ML20066A393
| ML20066A393 | |
| Person / Time | |
|---|---|
| Site: | Seabrook  |
| Issue date: | 12/26/1990 |
| From: | Greer L MASSACHUSETTS, COMMONWEALTH OF |
| To: | PUBLIC SERVICE CO. OF NEW HAMPSHIRE |
| References | |
| CON-#191-11248 OL, NUDOCS 9101030237 | |
| Download: ML20066A393 (38) | |
Text
, c, ._
g
- )lZff>
RELATED CORRESPONDEN0c i eud til UMb(C l UNITED STATES-OF AMERICA NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSION '90 DEC 27 P3 52 ATOMIC SAFETY AND LICENSINO .COARD , .g g y Before the Administrative Judges: Diktb Ivan W. Smith, Chairman Dr. Richard F. Cole Kenneth A. McCollom
)
In the ,atter of ) Dockst Nos. 50-443-OL
) 50-444-OL PUBLIC SERVICE COMPANY )
OF NEW HAMPSHIRE, EI AL. )
)
(Seabrook Station, Units 1 and 2) ) December 26, 1990
)
MASSACHUSETTS ATTORNEY GENERAL'S RESPONSE TO LICENSEES' FIRST SET OF-INTERROGATORIES REGARDING REMANDED MASSACHUSETTS TEACHER ISSUES INTERROGATORIES AND DOCUMENT REQUESTS 1
- 1. F] ease identify the person (s) answering or substantiallyL contributing ro the answer of each of the following interrogatories, and produce a' copy of-each person's most resume.
Resoonse:
-Unless otherwise indicated the interrogatories below were answered by Leslie Greer, Department of the Attorney 3 General, One Ashburton Place,. Boston, MA 02108, 9101030237 901226 PDR o ADOCK 05000443 een Nb
]
~ .. -- -- - . - - . . - - - . - . - . . -
.9
,4
- 2. Please identify all analyses, surveys, studies and reports known:or believed by Mass AG to exist including, but'not limited co, all possessed by The-Commonwealth) as to how Teachers employed in the Massachusetts EPZ would respond in the event of a radiological emergency at Seabrook station, and produce all such documents within the possession or control of Mass. AG.
Resoonse:
Interviews conducted by Katherine Barnicle, Investigator, D2partment of the Attorney General, One Ashburton Place, '
Boston, MA 02108 during the winter of 1989; Affidavit of Stephen Cole dated November 2, 1990.
- 3. Please identify all analyses, surveys, studies and reports
-known-or believed by Mass AG to exist (including, but not '
limited-to, all possessed'by The Commonwealth) as to how Teachers employed in the Massachusetts EPZ would espond to an emergency requiring evacuation of their School, and produce all such documents.within the possession or control of. Mass AG-other than'those produced in response
.to the foregoing request.
Renonse None other than the above, j 4. Please identify all analyses, surveys, studies and: reports known or believed by Mass AG to exist-(including, but not q limited to, all possessed-by The Commonwealth) as to how l_ Massachusetts Teachers would respond to a radiological' emergency, and produce all such documents within the I
i l
a A*
I possession or control of Mass AG other than those produced in response.to the foregoing requests.
_ li9aPatulti None other than the above.
- 5. - Please identify all analyses, surveys, studies and reports known or believed by Mass AG to exist (including, but no*.
. limited to, all possessed by The Commonwealth) as to how
-Massachusetts Teachers would respond to an emergency
. requiring evacuation of their school, and produce all such documents within the possession or control of Mass AG other than those producsd in-response to the foregoing
-requests.
Resoonse: None other than the above.
- 6. Please identify all analyses, surveys , studies and reports knownlor. believed by Mass AG to exist-(including, but not-limited to, all possessed by The Connonwealth) as to how Teachers ~have responded to radiological emergencies, and-produce all such documents with'in the possession or control of Mass AG other than those produced in response .;
to(the' foregoing requests.
Response:.LNoneiotherithan the above.
- 7. ;Please identify all analyses, surveys , studies and reports known or' believed by-Mass AG to exist (including, but not
~
-limited to, all possessed by The Commonwealth) as to how Teachers would respondLto afradiological emergency, and produce all such documents'within the possession or-
_ _, _ _ _ ___ _4
.r control of Mass 1AG other.than those produced in response to the foregoing requests.
Responses-The-testimony on teachers in the Nev Hampshire EPZ produced in the licensing hearings on the NHRERP in-addition to the answers above.
- 8. Please identify all analyses, surveys studies and reports possessed known or believed by Mass AG to exist (including, but not limited to, all by The Commonwealth) as to how Teachers have rresponded to emergencies requiring evacuation of_their School, niid produce all such documents within the possession or control of Mass AG other than those produced in response to the foregoing requests.
Resoonse:
None other than the above.
- 9. Please identify-all analyses, surveys, studies and reports possessed known or believed by Mass AG to exist
.(including, but not limited to, all by The Commonwealth)-
as to how Teachers would-respond to an emergency requiring evacuation of their School, and-produce all.such documents within the possession or control of Mass AG than those
-produced-in response to the foregoing requests.
Resoonse:
INone'other than-the above.
10 ~. ~Please' identify _and produce the most:recent SARA plans!for Amebury, Marrimac, Newbury, Newburyport, Salisbury, Newbury.
1 s !
l-
Response
Only the City of Newburyport has adopted a SARA plan.
