ML20247A979

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: ML20247A867 ML20247A890 ML20247A912 ML20247A936 ML20247A962 ML20247A979 ML20247B001 ML20247B013
References
OL, NUDOCS 8903290244
Download: ML20247A979 (2)

Text

.

1. i h i A i

p- ,

3

', i:

y t at ,

l 1 '

rocyta .]

+

c March ~21, 1989 mc 3 '89 MR 27 P4 :07 .

j UNITED STATES OF AMERICA e c -

yF'!Ct w t ,: '

u0 Cry ivy ;.4<-- -!

nr<gg "W NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSION

., 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

)

__. )

y ' APPLICANTS' OBJECTION IN THE NATURE -)

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 7'

8903290244 690321 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