ML20236D394

From kanterella
Revision as of 15:30, 22 February 2021 by StriderTol (talk | contribs) (StriderTol Bot insert)
(diff) ← Older revision | Latest revision (diff) | Newer revision → (diff)
Jump to navigation Jump to search
Affidavit of Jp Trout.* Discusses Discovery Disputes Between Parties
ML20236D394
Person / Time
Site: Seabrook  NextEra Energy icon.png
Issue date: 03/16/1989
From: Trout J
PUBLIC SERVICE CO. OF NEW HAMPSHIRE, ROPES & GRAY
To:
Shared Package
ML20236D344 List:
References
OL, NUDOCS 8903230085
Download: ML20236D394 (5)


Text

_ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ . _ _ _ _

f. .

l l

f ',s - est;m

a,Ft l

l ~89 MAR 20 P3 :17 March 16, 1989

(

Y..

UNITED STATESiOF: AMERICA NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSION before the ATOMIC SAFETY AND LICENSING BOARD

)

In the Matter of )

)

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

)

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

) Planning Issues)

)

AFFIDAVIT OF JEFFREY P. TROUT I, Jeffrey P. Trout, being on oath, depose and say as follows:

1. I am an attorney in the law firm of Ropes & Gray, one International Place, Boston, Massachusetts. In that capacity I represent the New Hampshire Yankee Division of 1

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 l

(" Mass AG") and Applicants concerning certain outstanding discovery disputes between the parties. The meeting took l

l 8903230085 890316 ,

PDR ADUCK 05000443 Q PDR

place in Conference Room 24A of Ropes & Gray's office at 225 Franklin Street. The meeting commenced at approximately 10:30 a.m. and concluded at approximately 3:00 p.m. In attendance for Mass AG were John Traficonte and Pamela Talbot. Jay Bradford Smith and I represented the Applicants.

3. During the meeting, Mass AG and Applicants discussed 106 separate discovery items concerning which they had disputes. Among those 106 items were 5 (five) in which Mass AG had originally asked for the home addresses and telephone numbers of various individual ORO volunteers and contract service providers.
4. When the first of those five particular requests was reached, the parties disposed of it fairly quickly. Mr.

Traficonte said that he had briefly reviewed both sides' pleadings on the subject, and that he understood that we already had reached an agreement. He stated that he understood that Mass AG only sought home towns for those individuals, not their addresses and telephone numbers. I said that I too believed we were in agreement. I said that Applicants would not disclose home telephone numbers or full addresses, but that since Mass AG had stated that he only  !

wanted the towns in order to determine response times, under those circumstances we were willing to disclose the towns.

Mr. Traficonte agreed, and we then moved on to another item.

5. When each of the other four town requests came up, we merely referred to it as being settled by the prior

_.__ _ -- - - _ _ _ _ _ . - l

1 L

l agreement. I recall that Ms. Talbot, who kept notes for the parties from which, presumably, Mr. Traficonte's subsequent l

confirmatory letter was generated, referred to the issue as "the address rap."

6. As a result of this meeting, I believed that Mass AG had agreed to use the town information only to calculate response times. Applicants produced that information in reliance on that understanding.
7. In mid-February, 1989, Applicants learned that Mass AG was calling individual ORO volunteers and service providers at their homes. We deduced that Mass AG must have l obtained those personal telephone numbers by comparing the names and home towns previously disclosed to telephone directory information. After several days of investigation, we began to draft Applicants' Motion For Sanctions In Response to Mass AG's Deliberate Misuse of Protected Information (" Motion").
8. Both before the Motion was drafted and again prior to its filing, Jay Smith and I reviewed in detail our recollections of the December 5 meeting with Mass AG. The second review occurred in the presence of Kathryn Selleck, who pressed us as to whether our memories corresponded with the draft Motion. In each instance, I agreed with Jay's recollection, and he with mine, and we made sure that the Motion conformed to both.
9. Also prior to the filing of the Motion, I received 1

from William Daley various documentation of thr calls made by Mass AG. I reviewed the documentation thoroughly,.and made certain that the Motion accurately reflected all the facts which Applicants had been able to learn up to that time.

10. On March 3, after the Motion was filed, I had  ;

occasion to speak on the telephone with Mr. Traficonte. At i that time, I recounted to him, in detail, my recollection of the December 5 meeting. He stated that his memory was different, and we concluded that we ware in honest disagreement as to whether we had had an agreement about the town information.

11. In that same conversation of March 3, I also described to Mr.Traficonte the reports we had received about the harassing telephone calls. I recall telling him, in  ;

I

~

particular, that the failure of his investigators to identify themselves "really had people climbing the walls."  !

12. Also in that conversation, Mr. Traficonte stated f 1

that he would never have agreed to any condition on discovery that would prevent him from contacting individuals. I pointed out that Mass AG was free to contact individuals at I work, and that Applicants only sought to stop calls to people's homes. Mr. Traficonte expressly acknowledged this distinction.

id Jpfftef P. Trout March 16, 1989 i

, _ _ ________ _ __ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ - _ _ _ - _ _ _ - _ _ - . _ _ _ - _ _ - - _ _ - _ _ _ - _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ - _ - _ _ _ _ - _ _ _ _ _ _ _ l

.g.

1 The above-subscribed Jeffrey P. Trout appeared before me.

and made oath that he had read the foregoing affidavit and that the statements set forth therein are true to the best of I

his knowledge.

Before me, 1

Notary Public My Commission Expires:  ;

i JAY CPN.10!!D 9;',:.:, *: yn,, f.c,y:n My Comm!ss:on E@ra: M::.:, 2;, g3 I

i i

l l

l l

U . _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ . -.