ML20087C606

From kanterella
Jump to navigation Jump to search
Motion to Strike Portions of Sargent Testimony on Suffolk County Behalf on Emergency Planning Contention 73.A Re Evacuation of Homebound.Testimony Argumentative,Repetitious & Irrelevant.W/Certificate of Svc.Related Correspondence
ML20087C606
Person / Time
Site: Shoreham File:Long Island Lighting Company icon.png
Issue date: 03/09/1984
From: Christman J
HUNTON & WILLIAMS, LONG ISLAND LIGHTING CO.
To:
Atomic Safety and Licensing Board Panel
Shared Package
ML20087C280 List:
References
OL-3, NUDOCS 8403130119
Download: ML20087C606 (8)
v • d • e


Text

LILCO, March 9, 1984

. , _. n < gpgep0NDENGR E GXi'ETEC

.h .

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA inrFC NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSION

'84 HM 12 A11:00 Before the Atomic Safety and Licensing Board

' . _ 0F SECE:.N i uni & SEP /m In.the Matter of ) BHM!CH

)

-LONG ISLAND LIGHTING COMPANY ) Docket No. 50-322-OL-3

) (Emergency Planning (Shoreham Nuclear Power Station, ) Proceeding)

Unit _1) )

LILCO'S MOTION TO STRIKE PORTIONS OF THE TESTIMONY OF SUSAN SAEGERT ON BEHALF OF SUFFOLK COUNTY CONCERNING EMERGENCY PLANNING CONTENTION 73.A

'The Long Island Lighting Company (LILCO) hereby moves the Board to strike certain portions of the " Direct Testimony of Susan Saegert on Behalf of Suffolk County Concerning Emer-gency Planning Contention 73.A -- Evacuation of the Homebound" (hereinafter referred'to as the Saegert testimony).

Under the NRC's rules of practice, testimony must be relevant to the issues in contention. 10 C.F.R. 92.743(c)

(1983).1/ Irrelevant testimony is the proper subject of a mo-tion to strike. See 10 C.F.R. Part 2, Appendix A, V(d)(7)

L/ Title 10 C.F.R. 52.743(c) provides:

Only relevant, material, and reliable evi-dence which is not unduly repetitious will be admitted. Immaterial or irrelevant parts of an admissible document will be segregated and excluded so far as is prac-ticable.

8403130119 840309 PDR ADOCK 05000322 0 PDR

a.

4 (1983). The Board has the power to regulate the conduct of a hearing, 10 C.F.R. 52.718, and through the specific authority under'10 C.F.R. 52.757(b) to strike argumentative, repetitious, cumulative, or irrelevant evidence.

First, the Saegert testimony bearing LILCO's credibility should be stricken because (1) it is beyond the scope of Con-tention 73.A and, therefore, irrelevant to issues being liti-gated under Contention 73.A, and (2) as Professor Saegert her-self acknowledges, this issue already is the subject of

-Contention 15.- Thus, .the Saegert testimony relating to LILCO's credibility is also repetitious and cumulative.

'Specifically, LILCO moves to strike the following under-lined portion of the Saegert testimony:

Moreover, as I will discuss in more de-tail in my testimony on Contention 15 and 16, people are unlikely to read material they receive in the mail, if they do not perceive it as being immediately impor-tant to them, or if they view the sender's credibility as being low. Both of these perceptions are likely with respect to information sent by LILCO.

Therefore, it-is likely that many handi-capped residents of the EPZ would not re-turn postcards,'because they would never read either the postcard or the accompa-nying letter or brochure.

There is no mention of LILCO's alleged lack of credibil-

. ity in Contention 73.A. Moreover, LILCO's credibility is al-ready the subject of Contention 15. This portion of the

~-

-g-

. s- 3 Saegert testimony bearing cui LILCO's credibility should be stricken accordingly.

Second, the Board should strike the paragraph on pages 5 and.6 of the Saegert testimony that reads as follows:

Furthermore, even for those people who did read the brochure, the informa-tion in the brochure about what would be done_for handicapped people may be too vague to lead those needing assistance to

-want to rely on the unidentified "LERO" for such assistance. Obviously such in-dividuals are unlikely to return postcards.

This testimony is outside the scope of Contention 73.A because it.is clearly designed to support a-contention that has been proposed but not yet been admitted.into the proceeding, namely proposed Contention.16.N on the public' education brochure.

