ML20035C994
| ML20035C994 | |
| Person / Time | |
|---|---|
| Site: | Millstone  |
| Issue date: | 04/07/1993 |
| From: | Atomic Safety and Licensing Board Panel |
| To: | |
| References | |
| CON-#293-13891 OLA, NUDOCS 9304120018 | |
| Download: ML20035C994 (62) | |
Text
- -
.~
-...3.#
gk_
[
r.
~ _
t
',y(, C',k[l
-g hj 4.
, ' ' '. e [r. ' '
y+
<'/..'
E
,,,, ;,... ' E*,, ' '
.'s s,
[
JQ.i y ^n._.
w;, _ s W
3; g/,
.{- [r.I-+
kg 4
J -
]
l E
u,.. y] '
s
~
7 3
/ '
y
(
i k. U s
4 F '
)-
5 a
c L
OFFICIAL TRANSCRIPT OF PR'OCEED$NUS$
$o I
4
.M i :
n,-
~.
ds a
w, _' m
.w; 41
-s pa 1--
w i~
+
m-
- - (.
a, y
g.
I
, x:,
- r.~:
' m_
vn
- (+p..
- -j.Wi ;
m 1
1
- _r
, u4 9 s
(
,p m- =.. e v&.g
..;.,n
.y f.if w
j 1
.3 1?K g
o-%.
M7 y-.=.- + ','
,f AN[
4
}.
- s. 3 3
.y n m
%m{.
q.j l
r"
- w.
m.
=; m v:'~
s p' i-.
1.f f:. c
% ^.x t l
's' L
.y
- _4.'-.
, MH-:
l= u' y -.
g s.9 _w
>t L
h
)
k e
Lf, n,
n~
g
{
"s. A.~ Q:
P p
./,
... _~ e:
V-s' d: ' ag:a;;;m', 4 ;> w# _
M 2
- y.,.:.y
- x, a p.s n y p~_
.a.
g.
s
.t n
.- M an 1
4
~A y.,lQ_ & ~
n..
+
G.p:s g
sl&
,t Mf a
.~ ~ '.p% *M y.
)r u c.-
Ai
, WP{
,m'f+u~m
^ 3 ^iy ' W yF_e
?
n,
,s
_H:
~
qa,.e
-y
- 5' 7. e.v'y 4
k 7:.:.~::;.
9, o.y u,j4
- +Q y.
g y
?;.
e s a, 3g
,y A
,,jb E.
, i yl.7. >.
O M.i
- +f M '."
'*5 ye s
+ #[p', e v. t 4
5' y
.,, 4,.
- w.,n -
T
-..e, v.n<
~
g.3 9.
v 1
o
,,' yv s r
m.
3
- a.,%,
w%
~y ss s w; p,
t 2,,
"~-',s.
t2
... +
%n..
'as -
a.
y.
g'
'%y, gulato_rykCommission, w,'g.
W-
- i
,e
^
Nucle'a'r?Re?.
- .e>,..
A q
Wynu.% :. f:n '
b y nA ec u,
^
AM N# # 9 f
Atomic' Safe'.t'YOSLidetisingsBoaN+ 5 a
L
'I N
N 8mn.=M, s
/ MDS V ' 4 mw.,c %n - ? 8 o
c g_v~m ;
~,n,.
%x.gM.4. &,;.;
~
1
..y, e
.wc e
v
/ '.
t s
.~, e gy y Ww u A, j
, x-
,) g,,
6
. u, g
- 4,,1 p g,g a 74y%,i-p c
^
..r w.
e.a r T7 % >MM m y
7 5'
"g....
w ndsg C T9]p A
. =.ufle'a bEnergyNCbW [-
5 " J A N D M 6 N N D @
y
' ~
. Tide 7-ENortNaIt E N
^
~w-m=
. (Mills tonel Nucle a rt Powe,r~iStati.%
j$N> + QC L#g%w~gj, Spe_n t R.,ue1$ Pool;JDe sig,n.,on M
~E. s n&-
W fe
(
m 3
w w
~~
,~
LU.siti2h1 f..is&n g-fL w%m
_m o g t w
%~
xm1 m.a*g s m.e a,f
. Docket No.
, 150-336-oti,y F A, ' >. N 17'. Igf. g _af j#4g s
m, c %,,
a w
w.
e m
m,.
~n
.M -
+
m
.e. w.q s d,b, g, M.
Q yin i r
iM 4
,ma cwy.
?
\\c i n M-r+%
n:4 3 nW >
n v
a..
c m.5 m',..,+,
, m,.m
,n
.n s
+
9,.,
r
,-** #f 7.
. P:;
,w rm 1.,-
N 4
p 2
4; Q
g@
t. qQ~
s 1
A
,new, c
S m g
,gs i
m i
4.
+>-.,.p%
' m q.a.
~wy 4
i..
f Q:-
o j,.
i
- s. l, L-f
- b q "-d N.
yt-- l A
N T
s 3'
y i
1 g,, 3J y,_.g jh4 L.
s
- i.. c
..~
,.; %,r v g,, o.,e n:;
q,
,7,f
+
..ms,g g
e c..
,4,w te iBethesdak h rylaudi ',w.
j;s y @,, C (wef
.m' ; 5 MeAW s
jg,. _
10 CATION:.:
~.
a cu z m n.m' x
. uv s w-s
, 4, o
me
~-
s ;Q 3,=" ng ;
%p:Q,,
..e ne w,'
4, u
~ -n ',-
Md A e s d ayMp ri1 MM1~993 M A%;,~ l%GESO903 %w y qs t
2.p ;
m,.
. ~ +. ~,
. m_
< DATE::
'I m:
w
,- w; x N
c
,.,; R &'P-@7 Ms
.s.
dye WW d u
r g'
y sy;gr;9e - p%.
- c g ~q*'
1 i.,
y
> ~
'~
pp; ?.,- -,
n.
r 4 s
+
r
(
^
4
>r
-%': %.; y J +N uM
_ s y
(
'F s
,3 4
g
."g ),
..q;g C,
'l.'
j.+ h4.,-;
m,' g-
,,+
c.
k.
)
,,'m.
g y
.r
,g, a w ~
A, W 3g s..-
g.
- w. s 1
s.
. +
~,,
is. + 1 m
a v,
. n'P 1.~; m,.gm,
.y
++j p-s. <
%^
i.
+r
~, ' '
, p,
'.h dyp p.,
1 y
a s y
- e. 9; m,
A '. jfW W>3,,. %.mA
. W, v
3
~
- g 4
s
,,, m
'~ j
- f. f..[,
-y
,:n i-5,
.y ' ',: y'.,-,
sbfi i
Dd./ M' u Up,,.,,. f.n. p'.[
.(
~ _ #m c,.,
nw m^
<1
- n ma-.
,I-h n.a i
,%~.
,/3
+-
I ', I h
E
,,;.. ', h*y t
k
'y;m.-. w;n s
.qu e +r:
=
u.
.i n,
%:e 1mw%n.
e o
em 4c' ' 'h +, s,%,,.. J. c,
QQ gn'
. v:
- q
+
+
- Wm a sm um M%m@s n
w e, d.r e
'd;
.h e a
- n. d,
,.e.
a.
.,,. w"b-Q,b.y :,-
- N p 2%*
..mr s
g.c.
4 r
A d
,3
,.3 c.m',
a my"[ f _
.y y. ~.,.y
{
i ht.
c m, s.
m m _._,
-,a,
~
..ua, _, e,, -,
t.
w m3 e.u
yJ.a--
g4 :
.%r w e n %<~,
m
< ~r 1
-7.~
~-
f.g~ w ~ da u w
y
- ag
,aV
).
- 4 g\\ %(
t
- . 3g]g ht gj g., "
x
- \\
Zdd
-y 3
'g.
sd',
T y
1 f*
s s
r
. +-
w g
3
. <qq g;.
g, yN,.
~$
f f.
%.n a
h
[
_[
q *,
~
.,,. ~..
c.
.~
'+
g,gy 9,
, a 4
OgyQ:g,-
- g612 xstw.w,suir.3oot y; _'
s m.
3.
. m,_m0.c 2.ooos,
~ Z o%N ?m n m g
, m+
m m
-1
.m
. (-
~
m LT "yM '. ',
4
-t om n
e-m
- 202) 293-39503 w ~#C % 1 "s
n 4
w %;# : >
. -, *' li <
y k b kIh c 4 -
w-s
y l
}, ;
,I 3.e-
- f' 1-
..t9304120018 930407 g
ir F-
"1L..,m %./(f/ @,an mW.
W,a.
O; _ f
^
NW PDR ADOCK 05000336 mt%<C...
A c.
T ppp m,
e wc owe
+w sv u n@.uwa n +' m a,n y/ Wwy!
c~
. e a-
- . ~..,.
icyf (.. (wn;r., JQ j f $6.
,MMu(m;
~
/M 2.
~:c
+
d
'"Od, MSIM. g&. 75?
y.J mWa w'7w
~* +,,
6 4
- W M 1
UM mm
~
w&
lw t
."n
'<Hm
% v n
.. ~
- _ ~
01G3 A OFFICIAL TRANSCRIPT OF PROCEEDINGS i
k Nuclear Regulatory Commission ON Atomic Safety'& Licensing Board Tide:
u rtheast nuclear energy Co.
l (Millstone Nuclear Power Station l
Unit'2) Spent Fuel Pool Design i
f Docket No.
So-336-OLA i
I
! ~O l
LOCATION:
Bethesda, Maryland DATE:
Wednesday, April 7,
1993 PAGES: 90 - 150 i
.i t
l l
l ANN RILEY & ASSOCIATES, LTD.
iO OSO C 3v,,
1612 x sc.x.w suite 300 i
usagton.oc 20006
\\
(202) 293-3950
[
$f 9304120018 930407 I
PDR ADOCK 05000336 i
T PDR
90 NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSION 1
ATOMIC SAFETY & LICENSING BOARD
(
2 3
4 In the matter of:
5 Northeast Nuclear Energy Co.
(Millstone Nuclear Power Station:
6
- Docket No. 50-336-OLA 7
Unit 2) Spent Fuel Pool Design 8
9 U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission 4350 East West Highway 10 Bethesda, Maryland 11 12 Wednesday, April 7, 1993 13 The above entitled matter came on for telephone 14 f
15 conference, pursuant to notice at 2:00 p.m.
16 17 MEMBERS PRESENT:
JUDGE IVAN W.
SMITH, CHAIRMAN 18 19 JUDGE CHARLES N. KELBER 20 JUDGE JERRY R. KLINE (by phone) 21 22 23 24 25 l
ANN RILEY & ASSOCIATES, LTD.
Cou't b? porters 1612 K Str.qt, N.W.,
Suite 300 l
Washing;on, D.C.
20006 (202) 293-3950
Co.-
Nuclear Energy theast APPEARANCES:On Behalf of Nor STRAWN (by phone) 1 WINSTON ANDS. REYNOLDS, ESQ.
2 NICHOLAS phone)
(by 3
BY:
ESQ.
A. REPKA, 4
DAVID NW L St.,
5 1400 20005 I
Washington, DC Commission:
6 Nuclear Regulatory 7
On Behalf of the (by phone) 8 f
HULL, ESQ.
Commission 9
JOHN latory U.S. Nuclear Regu 10 20555 Washington, DC Monitoring 11 perative Citizen
[
12 On Behalf of Coo 13 (by phone) 14 MARUCCI Network:
ELLEN 15 MARY St.
wnell 06511 16 104 Broven, Connecticut 17 New Ha 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 ASSOCIATES, LTD.
ANN RILEY ReportersSuite 300 Court N.W.,
20006 I
- Street, Washington, D. C.293-3950 K
1612 (202)
'x
l l
92 i
1 PROCEEDINGS l
2 JUDGE SMITH:
We are on the record now. This is a 3
formal official pre-hearing conference called pursuant to 4
the provisions of section 2.752 of the rules of practice.
a l
l 5
It is being transcribed. All parties were notified in l
6 advance of this conference and all have agreed to 7
participate.
