ML20206T920
| ML20206T920 | |
| Person / Time | |
|---|---|
| Site: | Shoreham File:Long Island Lighting Company icon.png |
| Issue date: | 04/18/1987 |
| From: | Christman J HUNTON & WILLIAMS, LONG ISLAND LIGHTING CO. |
| To: | Atomic Safety and Licensing Board Panel |
| Shared Package | |
| ML20206T406 | List: |
| References | |
| OL-3, NUDOCS 8704230275 | |
| Download: ML20206T920 (7) | |
Text
%
LILCO, April 18,1987 DOCKETED USHRC UNITED STATES OF AMERICA APR 21 Pl2:08 NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSION OFFICE cr sp. e m 00CMEig;NCH e,;gryqj unn
^
Before the Atomic Safety and Licensing Board In the Matter of
)
)
LONG ISLAND LIGIITING COMPANY
) Docket No. 50-322-OL-3
) (Emergency Planning)
(Shoreham Nuclear Power Station,
)
Unit 1)
)
LILCO'S MOTION TO STRIKE DIRECT TESTIMONY OF JOIINSON AND SAEGERT LILCO hereby moves to strike portions of the " Direct Testimony of James H.
Johnson, Jr. and Susan C. Saegert on Behalf of Suffolk County Regarding (Concerning]
LILCO's Reception Centers (Evacuation Shadow Phenomenon and Traffic Issues)," dated April 13,1987 (hereinaf ter "J&S").
I. J&S p. 6 (last paragraph)- D. 7 (1st 5 lines)
LILCO moves to strike this paragraph. It attempts to reopen the issue of peo-ple's inability and unwillingness to follow emergency advisories, already litigated exten-sively in 1983-84.
See the accompanying LILCO's Motion to Strike Testimony of Stephen Cole et al. Furthermore, the last sentence of the paragraph simply summa-rizes the State's traffic analysis, a subject Drs. Johnson and Saegert are not qualified to address.
II. J&S p. 8 (last 2 lines)- p.10 (1st 3 lines of p.10 and footnotes 3 and 4)
LILCO moves to strike the question-and-answer beginning with "For background purposes" on page 8 and ending af ter three lines on page 10, plus footnotes 3 and 4 on page 10. Presented as being for " background purposes," the answer simply summarizes the County's earlier case on the " shadow phenomenon." If it is truly " background"(that 8704230275 e704ie DR ADOCK 05000322 PDR
10 I
. e, % 'o be relied on in findings), then it is not objectionable. But if it is admitted the Intervenors will feel free to cite to it for substantive findings. Since it simply repeats earlier testimony, it is duplicative and an attempt to reopen matters already litigated.
Moreover, there is no real need for " background" material on an issue that both the Board and parties are familiar with already.
III. J&S pp.10-11 LILCO moves to strike the sentences at the bottom of page 10 beginning "In non-nuclear emergencies" and ending with " sickness" on line 12 on page 11, including foot-notes 5 and 6. This testimony repeats the County's earlier testimony that radiation is a colorless, odorless hazard and therefore different from other hazards. This matter has already been litigated and should not be litigated again. See the accompanying LILCO's Motion to Strike Testimony of Stephen Cole et al.
IV. J&S p.12 LILCO moves to strike the question-and-answer, including footnote 7, starting at mid page on page 12. (The question begins with "What will be the result" and the an-swer with "The number of people.") This is inadmissible for two reasons. First, it ad-dresses the so-called " limited east-west roadway capacity available on Long Island" that was litigated so exhaustively in 1984 in the context of evacuation from the 10-mile l
plume EPZ. The Intervenors' current attempt to expand this issue out to 40 miles is a challenge to the emergency planning regulations and outside the scope of the admitted reception center issues. In LILCO's view neither the Appeal Board in its ALAB-832 re-mand nor this Board in its December 11,1986 Memorandum and Order admitted ise,ues that require litigation of congestion on the entire road network between Shoreham and
]
the reception center some 40 miles away. To do so would be in effect to increase the EPZ to about 40 miles. See the accompanying LILCO's Motion to Strike Testimony of David T. Hartgen and Robert C. Millspaugh.
to
.g
. Second, this question-and-answer once again relles on the use of " survey evi-dence" and is inadmissible because it attempts to relltigate the " shadow phenomenon" issue and because it contradicts the Board's 1985 findings on the predictive validity of polls. 21 NRC at 667.
V. J&S p.13 LILCO moves to strike the portion of the answer on page 13 beginning "More-over" (right af ter the exponent "8") and ending with "the number of evacuees" at the bottom of the page. This testimony attempts to raise once again the " credibility" issue (Contention EP 15), which has already been litigated. Moreover, it attempts to reopen the issue of " pre-consisting concerns about radiation," which also has been litigated previously. See the accompanying LILCO's Motion to Strike Testimony of Stephen Cole et al.
VI. J&S Section V (pp. 21-22)
LILCO moves to strike the entire Section V, consisting of pages 21 and 22, of the Johnson and Saegert testimony. This tecitimony claims that people will not go to the reception centers that they have been assigned by the emergency plan. This issue is the same as the issue, already litigated, of whether people would use the evacuation routes designated by the LILCO Plan. Moreover, it is a part of the larger issue of whether people will use emergency information or disregard it. See, e.g., PID,212 NRC at 790-94. It ought not to be litigated again.
VII. J&S p. 23 LILCO moves to strike the sentence on line 10 (counting the subhead "VI. Con-clusions" as line 1) on page 23 that says " Finally, people will not necessarily follow the evacuation routes assigned, nor go to the reception centers designated in the LILCO plan." This should be stricken for the same reason asSection V of the testimony, addressed above in Section VI of this motion.
h
't i i
Respectfully submitted, WL'd b.
W ames N. Chris'tman Stephen W. Miller Hunton & Williams 707 East Main Street P.O. Box 1535 Richmond, Virginia 23212 DATED: April 18,1987 L
1 r
4 4
f a
_ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ -, _,, _ _ _