ML20236D415

Affidavit of JB Smith.* Discusses 881205 Meeting W/ Commonwealth of Ma Re Dicovery Disputes

ML20236D415
Person / Time
Site:	Seabrook
Issue date:	03/16/1989
From:	James Smith PUBLIC SERVICE CO. OF NEW HAMPSHIRE, ROPES & GRAY
To:
Shared Package
ML20236D344	List: ML20236D341 ML20236D375 ML20236D378 ML20236D394 ML20236D415
References
OL, NUDOCS 8903230097
Download: ML20236D415 (4)

Text

_ _ _ _ _ . _ _ - _ _ _ _ _ . _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ ___ - _ _ - _ - _

g W

ea wi+

uc  !

l

'89 tM 20 P3 :17 i March 16, 1989

l. U rlt- 1, 1

00cKE;,h- , ,

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA j NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSION before the 1

ATOMIC SAFETY AND LICENSING BOARD

)

In the Matter of )

)

PUBLIC SERVICE COMPANY OF ) Docket Nos. 50-443-OL i NEW HAMPSHIRE, et al. ) '50-444-OL

) Off-site Emergency (Seabrook Station, Units 1 and 2) ) Planning Issues

)

)

AFFIDAVIT OF JAY BRADFORD SMITH I, Jay Bradford Smith, being on' oath, depose and say as follows:

1. I am an attorney of the law firm of Ropes & Gray, One International Place, Boston, Massachusetts, 02110. In !

that capacity I represent the New Hampshire Yankee Division of Public Service Company of New Hampshire (" Applicants") in connection with the licensing of Seabrook Station.

2. On December 5, 1988, I attended a meeting between the Attorney General for the Commonwealth of Massachusetts

(" Mass AG") and Applicants. Present for Mass AG were John Traficonte and Pamela Talbot. Representing Applicants were l

Jeffrey P. Trout and myself. l g22agc1 Syba O

3. The purpose of this meeting was to negotiate a settlement of outstanding discovery disputes. Mr. Traficonte ,

was the principal negotiator for Mass AG. Mr. Trout was the principal negotiator for Applicants.

4. The issues in dispute were placed in focus by a number of motions to compel filed by both parties.

5. Applicants and Mass AG, in an attempt to reach a 5

compromise, discussed each item that was the subject of these motions. Among these items were several discovery requests seeking the home addresses and telephone numbers of various individual ORO members and service providers. Applicants had objected to disclosing this information on the grounds that l

it amounted to an impermissible invasion of privacy. Mass AG l

had moved to compel a response to these requests. Mass AG's motion to compel an answer to Interrogatory 4(d) of "[ Mass AG's] First Set of Interrogatories to Applicants on the l [SPMC)," October 7, 1988, is illustrative of Mass AG's l

l position with respect to this motion: "The information regarding residential addresses is nevertheless needed by Mass AG in order to determine the location from which these drivers may need to drive to reach their posts in the event of an emergency at Seabrook Station and, thus, to assess the drivers' probable response times." "[ Mass. AG's] Motion to Compel Answers to Interrogatories by Applicants," November 7, 1988 at 2. On the strength of this position of Mass AG,

j i

Applicants had agreed "to produce the names of the city or town and the state where each driver lives under an  !

l appropriate protective agreement or order." " Applicants' Answer in Opposition to [ Mass AG's] Motion to Compel Answers to Interrogatories," November 21, 1988 at 2. )

(

6. It is my recollection that Mr. Traficonte repeated this representation during the December 5, 1988 meeting. I l

do not recall his stating that he planned to use the information for any purpose other than to determine drivers' probable response times.  ;

7. On or about February 21, 1989, in response to .l reports from Applicants that ORO personnel were receiving harassing telephone calls at their homes, Ropes & Gray undertook to investigate and document these allegations and, if appropriate, to draft a motion for sanctions.

8. At that time, Mr. Trout questioned me on my recollection of the December 5, 1988 meeting with Mass AG. I informed Mr. Trout that it was my recollection that Mr.

Traficonte had represented that Mass AG sought the city / town and state of ORO personnel in order to determine driver I

response times. Mr. Trout stated that that conformed to his recollection.

9. After receiving confirmation from Applicants as to first-and-second-hand reports of calls received, a proposed draft of the motion for sanctions was circulated. After i

l l

l l

I

- - - - _ _ - _ - _ _ ____ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ l

i l

t .

1, 1

reading thn draft I met with Mr. Trout and Kate Selleck to ,

discuss it. As Ms. Selleck was not present at the December 5, 1988 meeting, she played the role of " devil's advocate." .

At that meeting we reviewed the draft to determine whether, to the best of our knowledge, it accurately reflected the i I

circumstances that formed the basis of the motion. Given the serious nature of the filing, each statement was carefully examined, and confirmed against either our own recollections l

or the information provided to us. It is my belief that we had, and have, a basis for:each statement.

H h"Y^ W Jay 8radford smith  !

March 16, 1989 The above-subscribed Jay Bradford Smith appeared before .I me and made oath that he had read the foregoing affidavit and l that the statements set forth therein are true to the best of his knowledge.

Before me, k I Notary Public My Commission Expires:

GE0FFi1EY R. 50K, llotary Public My Comr.fssion D@es ikb 9,1995 l

l l^

I l

l

)