ML20214A974

Memorandum & Order (Setting Schedule for Filing Rebuttal Testimony).* Motions for Leave to File Rebuttal Testimony Due on 870527.Motions to Strike Rebuttal Testimony Due on 870612.Served on 870515

ML20214A974
Person / Time
Site:	Shoreham File:Long Island Lighting Company icon.png
Issue date:	05/14/1987
From:	Margulies M Atomic Safety and Licensing Board Panel
To:	LONG ISLAND LIGHTING CO., NEW YORK, STATE OF, SUFFOLK COUNTY, NY
References
CON-#287-3470 86-529-02-OL, 86-529-2-OL, OL-3, NUDOCS 8705200031
Download: ML20214A974 (4)

Text

__

bYY

.i DOCHETED U#C UNITED STATES OF AMERICA NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSION ATOMIC SAFETY AND LICENSING BOARD Before Administrative Judges: OFFICE . . . ..

, 00CXug~ .jav;ct

~ ~~

Morton B. Margulies, Chairman Dr. Jerry R. Kline Mr. Frederick J. Shon gggVED MAY 151987 In the Matter of Docket No. 50-322-OL-3

) (Emergency Planning)

LONG ISLAND LIGHTING COMPANY (ASLBPNo. 86-529-02-0L)

(Shoreham Nuclear Power Station, Unit 1) May 14, 1987 MEMORAND'JM AND ORDER (Setting Schedule for Filing Rebuttal Testimony)

Background ,

On April 17, 1987, Suffolk County filed a motion seeking leave to ,

file rebuttal testimony prepared by Gregory C. Minor and Steven C.

Sholley. The testimony is in response to that of Lewis G. Hulman. The County proposed a schedule for rebuttal testimony. It called for the testimony to be filed by May 4, 1987, the filing of motions to strike on May 11, 1987, and the filing of responses to such motions on May 18, 1987.  :

The State of New York filed a motion f'or leave to file rebuttal testimony by David T. Hartgen and RichardC '. Millspaugh to that given by Edward Liebeman. The State concurred with the County as to the proposed scheduling.

8705200031 870514-gDR ADOCK 05000322 y

PDR Q

i 2

On April 23, 1987 Staff filed a response to Suffolk County's motion. It did not object to the filing of such testimony provided that it is confined to the scope of Mr. Hulman's direct testimony and that the parties will have the opportunity to move to strike any portions of the rebuttal testimony not properly before the Board.

In a response of April 27, 1987 to the State's motion, LILC0 stated that it did not oppose the motion, but that it did oppose a general cut-off for rebuttal testimony of May 4. Applicant asserted it could not determine in advance whether the State established good cause for rebuttal testimony yet to be presented. LILCO stated that it did not waive its right to move to strike inappropriate testimony, upon reviewing the rebuttal testimony actually filed. Applicant opposed the May 4 filing date because it expected to present rebuttal testimony and its witness was not readily in a position to prepahe the testimony by then.

LILCO, on April 27, 1987, filed a similar response to the Suffolk County motion for leave to file rebuttal testimony. In its motion Applicant stated it would advise the Board by May 4 when it would be able to file its rebuttal testimony.

On May 4,1987 LILC0 filed a notice of} intent to file rebuttal testimony. It would consist of testimony by Edward Lieberman and would focus on the traffic analysis sponsored by New York State witnesses David T. Hartgen and Richard C. Millspaugh. Applicant advistd that Mr.

Lieberman expects to complete the preparation of his rebuttal testimony by May 26, 1987 and that it can be served by May 27. LILC0 stated that l

n E

3 it would submit along with the rebuttal testimony a motion for leave to file the testimony.

By letter dated May 6,1987, the County advised that it will file ,

the rebuttal testimony of Gregory C. Minor and Steve C. Sho11ey when Mr.

Lieberman's rebuttal testimony is filed.

Discussion With the tightness of the discovery schedule, it was apparent to everyone that there might be a need for filing rebuttal testimony. This was previously discussed by the Board with the parties. We did nct set a schedule for the filing of rebuttal testimony because the Board did not know how the need for filing such testimony would develop.

We have now been apprised as to the rebuttal testimony each party -

seeks to file and when it can be available. Suffol) County and New York State have each filed motions for leave to file such testimony- LILCO will do so on May 27, 1987, along with the submission of such testimony.

The parties have taken different courses in seeking to file rebuttal testimony. The most practical approach for the Board to take in handling the matter is to consider the motions and the proposed

~

rebuttal testimony of the parties at the same time. To that end we order the following schedule to be followed!

Motions for leave to file rebuttal testimony and the rebuttal testimony of the witnesses named above are due on May 27, 1987. Motions to strike the rebuttal testimony are due on June 5,1987, and responses ,

to motions to strike are due June 12, 1987.

l

4 4

Because the County and State have already filed motions for leave to file rebuttal testimony, they shall be given the opportunity to refile or amend their previously filed motions by the May 27, 1987 due date. Should they refile or amend their previously filed motions, the other parties may refile or amend their previously filed responses by the June 5, 1987 due date.

It is so ordered.

FOR THE ATOMIC SAFETY AND LICENSING BOARD d eb.dkdw Morton B. Margulies,/;ha'irman ADMINISTRATIVE LAW JWDGE Dated at Bethesda, Maryland -

this 14th day of May, 1987 ,

o 9

1 l

_ _ - _ _ .. .