ML20149M899

Transcript of 880223 Hearing in Bethesda,Md Re Onsite Emergency Planning & Safety Issues.Pp 1,138-1,158

ML20149M899
Person / Time
Site:	Seabrook
Issue date:	02/23/1988
From:	Atomic Safety and Licensing Board Panel
To:
References
CON-#188-5736 88-558-01-OLR, 88-558-1-OLR, OL-1, OL-1-R, NUDOCS 8802290226
Download: ML20149M899 (24)

Text

.E_ _ . a-4: *-a u. m _ _

i O R G \ A,_

O UNITED STATES NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSION  :

i

. . . . . m . . - m e = = = = = = = = = me m me = = me = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = ,, . . ,

ATOMIC SAFETY AND LICENSIMG BOARD

! In the Matter of: ) Docket Nos .

) 50-443-OL-1-R

' PUBLIC SERVICE COliPANY OF ) 50-444-OL-1-R NEM HAMSHIRE, et al. ) (Onsite emergency planning l

) and safety issues)

• (SEABROOK STATION, UNITS 1 and 2) ) ASLB Mo. 88-558-01-OLR ,

.\ r 1

i i.

I j

! i Pages: 1138 through 1158 Place: Bethesda , !!aryland j Date: February 23, 1988 i

....--------=---------=====------============================,

/ DIk '

j HERITAGE REPORTING CORPORATION

"""#~

O

! 1220 L Street, N.W., Suke 644 J

l Washington, D.C. 20065 '

) (202) 628 4488 ,

J 9902290226 080223 3 ADOCK 050 j PDR l T

! r I

5

u. -

9: 4 s

g 1 UNITED STATES NUCLEAR _ REGULATORY COMIISSION i f.-

2 .- ATOMIC SAFETY AND LICENSING BOARD 3

) )- 4 In'the Matter-oft- .') Docket Nos.

) 50-443-OL-1-R 5 PUBLIC SERVICE COMPANY.0F ) 50-444-OL-1-R-NEW HAMPS!! IRE, et al.- ) (Onsite emergency planning 6 f ) and safety issues) ~ '

(SEABROOK' STATION, UNITS l'AND 2) ) ASLB ik). 88-558-01-OLR 7

Tuesday- '

8 Februaryf23, 1988 9 Room 424- ,

East-west Towers 10 4350 East-west Highway.

Bethesda, Maryland

- 11

' The above-entitled matter came.on for hearing, R

12 -

--s.

pursuant to notice, at 2:06 p.m.

l

(>)

13 BEFOREt JUDGE S!!ELDON J. WOLFE, C11 AIRMAN JUDGE JERRY HARBOUR, MEMBER 34 Atomic Safety and Licensing Board 15 US Nuclear Regulatory Commission Washington, D.C. 20555 16 APPEARANCES:

17 For the Applicants:

1 18 TIIOMAS G. DIGNAN, JR. ,ESO.

! Ropes & Gray 19 225 Franklin Street Boston, Massachusetts 02110 l l

i 20 i For the Intervenor NECNP 21 ANDREA FERSTER, ESO.

l ,,

!!armon & Weiss O- 2001 S Street NW 23 Washington, D.C. 20009 I

j

\

() 24 For the NRC Staffs 25 GREGORY BERRY, ESQ., Office of General Counsel, NRC j

' 11555 Rockville Pike, 15th Floor RockvilleAtrieTrggggggg5dompany

> .so>>.>.....

1139 1 P,R,0,C E E D ,I,N G S, i

"# JUDGE WOLFE I'm using the loudspeaker in my office.

2 3 Judge liarbour is here also. I would advise that we have the

,\

s, ) 4 reporter here, who's transcribing this conference, and it would 5 be most helpful to the reporter and to the Board if, when you 6 speak, just before you speak if you would identify yourselves 7 as to -- so that we'll know who is speaking.

8 I would indicate also, as a preliminary matter, that 9 we've just received today a notice of special appearance by 10 Westinghouse, and that Westinghouse has moved for an extension 11 of time. Have you received those documents, Mr. Dignan?

12 MR. DIGNAN: I have received them, Your lionor. I (j) u 13 don' t have them right here. I 've got then in reproduction, 14 but I have received them.

