ML20215K932
| ML20215K932 | |
| 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 8705120040 | |
| Download: ML20215K932 (6) | |
Text
_
May 4,1987 UNITFD STATES OF AMERICA NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSION i
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 MOTION TO STRII;E TESTIMONY OF STEPHEN COLE, ET AL.
I.
INTRODUCTION On April 18, 1987, LILCO filed its " Motion to Strike the Testimony of Stephen Cole, et al." (" Motion").
The Motion seeks to strike portions of the Cole testimony -
on the grounds it is outside the scope of the instant proceeding because it has either been litigated previously in this proceeding or-is duplicative of testimony filed in the currently ongoing exercise proceeding ("OL-5 proceeding").
The NRC Staff agrees in part with LILCO's Motion, in that issues such as the pre-existing fear of radiation and LILCO's lack of credibility are issues which have indeed been previously litigated.
Further, the Staff notes that much of the testimony filed herein is indeed duplicative of testimony filed by Suffolk County in the OL-5 proceeding which has been stricken by that Board for similar reasons.
However, the Staff does not agree that all the testimony 1/
" Testimony of Stephen Cole, Susan C. Saegert, James H. Johnson, Jr., David Harris, Martin Mayer, Gregory C. Minor and Stephen C.
~
Sholly on Behalf of Suffolk County Regarding LILCO's Reception Centers (Planning Basis)" filed April 13,1987
(" Cole testimony").
G705120040 Er70504 gDR ADOCK0500g2
LILCO seeks to strike is irrelevant and inadmissible, especially in light of the Board rulings in the OL-5 proceeding. 2,/
It is the Staff's position that such duplicative testimony should be t
denied adtrission unless its focus and the purpose for which it is presented is so different from the reason it was admitted in the OL-5 proceeding as to warrant its separate admission here.
Specific responses regarding the Cole testimony which are addressed in LILCO's motion are set out below.
For convenience, the Staff has organized its response following the format of LILCO's Motion.
II.
DISCUSSION A.
LILCO does not object to pages 1-10 of the testimony.
B-C.
LILCO first seeks to strike the conclusions stated on pages 11 and 12 of the testimony and the following testimony from page 12 to 19 since it is redundant of earlier testimony concerning the value of opinion polls in predicting behavior.
This testimony is redundant and should not be admitted. See LBP-85-12, 21 NRC 644, 663-671. Further, the Staff agrees that the paragraph on page 19 of the testimony beginning " Third, in light... " and ending "makes this part of its emergency plan unworkable", concerning the number of people who will seek monitoring encountering clogged roads, restates testimony filed by other witnesses in this proceeding. See " Direct Testimony of David T. Hartgen and Robert 2/
Memorandum and Order (Ruling on LILCO's and Staff's Motions to
~
Strike Suffolk County's Testimony on Contentions EX 38, Ex 39, Ex 22F, Ex 44, Ex 40C and Ex 49C), April 17, 1987.
C. Millspaugh on Behalf of the State of New York Regarding LILCO's Reception Centers" filed April 13, 1987. It is hence repetitive and should be stricken.
With regard to the fact that this testimony is duplicative of that filed in the OL-5 proceeding, and that this testimony merely states the design of the survey and sampling error (page 12 to top of page 16), it does not seem sufficiently different in focus to warrant separate admissibility here, where cross examination on the same grounds would lead to no different conclusions.
However, the focus in the OL-5 proceeding is whether a certain number of people would respond to the EBS messages, and the focus in the OL-3 proceeding goes to what their specific response might be (that is, whether they would seek monitoring at a relocation center, not just whether they would respond at all).
To that extent, the testimony on pages 16 to 19 seems relevant to this proceeding and should be admitted.
D - I.
The Staff agrees that all the testimony on pages 26 through 36 concerning the pre-existing fear of radiation as influencing behavior is an issue that has been previously litigated and is inadmissible in this proceeding. b J.
The Staff agrees that information regarding the Chernobyl accident covered by the testimony on pages 36 to 41 should be stricken in that it
-3/
LBP-85-12, 21 NRC 644, 662-63. See also, Memorandum and Order, April 17,1987 at p.10.
is related to the pre-existing fear of radiation issue which the Board in the OL-5 proceeding struck as an issue that has already been litigated and therefore should not be heard again.
K.
The Staff agrees the first paragraph of the testimony on page 42 concerning the pre-existing fear of radiation should be stricken for the foregoing reasons, but does not agree that the second paragraph 4
regarding the EBS messages is not admissible.
At issue in this proceed-ing is what might be the response of the population regarding monitoring
-at relocation centers.
Likewise, the testimony on page 43 is also admissible, with the exception of the last sentence of the last paragraph beginning " Individuals' fear of radiation..." which should be stricken.
Further, the testimony on pages 44-47 refrarding LILCO's credibility should be stricken as this issue was previously litigated in the earlier proceeding. U L.
The Staff does not agree that the footnote on page 48 regarding ALAB-855 is inadmissible.
However, the Staff does agree that the paragraph on page 50 beginning " Finally, the circumstances surrounding i
the Krimm Memorandum
" and ending on page 51 with "... an obstacle to a Shoreham license" should be stricken as pure speculation and not relevant evidence in the proceeding.
4)
LBP-85-12, 21 NRC 644, 687-691.
1 i
,,._...,__,_.,_.,.,_,___._,,,_.-__-.m._
M.
Finally, the Staff does not agree that the testimony on pages 54 and 55 regarding the likelihood of wind shifts is inadmissible. While it is true that the issue of wind shifts was previously addressed in litigation, the determination was not that wind shifts would not occur, but rather that wind shifts on Long Island do occur, and in fact, were postulated on the day of the exercise as part of the scenario. 5_/
This testimony has some basis and is not wholly irrelevant to the issue of whether people might seek monitoring at relocation centerna N.
171th regard to the " conclusions", the Staff agrees that some of the conclusions should be stricken as relating to either pre-existing fear of radiation which has been litigated, or the reference to the Krimm Memorandum.
Thus, the~ second and third sentences of the first paragraph on page 56 beginning "They are afraid..." and ending "and danger of radiation." should be stricken; and the second paragraph on page 57 regarding the Krimm Memorandum should be stricken for the reasons stated above.
O.
With regard to Exhibit 8, the report of the opinion poll on which much of the testimony depends, the Staff notes that the Board admitted the Social Data Analysts poll in the OL-5 proceeding so that the Board 6,/
Accordingly, the Staff could determine the weight to be given it.
would not agree that the poll should be stricken in its entirety, but that 5_/
See LBP-85-12, 21 NRC 644, 778-779.
6/
Memorandum and Order, April 17, 1987 at p. 5.
l those portions of the poll which relate to monitoring likewise should be admitted in the OL-3 proceeding for similar purposes.
Respectfully submitted, Richard Bachmann Counsel for NRC Staff Dated at Bethesda, Maryland this 4th day of May,1987
--