That plan was previously produced in connection with this licensing proceeding.
- 11. Does the Mass AG contend that any municipality located in the Massachusetts EPZ is not in compliance with the requirements of SARA as they relate to emergency planning
-for Schools and school children? If your answer is anything other than an unqualified negative, then please identity each such municipality which Mass AG contends is not or may not be in compliance, and:
(a State each-fact on which your answer is based.
(b) Identify and produce each document which you contend reflects or supports your answer. '
(c) Provide the technical qualifications (education, h employment history, licenses and certificates, experience, or other information that Mass AG-contends establishes the qualifications of the person) of any person on whose expertise Mass AG relies for the answer, or state that Mass AG does not rely upon-the expertise of any person for the answer.
Response:-
The Mass-AG objects to this interrogatory on the basis of form and because it calls for a legal epinion as to what constitutes compliance with a. law. Without waiving-those objections, the Mass AG states that the only municipality of the six in the Massachusetts EPZ that has adopted a i
SARA plan is the City of Newburyport. Under that plan the only references to schools indicate that they may be available as shelter in the event of a toxic release.
-12. Does.'the Mass AG contend that any School located in the Massachusetts EPZ is not in compliance with the responsibilities assigned to it by. local SARA plans? If your answer is anything other than an unqualified negative, then please identify each such School which Mass AG contends is not or may not be in compliance, and:
(a) State each fact on which your answer is based.
(b) Identify and produce each document which you contend.
reflects or supports your answer.
(c) Provide the technical qualifications (education, employment history, licenses and certificates, experience, or other-information that. Mass AG contends establishes the qualifications of the person) of any person on whose expertise Mass AG relies for the answer, or state that Mass AG does not '
rely-upon the expertise of any_ person for the answer.
Response: l The Mass-AG objects-to Interrogatory No. 12 on the. basis
-of form in-that it assumes a fact that has not been established, i.e. that responsibilities are assigned-to-
-schools by local SARA plans. Furthermore, the Mass AG-objects to the interrogatory on the basis that-it calls for a legal opinion as tx) what constitutes compliance with a law. Without waiving those objections, the Mass AG states that the schools and daycare centers in the other five towns have no responsibilities assigned to them by
- ' local SARA. plans. Furthermore, under the Newburyport. SARA
, plan the only responsibility that appears to be assigned to schools is to be available for shelter in the event of 1: a toxic release. School. personnel, and teachers in g particular, do not appear to have any assigned evacuation roles.
- 13. Does the Mass AG contend that any School located in the.
Massachusetts EPZ would not, in the event of an emergency requiring evacuation of the School, comply with the-responsibilities assigned to .'.t and its personnel by local c
SARA plans? If your answer is snything other than an unqualified negative, then please identify each such School which Mass AG contends would not or may not comply, and:.
(a) State each. fact on which your' answer is based.
(b) Identify and produce each document which you contend reflects or supports your answer.
(c) Provide the technical qualifications (education,
-employment history, licenses and certificates, experience,-or other information that Macs AG contends establishes'the qualifications.of the person) of any person on whose expertise Mass AG relies for the answer, or. state that Mass AG does not rely upon the expertise of any person for the answer.
A - e * - - + - -x + ~ s s
.- ;)
Resp,qngg:
- The Mass AG makes the same objection and answer as in response to Interrogatory No. 12.
14 -. : Please-identify and produce all emergency plans for Massachusetts EPZ Schools.
Response
To the extent that the Mass AG has such plans within its custody or control, those plans have previously been
-identified and produced in connection with this licensing hearing.
- 15. - Please identfy and produce all regulations, executive orders, policy statements, guidelines, and other standards established by que Commonwealth which reflect or relate to the responsibilities of Teachers in-the event of a ;
radiological emsegency.
Response
The Mass AG objects to this interrogatory on the basis i that it calls for attorney mental impressions, legal
.-f theories and opinions that constitute nondiscoverable work product. Without waiving that objection the Mass AG states that to the extent that.such regulations, executive orders, policy statements, guidelines or'other standards exist they have previously been provided to.the Applicants in connection with this. licensing proceeding.
- 16. . Please identify'all. regulations, executive orders, policy
. statements, guidelines, and other. standards guidelines,.
and other standards established by The Commonwealth which 1
. ~ . .., - -. . .. . . . . -- . ~ . ~ - . . . .
r reflect or relate to the responsibilities of Teachers in-
't the event of an emergency at their School, and produce all auch documents other than those. produced in response to the foregoing request.
Responsg!
The Mass AG makes the same objection and answer as in response as to Interrogatory No. 15.
17.. Does the Mass AG contend that any day care facility within the Massachusetts.EpZ would not, in the event of a-radiological emergency at Seabrook Station, comply with requirements: of 102 CMR $ 7.06(29) (b) ? If your answer is anything other than an unqualified negative, then please identify each such facility which Mass AG contends would not or may not comply, and:
(a) State each_ fact on which your answer is based.
~
(b). Identify and produce each' document which you contend reflects or supports your answer.
-(c) ' provide the technical qualifications (education, J a
employment history, licenses-and certificates, experience,:or other information that Mass AG contends establishos the qualifications of the person)-of any person on whose expertise Mass AG relies-for the answer,.or state that Mass AG does not rely upon the expertise of any person for the answer.
.)
L.
