ML20248B583
| ML20248B583 | |
| Person / Time | |
|---|---|
| Site: | Seabrook  |
| Issue date: | 06/01/1989 |
| From: | Trout J PUBLIC SERVICE CO. OF NEW HAMPSHIRE, ROPES & GRAY |
| To: | Atomic Safety and Licensing Board Panel |
| References | |
| CON-#289-8728 OL, NUDOCS 8906090110 | |
| Download: ML20248B583 (10) | |
Text
_ _ _ -
fY2 Y c
05)kEES1, 1989 l
UNITED STATES OF AMERICA *89 JUN -7 P5 :00 NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSION.
before the l
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
)
Off-site Emergency (Seabrook Station, Units 1 and 2)
)
Planning Issues
)
)
APPLICANTS' OBJECTION IN THE NATURE OF A MOTION I]! LIMINE TO PORTIONS OF THE PREFILED TESTIMONY OF DR. ROBERT L. GOBLE Applicants' object to and move this Board in the nature of a Motion in Limine to exclude as evidence in this proceeding portions of the " Testimony of Dr. Robert L. Goble on Behalf of James M. Shannon, the Attorney General for the Commonwealth of Massachusetts, Regarding Contentions MAG EX-11, MAG EX-19, SAPL EX-14, JI-13C, JI-18F, JI-20 AND JI-23 (Exercise PARS, Training for PAR Decision-Makers, METPAC, PAR Decision Criteria, and Coordination of Mass /NH PARS)"
[ hereinafter " Testimony").
In support of their motion, Applicants say that the sections of testimony in question are either not material or relevant to any issue presently before the Board (Section A infra) or are inadmissible as a matter
]
1 i
of law (Section B infra).
f[RO609023o g90601 y
ADOCK 05000443 PDR 3)So3
t s '.
f l
ARGUMENT j
The following portions of the witness's testimony should be excluded, for the reasons noted.
A.
Testimony Beyond the Scope of the Contentions The Testimony purportedly addresses part or all of seven different contentions.
Repeatedly, however, the witness f
ranges far beyond not only those contentions, but beyond any of the contentions admitted in these proceedings.
These digressions into irrelevant areas should be excluded..They are:
1.
Testimony as to Severity of Accident Exercised.
No contention was admitted in these proceedings which alleged that the scenario for the June 1988 Exercise did not involve a sufficiently severe release of radiation.
Nonetheless, at three places th'e witness criticizes the extent of the Exercise release -
a) pages 5-6, all of Question and Answer 2; b) page 16, the third sentence in Answer 11; and c) page 22, fourth line from bottom, the words "as in the exercise scenario."
These irrelevant allegations should be excluded.
2.
Opinion Testimony as to Public Distrust.
None of the contentions which the Testimony purportedly addresses, nor indeed any contention which Applicants have been able to find, alleges that the public will distrust Seabrook's trained, licensed, and NRC-supervised control-room - _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ -
operators.
Even if such a contention had been admitted, moreover, this witness is not qualified to offer expert opinion as to predictions concerning public attitudes.
Thus the portion of the Testimony at the bottom of page 9 which alleges future public distrust should be excluded.
Specifically, the word "both" in the fourth-from-last line should be stricken, as should the rest of the sentence following " mistakes" on the third-from-last line.
3.
Testimony on ERPA Size.
No admitted contention alleges that the ERPAs employed in the SPMC are too big.
Indeed, in JI Contention 19.the Interveners assert just the opposite, i.e. that the SPMC calls for the evacuation of geographic segments that are too small.
Nonetheless, at three places the witness alleges that Applicants evacuate geographic' segments that are too large -
a) page 16, first full paragraph on the page; b) pages 24-25, the two sentences of point "iv"; and c) page 27, the fifth sentence (beginning " Third, for this reason.
").
These allegations are beyond the scope of the admitted contentions and should be excluded.
4.
Testimony on ERO Trainina.
No contention was admitted challenging the adequacy of the training of the on-site response organization (the SS-ERO).
Nor could such a contention have readily been admitted, given that the on-site record has long been closed. _ _ - _ _ - _ _ _ _ _ - _ _ _ _ _
?
See Public Service Company of New HamDshire (Seabrook Station, Units 1 and 2), CLI-89-09, 29 NRC slip op. at 2 (May 24, 1989).1 The witness's repeated allegations concerning.ERO training in PAR formulation should therefore be excluded as irrelevant.
They are -
a) page 21, in the " TRAINING OF PERSONNEL" segment, i) the references to E01014I and E01012I on the second line; ii) the words "some of" in the third line; iii) the words "others are for the SS-ERO" in the fourth line; b) page 21-22, the carry-over sentence, the words "neither the SS-ERO ner the ORO appears" should be replaced by "the ORO does not appear";
c) page 22, lines 5-6, the words "for each organization";
d) page 23, the last sentence of the first paragraph on the page, referencing Attachment 8; e) to the Testimony, global pages 129-132; and f) page 26, the block quote and preceding citation to it, at the top of the page.
5.
Testimony as to FEMA Review Process.
Interveners did raise an on-site training contention, 1
purportedly based on the June 1988 Exercise, before the Onsite Board, which dismissed that contention.
See Public Service Company of New Hampshire (Seabrook Station, Units 1 and 1), LBP-89-04, 29 NRC 62 (1989). _ _ _ _ - - - _.. _ _ _ _ _ - _ _
No contention was admitted in these proceedings challenging the adequacy of FEMA's performance in reviewing the Exercise (as opposed to the adequacy of the players' performance during the Exercise).
Moreover, this Boara has already ruled that such a challenge to "the quality of FEMA's evaluation" is not admissible as a matter of law.
Memorandum and Order (Rulina on June 1988 General Exercisg Contentions) at 22 (December 15, 1988); see p.lso Louisiar,G Power & Licht Co. (Waterford Steam Electric Station, Unit 3), ALAB-812, 22 NRC 5, 56 (1985); Pacific Gas and Electric Co. (Diablo Canyon Nuclear Power Plant, Units 1 and 2), ALAB-728, 17 NRC 777, 807, review declined, CLI-83-32, 18 NRC 1309 (1983).
Thus the witness's criticism of FEMA's performance -- Question and Answer 12, on page 17 -- should be excluded as irrelevant as well as inadmissible.
6.
Miscellaneous.
The following individual passages make allegations which are not within the scope of the admitted contentions:
a) page 13, bottom paragraph, the parenthetical beginning "(though I would argue.
alleging that beach closing should not be triggered by ECLs; b) page 19, in the " PREPARATION" segment, the second sentence, alleging that Seabrook needs more than one met tower; and c) page 19, in the " PREPARATION" segment, the last two sentences, alleging that METPAC incorrectly analyzes plant conditions (as opposed to off-site conditions).
Finally, the first paragraph on page 21 (except for the first sentence) and Attachment 7 referenced therein should be excluded.
The proceedings are supposed to litigate Applicant's response to the actual Exercise scenario, not the witness's hypothesized response to the witness's hypothetical release.
B.
Testimony Already Reiected By the Board.
This Board has already rejected, for good and sufficient reasons, a previous _ piece of testimony by Dr. Goble and others going to the PAR contentions to be litigated in the first part of this hearing.
Tr. 18829-85, 18905.
Nonetheless, the Testimony contains repeated references to and/or repetitions of that excluded testimony.
This effort to resurrect, yet again, the Thompson /Goble/Beyea thesis should be rejected. -The testimony which should be stricken as already excluded is:
a) page 15, first full paragraph on the page, third sentence; b) page 22, Question 15, the words "and a failure to
)
I use sheltering effectively as a protective response i
strategy";
c) pages 22-23, the carry-over sentence; d) pages 23-24, all of the " PREPARATION" segment up to point "iii", inclusive;,
l '
L_________________
.i e)~
-page 25, in.the "METPAC AS A DECISION TOOL" segment, the second, third,'and~' fourth sentences; t-and f) page 27,-the second and third sentences.-
CONCLUSION r
For the reasons stated above, the above-noted sections of t'estimony should be excluded.
By-their attorneys, k.p?l}% $ Unad y
Thomas.G. Dignati, Jr.
George H. Lewald Kathryn A. Selleck Jeffrey P. Trout Jay Bradford Smith Geoffrey C. Cook' William'L. Parker Ropes & Gray One International Place Boston, MA 02110-2624 (617) 951-7000
.. l 1
___-.____________________a.
n l
- *! !f:
1w
'89 JUN -7 P5 :00 CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE I, William L.
