ML20087G795
| ML20087G795 | |
| Person / Time | |
|---|---|
| Site: | Shoreham File:Long Island Lighting Company icon.png |
| Issue date: | 03/16/1984 |
| From: | Mark Miller KIRKPATRICK & LOCKHART, SUFFOLK COUNTY, NY |
| To: | Atomic Safety and Licensing Board Panel |
| Shared Package | |
| ML20087G767 | List: |
| References | |
| OL-3, NUDOCS 8403200140 | |
| Download: ML20087G795 (34) | |
Text
r s
i RELATED CORRESPONDENCE IRC UNITED STATES OF AMERICA I9 ff0;c2 NUCLEAP PEGULATORY COMMISSION Before the Atomic Safety and Licensing Board
)
In the Matter of )
)
LONC ISLAND LIGHTINC COMPANY ) Docket No. 50-322-OL-3
.) (Emergency Planning)
(Shoreham Nuclear Power Station, )
Unit 1) )
)
SUFFOLK COUNTY'S RESPONSE TO LILCO'S MOTION TO STRIKE PORTIONS OF DIRECT TESTIMONY ON BEHALF OF SUFFOLK COUNTY REGAPDING EMERGENCY PLANNING CONTENTION 26 I. Introduction and General Response On March 9, 1984, LILCO moved to strike portions of the direct testimony of Deputy Inspector Kenneth J. Regensburg, Deputy Inspector Robert A. Snow, and Police Officer Vincent R.
Stile on behalf of Suffolk County Regarding Emergency Planning Contention 26 (Notificati'on of Emergency Response Personnel)
(hereinafter, "Suffolk County Police Department" or "SCPD tes-timony"), filed on March 2, 1984. Suffolk County hereby responds and urges that LILCO's motion be denied.
The SCPD testimony describes LILCO's proposals for noti-fying emergency response personnel in tne event of an emergency at the Shoreham plant and identifies deficiencies and 8403200140 840316 7 PDR ADOCK 05000322 9 _ PDR _.
L
. 1 2nascquacles in LILCG's notiilcacion scneme. In tue opinion or tne oCPD witnesses, unese ceficiencies ano inacec uacles leaa to one conclusion that L1LCO's proposec communications sjacem ana prococurcs provios no assurance that tnere'will ne prompt ano reliable notification to emergency response parsonnel, e.s a rssult, LILCO will not ce able to moollize promptly tna person-nel assignau emergency functions ana duties under cne L1LCO Plan, and tne protective actions contemplaced by tne Plan can-not and will not ce implementec.
First, LlLCO contends tnat portions or tne SCFD testimony partaining to tne inauequacy or non-cedicated commercial tele-pnone lines is carred oy tne Board's August 19, 1964 Special Prehearing Conrerence Orcer (nereinafter, " August 19 Orcer"),
wnlan denied admission of proposed Contention 26.6. LlLCO Motion, at 1-3. Secono, L1LCO argues.cnat portions or tne oCFD testimony are not relevant and snoulo be stricken "Decause_cney proceed upon an erroneous interpretation or applicaole regula-tions anc guicelines." LILCO hotion, at 4-5. LILCO contenas tnat, wnile the SCFD testimony assumes -- as does Contention 26 anc its preamole -- tnat arter receiving notitication'ot an emergency from tne plant, LILCO must notify ottsite response personnel witnin 15 minutes,-tnere is no sucn requirement in the applicable regulations ano guicelines. LILCC Motion at-4.1/ Finally, L1LCO asserts tnat portions or ene SCFD 1/ in LILCO's view, applicaole regulations una gulcalines only require that a. licensee nave tne capaoliity or noti -
(Footnote cont'a next page)'
~ : h :-- _d
i l
! testimony amount to "conclusory statements and opinions Ior I
wnica tnere is no Dasis in tne recora." .L1LCG Motion, at o.
'I n e testimony'sougnt to De stricken by L1LCL on tnis grouno incluces testimony wnica, in L1LCG's view, orters no tactual basis to" support une conclusions reachec and testimony wnicn "Is basea upon an erroneous reaoing or tne L'1LCO Flan." lo.
LILCO also argues tnat some or enese issues nave Deen accresseu in otner contentions ano should thererore De stricken because tney are repetitious anc cumulative. Id.
i For tne reasons discussea below, L1LCO's arguments lack merit on all grouncs ano tnerefore, LlLCO's motion snoula be cenlea. he first discuss the merits or eacn generic L1LCO
^
oo3ection. Tnen we alscuss its application of sucn objections to spec 1ric portions ot ene SCPC testimony.
A. Adequacy or Non-Dedicateo Telephone Lines Oojection Contrary to L1LCO's assertions, tne Board's August'19 Order does not precluo'e litigation or tue inadequacyact (Footnote cont'o trom previous page) tying orfsite autnorities (in.this case LERO) witnin~15 minutes atter declaring an emergency. L1LCO Motion, ac 4.
LILCO contends that tais-i.ssue was tne subject of "Pnase 1" or this proceeoing and is tnus barred'from litigation.
LlLCO Motion, at 5, n. 3.
3-
- L .s .w.
non-ceolcated commercial telegnones. If anything, tne Boaro's Groer only praC10 des 11t19dtlon or the single issu6 or potentlui overloao of commercial telephone linis. inat was tne only issue addressed by Pnase 1 Contention LPil anc Pnase 11 Contention 26.D, whicn was not admitted by tne Board in its August 19 Oroer.
Fur tnet , tnis Boaro nas previously recognizeo enat otner proolems cresceo oy LILCO's reliance upon commercial telepnones as a raeans or communication are proper ano appropriate suo;ects for litigation. For example, reviseo Emergency Planning Con-tantions 26.b and E, filed of Intervenors en July 26, 1963, allegeo, among other tnings, cnat some emergency response per--
sonnel will not ca notifiec or an emergency at ene Snocenam i
plant because eney will not be near telephones, will be usin3 tnelt telepnunes or, for otner reasons, will not be aole to De contacted. LILCO raiseo no co3ection to tnese reviseo Concen-tions.2/ Ina Starr, on cae otner hano,-objected to botn Conten-tions as lacking basis. Witn respect to Contencion 26.E, cne beaft also asserteo a Pnase 1 objection.1/- -
4
~2/ 5ee L1LCG's 003ections to intervenors' "heviseo Emergency Planning Contentions," datad August 2,- 1963 (nereinarter, "L1LCO's August 2 Oogecxions"), at 45-46.
