ML20042G828
| ML20042G828 | |
| Person / Time | |
|---|---|
| Site: | Vermont Yankee File:NorthStar Vermont Yankee icon.png |
| Issue date: | 05/09/1990 |
| From: | Janson K VERMONT, STATE OF |
| To: | Atomic Safety and Licensing Board Panel |
| References | |
| CON-#290-10356 OLA-4, NUDOCS 9005160144 | |
| Download: ML20042G828 (23) | |
Text
,
j'$ b Y
(?ULhl IH' UNITED STATES OF AMERICA USNkC NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSION before the ATOMIC SAFETY AND LICENSING BOARD
% W 14 P12:24 P
Of flM: N SLCRI1A6v 00ChilING A bwCF In the Matter of
)
!! RANCH
)
VERMONT YANKEE NUCLEAR
)
Docket No. 50-271-OLA-4 POWER CORPORATION
)
(Operating License
)
Extension)
(Vermont Yankee Nuclear
)
Power Station)
)
STATE OF VERMONT ANSWER IN OPPOSITION TO VERMONT YANKEE NUCLEAR POWER CORPORATION MOTION TO COMPEL AND STATE OF VERMONT APPLICATION FOR PROTECTIVE ORDER Introduction On April 24, 1990, the Vermont Yankee Nuclear Power j
Corporation (" Vermont Yankee") served by first-class mail a
~
" Motion to Compel Answers to Interrogatories (VYNPC Set No. 1)"
(hereinafter referred to as the " Motion to Compel").
Pursuant to 10 C.F.R.
SS 2.730(c) and 2.740(c), the State of Vermont
(" Vermont") files this answer in opposition to Vermont Yankee's Motion to compel and this application for protective order.
This answer will demonstrate that most of Vermont Yankee's motion is founded upon two untenable arguments, that the remainder of its motion is equally without merit, and that therefore the Atomic Safety and Licensing Board (" Board") should reject Vermont hok kbO K O
[1 0
0 5
10
~
Yankee's Motion to Compel and grant Vermont's application for protective order contained herein.
Argument I.
Vermont Yankee Seeks To Relitigate An Issue On Which Its Position Has Been Rejected By The Board Vermont has provided complete responses to Vermont Yankee's first set of interrogatories.
Throughout its Motion to Compel
.[
4 Vermont Yankee argues that vermont's responses are inadequate in that they fail to point to specific regulatory requirements that the Vermont Yankee plant does not, or will not, meet in the-extended operating period.
Eigt, Motion to Compel at 4-5, 6.
This argument by Vermont Yankee has been squarely rejected by the Board.
In its order in this proceeding allowing Vermont's Contention VII, the Board ruled that the contention need not specify particular regulatory requirements that the plant fails to meet.
In The Matter of Vermont Yankee Nuclear Power porocration (Operating License Extension), NRC Docket No. 50-271-OLA-4, ASLBP No. 89-595-03-OLA, Memorandum and Order entered January 26, 1990, at 33 - 34, 39, 45.
The Board should similarly reject Vermont Yankee's attempt to force Vermont to provide citations to existing regulatory standards in its interrogatory l
responses.1 A of course, in its Contention VII and elsewhere Vermont does cite the
" reasonable assurance" requirement of 10 C.T.R.
S
- 50. 57 (a) (3).
2
II.
Vermont Yankee Improperly Seeks To Compel Further Responses Prior To Vermont Having The Opportunity To Review Necessary Information In response to each of questions 2, 3,
4, 7, 12, 13, 14, and 16 of Vermont Yankee's first set of interrogatories, Vermont answered in part that it had not yet made a final determination concerning the subject matter of the question.
Vermont Yankee in 1
its Motion to Compel seeks to force Vermont to provide further responses to these interrogatories, claiming that Vermont's responses are insufficient.
This part of this answer will demonstrate that the Board should, for the following reasons, deny Vermont Yankee's attempt to compel further answers to these interrogatories:
1.
At the time it filed Vermont provided complete and truthful answers; 2.
Vermont is quite properly developing its case through the discovery process, so that it is both premature and l
burdensome for Vermont to attempt to provide further responses prior to Vermont having the opportunity to obtain and review additional necessary information; and 3.