892129112.81 The Mass AG objects to this interrogatory on the basis that it calls for a legal opinion as to what constitutes compliance with a regulation is irrelevent-and unlikely to lead to the discovery of relevant material. Without ~
waiving those objections, the Mass AG states that while daycare personnel might remain with children while they are in their charge at a licensed facility, it is forseeable that many, if not all, daycare-facilities have personnel who will not accompany children in an evacuation situation. See Affidavit of Stephen Cole dated November 2, 1990 referred to1above. The-Mass AG further notes that the vast majority of daycare centers in the Massachusetts EPZ are home daycare centers and are not covered by 102 CMR S 7. 06 (2 9) (b) . -
- 18. Does the Mass AG-contend that any day care facility within the Massachusetts EPZ is not'in compliance with the requirements of 102 cMR S 7.07 (16) (d) ? If-your answer is anything other than.an-unqualified negative, then please '
identify each such facility which Mass AG contends is not-
-or may.not.be=in. compliance, and:
(a) State.each fact on which your answer is based.
(b) Identify and produce each document which you contend reflects or supports your answer.
4
1 1
(c) . Provide the' technical qualifications (education,
-employment: history, licenses and certificates, experience, or other information that Mass AG contends establishes.the qualifications of the person) of any person on whose expertise Mass AG rellas for the answer, or state that Mass AG does not rely upon the expertise of any person-for the answer. i Resoonse:
'The Mass AG objects to this interrogatory on the basis that it-calls for a legal opinion as to what constitutes compliance with'a-regulation, is irrelevant and.unlikely to lead-to the discovery of relevant material. Without waiving those objections, the Mass AG, states that while-group daycare centers in the Massachusetts EPZ have
-procedures-to get infants and toddlers out the door in the event of a fire, that is the limit'of,their evacuation '
procedures.- The procedures do not' include provisions for transporting the children halfway across the: state and caring for them indefinitely'until their parents.
ultimatelyJarrive. Furthermore, the Mass AG notes that the vast majority of daycare centers in the Massachusetts- -
EPZ~are home day care centers and are not covered by 102 CMR S 7. 07 (16) (d) .
i
. __ . , , ~ ~ ~ - _ , . , . . . . _ - , __. .~-m,- , . . . - ..,, ,.
'ii
- 19. Does the Mass AG contend that any day care facility within the Massachusetts EPZ is not ir. compliance'with the requirements of 102 CMR 5 7.11(8) ? If your answer is anything other than an unqualified negative, then please identify each such facility which Mass AG contends is not or may not be in compliance, and:
(a) State each fact on which your answer-is based..
(b)- Identify and produce each document which you contend reflects or supports your answer.
(c) Provide the technical qualifications (education,:
employment. history, licenses and certificates, experience, or other information that Mass AG contends-establiishes the qualifications of the person) of any person on whose expertise Mass AG relies for the answer, or state that Mass AG does not i rely upon the expertise of any person:for the answer.
Resoonse:
The Mass AG objects to this; interrogatory on-the basis-that it cu- 3 for a legal opinion as to what consitutes i compliance with a regulation, is irrelevant and unlikely
-to lead.to the discovery of relevant material. Without waiving that objections, the Mass AG states that that regulation'does not require any plans for transportation
~
of children in-an emergency. It only requires that if a licensee has such plans, they be in writing. The Mass AG also notes'that-the vast majority of day care centers in the EPZ are home day cars centers are not covered by 102 CMR 37.11(8).
- 20. Does the Mass AG: contend that any day care facility within the Massachusetts EPZ is not in compliance with the requirements of 102 CMR S 8.08(21)? If your answer _is anything other than an unqualified negative, then please identify each such facility which Mass AG contends is not or may not be in compliance, and:
(a) State each fact on whien your answer is based.
(b) Identify and produce each document which you contend reflects or supports your answer.
(c) Provide the technical qualifications (education, employment history, licenses and certificates, experience, or other information that Mass AG contends establishes the qualifications of the person) of any person on whose expertise Mass AG relies for the answer, or state that Mass AG does not rely upon the expertise of any person for the answer.
Resconse:
The Mass AG objects to this interrogatory on the basis
.that it calls for a legal opinion as to what constitutes r
compliance with a regulation, is irrelevant, and is l
-unikely to lead to-the discovery relevant. material.
Without waiving that_ objection, the Mass AG states that the regulation only requires daycare facilities have procedures for_how to get children out of the door in-the event of a fire _or other similiar emergency. Under that j regulation, there is no requirement that there:be any j evaculation from the facility site itself. j 1
- 21. Does the Mass Ao contend that any day care facility within. s 1
the Massachusetts EPZ would not, in the event of a radiological emergency at Seabrook Station, comply with the requirements of 102 CMR $ 8.107 If your answer is anything other than an unqualified negative, then please identify each such facility which Mass AG contends would not or may not comply, and:
(a) State each fact on which your answer is based.
(b) Identify.and produce each document which you contend reflects or supports your answer.
l (c) Provide the technical qualifications (education, employment history, licenses and certificates, experience, or other information that Mass AG contends establishes the qualifications of the i person) of any perton on whose expertise Mass AG relies for the answer, or~ state that Mass AG does not .
rely upon the expertise of any person for the answer.