1/ Sea NhC Start hesponse.to Reviseo Emergency Planning Con-centions, dateo August 2,L1983.(nereinatter,'"Stoft's August 2 Oo3ections"), at'24-25.
--4--
j u
1 l
.]
r
In its August 19 Order, the Board admitted Contentions 26.D and E without discussion. August.19 Order, at 16. As explained by the Board's Order, where a contention was admit-ted, without discussion, over objection by LILCO or the NFC Staff, the Board had "specifically considered and rejected the objection." Further, the Board had found the admitted conten-
' ions to meet the requirements of specificity and basis imposed 4
by 10 CFR S2.714(b). August 19 Order, at 2-3. Thus, in admit-ting Contentions 26.D and E, the Board considered and rejected the argument that problems created by LILCO's reliance on commercial telephones, with the possibile exception of potential overload of commercial telephone lines, are a Phase I issue barred from litigation.
If LILCC had any doubts as to the clear meaning of the Board's ruling regarding the admissibility of issues involving LILCO's reliance upon commercial telephones, those doubts should have been resolved by the Board's February 3, 1984 brder regarding Intervenors' modified emergency planning conten-tions.4/ Prior to the Board's February 3 Order, LILCO objected to revised Contention.26.E on the ground that
-4/- See " Memorandum and Order Ruling on Intervenors' Proposed Emergency Planning Contentions Modified to Reflect Revi-sion 3 of the LILCO Plan," dated February 3, 1984 (herein-after, " February 3 Order").-
. . i I
moclilcatAons made to CGd Contention die an attempt.to revive tne issue of tne inace-quacy of non-cecicated commercial telepnone lines for notifiestion or emergency re-sponse personnel; cnat issue was cenled ad-mission oy cne Locro's ruling on Contention 26.8 in its Order or August 19, 1963.
L1LCG's Gbjections to intervenors' "Proposeo Emergency Planning Contentions itooltico to Retlect hevision 3 of cne L1LCO Plan,"
, dated January 19, 19o4 (nereinarter , "LlLCC's January 19 Objections"), at 14-11. Notwitnstanding this objection, tne boero accepteo Contention 26.E as modifleo. February 3 Oroer, at 9. 'In us , tne board reafrirmeo enat tne issues in the admit-tea portions or Contention 26 regaroing LILCO's reliance upon commercidi telepnones are not Pnase 1 issues barrco by ics august 19 Order from being litigated.in unis proceeding.
By seeking to strine portions of tne SCPD testimony per-talning to the inacequacy of non-dedicated commercisi tele-pnanes, LlLCO is attempting to revive for a thiro time its argument tnat tne County snould be precluoea from litigating these issues. Fioreover , LILCO uses tais argument to suppor t its wnolesale and inalseriminate setempt to strike any mention
-or-tne words "commerclui telepnone." .ine testimony soagnt.to be utricKen, nowever, accrosses tne suoparts of Contention 20 ~
.nicn' nave'been acniitteo for Altigation of tne Eoard's prior ruilne s and LILCG's motion snouAd tnererore'De cenled.
_6 l
B. Erroneous interprecations 01 hpplicable Regulations vojection
- For e number ol reasons, enere is no basis tor LILCO to l suggest unat portions 01 the.SCPL testimony.shoulo oc str1CKen occAuse eney proceed upon erroneous interpretations ot applica-ble regulations and guloelines, and are thus irrelevant. For example, L1 LOG acknowleoges tnat it must nave tue capaolilty tor notirying LERO witnAn 15 minutes-after an emergency.is ue-clarea st tne Snoreham plant, but asserts enat tnere is no re-quirement tnat there be notification of emergency response personnel witnin tnat period ot time. LILCO Motion, at 4.
~
L1LCO asserts that the' County is attempting "to 11rt out or context tne-15-minute limitation applicaole to notirication or LERO Dy tne'11censee and apply that limitation.to,a racet ol the emergency response pian wnere it has no application." .gi .
Tnis assertion maxes no sense.
LERO is comprised or LILCO. personnel- who are assignea' ortsice emergency response functions'and. duties under ~the LILCG Plan. Tnerefore, Dy definition,'" notification ot'LERO" requires LILCO to notify some' emergency' response. personnel witnin tne 15-minute-limitation imposed by ;appli'chble reguia-clons and.guice11nes. The questions wnich must be.oecides are':
(1).wnich'LERO personnel must be notitied tor there to.oe" 7-s
- I
. l l
"notitication or LERG"; and (2) wnetner L1LCO's proposeo communications system and notitication proceoures provioe suequate assurance tna t sucn notification c&n be_provioed witn-J in 15 minutes arcar an emergency is ceclareo at uneplan[.
inese questions or iact are for the Board, not LILCO, to deter-mine baseo on a review of tne tacts ano evidence presentco.
Ine issue cannot ce determined by striking the tactual evioence proffered by the County simply because L1LCO disagrees witn.it, or witn the underlying intarpretation of applicaole regulations and gulaelines.
In acdition, Contention 20 itselt has always allegeo enat emergency response personnel must be notified witnin 15 minutes after an emergency at Shorenam is declarco. For example, the Preamble to Contention 26 states:
Procecures must ce establisheo regaroing ene bases for notification of response or-ganizations, including means for verilica-tion or messages, and~for alerting, noti- '
rying, ano mobilizing emergency response personnel. NUREG 0654, Section 11.E.1 and E.2. Moreover,-tnere must be the capabili-ty or notifying tnese emergency personnel "witnin 15 minutes arter declaring an emer -
gency." 10 CFR Part 50, Appendix E, section IV.D.3.
