ML20206J361
| ML20206J361 | |
| Person / Time | |
|---|---|
| Site: | Seabrook  |
| Issue date: | 06/24/1986 |
| From: | Hoyt H Atomic Safety and Licensing Board Panel |
| To: | HAMPTON FALLS, NH, KENSINGTON, NH, SEACOAST ANTI-POLLUTION LEAGUE, SOUTH HAMPTON, NH |
| References | |
| CON-#286-708 82-471-02-OL, 82-471-2-OL, OL, NUDOCS 8606270121 | |
| Download: ML20206J361 (5) | |
Text
_ _ _ _
i o
b
~
w UNITED STATES OF AMERICA D
~
NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSION c
ATOMIC SAFETY AND LICENSING BOARD 9[N 9
Before Administrative Judges:
p
'Nd Helen F. Hoyt, Chairperson
>,7f
..[/'
Emmeth A. Luebke Jerry Harbour
%' I Id \\
In the Matter of
)
Docket Nos. 50-443-0L
)
50-444-0L PUBLIC SERVICE COMPANY
)
(ASLBP No. 82-471-02-0L) 0F NEW HAMPSHIRE, et al.
(Offsite Emergency Planning)
(Seabrook Station, Units 1 and 2)
)
June 24, 1986 gED 3@
ORDER (Requiring Answers To Applicants' Interrogatories By Hampton Falls, Seacoast Anti-Pollution League, South Hampton and Kensington)
On April 28, 1986, Applicants filed Offsite EP Interrogatories and Request For Production of Documents addressed to SAPL, Town of Hampton Falls, Town of South Hampton and Town of Kensington.
The Towns of Kensingt A on May 14, 1986 and Hampton Falls and South Hampton on May 12, 1986 filed Answers to Applicants' Offsite EP Interrogatories. On May 13, 1986, SAPL's Answers to Applicants' Offsite EP Interrogatories were filed.
On May 27, 1986, Applicants filed a Motion For An Order Compelling Answers To Interrogatories By Hampton Falls, Seacoast Anti-Pollution League, South Hampton and Kensington. Specifically, Applicants sought answers by these four Intervenors to the following:
1.
Answers by Hampton Falls to interrogatories Nos. G-1--G-3 and IV-1--XLII-5.
8606270121 860624 y
PDR ADOCK 05000443
/ (\\.)
N G
']
-__r
.._._y
e 2
2.
Answers by SAPL to interrogatories Nos. G-1--G-3 and I-1--XXIV-6.
3.
Answers by South Hampton to interrogatories Nos. G-1--G-3; I-1--XXIX-5 and XXXV-1--XLII-5.
4.
Answers by Kensington to interrogatories Nos. G-1--G-3; I-1--VI-5 and XIII-1--XLII-5.
OnJune6,1986,thedointMotionBySeacoastAnti-PolIution League, Town of Hampton Falls and Town of South Hampton To Applicants' Motion for an Order Compelling Answers To Interrogatories and Joint Motion For Protective Order was filed with the Board.
Applicants' Response To Joint Objection To Motion To Compel and Motion For Leave To File The Same was filed on June 12, 1986. Also on this date, the NRC Staff advised by letter to the Board and the parties that it took no position in respect to Applicants' Motion To Compel.
j The Board has considered all the pleadings filed with it in this instance although the responses above of June 6 and 12 by Intervenors and Applicants respectively were not in accord with the provisions of 10 CFR 2.730(c). We, thus, have granted leave to submit these motions and responses in order to have the parties' complete representations before us.
We have examined the interrogatories that the four Intervenors have 1
not answered. The Board sees no reason why Hampton Falls in its response of May 12, 1986 begins its response at interrogatory G-4 l
i 1
The Board here uses TOHF as an example since the Intervenors, T0HF, TOSH, Kensington, and SAPL pleadings follow the same pattern.
i
._y n
-. - ~, - -,
6 3
without any response to interrogatories G-1--3 and offers no explanation of why it refuses to respond to the three preceding questions. Such disregard severely hampers the purpose of prehearing discovery which is to refine issues and to prepare adequately for a more expeditious hearing.
