ML20084J621

Motion to Strike Identified Portions of Applicant Testimony on Contention 15 Re Credibility & Contention 11 Re Conflict of Interest.Certificate of Svc Encl

ML20084J621
Person / Time
Site:	Shoreham File:Long Island Lighting Company icon.png
Issue date:	05/07/1984
From:	Letsche K KIRKPATRICK & LOCKHART, SUFFOLK COUNTY, NY
To:	Atomic Safety and Licensing Board Panel
References
OL-3, NUDOCS 8405090164
Download: ML20084J621 (11)

Text

.

Ibk4k j UNITED STATEF CF AMERICA NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSION DOCKETED 1 USNRC ,

l Before the Atomic Safety and Licensing Board

'84 MAY -9 A!0:19 CFit:E C; SEC n

) COC'U.II.w & S P .

4,7,p.g

^ ~

In the Matter of )

) Docket No. 50-322-OL-3 LONG ISLAUD LIGHTING COMPANY ) (Energency Planning)

)

(Shoreham Nuclear Power Station, )

Unit 1) )

)

SUFFOLF CCUNTY MOTION TO STRIKE LILCO TESTIMONY ON CONTENTION 15 (CREDIBILITY) AND CONTENTION 11 (CONFLICT OF INTEREST)

Por the reasons discussed below, Suffolk County hereby moves to strike the following identified portions of LILCO's testinony on Contentions 15 and )).

s I. LILCO Testimony on Contention 15 A. Answer 7, page 16, lines 12 - 19 (through "because");

page 17, lines 20 - 23; page 18, the portion of line 3 which reads "or the County Executive";

page 19,- lines 7 - 11 ("If Suffolk ...

happen.")

None of this testimony is relevant to Contention 15, which deals with LILCO's lack of credibility. The testimony identi-l fied abcVe n11 discusses either the alleged credibility of the l

Government of Suffolk County or the Suffolk County Executive, 8405090164 840507 PDR ADOCK 05000322 O PDR h505

+

l I

or what LILCO believes Suffolk County would have to do if.it believed it could implement an emergency plan that would protect its citizens. It'is not relevant or probative of any issues raised in Contention 15 which are limited to matters involving LILCO's ability-to implement the LILCO Plan without participation by any State or local government. Therefore, this testimony should be stricken.

B. Answer 8, page 18, line 20 (after "?lo"),

through page 19, line 5 (sentence ending with " emergency plan");

page 19, the portion of line 6 which reads "this is not so";

page 19, .the portion of lines 12 - 13 which reads "and is therefore not exceptional in that reaard."

This testimony all purports to conpare LILCO's credibility with that of other utility companies. Such a comparison has no relevance to Contention 15, . which deals only with LILCC's cred-ibility and LILCO's ability to implement its offsite emergency response plan. The status of other utilities' credibility is not relevant to Contention 15, especially since no other utili-ty has ever purported to be:able, or attempted,Eto implement, without governmental participation, an offsite response plan

'for a nuclear power plant.. Ole testimony-is.not relevant, material, or probative with respect-to any: issue in Contention 15, and therefore should be' stricken.

l 2"-

w

1 I

e e I

C. Ouestion and Answer 11, pages 28 - 29; Ouestion and Answer 12, nace 30 This testimony again discusses the credibility of govern-rental officials. It is not relevant to Contention 15 for the reasons stated in Part I.A above.

D. Answer 16, page 30, line 1 (after "Ouite well") through line 11

(" Master Plan, and")

t This testimony discusses the credibility of the Governor of New York, Suffolk County, and the NRC, as well as some sup-nosed NRC activities under a " Federal Master Plan." None of these ratters are relevant to Contention 15, which deals with LILCO's credibility and LILCO's impl ementation of the LILCO Plan. The testimony should be stricken for the reasons discussed in Part I.A above, because it is not relevant or naterial to any issue in Contention 15.

E. Question and Answer 23, pages 47 - 52; Ouestion and Answers 25 - 27, pages 53 -

56 This testimony is cumulative and repetitious of LILCO's previously submitted testimony concerning Contention 23 -- the Evacuation Shadow Phenomenon. Specifically, the same matters are discussed at pages 26-36 of the LILCO's Evacuation Shadow

-Testimony. IILCO's repetition of the same discussion in its

testimony on Contention 15 is cumulative. It should be stricken.

