ML20216D191
| ML20216D191 | |
| Person / Time | |
|---|---|
| Site: | Shoreham File:Long Island Lighting Company icon.png |
| Issue date: | 06/22/1987 |
| From: | Margulies M Atomic Safety and Licensing Board Panel |
| To: | LONG ISLAND LIGHTING CO., SUFFOLK COUNTY, NY |
| References | |
| CON-#287-3871 86-529-02-OL, 86-529-2-OL, OL-3, NUDOCS 8706300477 | |
| Download: ML20216D191 (3) | |
Text
_____
{jf7l y
f ecu<crEt uw UNITED STATES OF' AMERICA NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSION-
'87 JUN 23 P1 :07 ATOMIC. SAFETY AND LICENSING BOARD Omt x..__.
Before Administrative ~ Judges:
.00 K g g m Horton B. Margulies, Chairman Dr.. Jerry R. Kline SERVED JUN 2 31987-Mr. Frederick J. Shon 4.
e
/ In the, Ma'tter of Docket No. 50-322-0L-3.
(EmergencyPlanning).
LONG' ISLAND: LIGHTING' COMPANY
'(ASLBP.No. 86-529-02-OL)
(Shoreham Nuclear Power Station,.
Unit 1).
June.22, 1987
)
' MEMORANDUM AND'0RDER' (Ruling on Renewed'Suffolk County Motion' for Leave to File Rebuttal Testimony)
Introduction-On April 17, 1987 Suffolk County filed a motion seeking leave to -
file rebuttal testimony pmpared by Gregory C. Minor and Steven C' Sholly. The testimony is in response to'that'of' Lewis G. Hulman of the-NRC Staff. Because of the separate filing of such motions,.the Board concluded that it would be practical to set a single due date of May 27,.
1987 for filing all rebuttal. motions-by the parties. c Suffolk County, was-give'n the opportunity to. refile 'or amend its previous motion by that date. On May'27, 1987 the County filed:its. renewed motion to file rebuttal testimony.
The NRC Staff responded to the County's motion on June 4,>1987, stating that it had'no objection to the, filing of the rebuttal 8706300477 870622' 4 p f.
PDR.ADDCK 05000322 o-
.eDR
E 4
1.
2 testimonyr LILCO responded on the same date indicating that it did not oppose the motion to-file rebuttal testimony. LILCO's motion however included:a motion to strike two passages of the rebuttal testimony.
because in LILCO's' view.they attempt to reopen the issue of wind shift
' which was already litigated. The portions ~of the testimony LILC0:
requests be stricken 'are as follows:
Page"5,.line.l beginning "As we testified"..and ending on page 5
- line;9, with "over any given four hour period."-
+.
Page;8,.line-20, beginning "As we. stated in our direct" and ending.
on page 9 line 3, with " portion of the population."
Discussion-Suffolk-County's motion to file rebuttal testimony is unopposed by i
LILCO or the,NRC Staff.a The Board.has reviewed;the testimony and :
concludes that it is a limited response to the direct testimony of Lewi_s Hulman and.that: the rebuttal could,not have been~ filed: earlier with the County' direct testimony because of time constraints. 'The Board'
.)
therefore conclbdes that the County. motion to file rebuttal testimony.
should be granted.
LILCO's motion to strike two passages dealing with wind shifts-on Long Island on the ground of prior litigation _ is opposed by the. County. -
g
' The County argues that such testimony should 'not be-stricken because.it -
addresses a different issue of' emergency; planning than.was litigated
- previously and because it.rbsponds.to Staff's testimony which includes, 1
assumptions about wind shifts.- ' LILCO's motion to strike-is virtually,
i l.j
.i y
a
-1 s
s 3
i identical to a previous one directed against the County's-prefiled l
]
testimony which we denied because we do not accept the validity of-LILCO's' " prior. litigation" argument. Our. conclusion here is the same; I
the challenged testimony is. admissible as the basis provided by experts, for their opinion as~to why the:. Staff testimony is incorrect. The.facte that shifting winds' were discussed in prior litigation for a different "l
purpose is. irrelevant to the admissibility of such evidence in this s
proceeding.
ORDER I
Based upon-the foregoing, it is hereby ordered that Suffolk County's motion for leave to file the limited rebuttal testimony of Gregory C. Minor and Steven C. Sholly is granted.
It is further ordered that.LILC0's motion.to strike portions of-the' Minor /Sholly rebuttal testimony is denied.
FOR'THE ATOMIC. SAFETY AND.
LICENSING. BOARD
- b. k., h M6rton B. Margulres, Chgirman -
ADMINISTRATIVE LAW JUDGE Dated.at Bethesda, Maryland this 22nd day of June, 1987
-