ML20238E486
| ML20238E486 | |
| Person / Time | |
|---|---|
| Site: | Seabrook  |
| Issue date: | 09/09/1987 |
| From: | Hoyt H Atomic Safety and Licensing Board Panel |
| To: | NEW ENGLAND COALITION ON NUCLEAR POLLUTION, NRC OFFICE OF THE GENERAL COUNSEL (OGC), PUBLIC SERVICE CO. OF NEW HAMPSHIRE |
| References | |
| CON-#387-4325 82-471-02-OL, 82-471-2-OL, OL, NUDOCS 8709150028 | |
| Download: ML20238E486 (2) | |
Text
q
~
26 i
eun UNITED STATES OF AMERICA
' !J"i NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSION 87 SEP 10 P2:10 ATOMIC SAFETY AND LICENSING BOARD Before Administrative Judges:
s*m Helen F. Hoyt, Chairperson y
Gustave A. Linenberger, Jr.
Dr. Jerry Harbour SERVED SEP 101987 In the Matter of
)
Docket Nos. 50-443-OL
)
50-444-OL' PUBLIC SERVICE COMPANY
)
(ASLBP No. 82-471-02-OL) 0F NEW HAMPSHIRE, e_t,al,.
(Offsite Emergency Planning) l (Seabrook Station, Units 1 and 2)
)
September 9, 1987 MEMORANDUM AND ORDER (Clarifying Presentation of Rebuttal Testimony) l l
On August 20,-1987 the Massachusetts Attorney General, Seacoast l
Anti-Pollution League, New England Coalition on Nuclear Pollution and the' Town of Hampton filed a joint motion seeking clarification of the procedure for, and asking for leave to file rebuttal testimony, if necessary, in the hearings on the New Hampshire Radiological Emergency Response Plan.
The Applicants responded on August 27, 1987 stating their position that the motion, at this time is premature, absent prepared direct testimony of the parties.
The Staff, in its response dated September 4,1987, does not oppose Interveners' request, and indicates that it also may wish to submit rebuttal testimony after it has had an opportunity to review the direct testimony to be submitted by FEMA and the other parties to this proceeding. The Staff points out that a reasoned determination as to s
M 50 S?R"R88!! 8?8M4a
,h em x a
1
gg,
o i
I.i whether rebuttal testimony is necessary and/or should be permitted cannot be made before the parties' and FEMA's affirmative testimony is i
filed. We agree.
Parties who wish to present rebuttal testimony shall deliver a detailed outline of proposed rebuttal testimony to the Board and other parties on the first day of the scheduled hearing, September 28, 1987.
j Alternatively, the parties may submit copies of.the proposed rebuttal testimony, on the same schedule, but this is not required. The Board will thereafter detennine'whether to allow such testimony to be heard.
In making this determination we will consider whether the proposed testimony is merely cumulative, and any reasons why such rebuttal could not have been included in the sponsoring party's case in chief. Motions for leave to present surrebuttal on new matters introduced by rebuttal will be considered following presentation of rebuttal testimony, if any. Outlines of proposed surrebuttal testimony are not required at this time.
It is so Ordered FOR THE ATOMIC SAFETY AND LICENSING BOARD the +
OLf pM Helen F. Hoyt, Chairperson Administrative Judge i
Dated at Bethesda, Maryland this 9th day of September 1987.
l I
a