ML20215K902
| ML20215K902 | |
| Person / Time | |
|---|---|
| Site: | Shoreham File:Long Island Lighting Company icon.png |
| Issue date: | 05/04/1987 |
| From: | Bachmann R NRC OFFICE OF THE GENERAL COUNSEL (OGC) |
| To: | Atomic Safety and Licensing Board Panel |
| Shared Package | |
| ML20215K885 | List: |
| References | |
| OL-3, NUDOCS 8705120028 | |
| Download: ML20215K902 (2) | |
Text
.
May 4, 1987 5 '
UNITED STATES OF AMERICA NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSION BEFORE THE ATOMIC SAFETY AND LICENSING BOARD In the Matter of
)
)
LONG ISLAND LIGHTING COMPANY
)
Docket No. 50-322-OL-3
)
(Emergency Planning)
(Shoreham Nuclear Power Station,
)
Unit 1)
)
NRC STAFF RESPONSE TO LILCO'S MOTION TO STRIKE TESTIMONY OF HARTGEN AND MILLSPAUGH On April 20, 1987, LILCO filed its " Motion to St'rike Testimony of David T. Hartgen and Robert C. Millspaugh" (" Motion").
In its Motion LILCO moved to strike portions of the " Direct Testimony of David T.
Ilartgen and Robert C. Millspaugh on Behalf of the State of New York Regarding LILCO's Reception Centers"
("Hartgen testimony"),
filed April 13, 1987.-
For the reasons discussed below, the Staff supports LILCO's Motion.
LILCO provides four reasons for striking portions of the Hartgen testimony:
- 1. The testimony seeks to litigate the road network from the EPZ boundary to the reception centers; this is beyond the scope of the proceeding and not contemplated by the Commission's Regulations.
- 2. The testimony is based on projections of future population; this is not required by the Regulations.
3.
The testimony improperly seeks to reopen the
" shadow phenomenon" issue, h I h K 05000322 8 870504 0
.n w--
,--,e
,-a-,---v-.
,+,, -~,,, - - - - -
4.
The testimony improperly seeks to relitigate other already-litigated issues.
The Staff agrees with the Motion in its entirety for the reasons given by LILCO.
Moreover, the Staff would also cite the Licensing Board's " Memorandum and Order (Rulings on LILCO Motion to Reopen Record and Remand of Coliseum Issue)"
(" Order"), dated December 11, 1986.
Therein the Board specifically rejected certain issues proposed by Intervenors. Order at 18-20.
The Staff submits that rejected issue 2, regarding evacuation time estimates and evacuation vehicle requirements, bears a relation to those portions of the Hartgen Testimony concerning traffic near the EPZ.
Similarly, rejected issue 6, regarding the adequacy of LILCO's public information and education materials and EBS messages, is not essentially different from the portion's of the Hartgen testimony which postulates evacuees will not follow the routes assigned by LILCO.
I For the foregoing reasons, the Staff supports LILCO's Motion and submits that the Board should strike the specified portions of the Hartgen testimony.
Respectfully submitted, C
Richard G. Bachmann Counsel for NRC Staff Dated at Bethesda, Maryland this 4th day of May,1987