15 JUDGE WOLFE Yes.

16 Ms. Perster, you've seen those?

17 MS. FERSTER: I've not seen them yet.

18 JUDGE WOLFE: Mr. Berry?

19 MR. BERRY: No, Your lionor, I have not seen those.

20 I'm not aware of this notice of special appearance by 21 Westinghouse.

JUDGE WOLFE: Yes. Tnat's with respect to NECNP 22 7_]

L 23 Contention I.V. in that special appearance.

However, the reason I'm calling is that we've l

{')

x_

21 25 issued, as you know, the memorandum and order LPD-88-6, dated Acme Reporting Company ae,..,.....

I-1140 1

1 February 17, 1988, and in light of that and pursuant to our.

[

2 order of December 2, 1987, which was unpublished, the Board is a phoning you to find out whether you are filing motions for

'Z 4 summary disposition with respect to NECNP Contentions IV and 5 I.V., and/or whether, if you're not, what your sense is as to G when a hearing should be scheduled.

7 Mr. Dignan, why don't you pick up on that?

8 MR. DIGNAN: It is my plan to file a summary 9 disposition motion on both issues, Your lionor.

10 JUDGE WOLFE: All right.

11 Ms. Perster?

12 MS. FERSTER: Your Honor, NECNP has not yet decided Iv / 13 whether it is going to file summary disposition, since some 14 discovery is still outstanding. We can't evaluate that until 15 we've received responses.

16 We also plan to be filing a motion for 17 reconsideration with regard to the Board's latest decision on 18 the scope of Contention IV, and whether the issue of microbial foulino is within the scope of that contention; an; a will be 19 20 filing that on March 3rd.

JUDGE WOLFE: I see. Mr. --

21 MR. BERRY: This is Gregory Berry.

es 22

() Yes.

23 JUDGE WOLFEt MR. BERRY: Mr. Berry from the Staff.

(~T 28 G'

JUDGE WOLFE: Right.

25 Acme Reporting Company a n..a.....

1141 1 MR. BERRY: The Staff hasn't made a determination at 2 this time as to whether it will file a motion for summary 3 disposition on either of the contentions. And of course, we

() 4 can state at this time that if either of the other parties 5 file such a motion, that the Staff will respond to those. But 6 at this time, no final determination has been made as to 7 whether the Staff will file its own indeoendent motion for a 8 summary disposition on either of the contentions.

9 JUDGE WOLFE: Ms. Ferster, you say you're filing a 10 motion for reconsideration on March 3rd; is that correct?

11 MS. FERSTER: That's correct, and as we count it, 12 we're going to have 10 days to -- and five days for mailing --

[ ) 13 from the date of your order on the scope of the contention IV.

o 34 And that date is March 3rd, so we will be filing on that date a 15 motion for reconsideration on the scope of that contention.

16 And we hope to, at that point, have supporting 17 documents that demonstrate that microbial fouling was intended 18 to be within the scope of that contention in 1982.

JUDGE WOLFE: Well, I can't -- the Board can't pass 39 20 on something that hasn't been filed as yet, but I guess that 21 will delay, at least for now, our deternination on when the 22 parties should file motions for summary disposition with 7-)

\

23 respect to these two NECNP contentions, IV and I.V.

That's the way it appears, and we'll just have to

(~)

V 24 25 await further submissions, among which will be NECNP's motion Acme Reporting Company n ,,. .....

1142' s.

r 4

i 1; for: reconsideration.

" If

1. ~

)' .

~Ar6 there any other comments'or. statements that 2-

3 any one-of the parties wishes,to make at this time?

("

(&' j '4 liR.' DIGNAN: Well,'Your Honor, I don't' understand.

U 5 .I'll be perfectly frank. A motionifor summary -- for e reconsideration can be filed anytime. .There's no automatic 7 10-day barrier to it; there's no' automatic right to have110 8 days to-file it; there's nothing in the rules on it at all.

9 I don't -- I would resnectfully suggest that1the 10 filing of -- if filing motions be -- announced intent to, file 11 a motion for reconsideration holds things up, it can do it' forever, because it can be filed anytime. And I think-NECNP.,

12

[) 13 should be directed to get it in there posthaste ,1f it's the U

14 Board's. view that they want to deal with it before setting a 15 schedule. I don't see any need to wait till March 3rd.

