ML20205G008: Difference between revisions

From kanterella
Jump to navigation Jump to search
(StriderTol Bot insert)
 
(StriderTol Bot change)
 
Line 18: Line 18:


=Text=
=Text=
{{#Wiki_filter:}}
{{#Wiki_filter:' '            '
      $ 73fd N*
l UNITED STATES OF AMERICA            uYh f NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSION ATOMIC SAFETY AND LICENSING BOARD '8B DCT 27 P4 :32              L Before the Administrative Judges:.n,m-      1:                  :
Ivan W. Smith, Chairman      hocsp 4 p, < . , ,,3          l Gustave A. Linenberger, Jr.          E uh -                  -
Dr. Jerry Harbour                                      F
                                                        )                                            l In the Matter of                      )    Docket Nos.                            j
                                                        )    50-443-OL, 50-444-OL                  ,
PUBLIC SERVICE COMPANY          )    (Off-Site EP)
OF NEW HAMPSHIRE, ET AL.        )
                                                        )                                            !
(Seabrook Station, Units 1 and 2))          October 26, 1988
                                                        )
MASSACHUSETTS ATTORNEY GENERAL'S                                t MOTID1LE91LEXTENSIOF OE. DISCOVERY SCHEDULE                            [
Massachusetts Attorney General James M. Shannon ("Mass AG")                  f hereby moves the Licensing Board for an extension of the discovery schedule.      The schedule now calls for all discovery                :
requests to be served by November 15, 1988.1#
'                                                                                                    t i                                                                                                  I 1/  There is some ambiguity as to the actual closure date for                    ;
e                discovery in the schedule now set. According to the transcript a                of the prehearing conference, the November 15th date is only
;                the date by which all discovery must be served, not the date by which all responses must be in. For example, in a colloquy between Mr. Dignan and the Board, Mr. Dignan proposed that                        ,
,                "x plus 14 days discovery cinnes on the case, across the board,                  !
whatever that date is," and then responded to Judge Smith's                      :
4                inquiry whether that time frame included responses, "No. Get                      i j                it out." II. 14679-680 (emphasis added) (August 4, 1988).                        !
u Thereafter when the Board set the closure date as                            !
4                November 15, Judge Smith stated that it was "very likely that                    ;
we will also be closing out discovery on the exercise at the                      i l                same time. But we're not setting that." Mr. Traficonte                        !
whereupon noted that the only way discovery could close on the                    :
exercise on November 15 would be if it were a two-week                            i discovery period. II. 14692-693.        It seems clear from this                  !
context that the discovery closure dato could only reasonably                    [
refer to the time period for getting discovery out, not for                      ;
;                completing responses.                                                            ,
881020017$ 001026 PDR                                                                                  3 J
G    ADOCK 05000443                                                            hbh0 i
PDR                                                                    ,
I                                                                                                  I
 
6 Mass AG, for the reasons set forth below, seeks to extend until January 12th the time within which to coinplete all discovery (including all discovery responses).
The additional time is necessary in order to fully respond to the massive discovery requests serve a on the Mass AG by the Applicants and NRC Staff.                  Applicants and NRC Staff have each served on the Mass AG three sets of interrogatories with requests for production of documents.                  The last two sets served by the Applicants were received on October 12 and October 17, comprise over 150 pages and contain over 560 separate interrogatories.                  NRC Staff's third set of interrogatories, received on October 8, amount to over one hundred interrogatories, counting sub-interrogatories.                  These interrogatories, for the most part, do not seek simple factual information that can be readily responded to in one or two sentences.A                  Mass AG must engage in extensive and exhaustive 2/                  For example, NRC Staff's Interrogatories Nos. 2 and 3 (Third Set) asks the Intervenors to:
: 2. Identify and list all actions to protect the public in the event of a radiological emergency at Seabrook Station which a) you would take b) you might take c) you could take
: 3. Identify and list all resources to take the actions identified to the prior Interrogatory (Interrogatoty No.
: 2) you a) have b) may have.
NRC Staff's Third Set of Interrogatories, dated October                  6, 1988, at p. 9 (emphasis added).
2 -
 