At the time it filed its responses Vermont volunteered an approximate date by which it would supplement these very responses.
A.
Vermont's Initial Responses Were True And Complete At The Time of Filing In response to a number of Vermont Yankee's first set of L
l interrogatories Vermont responded that it could not yet make a L
3
~
f F
final determination because it needed to review certain information.
These responses were absolutely true and complete v
at the time they were filed: the responses revealed all responsive information available to Vermont at the time.
As noted in the next sub-part of this answer, Vermont supported its Contention VII with all the specific information to which it had 3
access; Vermont would not be in a position to provide any further information in response to the interrogatories at issue until it I
further develops its case.
B.
Vermont Needs To Develop Its Case-Further Through The Discovery Process Vermont Yankee notes at the outset of its Motion to Compel that "... under the rules of practice prior to the amendments to 10 C.F.R.,
part 2 effected by 54 Fed. Reg. 33,168 (8/11/89, effective 9/11/89), an intervenor might successfully urge the admission of a broadly-worded contention, relatively vague in scope, to be fleshed out by the discovery process."
(citation omitted).
of course, Vermont's Contention VII was admitted under the regulations in effect orior to the referenced amendments, and thus even Vermont Yankee's Motion to Compel recognizes that it ic entirely appropriate for Vermont to " flesh out" its contention by the discovery process.
In fact, even though Vermont could have filed "... a broadly-worded contention, relatively vague in scope...,"
Vermont has tendered a specific contention, with explicit and specific references.
Each reference is from the limited set of 4
s
n industry documents to which Vermont is allowed access.
The i
references all have legitimacy, on their face, in that they have been prepared by reputable industry sources.
Thus, Vermont has provided far more specificity in the bases for its contention I
than was necessary; vermont provided the most specific references
^
possible given the information available to the State, liowever, Vermont did not, and does not yet, possess all the information necessary to develop its case fully.
A party in a litigated proceeding need not have developed fully its position at the discovery stage of the case; indeed, a central purposes of discovery is to allow parties to obtain the information necessary to develop their respective cases. 8 C. Wright & A. Miller, Federal Practice and Procedure S 2001 (1970).
Vermont Yankee's.
Motion to compel ignores this fundamental purpose of the discovery process.
This purpose is especially important when, as here, one party (Vermont Yankee) is in possession or control of ir> formation which the other party needs to develop it case fully.
The Board's order admitting Vermont's Contention VII is perfectly consistent with this understanding of the procedure whereby the details of an intervenor's case are developed.
The Board noted that "... it is unnecessary for the petition to detail the evidence that will be offered in support of each contention."
In_The Matter of Vermont Yankee Nuclear Power Corocration (Operating License Extension), NRC Docket No. 50-271-OLA-4, ASLBP No. 89-595-03-OLA, Memorandum and Order entered January 26, 1990, at 10.
Because the licensee is the party in 5
possession of the vast majority of the relevant information, it is only through discovery that an intervenor can fully develop its case.
Not only is it entirely appropriate for a party to use the discovery process to develop its case, but there is no legal requirement that sets a timetable within the discovery period for a party to develop its case.
Vermont Yankee, in its Motion to Compel, seeks to impose such a schedule upon Vermont.
In addition to lacking any legal foundation, Vermont Yankee's attempts to force Vermont to supplement prematurely its interrogatory responses would place an unfair burden on Vermont and must be rejected for this additional reason.
In this proceeding vermont Yankee seeks an operating license extension commencing in the distant future.
(Its current operating license expires on December 11, 2007.)
Thus the final order in this proceeding need not issue for several years.
Despite this ample amount of time in which to resolve this application, this case presents the parties with a finite, relatively short discovery l
period:
discovery is to be completed by June 29, 1990.
This I
short discovery period, combined with Vermont's need to develop its case by obtaining information from Vermont Yankee through j
discovery (information that is uniquely within the possession of Vermont Yankee), makes it especially burdensome for Vermont to l
provide the premature interrogatory responses that Vermont Yankee seeks.
6 f
'i The State of Vermont has committed sufficient resources for the litigation of this case, but like any public entity it bears a responsibility to its taxpayers to control its costs.
Vermont Yankee, in seeking premature supplemental responses at this time to interrogatories 2, 3,
4, 7,
12, 13, 14, and 16, would unreasonably burden the state's resources.
Vermont Yankee's logic in its Motion to compel would require Vermont constantly to provide further responses to existing interrogatories, concurrent with Vermont's gathering of information for its case.
Such a requirement would unduly burden Vermont's resources and greatly impede the preparation of its case.
Finally, if Vermont were compelled to provide premature further responses to the interrogatories at issue, those i
responses would be of dubious value to Vermont Yankee, for two reasons.
First, those premature responses may well become obsolete after Vermont obtains and reviews the additional necessary information that it is in the process of gathering.
Second, as the next sub-part discusses, Vermont has already committed to supplementing these very responses.
C.
Vermont Has Already Committed To Supplementing Its Responses In response to Interrogatory No. 18 of Vermont Yankee's first set of interrogatories, Vermont stated that it intends to supplement its responses to Interrogatories No.
2, 3,
4, 5,
7, 10, 11, 12, 13, 14, 15, and 16 by approximately May 26, 1990.
Vermont still intends to do so by approximately that date.
7 i
5
D.
Summary Vermont at the time of filing provided complete and truthful responses to the interrogatories at issue; further meaningful responses are possible only after Vermont has the opportunity to gather and review additional information.
Vermont has committed to provide such further responses, and does not have the resources to supplement its responses continually at the whim of Vermont Yankee.
The Board should permit Vermont to develop its case during this discovery period as is its right, and not force Vermont to squander valuable time and resources in the premature updating of responses which would prove valueless.
I III. Vermont Yankee Misconstrues Vermont's " Legal opinion" objections In its Motion to Compel Vermont Yankee takes issue with Vermont's objection that particular interrogatories, to the extent that the interrogatory seeks a legal opinion, are 4
inappropriate.
Motion to Compel at 2, 5,
10.
Vermont believes that Vermont Yankee has misunderstood this objection.
Vermont raised the objection only because the interrogatory could be read i
to require a legal opinion in response.
For example, Interrogatory No. 2 asked:
Please identify each of the " safety standards" that SOV contends is " applicable to this plant" as these terms are used by it in its contention 7, and please. define the measure of " reasonable assurance" as the term is used by SOV in its Contention 7.
Vermont's legitimate purpose in raising the " legal opinion" objection to this interrogatory was to make clear that the answer 8
\\
k
given does not constitute a leaal opinion of the meaning of
" reasonable assurance" in 10 C.F.R. $ 50.57(a) (3).
IV.
Vermont Yankee's Additional Arguments Are Equally Without Merit In addition to the arguments responded to above, Vermont Yankee puts forward several other reasons why particular interrogatory responses are inadequate.
These claims will now be discussed for each of the interrogatories for which Vermont Yankee raises such claims.
A.
Interrogatory No. 1 Vermont Yankee's Interrogatory No. 1 asked Vermont to define
" program to maintain and/or determine and replace all components found to have aged to a point where they no longer meet the safety standards applicable to this plant."
Vermont Yankee complains that vermont's response defined parts of the phrase rather than the phrase itself.
Motion to Compel at 4.
There is nothing objectionable about defining the components of the l
phrase; the meaning of the total phrase is obviously derivative 1
i j
from the meanings of the component parts.
Vermont provided the L
i l
information requested in the interrogatory:
its definition of the phrase, and the bases for the definition.
Vermont Yankee also argues that Vermont should have included a definition of the word " program."
Vermont believes that the l
meaning of program is self-evident; nonetheless, Vermont will be l
l filing a supplemental response defining " program."
i 1
B.
Interrogatory No. 2 In arguing that Vermont has not fully responded to Interrogatory No. 2, Vermont Yankee states:
The interrogatory asked SOV to supply its definition of "the measure of ' reasonable assurance.'"
(Emphasis added (by Vermont Yankee in its Motion to Compel).)
That is to sAy, when SOV contends that " reasonable assurance" has or has not been supplied, by what methodology does it make that determination?
(Emphasis added.)
This aspect of this interrogatory has been evaded and the Board should compel a complete and responsive answer.
Motion to Compel at 5.
As the underlined words in Vermont Yankee's argument make clear, in its Motion to compel Vermont Yankee seeks a response to a reinteroreted version of its Interrogatory No. 2.
