ML20079H378
| ML20079H378 | |
| Person / Time | |
|---|---|
| Site: | Seabrook  |
| Issue date: | 12/13/1982 |
| From: | Bisbee G, Kinder E NEW HAMPSHIRE, STATE OF |
| To: | Atomic Safety and Licensing Board Panel |
| References | |
| NUDOCS 8212160281 | |
| Download: ML20079H378 (6) | |
Text
.
WitDLTED CORRESPONDK7C3 K '. ',
UNITED STATES OF AMERICA 000KETED
+
NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSION
'J3NfI:
e
'82 DEC 15 All:00 l
p N Ab\\I s
Before the g g. iT,
'-i 1
-e ~
ATOMIC SAFETY AND LICENSING BOARD:.
.;.. ;5. it.'
i
~
<:3 x
w 7
)
In the matter of:
)
)
{
)
~
~
PUBLIC SERVICE COMPANY OF-NEW HAMPSHIRE)
- Docket-Nos. : 443- -j-
- i 5,
)
and
)
50-444 i (Seabrook Station, Units 1 and 2)
' )
)
)
December 13, 1982 l
STATE OF NEW HAMPSHIRE'S MOTION TO EXTEND TIME FOR DISCOVERY t
l I
NOW COME the State of New Hampshire and Attorney i
General Gregory H. Smith (collectively "New Hampshire") and request that the Atomic Safety and Licensing Board (" Board")
extend the time allowed for discovery in this proceeding.
In support thefeof, New, Hampshire. states as follows:
,1 1
1.
In itsjSeptember 13, 1982 Memorandum and Order, i
the Board established a final date of December 15, 1982 for
\\
'i>
d'iscovery requests on those contentions then admitted into the
'I proceeding.
The Board stated, however, that the dates i
I M.
j 8212160281 821213 PDR ADOCK 05000443 i
O
' U'l
.]g l
j
a i established by the Order were " target ones," and that it would
[
?
consider modifications where " good cause" is established.
(September 13, 1982 Order at p. S.)
2.
As part of its Motion dated September 24, 1982, New Hampshire requested the Board to extend the discovery schedule.
The focus of that request was that the three months l
of scheduled discovery placed impossible burdens on the - --
intervenors by allowing insufficient time for full discovery.
j The Board' denied New Hampshire's reque'st, however, because it f
f lacked " specifics on which.the Board can make a reasoned j
[ judgment."
(November 17, 1982 Order at p. 21.)
3.
New Hampshire offers the following as specific
{
reasons why the discovery schedule ought to be extended:
f, a.
All parties have diligently and in good faith pursued discovery on the admitted contentions.
New Hampshire, NECNP, and SAPL have submitted interrogatories to i
the Applicant and the Staff, and the Staff has served i
interrogatories on all of the intervenors.
Notwithstanding f
this effort, the present schedule does not allow sufficient time in which to complete further necessary discovery requests.
b.
On December 2, 1982, New Hampshire received the Staff's answers to its First Set of Interrogatories which were served on October 15, 1982.
This late response was due to
s
. 1, the Staff's request for additional time in which to answer.
l i
The delay also leaves New Hampshire with little time in which l
I to review the Staff's answers, determine whether further discovery is appropriate and make further discovery requests.
c.
Moieover, the Staff answered over one-half of the interrogatories on contentions NH-9 and NH-lO by stating that it has no position at this time but that its response will i
~ be updated upon further study or upon receipt of additional h'
/
l information.
Without an extension of the discovery schedule 1
beyond December 15, 1982, until after "the Staff has completed 1
the answers to these interrogatories, New Hampshire will'not i
i nave an opportunity to fully and fairly complete discovery.
d.
Similarly, the Applicant was unable to furnish conplete responses to New Hampshire's Interrogatories.
It referred to studies relating to radiation mor.itoring and control room design that are not complete.
Until New Haupahlre receives complete answers to its interrogatories and has an I
l opportunity to review those answers, the discovery period should not e,nd.
l e.
As a result of its requests for production I
of documents to the Applicant, New Hanpshire received an extensive number of documents on November 30, 1982, only two t
i weeks before the scheduled close of discovery.