i document searches and consultations with dozens of state agency personnel before he can even begin to provide responses to these interrogatories and requests for production.
Since September, when NRC Staff's first set of interrogatories was served, one Assistant Attorney General has been engaged full-time (including numerous nights and weekends) in the sole task of gathering documents from state agencies in order to fully respond to NRC Staff's first set of interrogatories. This task has required, inter alia:
contacting the various state agencies (after consultation with NRC Staff, our initial efforts are focussed on eight statis agencies, located in various parts of the Commonwealth);
arranging meetings with the appropriate agency personnel (for most agencies, a series of meetings have been necessary, the scheduling of which is often in itself problematic, resulting in delay due to prior agency commitments and/or scheduling conflicts); gaining access to and searching the agencies' files and/or instructing the agency personnel in the requirements of the document search and directing them in their searches;3' 3/  The Mass AG has already examined the contents of dozens of file cabinets. To respond fully and adequately, however, will entail the review of many more files. The experience so fat has been that the agencies cannot search through all their files at once; so we are required to return repeatedly to some agencies to examine additional materials as they are located and brought to our attention. In addition, various agencies have continued to supplement their initial response as agency staffers delve deeper into their own files.
 
d arranging transportation of all located documents; photocopying the documents; and organizing and reviewing all the documents received. This search for and review of documents and coordination of interrogatory responses from the various state agencies is such a labor-intensive and extremely time-consuming task that the Mass AG believes that it has grounds to object to  ,
these discovery requests as being overly burdensome. The Mass AG has nevertheless agreed with the NRC Staff to undertake this massive task out of a belief that such a search may well produce relevant materici and, once performed, should aid all parties in a full and fair litigation of this case. Moreover, the recent decision in the Shoreham case, in which all government parties were dismissed for failure to fully
]    cooperate in discovery on the realism contentions and to 1
produce all relevant documents, has impressed even more upon the Mass AG the need to perform this document search with the utmost diligence. Nevertheless, devoting all possible resources to this discovery response, it will be at least six weeks before it can be completed. And until this document search is complete, and the documents comprehensively reviewed, the Mass AG cannot even begin to provide complete and accurate  ,
responses to the more than 660 interrogatories and the requests for documents served in mid-October on the Intervenors by Applicants and Staff.
In light of the enormous amount of defensive discovery just  ,
i  served on Mass AG, additional time beyond November 15th is      >
                                  -4  -                            I
 
l l
also needed to adequately complete offensive discovery. This is so especially with respect to FEMA on whom discovery could not be served prior to October 15. Ege TI. 14690. Requests for production of Documents have been served on FEMA and a deposition of Richard Donovan has been noticed for llovember 9, 1988 (the earliest date that would allow time for FEMA to produce the documents and allow the Mass AG some minimal time 2    to review the documents prior to the deposition). More discovery on FEMA may well be needed depending on what is disclosed at the deposition or in the document production.      In J
addition, Intervenors have been awaiting the receipt of FEMA's l    review of the SpMC, which presumably will be central to th9
;    position the agency will take at the hearings, so that they may intelligently draft appropriate further discovery on FEMA.
1    This review was just received on October 21, 1988, and is in the process  .f being reviewed so that interrogatories and 1    requests for documents relevant thereto can be drafted.
l The Mass AG has already served Applicants with interrogatories and requests for documents and have held one deposition. More depositions must be noticed once responses to i    interrogatories indicating the appropriate people to depose are received. Additional follow-up discovery will also be needed.
The Mass AG will be hard pressed to complete this necessary discovery in light of the extensive resources that must now be devoted to responding to the discovery of Applicants and Staff.
5-
 
7.__-_______-__-________________________
Since the onset of this discovery period, the Mass AG has been truly stretched to the very limits of its resources.S This additional time should not unduly delay the hearing and is needed for a full and fair litigation of this case.
Respectfully submitted, JAMES M. SHANNON ATTORNEY GENERAL COMMONWEALTH OF MASSACHUSETTS i        -
By:                            d %c \  'a                            A+(i                  s s ./
Carol S. Sneider
* Assistant Attorney General Nuclear Safety Unit One Ashburton Place Boston, MA                                02108 (617) 727-2200                                                                    i Dated:    October 26, 1988 l
4/  The Mass AG has been involved, intnr. al_la, with:                                                                                                      filing proposed findings on the sheltering portion of the New Hampshire part of this case, as well as a response to 1
Applicants' reply findings; filing contentions on the Joint Exercise of the SPMC and NHRERp; filing replies to Applicants and Staff's Responses to contentions; Organizing and negotiating the consolidation of the contentions on the SPMC; litigation of the siren issue before the on-site Licensing Board; and ptoparing a response, due November 7, to Applicants'                                                                                                                          ,
tbtion for Summary Disposition (served on October 7th) on the legal authority issue, a key issue in the SPMC portion of the case. During this same time period, long-standing (and well                                                                                                                          !
needed) vacation plans (including the marriage of one of its                                                                                                                            l attorneys) has accounted for a loss of over nine weeks of Mass AG attorney time. Attorneys in the office have been working on this case virtually around the clock.
l Given this schedule, Intervenors have only barely begun to                                                                                                                        I be able to commence developing their affirmative case in support of their cont,entions.
i L
 
