ML20205N362
| ML20205N362 | |
| Person / Time | |
|---|---|
| Site: | Seabrook  |
| Issue date: | 11/01/1988 |
| From: | Hillwhilton R LAGOULIS, HILL-WHILTON & ROTONDI (FORMERLY LAGOULIS, NEWBURY, MA |
| To: | Atomic Safety and Licensing Board Panel |
| References | |
| CON-#488-7412 OL-1, NUDOCS 8811040088 | |
| Download: ML20205N362 (12) | |
Text
{{#Wiki_filter:1f/k t UllITED STATES OF A11 ERICA yg tlUCLEAR REGULATORY ColittISSIOri c.c4 DEPORE Tile ATOllIC SAFETY A!!D LICEllSI!!G 110ARD '88 NOV -2 P4 :50 ) In the flatter of: ) ) PUBLIC SERVICE cot 1 pally OF ) Docket tios. 50-443-OL-1 11EW llArtPSilIRE, et al. ) 50-444-OL-1 ) (Ocabrook Station, Units 1 and 2) ) Offaite Emergency ) Planning Issues ) RESPONSE OF TOWN OF tiEWBURY ("TON") TO NRC STAFF'S itOTION TO CollPEL ANSWERS TO INTERROGATORIES AND PRODUCTION OF DOCU!!ENTS BY Tile TOWN 0111EWHURY TO!! hereby responds to the motion by the tiRC Staff to conpel further answers to interrogatories and for the production of documents. Toti previously served its answers upon the parties to this proceeding but for case of reference has attached copies of those ariawers to the copics of this response which are being served upon the Board, Staff, Applicant and the flas::achusetts Attorney General. In the Staff's notion, it acknowledges that TON did provido partial answers to the interrogatories. Indeed, in reviewing Tott's answers, it is apparent that TON made a diligent and good faith attempt to fully respond to all nonobjectionable inquirios made by the Staff. As will become evident below, the Staff han misconstrued or misunderstood some of TO!!'s answers and this response will likely elininate many of the Staff's concerns, it is apparent, however, that the Staff in part seeks discovery fron Toil which TOti is incapable of providing or, in sone instances, 1 8811040000 001101 PDR ADOCK 0500 3
+ a which it should not be coropelled to answer for the reasons set forth infra. 1. aesponsu to tiotion to compel Production of Docunents at the Office of the General Counsel at the 11RC The Staff asserts that it would be far easier for TON to send any relevant documents to the Staff than to require the Staff to inspect thoso documents at TON's municipal offices. In i making that assertion, the Staf f acknowledges that docurnent production shall occur at "a reasonable time, place and manner." (See motion, p. 2.) in weighing what is reasonable in this case, it raust be borne in mind that TO!! is a small municipality of [ r limited resources. The Staff does not appreciate that it indeed { is burdensome for T0!! to provide copies of whatever documents are requested to all the parties on the service list in this case. The Staff recognizes that many of the towns who are intervening j in this proceeding have agreed to make available any discoverable { documents at their municipal offices. It would be a simple i matter for the Staff to visit all the Intervonors' offices on onc occasion in order to collect whatever documents the Staff is t i being provided with. l Alternatively, the Staff set forth in its motion that it is j willing to eceive relevant documents et a central document depository if the parties agree to establish one. TON is agreeable to that guggested stipulation and will further agree to produce docunents at such a depository if one is entablinhed. 2 . ~, --- -.--..-
~ l 2. Rosponse of TON to Motion to Cor.1pel Annworn to Specific l Interrogatories A. Interrogatory 1 The interrogatory as drafted would require TON to -l investignto overy document which would relato in virtually any .I way to virtually anything which any of the Intervenors *n.ve over dono with regard to any type of emergency planning. Thu j interrogatory, as stated in TON's answor, seeks information which TON simply does not possess. TON should not be conpelled to I investigate what each of the Intervenors in this proceeding havn { I ever done in that regard. TON fully answered the interrogatory [ l as to the information known to TON. TON agrood to nake the F j I relevant documents available to the Staff. Indeed, TON oven j identified in its answer a document it has not yet prepared in an attempt to provido a complete answer to the interrogatory. TON supplements its answer to the interrogatory by i ,l further stating, without waiving any objections originally [ i l i ] asserted, that TON does not possess any emergency or disaster 1 i plan for the town or any Intorvenor except for those documents 1 i identified in its original answers to the Staff's i interrogatories. l B. Interrogatory 2 1 l While the Staff correctly notes that TON has not i produced the documents it identified in its answer to J interrogatory 1, the Staff ignoros TON's willingnens to make any t relevant documenta available to the Staff for their review. The i 1 a i 3 ? I
documents indeed "speak for thomnolves" and the Staff can read them as well as TON can. Moreover, TON incorporated in its answer to interrogatory 2 the answer it gave to interrogatory 1. Specifically, TON will respond to the interrogatory in light of the information known to TON. Indcod, TON asserts that it already han nade that response. It is unduly burdensome to require, however, TON to expond the effort which would be necessary to fully answer the interrogatory in light of the fact i that the question plainly seeks information which would only be i known to other Intervenors. C. Interrogatory 3 l l The Staff again seeks from TON information it does not j possess and reasonabir sheuld not be compelled to acquire. For ) example, it is unduly burdensome to expect TON to learn ( j sufficient information so that it could advise the Staf f as to t j what training state polico, national guard, and other types of 1 cmorgency workers have. TON agrees, however, to supplement its l il answer to interrogatory 3 insofar as the interrogatory portains { to TON personnel. 4 i i D. Interrogatories 0 to 15 { j In its answers, TON incorporated by reference in each i i instance the answer it made to interrogatory 1. TON hereby clarifies its answer to state that it possesses no information t sufficient to onable it to answer interrogatories 8 through 15 .l The interrogatory is objected te unduly burdenuomo to TON to the extent that it would require TON to acquire fron other i I 4 1 i 1 l 1 l
] ( j 'ntervonors tho information which would be necessary to cunble I TO!! to annwer the interrogatories. i f j Finally, TOli objected to intorrogatory 15 for the reason l e j that it called for a Icqni conclusion. That objection should be { uphold for the reasons not forth below regarding interrogatories 17 to 20. ] F.. Interroaatories 17 to 20 ( l J With regard to interrogatory 17, TOli supplements its 4 l original answer to stato that it is unaware of any state or federal law or regulation pursuant to which the documents i identified in TOti's answer to interrogatory 1 woru prepared except for the not completed plan which will bo prepared pursuant j to the Emergency Plar.ning Act, i i With renpect to interrogatories 18, 19 and 20, the Staff i I clains that it "does not seek Toll's legal conclusions, but only [ 1 an identification of the bases for the challengo made by TOli to [ l l the SPt1C." (See motion, p. 11). In response, TOtt is hard l .I i j pressed to understand how those interrogatories relate to any i I challenge made by TOtt to the SPHC in light of TO!!'s admitted l I contentions. Indeed, it in Toll's position that none of the j j 1 interrogatories relate to any contentions it filed. In addition, i } the Staff's assertion that it is not seeking Tott's legal opinion l l l does not withstand scrutiny. The interrogatories plainly re<inire [ I l j TOti to research all relesant law and then give its opinion as to [ t j how those laws pertain to actions which the state or local { l i authorities might or might not take in the event of certain j i circumstances. TO!! has not conducted the legal research which i i ( L t
l would be required to answer the intorrogatory. As noted in Tott'u original response, the Staff is fully capable of researching the law and has far greater resources to do no than does Toti. t P. Interrogatory 22 TOli hereby supplenents its answer to interrogatory 22 to l 6 tate that it has not conducted any study relevant to the information sought in the interrogatory, nor does it poucess a copy of any such study or document relative to the information i sought in the interrogatory except for a letter from the Dupartnent of Interior it no longer possesses but which, in any event, constituted work product (see discussion below). TOtt does I not know what evidence was submitted by the Intervenors in the l lillRERP li t igat' on but is informed and believes that evidence was submitted in that litigation which is responsive to interrogatory 22. T0!! does not, however, possess that evidence and thus is incapable of further clarifying what evidence in that litigation may be relevant to this proceeding. TO!! supplements its objection to the interrogatory to stato that it seeks work product. In that regard, counsel for To!! wrote to the federal agency which maintains the parker River I;ational tilldlife Refuge af ter this proceeding began in order to obtain information concerning whether records were maintained by that department as to the number of vehicles present in the refuge at certain times. Counsel for TON received a reply to that letter. The Staff, if it seeks similar information, has the ability to obtain it. 6
f d l G. Interrogatories 23 and 24 l TOli supplements its answer to interrogatory 23 to state 3 i j that TO!! possesses no study concerning improving the movenent of trnffic in and out of "the beach" area. Toti objects to being compelled to investigate whether any other Intervenor possesses such a study. TO!I is informed and believes that evidence may { have been presented in the tillRERP litigation which may be relevant to this interrogatory. TOli possesses no such evidence, i however. i l TOli supplements its answer to interrogatory 24 to i O further state that it does not possess any study relative to the [ subject matter of the interrogatory. { i 11. Interrogatory 25 f TOli should not be compelled to respond to interrogatory 25 for the reasons set forth in Tott's response to the Sta f f's motion f i to compel a response to interrogatory 10. The interrogatory f plainly aska Toti to conduct legal tesearch and offer its legal l Opinion or conclusion to the Staff. The interrogatory seeks the l 1 j rnental impressions of Tott's counsel. Tori has not conducted the i i research which would enable it to answer the interrogatory. The i Staff has far greater resources to conduct that research than Toti does. 1 1. Interrogatory 26 I TOtl supplements its answer to interrogatory 26 to state that it possesses no study concerning the availability and possible use of sirens and other means of emergency communication j i j to the public in the event of energencies except for docunents 1 } 7 i I f I i l l ~, .n --,.w....
e filed by the Commonwealth of Itassachusetts in the onsite litigation in this matter, copies of which have been served upon the Staff. Tott has not reviewed those documents to determine what portion of them may be relevant to interrogatory 26. Toff believes that the Staff has been served with thoso documents and the Staff has far greater resources to review the documents than does TOti. J. Interrogatory 27 Toli hereby clarifies its answer to interrogatory 27 to object to the interrogatory on the ground that it is unduly burdensome to require Toti to identify all sirens or other means of emergency communication in the entire Seabrook EPZ which can be heard by the general public. In its anewer to interrogatory 7, which Toti incorporated in its answer to interrogatory 27, Toti identified the sirens and other means of emergency communication which Toll possesses and which nay be heard by the general public. TON has boon served with documents in the onsite litigation concerning Seabrook Station regarding sirens or other means of emergency communication which may be relevant to the interrogatory. Tott has not reviewed those documents, copies of which Tott i r, informed and believes were served on the Staff, in order to determine what portion of then nay be relevant to the interrogatory. The Staff has greater resources to review those documents than does Toti. K. Interrogatory 29 TOli supplements its answer to interrogatory 28 to state that it does not possess any study performed by Intervenors 0
I during the last five years concerning planning for emergencien i except for those documents identified in TON's answer to interrogatory 1. It is unduly burdensono to require Tott to investigate what studies nay have been performed by other Intervenors in this proceeding. I CO!!CLUSION 1 l It is regrettable that the NRC Staf f did not attempt to t informally resolve this discovery dispute prior to filing its motion. The Staff asserts that TON has been ovasive in j ? responding to the Staff's discovery requests. As should bc evident in reviewing Tott's original answers and this document, f j TOli has not boon evasive. TOli attempted to provide complete 1 t answers to the Staff's interrogatories within the time frame i required by this Board's rules. TON's effort in that regard was } i rendered somewhat difficult given the fact that the !!RC Staf f did ? 4 not serve counsel for TON with the interrogatories but noruly i t j served the chairman of the Board of Selectmen. It was only g through conversation with counsel for a different Intervenor that TON's counsel learned, about one week after they were served, that interrogatories had been prepared which TON needed to ( respond to. TO!! hopes that the Staff has corrected its service list to conform with the notice of appearance and change of j address TOli filed with its contentions in this proceeding. r TO!! will continue to respond to discoverable requests of the l Staff. TOli invites the Staff to contact TON's counsel in the I i j event that the Staff is in any way confused concerning the { ,i i I, 9 l i r f i,
O responso of TOli or if the Staf f believes that TO!! has not complotoly responded to discovery requests. i Respectfully submitted, J r ( Dated llovember 1, 1980 [i ]( f ((~/ / o' - R. Scott !!ill-lihiiton I,ngoulin, Clark, l l Ilil l-tihilton t. ticGuiro 79 Stato Stroot l i flowbu r ypor t, !!A 01950 l (500) 462-9393 .I g i l t e ~ i t J t I t I l l l .t
- l l
l t i ) I l i ) h .I j 4 } f \\ l 10 4 i i [
CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE .. t i. : ' 7 I, R. Scott flill-Uhilton, Counsel for the Town of !!ewbury in' the above-entitled action, hereby certify that I have caused copies of the enclosed documents to be served upon th '88 NOV -2 P4 :50 persons at the addresses listed below, by first class, t postage prepaid, nail and by Federal E:: press, postage prepaid, mail to those names which have been narked withM1n asterisk. 00 Chi %. ' * ,M c e MJ l
- Adnin. Judge Ivan U.
Smith
- Judge Gustavo A.
Linenberger, Jr. Chairman, Atomic Safety and Atomic Safety and Licensing Board o Licensing Board U.S. !!uclear Regulatory Comnission U.S. Iluclear Regulatory Commission Washington, D.C. 20555 Usshington, D.C. 20555
- Dr. Jerry liarbour
- Docketing and Service Atomic Safety and Licensing Board U.S. !!uclear Regulatory Comnission U.S.
tiuclear Regulatory Commission 1717 11 Street i Washington, D.C. 20555 Washington, D.C. 20555 l 4 l
- Thonas G.
Dignan, Esq. A.S.L.A.D. Panel Ropes and Gray U.S. truclear Regulatory Conuission 225 Franklin Street Washington, D.C. 20555 Doston, t-lA 02110 l Diano Curran, Esq. Stephen B. tierrill, Esq. i lla r mo n, Curran & Tousley Attorney General 2001 S. Street ti.U. Offico of una Attorney General Suite 430 ConcorJ, till 03301 i l j Uashington, D.C. 20009-1125 Sherwin C. Turk, Esq. Robert A. Backus, Esq. Office of the General Counsel 116 Lowell Street fluclear Regulatory Commission P.O. Box 516 l Washington, D.C. 20555 tlanchester, till 03105 1 l Philip Ahrens, Esq. Paul fictachern, Esq. Asst. Attorney General Shaines & ticEachern i Office of the Attorney General 25 !!aplewood Avenue i Augusta, ilE 04333 Portsmouth, till 03001 i l !!r s. Sandra Gavutis The lionorable Gordon J. Ilumphrey Chairman United States Senate j Doard of Selectmen Washington, D.C. 20510 i Kensington, till 03827 ( ) tir. Thomas Powers
- 11. Joseph Flynn, Esq.
l Town flanager Office of General Counsel l j Town of Exeter Federal Energency !!anagement Agency j j Exeter, till 03833 Washington, D.C. 20472 i (1) 1
'g 'o Gary llolneo, Esq. Stephen Jonas, Esq. !!aines & Ella Assistant Attorney General 47 1/innacunnet Road Office of the Attorney General I llampton, till 03041 Doston, t-tA 02100 fir. Calvin A. Cannoy Charles P. Graham, Esq. City !!anager flurphy and Graham City llall 33 Low Street Portanouth, till 03801 tiewbu rypor t, ilA 01950 Unrbara Saint Andre. Eug. f tr.111111am Lord Itopelinan & Paige Selectnan 77 Franklin Street Board of Selectmen Bouton, 11A 02110 Ancobury, !!A 01913 Drentwood Board of Selectnen Richard A. !!anpe, Esq. RFD Dalton Road !!anpo & !!c!11cholas l Brentwood, till 03033 35 Pleasant Street l Concord, till 03301 l l tir. Robert Carrigg, Chairman Judith tiiener, Esq. I Doard of Selectmen 79 State Street Town Office tiewburyport, t!A 01950 !! orth llanpton, till 03062 Robert R. Pierce, Coq. !!r. Richard R. Donovan Atonic Safety and Licensing Federal Emergency !!anagement Agency Board Panel Federal Regional Center U.S. 11uclear Regulatory Comm. 130 220th Street, S.W. Washington, D.C. 20555 Dothell, Washington 98021-9796 l l l Signed under seal thin 1st day of !!ovember, 1900. l l W.- bk ( -{t a((LY R. Scott Ili l l-ilh il ton l l (2)}}