On' February 27, 1984, Suffolk County submitted several new contentions about.LILCO's public education brochure. See Suffolk County Motion for Leave to File Modified Contentions 16 and 18 Concerning the'LILCO Public Education Brochure, February 27, 1984. One of those proposed contentions was 16.N, which reads as follaws:

N. The brochure-makes numerous ref-erences to LERO.or "the Local Emergency Response Organization." Thus, it states:

-4. "If you'are hearing impaired and should need special assistance in the event that the sirens are sounded it is important for you to register pa#e

--wwwg- w y y- - - -* -s. - r*-wyy-- -w w my

. - + - -y --

3

r-q with the Local Emergency Response Or-ganization (LERO)." (page 6)

5. "If the sirens are sounded due to an emergency at the Shoreham Nuclear Power Station, a LERO worker will come to.your home to notify you personally of the emergency condi-tion." (page 6)
6. "To register with LERO, please complete the post card in the back of the brochure. . . ." (page 6)

The brochure thus states that the offsite response to a Shoreham accident would be directed, and the public adequately pro-tected, by an organization with an official-sounding title, but whose affil-iation, source of authority, legitimacy, manpower, training, or competence, is not identified or described anywhere in the brochure. This aspect of the brochure is incomplete and misleading. People in the EPZ will not know who or what LERO is, and without complete information on that subject the brochure is not-credible.

Furthermore,_in failing to identify LERO accurately as a LILCO surrogate unilater-ally created and staffed by LILCO in an attempt to replace governmental authori-ties, the brochure suggests that LERO is a governmentally authorized body, which is false.

Since the remedy for the alleged problem raised in the above-quoted passage from Professor Saegert's testimony would be to revise the brochure, it should not be allowed until such time, if it comes, that Contention 16.N is admitted. Otherwise

= ,

jj the proffered testimony would be a backdoor means of getting

'into the record testimony on an issue that the Board has not yet admitted for litigacion.

Respectfully submitted, LONG ISLAND LIGHTING COMPANY By_ h, ppbs N, Christman u nee R. Falzone

'Hunton &-Williams 707 East Main Street P. O. Box 1535 Richmond, VA 23212 DATED: March 9, 1984 4

4

LILCO, March 9, 198'4

_, - : 6 CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE cglNrgg7gg In-the Matter of LONG ISLAND LIGHTING COMPANY (Shoreham Nuclear Power Station, Unit 1)84 MR 12 AM :00 -

Docket Wo. 50-322-OL-3 g (Emergency Planning Proceeding) y gg _

' ONG & SERvKr I hereby certify that copies of LILCO's dRANCH MOTION TO STRIKE PORTIONS OF THE DIRECT TESTIMONY OF PHILIr B. HERR ON CONTENTION 22.D -- INADEQUACY OF LILCO'S

.EPZ MOTION TO STRIKE PORTIONS OF THE TESTIMONY OF DAVID HARRIS AND MARTIN MAYER ON CONTENTIONS 24.G (AGREEMENTS FOR AMBU-LANCES) AND 75 (CAPACITY OF RELOCATION CENTERS)

. MOTION TO STRIKE PORTIONS OF.THE DIRECT TESTIMONY OF DEPU-TY CHIEF INSPECTOR RICHARD C. ROBERTS, ET AL. ON CONTEN-TIONS 24.T AND 59 MOTION TO~ STRIKE PORTIONS OF DIRECT TESTIMONY ON BEHALF OF SUFFOLK COUNTY REGARDING EMERGENCY PLANNING CONTENTION 26 MOTION TO STRIKE' PORTIONS OF DIRECT TESTIMONY ON BEHALF OF SUFFOLK COUNTY REGARDING EMERGENCY PLANNING CONTENTIONS l

28,-29, 30, 31, 32 AND 34 MOTION TO STRIKE PORTIONS OF DIRECT TESTIMONY ON BEHALF OF

,SUFFOLK COUNTY REGARDING EMERGENCY PLANNING CONTENTIONS 55-58 MOTION TO STRIKE PORTIONS OF ASSISTANT CHIEF INSPECTOR MONTEITH, ET AL.'S TESTIMONY ON-EMERGENCY PLANNING CONTEN-TION'66 MOTION E) STRIKE PORTIONS OF DIRECT TESTIMONY OF THOMAS D.

j GIBBONS'ON CONTENTIONS 66.D AND 97.B MOTION TO STRIKE PORTIONS OF WILLIAM J. ACQUARIO, ET AL.'S

! TESTIMONY ON EMERGENCY PLANNING CONTENTION 67 MOTION TO STRIKE PORTIONS OF THE DIRECT TESTIMONY OF WILLIAM J. ACQUARIO, RICHARD D. ALBERTIN, AND ROBERT G.

