ML20083K600
| ML20083K600 | |
| Person / Time | |
|---|---|
| Site: | Shoreham File:Long Island Lighting Company icon.png |
| Issue date: | 04/13/1984 |
| From: | Christman J HUNTON & WILLIAMS, LONG ISLAND LIGHTING CO. |
| To: | Atomic Safety and Licensing Board Panel |
| References | |
| OL-3, NUDOCS 8404160230 | |
| Download: ML20083K600 (9) | |
Text
-
1 r
[h5l#6
'LILCO, A'pril 13, 1984 UNITED STATES OF AMERICA TjfqcT8 NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSION Before the Atomic Safety and LidhhskMbl8c AHdO7 In the Matter of
)
,t[rkT b
)
MANCH LONG ISLAND LIGHTING COMPANY
) Docket No. 50-322-OL-3
) (Emergency Planning Proceeding)
(Shoreham Nuclear Power Station,
)
Unit 1)
)
LILCO'S RESPONSE TO "SUFFOLK COUNTY MOTION TO STRIKE PORTIONS OF TESTIMONY OF HARRY N.
- BABB, GARY J.
BERGER, MATTHEW C.
CORDARO, CHARLES A. DAVERIO, DENNIS S. MILETI, WILLIAM F.
RENZ, AND RONALD A.
VARLEY ON BEHALF OF LONG ISLAND LIGHTING COMPANY ON PHASE II EMERGENCY PLANNING CONTENTIONS 39.A, B,
40, 41, 44.D, E AND F, 98, 99.C AND G, 100.B, D,
AND G" On April 9, 1984, Suffolk County filed its "Suffolk County Motion to Strike Portions of Testimony of Harry N. Babb, Gary J.
Berger, Matthew C. Cordaro, Charles A.
Daverio, Dennis S.
- Mileti, William F.
Renz, and Ronald A. Varley on Behalf of Long Island Lighting Company on Phase II Emergency Planning Contentions 39.A, B,
40, 41, 44.D, E and F, 98, 99.C and G, 100 B, D,
and G" (here-inafter " County Motion").
LILCO opposes portions of the County's motion and urges that those portions of the County's motion be denied for the reasons set forth below.
- 1. Answer 10, portion by Mileti, page 23, the last paragraph The County argues that this portion of the testimony should be stricken because the comparison of the LILCO training program with other training programs is not relevant.
The County argues here, as it has in its motions to strike LILCO's testimony on both 8404160230 840413 PDR ADOCK 05000322 O
PDR Z)s o2 1
w '+
e the Group II-A and Group II-B issues, that LILCO should ot be permitted to testify about how other emergency planners have hans 3
i died similar issues at other nuclear plants.
The County's argu-ment that such testimony is not relevant should be rejected.
As the Board noted when ruling on the County's motion to strike V
LILCO's testimony on Contentions 96.A and C, what LILCO's wit-
't 1,
nesses know of other emergency plans concerning the issues raised
'3 r.
by the contentions is relevant to a decision in this case'.
See <
s i
Tr. 5560-61 (March 30, 1984).
1 The County also argues that Dr. Mileti does not provide a I
detailed description of the other training programs that h6 has-
]
reviewed and the process by which he has reviewed those programs
~
and, therefore, that this portion of the testimony is "without probative value" and should~be stricken.
County Motion at 3.
's
%k This argument goes to the weight, not-the admissibility of the
~
evidence.
If the County wishes additional information_concerning this portion of,the testimony, it may seek ~to elicit such'informa-
'S t tion on cross-examination.
' li+
c
- 2. Answer 10, portion by Berger, page 24, first sentence; yn The County moves to-strike this portion of the testimony on, the grounds that a comparison of'LILCO's training program.with other training programs is not relevant and that the witness's'
'\\
comparison of _ the LILCO training program with other. trainin'g pro- ;f*'
grams that he has reviewed ~is.not probative.
In short, the. County-raises the same arguments that it raised with' respect to the j
.. g -
'(.
- .7 l
t u
l -
7 s
I i
testimony of Dr. Mileti in answer to Question 10.
As stated pre-i i,-
l
[viously, this Board has-in the past found that a comparison of 1
LILCO's emergency planning efforts with that of other nuclear power plants is relevant.
- See, e.g.,
Tr. 5560-61:(March 30, t
4 1984).
This portion of the testimony'should not be stricken.
Moreover, the' County's allegation that this portion of Mr.
Berger's testimony is not probative of the issues is an argument that goes to the weight and not the admissibility of the evidence.
1 See 10 C.F.R. $ 2.743(c) (1983).
h'
- 3. Answer 29, page 45, last three l'ines
[
The County moves to strike the sentence "[i]n no instance was there a shortage of manpower due to the failure of LILCO personnel h
to show up for 'their positions in the organization," on the -
grounds that it is irrelevant as well as repetitious and.cumula-tive of LILCO's testimony on Contention 25.