Similarly, Contention 26.n.2, in asserting tnat the LILCO Customer' Service Office is not capable or serving as_cne 8-l
l primary notification point ror LEh0, responsible tor, among other enings notitying key emergency response personnel (incluaing all personnel wno ao not ocknowledge receipt or pager notitication), states that:
The Plan does not inoicate.tnat tnere will ne adequate equipment available to Customer
. Service personnel to permit the necessary notitication in.a timely manner, i.e.,
witnin 15 minutes after an emergency is de-clarea. See 10 CFR Part 50, Appena1x L,Section IV.D.a.
Lince tne Board admittec Contention 26, as stateo (see august 19 Order, at 15), LILC0 cannot now claim tnat it is el-ther surprises or pre 3udiced by tne testimony it seeks to strika. nor is enere any basis to claim tnat ene testimony at i
- issua is beyona tue scope of tne Contention ano thererore prop-erly stricken.
ine Contention ir, question has been admitted by tne boaro tor litigation. horever, neither LiLCO nor tne staf r objecteu-to tne portions of tne Contention to which tne testimony now sougnt to be stricxen by L1LCO relates. Accorcingly, the only question now before tnis Boar 6 is whetner tne testimony proviacs " relevant, matettai, anc reilable evioence wnica is-not unauly repetitious" on tne issues raised in ene Contantion.
Sae 10 CFR 52.743(c). Clearly, tne testimony coes relate l
ff
i oirectly to ractual matters spe11eu out in ene Contention 4 aamitted by one Boaru. Accoroingly, tde testimony cannot De
, stricuen as irrelevant. Anoeed, LILCO's motion to scrike Ents testimony amounts to an attempt to reargue tne aamissibility or portions of Contention 26. LILCO's attempt to use a motion to strine testimuny that acoresses an issue in-an aamitteo conten-clon tor the purpose or arguing the aamissibility of the con-tention shoulo be rejected by the Board.
4
'1'n a r e 1o r e , tne Board snould deny L1LCO's motion to strike i
! those portions of the SCPD testimony wnicn mention tne 15-minute time period for notification or emergency response i- personnel. If L1LCO cisagrees witn the County's interpretation
- or applicable regulations and:guicelines,-it can argue-tnat'tne a
parciculsr regulatory requirements citeo in Contention 26 ano
, cne SCPD testimony are setistleo without L1LCO having to address the problems.1denciriec in tne ContentionLand the tes-timony in its post-trial-briefs. Lawyers' brieis are tne proper place for suca legal arguments on tne merits of .conten-tions. Resolving'sucn disputes is not the purpose ot motions to strine. However,, resolving sucn basic oisputec between tne
~
parties is .tne- purpose 'or 'this litigation. 'Ine boars' cneratoc c.
snould maxe its fincings -on auch matters atter :cne. par ties nave; presentec . tnai'r evidence ano proposeo i tindings oi.-tact- ana' i
- s 5
- lu -
=
= ,
. conclusions or law,~not oy strixing testimony prorrereo oy one party out disputed oy the.. o che-r . Any otner resuAt woulo permit any party, simply oecause it aisagrees witn ene testimony ana the ConCluS1ons redenec Dy another party's Witness, to pronibit
. Cne Board's Consideration of sucn testimony bestd on bald as-sortions tnat tne regulations do or 6o not require a particular 1
a c tion .1/
l~ '
5/ LILCO's argument enat portions of tne SCPD testimony l snoulo be strienen because enere is no requirement to provioe'notirication of an emergency to every RECS tele-phone location (LlLCO Motion, at 5) is equally unpersuasive.. LILCO is requireo to " nave tne capaoliity to notify responsible State ano local-governmental
!. agencies within 15 minutes after declaring an emergency."
10 CFR Part 50, Appendix E, Section IV.D.3.- 'lhis notiti-cation requirement ooes not turn on whether thefState,ano local agencies are "rosponse organizations," as.allegeo by L1LCO.
i hotions to str1xa provioO a Way to precauGG proffered
, evidence wnicn is not " relevant, material ano reliable ev-I loence." .10 CFR 32.75?(b). 'Moreover, as recognisea by tnis Board, a motion to strike must state with particular-
- icy how cne prottered = evidence deviates trom tnat stanaara (10 CFR 32.743(b)). See Order Ruling on Motions to Strike, oated January 16, 1984 (nereinarter, " January 16 Order")',-at 1. In moving to strike pore . ons;of tne SCPL-
- cestimony adoressing tna RECS notificallon system, L1LCO
- nowhere alleges thac the testimony is;not relevant,- '
material or reliable. Instead,.LlLCG merely asserts tnat ene testimony. proceeds on an erronous premise.- 'rn u s ,
1 L1LCO's motion must be rejected for-tailing to state wit.n-
~
a parc1cularity now ene'SCPD testimony is allegeoly.not'rsi-
~
. evant, material or rellable. . In any event,.as noted.
. acove, a motion to'scrite -does. not provide a means. for ar-guing. tne merits or one's case. ~ 1f.LILCO disag'rees.witn tue-County's interpretation of'a regulation, it ruay argue -
its. views'at the/ appropriate 1 time-, i.e., atter tne parcles
. present encir evidence.
-1111-s .
9-___._A__.._.__.___m.----
C. Testimont Beyonc scope,of Contention and/or hitnout surricient Founostion GD3ections LILCO asserts tnat portions of tne SCPD testimony amount to "concAusory statements una opinions for wnica thera is no basis in tne record." L1LCO toclon, at 6. Furtner, it asserts that some at ene testimony is Dased upon wnat L1LCG be11 eves is "an erroneous teaoing" ol the LILCO Plan and, accordingly,
, snoulo be stricken. lo. Before proceeolng to OAscuss tne merits of tais LILCO obj ection, it shoulo De notea that tne ex-dmple of sucn an " erroneous redoing" proViced by L1LCO in its motion is a passage ot testimony based upon information provio-ed to tne County by LILCO during discovery. Thus, there was no erroneous reading of tne LILCO Flan, since the information relieo upon, to our Knowledge, is not in the Plan. Ratner, LILCO's own motion would suggest enat tne information proviced to tne Counti was inaccurate. If taat.1s tne case, tne fault is L1LCO's and it is the County, not LILCO, wnica has a'legiti-mate complaint before.cnis Board.5/
o/ If tne information proviued to the County by LILCO is in-accurate, tne County would request that the. Lour 6 oroer LILCO to provice accurate information to tne County.and to explain to the board ano the parties the reason for LILCO's failure to have provideo sucn information earlier.
Upon receiving information from LILCO,;tne County wiAl oe-termine whetner to amend or supplement its contentions and/or testimony.
l l
q 1
I s
f
I 1
'Inere are several reasons wny tne Boaro shoulo ceny tne portions of LILCO's strike motion whicn reAy on the argument enat SCFD testimony is baseo on erroneous tactual premises.
First, ror tne reasons notea above, L1LCO's motion, li granteo, woulo result in tne Boaro resolving the merits ot aomitteo con-tentions by ettectively proniolting 11tigation or tnose conten-tions. ClearAy, sucn a proceoure is improper. Wnetner une j
factual assertions wnicn torm tne basis or contentions ano/or testimony are enemselves correct or acequate is irrelevant to tne issue or aamissibility of testimony wnicn addresses the contention. Put anotner way, the correctness or adequacy or a
- factual assertion contained in testimony goes to the merits or tne testimony, which is a matter to be determined at ene near-ing, after tne parties have presented their evloence. L1LCO is not precluded from examining during cross examination the basis for a witness' statement or opinion. It can also state its oisagreement witn tactual premises or conclusions by submitting its own testimony. However, LILCO cannot use bald allegations by counsel of "no stated basis" to strike a witness' proftered testimony. Under tne NRC's rules, enere 1s no requirement tnat testimony nave a stateo basis in the recora to be admissible, hatner, tnis kind ' or issue goes to the weight or une evloence.
D l '
i t
Moreover, tne bases for tne SCPD testimony sought to be stricken by LlLCO are cicarly set fortn in tnat testimony. Tne testimony is offered by witnesses wno have a broao range or ex-perience, training and expertise in communications-relateo suojects. Because the testimony oftered by the County is com-patent testimony wnicn is procative ano maccrial to tne issues raised, LILCO nas no casts ror complaining enac it is witnout
" basis in ene recoro."
- 11. Discussion Set torth below is a listing or tnose portions of tne SCPD testimony sought to De stricxen by LILCO witn tne corresponoing County response. Inis listing uses tne same tormat as LILCC's motion to strike.
A. Adecuacy of Non-Dedicated Commercial Ielegnone Lines LILCO moves to strike tue following testimony because, in L1LCO's view, "It attempts to re11tigate the question of tne acequacy or non-cedicated commercial-telepnone lines." L1LCO Motion, at 7. Au noted in oaction 1.h above, this moaro nas.
expressly ruleo tnat, witn tae possloie exception or potential overload ot commercial telephone lines, othet problems created of LILCO's re11ance on commercEa1 telegnones wnicn are ioentifleo and rererenced in tne specific subparts or Contention 26 are proper lssues for litigation. inus, it is L1LCC, not cue County, wnicn attempts to reargue a question previously decided by tne board. Tne portions of testimony t
listed oerow address aamitteo contentions ano snoul6 not be strichen.
Page and Line LlLCO's Reason (s) to County hesponse hererences Strike
- 1. e, 11nes 12 Accempts to re11tigate Testimony merely summa-tnru 19 commercial telephones. rizes spectric issues raised in Contentions 26.D and E -- Contentions damitteo by Bodro over tne objections 01 ene NRC Statt (see Starr's August 2 Objections, at 24-25).
See August 19 Oroer, at
- 16. At tnat time, LILCO d1G not object to either Contention. See LALCO's August 2 Objections.
Later, wnen cne Conten-tions were modified to reflect Rev. 3 or tne LILCO Plan, moolrications were allowco by Boaro (see February 3 Groer, et 9), over specific objection oy LILCO to Contention 26.6 on the
. ground tnat une mooirAca-1 cions were an attempc to revive caie inacequacy or non-cealcateo commercidi
'teAepnone lines. one L1LCO's January is ODjections, dC 12-1J.
-Ab-1
Fage and Litie LlLCC's heason(s) to County hesponse ite ier ences Strine TeScimony cod $ not ocal
- 1LD potential oVer10ad oI Commerclui teleynone system.
- 2. 22, lines 12 Attempts to reittigate Testimony acoressos inac-taru 15 commercial telephones. cessio111ty or.telegnones to LILCO personnel, an issue speciticalAy ruAsco and damittea tor iltigc-clon by tne boaro in Con-centions 26.D ano E. dee County hesponse 1 abovc.
Only one last sentence ano tootnote on pag. 22 ol tne cestimony mentAons cne issue or potentahA overloao, ano ooes so only oy quocing cnc tes-timony by FEMA witness McIntire wnica is alreaoy in evidence, ano tne statement or n1LCO's own employee, one or tne hanagera ot-L1LCO's'emer-gency response organita-tion.
- 3. 34, lines 21 Attempts to relitigate Testimony'adoresses enru 23 commercial teAephones. specific issues raiseo in (inis testimony also Contentions 26.D ano E snoul6 be struck be- and-admitteo-tor litiga-cause it is part or a tion by tne Bouro. See cody of testimony wnich County Response 1 aoove, procecas upon tne - Testimony.coes not deal
-erroneous premise that with potential overloao enere ir a 15-minute ~of commercial telepnone time limitation, arter system.- Furtner, despite LERO receives notirica- LILCO assertion that Elon enat an emergency '
testimony.snould be nas.been declared, stricken occause.it witnin wnich LERO.must proceedu;upon " erroneous notity emergency;re- premise" enat enere'Is a sponse workers.i 15-minute time _ limitation
( L
+P
Page ano Line LILCC's heason(s) to County Response References Strike _,
for LiLCO to notArj emergency response per-sonnel, tne testimony nas notning to ao witn the 15-minute limitation raiseo in L1LCO's objection..
- 4. 41, lines B Attempts to re11tigate Any objection as to tnru 13 commercial telephones. potential overloao oi 1 (Aaditionally, unis commercial telepnone testimony c6aulo be system should oe 11mited struck because it to lines 10-11 (beginning orters conclusory with "which are statements for wnica suoject . . . tnrough enere are no supporting " anticipated ovetioso tacts. Inere is no conditions"). hemaincer oasis upon walen enese of passage merely staces witnesses can testity tnat LALCO paging system tnat every pageo worker is a commercial system, will attempt to_ tele- ano discusses lacA of pnone somebocy to veri- backup to enat system.
fy cne pageo message.)
LILCO also asserts enut tne testimony shoulo be
-stracken because tnere is no basis for SCPD witnesses to testify enac "every pageo worser will-attempt to telephone somebody to verify cne
~
paged message." Tne tes-timony referencea oy ,
LILCO, however, nas notning to oo with pageo workers telepnoning any-body.
- 5. 47, lines 11 Attempts to relitigate. LILCO's objection shoulo thru J23 commercial telephones. be limited to lines 21-22
.(tne phrase "overloao commercial telepnone lines and") since tne remalnoer.or testimony
l Page and.Line LILCO's Reason (s) to County hespense nerer_ences Strike addresses problems resulting from the Plan's railure to accress con-11rmation ot pageo mes-
. sages. Assuming cnat
'LILCO intenced to move to-strike testimony for reasons stated in County Response 4 aoove, LILCO objection snould De rejected. There is no
., requirement enat all tacts supporting witness-es' competency tescimony.
be expressly stateo after every opinion. ln.any i event, SCPD witnesses are
.qua11ried, baseo upon i
eneir extensive experi-ence with respect to tne use or-pagers,.co provide tne-referencea opinion.
Furtner, L1LCO's ob3ection, 1r granted, woulo: result in Boara resolving merits ot issue in oispute.by strining evloence prortereo oy one party. simply because cne
, otner party cisagrees, wnich is not. purpose or motion to-strike.
- 6. 51, lines.l' Attempts to relitigate LILCO's objection is enru 6- commercial. telephones. overly' broad and should (This' testimony is?aiso. be rejecteo. -Contrary to subject to strike-be- LILCO's asser tion , tne -
causecit is not rele- testimony, witn one.
vant'to the. contention- .'exceptionL(lines 4-5)
, tor wnicn it is ceals not.with commerciaA protfereo and,;in tact, ,
.telepnones','but witn-
< raises role conflict
~
LILCO's.re11ance on'
, . issues f acdressed -in pagers:to notity emer-connection witn otner gencyJpersonnel.
l I
- .18. d
- /
i.'
/
j..
~
c
.. ._ J . .
Page and Line LILCO's Reason (s) to County aesponse Raterences _ Strike contentions.) Furtner, tne one pnrase enat accresses commercial telepnones ooes not mention overloao or commercial lines, out in-stead states that persons paged may not ce aole " to get enrougn on a commercial teicphone to notity other LERO workers." ine testimony tnerefore raises concerns specifically aamitteo tor litigation by the boaro in Contention 26.L. in-deec, the Contention 26.D testimony is cross reter-enced.
LILCO's objections enat tnis testimony is not relevent ano enac it
'ralses role cont 11CC issuas are witnout basis.
LILCO fails to explain its relevancy objection.
'Ine testimony is directly relevant to the statec contention. Fur tner , no- ,
wnere does tne testimony raise role contlict issues. Tne testimony states tnat for every paged worker wno chooses' to ignore the paged mes-sage, ocner emergency workers could ra11 to be notitied. -Ooviously, a worker coulo cnoose co-Ignore a pageo message
. . for any numoer or reasons, including reasons related to L1LCO's failure to
_ 19 _
.~
Page ano Line LILCO's heason(s) to County Responsg heterences _
5trike_ _ _ _ _ _
provide tor veritication of gegeo messages -- an issue squarely raiseo oy Contention 26.C.
- 7. 53, lines 3 Attempts to relic 19 ate Again, LILCG's objection taru lu commercial telephones. is overly croao. -lesti-(Acolclonally, tnis mony acoresses a varlecy testimony snoulo be or concerns specAtically struck because it aamitted for litigation offers conclusory by Boarc in Contentions scatements ror =nich 26.D and E -- ror exam-tnere are no supporting pie, inaccessib111ty or facts. tnere is no telephones ano' fact endt basis upon wnich these persons will ne using witnesses can testify tuelt telephones and enus tnat emergency workers not be able to De con-will call tnelt home, tactec or make calls.
rriends and relatives See County Response 1 before calling out~ above. Proolems with emergency workers. In overloao of commerclaA acoitton, to tne extent telepnone system not j tnat tnis testimony mentionea enu tnus LiLCO I addresses role objection should be cont:1ct, it snoulo be rejected.
struck as repetitious
~
Furtner, enere is no ano cumulative or tes- basis for LILCO objection timony on other conten- - regaruing conclusory tions.) statements or 6CPD witnesses. inere is no-requirement tnat every
" supporting tact" ce stated in witnesses' tes-timony. If LALCO disagrees witn.tne bCPD witnesses' conclusions, tne basis or supporting facts can be g obeo'oy-LILC0 on cross examinn-clon. Furtnermore, SCPD witnesses are qualiti,ed, baseo on tnelt experience.
, in responding to emer-gency situations, to
- 20 " ,
- p. < ,
l
) '
N f %
, ,.:/ e y
'j j '
~
g.
,) q 4>
?+ - . a
- s t y
PageLand Line L1LCO's Reason (s) to County hesponse Rererences Strike testify about now L1LCv's emergency response eer-sonnel woulo linely react in ene event or an emer-4 gency at snoreham. LALCO has stated no basis tor questioning cneir coupe-tence'Otner tnan 0010 as-section. FinaAAy, tne testimony coes not mention role Coni 11CC..
ine basis for statement-
."it is questionaole-whetner tais LILCO em-ployee woulo reAlly want to get to a telegnone to maxe telepnone calls" can be probec by L1LCU during Cross examination.
-6. 55, lines 4 Attempts to relitigate lestimony addresses enta il commercial telephones.. .
. problem of accessio1Alty ,
to telepnones - -an-issue specitically raised ano:
aamittea by tne baara under Conteation 26.D.