F. Answer 29, page 59, line 14 through page 63:

Answer 30, pages 64 - 66

, This testimony is not relevant or probative of the issues raised in Contention 15. It discusses LILCO's responses to gas and wire. problems, what Japanese department stores do during earthquakes, high rise building evacuations in Brazil and Las Vegas, earthquake planning in California, ushers in theatres, and the credibility of parking lot attendants. It adds nothing to the record on Contention 15 and should be stricken.

I G. Answer 40, pace 75, line 15, to pace 76, line 17 This testimony is repetitious and cumulative to LILCO's previously submitted Testimony on Contention 25 - Role Con fl ict .' It discusses the " emergency consensus" and Doctor Mileti's belief that in a Shoreham emergency trained workers will work together for the collective good. -See pages l'8-19 of LILCC's Role Conflict Testimony, in which these same matters are discussed.

,m, - .-w

g ;_.

. H.- Answer 41, page 77, second sentence

("This' letter . . . . Connecticut")

This testimony purports to compare a letter received by LILCO from the U.S. Coast Guard with an unidentified letter relating .to nuclear power plants in Connecticut. It has no relevancy to the issues raised in Contention 15, nor is it pro-bative or reliable evidence. Accordingly, it should be stricken.

I. Questions and Answers 49 - 51, pages 86 - 88 This testimony is repetitious and cumulative of LILCO's previously submitted testimony on Contention 23. Specifically, pages 69 - 82 and 99 - 111 of LILCO's Evacuation Shadow Testi-mony, also contain a discussion of why LILCO's witnesses belinve surveys should not be used to predict future behavior, and th e results of the Yankelovich, Skelly and White survey.

This testimony should be stricken from LILCO's Contention 15 ,

testimony.

i

.x-.

t J.- Ouestion and Aaswer 92, nanes 109 - 110

/

This testimony discusses rumor control procedures in unidentified " emergency plans" for unidentified power plants, based-on a report by some company of reports from numerous unidentified utilities. It is not-relevant to Contention 15, and it is not probative or reliable evidence. Therefore it should be stricken.

K. Question and Answer 97, pages 113 - 115; Ouestion and Answer 104, pace 121  !

This testinony discusses what LILCO believes New York State and Suffolk County would do in the event of an emergency at Shoreham. It is pure speculation, and has no relevancy to Contention 15, which deals with LILCO's credibility. Consis-tent with the Board's rulings on the Motions to Strike LILCO's testimony concerning Contention 92, this testimony should be stricken.

y a.

0 6 II. LILCO Testimony on Contention 11 Ouestions and Answers 7 - 10, pages 7 - 10; Answer 11, pace 10, first sentence Contention 11 deals with the effects of conflicts of in-terest which are likely to be experienced by LILCO employees

'ho are in command and control of the offsite response to a Shorehan emergency. This testimony deals with a high rise in 4 flew York, a South Dakota weather experiment, a dam crack in Los Angeles, and a gas leak in San Francisco. It is not relevant, natcrial or probative to any issues raised in Contention 11,

. and therefore should be stricken.

Respectfully submitted, Martin Bradley Ashare Suffolk County Department of Law

Veterans Memorial Highway Hauppauge, New York 11788

([

d Merbert H. Brown,/ '

y) fbb ,

Lawrence Coe Lanpher Karla J. Letsche KIRKPATRICK, LOCKHART, HILL, j CHRISTOPHER & PHILLIPS 1900 M Street, N.W.

Washington, D.C.. 20036 Attorneys for Suffolk County Dated: May 7, 1984 I

I 7-1 i

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSION 000KETED Before the Atomic Safety and Licensing Board. USMC

'84 NAy -9 N0 :19

)

In the Matter of ) 0FFICE OF SELRL T,w

) 00CXETING A sgevg.

LONG ISLAND LIGHTING COMPANY ) Docket.No. 50-SYfCbL-3

) (Emergency Planning)

(Shoreham Nuclear Power Station, )

Unit 1)~ )

)

NOTICE This is to inform the parties that the depositions of Roger B. Kowieski, Thomas E. Baldwin, Philip H.-McIntire and Joseph H. Keller, which originally were scheduled to take place on May 8 and 9, have been cancelled. We are attempting to reschedule these depositions.

KIRKPATRICK, LOCKHART, HILL, CHRISTOPHER & PHILLIPS A

By / [. M*

Joh~n/E.-Birkenheier Attorneys for Suffolk County 1900 M Street, N.W.