Response
The-Mass AG objects to this interrogatory on the basis-that it calls for a legal opinion as to what constitutes compliance with a regulation, is irrelevant, and unlikely to lead to relevant material. The Mass AG also objects to this interrogatory on the basis of form since it assumes that the requirements of 102 CMR 5 8.10 would be~
applicable in the event of a radiological emergency at Seabrook Station.- Without waiving that objection, the Mass AG states that that regulation simply requires
supervision at the facility site. It is not required that daycare personnal accompany children in an evacuation due to a radiological. emergency.
- 22. Does the Mass AG contend that any day care facility within
-the Massachusetts EPZ is not in compliance with the requirements of 102 CMR 5 7.07(18) (1)? If your answer is anything other than an unqualified negative, then please identify each such facility which Mass AG contends is not or=may not be in compliance, and:
-(a State each fact on which your answer is based.
(b) Identify and produce each document which you contends reflects or supports your answer.
(c)- provide the technical qualifications (education, employment history, licenses and' certificates, experience,.or other information that Mass AG contends' establishes the qualifications of the
. person) of any person on whose expertise Mass AG relies for the answer, or state that Mass AG does not rely upon the expertise of any person for the; answer.
Resnoate:.
The: Mass AG makes the same objection and answer as in response to Interrogatory 18,
- 23. Does Mass AG agree that it is the policy or position of the Massachusetts civil Defense Agency and/or the Massachusetts Executive Office of Public Safety, with respect to radiological emergencies, that "(1]n the event of an evacuation, it is the responsibility of teachers, l
._ _ . . ~ . . _ _ _ _ _ _ . . _ _ _ . _ . . ,
a other school personnel,-and day-care providers to accompany children to reception centers, until-they-can be discharged to their parents or guardians"? If your answer to anything other than an unqualified affirmative, then please describe in detail what Mass AG contends the policy or position of the Massachusetts Civil Defense Agency and the Massachusetts Executive Office of Public Safety to be with respect to the responsibilities of Teachers in the event of a radiological emergency, and:
(a) State each fact on which your anr.wer is based.
(b) Identify and produce each document which you contend reflects or supports your answer.
(c) Provide the technical qualifications (education, employment history, licenses and certificates, experience, or other information that Mass AG contends establishes the qualifications of the person) of any person on whose expertise Mass AG relies for the answer, or state-that Mass AG does not rely upon the expertise of any person forthe answer.
Response
The Masu AG objects to this interrogatory-in that it contains quoted language without providing a reference for the quote. The Mass AG further objects to the form of the question in that it assumes that the Massachusetts Civil Defense Agency and/or the Massachusetts 1 Executive Office of Public Safety has adopted any generic policy or position with respect to radiological emergencies other
than that no segment of the population, including special needs, shall be excluded from planning provisions.
Without waiving those objections the Mass AG states that the Massachusetts Civil Defense Aging and/or the Executive Office-for Public-Safety have not adopted or promulgated official policies concerning teachers a day care personnel with respect to radiological emergencies. Under certain radiological plans some teachers and day care personnel have specific roles with implementing procedures and receive training on those roles. They are not assigned to stay with the children indefinitely until they are discharged to their parents.
- 24. Does Mass AG-contend that, in the event of a radiological emergency at Seabrook Station, Teachers employed in the Massachusetts EPZ would not meet their " responsibility . .
.ito accompany children to reception centers, until they can-be' discharged to their parents or guardians"? If your
-answer is-anything other than an unqualified negative, then please:
.(a) Describe in detail each reason for your answer.
(b) State what percentage of Teachers Mass AG contends would thus fail to meet their state-imposed '
responsibility to accompany the children.
(c) State each fact upon which your answers to sub-parts (a) and (b) above are based.
l
(d) Identify and produce each document which you contends supports your answers to sub-parts (a) through (b) above.
(e) Provide the technical qualifications (education, employment history, licenses and certificates, "
experienen, or other information that Mass AG contends establishes the qualifications of the person) of=any person on whose expertise Mass AG relies for the answers, or state that Mass AG does not rely upon the expertise of any person fpr the answers.
Response
The Mass AG objects to this interrogatory in that it contains quoted language without providing a reference for the quote. The Mass AG also objects to the form of the question in that it assumes-tha't teachers have a responsibility to accompany and stay with children.
Without waiving those objections the Mass AG states that a substantial number of teachers would not accompany children for the reasons set forth in response to Interrogatory 30.
- 25. Does Mass AG-agree that the Memorandum of Charles V. Barry to Robert J. Boulay, April 24, 1989, Attachment B to the October 19, 1990 Affidavit of Anthony M. Callendrello, correctly states-the present policy or position of the Massachusetts civil Defense Agency and the Massachusetts Executive Office of Public Safety? If your answer is I
anything other than an unqualified af firmative, then please describe in detail what Mass AG contends the policy or position of the Massachusetts Civil Defense Agency and the Massachusetts Executive Office of Public Safety to be with respect to orders from the Governor to Teachers in the event of a radiological emergency, and:
(a) State each fact upon which your answer is based. ,
(b) Identify and produce each document which you contend supports your answer.
(c) Provide the' technical qualifications (education, employment history, licenses and certificates, or other information that Mass AG contends establishes the qualifications of the person) of any person on whose expertise Mass AG does not relies for the
-answer, or state that Mass AG does not rely upon the ,
expertise of any person for the answer.