The term " measure" used in the original interrogatory is by no means synonymous with the term
" methodology" used in the argument of the Motion to compel.
Vermont answered the question as it was originally asked.
Vermont Yankee cannot change its question in the guise of a motion to compel.
B.
Interrogatory No. 5 In its Interrogatory No. 5 Vermont Yankee asks Vermont to comment on NRC Temporary Instruction 2515/97.
Vermont responded that it had not reviewed the instruction.
Vermont's response at the time it was filed was true and accurate.
Vermont answered the interrogatory within the time limit for responses.
Vermont had not read the document in question, and Vermont Yankee cites no legal authority for the proposition that through discovery one party can force another party to read a document and then require the other party to comment on that document.
l 10 l
j Notwithstanding this complete lack of fr,andation for Verront Yankee's attempt to compel a further response to Interrogatory No.
5, Vermont will be supplementing its response because Vermont has now, of its own volition,2 reviewed the document in question.
D.
Interrogatory No. 6 Vermont Yankee seeks to compel a further response to Interrogatory No.
6.
As stated in Vermont's response, it is difficult to understand this interrogatory.
Vermont's negative answer was provided based on the word, "never," since the Vermont Yankee program is rated as adequate at the present time, at least by the NRC Maintenance Team.
However, Vermont's contention states that reasonabic assurance is not provided during the extended period.
By the statement of the weaknesses in the bases for the contention, it is clear that Vermont holds these weakness to defeat the demonstration of reasonable assurance in the extended period.
Vermont has answered the question that was asked and must not be held responsible for answering what Vermont Yankee now says it wanted to ask.
Additionally, Vermont Yankee, by its own statement in the Motion to Compel, exposes its intent to elicit a legal definition.
Vermont Yankee states, "the question of what is a
' weakness,' and, in particular, the differentiation between something that someone might think to be an improvement (on the one hand) and something that stands in the way of acceptability 2 Again, to be clear, it is Vermont's position that. Vermont Yankee could not have comoelled Vermont to review the document.
l 11 I
1 under some legally required mininima", which may be paraphrased, 5
i "how weak is too weak."
This is precisely the type of legal opinion which is objectionable, and to which Vermont properly l
l=
objected in its response.
Although vermont believes that it has responded adequately to the question, Vermont agrees to supplement its response and will soon file a supplemental response.
E.
Interrogatory No. 7 Vermont Yankee's Motion to Compel seeks to require a further response to Interrogatory No. 7.
Interrogatory No. 7 asks, in part:
Does SOV concede that one cost of proceduralization is its tendency to suppress the application of initiative, judgment l
and discretion on the part of employees, and that, I
therefore, before a judgment can prudently be made to l
require proceduralization in any given situation a careful assessment must be made of the benefits and costs of doing l
so?
Please state the reasons for your answer.
Please describe in detail the complete extent, if any a.
to which SOV determined, assessed and evaluated the costs of the proceduralization that it advocates in I
this contention.
b.
Please provide the technical qualifications (education, employment history, licenses and certificates, experience, or other information which SOV contends establishes the qualifications of the person) of each person who assisted Sov in making the foregoing determinations, assessments and evaluations or upon whose expertise SOV relies for the same, or state that SOV does not rely upon the expertise of any person for the determination.
Vermont's response was:
"No.
Vermont has made no determination regarding the philosophy or costs of proceduralization."
12
. Vermont Yankee contends that Vermont has " evaded" answering this interrogatory.
Motion to compel at 11.
To the contrary, Vermont has directly, truthfully, and fully answered the question.
Vermont Yankee now seeks to for:e Vermont to take a position on what Vermont Yankee calls "this basic point."
Motion to Compel at 11.,
This is entirely inappropriate.- Vermont need not agree or disagree with the statement set forth in the
[
interrogatory, nor need Vermont agree or disagree that the statement even has any relevance to the instant application for a license extension.
Vermont Yankee cannot force Vermont to investigate Vermont Yankee's claim set forth in the interrogatory.
If Vermont Yankee wishes to require Vermont to take a position on the claim, then Vermont Yankee must amend its application to incorporate the claim.
F.
