ML20138R501
| ML20138R501 | |
| Person / Time | |
|---|---|
| Site: | Harris  |
| Issue date: | 12/16/1985 |
| From: | Eddleman W CAROLINA POWER & LIGHT CO., EDDLEMAN, W. |
| To: | Atomic Safety and Licensing Board Panel |
| References | |
| CON-#485-625, CON-$485-625 82-468-01, 82-468-1, OL, NUDOCS 8512310319 | |
| Download: ML20138R501 (2) | |
Text
'
9r9 UNITED STATES OF AMERICA NUCLEAR BEGULATOBY COMMISSION b
'85 DEC 30 All :20 BEFORE THE ATOMIC SAFETY AND LICENSING BOABD Glenn O. Bri Dr. James H.ght Carpenter
[dcEdiisdsb5!b James L. Kelley, Chairman BRANCH In the Matter of
)
Docket 50 400 OL CAROLINA POWER AND LIGHT CO. et al.
)
(Shearon Harris Nuclear Power Plant,
)
Unit 1)
)
ASLBP No. 82-1468-01
)
OL Wells Eddlenan's Objection to Power Engineertne article The Licensing Board in this proceedinF admitted an article by Dr. M. Reada Bassiouni into evidence on Contention 57-C-3 (Nighttime Alterting/ Notification).
Tr. 10225.
Because I was not on the conference call where this ruling was made, the Board gave ne the opportunity to file written objections where mine differ fron those of the North Carolina Attorney General (nade at Tr. 10216-10219).
I now do so.
First, the article is objectionable because it does NOT, on its face, contradict Dr. Bassiouni's assertions.
He s tated that one should not rely on infornal alerting " heavily... to validate the effectiveness (enphasis added )
of.nighttine notification." Tr. 9878 4 He explained his position thus:
In order to use informal communication as an integral part of the warning systen, an intensive public education program would be required.
Also, the heavy use of the telephone syste1 brought on by encouraging people to alert their neighbors may hinder other emergency procedures.
Tr. 9878.
Neither the need for an intensive public education progran, nor the point about heavy use of the phone system is addressed in the Power Engineering article, which does not specifically nention nighttime alerting.
Bu23;ggg gggg;;o y5o3 o
1
-2 Moreover, the article states, on its face, that:
"Neither the N90's NU99G-0654 guidelines nor the Federal Emergency Management Agency's evaluation guide nrovide for consideration of these factors." (Article at 47, its first uage.
"These factors" include informal alerting and evacuation without sirens, as well as multiple activations of sirens and " existing emerFency caeabilities for notifying the nublic."
This cannot impeach Dr. Bassiounib position on informal alerting.
Moreover, as tne Attorney General's objection indicates, impeachment cannot bo established, nor ancarent contradictions rasolved, without cross-examination of Dr. Bassiouni.
My nosition is daat the Board's failure to call Dr. Bassiouni as either the Attorney General's witness or ny witness or its own witness, is sinply wrong.
But two wrongs cannot make a right and I object to admitting this article as evidence to inneach a witness not called and not given the opportunity to confront the evidence.
I further object to the adnission of this article because it is standard practice in NRC proceedings not to admit documents into evidence
{l} pk Sh'fgloidd- [H%D 6fl0M (A>cY O & 0bj & & to) jg without producing the author (s) of those documents for cross-examination.
Thus, assuming for the sake of argument that the document helos the Applicants' case, they should not be able to place it in evidence without oroducing its author so that I (a carty adversely affected by evidence that helps Ann 11 cants ' case) can cross-examine him.
To admit the document without producing its author for cross-examination prejudices my case in this proceeding.
For the above reasons I resueetfully request the Board to reverse its decision and upon reconsideration exclude this article from evidence.
However, since my pronosed findings are due today I wil1 include findings based on the record as it now stands.
I believe this is necessary in self-
- defense.
/
h
&.tnc 16 December 1985
' dells Fddleman