ML20247A979

From kanterella
Jump to navigation Jump to search
Applicant Objection in Nature of Motion in Limine to Portions of Prefiled Testimony of Ej Gaines.* Listed Portions of Testimony Should Be Excluded as Irrelevant & Immaterial
ML20247A979
Person / Time
Site: Seabrook  
Issue date: 03/21/1989
From: Trout J
PUBLIC SERVICE CO. OF NEW HAMPSHIRE, ROPES & GRAY
To:
Atomic Safety and Licensing Board Panel
Shared Package
ML20247A872 List:
References
OL, NUDOCS 8903290244
Download: ML20247A979 (2)


Text

.

h i

A i

i p-3 y

t at i:

1 l

rocyta

.]

+

mc c

March ~21, 1989 3

'89 MR 27 P4 :07.

j UNITED STATES OF AMERICA eyF'!Ct w c

u0 Cry ivy ;. t 4<--

NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSION nr<gg "W a

before the S

O ATOMIC SAFETY AND LICENSING BOARD l

)

'In the Matter of.

)

)

l PUBLIC SERVICE COMPANY OF

)

Doc):etlNos~.'50-443-OL i

NEW HAMPSHIRE, et al.

).

50-444-OL

)

Off-site Emergency

-(Seabrook Station, Units 1-and 2)

)

Planning Issues 1

)

__. )

' APPLICANTS' OBJECTION IN THE NATURE

-)

y OF'A MOTION IN.LIMINE TO PORTIONS j

OF THE PREFILED TESTIMONY'OF E. JAMES GAINES 1

4 Applicants object to and move this Board in the nature

'of a Motion in.Limine to exclude as evidence in this j

procciding a portion of the " Testimony of Director of j

Planning and Development E. James Gaines" prefiled by the

)

I' City of Newburyport ( " CON " )..

In support of their motion, Applicants say that tha section of testimony in question is not material or relevant to any issue presently before this i

Board.

i At page 2 and 3-4 of his testimony, the witness i

discusses two construction projects which may commence in 8903290244 690321 7'

PDR ADOCK 05000443ll 0

PDR [

i.u_1.____1_________._____________._________

.______.__.__J

Ilt Newburyport at some time in the future.

This' discussion should be excluded, sinco the issue of future construction 4

was not raised in the Interveners' contentions.

Nor would the issue have been admitted even if it had been raised; future construction is dealt with through future plan revision, and not in speculative present litigation.

See, e.a.,

Philadelphia Electric Comoany (Limerick Generating Station, Units 1 and 2), LBP-85-14, 21 NRC 1219, 1267 (1985).

Finally, CON did not disclose these possible futdre projects in its discovery responses, not even in the last-minute supplement filed concurrently with its testimony.

Accord-ingly, the following portions of the witness's tectimony should be excluded as' irrelevant:

j l

(1) page 2, Question 5, the second and third paragraphs of

{

the response; (2) pages 3-4, Questions 10-11 and the responses thereto.

i Respectfully subr,,4.tted, I

i

/f f

"Thom5s G.

Dignan, Jr.

l George H.

Lewald l

Kathryn A.

Selleck l

Jeffrey P. Trout Jay Bradford Smith Geoffrey C.

Cook i

Ropes & Gray One International Place Borton, MA 02110 (617) 951-7000 1

i l

1 1 1