ML20069D049
| ML20069D049 | |
| Person / Time | |
|---|---|
| Site: | Indian Point  |
| Issue date: | 03/14/1983 |
| From: | Morgan C MORGAN ASSOCIATES, POWER AUTHORITY OF THE STATE OF NEW YORK (NEW YORK |
| To: | Atomic Safety and Licensing Board Panel |
| References | |
| ISSUANCES-SP, NUDOCS 8303180235 | |
| Download: ML20069D049 (16) | |
Text
!
s b e;
' hQTED or
'83 p'""o I7
$0 :53 UNITED STATES OF AMERICA NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSION ATOMIC 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.
CONSOLIDATED EDISON COMPANY OF NEW YORK, 50-247 SP INC. (Indian Point, Unit No. 2) 50-286 SP POWER AUTHORITY OF THE STATE OF NEW YORK March 14, 1983 (Indian Point, Unit No. 3)
x POWER AUTHORITY'S MOTION TO STRIKE SELECTED INTERVENOR TESTIMONY ATTORNEYS FILING THIS DOCUMENT:
Charles Morgan, Jr.
Joseph J.
Levin, Jr.
Paul F.
Colarulli MORGAN ASSOCIATES, CHARTERED 1899 L Street, N.W.
Washington, D.C.
20036 (202) 466-7000 8303180235 830314 PDR ADOCK 05000247 0
Preliminary Statement Power Authority of the State of New York
(" Power Authority"), licensee of Indian Point 3 Nuclear Power Plant, hereby moves for an order striking the portions of direct testimony indicated below filed by the various intervenors herein.
The Power Authority reserves its rights to move to strike additional testimony at the time each witness is presented, based, inter alia, on voir dire or subsequent developments.
At the outset, we strenuously object to Intervenors Witness List for Commission Questions 3 and 4 filed on March 11, 1983 (the "intervenor witness list").
Intervenors incredibly propose to present 99 witnesses in the five-day period allocated by the Board and at least 4 additional witnesses at later dates.
This outrageous proposal flaunts the Recommended Decision of Judge James A. Laurenson and the Board's adoption thereof.1 Even assuming that many of these witnesses will be presented as so-called " panels"2 (a device which has proven of little or no time-saving benefit in the 1
This is not the first time that intervenors have defied scheduling limitations.
At the outset of the proceeding, intervenors failed to comply with the Board's directive to reduce their scheduled witnesses to a reasonable number.
(T: 1064, 1191.)
2 The Power Authority further objects to the intervenors' failure to identify which witnesses will be presented as panels, and submits that the intervenors have forfeited any right to group as belated panels any witnesses who pre-filed individual testimony.._
past), the 99 witnesses (among whom are numerous experts and local officials) cannot possibly be cross-examined within 5 days.
For these reasons, as well as under general evidentiary principles, the Power Authority moves to strike the testimony set forth below.3 Even if the Board strikes the testimony indicated below, we believe that the Board will be required to take additional action in accordance with Judge Laurenson's Recommended Decision in order to accomodate the present schedule.
As Judge Laurenson noted:
The fact that I have not recommended the elimination of certain testimony proffered by intervenors should not be construed as an indication of its admissibility.
In fact, my review of the written direct testimony of intervenors' 170 witnesses led me to conclude that the majority of it was of little or no probative value in light of the state of the record at the present time.
I previously stated my reasons for not recommending its elimination at this time.
However, it should be readily apparent from l
the suggested schedule of remaining days I
available to intervenors that even with limitations on cross-examination, only a fraction of their witnesses will be able to testify.
Frankly, I believe that this is a j
benefit rather than a flaw in my proposal.
The intervenors should be given the 3
We continue'to believe that a party should not have to recommend which witnesses another party should call, and in no way seek to limit public participation.
The j
intervenors' continued disregard of scheduling realities, however, has left the Power Authority little choice but to l
make the instant motion.
The Power Authority also i
maintains and renews all of its prior objections regarding i
intervenor witnesses, including its objection to being placed in a position of determining which intervenor witnesses should be heard.,
i I
opportunity to again review their schedule of propos6d witnesses and cull out only those with significant testimony on the issues at hand.