I L,
s
                                                                            *a Lj~
                                                                            . ~ n ..
Uti1TED STATES OF AMERICA 11UCLEAR PEGULATORY COMMISSION T3 00 27 P4 :32 ATOMIC SAFETY A11D LICEt1 SING BOARD
                                                                  .:, r s '
Before the Administrative Judges:          UGC M"'    7. 'L ,"' '
Ivan W. Smith, Chairman Gustave A. Linenberger, Jr.
Dr. Jerry Harbour
                                              )
In the Matter of                        )  Docket Nos. 50-443-CL
                                              )                50-444-OL PUBLIC SERVICE COMPAt1Y        )              (Off-Site EP)
OF 11EW IfAMPSHIRS. ET AL.      )
                                              )
(Seabrook Station, Units 1 and 2        )        Ocotber 26, 1988
                                              )
MOTIOt1 OF THE MASSACHUSETTS ATTORt1EY GEt1ERAL TO FXTEND TIME WITHIN Wl:ICH TO RESPOND TO THE APPL I cat 1TS ' MOTION FOR SUMMAFY DISPOSITIOt1 OF JHIRT IllTERVEllOR CONTEt1TIO M 4A_A11D 44B Pursuant to 10 C.F.R. S 2.711, the Massachusetts Attorney General hereby requests that the time for him to reply to the Applicants's Motion for Summary Disposition of Joint Intervonors Contentions 44A and 448 be extended to Plovember                7, 1988. As grounds for this motion the Joint Intervenors state:
: 1. The legal authority issue is a complex one and Macc AG requires additional time to draft a proper response.
: 2. The Miss AG has been recently involved in discovery regarding the SPMC and preparing replies to the responses of the Applicants and t1RC Staff to the Exercise contentions and has not had an opportunity to fully address the issues raised in the Applicants' Motion for Summary Disposition.
: 3. The f1RC Staff and the Applicants have assented to this motion.}}

Latest revision as of 19:08, 29 December 2020

Commonwealth of Ma Atty General Motion for Extension of Discovery Schedule.* Extension Until 890112 Requested in Order to Fully Respond to Massive Discovery Requests
ML20205G008
Person / Time
Site: Seabrook  NextEra Energy icon.png
Issue date: 10/26/1988
From: Sneider C
MASSACHUSETTS, COMMONWEALTH OF
To:
Atomic Safety and Licensing Board Panel
Shared Package
ML20205G013 List:
References
CON-#488-7380 OL, NUDOCS 8810280175
Download: ML20205G008 (6)
v • d • e


Text

' ' '

$ 73fd N*

l UNITED STATES OF AMERICA uYh f NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSION ATOMIC SAFETY AND LICENSING BOARD '8B DCT 27 P4 :32 L Before the Administrative Judges:.n,m- 1:  :

Ivan W. Smith, Chairman hocsp 4 p, < . , ,,3 l Gustave A. Linenberger, Jr. E uh - -

Dr. Jerry Harbour F

) l In the Matter of ) Docket Nos. j

) 50-443-OL, 50-444-OL ,

PUBLIC SERVICE COMPANY ) (Off-Site EP)

OF NEW HAMPSHIRE, ET AL. )

)  !

(Seabrook Station, Units 1 and 2)) October 26, 1988

)

MASSACHUSETTS ATTORNEY GENERAL'S t MOTID1LE91LEXTENSIOF OE. DISCOVERY SCHEDULE [

Massachusetts Attorney General James M. Shannon ("Mass AG") f hereby moves the Licensing Board for an extension of the discovery schedule. The schedule now calls for all discovery  :

requests to be served by November 15, 1988.1#

' t i I 1/ There is some ambiguity as to the actual closure date for  ;

e discovery in the schedule now set. According to the transcript a of the prehearing conference, the November 15th date is only

the date by which all discovery must be served, not the date by which all responses must be in. For example, in a colloquy between Mr. Dignan and the Board, Mr. Dignan proposed that ,

, "x plus 14 days discovery cinnes on the case, across the board,  !

whatever that date is," and then responded to Judge Smith's  :

4 inquiry whether that time frame included responses, "No. Get i j it out." II. 14679-680 (emphasis added) (August 4, 1988).  !

u Thereafter when the Board set the closure date as  !

