ML20214T051
| ML20214T051 | |
| Person / Time | |
|---|---|
| Site: | Shoreham File:Long Island Lighting Company icon.png |
| Issue date: | 06/04/1987 |
| From: | Bachmann R NRC OFFICE OF THE GENERAL COUNSEL (OGC) |
| To: | Atomic Safety and Licensing Board Panel |
| Shared Package | |
| ML20214T024 | List: |
| References | |
| OL-3, NUDOCS 8706100103 | |
| Download: ML20214T051 (1) | |
Text
.
UNITED STATES OF AMERICA NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSION BEFORE TIIE ATOMIC SAFETY AND LICENSING BOARD In the Matter of
)
)
LONG ISLAND LIGHTING COMPANY
)
Docket No. 50-322-OL-3
)
(Emergency Planning)
(Shoreham Nuclear Power Station,
)
Unit 1)
)
NRC STAFF RESPONSE TO RENEWED SUFFOLK COUNTY MOTION FOR LEAVE TO FILE REBUTTAL TESTIMONY The Staff hereby responds to the " Renewed Suffolk County Motion for Leave to File Rebuttal Testimony" (" Motion"), filed May 27, 1987.
In "NRC Staff Response to Suffolk County's Motion for Leave to File Rebuttal Testimony," filed April 23, 1987, the Staff stated that it would not object to such testimony provided it were confined to the scope of the direct testimony filed by Staff witness Lewis G. Hulman 1. After review of the limited rebuttal testimony of Gregory C.
Minor and Steven C.
Sholly,
which is attached to the Motion, the Staff does not object to its filing,/
2 Respectfully submitted, Richard G. Bachmann Counsel for NRC Staff Dated at Bethesda, Maryland this 4th day of June,1987 1/
The Staff also stated that the parties should have the opportunity to
~
move to strike such testimony.
In light of the Board's Order of May 14,1987, that point is moot.
The Staff will not file a motion to strike concerning Suffolk County's rebuttal testimony.
-2/
The Staff does not agree with Suffolk County's assertion that the Staff has previously acquiesced to the filing of Suffolk County's rebuttal testimony. See Motion at 3, n.3.
As noted above, the Staff's initial response conditioned its position upon the receipt of the actual testimony.
G