ML20009F845

Motion to Compel Answers to Commonwealth of Ma First Set of Interrogatories Directed to Util Re Emergency Planning. Interrogatories Are Relevant to Contentions.Certificate of Svc Encl

ML20009F845
Person / Time
Site:	05000471
Issue date:	07/24/1981
From:	Shotwell J MASSACHUSETTS, COMMONWEALTH OF
To:	Atomic Safety and Licensing Board Panel
References
NUDOCS 8108030097
Download: ML20009F845 (10)

Text

_

4  %.

~ ,

s

- (6--

fUL 29 gggy , f*

\'

7 UNITED STATES OF AMERICA Citic3 N M 't a S c!th N34 9 shf NUCLEAR REG LATORY COMMISSION b

Before the Atomic Safety and Licensino Boa G #

7[AN N In the Matter of:

c'\[y1 U We f';s

)' .q\

x >y- c.

]t, x BOSTON EDISON COMPANY, et al [ ] M Docket No. 50-471 (Pilgrim Nuclear Generating f -

g'4 JUL l; 1 }981 > M Station, Unit 2) , 7 -

Y u.s,uxtra aikwoes ,h g{D[Q\ { 4/k MOTION OF THE COMMONWEALTH OF MASSACHUSETTS TO COMPEL ANSWERS TO ITS FIRST SET OF INTERROGATORIES TO BOSTON EDISON COMPANY RE~ ATIVE TO EMERGENCY PLANNING At the prehearing conf erence on July 1, 1981, the Commonwealth filed its First Set of Interrogatories to Boston Edison Company Relative to Emergency Planning. Boston Edison Co. [ hereinafter, "the Appli. cant") , -af ter obtaining by agreement of the Commonwealth an extension of its response period, served its Response to these interrogatories on July 21, 1981.

c I While the Applicant has provided reasonably complete and responsive answers to most of the Commonwealth's interrogatories, it has obj ected to a few of those interrogatories on the grounds of irrelevancy. The questions to which the Applicant has objected are probably the most relevant cuestions asked. For t '. . a t reason, and for the reasons 8108030097 810724

{DRADOCK 05000471 /y l )

PDR

_2_

outlined below with respect to particular ir errogatories, the Commonwealth hereby moves pursuant to 10 C.F.R. 52. 740 (f ) that the Applicant be compelled to answer those interrogatories to which it has objected and those interrogatories to which it has provided incomplete or evasive responses.

The Commonwealth notes that, as of t' e date of this writing, the Applicant has not to its knowledge filed a Motion for a Protective Order pursuant to 10 C.F.R. $ 2.740 (c) with respect to those interrogatories which it found objectionable.

l If the Board has not received such a Motion by the time it acts hereon it must grant this Motion to Compel in its entirety. As 10 C.F.R. 52. 740 (f) (1) states, "[f]ailure to answer or respond

[to an interrogatory] shall not be excused on the ground that the discovery sought is objectionable unless the person or party failing to answer or r'spond e has applied for a protective order pursuant to. paragraph (c) of this section.

Interrogatories No. 3 and No. 4 The Commonwealth. asks in these interrogatories whether the Applicant has conducted any accident consequence analyses for, or having relevance to, the Pilgrim site and, if so, what the results were of any such analyses. The Applicant has refused to answer on the grounds of irrelevancy.

The Commonwealth could not have asked a question which is more relevant to this proceeding on emergency planning at ,

Pilgrim II. The Commonwealth's contention places into issue

both the feasibility of emergency measures at the Pilgrim site and the adequacy of the Applicant's preliminary plans i therefor. If the Applicant has conducted any accident consequence analyses, the results of said analyses are relevant to both the area within which emergency measures must be planned and the feasibility of effectuating evacuation or other emergency actions within that area. If the Applicant has not conducted such an analysis, that fact is relevant to the manner in which it has arrived at its proposed boundaries for emergency planning zones at Pilgrim.

These issues are directly raised by the Commonwealth's contention and by the Commission's own rules on emergency planning, which provide that the size and configuration of emergency planning zones and the feasibility of taking protective action therein must be determined at the construction permit stage and on a site-specific basis. Thus, 10 C.F.R., Appendix E provides that "[t]he size of the EPZs for a nuclear power plant shall be determined in relation to local emergency response needs and capabilities as they are affected by such conditions as demography, topography, land characteristics, access routes, and jurisdictional boundaries." And, with respect to the standard of review to be applied to PSAR's, it states The Preliminary Safety Analysis Report shall contain sufficient information to ensure the_ compatibility of proposed emergency plans for both onsite areas and the EPZs, with facility design features, site layout,

_4_

and site location with respect to such considerations as access routes, surrounding population distributions, land use, and local jurisdictional boundaries for the EPZs . . ."