Based upon my review of the record and the intervenors' proposed testimony, I submit my observations for the record.
In my opinion, very little, if any, of the testimony proposed for panels of community witnesses is of any
?robative value.
For example, I found not.1ing in the testimony of the panel of pastors which, by virtue of their positions as clergy, distinguishes their testimony from that of any other lay witness.
The Board has already heard testimony from county and local officials concerning the subjects of transportation, schools, police, ambulance, reception centers, communications, condition of roads, and certain handicapped groups.
In light of the limited time available for this matter, intervenors should take this opportunity to reexamine their list of witnesses and pare it to those who have relevant, material and probative evidence to offer.
While I understand the inter-venors' concern that affected residents of the area should be permitted to testify, I believe that this position should yield to the necessity to present expert testimony on the subject of emergency planning in the limited time available.
If intervenors do not voluntarily reduce the number of proposed witnesses, but attempt to call the panels of community witnesses on subjects that have already been the subject of previous testimony, the Board should be prepared to rule on the admissibility of such evidence pursuant to 10 CFR S2.757.
(Emphasis added.)
l (Recommended Decision at 16-17.)
f
_4_
We continue to believe that the testimony of Intervenors' so-called " community witnesses" is generally cumulative and repetitive, and can not be presented within the available hearing time.
Finally, the Power Authority objects to the inade-quate discovery provided by the intervenors with respect to the proposed witnesses.
Of 7 expert witnesses of whom licen-sees have requested depositions, none have yet been produced, and intervenors have indicated that, at most, only 2 might be made available.
Furthermore, intervenors have not supplemented their answers to interrogatories filed nearly one year ago.
Such inadequate discovery violates due process.
TESTIMONY TO BE STRICKEN Objection Abbreviations (C)
Cumulative and/or repetitive (Co)
Conclusory (F)
Inadequate foundation (H)
Hearsay and/or lack of personal knowledge (N)
Improper notice (O)
Outdated (R)
Irrelevant, immaterial, and/or beyond scope of Commission Questions 3 and 4 (S)
Speculative. _ _
s.
O Testimony is identified in the order it appears in intervenors' witnesses list.
In some instances, the Power Authority's motion to strike contains both grounds for striking all of the witness' testimony and alternative grounds for striking portions thereof.
Witness (Intervenor number)
Page (Line)
Objections Erikson (148)4 All of supple-H,R mental testimony Courtney (134) 1(12)-2(2)
H 2(11)-(19)
S 2(20)-(28)
S,H 3(1)-(10)
R King (41) 1(16)-end H
Galdono (42) 1(13)-(18)
H,S 2(18)-(21)
H Connelly (150) 1(33)-(34)
H Brooker (151) 3(2)-(5)
S 3(17)-(25)
S,0,C 4(18)-(21)
S 5(1)-(8)
S Ford (140) 1(8)-(14)
H 2(4)-3(4)
S 3(9)-(17)
S 4(10)-(12)
H 4(14)-(17)
S 4(20)-(24)
S 4 Since Dr. Erikson was the only witness identified by intervenors prior to March 11, licensees were earlier able to file a written motion to strike his supplemental testimony.
l :
,.,.~.....