[
1 1
8 I'm going to give you a short agenda of the j
9 conference this afternoon.
Then we will go to the l
10 individual items.
First we will entertain preliminary i
11 business discussions, for example, any new developments that 12 should be reported.
i 13 We will review the history of discovery and we l
14 will hear from the parties on the present status of 15 discovery.
We will discuss the need for any sanctions, if i
16 there are any and then assuming that discovery is complete 17 or will soon be complete or is otherwise terminated, we will l
l l
l 18 discuss means by which the issues may be resolved, for l
19 example stipulations, summary dispositions or the 20 possibility of going directly to hearing.
21 Then finally we will set a schedule for further d
22 resolution of issues.
23 First, does any party have any preliminary 24 business not otherwise included in our agenda?
25 MR. REPKA:
We have nothing new outside of that I
i 1
l ANN RILEY & ASSOCIATES, LTD.
Court Reporters i
1612 K Street, N.W.,
Suite 300 Washington, D.C.
20006 j
(202) 293-3950 i
93 1
agenda.
()
2 JUDGE SMITH:
All right.
3 MS. MARUCCI:
Yes.
1 4
JUDGE SMITH:
First item is I will review the 5
history of discovery.
First the NRC staff and the licensee l
'I 6
filed timely responses to, and objections in some cases to 7
CCMN's discovery requests and CCMN made no objections or
[
]
8 motions to compel, nor has CCMN sought any second round of a
9 discovery.
Therefore, we assume and we deem that CCMN's l
10 discovery needs are complete.
l 11 MS. MARUCCI:
That is not correct.
12 JUDGE SMITH:
Would you tell us what you need and l
13 explain yourself, please?
14 MS. MARUCCI:
The round of discovery, because a
15 discovery had not been completed, at least the first round 1
16 of discovery had not been completed because of the problems 2
i 17 of getting discovery --
j 18 JUDGE SMITH:
I am talking about your discovery 19 requirements.
1 20 MS. MARUCCI:
We were told when I asked when we 4
j 21 could respond to object, to those objections made by NRC and i
22 NNECO we were told it would be after the first round of 1
23 discovery was completed.
Now, I am confused --
24 JUDGE SMITH:
I'm sorry, we just can't hear you.
25 MS. MARUCCI:
Is that better?
j j
ANN RILEY & ASSOCIATES, LTD.
Court Reporters j
1612 K Street, N.W.,
Suite 300 Washington, D.C.
20006 (202) 293-3950
94 1
JUDGE SMITH:
Yes, we can hear you quite well now.
2 MS. MARUCCI:
Please let me continue.
3 JUDGE SMITH:
Please don't continue. Start again 4
on this subject.
i 5
MS. MARUCCI:
No problem.
We have not made our 6
objections to the fact that our information is missing l
l 7
because we thought we would have an opportunity to do that 8
after we received their responses and they received ours.
)
9 Now, is that not true, that we have to make objections as
[
.\\
i 10 they come in at the same time that we are responding to l
4 11 them?
i 12 JUDGE SMITH:
I don't understand your point.
l t
13 MS. MARUCCI:
Not to place our objections to their
[
14 objections until all materials came in.
l i
15 JUDGE SMITH:
Would you point to the part of the 1
16 discovery rules where you get that feeling or that thought?
j l
17 MS. MARUCCI:
I didn't know how we could object to t
18 the materials that you were sending us
.'s you were sending 19 them until we reviewed them to see if they contained i
20 everything that we needed.
We do have some discovery r
21 problems immediately which were delineated very specifically a
22 in the, oh, when was it -- April 3 letter, but that was just
{
23 five broad areas where they have been refusing to give us r
i 24 material we felt was necessary.
[
25 JUDGE SMITH:
So you are telling me right now that ANN RILEY & ASSOCIATES, LTD.
Court Reporters 1612 K Street, N.W.,
Suite 300 Washington, D.C.
20006 (202) 293-3950
~
- c. _. -
i j
l 95 i
1 you have objections -- I mean, you have --
l ()
2 MS. MARUCCI:
I asked specifically when we could l
3 make those objections.
I didn't realize that we should have l
4 made them.
5 JUDGE SMITH:
In effect you are telling me that 6
you yet have further demands of discovery from the NRC staff 7
and of the licensee?
l 8
MS. MARUCCI:
Correct.
l
{
9 JUDGE SMITH:
But you have not --
j l
10 MS. MARUCCI:
Not to reject them based upon 11 whether nr not they might have something to do with exposure l
12 or it belongs to someone else but I didn't get any rulings 13 on those.
i I
i 14 JUDGE SMITH:
Any rulings?
15 MS. MARUCCI:
Well, do I have to object first I
16 before you will rule on it?
17 JUDGE SMITH:
I just simply don't understand your l
r 1
18 discussion at all.
It is absolutely disconnected to the l
l 19 discovery rules.
l 20 MS. MARUCCI:
That we were denied?
i 21 JUDGE SMITH:
You were required to file a motion 22 to compel discovery within ten days after the date of the
{
23 response as to which you believed was a failure and that is 24 set out in the discovery rules as to which I directed your 25 attention in particular.
ANN RILEY & ASSOCIATES, LTD.
Court Reporters 1612 K Street, N.W.,
Suite 300 l
Washington, D.C.
20006
[
l (202) 293-3950 i
l i
i 96 l
1 MS. MARUCCI:
Then we are late 2
JUDGE SMITH:
Yes, you are, you are indeed i
3 probably fatally late.
f 4
MS. MARUCCI:
I hope we are not fatally late.
Our I
5 object is to make sure that the --
l 6
JUDGE SMITH:
We do not know how you could j
7 possibly have gotten the idea from the discovery rules that 8
you had until the very end to seek additional discovery from j
9 the parties or to compel discovery.
However --
10 MS. MARUCCI:
With David Repka I had asked i
11 specifically.
Of course, I was-asking when we had to 12 according to the schedule and the different time lines l
13 involved to object to their discovery if we would lose any i
14 rights by not filing as they were telling us that they were 15 going to file on us to compel discovery and they said no but 16 it was their objection that I would have to respond to.
Now l
17 I thought there was a different time line.
If I have been 18 mistaken --
19 JUDGE SMITH:
Maybe I am mistaken. Let's hear from 20 Mr. Repka since you have invoked his knowledge on it.
21 MS. MARUCCI:
I wasn't free to invoke yours.
22 MR. REPKA:
This is Dave Repka.
I would like to 23 respond to that.
My recollection and my impression of where 24 we are in discovery is when we got the initial round of 25 discovery requests from CCMN we timely responded to those
()
ANN RILEY & ASSOCIATES, LTD.
Court Reporters 1612 K Street, N.W.,
Suite 300 Washington, D.C.
20006 (202) 293-3950
97 I
requests.
There were areas of those requests which we felt 1
()
2 were patently irrelevant and we stated that in our response, 3
those questions we would not answer, and we also -- I 4
believe there is an issue that, issue regarding copies of i
5 computer programs and things of that nature which we stated l
6 that it was our position they were proprietary and that is 7
set out in our response to the discovery.
~
B Now, as I recall my conversations with Ms.
i 9
Marucci, I tried to explain to her, I said we were giving j
10 her all the information we felt that she would need in order 11 to run an independent criticality analysis to respond to the 12 discovery that was germane to the criticality analysis in l
j 13 this proceeding.
]
14 As far as any other materials she might like, I 15 believe it was our position that she would need to review t
16 the documents she got and if there was anything that she 17 felt that she still needed it was incumbent upon her then to j
18 tell us that and let us know and we would object at that 1
19 point about formal objections or bring the discovery issue 1
o j
20 to the board at that point if it was still in dispute but it 21 is still our position now that we have provided everything 1
22 that is responsive, her discovery requests that is not 23 otherwise objectionable.
24 JUDGE SMITH:
My question is a little bit more 25 focused.
Did you tell Ms. Marucci that she did not have to
(
ANN RILEY & ASSOCIATES, LTD.
Court Reporters 1612 K Street, N.W.,
Suite 300 3
Washington, D.C.
20006 (202) 293-3950
. ~...
98 1
file a motion to compel discovery within ten days as
()
2 provided by the rules?
3 MR. REPKA:
I don't believe I ever said that, no, l
4 but I think that in fairness to Ms. Marucci, there may have 1
5 been some question on the discovery schedule as it was 6
adopted.
There was a provision for a second round of 7
discovery and it may have been -- a second round upon good 8
cause shown and there may have been some ambiguity as to 9
whether she needed to file a motion to compel or a second 10 round request but we heard neither but one of the reasons we 11 requested a conference call several weeks ago was to try to l
l 12 lend some certainty in the schedule and find where we were 13 with respect to discovery because frankly we didn't know.
14 We had not heard and didn't know whether there was 15 anything else that Ms. Marucci was going to argue that she 16 was entitled to.
17 JUDGE SMITH:
So you do not foreclose Ms. Marucci 18 at this point raising additional discovery needs?
19 MR. REPKA:
Upon good cause shown I think is an 20 absolute minimum.
As to timeliness, I think that that is 21 open to interpretation given that there was an ambiguity in 22 the schedule.
23 We continue to take the position that there really 24 is no good cause for further discovery because we. feel that 25 we have responded fully and completely.
ANN RILEY &. ASSOCIATES, LTD.
Court Reporters 1612 K Street, N.W.,
Suite 300 Washington, D.C.
20006 l
(202) 293-3950 j
i
,,.m.. _.. -,.
99 i
l 1
JUDGE SMITH:
You didn't rest on your oars when q
(
2 you deemed CCMN's responses to discovery to be inadequate.
I 3
Both you and Mr. Hull filed motions to compel discovery.
4 MR. REPKA:
That's a true statement.
5 JUDGE SMITH:
Mrs. Marucci, weren't you--
6 MS. MARUCCI:
May I respond to that?
7 JUDGE SMITH:
Certainly.
9 MS. MARUCCI:
When I was called by both John Hull 9
and David Repka saying they might have to compel me to l
10 discovery, to produce our discovery material, it was we are 11 doing this to protect our rights to make sure that you do 12 respond.
In that sense they were concerned about missing i
13 their deadline to compel discovery which I had not begun to l
l 14 present to them at that point.
v 15 I am one person and I am dealing with a lot of 16 things besides the NRC and I don't have a secretary or staff 17 at this point.
l 1
18 JUDGE SMITH:
It may be that you cannot support 19 your intervention.
That's the problem that we see here.
I 20 MS. MARUCCI:
We have another situation coming up 21 at the plant within eight months that will be very similar 22 to what caused us to be concerned in the first place.
We 23 need this to move forward so that the problems that -- and 24 we don't need to wait for another opportunity for citizens 25 to participate maybe five or ten years from now possibly
()
ANN RILEY & ASSOCIATES, LTD.
Court Reporters 1612 K Street, N.W.,
Suite 300 Washington, D.C.
20006 (202) 293-3950 l
i
i l
100 1
after the fact.
(f 2
JUDGE SMITH:
I think you are digressing.
3 MS. MARUCCI:
I am telling you that we don't 4
intend to drop this intervention because we are i
5 understaffed.
We do intend to carry out to the best of our 6
means and even beyond.
7 JUDGE SMITH:
Well, the point I am making is that 8
if the best of your means is inadequate, there is nothing we 9
can do about it. That's a problem.
10 MS. MARUCCI:
I am asking the NRC to --
11 JUDGE SMITH:
This is the first you have asked 12 them for this?
13 MS. MARUCCI:
No.
I did not ask them in writing.
14 I spoke to them -- except for the NRC counsel who claimed in 15 writing that he didn't have what I waited in some cases 16 which I know he must have, but specifically the DOE 17 documentation on consolidation and the effects --
18 JUDGE SMITH:
You are in this position where you 19.
are telling us that you do not regard even the first round 20 of discovery to be completed, let alone a second round.
21 MS. MARUCCI:
If that's how you define a first 22 round of discovery, yes.
I was not under the impression 23 that my responses for the requested for further information 24 when they objected would have been the second round of i
25 discovery.
ANN RILEY & ASSOCIATES, LTD.
