ML20151P110
| ML20151P110 | |
| Person / Time | |
|---|---|
| Site: | Shoreham File:Long Island Lighting Company icon.png |
| Issue date: | 04/20/1988 |
| From: | Latham S, Taylor J, Zahuleuter R NEW YORK, STATE OF, SUFFOLK COUNTY, NY, TWOMEY, LATHAM & SHEA |
| To: | Atomic Safety and Licensing Board Panel |
| References | |
| CON-#288-6134 OL-3, NUDOCS 8804260089 | |
| Download: ML20151P110 (9) | |
Text
'N bGY 00lMETED uNc All :31 UNITED.9TATES OF AMERICA
. roce NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSION f ocxF Before the Atomic Safety and Licensino Board
)
In the Matter of
)
)
LONG ISLAND LIGHTING COMPANY
)
Docket No. 50-322-OL-3
)
(Emergency Planning)
(Shoreitam Nuclear Power Station
)
Unit 1)
)
)
GOVERNMENT'S MOTION TO STRIKE A PORTION OF LILCO'S TESTIMONY REGARDING CONTENTION 25.C I.
Introduction Suffolk County, the State of New York and the Town of Southampton (the "Governments") hereby move to strike Question and Answer 67 at page 58 of LILCO's prefiled testimony on the remanded schools issues, dated April 13, 1988.1 That portion of LILCO's Testimony describes what one of LILCO's witnesses was allegedly told by one of LILCO's consultants about how schools within the 10-mile EPZ's of other nuclear power plants in New York State purportedly evacuate their students in the event of a l
radiological emergency.
Such testimony is not relevant to the issues raised in the remanded schools proceeding.
Further, it is l
l 1
Testimony of Douglas M.
Crocker, Robert B.
- Kelly, tichael K.
I Lindell, and Dennis S. Mileti, on the Remanded Issue of "Role Conflict" of School Bus Drivers, dated April 13, 1988 ( 'LIL( 3's Testimony").
~
t l
8804260089 880420 PDR ADOCK 05000322 o
93 PDR
Inherently unreliable, and t.ffectively precludes the Governments from exercising meaningfully their cross examination rights.
Accordingly, the proffered testimony should be stricken i
i II.
Discussion A.
The Proffered Testimony is Not Relevant The portion of LILCO's Testimony sought to be stricken presumably sets forth what one of LILCO's witnesses, Mr. Crocker, knows about how schools are to be evacuated from the 10-mile EPZs of other New York State nuclear plants.
Mr. Crocker's understanding is based upon information given to him by Mr.
Richard Watts, a LILCO consultant.
According to the objected-to-testimony, Mr. Watts obtained such infvrmation, at the direction of Mr. Crocker, by telephoning emergency planning personnel in the counties around the State's other nuclear plants.
Clearly, Mr. Crocker's testimony regarding the telephone conversations of Mr. Watts is not relevant to the issues raised in this proceeding.
The scope of this proceeding was defined by i
the Appeal Board in ALAB-832, 23 NRC 135, 152-54 (1986) and this i
Licensing Board in its Memorandum and Order dated December 30, l
1987 (at page 5) as encompassing the issue of the impact of role conflict experienced by school bus drivers on LILCO's emergency i
plan for school populations within the 10-mile i
i l
l j
--m.
EPZ of the Shorehan plant, taking into consideration an assessment of the adequacy of LILCO's new auxiliary school bus driver proposal.
Thus, while the efficacy of LILCO's proposal for evacuating the Shoreham EPZ schools is obviously relevant to this proceeding, the efficacy of school evacuation plans for other nuclear power plants within the State of New York has no i
bearing on or relevance to the issues before the Board.
Indeed, in evaluating LILCO's proposal for evacuating the schools with the Shoreham EPZ, this Board is precluded from ceasidering the plans or capabilities of the counties surrounding the State's other nuclear plants.