Re_sp_ensa:
-The Mass AG objects to the form of the question'in that it assumes}a fact.that has not been established, i.e. that the memorandum dated April 24, 1989-is a-stotement of
~
policy or position by the Executive-Office of Public
~ Safety. On its face the memorandum simply-states that Stanley Adelman has reviewed correspondence and agrees with a legal opinion of a-Town Counsel. Without waiving that objection the Mass AG states that Stanley Adelman still-agrees with that legal opinion. Obviously, that l
1
opinion is inapplicable to private school teachers and private day care personnel.
The Massachusetts civil Defense Agency has not adopted or promulgated an official statement of policy or position with respect to orders from the Governor to Teachers in the event of a radiological emergency, however, teachers are assigned specific roles under the implementing '
procedures of certain radiological plans and receive training on those roles..
- 26. Does Macs AG contend that, in the event of a radiological emergency at Seabrook Station, Teachers employed in the Massachusetts EPZ would disobey an order from the Governor or his delegatee that they accompany the children to reception centers until relieved? If your answer is anything other than an unqualified negative, then please:
(a) Describe in detail each reason ~for your answer.
(b) State what percentage of Teachers Mass AG contends would thus disobey the Governor's emergency order.
(c) State each fact upon which your answers to sub-parts (a) and (b) above are based.
-(d) Identify and produce-each document which you contend supports your answers to sub-parts (a) through (c) above.
1; _ _ ._,
1, l-(e). Provide the-technical qualifications (education, I employment history, licenses and certificates, experience, or other information that Mass AG contends establishes the qualifications of the person) of any person on whose expertise Mass AG relies for the answers, or state that Mass AG does not rely upon the expertise of any person for the answers. '
Response
The Mass AG objects to this Interrogatory because it calls for a legal opinion as to compliance with the Massachusetts civil Defense Act. Without waiving that objection the Mass AG states: 1) it is forseeable that a certain percentage of teachers will'either not know of ;
such an order or will not give such an order credence; 2) it is forsceable that a substantial number of teachers ,
will1 refuse to obey the order because of role conflict --
see the affidavit and qualifications of Stephen Colc previously provided.
- 27. Please-describe in detail, and identify and produce all documents that constitute, reflect or refer to,-all '
communications, concerning the response of Teachers employed in the Massachusetts EPZ in the event of-a radiological emergency at Seabrook Station, between the Mass AG (as-defined) and:
(a) the office for-Children;
]
v (b) other Massachusetts governmental officials and entities, including, but not limited to city, town and school district officials; (c) Teachers; (d) Schools'and administrators thereof; (e). Teachers' unions and officials thereof; and (f) all other persons and entities.
Resoonse:
The' Mass AG objects to revealing the content of communications with other state agencies as protected attorney-client communications. Without waiving that objection the= Mass AG states that: 1) during the weeks of 1
-October 8 and-December 17, 1990 the Mass AG had telephone discussions'with personnel at the Office for Children concerning the standards of care for children, regulations concerning such standards and studies about emergencies;
- 2) during the weeks of. October 22,'and December 17 and December 24, 1990 the Mass AG had telephone conversations with personnel at the Massachusetts Civil Defense' Agency concerning emergency-planning and the role of teachers; 3) during the week of December 24, 1990, the" Mass.AG had telephone: conversations with personnel at the Executive Office of Public Safety; 4) .during the week of November.26
-and December 17, 1990 the Mass AG~had telephone conversation with personnel of the Department of Education concerning standards of care for. children, regulations, concerning such standards and studies about emergencies.
- J
During the week of October 22, 1990 the Mass AG had a-telephone conversation with the representative of the Massachusetts Teachers Association (MTA) concerning who was the appropriate person (s) to contact to learn about the current position of teachers in the Massachusetts EPZ concerning radiological emergency planning. During the '
week of October 29, 1990 the Mass'AG_had a telephone conversation with teacher union representatives from the region of-the Massachusetts EPZ and inquired as to the teachers' position (s) on radiological emergency planning.
In: addition to those telephone calls the Mass AG received a letter dated November 1, 1990 from Everett Lahey of the MTA addressing the same subject.
- 28. Please describe in detail, and identify and-produce all documents that constitute, reflect or refer to, all
, communications, concerning School emergency planning in connection with Seabrook Station,_between Massachusetts governmental officials and entities (including, but not limited to,'the Mass.AG as defined) and:
~
(a) the office for children; (b) other Massachusetts. governmental officials and entities, including, but not_ limited to city, town ,
and school district officials;-
e (c) Teachers; (d) Schools and administrators thereof; (e) Teachers' unions and officials thereof; and (f) all other persons and entities.
Response
The Mass AG objects to the intserogatory as redundant and burdensome and on the basis that all responsive documents were previously produced in this licensing proceeding.
Without waiving this objection Mass-AG state that all subject documents have previously been identified and/or produced.
- 29. Please describe in detail, and identify and produce all documents that constitute, reflect or refer to, all communications, concerning the response of Teachers employed in the Massachusetts EPZ in the event of a radiological emergency at Seabrook Station,_between Massachusetts governmental officials and entities other-than the Mass AG (as defined) and:
(a) 'the office for Children; (b)' other Massachusetts governhiental officials and entities,_ including, but1not limited to city, town
-and school district officials; (c) Teachers; (d)--Schools and administrators _thereof; (e) Teachers' unions and officials thereof; and
'(f) all other persons and entities.
Resoonse.