Court Reporters 1612 K Street, N.W.,
Suite 300 Washington, D.C.
20006 (202) 293-3950
i 101 1
1 JUDGE SMITH:
Would you please make a specific
()
2 proposal as to what you believe you need and what you should a
3 do?
1 l
4 MS. MARUCCI:
Yes.
There are five areas in which 5
we felt that both the NRC and NNECO were denying us 1
6 information and we felt those areas, we needed the 7
information of that areas to see exactly how the industry 8
and NRC --
I i
1 9
JUDGE KELBER:
I can't hear her.
10 JUDGE SMITH:
We can't hear you.
11 MS. MARUCCI:
Sorry.
I am speaking on the phone.
i 12 We need the five areas that we delineated in our report, the 13 inconsistencies that were mentioned, response to NNECO, NRC i
4 i
and the at mom tick safety licensing board memorandum of 14 I
I 15 March 15 and the 25th.
I 16 JUDGE SMITH:
I don't understand that statement.
1 17 Wait a minute.
Just a moment.
Just a moment.
18 (Pause) 19 JUDGE SMITH:
Neither Judge Kelber or I understand 20 that statement.
21 MS. MARUCCI:
I will try again.
We need the five j
22 areas that were mentioned in our April 3 reply to NNECO, NRC 23 and the atomic safety licensing board, that that information 24 be released to us that was denied.
25 JUDGE SMITH:
Who denied that?
ANN RILEY & ASSOCIATES, LTD.
Court Reporters 1612 K Street, N.W.,
Suite 300 Washington, D.C.
20006 (202) 293-3950
1 l
102 l
1 MS. MARUCCI:
What?
2 JUDGE SMITH:
Who denied that?
3 MS. MARUCCI:
NRC and NNECO in various forms have i
4 denied us the right to information because it's proprietary, 5
because it's not their published material, various reasons.
6
-- effects of an accident, even though it's necessary for us l
7 to predict whether an accident would occur or not.
8 JUDGE SMITH:
So you are saying that your filing j
9 of, well you call it a filing of April 3.
I got it in the 10 afternoon yesterday, i
}
11 MS. MARUCCI:
We faxed it to you.
12 JUDGE SMITH:
So you are saying that that is a 13 request?
)
14 MS. MARUCCI:
I wasn't aware that the request was-15 to be made at this point, Judge Smith. I believe I --
j l
16 JUDGE SMITH:
When did you think --
17 MS. MARUCCI:
Let us know when we could formally 18 make these objections and request that you rule on them, at 19 the end of that paper, if I remember correctly.
20 JUDGE SMITH:
What are the five things? I don't 21 see any request for information.
22 MS. MARUCCI:
I am walking close to the speaker 23 phone and there will be a sharp shrill.
24 JUDGE SMITH:
Point out those five requests to me.
25 MS. MARUCCI:
I am turning to the page now.
(
ANN RILEY & ASSOCIATES, LTD.
Court Reporters 1612 K Street, N.W.,
Suite 300 Washington, D.C.
20006 (202) 293-3950
.... -. _ ~.
103 1
Starting on page three, they were presented as 2
inconsistencies that we saw, cost versus safety in response 3
further need for monitoring; two, the inconsistency in the 4
different practices of the NRC and utilities -- we needed to 5
have clarified why one choice was chosen over the other, 6
circulation of pool cooling water.
7 JUDGE SMITH:
Well, now, there is nothing -- the 8
language you pointed out to me, there is nothing there that 9
you have mentioned so far that can by any stretch of the 10 imagination be deemed a request for information.
In fact, i
11 it says that you are going to testify about that.
I 12 MS. MARUCCI:
At the bottom I was telling you in j
13 this that it was things that we had not, inconsistencies 14 that we saw and things that had been denied us and please 15 inform us when we CCMN can appeal --
l l
16 JUDGE SMITH:
We can't hear you again. Are you l
l i
l 17 back on the speaker phone?
j t
f 18 MS. MARUCCI:
No, I am not.
I said please inform l
19 us.
Page five, two lines long, is that readable to you from 20 the fax that you received?
21 JUDGE SMITH:
I see.
Way down there at the end.
22 MS. MARUCCI:
It doesn't mean you have to read it 23 all.
24 JUDGE SMITH:
I might tell you it was very, very 25 hard to read it.
()
IJR7 RILEY & ASSOCIATES, LTD.
Court Reporters 1612 K Street, N.W.,
Suite 300 Washington, D.C.
20006 (202) 293-3950
l 104 l
l 1
MS. MARUCCI:
I'm sorry about the quality of the 2
fax.
Our machine that we had --
i 3
JUDGE SMITH:
No, it was the content, the thought i
4 content that was hard to read.
i 5
So what do you propose?
6 MS. MARUCCI:
I propose that those areas in which 1
l 7
the NRC and NNECO denied us information based upon 8
proprietary which was the first thing Dave Repka and I --
l l
9 JUDGE SMITH:
I don't see these things being in l
10 any form --
i 11 MS. MARUCCI:
They are not.
l 12 JUDGE SMITH:
-- that is answerable by NNECO or by l
13 the NRC staff.
I don't see how they can do that.
All you 14 do is list a series of concerns.
l 15 MS. MARUCCI:
This is a response that you are 16 looking at.
17 JUDGE SMITH:
Right.
I am looking at safety 18 versus cost, right?
19 MS. MARUCCI:
Yes..
20 JUDGE SMITH:
All you do is express a concern.
21 MS. MARUCCI:
These were areas that we intended to 22 bring forth in testimony that would indicate that the 23 company may not be financially able to fulfill its i
24 obligations.
25 JUDGE SMITH:
I think we can rule right off the l
ANN RILEY & ASSOCIATES, LTD.
Court Reporters 1612 K Street, N.W.,
Suite 300 Washington, D.C. 20006 (202) 293-3950
105 1
bat.
Safety versus cost, I am looking at that.
That in no
()
2 way requests information.
There is no way that we could 3
order that --
4 MS. MARUCCI:
The information we requested at that 5
meeting was the cost maintaining monitors in the pool, what 6
is too high a cost, those kind of information.
7 JUDGE SMITH:
You are missing the central thought.
8 You do not ask a question.
You express a concern.
You do 9
not ask a question.
You do not seek a document.
10 MS. MARUCCI:
We did seek documents at that time.
11 We were denied some.
We were promised them and then turned 12 around and denied.
13 JUDGE SMITH:
What do you want us to do? Do you 14 want us to -- in any case, you got a lot of irrelevancies in 15 here but do you want to look at this document and deem it to 16 be a motion to compel?
17 MS. MARUCCI:
No.
I wanted to let you know those 18 areas in which the information was denied us if you had not 19 thoroughly understood from our perspective how they were 20 denied us.
They were denied us because it was proprietary 21 22 JUDGE SMITH:
But that alone unless you seek some 23 specific relief --
24 MS. MARUCCI:
Because technical specifications 25 said something when we asked for the actual operation
()
ANN RILEY & ASSOCIATES, LTD.
Court Reporters 1612 K Street, N.W.,
Suite 300 Washington, D.C.
20006 (202) 293-3950
106 1
practice.
They denied us because it had nothing to do with 2
criticality analysis in our point of view when in our point 3
of view it did.
4 They denied us, in number four, they denied us l
5 different ways they had made decisions about fuel movement I
6 in the pool and the reason they maintained levels of oraflex 7
when they don't use it in their -- calculations for -- JUDGE 8
SMITH:
Tell us specifically in detail what you want the l
9 board to do or what you intend to do.
L 2
10 MS. MARUCCI:
What I intend to do is delineate i
11 exactly what we want and very carefully what they have 12 denied us and on their basis, we feel that their basis is-4 i
13 incorrect, that they should not deny us something because l
l 14 alone it could be used to figure out the consensus of an 15 accident when we need it to see if in fact an accident is 16 being thwarted.
l 17 JUDGE SMITH:
What do you say to this, Mr. Repka?
18 MR. REPKA:
This document that Ms. Marucci is l
19 referring to really is not a discovery document at all.
1 I
20 It's not a discovery request in any way.
It doesn't relate 21 to any prior questions or interrogatories or document.
22 requests that has been filed in the case.
i 23 As far as document request and interrogatories 24 that we know of, the only thing we know of are those that 25 were filed on December 5 and 16, 1992 and our response to l
l l
ANN RILEY & ASSOCIATES, LTD.
Court Reporters 1612 K. Street, N.W.,
Suite 300 i
Washington, D.C.
20006 l
(202) 293-3950 l
l-
l l
107 l
1 those specific requests, it's very clearly stated in our j
2 January 15, 1993 document.
i 3
Many of the things that Ms. Marucci seems to be 4
talking about today, although it's less than clear, are 5
addressed in much more detail in our January 15 document.
l f
6 As far as proprietary, the only thing we talked about i
i 7
proprietary information, why certain computer codes, our i
I 8
rationales and arguments on that are very clearly set out I
9 and as far as some of these other things about fuel 10 consolidation and some other things that I see some words in 11 this filing of yesterday, we addressed that also back in 12 January.
i
)
13 I think that what I am concerned about here is 14 that we have a whole new round of discovery which sort of 15 mutates the questions that we were asked in December and 16 responded to in January and I think our positions on the 17 pending discovery is very clearly stated.
)
18 JUDGE SMITH:
How about you, Mr. Hull?
)
19 MR. HULL:
I am John Hull for NRC staff. I am a i
l 20 bit puzzled as to CCMN's confusion.
I think the scheduling i
l 21 order of November 24, 1992 was clear that objections were 22 due by January 12, 1993 and that per the procedural rules i
23 that govern these proceedings if she had a problem with the 24 responses and objections that were filed that she had ten l
25 days to state those objections and here we are three months i
k ANN RILEY & ASSOCIATES, LTD.
Court Reporters 1612 K Street, N.W.,
Suite 300 Washington, D.C.
20006 j
(202) 293-3950 a ei--e e w,
108 1
later.
2 We clearly set forth in our January filing when we 3
responded and objected to the CCMN requests, our positions 4
and most of them, most of the materials that we objected to 5
were clearly outside the scope of this proceeding which is 6
just the criticality calculation which forms the basis of 7
contention one.
That's the only contention that's subject 8
to discovery here.
9 JUDGE SMITH:
Mrs. Marucci --
10 MS. MARUCCI:
I understand the way it 't> been 11 interpreted.
Anything that affect -- over point 95.
12 Because of the assumptions and the criticality which --
13 JUDGE SMITH:
Well, let's cut --
14 MS. MARUCCI:
Other materials that he uses O
15 neutrons --
1 16 JUDGE SMITH:
Let's cut this short, Mrs. Marucci.
17 There is no point in discussing the merits of your concerns 18 listed on this document of June 3 which incidentally was 19 late -- April 3 I mean.
It's sufficient to note that there 20 is nothing here that we can enforce.
21 Your final request, please inform us when CCMN can 22 appeal NRC and NNECO partial responses and objections, we 23 have no advice for you.
The discovery rules tell you how to 24 deal with inadequate -- with responses that you deem to be 25 inadequate.
i ANN RILEY & ASSOCIATES, LTD.
Court Reporters 1612 K Street, N.W.,
Suite 300 Washington, D.C.
20006 (202) 293-3950 l
l l
109 1
MS. MARUCCI:
They just didn't tell us the 2
timeframe.
3 JUDGE SMITH:
Well, if you believe that's the case 4
you are going to have to address it in some other means.
We l
l 5
are not going to tell you what to do or what you can do but 6
we are not going to act on any discovery implications in l
7 your document now.
8 MS. MARUCCI:
Will there be a time that you will?
9 JUDGE SMITH:
That's what I am telling you.
We l
10 cannot prevent you from filing documents and if you l
11 undertake to file a document requesting additional discovery 12 we will not even read it --
l 13 MS. MARUCCI:
I don't want to --
14 JUDGE SMITH:
Wait a minute.
15 MS. MARUCCI:
I haven't reviewed all the materials l
i 16 that have been sent.