The portion of' LILCO's training-testimony that Suffolk County seeks to strike has i
been offered solely to provide background and context to support i
LILCO's belief that it can train LILCO employees to perform emer-I gency tasks that differ from their normal job activities.
In'that context, LILCO believes that the portion ~of the testimony in ques-tion is relevant.
However,. based on the County's assertion that this portion of 3
the testimon'y raises the issue of role-conflict and based'on LILdO's" experience at-the hearings during which it became' apparent tSht the County intends to use-references in LILCO's testimony'as i
3 I
i
?
su
a springboard from which to explore other issues (see Tr. 5587-98 (April 13, 1984)), LILCO does not contest this motion to strike and withdraws this sentence from the LILCO testimony.
LILCO takes this action to avoid the delay which cumulative questioning con-cerning issues of role conflict would undoubtedly cause.
- 4. Answer 31, paragraph beginning on page 48 through sentence ending on line 15 on page 49 In its motion to strike, Suffolk County alleges that the tes-timony in question is repetitious and cumulative of LILCO's testi-mony on Contention 25.
LILCO disagrees.
The referenced portion of the testimony does not repeat LILCO's role conflict testimony.
Rather, the testimony relates to the ability of LERO-trained per-sonnel to perform their jobs during an emergency "when the tasks to be performed may be accompanied by high levels of stress and fatigue involving life-threatening situations."
See Contention 40.
The portion of the testimony in question directly addresses the ability of people, even.those who do not have normal emergency jobs, to perform emergency work during the " stressful" situation which arises in conjunction with an emergency.
This testimony does not relate to whether emergency workers will report to their emergency jobs or whether they will suffer " role conflict" and, therefore, should not be stricken as cumulative or repetitious.
- 5. Question 50 and first two lines of Answer 50, page 71 First,.LILCO notes that it is difficult to ascertain pre-cisely the language that Suffolk County seeks to strike.
It is
1
-5 unclear whether suffolk County seeks to strike the first two sen-j.
tences of LILCO's response or whether Suffolk County seeks to strike only the first sentence and the phrase which begins the i
second sentence.
In either case, Suffolk County's motion to strike this portion of the testimony should be denied.
The testi-t mony in question draws a comparison between LILCO's method for i
incorporating free play for decisionmaking in its exercise and I
drill program and the method employed by other nuclear' facilities p
for incorporating free play for decisionmaking in their drill and j
exercise programs.
As the Board has previously ruled, comparisons
{
between LILCO's programs and those at other nuclear power plants j
are relevant to the issues in litigation.
- See, e.g.,
Tr. 5560-61 (March 30, 1984).
l
- 6. Questions and Answers 64, 65, 66 and 70, page 80-82, and 84
)
The County objects to the portions of LILCO's testimony in j
which the LILCO witnesses testify concerning.theEtraining materi-1 als and training program which LILCO proposes to offer to non-LILCO organizations such as schools, hospitals, nursing homes, adult homes, and other special facilities.
The County states-that 4
" speculation and conjecture about actions that LILCO might'take in l
the future is irrelevant and should be stricken."
County Motion at 7.
In support of its argument the County references portions of its motions to strike both Group II-A and Group II-B testimony;.
i j
in both its prior motions the County contends,.in essence,-that l
LILCO should.not be permitted to discuss future' planning' i
activities.
t 5
This Board has already ruled that LILCO's testimony concern-ing future planning activities are the proper subject of testi-mony.
On March 20, 1984, the Board ruled as follows:
Turning next to page 42 and 43, the objec-tion is to the answer to Question 110, for the reason that it amounts to allegedly im-proper speculation.
This Motion is denied.
LILCO can submit evidence concerning what it intends to do under certain circumstances.
Tr. 4003 (March 20, 1984).
As discussed at length in "LILCO's Answer to 'Suffolk County Motion to Strike Portions of LILCO's Group II-B Testimony,'" at pages 3-8, testimony concerning future planning activities is not speculation on the part of LILCO;-
rather, it is a commitment by LILCO, in this case, to offer such training to non-LILCO organizations.
Moreover, as LILCO noted in its Response to Suffolk County's Motion to Strike LILCO's Group II-B Testimony, it is permissible to have predictive testimony and predictive findings in the case of emergency planning proceedings.
See Louisiana Power & Light-Co. (Waterford Steam Electric Station, Unit 3), ALAB-732, 17 NRC 1076, 1103-08 (1983); Detroit Edison Co. (Enrico Fermi Atomic Power Plant, Unit 2), ALAB-730, 17 NRC 1057, 1066 (1983).
For the foregoing reasons, the County's motion to strike ~the portions of LILCO's testimony contained in Questions and Answers l
64, 65, 66 and 70 should be denied.
t 1
. Conclusion For the reasons stated above, LILCO opposes portions of.
Suffolk County's motion to strike and respectfully requests that those portions of the motion objected to be denied.
Respectfully submitted, Nb imes N. Christman ee B.
