ML20205N458
| ML20205N458 | |
| Person / Time | |
|---|---|
| Site: | Seabrook  |
| Issue date: | 10/27/1988 |
| From: | Flynn H Federal Emergency Management Agency |
| To: | Atomic Safety and Licensing Board Panel |
| Shared Package | |
| ML20205N463 | List: |
| References | |
| CON-#488-7404 OL, NUDOCS 8811040157 | |
| Download: ML20205N458 (4) | |
Text
G 7'/6Y
%-M M ^
)
October 27, 1988
'88 NW -1 All :07 UNITED STATES OF MERICA NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSION,3 ;,,
00Cr i : m
.UI BEFORE THE ATOMIC SAFETY AND LICDISING BOARD "
JUDGE IVAN W. SMITH, CHAIRFM JUDGE JERRY HARBO' R J
JUDGE GUSTAVE A. LINENELTER, JR.
)
In the Matter of
)
)
Public Service Co. of New Hampshire,
)
Docket No. 50-443-OL et al.
)
50-444-OL
)
Offsite Emergency (Seabrook Station, Units 1 & 2)
)
Planning Isst.as
)
)
MOTION OF THE FEDERAL DERGFNCY MANAGD{DIT AGDJCY FOR PROTECTIVE ORDER REGARDING THE PASSACHUSETTS ATTORNEY GDIERAL'S NOTICE OF DEPOSITICN AND REQUEST FOR PRODUCTION OF DOCUMDITS I. INTRODUCTION As an entity from which discovery is sought, the Federal Emergency Management Agency (FEMA) moves for a protective order under 10 CFR S 2.740(c). On October 19, 1988, the Massachusetts Attorney General served Requests for Production of Documents on the Federal Emergency Management Agency (FEMA). Copies of these Requests are attached. Counsel for FFXA acknowledges that service oC these Requests followed a discussion with John Traficonte, Assistant Attorney General of the Commonwealth, in which a tentative agreement was reached about a deposition date. However, for reasons of which neither he nor Mr. Traficonte were aware at the time of that 001027 bOOO443 80110%57 cg O pg PDR
,d 3
\\
conversation, it will be extremely burdensome, if not impossible, for FEMA to comply with the Requests for Production as they are currently framed.
Under the NRC Rules of Practice, a response to the Requests for Production is not due until 30 days from the date of service.
10 CFR S 2.741(d). The !IRC Rules would allow FEMA not to respond at all and put the Massachusetts Attorney General in the position of having to file a motion to compel discovery under 10 CFR S 2.740(f). However, FEMA has taken the initiative in seeking a protective order as early as possible ao as not to delay the hearings unnecessarily.
FEMA request two forms of relief in accordance with 10 CFR S 2.740(c)(2) and (c)(4).
First, it asks that the date for production of documents be postponed until December 8, 1988.
Second, it asks for a ruling on its objections to the scope of discovery requests, set out below, so that the scale of the effort involved in producing the requested documents will be cut back to the extent that its objections have merit.
In addition, FEMA gives notice to the Board and the parties that it reserves the right to assert a. claim of executive privilege when its review of the documents in completed.
II.
REQUEST FOR CO?tTINUANCE On even the most cursory inspection, the Requests for Production of Documents is very broad. FEMA estimates that responding to the Requesta for Production encompasses a search of some 60,000 pages in five locations: FEMA headquarters, Region I, Region X Argonne National Laboratories in Argonne, Illinois, and Idaho National Engineering Laboratories in Idaho Falls, Idaho.
Inspection and copying of these documents will require some 250 hours0.00289 days <br />0.0694 hours <br />4.133598e-4 weeks <br />9.5125e-5 months <br />.
FEMA Motion for Protective Order, Page 2.
i Further information about the extent of work involved is set out in the attached Declaration of Laura Angelo.
TEMA therefore asks that the date for production of documents be postponed until December 8, 1988.
III. OBJECTICNS TO REQUESTS FOR pRCDUCTICM A.
FEMA objects to Requests Nos. 1 through 11 as being beyond the proper scope of discovery because they are not reasonably calculated to lead to the discovery of admissible evidence.
On the contrary. FEMA asserts that they are designed to probe issues which have already been decided, are not included in the admitted contentions, or are otherwise inappropriate.
B.
FEMA objects to Requests 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7. 9, 10, and 11 as being unduly burdensome.
FEMA asserts that costs in terms of time, money, and labor far outweigh the need of the Massachusetts Attorney General for the information which would be elicited.
C.
FEMA reserves the right to assert a claim of executive or deliberative process prisilege to all documents which reflect preliminary discussions or consideration of its positions.
For the foregaing reasons, TEMA requests that the Massachusetts Attorney General's Requests for Production Nos. 1 through 11 be stricken, in whole or i
l
[
I FEMA Motion for protective Order, Page 3.
t e
in part.
In support of this Motion, FDA respectfully refers the Board to the Attached Memorandu:n in Support of Motion for Protective Order and Declaration of t, aura Angelo.
Respectfully submitted,
/- -
H. pFH_
.H
//
4 Assistan eneral Counsel Federal Emergency Management Agency 500 C Street. S.W.
Washington, D.C. 20472 Telephone (703) 646-4102 FWA Motion for Protective Order. Page 4.