Interrogatory No. 14 Vermont Yankee's Intcrrogatory No. 14 asks Vermont to identify the changes to Vermont Yankee's maintenance and nurveillance programs that "... would have precluded the occurrence of the matters described in the Licensee Event Report described in th foregoing interrogatory."
Vermont's response as filed is that V-arwont cannot identify such changes without access to details of Vermont Yankee's maintenance arid surveillance programs, and access to materials that were available to the persons whc prepared the Licensee Event Report.
Vermont Yankee is not uatisfic$ with this response, and in its Motion to compel claims that Vermont should be forced to 13
l identify the changes referenced in the interrogatory.
Motion to compel at 13.
As noted in Part II of this answer, Vermont Yankee i
cannot force Vermont to produce a further response that would be both incomplete and premature, f
An additional, and equally fatal, flaw in Vermont Yankee's attempt to compel a further response to Interrogatory No. 14 is that it is not Vermont's obligation to identify the cures for flawed maintenance and surveillance programs.
Instead, Vermont has gaite properly pointed out that the programs are flawed, and it is incumbent upon Vermont Yankee to identify and present appropriate corrections to cure the flawed programs.
F.
Interrogatory No. 17 Vermont Yankee's Interrogatory No. 17 asked for the reasons, facts, evidence, and expertise upon which Vermont relies for claiming that "... 'no confidence exists' in VYNPC's statement that there is 'no present safety problem from paint chips and no future loss of integrity'...."
Vermont answered the interrogatorv completely and truthfully, providing all the responsive information in its possession or control.
In its Motion to Compel Vermont Yankee now argues that
" Vermont Yankee is entitled to know what response, if any, SOV intends to make to this technical analysis (BVY 89-69) 1 That is not what the interrogatory asked, and thus Vermont need not supplement its response to provide such information.
14
l l
i l
G.
Interrogatory No. 18 1
Vermont. Yankee's Interrogatory No. 18 asks:
If, in response to any of the foregoing interrogatories, SOV i
has responded that it cannot answer or that it cannot answer l
completely without the acquisition by it of additional information, then for each such responses a.
Describe the additional information that SOV contends is required in order for it to answer or to answer completely the interrogatory.
b.
State each and every reason why SOV contends that the acquisition of such information is necessary in order for it to answer or to answer completely the interrogatory.
c.
State the steps that SOV is taking to acquire the information, and, for each step, the anticipated date on which it will be completed.
1 d.
State the intentions, if any, of Sov concerning supplementation of its answer to the interrogatory, including (if supplementation is intended), the date on which it is anticipated that Sov will serve its supplemental response.
Vermont responded completely to the questions asked in sub-parts (a), (b), (c), and (d)'3 Because, as noted above in part II of this answer, Vermont is in the process of developing its case, Vermont could not be more specific in response to this interrogatory.
To the extent that Vermor,t Yankee now seeks information beyond that which was apparent on the face of Interrogatory No.
3 Sub-part (b) may require some additional explanation.
Sub-part (b) asks Vermont to explain why it contends that the additional information enumerated in response to sub-part (a) is necessary.
Because Vermont's response to the request of sub-part (a) was that it had not determined what that additional information was, there was no further information that Vermont could provide in response to sub-part (b).
15
i i
18(c), Vermont objects on the grounds that such further response would reveal Vermont's case strategy, which is protected work-l 1
product.
V.
Vermont Yankee Requests A Remedy That Is Utterly Inappropriate Vermont Yankee seeks to bar Vermont from further participation in this proceeding if Vermont does not supplement its responses to certain interrogatories.
Motion to compel at 8, 9,
12, 13.
Vermont Yankee provides no citation to case law or rule, nor any other support, for the propriety of this requested severe remedy.
The requested remedy should be applied only for egregious failures to provide discovery responses, and then only for failure to obey an Erder compelling the responses, a c.
Wright & A. Miller, Federal Practice and Procedure S 2284 (1970).'
Such is not the case here.
This answer has explained why Vermont's responses to the first set of interrogatories are entirely adequate and thus, in fact, need not be supplemented at all.
VI.
A Final Note From the time that the discovery period was established by the Board, Vermont Yankee has submitted three sets of interrogatories and two motions to compel comprising numerous
' "(c)ourts should make the punishment (for failure to produce discovery responses) fit the crime and should not impose a drastic sanction that will prevent adjudication of a case on its merits except on the clearest showing that this course is required."