See County.kesponse 1 above. An tact, tne tes-timony spec 1rically assumes no pr oblem 'wita overloacing ol telepnone 11nes.. 'inus, any objection b'y LlLC0 snouAo be limiteo to tne paren-tnetical'(11nes-o-lu).
- 5. 60, line 22- Attempts to relitigate. Testimony accresses.tne'
.ntu page 61, commercial'tclephones. Very issues objectea to Line 22 by L1LCO in its; January-19 Ob]~ections, at 12-la..
. The Board'previously rejected tnese objections
-(see February?3 Order, at
~
9), ano L1LCO'snoulu not
'i 21 -
l
l l-I be permitteo to reargue its case a second time.
In other words, it is LILCO, not the County, which attempts to reargua-an issue previous 1'y ae-ciceo by tne Boaro, ano
. L1LCO's objection shoulu be limitao to Lne pnrase "or because ene lines will be overloadeo" (lines u-7, page 01).
- b. Testimong_A11egeo by LILCO to be Based on Erroneous Interpretations of Applicable Regulations LILCO moves to strike tne following testimony because, in L1LCO's view, it proceeds upon an erroneous interpretation or applicable regulations and is thus irrelevant.- L1LCO's argument lacks merit'for the reesons noted in Section 1.b above ano icentitied specitically below.
- 10. 12, line 21 All of this testimony LILCO objection is ovaray enru page 17, proceeds upon the broao and witnout any_
line 20 erroneous assumption basis tor'a number or tnat enere is a reasons. First,-it is 15-minute time limita- not for LILCO, out cnis tion witnin wnlen emer- Board, to-interpret up-9ency workers must be plicable regulations foi-notitied. (Addition- lowing the briefing or ally, page 16,' lines legal. issues by tne 6-9 and 16-16, shoulo
~
parties. Secono, noulti-De struck because tnere 'cution of:LERO, by deri-is no tactual basis in - nition,frequires notiri-cne -recoro to support cation of someJemergency tnese conclusory state- response personne'1.-
ments tnat "eno:LILCO 'L1LCO acknowleoges enat pagingfsystem might' LSRO must be~notitiec
~
malrunction.") witnin tne 15-minute lim-
~
(Empnasts aadeo).; itut1on"and it is' D
-122 -
i s
-- 2 _-.
i Page and Line LILCC's Reason (s) to County Response Re f e r e_n_c e s Strike therefore for this boaro to cetermine tne tactual issues oi (1) wnich per-sonnel must be notirleo and (2) wnetner LILCO's proposeo communications system'and notirication procedures provice acequate assurance tnat notification can be pro-vided witnin 15 minutes atter an emergency is de-clarea. Tnird, Conten-tion 26, as aamf*teo by the Board, specitically alleges tnat emergency personne1'must be noti:ied witnin 15 minutes atter an emer-gency is declarea. LILCO cannot now claim tnat it is either surpriseo or prejudiced oy tne.testi-mony. It's strike motion is.an ettort to argue the admissibility of Conten-tion 26, wnicn is.untime-ly'and improper. Fourth LILCO's motion improperly seeks to nave cne Boaro resolve une merits or an somitteo contention before 11tigation. It' LILCO disagrees witn the County's interpletation or applicable regulationc whicn is.tne ultimate issue in tuis_ case,-ano-in tnis Contention, it can argue its views in-
, , its post-trial briers. i ine board can only make l its.finoings on suca . .t- i ters, nowever, atter the- !
'l A
Page-and Line LILCC's Reason (s) to County nesponsa hetecences Strike parties present their evloence at une nearin3, not in decicing tne ac-missibility of testimony.
. Any otner result woulo permit LlLCG, simply be-cause it disagrees witn
~
prorrereo test 1 mony ano the conclusions reacned, to strike sucn testAmony baseo on balo assertions or wnat it be11 eves tne regulations ao or ao not require.
LlLCO's motion to str1Ke page 16, lines 6-9 anc 15-16 is also witnout basis. LlLCO oojects to tne statements in tne testimony tnat "tne L1LCG
. paging sys tem raignt malfunction" on ene grouno tnot:tnere.is no basis in tne record to i
support ene statement.
There is no requirement-tnat'every fact wnicn supports witnesses' opinion be expressly _
stated in testimony.
Moreover, tne SCPD
~
I witnesses nave articulat-( ed in great detail'cne l
problems tnat can be ex-pected to occur wita
-LlLCO's paging system (see testimony on Conten-tion 26.C, pagem 40-64).
[ Further, SCPD witnessas
. . are quallrieo co'alscuss
- i. such problems caseo upon' i l tnelt extensive experi-ence ano expertise wita-l 24~-
l 6
i
-7 Page and Line L1LCO's Reason (s) to County Response References ___ 5trike paging systems sucn as the one re11ec upon by L1LCO. Moreover, tne adequacy of factual as--
sertions goes to the merits, wnich is a matter to be determined at the nearing, not in decloing upon the aamissibility or testimony.
- 11. 30, lines 6 All of this testimony. For all the reasons stat-tnru 15 proceeds upon ene - . ed ~in County Response lu erroneous assumption above-(ilrst paragrapn),
enat there is a the-LILCO objection to 15-minute time limita- 'this testimony snoulu be tion witnin wnicn emer - rejected.
gency workers must be notified.
- 11. . 31, 11ne 11
~
All or this testimony L1LCO's objection enru page 35, shoulo be strucx be- miscnaracterizes one scPD
-line 12 cause it proceeds on testimony, is overly-ene erroneous premise ~ croao,.and.witnoutrany tnat various'governmen- basis in, tact. The tes-tal entities, such as timony-does not proceea.
Suttolk County, are on the assumption tnat- t
" response'organiza-- various governmental tions" witnin the agencies are-'" response
- meaning ot 10'CFR organizations." inoceo, 350.47(b)(5) and (6). 'ene testimony-makes clear
- 5uch'is not the case.in- tnat'LILCOLitseii 1s' toe.
tnis. proceeding. primary response.;organi-zation relied upon by tue LILCO Plan. NonetneAess, LILCO 1s. required.to; "have the capabi11ty.to
, ' notify responsibleLutate and local ~ government &1 '
agencies witnin 15 ~ *
> minutes after declaring an1emergancy":(101CFR~
Part 50,1 Appendix E,;
Section IV.D.3).- :inis
-f25.-
F 4
4 !
4
1 i
Page ano Line L1LCO't, heason's) to Countf Response heterences Str1Ke __
\
l 1
notitication requirement does not depeno upon wnetner State ano loc &1 agencies are " response organizations" -- a tact recognized in tne LlLCO Plan by tne placement or hECS telepnones at State and local government agencies. ine SCPD tes--
timony' discusses problems witn ene RECS notifica-tion scheme ano is there-tore relevent, materlaA and probative. Indeed, L1LCO nownere alleges to the contrary. 'I h u s ,
LILCO's motion tails to meet tne minimum require-ments or a motion to strike ano must ce rejected. See January Ib Order, 6t 1. See also County Response ld (Ilrst paragrapn) above Ior Oa-
, ultional reasons way LILCO's objection snoulo be denied.
- 13. 52, line 15 All of this testimony. For all the reasons stat-tnru page 52, proceeds upon the ed.in County Response 10 11ne 16 erroneous assumption above'(first paragrapn),
tnat there is a the LILCO objection to 15-minute. time limita- cnis testimony'snoulo be cion wich'in which emer- rejected. Indeed, in gency workers must be tnis instance,-ene testi-notified. mony sought to tmE stricken by L1LCO simply states unat enere wi1A ce delays in mobilizing emergency response per-sonnel und in imple-menting command anu control.'occisionsloue to Page and Line LlLCO's xeason(s) to County hesgonse neierences Strike problems in notitying emergency response per-sonner. Inis conclusion nas notning to ao wi tn wnetner LiLCG must provide notitication within 15 minutes.-
C. Jestimony Allegeo by LILCO_to be Beyond_ Scope of Contention anofor Without Sutricient Founcation LlLCO moves to strike tne following testimony because, in LILCO's view, it is beyond the scope of Contention 26 and/or is witnout sutticient roundation. LiLCO's arguments lack merit ror tne reasons noted in Section I.C aoove and icentified spe-cifically below.
- 14. 20, line 11 inis testimony makes .Tnere 1s-no requirement thru page 21, numerous assumptions that every fact in line 2 tor which there is no suppor t or witnesses' basis in the record. opinions be expressly Upon wnat basis can stated in alrect costi-these witnesses assume mony or in the record.
that a call maae by a horever, tne SCPD customer service opera- witnesses specifically tor to a LERO emergency explain why the telephone worker will be more calls made curing tne time consuming tnan a SC#D notification / mob 111-call made by one police zation test'would take officer to another
- less time tnan woulo off-outy police ~offi-- telephone calls made oy
. cer? Tnis testimony _,is LlLCO's" Customer-Servica based upon rank specu- operators and other emer-lation. Finally, the- gency response workers.
testimony seems to See~SCPD testimony, at raise ~ questions as to 20-21. If L1LCO ene acequacy.of tne casagrees witn tneLeon-training of LERO 'clusions, or-factual
1 Page and Line LILCO's Reason (s) to County hesponse References ,
Strike workers. Training bases Ior tDe opinions of issues are aaoresseo in tne SCPD witnesses, it -
other contentions ano can examine tne basis tor testimony-as to tne witnesses' opinions training is irrelevant ano statements curing to the issues presented cross examination. How-by Contention 26. ever, tnere is no basis for strixing tne testi-mony, as sucn woulo result in the-Boaro resolving the merits of the Contention by ettec-tively pronibiting its litigation.
LILCO's training objecti~on is to tally witnout basis, since ene testimony does not raise training issues.
15, 21, line 20 This testimony is based There is no requirement.
tnru page 22, on speculation and as-line 12 tnat every tact in sumptions wnich fino no support of witnesses' f actual basis in the opinions ce expressly record. Additionally, -stacea in oirect testi-tne testimony seeks to mony or in ene record, raise issues being horeover, tne SCPD addressec in other con- witnesses specitically tentions. For example, set forth wny LILCO's tne issue of role-conflict, raised at the notification success ~ rate would-likely be. lower top of page-22, is not relevant to the issues than'ene success rate ob-tained during the-SCPD presented by Contention
- 26. notification / mobilization
' test. See SCPD Testimo-ny, at 21-22. LIf LILCO
-disagrees witn'ene wit--
nesses' conclusions,: it.
- ' con examine the bases tor.
.the-witnesses' opinions and statements during cross examination. how-ever,'there is no. basis-
Page and Line L1LCO's Reason (s) to County hesponse References Strike _______
for striking one testimony, as sucn woulo result in tne 6cara resolving tne merits or tne Contention by etrec-tively prohiolting its litigation.
LILCO's-role cont 11ct objection snoulo also be re3ected.- LILCO claims tne issue or role conflict is not relevant to-tne issues presented in Contention 26. Inis.
.is absura. Contention 26 oeals witn notification or emergency personnel.
.1n tnis regaro, tne testimony sougnt to be stricken questions wnetn-er suen personne1'will-
" respond" by answering notitication telegnone-calls f rom otner einer -
gency workers. 'enus,.tne testimony is relevant.
Furthct, t h e _. c e s t i m o n y specitically rererences passages trom-tne testi-many'or anonner witness-(Iormer bCPD Commissioner
-D11wortn),,as suggestea by the boaro in its January 16 Groer.
Furtner, as noted by tne-Boara-(Jenuary~16 Orcer, dt 6), witnesses _'may draw conclusions trom other testimony and may recite
. - other cestimony to snow tne tactual predicatelot their own conclusions.
This: 1s tne context'or
-.2y .
1
--x- .
Page and Line LILCO's Reason (s) to County hesponse
'neterences Strike the SCFD testimony oojectea to cy L1LCC, uno enere is no basis ror strining it.
