ML20214W501
| ML20214W501 | |
| Person / Time | |
|---|---|
| Site: | Shoreham File:Long Island Lighting Company icon.png |
| Issue date: | 06/10/1987 |
| From: | Margulies M Atomic Safety and Licensing Board Panel |
| To: | |
| References | |
| CON-#287-3717 86-529-02-OL, 86-529-2-OL, OL-3, NUDOCS 8706160055 | |
| Download: ML20214W501 (4) | |
Text
^ 37/7 A
b C0C KE T E.:
UNITED STATES OF AMERICA NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSION ATOMIC SAFETY AND LICENSING BOARD Before Administrative Judges:
y 'g g,
Morton B. Margalies, Chairman SERVED JUN 111987 Mr Fr de i k on
)
In the Matter of
)
Docket No. 50-322-OL-3 (Emergency Planning)
LONG ISLAND LIGHTING COMPANY (Shoreham Nuclear Power Station, Unit 1)
June 10, 1987
)
MEMORANDUM AND ORDER (Ruling on LILC0's Motion to Strike the Testimony of Johnson and Saegert)
==
Introduction:==
On April 18, 1987 LILCO filed a motion entitled "LILCO's Motion to Strike the Direct Testimony of Johnson and Saegert." The motion is directed at the prefiled testimony of Suffolk County submitted April 13, 1987 by James H. Johnson, Jr. and Susan C. Saegert.
LILCO's reasons for requesting that portions of the testimony be struck are that it addresses issues that have previously been litigated or it is outside the scope of admitted issues. The NRC Staff supports LILC0's motion for the reasons given by LILCO. Suffolk County opposes the motion because in its view the testimony addresses issues admitted by the Board in this proceeding and because the issues of emergency planning are not the same as in the previous proceeding.
l 8706160055 870610 7
l DR ADOCK O 3g2 0j 9
t
3 2
We have previously discussed at length LILC0's argument that matter which have previously been litigated should not be considered in this proceeding. Memorandum and Order (Ruling on LILCO's Motion to Strike the Testimony of Stephen Cole et al.), June 9,1987. We found in that order as we do here without repetition of the analysis that LILCO's argument of prior litigation is misplaced when the ultimate issues in controversy are not the same as in prior hearings. Thus we will deny requests to strike which rely on that argument unless the testimony attempts to prove a thesis which has been previously decided. The fact that much of the proffered evidence is the same or similar to that relied upon by Intervenors in previous hearings where it was not persuasive does not affect its admissibility in this proceeding where it is offered for a different purpose.
We also analyzed LILCO's and the NRC Staff's views on the scope of the proceeding in our previous order. We concluded that the Appeal Board's remand order in ALAB-832 required a broader interpretation of the scope of this proceeding than LILCO or the Staff would have us find.
We will consider all requests to strike based on this argument in that light.
Board Ruling:
The Board rules in this section on each of LILC0's individual requests to strike based on the principles sunnarized or referenced herein.
3 I.
Page 6 (last paragraph); page 7 (first five lines). Denied.
The testimony is admissible because it addresses the adequacy of routes leading to reception centers which is within the scope of the proceeding and has not been litigated before. Further, the witnesses reference to other testimony is admissible because it presents the basis for opinion which will assist the Board in ascribing weight to be accorded the testimony.
II. Page 8 (last 2 lines); page 10 (first 3 lines and footnotes 3 and 4). Denied. Testimony for the purpose of developing context or background in admissible because it assists the Board in evaluating the basis for expert testimony. The section challenged is brief and not unduly repetitive.
III.
Page 10-11. Beginning "in non-nuclear emergencies" and ending with " sickness" on line 12 page 11 (including footnotes 5 and 6).
Denied. The testimony is relevant to the issues of reception center adequacy.
IV. Page 12. Question and answer starting at mid-page including footnote 7.
Denied. The testimony is relevant to the issue of l
reception center adequacy which has not been litigated previously.
LILCO overstates the case when it asserts that the testimony represents an attempt to expand the EPZ to 40 miles; the testimony simply addresses an admitted issue in this case. We also disagree with LILC0 that our previous decisions on public surveys had generic effect that would allow new testimony on different issues to be stricken because it relies on survey data.
Intervenors may or may not have remedied the problems of
.----.,-...c c
r
-,~v
=
4 predictability we found in our previous assessment of survey information, but we shall determine that after hearing the evidence.
V.
Page 13. Portion of Answer beginning with "Moreover" and ending with "the number of evacuees." Denied. The testimony is relevant to the issue of reception center adequacy which has not been litigated before.
VI.Section V (page 21-22). Denied. The testimony is relevant to the issue of reception center adequacy which has not been litigated before.
VII. Page 23. Sentence on line 10. Denied. The testimony is relevant to the issue of reception center adequacy which has not been litigated before.
ORDER Based on all of the foregoing reasons, it is ordered that LILC0's motion to strike portions of the testimony of Johnson and Saegert is denied.
FOR THE ATOMIC SAFETY AND LICENSING BOARD b
/
Morton B. Margulies,, Chairman ADMINISTRATIVE LAW JUDGE Dated at Bethesda, Maryland this 10th day of June,1987