-The-Mass AG objects to the interrogatory as redundant and burdensome and on1the basis that all responsive documents were previously produced in this licensing proceeding.
I Without waiving this objection Mass AG state that all
= subject _ documents have previously been identified and/or
. produced.
! 1
- =
d
- 30. Does Ma'a , contend that there, is not " reasonable assurance that, in the event of a radiological emergency at-Seabrook necessitating an evacuation of children in schools and day-care centers within the Massachusetts EPZ, a sufficient number of teachers and day-care center personnel will escort the children to the School Host Facility at Holy Cross College and remain with those children until relieved of that assignment"? If your answer is anything other than an unqualified negative, then please:
(a) State each fact on which your answer is based.
(b) Identify and produce each document (including, but limited to, each analysis, survey, study and report) which you contend supports your answer.
(c) Provide the technical qualifications (education, employment-history, licenses and certificates, experience, or other information that Mass AG contends establishes the qualifications of the person) of any person on whose expertise Mass AG relies for the answer, or state that Mass AG does not rely upon the expertise of any person for the answer.
(d) Identify each witness whom Mass AG intends to call to testify in support of Mass AG's position.
4 4
Resconse:
The Mass AG objects to this interrogatory on the basis that it contains quered language without providing a reference for the quote and is redundant and burdensome.
Without waiving these objections, the Mass AG states:
- 1) there are no letters of agreement with teachers and day care personnel.
- 2) there are no procedures or training for teachers and day care personnel with the SPMC.
- 3) a substantial number of teachers and day care personnel will not report because of role conflict.
See the previously identified surveys, analysis, studies, testimony, and opinions identified above.
The Mass AG relies on Stephen Cole as an expert witness.
His opinion and qualifications have previously been provided.
- 31. Does Mass AG contend that Licensees'have not "made satisfactory alternative arrangements for the care and supervision of the children both on the bus trip to Worcester and during their stay at the School Host Facility"? If your answer is anything other than an unqualified-negative, then please (a) State each fact on which your-answer is based.
(b) Identify and produce each document (including, but limited to, each analysis, surv9y, study and report) which you contend supports your answer.
(c) Provide the technical qualifications (education, employment history, licenses and certificates, experience, or other information that Mass AG contends establishes the qualifications of the person) of any person on whose expertise Mass AG relies for the answer, or state that Mass AG does not rely upon the expertise of r.y person for the answer.
(d) Identify each witness whom Mass AG intends to call to testify in support of Mass AG's position.
Response
The Mass AG objects to this interrogatory on the basis >
that it contains quoted language without providing a reference for the quote and o.1 the basis of form in that it assumes the existent of primary and-alternative arrangements. Without waiving those objections the Mass
,AG states:
- 1) there are.n3 ORO personnel or' letters of agreement with other persor.nel to provide for the care and supervision of children; -
r
- 2) there are no procedures or training for ORO personnel or other contracted personnel-under the SpMC for the care -and supervision of children;
- 3) reliance'on evacuation specific personnel such as route guides and--bus divers to care for' children at
. Holy Cross is inappropriate because those are single shift positions. Caring for children at Holy Cross could extend their shifts well beyond 12 hours1.388889e-4 days <br />0.00333 hours <br />1.984127e-5 weeks <br />4.566e-6 months <br />. i I
I 7
-The Mass AG relies upon the expertise of Michael sinclair as a witness. His opinion and qualifications has been previously provided.
- 32. Please describe in detail each action which Mass AG contends must be taken in order-to provide " reasonable assurance that, in the event of a radiological emergency at Seabrook necessitating an evacuation of children in schools and day-care centers within the Massachusetts EPZ, a sufficient number of teachers and day-care center personnel will escort the children to the School Host Facility at Holy Cross College and remain with those children until relieved of that assignment", Please also:
(a) State each fact on which your answer is based.
(b) Identify and produce each document which you' contend supporta your answer.
(c) Provide the technical qualifications (education,
. employment history, licenses and-certificates, experience, or other;information that Mass AG contends establishes the qualifications of the person) of any person on whose expertise Mass.AG relies for the answer, or state that Mass AG does not rely upon the expertise of any person :for the answer.
Response
The Mass AG-objects to'this interrogatory in that it calls for the MassLAG to engage in emergency planning and contains TV4ted language without a reference for the quote. Without waiving those objections the Mass AG states:
- 1) jf teachers and day care personnel to relied on, letters of agreement with them should exist;
- 2) procedures and training for them should exist;
- 3) there should be provisions for second shift staffing and the material needs of the children;
- 4) an assessment should be made as to how many teachers and day care personnel will be needed per shift.
!(UREG 0654 and the affidavits of Stephen Cole and Michael sinclair attached to the response to the Licensees motion for summary judgment support this answer. The qualifications of Sinclair and Cole have been previously provided in the proceeding.
- 33. Please describe in detail each action which Mass AG contends must be taken in order that Licensees will have "made satisfactory alternative arrangements for the care and supervision of the children both on the bLa trip to f
Worcester and during their stay at the School Host Facility"? If Mass AG contends that changes would be required to the SPMC, the Holy Cross ops Plan, and/or the School Host Facility Plan, please describe in detail each such change. Please also:
(a) State each fact on which your answer is based.
(b) Identify and produce cact document which you contend supports your answer.
