ML20215K882: Difference between revisions

From kanterella
Jump to navigation Jump to search
StriderTol Bot insert
 
StriderTol Bot change
 
Line 19: Line 19:
=Text=
=Text=
{{#Wiki_filter:,
{{#Wiki_filter:,
bMM                                                                                     May 4, 1987 catxE n e U3NHC UNITED STATES OF AMERICA NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSION                                             87 tiAY -5 P3 :34 BEFORE THE ATOMIC SAFETY AND LICENSING BOAgicE                                     HEliNJu 4nat  ur y SEavfCf.
bMM May 4, 1987 catxE n e U3NHC UNITED STATES OF AMERICA NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSION 87 tiAY -5 P3 :34 BEFORE THE ATOMIC SAFETY AND LICENSING BOAgicE u nat ur y HEliNJ 4 SEavfCf.
BRANCH In the Matter of                                     )
BRANCH In the Matter of
                                                            )
)
LONG ISLAND LIGIITING COMPANY                         )                     Docket No. 50-322-OL-3
)
                                                            )                     (Emergency Planning)
LONG ISLAND LIGIITING COMPANY
(Shoreham Nuclear Power Station,                     )
)
Unit 1)                                         )
Docket No. 50-322-OL-3
)
(Emergency Planning)
(Shoreham Nuclear Power Station,
)
Unit 1)
)
NRC STAFF RESPONSE TO LILCO MOTION TO STRIKE TESTIMONY OF EDWARD P. RADFORD, ET AL.
NRC STAFF RESPONSE TO LILCO MOTION TO STRIKE TESTIMONY OF EDWARD P. RADFORD, ET AL.
On April 18, 1987 LILCO filed its " Motion to Strike Testimony of Radford et al." (" Motion").       The Motion seeks to strike portions of the Radford testimony filed by Suffolk County pn April 13,1987 II                                     on the grounds it is outside the scope of the instant proceeding because it has been litigated previously in this proceeding.
On April 18, 1987 LILCO filed its " Motion to Strike Testimony of Radford et al."
(" Motion").
The Motion seeks to strike portions of the Radford testimony filed by Suffolk County pn April 13,1987 II on the grounds it is outside the scope of the instant proceeding because it has been litigated previously in this proceeding.
The Staff supports LILCO's Motion in this regard as clearly the
The Staff supports LILCO's Motion in this regard as clearly the
    -issue regarding hostile or agressive behavior by the public has been been examined in detail during the previous litigation of this proceeding. 2,/
-issue regarding hostile or agressive behavior by the public has been been examined in detail during the previous litigation of this proceeding. 2,/
Further, Intervenors have not sought to to reopen this issue, nor is this an issue which has been defined as one of the issues in this
Further, Intervenors have not sought to to reopen this issue, nor is this an issue which has been defined as one of the issues in this
    '-1/   " Testimony of Edward P.       Radford , Gregory C. Minor, Susan C.
'-1/
Saegert , James H. Johnson, David Harris and Martin Mayer on Behalf of Suffolk County Concerning LILCO's Reception Centers                                                   ,
" Testimony of Edward P.
(Monitoring and Decontamination Procedures)" ("Radford testimony").
Radford, Gregory C.
                                                                                                                            ]
Minor, Susan C.
2_/   LBP-85-12, 21 NRC 644, 793-794, 800-801.
Saegert, James H.
e70512o022 870504 PDR     ADOCK 05000322 g                 PDR                                                                                              g i
Johnson, David Harris and Martin Mayer on Behalf of Suffolk County Concerning LILCO's Reception Centers (Monitoring and Decontamination Procedures)" ("Radford testimony").
]
2_/
LBP-85-12, 21 NRC 644, 793-794, 800-801.
e70512o022 870504 PDR ADOCK 05000322 PDR g
g i


  ?
?
* l l
proceeding. EI Therefore, the Staff agrees that the portions of the Radford testimony cited in LILCO's Motion should be stricken.
proceeding. EI   Therefore, the Staff agrees that the portions of the Radford testimony cited in LILCO's Motion should be stricken.
Respectfully submitted, 9
Respectfully submitted, 9         __
Richard G. Bachmann Counsel for NRC Staff Dated at Bethesda, Maryland this 4th day of May,1987 l
Richard G. Bachmann Counsel for NRC Staff Dated at Bethesda, Maryland this 4th day of May,1987 l
          -3/
-3/
See Memorandum and Order (Rulings on LILCO Motion to Reopen Record and Remand of Coliseum Issue), dated December 11, 1986.
See Memorandum and Order (Rulings on LILCO Motion to Reopen Record and Remand of Coliseum Issue), dated December 11, 1986.
l l
l l
r
r
      - _}}
-}}

Latest revision as of 21:46, 3 December 2024

NRC Staff Response to Lilco Motion to Strike Testimony of EP Radford,Et Al.* Staff Agrees That Portions of EP Radford Testimony Filed by Suffolk County on 870413 Should Be Stricken on Grounds Outside Scope of Instant Proceeding
ML20215K882
Person / Time
Site: Shoreham File:Long Island Lighting Company icon.png
Issue date: 05/04/1987
From: Bachmann R
NRC OFFICE OF THE GENERAL COUNSEL (OGC)
To:
Atomic Safety and Licensing Board Panel
Shared Package
ML20215K885 List:
References
CON-#287-3384 OL-3, NUDOCS 8705120022
Download: ML20215K882 (2)


Text

,

bMM May 4, 1987 catxE n e U3NHC UNITED STATES OF AMERICA NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSION 87 tiAY -5 P3 :34 BEFORE THE ATOMIC SAFETY AND LICENSING BOAgicE u nat ur y HEliNJ 4 SEavfCf.

BRANCH In the Matter of

)

)

LONG ISLAND LIGIITING COMPANY

)

Docket No. 50-322-OL-3

)

(Emergency Planning)

(Shoreham Nuclear Power Station,

)

Unit 1)

)

NRC STAFF RESPONSE TO LILCO MOTION TO STRIKE TESTIMONY OF EDWARD P. RADFORD, ET AL.

On April 18, 1987 LILCO filed its " Motion to Strike Testimony of Radford et al."

(" Motion").

The Motion seeks to strike portions of the Radford testimony filed by Suffolk County pn April 13,1987 II on the grounds it is outside the scope of the instant proceeding because it has been litigated previously in this proceeding.

The Staff supports LILCO's Motion in this regard as clearly the

-issue regarding hostile or agressive behavior by the public has been been examined in detail during the previous litigation of this proceeding. 2,/

Further, Intervenors have not sought to to reopen this issue, nor is this an issue which has been defined as one of the issues in this

'-1/

" Testimony of Edward P.

Radford, Gregory C.

Minor, Susan C.

Saegert, James H.

Johnson, David Harris and Martin Mayer on Behalf of Suffolk County Concerning LILCO's Reception Centers (Monitoring and Decontamination Procedures)" ("Radford testimony").

]

2_/

LBP-85-12, 21 NRC 644, 793-794, 800-801.

e70512o022 870504 PDR ADOCK 05000322 PDR g

g i

?

proceeding. EI Therefore, the Staff agrees that the portions of the Radford testimony cited in LILCO's Motion should be stricken.

Respectfully submitted, 9

Richard G. Bachmann Counsel for NRC Staff Dated at Bethesda, Maryland this 4th day of May,1987 l

-3/

See Memorandum and Order (Rulings on LILCO Motion to Reopen Record and Remand of Coliseum Issue), dated December 11, 1986.

l l

r

-