Zeugin Jessine A. Monagha Hunton & Williams 707 East Main Street Post Office Box 1535
-t Richmond, Virginia 23212 1
DATED:
April 13, 1984 i
1 j
j
.l
LILCO, April 13, 1984 CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE DOWUE U%RC In the Matter of LONG ISLAND LIGHTING COMPANY (Shoreham Nuclear Power Station, Un'84 ffR 16 M1 :07 (Emergency Planning Proceeding)
Docket No. 50-322-OL-3 7.g gg pegg.,1 LUCKETm0 l SERVICf I certify that copies of LILCO'S RESPONSE TO "SWF96dK COUNTY MOTION TO STRIKE PORTIONS OF TESTIMONY OF HARRY N. BABB, GARY J.
BERGER, MATTHEW C.
CORDARO, CHARLES A. DAVERIO, DENNIS S.
- MILETI, WILLIAM F.
RENZ, AND RONALD A.
VARLEY ON BEHALF OF LONG ISLAND LIGHTING COMPANY ON PHASE II EMERGENCY PLANNING CONTENTIONS 39.A, B,
40, 41, 44.D, E AND F, 98, 99.C AND G, 100.B, D, AND G" were served this date upon the following by first-class mail, postage prepaid, or by Federal Express (as indicated by one asterisk).
James A.
Laurenson,*
Eleanor L.
Frucci, Esq.*
Chairman, Atomic Safety Atomic Safety and Licensing and Licensing Board, U.S.
Board Panel, U.S.
Nuclear Nuclear Regulatory Commission Regulatory Commission East-West Tower, Rm. 402A East-West Tower, North Tower 4350 East-West Hwy.
4350 East-West Highway Beth6sda, MD 20814 Bethesda, MD 20814 Dr. Jerry R.
Kline*
Herbert H. Brown, Esq.*
Atomic Safety and Licensing Lawrence Coe Lanpher, Esq.
- Board, U.S.
Nuclear Christopher M. McMurray, Esq.
Regulatory Commission Kirkpatrick, Lockhart, Hill, East-West Tower, Rm. 427 Christopher & Phillips 4350 East-West Hwy.
8th Floor, 1900 M Street, N.W.
Bethesda, MD 20814 Washington, D.C.
20036 Mr. Frederick J.
Shon*
Stewart M. Glass, Esq.*
Atomic Safety and Licensing Regional Counsel, Federal
- Board, U.S.
Nuclear Emergency Management Agency Regulatory Commission 26 Federal Plaza, Room 1349 East-West Tower, Rm. 430 New York, NY 10278 4350 East-West Hwy.
Bethesda, MD 20814 James B.
Dougherty, Esq.*
3045 Porter Street Fabian G.
Palomino, Esq.*
Washington, D.C.
20008 Special Counsel to the Governor Executive Chamber, Rm. 299 Bernard M. Bordenick, Esq.*
State Capitol David A.
Repka, Esq.
Albany, New York 12224 Edwin J. Reis, Esq.
U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Ralph Shapiro, Esq.*
Commission (to mailroom)
Cammer and Shapiro, P.C.
7735 Old Georgetown Road 9 East 40th Street Bethesda, MD 20814 New York, NY '10016
- Stephen B.
Latham, Esq.*
Atomic Safety and Licensing Twomey, Latham & Shea Appeal Board Panel 33 West Second Street U.S.
Nuclear Regulatory P.O.
Box 398 Commission Riverhead, NY 11901 Washington, D.C.
20555 Gerald C.
Crotty, Esq.*
Atomic Safety and Licensing Counsel to the Governor Board Panel Executive Chamber U.S. Nuclear Regulatory State Capitol Commission Albany, NY 12224 Washington, D.C.
20555 Martin Bradley Ashare, Esq.*
Mr. Marc W.
Goldsmith Suffolk County Attorney Energy Research Group H.
Lee Dennison Building 4001 Totten Pond Road Veterans Memorial Highway Waltham, MA 02154 Hauppauge, New York 11788 MHB Technical Associates Spence W.
Perry, Esq.*
1723 Hamilton Avenue Assoc. General Counsel, Federal Suite K Emergency Management Agency San Jose, CA 95125 500 C Street, S.W.,
Room 840 Washington, D.C.
20472 Mr. Jay Dunkleberger New York State Energy Office Jonathan D.
Feinberg, Esq.
Agency Building 2 New York State Empire State Plaza Department of Public Service Albany, NY 12223 Three Rockefeller Plaza Albany, NY 12223 Ms. Nora Bredes Executive Coordinator Secretary of the Commission Shoreham opponents' Coalition U.S.
Nuclear Regulatory 195 East Main Street Commission Smithtown, NY 11787 Washington, D.C.
20555 Jessine A.
Nonaghan Hunton & Williams 707 East Main Street Post Office Box 1535 Richmond, Virginia 23212 DATED:
April 13, 1984