~29-
{ (c) Provide the technical qualifications (education, employment history, licenses and certificates, i experience, or other information that Mass AG 4 contends establishes the qualificati:ns of the f
r 1 son) of any person on whose expertina Mass AG ,
rull6. for the answer, or state that Mass AG does not '
\ rely upon the expertise of any person for the answer.
pesconne The Mass AG objects to this interrogatory in that it ;
calls for the Mass AG to engage in emergency planning and contains quoted language without a reference for the 1
quote. The Mass AG also objects to the form of the question in that it assumes primary and alternative arrangements. Without waiving those objections the Mass AG statest
- 1) if other non-ORO personnel are to be relied on, letters of agreement with them should exist; 2)- procedures and training for.them should exist;
. 3). therc should be provisions for second shift staffing
, - and the material needs of the children;
- 4) an assessment should be made as to how many other personnel will be needed per shift.
NUREG 0654 and the affidavits of Stephen Cole and Michael
- Sinclair attached to the response to the Licensees motion '
for summary judgment support this answer.
The qualifications of Sinclair and Cole have been previous 1f provided in the proceeding.
- 30-a - q. - - -yy'g- y g Pp*ut+1wearr W--tva gr w deh
- e -g--p- wet
- 34. Does Mass AG contend that Teachers are not generally relied upon to accompany evacuating children (i) from the emergency planning zones around osher nuclear power plants, (ii) from the areas around facilities containing hazardous materials, and (iii) in other situations where evacuation of Schools is required? If ycur answer is anything other than an unqualified negative, then please:
(a) State each fact on which your answer is based.
(b) Identify and produce each document (including, limited to, each analysis, survey, study and report) which you contend supports your answer.
(c) provide the technical qualifications (education, employment history, licenses and certificates, experience, or other information that Mass AG establishes the qualifications of the person) of any person on whose expertise Mass AG relies for the :
answer, or state that Mass AG does not rely upon the expertise of any person for the answer.
Response
Mass AG objects to this interrogatory on the basis that the Mass AG does not know nor is the office in a position to know what reliance is placed on teachers generally throughout country at nuclear plants, facilities containing hazardous materials and other situations where the evacuations of schools is required. Nor, does the Mass AG know the basis of that reliance if it exists. The Mass AG also objects to this interrogatory on the basis of
i h
relevance since the provisions of other emergency plans, j to the extent they exist, are irrelevant to this proceeding, rurthermore, the Mass AG objects to the interrogatory on the basis of form in that it is unclear 1
what is meant by the phrase " generally relied upon" and/or who is doing the relying.
- 35. Does Mass AG contend that the reliance on Teachers to accompany evacuating children (1) from the emergency planning zones around other nuclear power plants, (ii) from the areas around facilities containing hazardous materials, and (iii) in other situations where evacuation of Schools is required, does not provide " reasonable -
assurance that adequate protective measures can and will -
be taken" for the supervision of the evacuating children?
If your answer is anything other than an unqualified negative, then please (a) State each fact on which your answer is based.
(b) Identify and produce each document (including, but limited to, each analysis, survey, study and report) which you contend supports your answer.
(c) Provide the technical-qualifications (education, employment history, licenses and certificates, experience, or other information that Mass AG contends establishes th'e qualifications of the person) of any person on whose expertise Mass AG relies for the answer, or state that Mass AG does not rely upon the expertine of any person for the answer.
-__ _ . . _ _ . _ . _ _ - _ _ _ _ . _ _ . . _ - . _ . . _ . _ . - .._ ._ ~ __
1 4
Resnonig t t
i Mass AG objwets to this interrogatory on the basis that
, the Mass AG does not know nor is the office in a position to know what reliance is placed on teachers generally throughout country at nuclear plants, facilities containing hazardous materials and other situations where the evacuations of schools is required. Nor, does the Mass AG know the basis of that reliance if it exists. Tho
, Mass AG also objects to this interrogatory on the basis of relevance since the provisions of other emergency plans, to the extent they exist, are irrelevant to the proceeding. Furthermore, the Mass AG objects to the 1
interrogatory on -the basis of form in that it is unclear what is-meant by the term " reliance" and/or who is doing the relying. Additionally, since the Mass AG does not know what reliance, if any, is*" generally" placed on teachers nor the basis, if any, of thst reliance, the Mass AG is not in a position to answer whether adequate protective measures can and will be taken for evacuating school children. Also, it is not clear what standards are applicable to non-nuclear _tacilities plans.
3 6. . Does Mass AG contend th3t reliance upon Teachers to accompany evacuating children does provide " reasonable assurance that adequate' protective measures can and will be taken" for: the supervision of the evacuating children (i) from the emergency planning zones around other nuclear power plants, (ii) from the areas around facilities 1
l l
1
. -- -.- . - . - . - . - - . - - - .- - ._- -- _ - . - - - _ . ~ . - . - . .
i containing hazardous materials, including and (iii) in 1 other situations where evacuation of Schools is required, but such reliance does not provide " reasonable assurance" with respect to the Massachusetts EPZ? Please state each reason for your answer, and, separately for each reason, please also 1
(a) state each fact on which your answer is based.
(b) Identify and produce each document (including, but limited to, each analysis, survey, study and report) which you contend supports your answer.
