ML20244D442
| ML20244D442 | |
| Person / Time | |
|---|---|
| Site: | Seabrook  |
| Issue date: | 06/05/1989 |
| From: | Cook G PUBLIC SERVICE CO. OF NEW HAMPSHIRE, ROPES & GRAY |
| To: | Atomic Safety and Licensing Board Panel |
| Shared Package | |
| ML20244D394 | List: |
| References | |
| OL, NUDOCS 8906190059 | |
| Download: ML20244D442 (6) | |
Text
l T:'
a f
JuneChIiF89 in UNITED STATES OF AMERICA-
'89 JLN 12 P3 :42
. NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSION.
GM ts e..
.es i
beforeithe
[{Ldf ATOMIC SAFETY AND LICENSING BOARD
)
In the Matter of
)
)
PUBLIC SERVICE COMPANY OF
)
Docket Nos. 50-443-OL
'NEW HAMPSHIRE, et al.
)
50-444-OL
)
(Seabrook Station, Units 1 and 2)
)
(Off-site Emergency
)
Planning Issues)
)
l APPLICANTS' OILIECTION IN THE NATURE-OF A MOTION IN LIMINE TO PORTIONS OF THE j
PREFILED TESTIMONY OF THOMAS J. ADLER ON TRAFFIC GUIDE TRAINING Applicants object to end move this Board in the nature 3
1 of a motion ID limine to exclude as evidence in this proceeding portions of the " Testimony of Dr. Thomas J. Adler on Behalf of James M. Shannon, Attorney General for the Commonwealth of Massachusetts, Concerning Contentions [ sic]
JI-13 (Traf fic Guide Training)."
In. support of their motion, Applicants say that the sections of testimony in question are not relevant to any issue presently before this. Board (Sections 1 and 2, infra) or are inadmissible because they l
1 raise issues for which the Board's deadline for filing 1
testimony had previously expired (Section 3, infra).
GCA%ER.NH 6
5 890605 r
c 05ga
_____-______2____
4 ARGUMENT The following portions of the witness's testimony should be excluded, for the reasons noted:
(1)
Testimony Beyond the Scoce of the Contention.
The subject of providing instructions for traffic guides on how to take care of " routine physical needs," is not within the scope of JI Contention 13 and was not disclosed or discussed in any of the Interveners' responses to Applicants' contention-by-contention interrogatories.
Basis A to JI 13 posits only three reasons why traffic guides might need
" substantial" prerequisite experience in order to know how to direct traffic:
the high volume of vehicles, potentially adverse weather, and " disorderly" drivers.
Interveners' response to Applicants Interrogatory No. 116 (on traffic guides), instead of providing more extensive reasons or elaborating on those in JI 13, simply reasserted a need for
" substantial prior experience."
In neither place did Interveners contend that Applicants were obliged to provide for traffic guides' physical needs.
Yet the witness outlines this argument on page 5 (line 7 and the first two words of line 8) and discusses it in detail on page 8 (entire first paragraph).
This new issue, raised for the first time in the witness's testimony, is not properly before this Board.
The sections noted above should therefore be excluded. _ _ - _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _
I i
s (2)
Testimony Concernina Withdrawn Contentions.
j i
The issue of training state and local police on how to j
function as traffic j;uides under the SPMC was withdrawn by
]
Interveners when they withdrew JI Contention 14.
JI 14, 1
unlike.JI 13, contained an allegation that the SPMC provides inadequate training to " state and local governments [ sic]
I employees and other organizations."
But Mass AG and TOA, in the stipulation signed on February 7, 1989, agreed to withdraw JI 14.
Joint. Stimulation Recardina Status of Admitted Contentions, at 2 (February 7, 1989).1 Despite the I
1 withdrawal of JI 14, the witness has included the carry-over i
sentence at pages 8-9, which says that state and local police who become involved in traffic functions will :need printed copies of "all of the policies and protocols specific to the SPMC."