^
17 JUDGE SMITH:
Whenever, if you decide that you l
l 18 want additional discovery based upon your perceived failure, l
i 19 the failure that you perceive and the staff's responses, and 20 the licensee's responses, if you decide that you are going 21 to seek additional discovery on that or seek a motion to, 22 seek an order compelling discovery, if you decide to do that 23 I want you to know that we will not even read it.
24 MS. MARUCCI:
Why should I do it?
25 JUDGE SMITH:
I am not done.
Don't interrupt me.
ANN RILEY & ASSOCIATES, LTD.
Cottrt Reporters 1612 K Street, N.W.,
Suite 300 i
washington, D.C.
20006 (202) 293-3950 l
t
- - - =.
i j
j 110 1
We will not even read it until, number one, it is accurately
()
2 and timely served on everybody and, two, there is a thorough j
3 discussion of "our reasons for filing it late and we will 4
not read it until we have considered those aspects.
If you 5
don't convince us we won't even read it.
We will just send I
i i
6 it right back to you or throw it away.
J 7
MS. MARUCCI:
Discovery, compel to discovery on l
8 the initial objections made by NNECO and the NRC will be 9
considered late by your statement just now?
10 JUDGE SMITH:
I am looking at the rules and I see 11 you have ten days after the date of the response that you 12 deem to be inadequate and so those ten days are long passed.
13 MS. MARUCCI:
Then what you -- do you recommend we z
l 14 go directly into second round discovery and I say I glean O
15 from those materials now --
16 JUDGE SMITH:
I have no recommendation to you.
17 MS. MARUCCI:
Then what do you want to do?
18 JUDGE SMITH:
I will proceed with the case and the 19 next order of business.
i I
20 MS. MARUCCI:
Okay.
So you would like to 21 summarily discharge this case?
22 JUDGE SMITH:
I beg your pardon?
23 MS. MARUCCI:
Do you want to summarily --
24 JUDGE SMITH:
I gave you an agenda. Maybe you 25 didn't write it down.
Now we are going to talk about the ANN RILEY & ASSOCIATES, LTD.
Court Reporters a
1612 K Street, N.W.,
Suite 300 l
Washington, D.C.
20006 l
(202) 293-3950
.... -. ~
i i
111 l
1 other aspect, the other side of the coin.
And that is the f
(
2 history of discovery against CCMN to see where we stand with l
3 respect to that.
4 MS. MARUCCI:
I'm going to put you on the speaker 5
phone for a minute.
6 JUDGE SMITH:
All right.
Are you there, Mrs.
l 7
Marucci?
l 8
(Pause) 9 JUDGE SMITH:
Are you there?
{
10 MS. MARUCCI:
Yes, I am.
l 11 JUDGE SMITH:
Now we are going to review the 12 history of the discovery related to the staff and the I
13 licensee's requests to CCMN.
14 As we have noted earlier, the staff filed 15 discovery requests on December 9, licensee on December 18 to j
l 16 CCMN.
You filed a single response on' February 11 which we l
17 received on February 18 and as we noted in the earlier --
18 you made no objections to any discovery requests, nor did 19 you seek a protective order.
20 On February 19 staff filed a motion to compel 21 under the assumption that you had filed no response to their 22 discovery requests and we later learned that your February 23 11 response passed in the mail.
Your February 11 response 24 incidentally was almost all documents, entirely cocuments 25 except you did say that you and Dr. Kaku would testify.
The i
ANN RILEY & ASSOCIATES, LTD.
Court Reporters 1612 K Street, N.W.,
Suite 300 Washington, D.C.
20006 (202) 293-3950 i
]
=
112 1
staff supplemented its motion on February 24 taking into l
2 account your reply of February 11.
3 Licensee filed a motion to compel discovery on 4
February 26.
We began preparing an order compelling CCMN to 5
respond to discovery and we issued it on March 15 and in I.
a 6
that order we warned of sanctions for failure, any failures l
7 to respond fully to discovery.
8 We indicated that compliance would be due on March 7
l l
9 31 and that date was later extended to April 1.
10 In the mean time CCMN filed a paper dated March 11 11 or March 9, whichever part of it you want to read, 12 purporting to respond further to the staff's discovery a
f 13 requests but not to licensee's. You failed to serve the 14 board, so, therefore, we continued making our order-as I 15 noted above and issued it on the assumption that you had not 16 filed anything other than your February 11 paper.
17 The staff moved to compel again on the basis of 18 your March 11 response but saying that that response was 19 still not adequate but instead of entertaining that motion 20 we rejected your March 11 response because, number one, you 21 failed to serve the board and, two, you had given no reason 22 or explanation or good cause for late filing.
23 Then we restated the need for you to, for CCMN to 24 comply with our order of March 15 compelling discovery.
We 25 noted that CCMN could resubmit March 11 response or l
ANN RILEY & ASSOCIATES, LTD.
l Court Reporters 1612 K Street, N.W.,
Suite 300 l
Washington, D.C.
20006
(
(202) 293-3950 1
4 1
j 113 i
1 supplement it and the reasons for taking this action
()
2 apparently have not been well understood.
3 The reason we did not grant staff's motion to
{
4 compel discovery again, the third motion, was that we wanted 5
to have your discovery, compliance or failure of compliance 6
to be a compliance with a board order or failure to comply 7
with a board order and not a party's discovery request and 8
we explained that.
9 Therefore, we denied the staff's motion as moot.
10 We received a document on March 25 called 11 affirmation of timetable which discusses some other aspects 1
12 of the case.
We don't really know what that document, what 13 the purpose of that document is but I am just referring to i
l 14 it for the record.
j 15 Then on March 31 Dr. Kaku mailed from New York on i
16 time a declaration which seems to be, seems to correspond to 17 the licensee's interrogatories and numbers at least except la that he didn't -- he seemed to ignore interrogatory number 19 twelve.
No answer from Dr. Kaku was directed to the NRC 20 staff.
21 On March 6 we received a document entitled 22 supplemental response to NRC staff.
You were told by 23 telephone that you could have that document in, if you 24 served it on April 1, even though the actual date was March 25 31, but on April 6 we received by fax with no explanation of
()
ANN RILEY & ASSOCIATES, LTD.
Court Reporters 1612 K Street, N.W.,
Suite 300 Washington, D.C.
20006 (202) 293-3350
~ -. _ ~
A i
f' 134 1
its lateness this document entitled supplemental response to 2
NRC staff and NNECO and response to the board's orders of 3
3-15 and 3-25.
I 4
That's the document that was faxed that we just t
5 thoroughly discussed.
It purports to answer the staff's i
6 request 2-B and three.
It is very difficult to understand.
7 It is very argumentative.
8 We don't quite know what to make of it other than 9
the fact that we have already ruled that it is not
{
10 sufficient to be a demand for further discovery and that is
[
i 11 where we are.
12 So now I would like to have licensee, counsel for i'
13 licensee provide his views on the status of discovery, what 14 he deems the status to be and also whether I left out any i
15 important milestones in that history and then I will ask to 16 see NRC staff and CCMN to comment similarly.
Who is going j
17 to speak for licensee?
Mr. Repka?
18 MR. REPKA:
That's correct.
I will speak.
l 19 Answering your second question first, I don't believe you 20 have left out any milestones in the history of the 21 discovery, at least as far as I can tell from my quick 22 review.
L
=
i 23 With respect to the adequacy of the discovery 1
24 responses we have received to date, I would say in general 25 that they are not completely responsive.
However, at this s
a ANN RILEY & ASSOCIATES, LTD.
Court Reporters 1612 K Street, N.W.,
Suite 300 Washington, D.C.
20006 i
(202) 293-3950 t
i i
115 l
1 point we are not going to -- we would opt not to pursue l
(
2 further discovery or sanctions if we can instead seek a t
3 schedule to go forward in this proceeding and move -- close 4
discovery and move forward for the summary disposition.
i 5
That may put us into the next item on the agenda, l
6 I suppose, but I think the short answer is we view the 7
deficiencies in the discovery that are right now outstanding i
8 as not great enough to outweigh what we perceive as the 9
better course of moving forward with the proceeding on a set 10 schedule to move to resolution.
[
11 We feel Dr. Kaku has raised some issues thas we i
12 would like to respond to in an appropriate fashion and would j
l 13 just as soon do that.
14 JUDGE SMITH:
Mr. Hull.
i 15 MR. HULL:
Yes.
I still do feel that the staff 16 needs further responses to ts discovery requests from CCMN.
17 The April 6 fax by CCMN does purport to satisfy the staff's 18 outstanding discovery requests but in fact I don't think it 19 does.
I believe under rule 2.740B stating that each 20 interrogatory is to be answered separately and fully in i
21 writing under oath, we are entitled to separate answers to 22 the discovery requests from CCMN and Dr. Kaku in our March 23 24 motion we specifically asked for supplemental responses 24 to discovery requests numbers two, three, five, six, seven, 25 eight, nine, ten and eleven and I don't think it's fair for ANN RILEY & ASSOCIATES, LTD.
Court Reporters 1612 K Street, N.W.,
Suite 300 Washington, D.C.
20006 (202) 293-3950 I
1
\\
116 l
1 the staff to have to try to pick through Dr. Kaku's March 31
()
2 declaration and in effect have to guess at what information 1
i i
3 therein is supposed to be responsive to our own discovery 4
requests.
l 5
MR. REPKA:
I would like to just add in responding I
6 to what Mr. Hull said, I think the staff and Northeast i
7 Utilities are in a slightly different boat here because Dr.
8 Kaku has at least on the face of his document tried to j
9 correlate his responses to our questions and not to the 10 staff's questions.
11 Beyond that, I would say though that nothing in 12 our position on this issue would be meant in any way to 13 relieve CCMN or Dr. Kaku or whomever of their obligation 1
i, j
14 under ten point -- to supplement discovery responses at any
]
15 point in which the bases for their position in this case may 16 change and recognizing that Ms. Marucci has stated that she 17 is still reviewing documents, we can't have confidence, I l
18 suppose, that their basis for a particular contention may I
19 not change, so I would like to underscore that obligation l
20 which still exists.
l l
l 21 JUDGE SMITH:
As of right now you are waiving any 22 right to sanctions that you might have, is that correct?
23 MR. REPKA:
That's correct.
We are not asking for 24 or seeking any sanctions at this point.
25 JUDGE SMITH:
For these purposes you are accepting f
ANN RILEY & ASSOCIATES, LTD.
Court Reporters 1612 K Street, N.W.,
Suite 300 Washington, D.C.
20006 l
(202) 293-3950
)
i 117 j
l 1
Dr. Kaku's declaration as being, except for the l
()
2 supplementation of it, as being a full response?
3 MR. REPKA:
A sufficient response.
4 JUDGE SMITH:
Sufficient response. Mr. Hull, would 5
you go back to what your requirements are and views are?
6 MR. HULL:
I was just sort of adding on to what i
7 Mr. Repka just stated, CCMN does have'an ongoing obligation 8
with respect to the substance of Dr. Kaku's testimony to t
9 continue supplementing its responses, should the opinions of 10 Dr. Kaku change based on maybe his review of additional 11 documents our whatever.
12 As far as sanctions go, at this point the staff 13 would not seek to impose sanctions on CCMN provided, j
14 however, that CCMN does supplement its responses as we had O
15 set forth in our March 24 motion to compel, that supplement i
16 those responses within one week and then we can go from 17 there.
18 JUDGE SMITH:
Supplement?
You mean comply with i
19 your --
t 20 MR. HULL:
I don't know if comply is the right l
21 word, your honor, since you denied the March 24 motion.
22 JUDGE SMITH:
That's right, and we made full 23 response to discovery a matter of board order. That was the 24 effect of denying your motion and pointing again to the 25 board's order of March 15.
So if CCMN has not answered your ANN RILEY & ASSOCIATES, LTD.
Court Reporters 1612 K Street, N.W.,
Suite 300 Washington, D.C.
20006 (202) 293-3950 i
i
l 118 t
1 discovery needs, your legitimate discovery needs, it is in 2
violation of a board order.
3 MR. HULL:
Your honor, perhaps I misunderstood 4
your question.
I thought you were seeking the staff's 5
opinion on the question of sanctions.