Through its Interrogatories No. 3 and 4 the Commonwealth seeks to learn whether the Applicant has considered these site-specific features in arriving at its propose.d EPZs, as required by the Commission's rules and, if so, whether the results of its analyses support its proposed boundaries. The Commonwealth is at a loss to understand the Applicant's rationale for withholding any such information from public view.

Finally, the Commonwealth notes that the Staff has answered the Commonwealth's Interrogatories No. 6 and 7 to it, which ask whether the Staff has conducted any acci: ent consequence analyses for the Pilgrim site and, if 3, with what e-3ults. Were the subject matter of these questions irrelevant to this proceeding , the Staf f would assuredly have obj ected thereto.

Interrocatory No. 5 The Applicant has answered this question and stated no obj ections thereto. However , it has f ailed to disclose , as requested in the interrogatory, assumptions made with respect to an acceptable level of risk to the evacuating population.

This request goes to the very heart of the Commonwealth's contention with respect to feasibility, since any judgment that evacuation can be safely accomplished necessarily entails a judgment as to the level of safety required , or the meaning of

the word " safely" in this context. It is this underlying judgment which the Commonwealth seeks to discover and asks this Board to compel.

Interrogatory No. 6 Again, the Applicant has provided an incomplete answer to this interrogatory, despite its lack of objection thereto. The Applicant's answer indicates a belief that protective action (s) could be required outside the plume exposure pathway EPZ dra'wn in t.1e PSAR, althouch in the Applicant's opinien such a need is unlikely. And yet the Applicant has failed to indicate, as requested, those areas and circumstances in which protective action (s) might be required , the amount of time which would be available f rom the initiation of the event (s) necessitating the protective action (s) before the particular action (s) would have to commence and be f ully implemented, or its assumptions as to an acemstable level of risk to the public.

The Commonwealth asks this Board to compel a complete and responsive answer to this question so that it nay fully J

understand the Applicent's position with respect to the area l

within which emergency planning must take place. As the recent

i. decision of the Atomic Saf ety and Licensing Appeal Board confirms, the Commonwealth is entitled to liberal discovery of the position o' the Applicant on any issue which is so f undamental to its emergency planning contentica as the proper area within which such planning need occur. South Carolina t

. _ _ . _ _ . _ = _ _ _ _ _--

j - .

i

- Electric and Gas Comoany, et al. (Virgil C. Summer Nuclear Stacien, Unit 1) [1981} 2 NUCLEAR REGULATION REPORTER (CCH) 530,591, at 29, 793.

Interrocatory 1.:. 26 i

The Applicant has objected to providing the results of its analyses of evacuation times at Pilgrim to the extent those results involve areas outside the Applicant's proposed plume exposure pathway EPZ. It has protided no bases for its objection. Any such results are clearly relevant to the  ;

' Commonwealth's contention, since they reflect on the i feasibility of evacuating the population surrounding the Pilgrim site. While the Applicant may feel that evacuation need not be planned or its feasibility studied in an area greater that its proposed plume exposure pathway EPZ, that question remains to be settled, at least in the f'~st instance, by this Board. As we discussed above, the Commission's regulations require that the Board determine the appropriate area within which planning must take place and feasibility must be determined for any particular plant in the course of the construction permit proceeding ar.d on the basis of site-specific factors. The complete results of the Applicant's study of evacuation at the Pilgrim site are clearly relevant to whether the Applicant and Staff have correctly determined the apprcpriate planning zone and corrcetly assessed the feasibility of taking protective actins within that zone.

,w - --

y.-* .---y59- ---ee g w~ w. . - - - _ - _% + -s - - -..

_7 Interrogatory No. 30 The Applicant indicates, in its answer to this interrogatory, that it is attaching to the response a copy of a letter from the NRC Staff dated July 2, 1980. That letter has, in fact, not been attached to the response. The Commonwealth asks that it be provided.

Interrogatory No. 35 The Commonwealth moves to compel a response to this interrogatory, relating to the means for notification of the public which currently exist at the Pilgrim site. Contrary to the Applicant's assertion, the means which exist for notifying

)

the public are relevant at the construction permit stage, for 10 C.F.R. 50, Appendix E, Section II specifically provides that the means by which "the public is to be notified and instructed" of the need for protective action be outlined in the Applicant's PSAR.