In its recent amendment to the emergency planning rules contained in 10 CFR Part 50, the l
Commission admonished that:
The final rule makes clear that every emergency plan is to be evaluated for adequacy on its own merits, without reference to the capabilities of any other plan.
j 52 Fed. Reg. 42078, 42084 (November 3, 1987).
Thus, LILCO's l
attempt to have this Board evaluate its plan for evacuating schools by means of comparison to the plans in effect in the counties around the State's other nuclear plants must be rejected.
l t
, t i
,,---.--me--..wr,ew,,w,.__
,-..--.,.-.m---,.
,-,--,t-_c
,m.,-,,..-..,-.
..%--..w-,-e.y e
~
B.
The Proffered Testimony Is Also Inherently Unreliable As noted, Mr. Crocker, in the referenced portion of LILCO's Testimony, presumes to set forth his understanding of information cbtained f rom Mr. Watts f rom emergency planners in the counties around other New York nuclear plants.
In short, Mr. Watts telephoned unnamed and unidentified "planners" for,the counties I
around these other plants these "planners" allegedly provided certain information to Mr. Watts; and then, later, Mr. Watts spoke with Mr. Crocker and summarized the information conveyed to him.
Mr. Crocker, in the objected-to testimony, now offers, and expects this Board to consider, what can only be described, at best, as a general and ambiguous summary of his recollection of what Mr. Watts told him.
While Mr. Crocker is a witness in this proceeding, and is subject to cross-examination, Mr. Watts is not a witness, nor are his telephone contacts.
Accordingly, the proffered testimony is a classic example of double hearsay; as such, it is inherently unreliable, and should be stricken.
Egg 10 CFR $ 2.743(c).
Should the Board rule otherwise, the Governments will be unable to cross-examine Mr. Watts or his telephone contacts with respect to the statements offered by Mr. Crocker, to prove the truth of the matter asserted therein.
Stated differently, permitting the testimony to remain as part of LILCO's case would deprive the Gcvernments of their right to directly rebut evidence offered by L:LCO, and adverse to their interests.
Moreover, the testimony proffered by Mr. Crocker is confusing and highly ambiguous.
Mr. Crocker states that:
Basically, they (Watts' phone contacts) responded that they had never heard of any requirement that the extra drivers needed the school districts' approval before driving during a radiological emergency.
- :LCO's Testimony at page 58.
This testimony may mean that Mr. Watts' contacts simply did not know whether school district approval was needed; on the c:her hand, it could mean that Mr. Watts' contacts did not think such approval was required.
Further, the use of the word "basically" in the testimony clouds the meaning of this sentence even more.
In context, "basically" may mean that some of Mr. Watts' contacts were aware of the need for school district approval, while others were not.
Thus, about the only thing clear from the testimony is this:
without the contacts present at trial, the Governments would be unable to meaningfully conduct cross-examination.
Accordingly, this portion of the testimony should be stricken.
III.
Conclusion For the foregoing reasons, Question and Answer 67 appearing on page 58 of LILCO's Testimony should be stricken.
Respectfully submitted, E.
Thomas Boyle Suffolk County Attorney Bldg. 158 North County Complex Veterans Memorial Highway Hauppauge, New York 11788 LA T Ja'L S.M 1 r
Lyda Tay1 Kirkpatrick &
ockhart s
1800 M Street, N.W.
Washington, D.C.
(202) 778-9000 Attorneys for Suffolk County orYA fW 1 LL s-R'i cria r d J.
leuter
"~
Special C to the Governor Executive hamber, Room 229 State Capitol Albany, New York 11224 4
h Stepn en B.
u anf ' '
V-Twome'y, Latham & Shea 33 West Second Street Riverhead, New York 11981 l
l _.
i OCLktiC0 Aoril 20. 1988 U3Nkt UNITED STATES OF AMERICA NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSION 18 MH 22 M1:31 Before the Atomic Safety and Licensina Board ggy,,j, 00CK[i NF,4 Mn J i t
BRANCH
)
In the Matter of
)
)
LONG ISLAND LIGHTING COMPANY
)
Docket No. 50-322-OL-3
)
(Emergency Planning)
(Shoreham Nuclear Power Station,
)
Unit 1)
)
)
CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE I hereby certify thct copies of GOVERNMENT'S MOTION TO STRIKE A PORTION OF LILCO'S TESTIMONY REGARDING CONTENTION 25.C have been served on the following this 20th day of April, 1988 by U. S. ma il, fi rs t class, except as otherwise noted.