I certainly don't 6
mean to interpose on your authority.
7 JUDGE SMITH:
You are missing my point. If you 8
believe that your motion to compel of March 24 which was 9
dismissed as moot has not been satisfied by the April 3 or 10 April 6 document, what you are really saying is that CCMN 11 has failed to comply with our order compelling discovery?
I 12 MR. HULL:
That's correct.
13 JUDGE SMITH:
Now you sant to give them more time 14 anyaay, right?
15 MR. HULL:
One additional week, yes, your honor, i
16 because based on a conversation I had with Ms. Marucci a few j
17 days ago she did seem to be under some sort of 18 misunderstanding or misapprehension.
So the staff wants to 19 try to bend over backwards and be as fair as possible.
20 JUDGE SMITH:
To summarize your position, you are 21 deferring any judgment on the part of the staff as to 22 whether you are seeking sanctions until Mrs. Marucci has 23 another opportunity to comply with our order compelling 24 discovery?
25 MR. HULL:
Yes.
What I was envisioning, your ANN RILEY & ASSOCIATES, LTD.
Court Reporters 1612 K Street, N.W.,
Suite 300 Washington, D.C.
20006 (202) 293-3950
119 1
honor, was a statement from Dr. Kaku similar to what was 2
submitted by him on March 31, keyed to the staff's discovery 3
requests.
4 JUDGE SMITH:
Is this just a question of form, Mr.
5 Hull, or is it a question of substance?
6 MR. HULL:
I think it's a question of fairness, 7
your honor, because as I thought I stated earlier, I don't B
believe it's fair for the staff to have to try to pick 9
through the answers of Dr. Kaku to the utilities 10 interrogatories to try to determine what his answers might 11 be to the staff's interrogatories.
12 JUDGE SMITH:
Can you do that, though? I mean, is l
13 it feasible?
j l
14 MR. HULL:
Well, I have tried to review the most 15 recent Dr. Kaku declaration and there are several areas 16 where he in fact does not address interrogatories that were 17 sent out on December 9.
18 JUDGE SMITH:
You are talking to Mrs. Marucci on 19 this subject?
You have had discussions with her?
20 MR. HULL:
Well, she had called up about the fax 21 of the April 6 document and at that time I was, of course, 22 handicapped because I didn't have her response in my 23 possession so she was telling me that Dr. Kaku had filed 24 something that addressed some of the interrogatories and she 25 thought they were satisfied, they satisfied the staff's
()
ANN RILEY & ASSOCIATES, LTD.
Court Reporters 1612 K Street, N.W.,
Suite 300 Washington, D.C.
20006 (202) 293-3950
- -- -.~._. - -.-. - --
120 1
outstanding discovery requests.
2 So I reviewed the document when you forwarded to 3
me from your office yesterday and I found out that that is 4
not the case.
5 JUDGE SMITH:
Incidentally, Mrs. Marucci, that is l
6 another instance of failure to serve the parties properly.
7 Mr. Hull did not get that document from you.
I l
8 MS. MARUCCI:
Dr. Kaku?
}
i l
9 JUDGE SMITH:
Yours.
j 1
10 MS. MARUCCI:
That's because if you read page five j
11 you will probably understand why.
l i
12 JUDGE SMITH:
I understand why, Mrs. Marucci, but l
13 that doesn't mean that it's appropriate.
I i
14 MS. MARUCCI:
I understand that you understand l
l 15 that, especially when things cross in the mail.
16 JUDGE SMITH:
I am just noting this for the t
i 17 record.
What do you have to say to Mr. Hull's comments?
I 18 MS. MARUCCI:
I would like Dr. Kaku to put i
19 references to the original document that -- form of --
l 20 MR. HULL:
I am having a hard time understanding l
21 here.
l l
22 JUDGE SMITH:
Mrs. Marucci, let me interrupt, Mrs.
I 1
)
23 Marucci.
We are not, you are not coming through clearly.
l 24 You have to start again.
l 25 MS. MARUCCI:
Okay.
i l
ANN RILEY & ASSOCIATES, LTD.
l Court Reporters I
l 1612 K Street, N.W.,
Suite 300 l
Washington, D.C.
20006 l
(202) 293-3950 l
t-_____,
-. -. ~...
_ ~. -. -
~.
I 121 1
1 1
JUDGE SMITH:
What do you say to Mr. Hull's 2
comments?
3 MS. MARUCCI:
Mr. Hull would like Dr. Kaku to j
4 write him directly in response to his specific questions 5
which I do believe have been addressed in Dr. Kaku's l
6 statements from reading it. Maybe Mr. Hull needs a physicist 7
on the NRC staff in his law firm to review it but what I 8
hear him saying is he doesn't have that person available and t
l 9
would like Dr. Kaku to reference his work to be specific to i
I 10 the questions asked by the NRC staff.
11 JUDGE SMITH:
What.is your position on his j
i i
a 12 request?
l d
i 13 MS. MARUCCI:
Well, I am not in a position to say 14 Dr. Kaku will reference it.
I could even reference it but I
/
15 wouldn't want to say Dr. Kaku -- I could see where those l
16 questions were answered in door Kaku's statement but I can 17 do that. I can only speak for myself.
I was not able to get 18 Dr. Kaku to be on this conference call.
I am meeting with i
i 19 him on April 20.
l i
20 JUDGE SMITH:
What do you want to do, Mr. Hull?
{
21 MR. HULL:
Well, the staff shares the licensee's i
22 desire to try to move this case along. We had hoped today to 23 have a schedule set up for filing motions for summary j
24 disposition and if necessary the hearing date, so I would J
25 want supplementation as soon as possible.
I don't know if j
i ANN RILEY & ASSOCIATES, LTD.
Court Reporters 1612 K Street, N.W.,
Suite 300 Washington, D.C.
20006 (202) 293-3950 1
.. ~..
, ~ _
b 122 1
April 20 would be soon enough or not.
2 JUDGE SMITH:
The purpose of this conference was 3
to nail down these items specifically because the proceeding i
4 has been drifting rather aimlessly along.
I might point out 5
that in our pre-hearing conference in New Haven we indicated 6
to the parties that we wanted to take a different approach l
7 to discovery in this proceeding and that is we wanted 1
I 8
discovery to be a matter of board order in the first i
9 instance so that we would not have this back and forth and 10 vagueness and confused memories but the parties elected to 11 go the route, the traditional discovery route, the one 12 provided by the rules, which was your privilege.
I 13 The licensee, the NRC staff in my view have not i
14 really been as aggressive as they should have been in s
15 insisting upon compliance with discovery rules and maybe you 16 have decided that it's just easier to get on with addressing i
17 the issues which is a valid trial technique which we 18 wouldn't second guess you on but, still, the proceeding has i
19 just been wandering without focus, without scope and I had 20 hoped that today we would resolve taese things and I would i
21 ask you, Mr. Hull, to take a position specifically.
l t
22 Do you waive further responses, because I don't j
23 think you are going to get them.
I just don't think you 24 are.
Or do you wish to go forward with sanctions?
I 25 Now, the sanctions that you could go would be -- I ANN RILEY & ASSOCIATES, LTD.
Court Reporters 1612 K Street, N.W.,
Suite 300 l
Washington, D.C.
20006 (202) 293-3950 i
. =... _. -
2
.123 1
don't think that you can possibly support a motion to.
2 dismiss the contention nor to preclude Kaku from testifying 1
3 or anything of that nature but you could leave the matter in i
l 4
abeyance and ask for sanctions in the event that you are I
5 caught by surprise and then move that certain information 1
6 not be producible by the interveners.
I don't know.
I am 7
asking you now to be hard and be firm.
]
8 MR. HULL:
Your honor, in the interest of moving 9
this thing forward I would take up your latter suggestion 10 and just reserve the right to later move for sanctions if we 11 are blind sided by Dr. Kaku.
12 JUDGE SMITH:
In the context of the blind i
13 sidedness and in the context of the situation where you are 14 injured.
So with that I think we can move on then to the 15 next phase of the hearing.
We will, at this time we will 16 make that ruling, that you may defer a request for sanctions 17 with the privilege to seeking it again in the context of the 18 issue involved with a showing that you have been prejudiced, a
19 specific showing that you have been prejudiced by CCMN's 20 failure, if any, to respond fully.
U 21 Now, would you like also for the board to give 22 CCMN a break and infer that their response of March 9 or 23 March 11 or whatever it is was resubmitted?
Is that 24 necessary or does that still remain outside the record?
25 Does everybody understand what I am talking about?
ANN RILEY & ASSOCIATES, LTD.
Court Reporters 1612 K Street, N.W.,
Suite 300 Washington, D.C.
20006 (202) 293-3950
124 4
1 MR. HULL:
You are referring to your having struck 2
the March 11 response?
L; 3
JUDGE SMITH:
Yes, also dated March 9, and that a
4 had some information there.
I guess it doesn't matter 5
because it doesn't tell you much, does it?
I c
j 6
MR. HULL:
Mainly just a listing of documents.
i t
7 JUDGE SMITH:
In any event, we will infer, impute i
?
8 to CCMN a refiling of their March 9, 1993 purported response j
9 even though they didn't do it and look at it, the 10 supplement, as indeed a supplement to the March 19, 1993 i
i i
11 unless anybody objects to that.
Do you understand what I am j
12 saying, Mrs. Marucci?
13 MS. MARUCCI:
Yes, I do.
In fact, I had assumed
{
14 from your statement March 24 that that was an option to us, f
i 15 that we could supplement it rather than resubmit it.
i i
16 JUDGE SMITH:
The clear language did not support 17 that assumption.
18 Now, as I understand it, unless I am wrong and 19 should be corrected, we are ready to go to the issue of how s
20 and when to resolve the issues.
21 MR. REYNOLDS:
There is one loose item, judge.
22 With respect to the licensee's position as CCMN's 23 responses on discovery, we have stated that we do not seek 24 sanctions.
That is not to imply that we think that they 25 have made a fully responsive effort to our discovery ANN RILEY & ASSOCIATES, LTD.
Court Reporters 1612 K Street, N.W.,
Suite 300 Washington, D.C.
20006 (202) 293-3950
125 1
request.
It does leave one item open that we suggested in j
()
2 our recent filing with the board; that is, that in the event 3
that this case survives a summary disposition motion we 4
would like to preserve the opportunity to depose Dr. Kaku 5
before any trial in this case.
t 6
JUDGE SMITH:
But still I have stated correctly 7
your position on sanctions?
8 MR. REYNOLDS:
Yes, sir.
l 9
JUDGE SMITH:
With respect to the resolution of 10 issues, the first one we would want to praise is is there 11 any possibility of stipulations in this case?
12 MR. REPKA:
It's my position and I think the j
i 13 position of the company that we would rather not try to 14 pursue stipulations.
We believe that given what we have O
15 seen in the contention and in the discovery process thus
[
16 far, gives little hope that we will reach meaningful 17 stipulations and we do not wish to pursue that at this time.
18 JUDGE SMITH:
Mr. Hull?
19 MR. HULL:
I would have the same view, your honor.
1 20 JUDGE SMITH:
I think that's probably correct.
In j
21 that respect I noted in reading -- the board noted in 22 reading Dr. Kaku's most recent declaration that there is no ll 3
23 indication whatever that the materials produced to CCMN by 24 the staff and by the licensee in response to discovery 25 requests have ever been considered by him.
So I think that
()
ANN RILEY & ASSOCIATES, LTD.
2 Court Reporters 1612 K Street, N.W.,
Suite 300 Washington, D.C.
20006 (202) 293-3950
126 1
that supports the futility of trying to stipulate any issues 2
here.
j 3
I think that we will have to go to a more formal l
4 matter and I know that you, Mr. Reynolds, have already 4
I 5
proposed summary disposition with an opportunity to reopen l
6 discovery if needed and this is based upon the view of the
]
7 discovery record as it existed before Dr. Kaku's most recent j
1 i
8 declaration and now you have told me, as I understand it, 9
that even with his most recent declaration for good cause on 10 a particular point you would redepose him?
11 MR. REYNOLDS:
Yes, sir.
a l
12 JUDGE SMITH:
I understand that.