4 November 15, Judge Smith stated that it was "very likely that  ;

we will also be closing out discovery on the exercise at the i l same time. But we're not setting that." Mr. Traficonte  !

whereupon noted that the only way discovery could close on the  :

exercise on November 15 would be if it were a two-week i discovery period. II. 14692-693. It seems clear from this  !

context that the discovery closure dato could only reasonably [

refer to the time period for getting discovery out, not for  ;

completing responses. ,

881020017$ 001026 PDR 3 J

G ADOCK 05000443 hbh0 i

PDR ,

I I

6 Mass AG, for the reasons set forth below, seeks to extend until January 12th the time within which to coinplete all discovery (including all discovery responses).

The additional time is necessary in order to fully respond to the massive discovery requests serve a on the Mass AG by the Applicants and NRC Staff. Applicants and NRC Staff have each served on the Mass AG three sets of interrogatories with requests for production of documents. The last two sets served by the Applicants were received on October 12 and October 17, comprise over 150 pages and contain over 560 separate interrogatories. NRC Staff's third set of interrogatories, received on October 8, amount to over one hundred interrogatories, counting sub-interrogatories. These interrogatories, for the most part, do not seek simple factual information that can be readily responded to in one or two sentences.A Mass AG must engage in extensive and exhaustive 2/ For example, NRC Staff's Interrogatories Nos. 2 and 3 (Third Set) asks the Intervenors to:

2. Identify and list all actions to protect the public in the event of a radiological emergency at Seabrook Station which a) you would take b) you might take c) you could take
3. Identify and list all resources to take the actions identified to the prior Interrogatory (Interrogatoty No.
2) you a) have b) may have.

NRC Staff's Third Set of Interrogatories, dated October 6, 1988, at p. 9 (emphasis added).

2 -

i document searches and consultations with dozens of state agency personnel before he can even begin to provide responses to these interrogatories and requests for production.

Since September, when NRC Staff's first set of interrogatories was served, one Assistant Attorney General has been engaged full-time (including numerous nights and weekends) in the sole task of gathering documents from state agencies in order to fully respond to NRC Staff's first set of interrogatories. This task has required, inter alia:

contacting the various state agencies (after consultation with NRC Staff, our initial efforts are focussed on eight statis agencies, located in various parts of the Commonwealth);

arranging meetings with the appropriate agency personnel (for most agencies, a series of meetings have been necessary, the scheduling of which is often in itself problematic, resulting in delay due to prior agency commitments and/or scheduling conflicts); gaining access to and searching the agencies' files and/or instructing the agency personnel in the requirements of the document search and directing them in their searches;3' 3/ The Mass AG has already examined the contents of dozens of file cabinets. To respond fully and adequately, however, will entail the review of many more files. The experience so fat has been that the agencies cannot search through all their files at once; so we are required to return repeatedly to some agencies to examine additional materials as they are located and brought to our attention. In addition, various agencies have continued to supplement their initial response as agency staffers delve deeper into their own files.

d arranging transportation of all located documents; photocopying the documents; and organizing and reviewing all the documents received. This search for and review of documents and coordination of interrogatory responses from the various state agencies is such a labor-intensive and extremely time-consuming task that the Mass AG believes that it has grounds to object to ,

these discovery requests as being overly burdensome. The Mass AG has nevertheless agreed with the NRC Staff to undertake this massive task out of a belief that such a search may well produce relevant materici and, once performed, should aid all parties in a full and fair litigation of this case. Moreover, the recent decision in the Shoreham case, in which all government parties were dismissed for failure to fully

] cooperate in discovery on the realism contentions and to 1

produce all relevant documents, has impressed even more upon the Mass AG the need to perform this document search with the utmost diligence. Nevertheless, devoting all possible resources to this discovery response, it will be at least six weeks before it can be completed. And until this document search is complete, and the documents comprehensively reviewed, the Mass AG cannot even begin to provide complete and accurate ,

responses to the more than 660 interrogatories and the requests for documents served in mid-October on the Intervenors by Applicants and Staff.