8 C.
Wright &
A.
Miller, Federal Practice and Procedure S 2284 (1970).
16
t i
pages of copy to be evaluated and acted upon.
Some of the questions and statements to which, by the rules, Vermont must respond, appoar to be in no way critical to the development of Vermont Yankee's case.
It does not take subtle analysis to see what Vermont Yankee is doing here.
The kind of questions and the absurd level of detail in its interrogatories, and the amount of hyperbole and invective in its Motion to Compel, indicate that Vermont Yankee has no legitimate interest in getting to the merits of the very serious and substantively relevant contention that Vermont has presented.
For example, Vermont Yankee Interrogatory (Set No. 2) No. 41 illustrates the foolishness of Vermont Yankee's tactic.
This interrogatory asks:
Q.41 Does SOV agree without qualification with the following statement:
"The standard for the quality of maintenance work at VYNPC is high and this standard is reflected in a relatively low rework rate for maintenance and repairs on plant systems."
If your answer is anything other than an unqualified affirmative, then please:
a.
State each and every qualification you have with respect to the quoted assertion.
b.
State each end every fact on which your qualification is based.
c.
Describe all of the evidence in SOV's possession or of which SOV has knowledge that SOV contends establishes each such fact.
d.
For each qualification, either provide the technical qualifications (education, employment history, licenses and 17
=
l certificates, experience, or other information which SOV contends establishes the qualifications of the person), or any person on whose expertise Sov relies for the qualification or state that SOV does not rely upon the expertise of any person for the t
4 qualification.
If SOV agrees with the_ substance of the foregoing assessment, then please:
e.
State each and every reason why SOV believes that the situation described therein has come to exist.
f.
State each and every reason why, assuming the rejection of this contention, the SOV contends (if it does) that the same condition might not be expected to continue through the balance of the existing VYNPS license term.
i g.
State each and every reason why, assuming the rejection of this contention, the SOV contends (if it does) that the same condition might not be expected to continue through the balance of the extended VYNPS license term.
In this interrogatory, Vermont Yankee requests detailed conclusions regarding the state of its maintenance program:
"each and every qualification," "cach and every fact," "all the evidence."
The absurdity in this interrogatory lies in the fact that Vermont Yankee knows Vermont has no access to documents describing its maintenance program, because Vermont had requested, and been denied access to them, before the discovery period was set.
Vermont Yankee knows that no documentation production request has been answered as of this date.
And when Vermont responds with all the information in its possession, Vermont Yankee continues the charade, in " Motion-to compel Answers to Interrogatories (VYNPC Set No.
2)," dated May 7,
- 1990, J
k 18
i i
by requiring an additional, time consuming response, to this interrogatory.
It is clear, as years of litigation by intervenors opposing i
construction permits and operating licenses have demonstrated, that the discovery process can be abused, where delay for the sake of delay benefits the party seeking to abuse it.
There are no explicit regulations provided in Part 2 that prohibit such abusive use of the discovery process as Vermont Yankee is
[
pursuing here.s Policy for Board proceedings is stated in 10 CFR 2, Appendix l
A, which in part states:
i "The Statement reflects the Commission's intent that such proceedings be conducted expeditiously and its concern that its procedures maintain sufficient flexibility to
~
accommodate that objective.
This position is founded upon the recognition that fairness to all the parties in such cases and the obligation of administrative agencies to conduct their functions with efficiency and economy, require that the Commission adjudications be conducted without unnecessary delays."
(preamble),
power to exercise this " flexibility" to recognize " fairness to all parties" is granted to the presiding officer in 10 CFR 2.718, to!
l l
"(e)
Regulate the course of the hearing and the conduct of the participants."
"(m)
Take any other action consistent with the Act, this chapter, and sections 551-558 to Title 5 of the United States Code."
8 Where a discovery period is established for a set, and limited, period of time, any party trying to hide the truth is benefitted by delay.
19
I i
I considering the importance of the safety consideration of Vermont's contention, it is now time for the Board to step in.
The kind of scorched-earth discovery process which Vermont Yankee has chosen to pursue is inappropriate, inconsistent with the policy of the agency, and almost certain to deprive this Board of a substantive and complete record upon which to decide these important safety questions.