1 Interrogatory No. 43 l

The Applicant has not objected to this interrogatory, but 1

i has nonetheless provided an incomplete and evasive answer. It has failed to identify, as requested, the particular localities and agencies thereof which reviewed its evacuation study as required by NUREG-0654 or to describe the nature of the

! comments received from state and local officials. The Commonwealth asks the Board to compel a complete response so that it may be advised as to the extent of review which has i

i l

i

_a_

taken place and the extent to which respc asible of ficials agree with the results of the study.

Interrogatory No. 58 The Applicant has made no objection to this interrogatory, but has nonetheless given an unresponsive answer. The Commonwealth asked to know every individual who helped prepare Amendments 40 and 41 to the PSAR and the Applicant has expressly named only the " principal authors" ther?cf. While the Commonwealth is not seeking the names of clerical personnel who assisted in the preparation of the Amendments, it does wish to know every author thereof and e.very officer, director or employee of the Applicant or HMM Associates, Inc., who contributed to the substance of these Amendments regarding emergency planning. Accordingly , the Commonwealth asks the Board to compel a more complete answer to this interrogatory.

Respectfully submitted,

=- -

% - kf O ANN SHOTWELL Assistant Attorney General Environmental Protection Division Public Protection Bureau Department of the Attorney General One Ashburton Place, 19th Floor Boston, Massachusetts 02108 (617) 727-2265 Dated: '

e2 f-( / 7 T /

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSION BEFORE THE ATOMIC SAFETY AND LICENSING BOARD

)

In the Matter of )

)

BOSTON EDISON COMPANY et al. ) Docket No. 50-471 (Pilgrim Nuclear Generating )

Station, Unit 2) )

)

)

CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE I hereby certify that the within Motion has been served on the following by deposit of copies thereof in the United States Mail, first class mail, postage prepaid this 24th day of July,1981:

Andrew C. Goodhope, Esq. Henry Herrman , Esq.

Chairman Room 1045 Atomic Safety and 50 Congress Street Licensing Board Boston, Massachusetts 02109 3320 Estelle Terrace Wheaton, Maryland 20906 'Mr . & Mrs. Alan R. Cleeton 22 Mackintosh Street Dr. A. Dixon Callihan Franklin, Massachusetts 02038 Union Carbide Corporation P.O. Box Y William S. Abbot, Esq.

Oak Ridge, Tennessee 37830 Suite 925 50 Congress Street Dr. Richard F. Cole Boston, Massachusetts 02109 Atomic Safety and Licensing Board Thomas G. Dignan, Jr., Esq.

U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Ropes & Gray Commission 225 Franklin Street Washington, D.C. 20555 Boston, Massachusetts 02110 Patrick J. Kenny, Esq. Atomic Safety and Licensing Edward.L. Selgrade, Esq. Appeal Board Deputy Director U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Mass. Office of Energy Commission Resources Washington, D.C. 20555 1

73 Tremont Street Bos ton , Massachuset ts 2108

Atomic Safety and Licensing Office of the Secretary Board Panel Docketing and Service Section U.S. Nuclear Regulatory U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission Commission Washington, D.C. 20555 Washington, D.C. 20555 Chief Librarian Jack R. Goldberg Plymouth Public Library Office of the Executive North Street 02360 Legal Director Plymouth, Massachusetts U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission William S. Stowe, Esquire Was hing ton , D .C. 20555 Boston Edison Company 800 Boylston Street Thomas S. Moore , Chairman Boston, Massachusetts 02199 Atomic Safety and Licensing Appeal Board Francis S. Wright, Esquire U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Berman & Lewenberg Commission 211 Congress St.

Washington, D.C. 20555 Boston, Massachusetts 02110 Christine N. Kohl, Esquire Dr. John H. Buck Atomic Safety and Licensing Atomic Saf ety and Licensing Appeal Board Appeal Board U.S. Nuclear Regulatory U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission Commission Washington, D.C. 20555 Washington, D.C. 20555 Stephen H. Lewis R. K. Gad III U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Ropes & Gray Commission 225 Franklin Street Office of the Executive Boston, Massachusetts 02110 Legal Director Washington, D.C. 20555 h^

ff Ann Shotwell

%ssistant Attorney General Environmental Protection Division Public Protection Bureau Department of the Attorney General One Ashburton Place, 19th Floor Boston, Massachusetts 02108 l (617) 727-2265

(

l