16 JUDGE WOLFE: Yes. Today is Tuesday, February 23.

17 And, yes --

18 MS. FERSTER: Your Honor, this is counsel for NECNP; 10 may I speak?

20 JUDGE WOLFE: Ms. Ferster, yes.

I 21 MS. FERSTER: We had decided that 10 days was the 22 appropriate time, since that is the time limit for filing 23 responses to motions, and with the five days for me ling time 24 added onto that. And that seems to be an abbreviated time

{~

25 Period already, and it would be very difficult to obtair. the 1

1 Acme Reporting Company aos,.>.....

i....,i . . . .. . . . . _ . _. -. _. ..

f 1143

1. supporting documents needed to -- for,that' motion lfor t- g V' 2 recons'ideration that were indicated in your order._ Prior to 3-that, our' expert is not located in'the same' area,-and there is,

~ (). -

4 of course,7 mailing time an'd_ lag time. And we think'that.10 5 days plus.the five-day mailingstime would be -- is an Y

6 appropriate time period, and that a shorter l period would hamper 7 our ability to effectively make that motion.

8 JUDGE WOLFE: Well, I seem'to have a recollection, 9 Ms. Perster, that you did bring'up.in the pleading, or the 10 submission, filed after your most recent one.with respect.to --

gi 'let's see, let me get it here.

12 Well, you did indicate -- I don't'have the document:

~

13 before me right now ---but you did indicate, Ms. Ferster, that -

you were' contemplating such a motion for reconsideration, 14 I believe, or filing an amended contention, at least. I've 15 f rg tten which document that was now. Do you recall that, 16 17 Ms. Ferster?

18 MS. FERSTER: I believe that was in our motion to compel discovery, and we did indicate that that filing was 19 stated as a reason why we should be given leave to reply. It 20 was in our motion for leave to reply to the Applicants' 21 22 response to our motion to compel, and it was-given as a 0 23 p ssible action that we might take, which was why we needed an pp rtunity to reply to that. And that is still an option.

24 Ne feel, however, that that's an option of last l 25 Acme Reporting Company

. son,. .-....

u, , _

l ^. ~

4-l , ,

.1: resort only"because we still believe that the issue of

, i2 microbial fouling is' encompassed within the ' scope -of f our

' contention as originally. worded, and that-what.is lacking 1is.

~

3 m' .

k)J 4 the type of proof from expertsiand

documents that are dated ~as +

5 :of the-date the contention was. admitted ~that would demonstrate.

6 that this;is in fact so.

. 7 JUDGE WOLFE: All right. 'Anything more?

, y 8 MR. DIGNAN: Yes, there's another matter that I 9 think --

JUDGE WOLFE: Is this Mr. Dignan?

10 MR. DIGNAN: -- I'd like to get on the record;on,'-

11

~

4

.12 _ Your Honor --

'g.

Y 13 JUDGE WOLFE: This is Mr. --

A MR. DIGNAN: This is Tom Dignan.

14 15 JUDGE WOLFE: Yes, okay.

MR. DIGNAN: And that is this.- I assume.that, while 16 17 I understand you're not scheduling summary disposition now, is 18 that an indication of discovery outstanding, and I just wish 19 to advise the parties and the Board that one piece of the 20 discovery which we will be responding to seems to be mostly 21 directed at MIC, which I understand the Board to have ruled 22 out of the contention.

O The other possible matter is the Westinghouse matter, 23 24 and I would remind everybody that both us and Westinghouse had 25 indicated that they are perfectly willing to give the document Acme Reporting Company a w sa.....

pg ,

==

1145,

i ,

1 up.right now.under anLappropriate protective agreement.

.M?~:

'2 NECNP has refused this course of action. They're-3 ' free'toilitigate with_ Westinghouse for the next 10 years as f). 'far as I'm concerned on whether 'that remains' permanent or not, 1(_/ 4

'S and'it will be'my position if,a response comes infthat J

6 discoverytstill has to be.tt' ten on the SGTR issue that'NECNP 7 has. waived ;that argument insof ar qui that' document is concerned by refusing to take.it'under'a protective. agreement.