Although New Hampshire, has diligently attempted to review these documents i
in the two weeks allowed, it has been unable to do so.
j j
i i
i'
. 1 Thus, although the State will submit further interrogatories on December 15, such interrogatories do not complete the discovery
)
process.
New Hampshire's consultants =have responsibilities at academic institutions which are very time-consuming during December, the close of an arsdemic term.
These time demands will ease after the close of the academic term.
To require the State to complete discovery by December 15 is most prejudicial I
and places an~ impossible burden on the State.-~~~-
{-
f.
Because the discovery process ~is incomplete, I
l, New Hampshire is unable at this time to identify those Individuals it wishes.to depose.
New Hampshire could serve notices of deposition on the persons identified by the Staff and the Applicant in their answers to New Hampshire's First Set l
i of Interrogatories, but this approach would not lead to an i
I efficient discovery process.
The Board should, therefore, i
I allow additional time during which the parties may serve notices of deposition.
g.
The Applicant's own estimate of Unit l's l
completion d, ate has been extended from February to December of j
1984.
This ten-month delay provides the Board with the opportunity to lengthen the discovery period, free from the risk of extending the license proceedings beyond the anticipated completion date of Unit 1.
Thus, the only rationale for the original stringent discovery schedule has been removed.
5 i
. h.
The extension of discovery will provide the parties reasonable opportunity to complete discovery on the admi tted" contention s, and will allow for the possibility of negotiated resolution of some issues.
Without full discovery, such negotiations are more difficult, if not impossible.
I For these reasons, the State of New Hampshire respectfully l
requests that'this Board extend the discovery period ~on the
-f--
admitted contentions until March 15, 1983, subject to further modification for good cause shown, and modify the hearing schedule accordingly..
Respectfully submitted, i
THE STATE OF NEW IIAMPSHIRE l
GREGORY H. SMITH
{
ATTORNEY GENERAL l
O e
0'
'0 4 4N By:
E.
Tupper Kinder Assistant Attorney General Enviro ental Protection Division
~
~
i George Dara Bisbee
()
i Attorney Environmental Protection Division l
Office of Attorney General State House Annex Concord, New Hanpshire 03301 603/271-3679 Dated:
December 13, 1982 I
i
, DMKETEP yo;t';
3 CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE 82 DEC15 ND00 I,
E. Tupper Kinder, Esquire, hereby certify that a copy of the foregoing Motion to Extend Time for Discovery has been
,7 ;-i E.D by first class fiai3gC mailed this 13th day of December, 1982, postage prepaid, to:
Helen F.
Hoyt, Chm.
Dr. Emmeth A. Luebke Administrative Judge Administrative Judge Atoraic Safety and Licensing Atomic Safety and Licensing Board Panel Board Panel
- U.S. NRC U.S. NRC
(
_ ashington,_ D..C.
20.555
.. Washington,.D.C. 20555_
W b
l L Dr. Jerry Harbor Jo Ann Shotwell, Asst. AG
!; Administrative Judge Office of the Attorney General
, Atomic Safety and Licensing One Ashburton Place, 19th Floor L
Board Panel Boston, MA 02106 0" Washington, U.S. NRC D.C.
20555-Mrs. Beverly Hollingsworth 822 Lafayette Road
,l Roy P. Lessy, Jr.,
Esquire P.O. Box 596 l
[ Robert Perliss, Esquire Hampton, New Hampshire 03842 j
Office of Executive Legal Dir.
l U.S. NRC Willian S. Jordan, II, Esquire Washington, D.C.
20555 Ellyn R. Weiss, Esquire j
Harmon and Weiss h
Robert A. Backus, Esquire 1725 I Street, N.W.
116 Lowell Street Suite 506 P.O. Box 516 Washington, D.C.
20006 i
Manchester, N.H.
03105 l
Edward J. McDermott, Esquire Phillip Ahrens, Esquire Sanders and McDermott Assistant Attorney General 408 Lafayette Road State House, Station #6 Hampton, N.H.
03842 Augusta, Maine 04333 Atomic Safety and Licensing i
Thomas G.
Dignan, Jr.,
Esquire Board Panel Ropes and Gray U.S.
NRC 225 Franklin Street Washington, D.C.
20555 Boston, Massachusetts 02110 gp' E.
Tupper Kihder t
t t
I