ML20151Y460

NRC Staff Response to Lilco Motion to Strike Direct Testimony of Cg Perry & Gc Minor Re Lilco Emergency Broadcast Sys.* Motion to Strike Items 2,3,7 & 13 Should Be Granted.Other Parts of Motion Should Be Denied

ML20151Y460
Person / Time
Site:	Shoreham File:Long Island Lighting Company icon.png
Issue date:	04/27/1988
From:	Bachmann R NRC OFFICE OF THE GENERAL COUNSEL (OGC)
To:	Atomic Safety and Licensing Board Panel
Shared Package
ML20151Y464	List: ML20151Y460 ML20151Y473 ML20151Y482 ML20151Y491 ML20151Y512
References
CON-#288-6201 OL-3, NUDOCS 8805050009
Download: ML20151Y460 (4)

Text

,

[p 3o k 04/27/88

' 00CKETED USNRC UNITED STATES OF AMERICA NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSION '88 MAY -3 P6 :36 BEFORE THE ATOMIC SAFETY AND LICENSING BOARDgF l{ Oggg

. . _ BRANCH 1r. the Matter of )

)

LONG ISLAND LIGHTING COMPANY ) Docket No. 50-322-OL-3

) (Emergency Planning)

(Shoreham Nuclear Power Station, )

Unit 1) )

NRC STAFF'S RESPONSE TO LILCO'S MOTION TO STRIKE DIRECT TESTIMONY OF CHARLES G. PERRY, lli AND GREGORY C. MINOR REGARDING LILCO'S EMERGENCY BROADCAST SYSTEM; On April 20, 1988 LILCO filed a Motion to Strike portions of the testimony of Charles Perry and Gregory Minor filed by Suffolk County Regarding LILCO's Emergency B roadcast System ("Motion") . For the reasons stated below, the NRC Staff supports in part and opposes in part the motion.

DISCUSSION A. General Objections The Staff agrees with Applicant that those portions of the testimony which address matters that were specifically barred by the Board in its Orders of February 24, 1938 and April 14, 1988 O should be stricken. Specifically, these areas are:

1) portions of the testimony that address EBS coverage beyond the 10 mile EPZ; 1/ Memorandum and Order (Ruling on Contentions Relating to LILCO's Emergency Broadcast System), February 24, 1988; and Board

~

Memorandum and Order (Ruling on Intervenors' Motion for reconsideration of Board's Memorandum and Order on Contention .

Relating to LiLCO's EBS System), April 14, 1988.

8805050009 goo 4p7 gDR ADOCK 05000322 m . . .- . _. .. __ _ - . _- .

i

2) portions of the testimony that concern WALK radio;

3) portions of the testimony that address listenership rate and r

j credibility of the ERS stations.

l However, ' he~ 5taff does not agree that other portions of the t

1 l

testimony should be stricken, or that Mr. Minor should be struck as an expert witness. Applicant's argument that porilons of the testimony are speculative and devold of facts or evidence to support the allega-tions in the contention goes to the weight to be accorded such testi-I mony, not its admissibliity. Simi'.e rly , although Mr. Minor does not appear to possecs the same expertise in this area as Mr. Perry, nevertheless he has been an expert witness on many technical issues in the Shoreham proceeding for several years. U It does not appear that his sponsorship, or lack thereof, would impact the admissible portions of the testimony jointly provided by Mr. Minor and Mr. Perry.

B. Specific Portions of the Testimony The Staff agrees with Applicant's numbered objections 2, 3, 7, and 13, in its Motion but opposes the motion to strike other numbered portions of the testimony. Each of these areas will be addressed seriatim.

Item 2 deals with a passage that compares the new system with the earlier system, and as the Board stated in its ruling on contentions, 2/ This is amply demonstrated by a review of Mr. Minor's

~

Professiona; Qualifications (Attachment 3 to Direct Testimony of Charles G. Perry, lll and Gregory C. Minor on Behalf of Suffolk County, April 13, 1988). Pages 5-9 of the Qualifications statement recount 18 separate pieces of testimony filed by Mr. Minor in all phases of the Shoreham case, covering a wide range of issues over which Mr. Minor has provided engineering analysis and support. .

- - - - . - - - - - - - - - - . _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ . _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ . _ _ . _ _ _ _ __ _ __ _ ]

E

(

"the issues to be centested in this proceeding only conce.rn the l

! ability of LILCO's pre 3ent system to meet regulatory requirements and l

criteria, and not standards set by a part of the EBS ne longer existing

~

in its emergenc'y ' plan'." Order, February 24, 1988 at 4 Thus, this portion should be stricken as outside the permissible scope of the contention.

items 3 and 13 both deal with portions of the testimony that address coverage of areas beyond the 10 mile EPZ. As the Board noted in its Order regarding reconsideration, "the regulations do not impose a requirement for communicating EBS messages to the public outside the EPZ." Order, April 14, 1988 at 2. Hence, both of these portions of the testimony should be stricken.

Item 7 address the issue of listenership and market share, matters that the Board spect rically ruled irrelevant and outside the scope of admitted issues. Order, April 14, 1988 at 2. This testimony should bt-stricken.

The Staff does not agree that other numbered items in Applicant's motion raise matters that are beyond the scope of the contention or ate, irrelevant. The objections to those portions of the testimony all go to the weight to be accorded this testimony, not to its admissibility, including the objections to Mr. Minor's sponsorship of the testimony.

J

o CONCLUSION Applicant's motion to strike portions of the testimony noted as item numbers 2, 3, 7 and 13 should be granted. In all other respects the motio'n shouid be ' denied.

Respectfully submitted, G % e :b ,^ :

Richard Bachmann Counsel for NRC Staff Dated at Rockville, Maryland this 27th day of April,1988 l