.Before we go 13 down that road, however, the board, members of the board, 14 have had quite a bit of experience with summary disposition 15 and it's not always the neat little method that it is in the 3
16 courts because of varying burdens and we are' going to 17 propose for consideration that we go directly to hearing.
1 18 I understand your concern, Mr. Reynolds. You want i
19 to, conservatively, you want to leave the door open for 20 picking up loose ends in case you get blind sided but 21 hearing doesn't foreclose that, if that would be the case, i
22 because there are provisions for rebuttal and surrebuttal j
l 23 but we found over the years that it's just easier to file
{
4
'1 i
24 the proposed testimony, put the experts on the stand, cross 25 examine them and decide and that forces them to come up with ANN RILEY & ASSOCIATES, LTD.
Court Reporters 1612 K Street, N.W.,
Suite 300 Washington, D.C. 20006 (202) 293-3950
127 1
their case or not come up with their case.
I have used it-l
()
2 in cases where there have been insufficient responses to 3
discovery and we cut through all of the procedures and go 4
right to the witness to see if the witness can support his j
5 position.
Would you give that some consideration?
i 6
MS. MARUCCI:
Yes, we would consider that, your l
7 honor, but frankly, it does catch us by surprise.
We would 8
like a couple of days to reflect upon that suggestion.
9 JUDGE SMITH:
I understand from you, Mrs. Marucci, i
10 that you prefer that approach yourself.
l 11 MS. MARUCCI:
I do, especially since the people I
12 that we need to come forward if we can't get the documents 13 we would have to have subpoenaed and we don't even have l
14 their names.
O L
15 JUDGE SMITH:
You raise another issue. We will see 16 about that.
You are raising an issue about what you can do 17 l
18 MS. MARUCCI:
If we know what we know and we are 19 sure of what we read but the source is only as good as the 20 source wishes us to be.
We need to have some information 21 that comes other than just what the lawyers are allowed to 22 say of the company's practice or of the NRC's practice.
23 JUDGE SMITH:
I don't see that fitting into what i
24 you have said so far.
In your answers to interrogatories 25 you said there would be two witnesses, you and Dr. Kaku.
i ANN RILEY & ASSOCIATES, LTD.
Court Reporters 1612 K Street, N.W, Suite 300 Washington, D.C.
20006 (202) 293-3950
~~
)
128 1
MS. MARUCCI:
Correct, for us, but if there are 2
people that the NRC and the utility rely on for the fact 3
that -- we would like to get a little closer to the source.
4 JUDGE SMITH:
Did you ask them who they were going 5
to propose as witnesses?
I 6
MS. MARUCCI:
I did not.
I didn't have the wisdom 7
to do that on December 5 when it was required.
t 8
JUDGE SMITH:
How about you, Mr. Hull, what's your j
9 feeling?
i 10 MR. HULL:
I would need to discuss with the people l
11 up above me whether they would want to do away with the 12 summary disposition in this case.
I can't give you an 13 answer on that right now.
14 JUDGE SMITH:
I appreciate your need to consider 15 our proposal.
However, Mr. Hull, I would appreciate it if 16 the next time we have a conference that you come to the I
17 conference either with your superiors or with full authority i
18 to act for the staff.
19 MR. HULL:
Well, this proposal did catch me by 20 surprise, your honor.
I hadn't considered it ahead of time.
21 JUDGE SMITH:
I think you do have to give it 22 careful consideration.
23 Why don't we set up a schedule then for commenting 4
24 on the next episode, the next milestone for resolution of 25 issues.
We agree we will not require you to enter into ANN RILEY & ASSOCIATES, LTD.
Court Reporters 1612 K Street, N.W.,
Suite 300 Washington, D.C.
20006 (202) 293-3950
129 1
negotiations or stipulations.
That I think is futile.
We
()
2 will then entertain motions beginning with the licensee 3
proposing the next step, either summary disposition or going i
4 to hearing and the terms, followed by Ms. Marucci, followed 1
5 by Mr. Hull.
We don't particularly care about the schedule.
2 6
How much time would you like to have?
I 7
MR. REPKA:
You envision us first --
8 JUDGE SMITH:
You file a motion that will urge the 9
board to go directly either to summary disposition or as we 10 proposed today, to hearing, and propose the conditions and 11 then we will give Ms. Marucci and Mr. Hull a chance to 12 address your filing.
4 13 MR. REPKA:
I believe we could file such a motion 14 in a week.
O 15 MS. MARUCCI:
Let me shorten that.
We will file 16 by Tuesday, the 13th.
17 JUDGE SMITH:
Mrs. Marucci, when do you think you l
18 can file?
i 19 MS. MARUCCI:
I don't understand.
20 JUDGE SMITH:
Every time that there is a motion 21 filed, Mrs. Marucci, you either respond or you suffer the 22 possibility that you will be deemed to consent or be in i
23 default.
24 MS. MARUCCI:
We are talking the 13th?
25 JUDGE SMITH:
They are talking about filing on the i
2 o
ANN RILEY & ASSOCIATES, LTD.
Court Reporters 1612 K Street, N.W.,
Suite 300 Washington, D.C.
20006 (202) 293-3950 l
I
i 130 1
13th.
2 MS. MARUCCI:
Which is Easter?
3 JUDGE SMITH:
No.
l 4
MS. MARUCCI:
We are talking about --
i 5
JUDGE SMITH:
That's seven days from now.
6 MS. MARUCCI:
We are talking about things going on 7
here in Connecticut through the 26th, so without -- they 8
could do it in three days if they double up, the staff.
I i
4 f
9 don't have anybody to double up except me so it would have 10 to be after the 26th.
Let's make it the 31st or the first.
11 MS. MARUCCI:
Judge Smith, I think that's simply 12 too long.
I wonder if there is a way that we could discuss i
l 13 now alternative schedules so that we are not cutting into, l
1 14 that we are not unduly delaying this process.
If we wait O
15 until the 26th for CCMN's response and then the staff will 16 take a week we are into May and we haven't accomplished 17 anything.
l 18 JUDGE SMITH:
I agree.
There is no reason why the j
i 19
-- we have already discussed the merits.
20 MS. MARUCCI:
Well, the ten days to the 13th would 21 be the 23rd, correct?
The 23rd is a Friday.
There is 22 Saturday and Sunday.
And Sunday I am rarticipating as an 23 organization in a demonstration against Millstone on -- 1 24 mean, the timing and the framing of doing that makes sure I 25 have to be able to respond to this --
i ANN RILEY & ASSOCIATES, LTD.
4 Court Reporters 1612 K Street, N.W.,
Suite 300 Washington, D.C.
20006 (202) 293-3950 4
131 1
MS. MARUCCI:
Judge Smith, may I suggest an
(
2 alternative?
3 JUDGE SMITH:
I think we are hung up here.
4 MS. MARUCCI:
May I suggest a conference call next 5
Monday during which all parties are required to have their 6
positions with respect to your recommendation and we can 7
decide on Monday and then you can set a schedule for 8
proceeding on Monday?
I 9
MS. MARUCCI:
I have no problem with giving seven 10 days and then ten days which will be the 27th for response 11 but then as I have said in the pact, being overloaded and 4
12 one person working on this at this point, it's impractical j
13 to think that --
l 14 JUDGE SMITH:
How about the 14th.
.l 1
15 MS. MARUCCI:
Okay.
16 JUDGE SMITH:
Is the 14th suitable to everybody?
s i
17 MS. MARUCCI:
Let me get my calendar.
j 18 MS. MARUCCI:
Judge Smith, we willibe prepared to i
19 orally move at that time and the parties can respond 20 accordingly and then we would hope that the board would set 21 a schedule at that point.
1 22 JUDGE SMITH:
I hope we can do that.
23 MS. MARUCCI:
Excuse me.
I am video taping on the 24 14th and the 15th.
25 MS. MARUCCI:
How about the 13th, your honor?
ANN RILEY & ASSOCIATES, LTD.
Court Reporters 1612 K Street, N.W.,
Suite 300 Washington, D.C.
20006 (202) 293-3950
_ -.-. - _.- _. _,.-.. ~.--..~.. ~.. -
l l
132 1
MS. MARUCCI:
The 13th is a Monday.
2 JUDGE SMITH:
I am not available.that day.
{
3 MS. MARUCCI:
How about the 12th.
4 MR. REPKA:
I am out of town that day.
5 MS. MARUCCI:
How about the ninth?
1 6
MS. MARUCCI:
Can we get it done today?
]
l l
7 JUDGE SMITH:
How about the ninth?
Is everyone i
8 available on the ninth?
9 MS. MARUCCI:
In the morning.
10 JUDGE SMITH:
Ms. Marucci.
i 11 MS. MARUCCI:
What day of the week is it?
l 12 JUDGE SMITH:
Day after tomorrow.
13 MS. MARUCCI:
Probably not.
This week has been a 14 double up for me.
I am transferring my daughter to a new l
O 15 school out of state.
16 MS. MARUCCI:
We feel so strongly that the board l
17 should set a schedule soon --
j i
18 MS. MARUCCI:
We should do it today while we are 19 here.
20 MS. MARUCCI:
We are prepared to respond to the 21 board's suggestion now with respect to dispensing with 22 summary disposition motions.
i 23 JUDGE SMITE:
Before we hear what you have to say, 24 we understand with respect to the party who has the burden 25 of proof, which is you, Mr. Reynolds, that it is almost ANN RILEY & ASSOCIATES, LTD.
Court Reporters l
1612 K Street, N.W.,
Suite 300 l
Washington, D.C.
20006 (202) 293-3950
l l
133 1
entirely your call whether you go to summary disposition or 2
go straight to hearing so we will give great deference to l
l 3
your views on it.
l l
4 I don't believe Ms. Marucci believes in summary 5
disposition.
She already indicated she would not care for 6
that at all so why don't we on the -- I lost track here.
7 What was your timing again, Mr. Reynolds?
l 8
MS. MARUCCI:
I suggested that we get together 9
Friday morning on a conference call or even tomorrow some 10 time to answer your question but failing that, I would 11 suggest we proceed right now.
12 JUDGE SMITH:
I would like to give Mr. Hull time i
13 to think about it because he would be waiving his right to 1
14 summary disposition too.
How about tomorrow afternoon?
15 Tell us the first opportunity you can make it, Mrs. Marucci.
16 This is the hearing that you wanted.
The hearing that you i
17 want is coming down now.
I 18 MS. MARUCCI:
While she is thinking, your honor, I
i l
19 just to give you a preview, my answer today will be that we 20 would prefer not to dispense with summary disposition.
21 Therefore, Mr. Hull would not be forced to that decision.
22 We could do that today and set a schedule for proceeding.
23 JUDGE SMITH:
What we can do is -- are you free to 24 listen to Tus, Mrs. Marucci?
25 MS. MARUCCI:
Yes.
ANN RILEY & ASSOCIATES, LTD.
Court Reporters 1612 K Street, N.W.,
Suite 300 i
Washington, D.C.
20006 (202) 293-3950 j
l
~...
- ~.
l j
134 i
l; 1
JUDGE SMITH:
We can put it in your hands.
As I i
2 say, you have the burden and we would have to have very good 3
cause just to take the right of summary disposition motion 4
away from you which we don't have here although we would i
5 prefer to do that. So we can set a schedule for you to file I
i 6
a summary disposition motion and give you the latitude if 7
you wish to substitute that for a request to go directly to j
t 8
hearing if you think about it and I would say before you do i
9 anything like that you would get Mr. Hull's approval too.
l 10 Am I being clear on this?
j 11 MS. MARUCCI:
I am confused.
f i
12 JUDGE SMITH:
Let's say that we set 30 days from i
13 now as a date for filing a motion for summary disposition a
14 and you begin thinking about it and you think well, you i
l l
15 would like to go to hearing and get it over with and cross i
16 examination and do that.
You can substitute a request for
(
4 j
17 that for your motion for summary disposition.
j 18 MS. MARUCCI:
I think that makes good sense.
l 1
19 JUDGE SMITH:
Then I would expect you to consult 20 with Mr. Hull and Ms. Marucci in case she has changed her l
21 mind about summary disposition.