Bulleit (131) 1(33)-(35)
H 1(38)-end F,R,Co Burgher (138) 2(18)-(20)
H 3(12)-4(4)
H Iurato (87) 2(21)-(25)
H Doughty (110) 1(5)-(8)
S 1(14)-(20)
H,S Melbin (168)
All R
Smith (20)
All O,F,R Co (75) 3(8)-(9)
R 5(5)-(6)
S 5(8)-(10)
S 5(21)-(23)
S 6(24)-7(12)
R 7(13)-(14)
F,H 8(9)-(12)
F,R,C 8(21)-(23)
R Saunders (73) 2(17)-(18)
R 3(3)-(5)
S Cohen (58A) 2(22)-(24)
F,S Teasdale (133) 1(13)-(15)
F,S Dyer (147) 2(7)-(8)
H Blattstein (59) 2(6)-(19)
F,H Sbarra (60) 1(9)-(16)
R 1(17)-2(7)
H,S 2(10)-(12)
R Simon (65) 2(2)-(4)
F,H
~
4 Vinci.(46) 1(3)-(5)
F 1(13)-(15)
S Kriveloff (4)
All F5,H Sheer (112) 2(2)-(3)
S 2(6)-(19)
H 2(20)-(23)
R McGovern (144) 1(2)-(3)
Co 1(5)-2(1)
S,Co 2(2)-(12)
R I
Gromack (70) 2(7)-(9)
Co 2(17)-(19)
S 2(20)-(24)
Co Supplemental testimony:
2(1)-end H
Conklin (98) 1(5)
H 1(11)-end S,R Lavelle (24) 2(23)-(25)
R i
Johnson (7) 1(9)-(20)
H 1(22)-(23)
H,S,F 1(27)-2(17)
H,S,Co 2(25)-end H,Co Wayne (97) 2(12)-(15)
S 2(16)-(18)
H 3(26)-4(10)
H,S 4(11)-end Co Hare (96) 1(16)-(21)
S 1(22)-(24)
H,R 2(4)-(9)
R 2(12)-(15)
H i
2(17)-end H,S Johnson (32) 1(23)-(25)
S 2(5)-(9)
H 2(13)-(16)
H,S,R 2(30)-end H,S,Co,R 5 In particular, the direct testimony fails to qualify the witness as an expert.
4 Burger (63) 1(15)-(23)
H,Co 2(1)-(10)
H,S 2(13)-(21)
H 2(25)-3(3)
H 2(8)-(21)
H,S 4(6)-(9)
H 4(12)-(14)
S,Co 4(19)-(22)
H-5(11)-(12)
R,H,Co Cormican (173) 1(20)-2(1)
H 2(19)-(22)
H 3(12)-4(23)
S,Co 5(5)-(12)
R 5(18)-end H,C,S Guchman (115) 1(4)-(5)
H 1(8)-(10)
S 1(14)-(16)
H 1(18)-(21)
H Rubeo (86) 1(1)-(7)
R 2(24)-end H,S,Co Sekelsky (88) 2(3)-(6)
R Indusi (124) 1(7)-(17)
H,Co,S 2(1)-(4)
Co,S 2(8)-(11)
H 2(24)-3(2)
H 3(7)-end S,Co Gohring (125) 1(4)-(9)
S 1(15)-end S,H,Co Bergman (53) 1(25)-(34)
S,Co 2(13)-(19)
H Awalt (49)
All of supple-mental testimony C
2(7)-(9)
H 2(19)-end C,R O'Brien (50)
All N,F 1(7)-(8)
H Moore (51) 1(6)-(9)
H 2(1)-(6)
S,Co,H !
^
Bethge (52) 1(18)-(20)
R 2(5)-(6)
S,Co 2(15)-(18)
H 2(29)-(32)
S,Co Gunn (159) 1(30)-2(17)
H 2(25)-(31)
H,S,Co 3(16)-(20)
H,R,Co Capon (164) 2(19)-(24)
S Puglisi (161) 1(11)-(17)
R 2(1)-end H
ziegler (100) 1(5)-(9)
Co 1(24)-2(13)
H,Co Helbraun (99) 2(5)-end H,N Zelman (10)
All C,R de Ward (78) 1(3)-(9)
R 1(14)-(17)
H 1(18)-(22)
S,Co 1(27)-(28)
F,S,Co 2(16)-end Co,R Ancona (135) 1(7)-2(9)
S,Co,F,R 2(17)-(18)
Co,S 2(19)-end H,R,Co Narod-Shiek (105) 2(18)-(23)
Co 2(26)-(31)
S,Co 3(7)-(14)
H Roden (84)
Supplemental testimony:
1(12)-end H,S,Co Rodriguez (102) 1(20)-(23)
F 2(20)-(24)
H Bowles (85) 1(12)-2(1)
R 2(1)-(12)
H,S,Co 2(18)-(21)
H 2(22)-end R,H i
Kahn (120) 2(1)-(5)
R 2(14)-(15)
-R Jessup (126) 2(26)-3(3)
H,Co 3(4)-end H
Litty (56) 1(4)-(5)
H Murphy (40)
All R6,H Supplemental testimony:
2(25)-3(20)
R,Co 7(18)-8(2)
H,Co 8(17)-(18)
Co 8(22)-11(5)
R 11(14)-12(16)
H,R 12(23)-13(15)
H,R Exhibit H,C,R Intervenors have requested leave to present witnesses Kagan (103), Lifton (149), Bower (43), and Brazelton (128) at later dates.
The Power Authority objects to any further expansion of the hearing schedule, and submits that this additional testimony is cumulative and repeats other testimony already offered.
6
- See, e.g.,
Southern California Edison Co. (San Onofre Nuclear Generating Station, Units 2 and 3), ALAB-680 (July 16, 1982) (regulations require arrangements only for treating persons who are both injured and contaminated).
l l i
r Respectfully submitted,
_W.
Charles Morgan, Jr.
Paul F.
Colarulli Joseph J.
Levin, Jr.
MORGAN ASSOCIATES, CHARTERED 1899 L Street, N.W.
Washington, D.C.
20036 (202) 466-7000 Stephen L.
Baum General Counsel Charles M.
Pratt Assistant General Counsel POWER AUTHORITY OF THE STATE OF NEW YORK Licensee of Indian Point Unit 3 10 Columbus Circle New York, New York 10019 (212) 397-6200 Bernard D.
Fischman Michael Curley Richard F.
Czaja David H.
Pikus SHEA & GOULD 330 Madison Avenue New York, New York 10017 (212) 370-8000 Dated:
March 14, 1983 4 --
!e 4
UNITED STATES OF AMERICA NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSION ATOMIC SAFETY AND LICENSING BOARD Before Administrative Judges:
James P. Gleason, Chairman Frederick J.
Shon Dr. Oscar H.
Paris
)
In the Matter of
)
Docket Nos.
)
CONSOLIDATED EDISON COMPANY OF NEW YORK,
)
50-247 SP INC. (Indian Point, Unit No. 2)
)
50-286 SP
)
POWER AUTHORITY OF THE STATE OF NEW YORK
)
March 14, 1983 (Indian Point, Unit No. 3)
)
)
CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE I hereby certify that copies of POWER AUTHORITY'S MOTION TO STRIKE SELECTED INTERVENOR TESTIMONY and POWER AUTHORITY'S MOTION FOR WAIVER OF EXHIBIT DISTRIBUTION in the above-captioned proceeding have been served on the following by deposit in the United States mail, first class, this lith day of March, 1983.
Docketing and Service Branch Ellyn R.
Weiss, Esq.
Of fice of the Secretary William S. Jordan, III, Esq.
U.
S.
Nuclear Regulatory Harmon & Weiss Commission 1725 I Street, N.W.,
Suite 506 Washington, D.C.
20555 Washington, D.C.
20006
- James P.
Gleason, Esq., Chairman
- Joan Holt, Project Director Administrative Judge Indian Point Project Atomic Safety and Licensing New York Public Interest Board Research Group 513 Gilmoure Drive 9 Murray Street Silver Spring, Maryland 20901 New York, N.Y.
10007
i l
- Dr. Oscar H.
Paris
- Janice Moore, Esq.
Administrative Judge Counsel for NRC Staff
~ Atomic Safety and Licensing Office of the Executive U.S.
Nuclear Regulatory Legal Director Commission U.S.
Nuclear Regulatory Washington, D.C.
20555 Commission Washington, D.C.
20555
- Mr.
Frederick J.
Shon Brent L.
Brandenburg, Esq.
Administrative Judge Assistant General Counsel Atomic Safety and Licensing Consolidated Edison Co.
Board of New York, Inc.
U.S.
Nuclear Regulatory 4 Irving Place Commission New York, N. Y.