~

8

9. JUDGE WOLFE: Well, Ms.,Ferster,.isn't there a 10 possibility you can get-together with, certainly, with 11 .Westinghouse and square this away so that we can proceed,with 12 the disposkion'on the steam generator tube rupture contention?

l t'\

-/ 13 LMS. FERSTER: ' Your Honor, we would be happy to --

- (/)-

e 14 JUDGE WOLFE: What's the hangup?

15 MS. FERSTER: -- concern with Westinghouse or the 16 Applicant on resolving this issue, but as yet I -- well, first i

17 of all,, I will tell you that the attorney for NECNP who's 18 handling that is-just not available at thic time to speak to 19 that, but it's my understanding that this -- that the of fer 20 for a protective order occurred in a response to our 21 interrogatories without making any showing as to entitlement 22 for it. Therefore, it's very difficult to evaluate whether we 23 can come to an agreement at this point without -- and certainly without seeing Westinghouse's response, or without

() 24 seeing Applicants' reasons for claiming entitlement to a 25 i

Acme Reporting Company

, m , .,. ....

I' i

.0 .

'~

1146 r.

A- 1' ' M. DIGNAN: Well,.this has nothing to do with-

l. ( \

' - %,}. .-

2 .whether we"claim it,'I respectfully suggest'.- 'What I am saying 3: is the offer 1 has'been outstanding, and Westinghouse has:

.c c 3

'\ / 4 . repeated it, and I have-authority'to mako it.on-their behalf 5 from their~own counsel. We're perfectly willing~to give yos

- 6 the document tomorrow if you'll take.it under a protective 7 agreement,-which you^can thenjargue to the Board should be-8 lifted or nullified or anything.else.

~

9 But the pos'ition as it's been articulated to.me by' 10 NECNP is that_they won't take ition.that basis, they want to 11 take it free and clear'or not take it at all. And'I'm just 12 saying if that be their position, 'I'm going to be arguing that

( j_

13 - they can't be heard to say that they should dodge a summary 14 disposition motion on a basis thet there's outstanding 15 discovery, at least with respect to that particular document, 16 because they're free to have a look at it tomorrow if they want 17 it, but only if they'll sign the standard Westinghouse 18 protective agreement, which Westinghouse has authorized me to 10 give them.

20 JUDGE WOLFE: Yes. Well, all that I can add to all 21 this is that the Board is very concerned that this portion of gs 22 the Seabrook case with respect to the onsite issues,

,y 23 is concerned that this case is getting caught in a morass.

()

g~s 24 We're just simply not moving.

25 I've been a litigator for many years myself, and I Acme Reporting Company a n,.>....,

~

g.

1 just don't understand this,,the constant motions,lthe constant 7.s t

'[ 2 blizzard of pleadings, and the' delay in trying these ir es or 3 summarily disposing of them. .And~I would advise all parties y ;

4 that when I~ find, when the-Board finds,1that there'has been-6 unwarranted delay.in the processing and in'this proceeding,-

6 the Board will take whatever action is available to it.t And 7 we want to move this case along, period.

8 -And I would suggest that all parties ~ attend to wha't 9 I'm saying.here. I can't at this point -- well, hold on,'I 10 want to talk to Judge Harbour. I'll put.this on mute and I'll 11 be right back.

12 -(The Board confer.)

/3 JUDGE WOLFE: All.right, Ms. Perster?

t 13 14 MS. FERSTER: Yes, Your Honor.

15 JUDGE WOLFE: You have before you the Board's 16 memoranCum and order of February 17?

17 MS. FERSTER: Yes, I do.

18 JUDGE WOLFE: When did you receive that, please?

MS. FERSTER: Let's see, I received that on February 19 20 18th.

JUDGE WOLFE: February 18th. Well, I think it's 21 22 fair --

O 23 MS. FERSTER: No, excuse me,Your Honor, I received it on the 19th. It indicates it was served on the 18th, but 24 25 we received in our office on the 19th.

Acme Reporting Company

,so,,. .....

i l1143 bgnT 2l (1- ' JUDGE'WOLFE: Well',/Ii think, in all' fairness, so;that 2 'we can get this case moving,.'as'.I indicated.before,.wo_will

~

3 accept your motion' for reconsideration 'only. if it's filed on:

( 4 or.before. March 1, Land that should be,.Ms. Curran (sic),

5.

' hand-delivered to the Board by the cloase of business'on March

~ -1, and you should express-mail it to'Mr. Dignan[in Boston.

7 And how~you like yours to be delivered, Mr.: Berry?:

8 MR. BERRY: .We would prefer it by messenger, Your .,

9  !!onor. ,

~

10 JUDGE WOLFE: By messenger. So with respect to both '

~

.11 the Board and the Staf f, the su bnission on March 1% hall' be [

12 hand-delivered to the Board and to Staff counsel, and'you will 13 express-mail ~it to Mr. Dignan.- ,

14 All right. Anything more?

15 MS. FERSTER: Your Honor, this~is Andrea Ferster 16 speaking.

17 When this, the issue of the scope of Contention ~IV ~

18 _.

is resolved on whether microbial fouling'is within that 19 contention, I would. note that there's.one outstanding issue, 20 and that is the fact that we do have outstanding discovery 21 that we're not -- we have not yet received responses for.

22 And some of the discovery is due from the Staff on March 2nd, 23 the rest is due not until mid-March, and that relates to the

'O 24 issue of biofouling, and it requests information that is

V l

25 directly related to macrofouling, which is acknowledged to be L Acme Reporting Company

\ ,m,.....

l l

.~ .

p . - - -

p;N,, , ,

. 1M9 ..

L . ,

v~ _

^l p((,Yn.

p e li within~the?scopeiof our; contention'..

MA I2 lSoiI would like to. confer;againLat.some point beforej

'3 some scheduling, : schedule .for c' summary dispositilon is - '

! 4 est'ab'lished after zthis, af ter, thef March --3 af tier the motions ~

'u f

-5' for' reconsi'deration are :t k'en in .to determine:whether:- -

L6; discovery is[in fact completed on those Jissues.-

f Your i Honor, this is Mr. Berry..-

7 MR.. BERRY:

~

8 JUDGE WOLFE: Yes.

9 ..

MR.-BERRY: I believe'that I needsto make a'brief 10 response to~Ms..Ferster'_s last remarks.

~,-

~

.;. 11. The Staff is -- it is correct'that:there is'-- NECNP. [

" -12 is.. owed some outstanding discovery from the Staff on'its-

,:q

!2 :13' 'two contentions. I believe the Staff; filed its response to.

r .. . -

~14 NECNP's second set of interrogatories directed aga' inst the +

15: Staff. I don't have them in front of.me, but~I believe it was. l t

16 before February the'!12th. And the reason I think-it's before >

l ~

17L that date is it was filed before I was away on leave, and that  !

+

18 was around February 12th.

19 We did respond to NECNP's second set of i j 20 interrogatories Nos., I believe, 31 to 46. They were the ones  !

l l 21: dealing with the biofouling issue. We'd indicated that we l.

l .,1

~

l- 22 would. respond to the remaining interrogatories by March the i o ,

23 2nd, and we certainly expect to do that,~if not before.

24 With respect to Ms. Perster's remark, I understood 25 it to be suggesting that in responding to NECNP's i

Acme Reporting Company l . m ... ....

---_ - - - . . . ~ .-

pcc , .-

1150'

~

1 interrogatories"that raised the microbiologically-induced

?-

2 corrosion issue,.that the ' Staff acquiesced in some suggestion 3

.that that issue's within the scope of the contention.: I must I_)' 4 . respectfully take issue with'that. The. Staff responded-to 5

those interrogatories,.but, you know, that should not be taken

~

6 Eas any concession on.the Staff's part that those are:within --

.. 7 covered-within the. scope of the admitted contention, and the 8 Staff responded to it on that basis.

9 To the extent there is that suggestion, well, then

10. I would respectfully request the Staff be given an 13 opportunity to argue the contrary,-although I don't believe 12 that's necessary in light of Your Honor's recent memoranda n., -

order ruling that the MIC issue is not within the scope of

(/ 13 the admitted contention. But the Staff did respond to that, 14 15 to the micro -- to that part of NECNP's interrogatories,-and 16 the only outstanding discovery against the Staff relates to 17 the steam generator tube issue, which we will be responding to 18 shortly.

19 And so, and the Staff would suggest that that is no 20 basis for deferring any decision on this request for reconsideration of the Board's ruling on the MIC issue. You 21 22 know, there is no further discovery coming from the Staff

,3

, %) that NECNP needs to possess in order to respond to the 23 Board's -- you know, this motion for which they seek

-() 24 l

25 reconsideration.

Acme -Reporting Company no,,. . ....

n,- .

n- -3 1151~

l

,> +

1.' JUDGE HARBOUR: .This is' Judge Harbour. ,

l

( l .

Ms. Perster, what.was the'mid-March discovery-you

~

-2 l 3 said was. outstanding?: ,

y~

h,d 4- MS.-FERSTER: -Your~ Honor,'we have sent out'a' set of 5 interrogatories to'the_ Applicant that ask for information 6 ~ dealing both with. microbial fouling,-which was -- which the'

?. Board has said is no't within the scope of the contention; and.

8 also ask for information with regard to macrobial fouling,.or.

9 bivalve fouling,.which is clearly within the scope of the 10 contention.

^

11 , And.my only comment was that I would like to confer-12 again on scheduling of summary disposition, since at this 13 time there is this discovery that is outstanding.;to the 14 Applicants, as well as the steam generator tube.discove d with 15 respect to the Staff.

16 JUDGE WOLFE: What if we deny your motion for 17 reconsideration, Ms. Ferster?

18- MS. FERSTER: Well, if you deny our motion for 19 reconsideration, there still is outstanding discovery-on the'-

20 issue of biolfouling by mussels and clams, which is within' -

21 the scope of that contention, and we would like to have that 22 in-hand before we start dealing with summary disposition

/], _

23 issues.

24 JUDGE HARBOUR: Mr. Dignan, would you respond to 25 that, please?

Acme Reporting Company

,,o, .,.....

Li

'T T

~

, G: ,

y 3

'1152 .

Mr.]Dignan?

~

, _ ,1

/ L 4 (/ -

~

MR. ..DIGNAN: Hello?

, 2

'3 : . JUDGE HARBOUR: Mr. Dignan, did-you hear so.

- (_./ - 4 Ms) F$rster's--- ,

5- MR. DIGNAN: -Yes,'I did.

6 JUDGE HARBOUR: Could you respond to'the -- her 7 statement that there-is additional macrofouling discovery 8 against the. Applicants?

9 MR..DIGNAN: Yes, Your Honor. I'd like to respond 10 in.two veins.

11 One is there is a set of interrogatories that was 12 sent-out February.19th. .I will accept the representation that

. eq

[v] 13 I should read certain of those questions as going to macro.

.14 I thought it was all micro, but I'll look at.it, in any event.

15 But more importantly, I wanted to respectfully 16 ~ inquire of.the Board as to whether that' discovery is in order 17 at all. What the Board did was it originally had an order.out 18 directing the completion of discovery by December 28. .. When 19 the Board decided that would be inequitable, another order was 20 put out -- and I would point out you quoted all of this in the 21 recent decision -- directing the completion of discovery by 22 February 19th.

,S V Now, is it a proper interpretation of that that 23 somebody waits till the 19th and fires out a set of

()

. 21 interrogatories, or was the directive to complete discovery 25 Acme Reporting Company

,,os. .......

V! ' , ,

[. ,

-l . 1153

'w;.[

by'thatitime,fthat'is, to have~gotten them out 14~ days before

~

I z.

a .

(..) . 2

~

~

then'so that the answers would be due and in.by the 19th?

1 3- ~ JUDGE WOLFE: Lyes. 'Well,'I don't'---

_;y

'4 MR. DIGNAN: .Complet' ion of discovery, I am-just 5~ saying,-in the ordinary language to me always means. discovery's 6 ovem, not that that's-the date at which you fire your last 7 cannon so that you' extend the period in which the case must 8 remain --

9 JUDGE WOLFE: Yes. Well, our December 2nd, 1987, 10 order.was explicit that discovery should proceed apace and be 11 completed by February 19th.

s 12 MR. DIGNAN: That was my understanding also =

.h.

] / .13 MS. FERSTER: Your Honor, may.I respond to that?

14 JUDGE WOLFE: Yes.

15 MS. FERSTER: This is Andrea Ferster. We understood

.16 the discovery order to.mean that when you said discovery be E

17 completed by February 19th, that it would mean that'we had

'h .

18 submitted all our requests for interrogatories or documents or i

r 19 information by then. Obviously,- if that were so, that if, 20 since the Applicants have 20 days or 10 days -- 20 days to 21 respond to discovery under the rules, then by that reasoning 22 of your -- the Board's order,TW3 could not have sent out any pg V

23 interrogatories after the end of January, which can't be the

() 24 case.

25' In any case, Yorr Honor, I would like, i~f the Acme Reporting Company a o ,, . , . . . . t

__ ____ _ - ___ _____ _____ - _____ _ _____ 'b

.; ~,

' 1154-1- Applicant'doestnot:believe that'these interrogatories lwe-sent~

' f '

~

out. are appropriate,; .I think that 'we sh'ould have' an opportunity 2.

3 ;to brief that issue, if they' choose.to fil'e'some sort of

fm:

(/.. 4 motion or if they fail to-~respon'd'.to that,-those interrogatories,

5_

.or;some-kind of-request for interpretation, then we can.brief 6 .that issue,-because it was certainly our understanding that we

-7 could file any' interrogatories up until~the date when you 8 indicated.that discovery was to be completed.

.9 JUDGE WOLFE: Have you filed any response, 10 Mr. Dignan?

11 'MR..DIGNAN: No, these are just arrived here, Your i 12 Honor.

13 JUDGE WOLFE: I see. Well, as I say, we're going to u

14 start matters at this end by making certain that we're not 15 inundated with a lot of motions, a lot of pleadings, a. lot of 4

16 extensions of time, and so forth. And we're going to-insist 17 that we proceed in a timely manner.

' 18 We've ju n been presented now with some matters that 19 -

we can't fully appre.ciate because we haven't seen the documentation and so fcrth. But I do think that we may or may.

20 21 not hold another conference after the iling of your motion for reconsideration, Ms. Ferster. We may or may not hold a L 22 .

l'!. conference to decide at what time motions, or a motion, for l 23 24 summary disposition shall be filed. We're going to take it into our own hands to make that determination. We're just 25 h Acme Reporting Company

,,w . .....

I Em

r; ;, '

"1155 P

. u. . 1; tire'd.of the"blizzard of. papers in this case, .and.I think it's.

/ y- '

2~ unwarranted.~~-And we're.just' going.to have to make decision's

~3 incorder'to expedite-this case.

.fy

<d

~ 4- 'But~I'm not saying; yea'or nay.at this point.on:

~

5 -whether or notiwe-will hold anothe'r conference. We'll~just

~

6 have to make that determination ~after we see.what the present-

7. submissions, current submissions, will be.

8 'Is there something else?

9 JUDGE HARBOUR: Mute it a minute.

10 JUDGE WOLFE: Goin'g on mute. Hold on -for a moment.-

11 (The Board confer.)

e 12 JUDGE WOLFE: Judge Harbour and I have been 13 discussing something off the record. His statements to me 14.

were well taken, that in order to expedite this-case, if and-

't 15 when pleadings.are submitted and there are responses, motions 16 to compel.and responses, whatever,.we may take it into hand IT just-holding conference calls and giving you our oral rulings, 18 .and that way we'll - 'that will serve to accelerate'these 19 proceedings.

20 Anything else?

21 MR. BERRY: Nothing for the Staff, Your Honor.

22 MR. DIGNAN: Your Honor?

23 JUDGE WOLFE: Yes.

24 MR. DIGNAN: I don't wish to --

25 JUDGE WOLFE: This is Mr. Dignan.

Acme Reporting Company i m ,. .....

i - - - - - - - + , - . . , - , . . . . . , , . . , . _ _ , . .s

'1156-1 MR. DIGNAN: -- Dig ~ nan. ~But with' respect'to the

')'

I 2 .Poidt I was. making as to whether discovery should be' completed 3 or not, I would' point out.to the Board that a review of~the (3

.yj 4' discovery package that came in,-that is to say, the set of-5 interrogatories and'a motion for request of entry upon land 6 for inspection and other purposes, with the exception of a few 7 of the-b'eginning interrogatories, which were followup-8 questions .on answers we have given, a large nunber of the

~

9 interrogatories and the entire request for inspection is 10 something that could.have been asked an awfully long time ago.

11 They've basic questions like what's the metallurgy of various 12 systems.

1

{3/ 13 And I respectfully suggent that, if not in violation 14 of the-latter -- and I think it is in viola' tion of the 15 letter -- but certainly of the spirit of the order that came 16 down, this effort to' throw these kind of basic questions out 17 on February 19th should not be countenanced.

18 JUDGE WOLFE: Yes. Well, Mr. Dignan, you have the 19 Board at a disadvantage. Did you object in writing?

20 MR. DIGNAN: I haven't, Your Honor, I haven't 21 responded to the interrogatories because they came in on my 22 desk yesterday.

23 JUDGE WOLFE: I see. Well --

l 2;g MR. DIGNAN: I will --

25 JUDGE WOLFE: Put it in writing, nubmit it to us, Acme Reporting Company l <oc,,.>. ....

l

^

- _ _ _ a

I

- ,'fr

'1157:

A Ny,

.1 then we'll have something before us (ni which to -ruie. You'may_

'~'

2 or.may not be -- your objections may or may not.be well taken. .

2 3 I just don't have these papers before me.

s

- (~'\ MR. DIGNAN: All'right.

I will include ~in whatever

\_/ ' 4 response we make-such objections as-I'think are in. order,

~

5 6 . including the procedural one,'Your Honor.

7 JUDGE WOLFE: All right, fine.

8 .All right, thank you very much.

9 MR.-DIGNAN: Thank you.

10 MS. FERSTER: Thank you, Your Honor.

11 MR. BERRY: Thank you, Your Honor.

12 JUDGE WOLFE: All right.

/ 13 MR. DICFAN: Your Honor?

J 14 JUDGE WOLFE: Yes.

15 MR. DIGNAN: Is the reporter going to be sending out 16 the transcript of this conference call in conformity withfthe

~

17 orders that are on file, or does any special arrangement-have 18- to be made with the reporter?

JUDGE WOLFE: I'll leave that to the reporter. How 19 20 about that?

THE REDORTER: If there are arrangements on file --

21 22 JUDGE WOLFE: Do you need a microphone?

23 Identify yourself.

l THE REPORTER: This is Kent Andrews with Heritage 24

{}

25 Reporting. If there are arrangemente on file, then our l

Acme Reporting Company

,, a .>.....

- - - - , . . . - , . . . - ,, , , - ~ , , , , - - . ~ - , , , - , , - - - - , , - ,

e , iy ,

, cit. x - q- -

1158 c J._ ,

V b

~

, .. 1 office should: send?out the transcripts asfarranged.

~ O"i-

~2 _

.MR. DIGNAN: Okay.

~

Ropes.&. GraythasLa standing q -

/3 ~ order of four. copies, I believe it is, on file, andLif that?

.4 c turns out not to"be.thease, I'd.like to be advised. .

. '5' THE: REPORTER: Fine.

I- 6 ~J'UDGE WOLFE:- Fine.

7 MR.'DIGNAN: Thank you.

8 JUDGE WOLFE: -All right, ladies and gentlemen, 9 thank you.

^ 10 MS.1FERSTER: Thank~you, t

11 JUDGE WOLFE: "All right.

. 12 (Whereupon',-at 2:41 p.m.,.the hearing in the 13 above-entitled matter was concluded.)

14 4 15 16 17 t.

i. '

18

.-~

Av. . .

,- 19 20 21 g 22 23 i O 24 25 i

Acme Reporting Company

, i m ,.......

t I'

1 CERTIFICATE

. , - .\

A 2 3 This is to certify that the attached proceedings before the 4 United States Nuclear Regulatory Commission in the matter of:

5 Name: Public Service Company of New Hampshire, et al.

(Seabrook Station, Units 1 and 2) 6 7 Docket Number: 50-443/444-OL-1-R (ASLB No. 88-558-01-OLR) 8 Place: Bethesda, Maryland 9 Date: February 23, 1988 10 were held as herein appears, and that this is the original 11 transcript thereof for the file of the United States Nuclear 12 Regulatory Commission taken stenographically by me and, 13 thereafter reduced to typewriting by me or under the direction

- 14 of the court reporting company, and that the transcript is a 15 true and accurate rec rd of e f regoi g proceedings.

t 16 /S/

C22:1) 17 (Signature typed): Kent Andrews 18 Official Reporter 19 Heritage Reporting Corporation 20 21 22

23 24 1

! 25 l  :

O l Heritage Reporting Corporation (202) 628-4888 l

-- --. , __- -.___ . . _