Parker, one of the attorneys:for the Applicants herein, hereby certify that on June 0il,41989,'Iomade service of the within document by depositing copies"thereof with Federal Express, prepaid, for delivery to (or, where indicated, by depositing in the United States mail, first class postage paid, addressed to):
Administrative Judge Ivan W. Smith Adjudicatory File Chairman, Atomic Safety and Atomic Safety and Licensing Licensing Board Board Panel Docket (2 copies) i U.S. Nuclear Regulatory U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission Commission East West Towers Building East West Towers Building 4350 East West Highway 4350 East West Highway Bethesda, MD 20814 Bethesda, MD 20814 Administrative Judge Richard F.
Cole Robert R. Pierce, Esquire Atomic Safety and Licensing Board Atomic Safety and Licensing U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission Board East West Towers Building U.S. Nuclear Regulatory 4350 East West Highway Commission Bethesda, MD 20814 East West Towers Building 4350 East West Highway Bethesda, MD 20814 Administrative Judge Kenneth A.
Sherwin E. Turk, Esquire McCollom Office of General Counsel 1107 West Knapp Street U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Stillwater, OK 74075 Commission One White Flint North, 15th Fl.
11555 Rockville Pike Rockville, MD 20852 John P. Arnold, Esquire Diane Curran, Esquire Attorney General Andrea C.
Ferster, Esquire George Dana Bisbee, Esquire Harmon, Curran & Tousley Assistant Attorney General Suite 430 Office of the Attorney General 2001 S Street, N.W.
25 Capitol Street Washington, DC 20009 Concord, NH 03301-6397
- Atomic Safety and Licensing Robert A. Backus, Esquire Appeal Board 116 Lowell Street U.S.
Nuclear Regulatory P.
O.
Box 516 Commission Manchester, NH 03105 Washington, DC 20555 l
- - + - - - _ - - - - - - - _ - - - - _
4 O
Philip Ahrens, Esquire Mr. J. P. Nadeau Assistant Attorney General Selectmen's Office Department of the Attorney 10 Central Road General Rye, NH 03870 Augusta, ME 04333 Paul McEachern, Esquire John Traficonte, Esquire Shaines & McEachern Assistant Attorney General 25 Maplewood Avenue Department of the Attorney P.O. Box 360 General Portsmouth, NH 03801 One Ashburton Place, 19th Fl.
Boston, MA 02108 Mrs. Sandra Gavutis Mr. Calvin A. Canney Chairman, Board of Selectmen City Manager RFD 1 - Box 1154 City Hall Route 107 126 Daniel Street Kensington, NH 03827 Portsmouth, NH 03801
- Senator Gordon J. Humphrey R. Scott Hill-Whilton, Esquire U.S.
Senate Lagoulis, Hill-Whilton &
Washington, DC 20510 Rotondi (Attn:
Tom Burack) 79 State Street Newburyport, MA 01950
- Senator Gordon J. Humphrey Leonard Kopelman, Esquire One Eagle Square, Suite 507 Kopelman & Paige, P.C.
Concord, NH 03301 77 Franklin Street (Attn:
Herb Boynton)
Boston, MA 02110 Mr. Thomas F. Powers, III Mr. William S. Lord Town Manager Board of Selectmen Town of Exeter Town Hall - Friend Street 10 Front Street Amesbury, MA 01913 Exeter, NH 03833 H. Joseph Flynn, Esquire Charles P. Graham, Esquire Office of General Counsel Murphy and Graham Federal Emergency Management 33 Low Street Agency Newburyport, MA 01950 500 C Street, S.W.
Washington, DC 20472 Gary W. Holmes, Esquire Richard A. Hampe, Esquire Holmes & Ells Hampe and McNicholas 47 Winnacunnet Road 35 Pleasant Street Hampton, NH 03842 Concord, NH 03301 - _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ - _ - _ _ _ _ - _ - _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _
n
-: i 4
Mr. Richard'R. Donovan Judith'H. Mizner, Esquire Federal Emergency Management' 79 State Street, 2nd Floor Agency Newburyport, MA.01950 Federal-Regional Center 130-228th Street,.S.W.
Bothell, Washington '98021-9796 iAshod N. Amirian~,' Esquire 145 South Main Street P.O.
Box 38
-Bradford, MA 01835 Lia.n A x.9 A William L. Parker.
(*= Ordinary U.S. First Class Mail)
I l _ _ _ _ - _ = _ _
_