10003 Washington, D.C.
20555
- Jeffrey M.
Blum, Esq.
Charles J.
Maikish, Esq.
New York University Law Litigation Division School The Port Authority of 423 Vanderbilt Hall New York and New Jersey 40 Washington Square South One World Trade Center New York, N.Y.
10012 New York, N.Y.
10048 Marc L.
Parris, Esq.
Ezra I.
Bialik, Esq.
Eric Thorsen, Esq.
Steve Leipsig, Esq.
County Attorney Enviromental Protection Bureau County of Rockland New York State Attorney 11 New Hemstead Road General's Office New City, N.Y.
10956 Two World Trade Center New York, N.Y.
10047 Joan Miles Alfred B.
Del Bello Indian Point Coordinator Westchester County Executive New York City Audubon Society Westchester County 71 West 23rd Street, Suite 1828 148 Martine Avenue New York, N.Y.
10010 White Plains, N.Y.
10601 1
Greater New York Council on Energy c/o Dean R.
10003 l
l
- i
Atomic Safety and Licensing Atomic Safety and Licensing Board Panel Appeal Board Panel U.S.
Nuclear Regulatory U.S.
Nuclear Regulatory Commission Commission Washington, D.C.
20555 Washington, D.C.
20555 Andrew S.
Roffe, Esq.
Honorable-Richard L.
Brodsky New York State Assembly Member of the County
- Albany, N.Y.
12248 Legislature Westchester County County Office Building White Plains, N.Y.
10601 Renee Schwartz, Esq.
- Phyllis Rodriguez, Paul Chessin, Esq.
Spokesperson Laurens R.
Schwartz, Esq.
Parents Concerned About Margaret Oppel, Esq.
Indian Point Botein, Hays, Sklar & Herzberg P.O.
Box 125 200 Park Avenue Croton-on-Hudson, N.Y.
10520 New York, N.Y.
10166 Stanley B.
Klimberg Charles A.
Scheiner, Co-General Counsel Chairperson New York State Energy Office Westchester People's Action 2 Rockefeller State Plaza Coalition, Inc.
Albany, New York 12223 P.O.
Box 488 White Plains, N.Y.
10602 Honorable Ruth Messinger Alan Latman, Esq.
Member of the Council of the 44 Sunset Drive City of New York Croton-on-Hudson, N.Y.
10520 District No. 4 City Hall New York, New York 10007
- Richard M.
Hartzman, Esq.
- Zipporah S.
Fleisher Lorna Salzman West Branch Conservation Friends of the Earth, Inc.
Association 208 West 13th Street 443 Buena Vista Road New York, N.Y.
10011 New City, N.Y.
10956 _ _ - _ _
\\
\\
Mayor George V.
Begany
- Judith Kessler, Coordinator Village of Buchanan Rockland Citizens for Safe 236 Tate Avenue Energy
- Buchanan, N.Y.
10511 300 New Hempstead Road New City, N.Y.
10956
- David R.
Lewis, Esq.
Mr. Donald Davidoff Atomic Safety and Licensing Director, Radiological Board Panel Emergency Preparedness U.S.
Nuclear Regulatory Group Commission Empire State Plaza Washington, D.C.
20555 Tower Building, RM 1750 Albany, New York 12237 Stewart M.
Glass
- Amanda Potterfield, Esq.
Regional Counsel New York Public Interest Room 1349 Research Group, Inc.
Emergency Management 9 Murray Street, Agency 3rd Floor 26 Federal Plaza New York, N.Y.
10007 New York, New York 10278 Melvin Goldberg Steven C.
Sholly Staff Attorney Union of Concerned Scientists New York Public Interest 1346 Connecticut Ave.,
N.W.
Research Group Suite 1101 9 Murray Street Washington, D.C.
20036 New York, New York 10007 Spence W.
Perry Office of General Counsel l
Federal Emergency Management i
Agency l
500 C Street, Southwest l
Washingtor.,
D.C.
20472 l
David H.
PiEus f/A k i
(
l Service also effected by hand on March 14, 1983.
! i I
l
.