In interrogatories IV-1 through XLII-5, or 90 pages of discovery questions, the Town of Hampton Falls, for example, has neither responded with a yes or no, nor stated why it does not. Had the Town of HF chosen to reply to IV-1 in the negative, it could have proceeded to interrog-atory V-1, and skipped over nearly four pages of interrogatories addressed to the subject matter of the interrogatory IV-1--11 series.
In its Joint Objection, SAPL, T0HF, and TOSH state they had responded to the general interrogatories and to those specific interrogatories
" directed to the contentions of each respective party." The record before us, however, does not support the statement of these Intervenors.
What the Intervenors do, however, is to argue that:
(1) Applicant had waited until the last day of the discovery period to serve their interrogatories and then the interrogatories sought extensive infor-mation "on each and every contention admitted to this proceeding"; (2) i i
That Applicant, in its definitions on page 4, had defined the term I
litigate as follows:
" Litigate with regard to a topic or contention l
means to offer direct testimony relating to, to cross-examine on, to offer proposed findings or rulings regarding, or to urge the denial (or allowance subject to conditions) of the pending application on the basis of the topic or contention."
Intervenors find objection to Applicants'
e 4
use of "to cross-examine on."
Also, Intervenors state that Applicants could find answers to general interrogatories in the context of answers to specific interrogatories; and (3) That Applicant be prevented from the annoyance, oppression and undue burden of responding to Applicants' interrogatories.
We find these arguments without merit.
Every contention contains many issues. Where there are forty-nine contentions as in this case, many with subparts, discovery was to be expected to be finely detailed.
To respond may be burdensome, although not unreasonable, but it is the price of litigation. The Applicants have the burden of proof but Intervenors cannot merely raise an issue and stand by and watch Applicants, NRC Staff and the Board struggle to sort through the maze.
Intervenors are full participants whose responsibilities in litigation include clear and complete answers to interrogatories where "the information sought appears reasonably calculated to lead to the discovery of admissible evidence."
If an Intervenor seeks to litigate through cross-examination, there is the same obligation to respond to interrogatories to the extent the Intervenor is presently able. The manner of conducting its case is not determinative; the subject matters and the extent that the Intervenor intends to participate in the litigation are. Discovery in NRC proceedings serves the same purpose as discovery in any trial: it enables parties to move adequately to prepare for litigation which 1
a f
5 in turn increases parties' ability to develop a complete record while cutting down on unnecessary inconvenience, surprise and expense during trial. Pennsylvania Power and Light Company (Susquehanna Station. Units 1 and 2), ALAB-613, 12 NRC 317, 322 (1980).
We believe this to be,the case of the four areas Applicants seek an order to compel answers in this instant. The Board grants Applicants' Motion To Compel Responses addressed to the Intervenors SAPL, Town of Hampton Falls, Town of South Hampton and Town of Kensington as follows:
To HF
- G-1--G-3 and IV-1--XLII-52 SAPL - G-1--G-3 and I l--XXXIV-6 TOSH - G-1--G-3; and I-1--XXIX-5 TOK - G-1--G-3; I-1--V1-5 and XIII-1--XLII-5.
FOR THE AT MIC SAFETY AND LICE INGK0ARD D/
Helen F. Hoyt, Chairpergn Administrative Judge Dated at Bethesda, Maryland this 24th day of June 1986.
2 The Applicants' Motion to Compel in SAPL's case sought to compel answers to G-1--G3 and I-1--XXIV-6.
It is an obvious typographical error that Applicant indicated " XXIV-6." The intent of the Motion was to compel answers to XXXIV-6 since there is no interrogatory XXIV-6. The Board's secretary inquired, on 6/23/86 for the Board, of Applicants' counsel who confirmed the typographical error and will file a correction for the parties.
.