In light of the enormous amount of defensive discovery just ,

i served on Mass AG, additional time beyond November 15th is >

-4 - I

l l

also needed to adequately complete offensive discovery. This is so especially with respect to FEMA on whom discovery could not be served prior to October 15. Ege TI. 14690. Requests for production of Documents have been served on FEMA and a deposition of Richard Donovan has been noticed for llovember 9, 1988 (the earliest date that would allow time for FEMA to produce the documents and allow the Mass AG some minimal time 2 to review the documents prior to the deposition). More discovery on FEMA may well be needed depending on what is disclosed at the deposition or in the document production. In J

addition, Intervenors have been awaiting the receipt of FEMA's l review of the SpMC, which presumably will be central to th9

position the agency will take at the hearings, so that they may intelligently draft appropriate further discovery on FEMA.

1 This review was just received on October 21, 1988, and is in the process .f being reviewed so that interrogatories and 1 requests for documents relevant thereto can be drafted.

l The Mass AG has already served Applicants with interrogatories and requests for documents and have held one deposition. More depositions must be noticed once responses to i interrogatories indicating the appropriate people to depose are received. Additional follow-up discovery will also be needed.

The Mass AG will be hard pressed to complete this necessary discovery in light of the extensive resources that must now be devoted to responding to the discovery of Applicants and Staff.

5-

7.__-_______-__-________________________

Since the onset of this discovery period, the Mass AG has been truly stretched to the very limits of its resources.S This additional time should not unduly delay the hearing and is needed for a full and fair litigation of this case.

Respectfully submitted, JAMES M. SHANNON ATTORNEY GENERAL COMMONWEALTH OF MASSACHUSETTS i -

By: d %c \ 'a A+(i s s ./

Carol S. Sneider

  • Assistant Attorney General Nuclear Safety Unit One Ashburton Place Boston, MA 02108 (617) 727-2200 i Dated: October 26, 1988 l

4/ The Mass AG has been involved, intnr. al_la, with: filing proposed findings on the sheltering portion of the New Hampshire part of this case, as well as a response to 1

Applicants' reply findings; filing contentions on the Joint Exercise of the SPMC and NHRERp; filing replies to Applicants and Staff's Responses to contentions; Organizing and negotiating the consolidation of the contentions on the SPMC; litigation of the siren issue before the on-site Licensing Board; and ptoparing a response, due November 7, to Applicants' ,

tbtion for Summary Disposition (served on October 7th) on the legal authority issue, a key issue in the SPMC portion of the case. During this same time period, long-standing (and well  !

needed) vacation plans (including the marriage of one of its l attorneys) has accounted for a loss of over nine weeks of Mass AG attorney time. Attorneys in the office have been working on this case virtually around the clock.

l Given this schedule, Intervenors have only barely begun to I be able to commence developing their affirmative case in support of their cont,entions.

i L

I L,

s

  • a Lj~

. ~ n ..

Uti1TED STATES OF AMERICA 11UCLEAR PEGULATORY COMMISSION T3 00 27 P4 :32 ATOMIC SAFETY A11D LICEt1 SING BOARD

.:, r s '

Before the Administrative Judges: UGC M"' 7. 'L ,"' '

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

Dr. Jerry Harbour

)

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

) 50-444-OL PUBLIC SERVICE COMPAt1Y ) (Off-Site EP)

OF 11EW IfAMPSHIRS. ET AL. )

)

(Seabrook Station, Units 1 and 2 ) Ocotber 26, 1988

)

MOTIOt1 OF THE MASSACHUSETTS ATTORt1EY GEt1ERAL TO FXTEND TIME WITHIN Wl:ICH TO RESPOND TO THE APPL I cat 1TS ' MOTION FOR SUMMAFY DISPOSITIOt1 OF JHIRT IllTERVEllOR CONTEt1TIO M 4A_A11D 44B Pursuant to 10 C.F.R. S 2.711, the Massachusetts Attorney General hereby requests that the time for him to reply to the Applicants's Motion for Summary Disposition of Joint Intervonors Contentions 44A and 448 be extended to Plovember 7, 1988. As grounds for this motion the Joint Intervenors state:

1. The legal authority issue is a complex one and Macc AG requires additional time to draft a proper response.
2. The Miss AG has been recently involved in discovery regarding the SPMC and preparing replies to the responses of the Applicants and t1RC Staff to the Exercise contentions and has not had an opportunity to fully address the issues raised in the Applicants' Motion for Summary Disposition.
3. The f1RC Staff and the Applicants have assented to this motion.
Retrieved from "https://kanterella.com/w/index.php?title=ML20205G008&oldid=3059691"