- James P. Gleason, Chairman
- Mr. Frederick J. Shon Atomic Safety and Licensing Board Atomic Safety and Licensing Board U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission Washington, D.C.
20555 Washington, D.C.
20555 James P. Gleason, Chairman
- William R. Cumming, Esq.
513 Gilmoure Drive George W. Watson, Esq.
Silver Spring, Maryland 20901 Office of General Counsel Federal Emergency Management Agency
- Dr. Jerry R. Kline 500 C Street, S.W., Room 840 Atomic Safety and Licensing Board Washington, D.C.
20472 U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission Washington, D.C.
20555
- W.
Taylor Reveley, III, Esq.
Hunton & Williams Fabian G. Palomino, Esq.
P.O.
Box 1535 Richaro J. Zahnleuter, Esq.
707 East Main Street Special Counsel to the Governor Richmond, Virginia 23212 Executive Chamber, Rm. 229 State Capitol Albany, New York 12224
Joel Blau, Esq.
Anthony F. Earley, Jr., Esq.
Director, Utility Intervention General Counsel N.Y. Consumer Protection Board Long Island Lighting Company Suite 1020 175 East Old Country Road Albany, New York 12210 Hicksville, New York 11801 E. Thomas Boyle, Esq.
Ms. Elisabeth Talbbi, Clerk Suffolk County Attorney Suffolk County Legislature Bldg. 158 North County Complex Suffolk County Legislature Veterans Memorial Highway Office Building Hauppauge, New York 11788 Veterans Memorial Highway Hauppauge, New York 11788 Mr.
L. F.
Britt Stephen B. Latham, Esq.
Long Island Lighting Company Twomey, Latham & Shea Shoreham Nuclear Power Station 33 West Second Street North Country Road Riverhead, New York 11901 Wading River, New York 11792 Ms. Nora Bredes Docketing and Service Section Executive Director Office of the Secretary Shoreham Opponents Coalition U.S.
Nuclear Regulatory Comm.
4 195 East Main Street 1717 H Street, N.W.
Smithtown, New York 11787 Washington, D.C.
20555 Alfred L. Nardelli, Esq.
Hon. Patrick G. Halpin New York State Department of Law Suffolk County Executive 120 Broadway, 3rd Floor H. Lee Dennison Building Room 3-116 Veterans Memorial Highway New York, New York 10271 Hauppauge, New York 11788 MHB Technical Associates Dr. Monroe Schneider 1723 Hamilton Avenue North Shore Committee Suite K P.O.
Box 231 San Jose, California 95125 Wading River, New York 11792 Mr. Jay Dunkleburger Richard G. Bachmann, Esq.
New York State Energy Office Edwin J.
Reis, Esq.
Agency Building 2 Of fice of the General Cc unsel Empire State Plaza U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Comm.
Albany, New York 12223 Washington, D.C.
20555 David A. Brownlee, Esq.
Mr. Stuart Diamond Kirkpatrick & Lockhart Business / Financial 1500 Oliver Building NEW YORK TIMES Pittsburgh, Pennsylvania 15222 229 W.
43rd Street New York, New York 10036
- l
+
Douglas J. Hynes, Councilman Adjudicatory File Tcwn Board of Oyster Bay Atomic Safety and Licensing Town Hall Board Panel Docket Oyster Bay, New York 11771 U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Comm.
Washington, D.C.
20555 k
~
4ypn 73714 ~
Kirk, patrick &,rf v ockhart u
1800 M Street, N.W.
South Lobby - 9th Floor Washington, D.C.
20036-5891
- By Telecopy l
i k
k
+ -,.._.-__ _- -..
-_