This sentence, whach is not relevant to JI Contention 13, attempts directly to resurrect an issue that was withdrawn in JI Contention 14 by Interveners and, accordingly, it should be excluded, i
In addition, the witness's suggestion, at six lines from the bottom of page 5, that traffic guides need to be equipped 1 The withdrawal of JI 14 was part of the overall I
stipulation, which involved consideration for both sides.
l The specific exchange involved relative to JI 14 was i
withdrawal of that contention (and narrowing of JI 13) in exchange for treating trcinitag as a Second Part -- i.e.,
Apr.i1 3 instead of February D -- issue.
Interveners, having taken the benefit of that stipulation, cannot now be heard to renounce it.
Kansas Gas & Electric Company (Wolf Creek I
Generating Station, Unit 1), LBP-84-26, 20 NRC 53, 58 n.2 I
(1984), aff'd, ALAB-798, 21 NRC 357 (1985).
I !
l
-._._____-__-A
with'" timepieces"2 should be excluded because it is an equipment allegation, and the evacuation equipment contention, JI 60, was withdrawn.3 In exchange'for Applicants' commitment to supply additional traffic cones and to reflectorize all cones, Interveners agreed that the issues covered in JI 60, which specifically alleged that the-SPMC failed to' identify the equipment available for use in discouraging or encouraging direction of traffic flows, had been resolved.
Joint Stimulation Concernina JI Contention 62, at 1-2 (February 24,f1989).
(3)
Testimony Involvina Issues for which the Filina Deadline Had Previous 1v Exoired.
The witness's testimony refers in three places to issues on which Interveners were required to file all of their testimony by February 21, 1989.4 First, the sentence in the middle of page 6, which discusses " written information" on traffic clearance time and " bottleneck" status, is a traffic control point ("TCP") diagram issue.
2 The text that should be excluded reads, "nor are guides equipped with timepieces to monitor flows."
3 Moreover, Mass AG had previously stipulated that he would not be litigating that contention.
Joint Stimulation Recardina Status of Admitted Contention, at 10 n.5 (February 7, 1989).
4 The Board directed Interveners to file their testimony on " Pure SPMC" Contentions by February 21. 1989, Memorandum and Order (Setting Hearing Schedule), at.3 (January 24, 1989), and Interveners stipulated that, among others,'JI 4, 11, and 12 were " Pure SPMC" Contentions, Joint Stimulation Recardina Status of Admitted Contentions, at 10 (February 7, 1989). -
Second, the sentence on page;7, beginning f"While the ACP/TCP l
diagrams.
also takes issue with traffic control diagrams and not with the training of traffic. guides.
Third and last,.all of the top paragraph on page'9 starting-with-"Similarly," except-for the last' sentence, discusses the readiness of second shift personnel during an emergency.
The witness's testimony on. traffic control diagrams goes to JI Contention 4 and should have been filed by February 21, along with Interveners' other testimony on the' subject.
Likewise,.
although the witness couches his discussion of second shift personnel in terms of the training provided, the issue of the l
I adequacy of the second shift came.under the "first half" contentions JI 11 and 12.
Because the Board's deadline for filing testimony on JI Contentions 4, 11, and 12 had expired long before the witness-filed his testimony,.the sections described above should be excluded.
1 i
l
~I l
4 i
1 i
CONCLUSlQH-For the reasons stated above, the' testimony ch'ould be j
excluded.
Respectfully submltted, i
i
/A-f w$ y Ddj$
b Thomas FC'D)(nan, Jr.
j George 'H.
Lewald
.j Kathryn A. Selleck j
Jeffrey P. Trout Jay Bradford Smith Geoffrey C.
Cock.
William L. Parker Ropes & Gray 1 International Place
-1 Boston, MA 02110
)
(617) 951-7000 I
i j
j l
1
)
l l
l l
l l l
_ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ - _ _ _ - _ _ _ _ -