ML20155H405

Memorandum & Order (Directing Haverhill & Merrimac to Respond to Discovery Requests).* Requests Response to Applicant 880831 First Set of Interrogatories on or Before 881025.Served on 881018

ML20155H405
Person / Time
Site:	Seabrook
Issue date:	10/17/1988
From:	Smith I Atomic Safety and Licensing Board Panel
To:	HAVERHILL, MA, MERRIMAC, MA
References
CON-#488-7287 82-471-02-OL, 82-471-2-OL, OL, NUDOCS 8810200107
Download: ML20155H405 (3)

Text

._

n

, ygt tt

xwe JmM UNITED STATES OF AMERICA NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSION b A9:54 6F% , s . i, 00Cnih.c '. ;kna ATOMIC SAFETY AND LICENSING BOARD E Mi'>

Before Administrative Judges:

Ivan W. Smith, Chairman Gustave A. Linenberger, Jr.

Dr. Jerry Harbour SERVED OCT 1B 19BB

)

In the Matter of ) Docket Nos. 50-443-OL

) 50-444-OL PUBLIC SERVICE COMPANY OF )

NEW HAMPSHIRE, et al. (ASLBP No. 82-471-02-OL)

) (Offsite Emergency

) Planning)

(Seabrook Station, )

Units 1 and 2) )

) October 17, 1988 MEMORANDUM AND ORDER (Directing Haverhill and Merrimaa to Respond to Discovery Requests)

On August 31, 1988 Applicants served their first set of interrogatories and first request for documents upon all parties and participating local governments including the Town of Merrimac and the City of Haverhill. Merrimao and Haverhill are represented by the same legal counsel, Ashod N. Amirian Esq. On September 16, Mr. Amirien, in separate but virtually identical pleadings, responded on behalf of both municipalities.

He answered none of the substantive interrogatories and produced no documents. His pleadings were produced by duplicating the discovery response of the Town of Amesbury, substituting designations for Merrimac and

%O2ggO f)

G

Haverhill at the appropriate places. Mr. Amirian also requested protective orders for both municipalities.

In general Merrimac and Haverhill object to the discovery requests on the grounds of burden and the privileges of attorney / client and work product. Since Mr.

Amirian copied verbatim the identical objections by the Town of Amesbury, the Board has little confidence that Mr.

Amirian, who answered for his clients, carefully measured the potential burdens.

Nor is it apparent that he carefully analyzed the legal questions of attorney / client and work-product privilege as thsy pertain to his clients.

On September 26 Applicants filed their motion to compel answers to interrogatories and proiuction of documents by Merrimac, Haverhill and Amesbury pursuant to 10 CFR 2.740(f). Amesbury answered the motion and is consulting with Applicants in an effort to resolve the matter.

However, Merrimac and Haverhill have not answered the motion to compel.

The Board has reviewed Applicants' August 31 discovery requests. They seem reasonably designed to lead to the discovery of information relevant to the subject matter of this proceeding as authorized by 10 CFR 2.740(b). Merrimac and llaverhill have not explained why the answers to the interrogatories and the production of the requested documents vould be burdensome, nor can we discern any undue burden involved in the requests. The claims of

- . - . . _ - - . - --,--,,-._.----,,,v --.-.,.,..--..,,,n.-, , - , - - . - - , , - . , , - - - - - - - - , - - - - - ~ -

3-attorney / client and work-product privilege are simply summary statements to that effect, totally without support.

Therefore the Board directs the Town of Merrimac and the City of Haverhill to respond to Applicants' August 31, 1988 discovery requests on or before October 25, 1988.

Counsel for Haverhill and Merrimac is reminded of the provisions of 10 CFR 2.707 respecting default in responding to any discovery order entered by the presiding officer. A copy of this order is being sent today by the Board to Mr. Amirian by express mail.

FOh THE ATOMIC SAFETY AND LICENSING BOARD van W. Smith, Chairman ADMINISTRATIVE LAW JUDGE Dethesda, Maryland October 17, 1988