{
l 22 MS. MARUCCI:
In other words, if I wish it rather s
23 than a hearing?
24 JUDGE SMITH:
Right.
l 25 MS. MARUCCI:
Let me restate it in my words to be I
- -i I
L ANN RILEY & ASSOCIATES, LTD.
Court Reporters 1612 K Street, N.W.,
Suite 300 l
Washington, D.C.
20006 l
(202) 293-3950 j
F
.E 135 f
1 sure I understand.
You will set a timing for the filing of 2
something and it may be 30 days from now and.that something 3
will either be a motion for summary disposition or pre-filed i
4 testimony leading to a live trial and it will be up to the.
f 5
applicant for the licensee in the first instance to decide whether its filing is to be one or the other and to 6
a d
7 coordinate that decision with the other parties?
l t
l 8
JUDGE SMITH:
Yes.
I'd modify it somewhat.
For 9
you to file on that date, the summary disposition date, 10 pre-filed written testimony might be a little bit of a 11 surprise.
I would think that if you change your mind about 12 your approach you should give timely not.ce.
The date for 13 filing would remain the same but you should give some 14 notice, you know, like seven days in advance or whatever.
l i
15 MS. MARUCCI:
That's fair.
r t
16 JUDGE SMITH:
What we are talking about here, Mrs.
I f
17 Marucci, is --
i 18 MS. MARUCCI:
Thank you for bringing me up to date l
19 because I have no idea what you are talking about.
20 JUDGE SMITH:
The effort to prepare the testimony 1
21 of witnesses is pretty much the same as the effort to 22 prepare a motion for summary disposition.
So he will be 23 doing apparently the work leading to one of those decisions.
24 Let's say that they decide that they wish to go 25 the hearing route, directly to the hearing. They would give, a
4 ANN RILEY & ASSOCIATES, LTD.
Court Reporters 1612 K Street, N.W.,
Suite 300 Washington, D.C.
20006 (202) 293-3950
l 136-i 1
say, seven days notice that they have changed their mind and
()
2 on X date, on the date, the target date, they would file i
3 their written testimony.
i i
4 MS. MARUCCI:
Whether for summary disposition or 5
6 JUDGE SMITH:
Their motion for summary disposition 7
which would have to be accompanied by affidavits and the l
8 affidavits would probably be very similar to the written 9
testimony.
10 Now, if that's the case, then you would have a 11 stated amount of time to file your written testimony or your 12 answer to summary disposition and then the staff always has 13 the last call on this.
It would look something like this.
Pick a target date, Mr. Reynolds, for your filing.
O 14 15 MS. MARUCCI:
May 7.
l 16 JUDGE SMITH:
Then on April 30 Mr. Reynolds would 17 notify the parties that he elects to go straight to hearing, 18 but on May 7 he would then file either his motion for 19 summary disposition or his pre-filed testimony.
i 20 MS. MARUCCI:
So if we hear from him on April 30 f
21 we will know he's going for hearing and if we don't hear we 22 will assume he's going for summary disposition.
23 JUDGE SMITH:
Yes.
24 MS. MARUCCI:
Even though he said he --
25 JUDGE SMITH:
If forced to make that decision, his ANN RILEY & ASSOCIATES, LTD.
Court Reporters 1612 K Street, N.W.,
Suite 300 Washington, D.C.
20006 (202) 293-3950
137 1
election now is --
(
2 MS. MARUCCI:
I see, I see.
3 JUDGE SMITH:
We have no basis to deny him that at 4
this time.
5 MS. MARUCCI:
When I checked my calendar I would 6
be free on Friday if you wanted to do the conference call 7
rather than forcing him into that.
8 JUDGE SMITH:
He can just give us a brief 9
notification.
He can at his leisure contact you and contact 10 Mr. Hull and tell us on April 30 of his election.
That way 11 Mr. Hull could object to it i f he feels he's being denied 12 the right to file a motion for summary disposition.
13 Now, you are going to have to understand the 14 summary disposition rules.
15 MS. MARUCCI:
I have no idea what they are.
16 JUDGE SMITH:
They are there in the book and I 17 will tell you where they are.
2.749.
You understand them 18 and right them carefully.
19 MS. MARUCCI:
I have a question about what I did 20 read.
It had to do with you granting to Mr. Reynolds the 21 right to depose at a further time if he was deprived and I 22 thought depositions from the section that I had read were 23 granted only if that particular witness would not be at 24 trial.
So in other words, the deposition would occur only 25 if there was no hearisig.
l ANN RILEY & ASSOCIATES, LTD.
Court Reporters j
1612 K Street, N.W.,
Suite 300 l
Washington, D.C.
20006 (202) 293-3950
138 1
JUDGE SMITH:
That's not the basis for Mr.
2 Reynolds' caveat, his reservation.
That's not the basis for 3
it.
4 The foundation for it is in lieu of insisting upon 5
detailed and perfect answers to his discovery requests he 6
would hold that in abeyance in the event that he's caught by 7
surprise with previously unrevealed information when Dr.
8 Kaku answers hin motion for summary disposition.
9 See, you understood, when you filed your paper on 10 April 3 or 6, you alluded to the fact that one of the things 11 we are doing is to keep people from springing new 12 information into the proceeding. Indeed, that is right.
13 That is the whole idea behind our pre-hearing procedure, is 14 to avoid surprises, and it's routine.
It doesn't show any 15 disrespect for you.
It's routine.
It's the way lawyers do 16 things.
17 MS. MARUCCI:
Correct.
We are trying to make sure 18 that we won't be surprised by information that, you know, we 19 feel that may be hidden.
20 JUDGE SMITH:
I don't know what you are going to 21 do about that.
We have already discussed that.
But that is 22 the -- have I stated you correctly, Mr. Reynolds?
23 MS. MARUCCI:
Yes, sir.
24 JUDGE SMITH:
I think we have said it now.
April 25 30 Mr. Reynolds would just give us a summary notice that he
()
ANN RILEY & ASSOCIATES, LTD.
Court Reporters 1612 K Street, N.W.,
Suite 300 Washington, D.C.
20006 (202) 293-3950
~=._
i 139 1
elects to go to trial and that he has the approval of Mr.
2 Hull and you, Ms. Marucci.
I A
3 MS. MARUCCI:
The approval, your honor?
i 4
JUDGE SMITH:
You have consulted and the thing is, l
5 see, theoretically Mrs. Marucci has a right to summary
}
6 disposition too and so does Mr. Hull.
So the efficient way i
7 is to tell us if that is the case that they do not object.
8 If not, you have to devise some other means to take their l
1 9
rights into account.
Is that clear?
l 10 MS. MARUCCI:
Yes.
11 JUDGE SMITH:
I just don't want you filing by l
12 surprise on May 7 a request to go to trial and then Mr. Hull l
13 will say no, they want summary disposition.
t i
l 14 MS. MARUCCI:
I understand your position.
I 15 agree with that.
L 16 JUDGE SMITH:
I think that's about it then, isn't i
17 it.
18 MS. MARUCCI:
Then do we need to discuss today the 19 post-May 7 schedule?
4 20 JUDGE SMITH:
I am glad you raised that. The i
i 1
21 summary disposition rule provides for that in.the event 22 there is summary disposition and in the event that you elect i
23 to go summary disposition, in the event that you are the 24 filer then the NRC staff is going to have to pay careful 25 attention to the provisions of that rule in the event they l
l 1
ANN RILEY & ASSOCIATES, LTD.
Court Reporters j
i 1612 K Street, N.W.,
Suite 300 l
Washington, D.C.
20006 (202) 293-3950
i 140 1
support four motion and that is it has to be done in such a l
)
2 way that CCMN can oppose not only the motion for summary i
1 3
disposition and the staff's -- but as well the staff's
]
4 support of it.
That's provided in the rules.
5 MR. REPKA:
The way I understand what you are 6
saying is that if we file a summary disposition we follow 7
the rule and that provides for all parties to whatever it is j
8 they are going to do.
9 JUDGE SMITH:
But the key here is when does the 10 staff file its motion, its papers.
11 MR. REPKA:
They can opt either to file their own 12 initial summary disposition motion or to support the motion i
13 of another party.
i 1
a 14 JUDGE SMITH:
That's right.
And if they support 15 your motion they have to do it in such a way that CCMN can i
16 address not only your initial motion but the staff's support i
1 l
17 of it.
That's provided in the rules, I believe.
i l
18 MR. REPKA:
Right, and the schedule?
2 19 JUDGE SMITH:
The schedules are there. There is no 20 reason to change them.
21 MR. REPKA:
I agree.
1 t
22 MS. MARUCCI:
2.749?
23 JUDGE SMITH:
Yes.
24 MR. REYNOLDS:
Your honor, if we elect to proceed 25 directly to hearing then do you want to schedule that now?
()
ANN RILEY & ASSOCIATES, LTD.
l Court Reporters l
1612 K Street, N.W.,
Suite 300 Washington, D.C.
20006 (202) 293-3950
i' 141 1
JUDGE SMITH:
I will be out of the country from
()
2 May 22 through June 11.
So we can't go to hearing during i
3 that period of time but there is no reason why the pre-filed i
4 testimony cannot be prepared.
So we are talking about May 7 l
s 5
-- I would say May 28 would be a reasonable date for the --
[
6 how much time do you think you would want, Mrs. Marucci, to l
i 7
file an answer to their testimony?
Two weeks?
8 MS. MARUCCI:
I don't know.
What is usually asked 9
of people who are totally unprepared to do this, untrained I
a 10 to do this?
j 11 JUDGE SMITH:
15 days.
12 MS. MARUCCI:
Isn't that prescribed in the rule?
1 13 JUDGE SMITH:
Someplace.
l 2
i 14 MS. MARUCCI:
Okay.
I don't know exactly how to O
i
~
15 make note of this but there are people who want to testify 16 about certain aspects but it was not specifically directly -
17
- and contention one even though there is --
18 JUDGE SMITH:
No one is going to testify as to 19 anything that does not relate to contention one.
We do have
]
20 a procedure, however, where people can make what is called l
21 limited appearance statements.
)
22 MS. MARUCCI:
That's what I wanted to ask you 23 about, right.
That material has to be prepared at that 24 period of time as well?
j 25 JUDGE SMITH:
That is beyond our official ANN RILEY & ASSOCIATES, LTD.
Court Reporters 1612 K Street, N.W.,
Suite 300 Washington, D.C.
20006 (202) 293-3950
~.
i i
l 142 1
interest.
(
()
2 MS. MARUCCI:
So then we do not have to include l
F j
3 that in pretrial testimony that we have to prepare?
1 i
4 JUDGE SMITH:
No.
And those statements are not l
i i
5 evidence and unless they relate to contention one we can't 6
even pay attention to them.
l 7
MS. MARUCCI:
When they do relate to contention I
8 one, are they considered not evidence as well?
9 JUDGE SMITH:
They are considered not evidence but 10 if they raise a point that absolutely requires in the 11 public's interest to be pursued then we might ask that i
12 testimony be presented on that point.
l l
13 MS. MARUCCI:
And then at that point --
j 14 JUDGE SMITH:
Don't plan on that as a trial
!(E) 15 technique.
That is an extremely rare thing and you can't j
l 16 use that for surprises..
I 17 MS. MARUCCI:
No, there are no surprises.
j i
18 JUDGE SMITH:
Your pre-filed testimony would be 19 due on May 24.
20 MS. MARUCCI:
15 days after what?
21 JUDGE SMITH:
15 days after May 7, given the i
22 weekend?
23 MS. MARUCCI:
All right.
24 JUDGE SMITH:
Then, Mr. Hull, do you recall when 1
25 your testimony would be due?
ANN RILEY & ASSOCIATES, LTD.
Court Reporters i
1612 K Street, N.W.,
Suite 300 t
Washington, D.C.
20006 (202) 293-3950
J 143 2
l 1
MR. HULL:
Whatever the rule states we would 2
comply with it.
3 JUDGE SMITH:
Whatever the rule states, given May d
4 24 is Mrs. Marucci's filing date.
