ML20077G529

Expresses Disagreement W/Aslb 830725 Order Directing New England Coalition on Nuclear Pollution to Inform ASLB & Parties on Intent to File Rebuttal Testimony.Related Correspondence

ML20077G529
Person / Time
Site:	Seabrook
Issue date:	08/01/1983
From:	Curran D, Jordan W HARMON & WEISS, NEW ENGLAND COALITION ON NUCLEAR POLLUTION
To:	Harbour J, Hoyt H, Luebke E Atomic Safety and Licensing Board Panel
Shared Package
ML20077G530	List: ML20077G529 ML20077G534
References
NUDOCS 8308040299
Download: ML20077G529 (2)

Text

i cD II ARMON & WEISS g frPr # #c" n l D0 CIET NUTZEit M 0 7. S UTIL F?.0.1 g

.4 ,ql{3

. . . . . .A. .'.t. .Nq

= 572 s i sT R ecT, N W SUITE 506 WM111NOTON, D. C. 2OOOG TC "C o^gMccatgv H^aMori g , ,' E 7g WILLIAM S. JO RD AN, til L C E L. D I S H O P

• DIANC CURRAN LUCIA S. ORTH OEAN R. TOUSLE Y August 1, 1983 d 4

,. Dockdel D Helen F. Hoyt, Chairperson ,

d Emmoth A. Luebke, Member Jerry Harbour, Member

.E a BUG 31983 > -4 -

Atomic Safety and Licensing Board ctfee d thesee.

U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission b 6' Washington, D.C. 20555 C"*m**ne & ser.

Dear Judges Hoyt,

Luebke, and Harbour: N On July 25, 1983, Judge Hoyt ordered NECNP to " inform the parties and the Board immediately whether NECNP intends to-file rebuttal testimony." She also established certain procedures to be followed should NECNP choose to file rebuttal testimony.

This order arises from the fact that NECNP informed the' Board on July 15, 1983, that it did not intend to file direct testimony on i ts contentions I .B.2, III.12, or III.13. The purpose.of the order is "to avoid surprise and any concomittant d elay. "

NECNP is the only party to have been singled out for this treatment. We believe Judge Hoyt's action to have been precipitous and unnecessary. It may not be unreasonable to establish procedures for addressing forseeable objections in an expeditious manner. Had that been done as a. general matter with respect to all. objections to all testimony, we would have no difficulty with Judge Hoyt's order. In context, however, the order appears as a virtual invitation to file objection to any testimony.that may be filed by NECNP. .

There no justification for this special treatment. There is no general rule against filing rebuthal testimony if a party has not filed direct testimony, and there is no reason to believe that any testimony that might be filed by NECNP would be-any more objectionable than direct or rebuttal testimony filed by any other party. There is also no -reason to believe that NECNP's filing of rebuttal testimony by the deadline 8300040299 030001 PDR ADOCK 05000443 0 PDR 8

@ 503

0 -

1 II ARMON & Wntss Judges lloyt, Luebke, and llarbour Page Two established for all parties would result in any surprise, or that the handling of any objections related to that testimony would cause any more delay than the handling of objections to any other testimony. Yet this order is aimed only at NECNP.

The desire to avoid surprise and avoid delay is legitimate and should be accomplished through a generally applicable order

. governing all parties and all potential objections. It should not be accomplished by unjustly singling out a particular party.

In response to Judge lloyt's direction for immediate notification of NECNP's intentions, we submit the following.

We do not intend to and will not file rebuttal testimony with respect to Contention I.B.2, We have no present intention of filing rebuttal testimony with respect to Contentions III.12 and III.13. We are still reviewing the testimony with respect to those contentions, however, and we will inform the Board and the parties immediately should our intention change before the filing deadline of August 8, 1983. In addition, should we decide to file rebuttal testimony we will comply with the procedures set out in Judge lloyt's order.

Sincerely,

& <_ W9~)p'fy____

_ y William'S. Jorda'n, III Diane Curran WSJ:DC/cpk 5

e 1 _._mA,,