.KNIGHTON REGARDING CONTENTION 73 MOTION-TO STRIKE PORTIONS OF THE TESTIMONY OF SUSAN SAEGERT ON BEHALF OF SUFFOLK COUNTY CONCERNING EMERGENCY l PLANNING CONTENTION 73.A l

l?

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

1 l

5 were served this date upon the following by first-class mail, postage prepaid, or (as indicated by one asterisk) by hand, or (as indicated by two asterisks) by Federal Express:

James A. Laurenson,* Secretary of the Commission Chairman U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Atomic Safety and Licensing Commission Board Washington, D.C. 20555 U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission Atomic Safety and Licensing East-h'est Tower, Rm. 402A Appeal Board Panel 4350 East-West Hwy. U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Bethesda, MD 20814 Commission Washington, D.C. 20555 Dr. Jerry R. Kline*

Atomic Safety and Licensing Atomic Safety and Licensing Board Board Panel U.S. Nuclear Regulatory U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission Commission East-West Tower, Rm. 427 Washington, D.C. 20555 4350 East-West Hwy.

Bethesda, MD 20814 Bernard M. Bordenick, Esq.*

David A. Repka, Esq.

Mr. Frederick J. Shon* Edwin J. Reis, Esq.

Atomic Safety and Licensing U. S. Nuclear Regulatory Board Commission U.S. Nuclear Regulatory 7735 Old Georgetown Road Commission (to mailroom)

East-West Tower, Rm. 43G Bethesda, MD 20814 4350 East-West Hwy.

Bethesda, MD 20814 Stewart M. Glass, Esq.**

Regional Counsel Eleanor L. Frucci, Erg.* Federal Emergency Management Attorney Agency Atomic Safety and Licensing 26 Federal Plaza, Room 1349 New York, New York 10278 Board Panel U. S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission Stephen B. Latham, Esq.**

East-West Tower, North Tower Twomey, Latham & Shea 4350 East-West Highway 33 West Second Street Bethesda, MD 20814 Post Office Box 398 Riverhead, NY 11901 e

  • -v , ,,-

Fabian G. Palomino, Esq.** Ralph Shapiro, Esq.**

Special Counsel to the Cammer & Shapiro, P.C.

Governor 9 East 40th Street Executive Chamber New York, New York 10016 Room 229 State Capitol James B. Dougherty, Esq.*

Albany, New York 12224 3045 Porter Street Washington, D.C. 20008 Herbert H. Brown, Esq.*

Lawrence Coe Lanpher, Esq. Howard L. Blau Christopher M. McMurray, Esq. 217 Newbridge Road

'Kirkpatrick, Lockhart, Hill Hicksville, NY 11801 Christopher & Phillips 8th Floor Jonathan D. Feinberg, Esq.

1900 M Street, . N.W. New York State Public Service Washington, D.C. 20036 Commission, Staff Counsel 3 Rockefeller Plaza Mr. Marc W. Goldsmith Albany, New York 12223 Energy Research Group 4001 Totten Pond Road Spence W. Perry, Esq.**

Waltham, Massachusetts 02154 Associate General Counsel Federal Emergency Management MHB Technical Associates Agency 1723 Hamilton Avenue 500 C Street, S.W.

Suite K Washington, D.C. 20472 San Jose, California 95125 Ms. Nora Bredes Mr. Jay Dunkleberger Executive Coordinator New York State Energy Office Shoreham Opponents' Coalition Agency Building 2 195 East Main Street Empire State Plaza Smithtown, New York 11787 Albany, New York 12223 Martin Bradley Ashare, Esq.

Gerald C. Crotty, Esq.** Suffolk County Attorney Counsel to the Governor H. Lee Dennison Building Executive Chamber Veterans Memorial Highway State Capitol Hauppauge, New York 11788 Albany, New York 12224

, yp>ceu-

/ Renee R.' Falzone Hunton & Williams 707 East Main Street Post Office Box 1533 Richmond, Virginia 23212 ,

DATED: March 9, 1984

Retrieved from "https://kanterella.com/w/index.php?title=ML20087C606&oldid=2737078"