Washington, D.C. 20036 l Date: May 7, 1984 l

l l

l

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA MUCLEAR FCGULATOPY COMMISSION Before The Atomic Sa fety And Licensing Board

)

In the Matter of )

)

LONG ISLAND LIGHTING COMPANY ) Docket No. 50-322 (0.L.)

) (Emergency Planning)

(Shoreham Nuclear Power Station, )

Unit 1) )

)

CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE I hereby certify that copies of Suffolk County Motion to Strike LILCO Testimony on Contention 15 (Credibility) and Con-tention 11 (Conflict of Interest), and the Notice of cancella-tion of the depositions of Roger B. Kowieski, Thomas E. Baldwin, Philip H. McIntire'and Joseph H. Keller have been served on the following this 7th day of May 1984, by U.S. mail, first class, except as otherwise noted.

4 Janes A. Laurenson, Chairman

• Ralph Shapiro, Esq.

Atomic Safety and Licensing Board Cammer and Fhapiro U.S. Muclear Pegulatory Commission 9 East 40th Street Washington, D.C. 20555 New York, New York 10016 Dr. Jerry R. Kline* W. Taylor Pevoley III, Esq.I Atonic Safety and Licensing Board Hunton & Willaims U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission P.O. Box 1535 washington, D.C. 20555 707 East Main Street Richmond, Virginia 23212 Mr. Frederick J. Shon

• Atomic Safety and. Licensing Board Mr. Jay Dunkleberger U.S. Nuclear Pegulatory Commission. New York State Energy Office Washington, D.C. 20555 Agency Building 2 Empire State Plaza Edward M. Barrett, Esq. Albany, New York 12223 General Counsel Long. Island Lighting Company 250-Old Country Road '

Mineola, New York 11501 I

Mr. Brian McCaffrey Stephen B. Lathan, Esq.

~Long Island Lighting Company Twoney, Latham & Shea Shorehan Nuclear Fower Station P.O. Box 398 P.O. Boy 618 33 West Second Street North Country Road Riverhead, New York 11901 Wading Fiver, New York 11792 Nora Predes Cocketing and Service Section Executive Director Office of the Secretary Shoreham Opponents' Coalition 1717 H Street, N.W.

195 Fast Main Street U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Comm.

Smithtown, New York 11787 Washington, D.C. 20555 varc U. Goldsnith -

Hon. Peter Cohalan Fnergy Research Group, Inc. Suffolk County Executive 400-1 Totten Pond Road H. Lee Dennison Duilding k'a l t h a n , Massachusetts 02154 Veterans Memorial Highway Hauppauge, New York 11788 MPB Technical Associates Eleanor L. Frucci,-Esq.

3723 Hamilton Avenue Atomic Safety and Licensing Suite K Board Panel San Jose, California 95125 U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Comm.

Washington, D.C. 20555 Joel Blau, Esq. Martin Bradley Ashare, Esq.

New York Public Service Commission Suffolk County Attorney The Governor Nelson A. Rockefeller H. Lee Dennison Puilding Building Veterans Memorial Highway Fmpire State Plaza Hauppauge, New York 11788 Albany, New York 12223 Atomic Safety and Licensing Atomic Safety and Licensing Board Panel Appeal Board U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Conmission U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Conm.

Unshington, D.C. 20555 Washington, D.C. 20555 Fdwin J. Peis, Esq.* Jonathan D. Feinberg, Esq.

Pernard M. Rordenick, Esq. Staff Counsel, New York State U.S. Nuclear Pegulatory Commission Public Service Commission Washington, D.C. 20555 3.Rockefeller Plaza

Albany, New York 12223 l

'~

Stuart Diamond Stewart M. Glass, Esq.**

-Eusiness/ Financial Regional Counsel i NEU YORK TIMFS ,

Federal Energency Management

229 W. 43rd Street Agency

! New York, New York 10036 26 Federal Plaza l

t New York, New York 10278

Spence. Perry, Esq. James B. Dougherty, Esq.

Associate General Counsel 3045 Porter Street, N.W.

Federal Emergency Management Agency Washington, D.C. 20008 Washington, D.C. 20471 Fabian Palomino, Esq.

Special Counsel to the Governor Executive Chamber Room 229 State Capitol Albany, New York 12224 4

s

/M Johg(E. Birkenheier KIRKPATRICK, LOCKHART, HILL, CHRISTOPHER & PHILLIPS 1900 M Street, N.W.-Suite 800 Washington, D.C. 20036

• By Hand

• • By Federal Express

1. By Telecopier Date: May 7, 1984 i

?

i.

t u