A6. 3E, lines 13 This testimony snould LILCO raises botn a tnru 22 be struck because it training and a role adoresses issues conflict objection. How-relating to training ever, tne testimony in no and role conflict. way raises role cont 11ct inere is no factual issues. hith respect to Dasis in . tne record to training, L1LCO orgues suggest tnat these tnat tne testimony is not witnesses are competent relevant ano tnat tne to discuss'tnese.lssues SCPD witnesses are not nor that the issues are competent to testity on l relevant to Contention the issue or training.
26, There are several reasons for cenying L1LCC's i motion. Consloeration of l communications training is integrally connecceu with Contention 26. in addition, the 5 CPL witnesses were caretui to limit tneir alscussion or training _to-LILCO's coa-munications tr ain Ang pro-gram. 'Inere was no at-tempt to aodress tne-kinds or training issues tnat will be consloerco in otner testimony. rne Boaro nas previously ruled that sucn narrow training testimony, wnen airectly relatec to tue contention at issue, is relevant and admissiole, bee January 16 Order,.at 4-(witn respect to trar-fic guioe training)..
Fur tner , tne'5 CPL yitnesses~are clearly-
- w. -_a -
9
.Page and Line LILCO's Reason (s) to County Response References Strike ___,
competent to ciscuss sucn training issues basec on tnelt experience ano expertise. In any event, as this Board has previ-ously noteo, "twjnere the extent or a witness's expertise is unclear, a moving party must mune a much more explicit, ce-taileoEshowing as to ex-actly wnat tnat. expertise is, anc wny spectric statements are outsloe it, tnan L1LC0 has pro-vided. . . . See Januacy 16 Oroer, at 5.
- 17. 45, line 16 There is no factual Tnere is no requirement taru page 46, basis in unis record to that every fact wnicn line 17 support the conclusions supports every conclusion set forth in tnis reacned by a witness be testimony. Upon what stated in testimony or in basis ao these tne record. 'Moreover, witnesses presume to the SCPD witnesses are testify that LERO qualified to discuss workers, in violation concerns regarding' of tneir training , will LlLCO's paging-system, leave tne area covered 'baseo upon tneir experi-by tn'e pager system ence witn syscems like wnile they are on duty? the one relied upon by Additionally, upon what LlLCO. Furtner, tne casts do thece . testimony'specitically witnesses conclude'that. secs fortn a number or persons who are paged the bases underlying lcne wil2'enoose to ignore- ' conclusions reacned. 'For the page? example, in-response to L1LCO's question regaroing tne bases for tne 5CPD witnesses'-
concAuding enat-persons pageo may not respona,.
cne testimony expressly mentions two reasons:
^" "
. -j
l Page ano Line LlLCO's Reason (s) to County hesponse heferences'_ Strike 111 ness and tne fact that persons may not be near tnelr pagers ( see lines 14 -1 ~/ , page 46). More-
. over, the LILCO cojection is overly broao ano seeks
.to strike even. portions of tne testimony tnat merely recite speeltic provisions or cne LALOG Plan -- tor example, page 45, line 16, enru page 46, line 2.
- 16. 48, line 1 This testimony, LlLCG's oojection is unru page 50, including the rootnote overly broso anu, in any.
line 7 incorporated tnerein, . event, lacks any basis.
has no factual basis in L1LCO appear s to ' obj ec t tne record relating to on grounds ot relevancy, Contention 26. This but the-testimony sougnt testimony' represents an to be stricken primarily ettort by Suttolk deals with LlLCO's fail-County to-relitigate ure-to provice ior con-ene role conflict and firmation of pageo mes-credibility issues- sages by pageo personnel.
presented in other con- LILCO therefore seeks to-tentions. For example, reargue an objection made on page.49,.upon what at tne time Contention factual basis toi lsic] 26.C was modified to i
tnese witnesses protter reflect Rev. 3 of the an opinion tnat "with- LILCO Plan. (See-LiLCG's out some kind ot con - January 19-Objections, at tirmation before nand, 12). Tne Board der. .ed .
many' parsons twho have~ LILCO's objection at tne
.been paged] will not time (see February a raa11y believe tnat Order, at.9), ano LlLCO cnere is an emergency. should.not'oe alloweo to-requiring enem to. reargue admissioliity a
- report for duty." This secono-time-- -especially testimony shoulo be enrougn tne guise or'a struck. . . motion-to strike.
Further,.the testimony in-no way seeks to b
m_ . - m
c:
. Page and Line LILCO's Reason'(s) to County Response heferences _ Strine ___
relltigate eitnerl role conflict or creololiity issues (indeeo, crecib11 '
ity issues nave ~not: yet been litigated before tnis Board).- the foot-note objecteo.to'by:LIL'O C rully complies witnttne Boaro's January 16 Groer, wnere tne boaro.noteo tnat "tijf a witness-wisnes'to base any. con-ciuslon he' or sale craws upon the testimony or;an-Otner, the Wanness snou1O' reference the'specitic-passages relleo upon."-
January 16 Oroer, at 6.
The testimony coes spe-cifically.rererence ene other testimony relico upon ano-therefore snould-withstand L1LCO's-
- objection. - In a6ciclon,,
as notediby tne Boara,
. witnesses may draw con-causions:from otherntes-timony ano may. recite
^
Other. testimony to1 snow-the-factua'i predicate 01 their own-conclusions.
LJanuary'1b Ordor,Jat 6.
Furtner,JLILCO's objec' tion'doesinot make the. explicit,rdetaileo
show'ing as to way t n e -'
testimony should be.
struck,.as required;by .
the:Boaro's January lo; Order, at-~5.
- 33;-
W L
A m
4 v ? t
111. Conclusion l-For the reasons set forta above, the Board snould ceny LILCO's "hotion to Strike Portions of Direct Testimony on Be-nali of Suf folk County Regarding Emergency Planning Contention -
26." .
Respectfully submitted, Martin Bradley Ashare Suffolk County Department or Law Veterans Memoria1 ' Highway Hauppauge, New York 11'/88
~
Lawrence Coe Lanpher Karla J. Letsche
. Michael S. Miller
- Kirkpatrick, Locknart, Hill, Christopher & Phillips 1900 M Street, N.W.
Washington, D.C. 20046 Attorneys for Suffolk County Dated: March 16, 1984
- %