Vermont Yankee is fully aware that vermont, along with other New England States, is apparently experiencing an economic downturn.
This has caused a reduction in state revenues, which in turn, limits the resources of state agencies.
Vermont Yankee's discovery tactics exploit this situation.
While we realize that it is not possible for this Board to frame an Order which will precisely define the bounds of appropriate discovery, we believe its expression of disapproval of the kind of resource-sapping tactics now being employed by Vermont Yankee will have a salutary impact and will substantially improve the likelihood that Vermont and Vermont Yankee will be able to focus their attention on the issues which this Board has directed for consideration.
conclusion t
For the reasons set forth above, the Board should deny Vermont Yankee's Motion to compel and should issue a Protective r
r Order that provides that Vermont need not supplement any of its responses to Vermont Yankee's first set of interrogatories other 20 i
O o
r than the supplements which Vermont has agreed to provide, as f
noted herein.
I r
By its attorney,
./
\\
Kurt Jansc 4
Department of Public Service j
120 State Street Montpelier, VT 05602
(
(802) 828-2811 i
Dated May 9, 1990-4 l
s t
t i
i 1
e e
i 3
k
\\
21 s
/
_i
i
! 3(.hliL D UbHHC UNITED STATES OF AMERICA
'90 MY 14 Pl2:24 l
NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSION before the grottofstcRt1 Aid ATOMIC SAFETY AND LICENSING BOARD uGChiliNG A !:1kVH1 IIHANCH In the Matter of
)
VERMONT YANKEE NUCLEAR
)
POWER CORPORATION
)
Docket No. 50-271-OLA-4
)
(Operating License (Vermont Yankee Nuclear
)
Extension)
Power Station)
)
)
NOTICE OF APPEARANCE The undersigned counsel hereby files this notice of appearance in this proceeding.
l Name:
Kurt Janson Address:
120 State Street Montpelier, Vermont 05602 Telephone No.:
802-828-2811 Admissions:
State of Vermont 1
i j
Party Represented:
State of Vermont Dated at Montpelier, Vermont this 9th day of May, 1990.
Respectfully submitted, f
By:
?
=w Ku't Janson T
r
/
l.
Special Assis Mnt Attorney General Special Counsel Vermont Department of Public Service 120 State Street Montpelier, Vermont 05602 (802) 828-2811 cc Parties LAPPAJV.50P 1
i (Ut.h!100 UNITED STATES OF AMERICA UbHHC NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSION before the i
30 MAY 14 R2:24 ',
ATOMIC SAFETY AND LICENSING BOARD
)
0FFtc' Of stc M itJ Y In the Matter of
)
00LKillNG 4 'IkVil.l.
VERMONT YANKEE NUCLEAR
)
Docket No. 50-271-OLA.gitANCH j
POWER CORPORATION
)
(Operating License
~
)
Extension)
(Vermont Yankee Nuclear
)
Power Station)
)
)
CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE I hereby certify that on May 9, 1990, I made service of
" State of Vermont Answer in Opposition to Vermont Yankee Nuclear Power Corporation Motion to Compel and State of Vermont Application for Protective Order," and " Notice of Appearance" in accordance with rules of the Commission by mailing a copy thereof t
postage prepaid to the following:
l Administrative Judge Administrative Judge Robert M. Lazo, Chairman Jerry Harbour Atomic Safety and Licensing Board Atomic Safety and Licensing U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission Board l
Washington, DC 20555 U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission Washington, DC 20555 i
Administrative Judge Ann P. Hodgdon, Esq.
Frederick J.
Shon Patricia A. Jehle, Esq.
Atomic Safety and Licensing Board office of the General Counsel U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Washington, DC 20555 Commission i
Washington, DC 20555 R. K. Gad, III, Esq.
Anthony Z. Roisman, Esq.
Ropes & Gray Cohen, Milstein, Hausfeld &
One International Place Toll Boston, MA 02110 Suite 600 1401 New York Avenue, N.W.
Adjudicatory File Washington, D.C.
20005 Atomic Safety and Licensing Board Panel U.S.N.R.C.
Washington, OC 20555 h
-p Kurt Janso Dat[d:
3"~ N
- 7G Special Co n el 1
w
-dd