faAUN O o

e a

i e

_ , - , --

Retrieved from "https://kanterella.com/w/index.php?title=ML20069B828&oldid=2923885"