ML20214G542
| ML20214G542 | |
| Person / Time | |
|---|---|
| Site: | Shoreham File:Long Island Lighting Company icon.png |
| Issue date: | 05/18/1987 |
| From: | Zeugin L HUNTON & WILLIAMS, LONG ISLAND LIGHTING CO. |
| To: | Atomic Safety and Licensing Board Panel |
| Shared Package | |
| ML20214G546 | List: |
| References | |
| CON-#287-3521 OL-5, NUDOCS 8705270097 | |
| Download: ML20214G542 (4) | |
Text
- -
n
- o
. /.
LILCO, MOy 18, 1987 3
i.
00f.KETEC uswc UNITED STATES OF AMERICA NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSION
'87 MY 21 P6 :25 Before the Atomic Safety and Licensino Board {fF p
j.g 0
ERMICH In the Matter of
)
)
LONG ISLAND LIGHTING COMPANY
)
Docket No. 50-322-OL-5
)
(EP Exercise)
(Shoreham Nuclear Power Station, )
Unit 1)
)'
LILCO'S M' TION TO STRIKE PORTIONS OF SUFFOLK COUNTY'S O
TESTIMONY ON CONTENTION EX 21, OR IN THE ALTERNATIVE, TO FILE SUPPLEMENTAL TESTIMONY Long Island Lighting Company (LILCO) hereby moves to strike portions of the " Testimony of Gary A. Simon and Stephen Cole on Behalf of Suffolk County Concerning Contention EX 21," on the grounds that the testimony (1) seeks to rebut statements made by Dr. Mileti during his deposition even though Dr. Mileti is not a sponsor of LILCO's testimony on Contention EX 21, (2) raises generic issues about how FEMA should test the performance of an l
l emergency response organization without linking those issues to the February 13 Exercise, and (3) duplicates testimony that has already been given on Contention EX 50.
Alternatively, should the Board desire to hear testimony on the issues that are the I
subject of this motion, LILCO requests that it be permitted to have Dr. Mileti present the attached piece of supplemental testi-l mony which is narrowly focused on the issues raised by Messrs. Simon and Cole.
8705270097 870518 PDR ADOCK 05000322
}g)
~s: i-Specifically, LILCO. seeks to strike the testimony of Messrs. Simon and Cole that begins on page 20, line 13 and runs through page 27, line 10.
The three questions and answers that comprise this testimony are each premised on statements made by-Dr. Mileti during his deposition of January 8, 1987.
The testi-mony attempts to'make three basic points in rebuttal of Dr. Mileti's remarks:
first, that the only way to judge the per-formance.of a response organization is to sample the response of individuals (Testimony at 20-24); second, that the proper social unit in evaluating an organization's ability to handle emergencies is not the organization itself (Testimony at 24-25);
and third, that it is possible to obtain respresentative samples from small populations (Testimony at 26-27).
LILCO first seeks to strike this testimony on the grounds that the-proffered testimony exists solely to rebut anticipated testimony of Dr. Mileti on Contention EX 21.
Since Dr. Mileti is not a sponsor.of LILCO's testimony on Contention EX 21, there is no' basis for this " rebuttal" testimony.
Even if the proffered testimony has some basis other than as rebuttal testimony, it.is still objectionable and should be stricken.
The proffered testimony. seeks to challenge generically the manner in which FEMA observes and grades exerciscs.
The proffered testimony is in no way linked to the February 13 Exer-cise.
As this Board has previously ruled on LILCO's motions to strike portions of Intervenors' testimony on Contentions EX 50 and 15/16 which dealt with general organizational theory (see
. \\
Tr. 4332-33 (training issues), Tr. 6063 (scope of exercise)),
generic issues are relevant only to the extent they are raised by Exercise events.
Here, Intervenors have not linked their generic theories to Exercise events, therefore, the testimony should be stricken.
Finally, the testimony should be stricken as duplicative of testimony previously offered on Contention EX 50.
Suffolk Coun-ty's testimony on that contention is premised on the idea that individual observations during the February 13 Exercise allow conclusions to be drawn about LERO and its training program.
In response, portions of LILCO's testimony on Contention EX 50, sponsored by Drs. Mi'eti and Lindell, argued that the organiza-J tion, not individuals, was the relevant unit for assessing the effectiveness of emergency response.
LILCO's Testimony on Con-tention EX E0 at 11.
Extensive cross examination was conducted by counsel for Suffolk County of Drs. Mileti and Lindell on that subject.
- See, e.a.,
Tr. 4978-84, 4991-95.
Hence, the proffered testimony merely revisits this previous testimony and should be stricken as duplicative.
Should_the Board (ecline to grant LILCO's motion to strike, then LILCO requests that it be permitted to file the attached supplemental te imony o,f Dr. Mileti.
This supplemental s
testimony is spe :ifical))Y tailored to address only the points l
raised on pages 20-27 of Suffolk County's testimony.
It first.
provides an explanation of why Dr. Mileti believes that the orga-
,I nization, not individuals, is the relevant unit of analysis, and I
t I
l
j t g second describes why statistically representative sampling is not possible on small populations.
LILCO believes it is entitled to present such testimony since neither the language of Contention EX 21 nor the deposition testimony of Drs. Simon and Cole re-vealed that these were issues that Intervenors intended to ad-dress in their testimony.
In addition, acceptance of the supple-mental testimony will ensure that the issues are properly joined in this proceeding.
Finally, acceptance of the supplemental tes-timony does not prejudice Intervenors since that testimony is brief and addresses only issues previously raised by Intervenors.
WHEREFORE, LILCO respectfully requests that the Board strike Intervenors' testimony on page 20, line 13 through page 27, line 10 on Contention EX 21, or in the alternative, allow LILCO to file the attached supplemental testimony.
Respectfully submitted, 4 b-SDM Lee B. Zedgid
/
Hunton & Williams 707 East Main Street P.O. Box 1535 Richmond, Virginia 23212 DATED:
May 18, 1987