5 MR. HULL:
Right.
l 4
6 JUDGE SMITH:
Then we will set a trial date.
My 7
colleagues in my absence may want to set a trial date and j
8 then we will see what happens.
9 MS. MARUCCI:
Are we talking the month of July or 10 August or are we talking before that or after?
i 11 JUDGE SMITH:
We are probably talking about i
12 mid-June.
i i
)
13 MS. MARUCCI:
It would be nice if that could be' 14 taken care of before July 10 because I will be away.
I 15 JUDGE SMITH:
I think we nailed it down now.
16 Anything left for this afternoon?
j 17 JUDGE KELBER:
How about a tentative time of the l
18 15th, 16th, 17th of June.
I 19 JUDGE SMITH:
Dr. Kelber proposes a tentative time i
20 of the 15th, 16th, 17th of June.
l 21 JUDGE KELBER:
Somewhere in there.
22 JUDGE SMITH:
We will pre-empt those dates.
i 23 MS. MARUCCI:
24 JUDGE SMITH:
Now we are talking about the dates.
f i
25 MS. MARUCCI:
Your honor, I would express a i
i i
1 ANN RILEY & ASSOCIATES, LTD.
Court Reporters 1612 K Street, N.W.,
Suite 300 Washington, D.C.
20006 (202) 293-3950
144 i
1 preference for the next week.
()
2 JUDGE SMITH:
That would be the 22nd, 23rd and 3
24th.
Does anybody object to that?
When we approve those
)
4 dates --
5 MS. MARUCCI:
I have a question for you. If it's 6
needed more than those days it have to be carried on in a 7
continuous fashion?
8 JUDGE SMITH:
We assume that the hearing can be J
9 concluded in three days and I don't think we have to plan 10 for any more than that.
11 MS. MARUCCI:
Will I be needed between July 10 and i
I 12 August for any other thing after the hearing?
4 t
13 JUDGE SMITH:
You may very well have to have I
14 duties during that period because our rules provide that O
15 upon the close of the record the parties submit proposed 16 findings of fact and the form of the decision we should I
17 render on the record and you have to do that.
l
- 1 18 otherwise all of your efforts, everything that's 19 gone into it could be of no avail'if the utility files a f
20 proposed decision and the staff files a proposed decision l
21 and you file nothing, you have lost everything.
j 22 MS. MARUCCI:
I see.
23 JUDGE SMITH:
So you may very well --
24 MS. MARUCCI:
What is the timeframe after the f
25 hearing?
l (
ANN RILEY &. ASSOCIATES, LTD.
Court Reporters 1612 K Street, N.W.,
Suite 300 Washington, D.C.
20006 (202) 293-3950 r-,-
r -
+.,,
-,-,--c.
,g e.-.
r,e,-
r,,
145 1
JUDGE SMITH:
That's provided by the rules but 2
it's usually in the order of six weeks or something and it 3
looks like it might fall at the end of your unavailability i
4 period.
5 MS. MARUCCI:
In other words, probably like j
6 September 1 or thereabouts.
7 JUDGE SMITH:
I don't have that before me right j
i 8
away.
9 MS. MARUCCI:
As long as it's due when I get back.
i 10 JUDGE SMITH:
I am not saying that.
I have to 11 look at the rules.
It runs in my mind six weeks following
[
12 the close of the record -- let me find it.
13 MS. MARUCCI:
It might be useful to invite Mrs.
14 Marucci's attention to appendix A, part two, and have her 15 read that.
That explains the entire process for the conduct 16 of hearings before licensing boards.
i i
17 JUDGE SMI1H:
That's good advice, Mrs. Marucci.
I l
18 commend it to you.
Mrs. Marucci, there is a provision in 19 here that is called proposed -- I will find it for you right 20 now to make sure that you understand it. -- it's 2.753.
j 21 MR. REPKA:
2.754.
l 22 JUDGE SMITH:
Yes, 54, right.
You have to look at 23 that, Mrs. Marucci, and be totally familiar with that too.
24 MS. MARUCCI:
Will do.
25 JUDGE SMITH:
In the vent that you are not going i
IJRJ RILEY & ASSOCIATES, LTD.
Court Reporters 1612 K Street, N.W.,
Suite 300 Washington, D.C.
20006 (202) 293-3950 i
..~.-..
1 l
l 146 1
to be available you will have to specifically request a
)
2 change of that sequence there.
3 MS. MARUCCI:
I don't have it in front of me.
1 4
JUDGE SMITH:
But it gives you the time, i
f i
5 MS. MARUCCI:
I will double check it and then ask 6
for it immediately.
1 l
7 JUDGE SMITH:
I want to tell you something else.
8 It's going to be virtually impossible for you to file 1
l 9
proposed findings of fact in this case without a transcript.
l 10 MS. MARUCCI:
That was another thing. Will these i
l f
11 transcripts, as we had mentioned right after the pre-hearing f
i 12 conference, all of the materials be deposited in the public
)
13 library in New Haven?
I have been calling and they have not
{
\\
14 received anything yet.
O 15 JUDGE SMITH:
I requested that of our local public i
16 document people and they said they would inquire into it and 17 apparently that has not happened.
I have no authority to l
18 order it but I will inquire into it.
I 19 MS. MARUCCI:
I appreciate it.
20 MR. HULL:
Your honor, just a point of l
21 clarification.
The proposed hearing date of June 22 to 24, i
l 22 that's contingent upon their not -- contingent upon not i
23 filing motions for summary disposition on May 7, is that 24 right?
25 JUDGE SMITH:
That's right.
That's the l
Idai RILEY & ASSOCIATES, LTD.
Court Reporters 1612 K Street, N.W.,
Suite 300 Washington, D.C.
20006 (202) 293-3950
147 i
i 1
1 alternative schedule.
The way things look now, the least I) 2 likely schedule.
3 MS. MARUCCI:
But we will know on April 30 whether 4
you are going to do it or not, so we will know April 30 5
whether the June 20 schedule will hold?
i t
6 JUDGE SMITH:
That's correct.
Anything further?
7 MS. MARUCCI:
To show my complete ignorance on 8
this summary disposition, does that mean there is no l
9 hearing?
10 JUDGE SMITH:
A summary disposition could mean 11 that all the issues are resolved by summary disposition, 12 some of them are resolved but some have to go to hearing or 13 that none of them are resolved.
14 Once it is filed the board must grant it if the 15 filer, if the movant demonstrates that they are entitled to 16 it.
However, we can decide in extraordinary circumstances 17 that we want to hear live witnesses on this issue and set it 18 down for hearing anyway but if it can be as a practical 19 matter resolved on the pleadings and the motion for summary 20 disposition, the movant is entitled to a ruling.
You read 21 that section very carefully.
We are not going to be 22 patient, Mrs. Marucci, if you don't understand that section 23 and if you avow or beg ignorance of it because you have run 24 that out too much.
25 MS. MARUCCI:
The 2.754 section or --
ANN RILEY & ASSOCIATES, LTD.
Court Reporters 1612 K Street, N.W.,
Suite 300 Washington, D.C.
20006 (202) 293-3950
=
I l
148 1
1 1
JUDGE SMITH:
Yes, and the provisions for filing
()
2 written testimony and all of that.
There is an index there 3
at the beginning of part two which lists all of those things 4
and you have to do some homework on it.
l L
5 We would normally have his hearing in New Haven.
6 We will hear from you, Mrs. Marucci, a request for the 7
convenience of your expert witness to move it to New York or 8
We would normally have it in New Haven.
l 9
MS. MARUCCI:
Then you will hear from the parties, j
10 your honor, in response?
11 JUDGE SMITH:
I didn't understand that.
l 12 MS. MARUCCI:
If Mrs. Marucci-seeks to have the 13 hearings moved out of Connecticut you would entertain f
l i
l 14 responses from the other parties?
l I
15 JUDGE SMITH:
I would hope Mrs. Marucci would
}
l I
l 16 consult with you first.
Normally the hearing --
I 17 MS. MARUCCI:
Getting caught in fog, you know.
[
18 JUDGE SMITH:
Or whatever.
l 19 MS. MARUCCI:
Or whatever.
20 JUDGE SMITH:
If you can make a case for moving it 21 to New York because of your only witness, we will entertain 22 that.
I am not saying we will grant it.
23 MS. MARUCCI:
Right.
It s already indicated to me j
l 24 that if you want to clear that now, we can, 25 JUDGE SMITH:
What did you say?
(
AJRJ RILEY & ASSOCIATES, LTD.
Court Reporters 1612 K Street, N.W.,
Suite 300 Washington, D.C.
20006 (202) 293-3950
149 l
1 MS. MARUCCI:
His preference is New York.
]
2 JUDGE SMITH:
The public has a greater interest in i
3 New Haven but you are the intervenor and you are the only I
4 one that really has rights on that and if you want to make a l
5 case for New York you make it and we will entertain it.
We i
6 will have to hear from the others too.
You see, they has, 7
witnesses. The utility has witnesses too who will find New i
4 8
Haven convenient.
We have to balance that.
Is that your j
l 9
concern?
i 10 MS. MARUCCI:
The attorneys representing them are 11 in New York.
l 12 JUDGE SMITH:
But they have witnesses presumably.
1 4
13 MS. MARUCCI:
In Connecticut?
i 1
i 14 JUDGE SMITH:
Yes.
j 1
I 15 MS. MARUCCI:
I don't know where their witnesses 16 are.
I guess I have to request that.
17 JUDGE SMITH:
Again, I am not advis.ng you on 18 that.
19 MS. MARUCCI:
At the risk of prolonging thic, you 20 have misstated and I wanted to clear the record.
We are not 21 in New York.
We are in Washington.
22 MS. MARUCCfI I'm sorry.
It was your offices in 23 New York that I was a little confused with.
24 MS. MARUCCI:
We have an office in New York.
25 JUDGE SMITH:
We have to give some deference to 1
ANN RILEY & ASSOCIATES, LTD.
Court Reporters 1612 K Street, N.W.,
Suite 300 Washington, D.C.
20006 (202) 293-3950
l 150 1
New Haven but we have to balance the convenience of the i
2 parties in placing a hearing someplace else and we would l
3 have to balance the convenience of the utility's witnesses l
4 from Connecticut and yours from New York.
l l
5 MS. MARUCCI:
I understand that.
For interest of f
6 the parties involved in Connecticut it would probably be 7
more convenient to have it in New London but I do know our 1
8 witness has already indicated to us that he wishes to have i
j 9
it in New York so we will discuss it with him and get back i
1-10 to you.
11 JUDGE SMITH:
There is also one other problem and i
12 that is we will conduct a hearing wherever we can get a l
13 hearing room.
l 14 MS. MARUCCI:
That is a rather large problem no 15 matter where you are if the dates happen to fall in the 1
[
16 middle of something but I am sure having enough lead time we I
17 can find that out.
18 JUDGE SMITH:
Is there anything further now?
19 MS. MARUCCI:
Thank you.
20 JUDGE SMITH:
Thank you for joining us. This is i-21 adjourned.
I f
22 MS. MARUCCI:
Thank you.
1 23 (Whereupon, at 4:00 p.m.,
the telephone conference j
24 was adjourned.)
4 l
25 1
ANN RILEY & ASSOCIATES, LTD.
Court Reporters 1612 K Street, N.W.,
Suite 300 Washington, D.C.
20006 (202) 293-3950
i REPORTER'S CERTIFICATE i
This is to certify that the attached proceedings before the United States Nuclear Regulatory Commission in the matter of:
l NAME OF PROCEEDING:
Northeast Nuclear Energy i
DOCKET NUMBER:
50-336-OLA i
i PLACE OF PROCEEDING: Bethesda, MD were held as herein appears, and that this is the original transcript thereof for the file of the United States Nuclear Regulatory Commission taken by me and thereafter reduced to typewriting by me or under the direction of the court reporting company, and that the transcript is a true and accurate record of the foregoing proceedings.
' h. f (ch,is 0 l- : / i o l
i j
I Official Reporter I
Ann Riley & Associates, Ltd.
a 1
4 I
l i
9 O
- - -