ML20082H876

Response Opposing Air & Water Pollution Patrol 831121 Motion to Strike Applicant Testimony on Contention V-4.Proposition Re Temp & Moisture Conditions in Cooling Tower Plumes Unacceptable.Related Correspondence

ML20082H876
Person / Time
Site:	Limerick
Issue date:	11/28/1983
From:	Wetterhahn M CONNER & WETTERHAHN, PECO ENERGY CO., (FORMERLY PHILADELPHIA ELECTRIC
To:	Atomic Safety and Licensing Board Panel
Shared Package
ML20082H879	List: ML20082H876 ML20082H916 ML20082H937 ML20082H964 ML20082H985 ML20082J024
References
NUDOCS 8312010311
Download: ML20082H876 (4)

Text

. _ . _ ..__..a

. 6 EI) p ro g COMD \_ .

UNIhED STATES OF AMERICA . J"/N _

~

nii:70 NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSION i c[* 17/1it;+, . j 4

Before the Atomic Safety and Licensing Board

)

In the Matter of ) ,

g

) .

Philadelphia Electric Company ) Docket Nos. 50-352 '

) 50-353 (Limerick Generating Station, )

Units 1 and 2) )

APPLICANT'S RESPONSE TO AWPP'S MOTION TO STRIKE APPLICANT'S TESTIMONY ON CONTENTION V-4 In a document captioned "AWPP's (Romano) Motions to Strike Testimony," dated November 21, 1983, Mr. Frank R.

Romano of the Air and Water Pollution Patrol ("AWPP") moved that Applicant's testimony on Contention V-4 be stricken in its entirety. Applicant opposes this motion.

Mr. Romano's motion can be broken into four parts.

First, Mr. Romano asserts that " Applicant has not estab-lished" the proposition that temperature and moisture conditions in the Limerick cooling tower plumes will not be l

l significantly different from ambient air at a distance of one quarter mile or more from the plant.1/ As a basis for this statement, Mr. Romano asserts that there are flaws in l

the test methodology used in studies cited by Applicant in 1/ Motion_ at 1.

9312010311 031128

PDR ADOCK 05000352 0 PDR

. I its testimony. ! Thus, Mr. Romano moves that testimony on 3

this point be stricken as erroneous._/ This is not a legally sufficient reason for striking testimony. Mr.

Romano has not asserted that Applicant's testimony is l

irrelevant, immaterial or unreliable. 10 C.F.R. 52.743(c).

Rather, Mr. Romano, in effect, asserts that Applicant's I

testimony is erroneous and that it has not made its case.

At best, such assertions go to the weight to be accorded the

, testimony and are proper only for post-hearing pleadings.

Next, Mr. Romano asserts that "it is erroneous and dangerous to state that under no condition could an aircraft remain in the Limerick plume at an airport near Limerick for at least eight minutes."b! Mr. Romano then asserts that this statement is adequately disproved by AWPP's Response to Applicant's Motion for Summary Disposition on Contention V-4 and by Mr. Romano's written testimony. Finally, Mr. Romano again alleges that the studies relied on by Applicant utilize improper test methods and that Applicant's testimony should therefore be stricken. As noted above, such as-sertions do not provide a basis for striking testimony.

Third, Mr. Romano asserts that Applicant is ignorant of the minimal nature of pilot training. These statements are t

2/ Id.

3/ Id.

4/ Id. at 2.

l l

s _ . _ - - _ _ ~ _ _ , - _ _ - , , . , , . _ _ - _ - - - - .,.._.c- . , , , . _ _ _ _ _ . _ _ _ _ _ . - -

1 I

followed by the allegation, essentially a restatement of Mr.

Romano's contention, that cooling tower plumes will change local meteorological conditions to produce "a localized dew-point trap."5_/ Such statements do not provide any basis for striking Applicant's testimony.

Finally, Mr. Romano, citing a statement made in the affidavit of Harry Krug, a proposed NRC staff witness, alleges that Applicant is " seek (ing] to restrict the use of ,

I the FAA radio-guide VOR 116.5, by defining . . . the Limerick plume (s) as a cloud."bI Mr. Romano then character-izes PECO's position as "an apparent effort by the Applicant to avoid responsibility in case of aircraft accident, or infringement of the free use of the airspace in the Limerick area."1! An unrelated statement in Staff testimony is clearly insufficient as a basis for allegations about Applicant's intent and is clearly irrelevant as a legal justification for striking testimony. No reason under the Commission's Rules of Practice has been shown to strike this portion of the testimony.

5/ Motion at 3.

6/ Id.

7/ Id.

_4 Mr. Romano's motion should be denied en toto.

Respectfully Submitted, CONNER & W ERHAHN, P.C.

l l

Mark J. Wetterhahn Counsel for Philadelphia Electric Company November 28, 1983 i

i l

l l

l t