(c) Provide the technical qualifications (education, employment history, licenses and certificates, experience, or other information that Mass AG contends establishes the qualifications of the person) of,any person on whose expertise Mass AG relies for the answer, or state that Mass AG does not rely upon the expertise of any person for the answer, t Resoonse:
Mass AG objects to this interrogatory on' the basis that i the Mass AG does not know nor is the office in a position
- to know what reliance is'placed'on teachers generally -
throughout country at nuclear plants, facilities containing hazardnus materials and.other situations where the' evacuations of schools is required. Nor, does the
- Mass AG know the basis of that reliance if it exists. The Mass-AG also objects to this interrogatory on the basis of relevance-since the provisions of other emergency plans, 34-b 4s swh- w a-godm- wwqy sa'vw- "9rrow-=r-Cw1 &wh-y-Wi- 1.- g --we'c eh --ee-~ev t%orW s'a' W-wry,w-+ + mgm v-v -A=1-w w ,,r WiLw ' Vg- r-
- w w tW@+ g--+--e-er-1*,wY' veg tw e-pr- y g -' +'-Epr-t
'Tr g pt-re 'p- c' cyrv
_._ __ . . _ _ . . . . _ _ . - . . _ _ . . _ . _ _ _ - . - . . __ . .. _ , . _ _ - . m a
i to the extent they exist, are irrelevant to the 4
l 3
proceeding.- Purthermore, the Mass AG objects to the '
. interrogatory on the basis of form in that it is unclear what is meant by the term " reliance" and/or who is doinq
!- the relying.
.i
, -The Mass AG objects to the definitions used in this set of J. interrogatories as overly broad and vague. The Mass AG objects to all interrogatories calling for the attorney work product
! and attorney-client communications.
4 l Respectfully submitted, COMMONWEALTH OF MASSACHUSETTS i
JAMES M. SHANNON ATTORNEY GENERAL +
$$4$ h Leslie Greer Assistant Attorney General Department of the. Attorney General one Ashburton Place Boston, MA 02108-1698 (617) 727-2200 DATED: December 26, 1990 r
1962n
1 UNITED STATES OF AMERICA iM @
NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSION #' * '
ATOMIC SAFETY AND LICENSING DOARD
'90 IEC 27 P 3 :52 Before the Administrative Judgest
.r6 n a . : m es v Ivan W. Smith, Chairman .
WM W s i,1iN Dr. Richard F. Cole 'W' Kenneth A. McCollom
'I 4
)
In the Matter of ) Docket Nos. 50-443-OL
) 50-444-OL PUBLIC SERVICE COMPANY )
0F NEW HAMPSHIRE, E I M s. )
)
(Seabrook Station, Units 1 and 2) ) December 26, 1990
)
CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE
~
I, Leslie Greer, hereby certify that on December 26, 1990, I made service of the within MASSACHUSETTS ATTORNEY GENERAL'S RESPONSE TO -i LICENSEES' FIRST SET OF INTERROGATORIES REGARDING REMANDED MASSACHUSETTS TEACHER ISSUES by Federal. Express as indicated by (*),
by hand as indicated by (**), and by first class mail tot
- Ivan W. Smith,-Chairman
' Atomic Safety & Licensing Board - *Kenneth A. McCollom 1107'W.'Knapp St.
U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Stillwater, 0K 74075 l
Commission .
East West Towers Building
- Docketing and Service !
4350 East West Highway U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Bethesda, MD 20814 Commission 11555 Rockville Pike Rockville, MD 20852
- Dr. Richard'F.- Cole Paul McEnchern, Esq.
Atomic Safety'& Licensing Board _ Shaines & McEachern-U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission 25 Maplewood Avenue East West Towers Building P. O. Box 360 4350 East West Highway Portsmouth, NH 03801 Bethesda, MD 20814 4
Robert R. Pierce, Esq. '* Thomas G. Dignan, Jr.1/
Atomic Safety & Licensing Board Matherine Selleck, Esq.
U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission Ropes & Gray East West Towers Building One Intcrnational Place 4350 East West Highway Boston, MA 02110 Bethesda, MD 20814 H. Joseph Flynn, Esq. *Mitzi A. Young, Esq.
Assistant General Counsel Edwin J. Reis, Esq.
Office of General Counsel U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Federal Emergency Management Commission Agency Office of the General Counsel 500 C Street, S.W. 15th Floor Washington, DC 20472 11555 Rockville Pike Rockville, MD 20052 Atomic Safety & Licensing Robert A. Backus, Esq.
Appeal Board Backus, Meyer & Solomon U.S. Nuclear Regulatory 116 Lowell Street -
Commission P.O. Box 516 Washington, DC 20555 Manchester, NH 03106 Atomic Safety & Licensing Board Jane Doughty U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission Seacoast Anti-Pollution League Washington, DC 20555 5 Market Street Portsmouth, NH 03801 Charles P. Graham, Esq. Barbara St. Andre, Esq.
Murphy & Graham Kopelman & Paige, P.C.
33 Low Street 77 Franklin Street Newburyport, MA 01950 Boston, MA 02110 Judith H. Mizner, Esq. R. Scott Hill-Whilton, Esq.
79 State Street Lagoulis, Hill-Whilton 2nd Floor & Rotondi Newburyport, MA 01950 79 State Street Newburyport, MA 01950 Diane Curran, Esq. Ashod N. Amirian, Esq.
Harmon, Curran, & Towsley 145 South Main Street Suite 430 P.O. Box 38 2001 S Street, N.W. Bradford, MA 01835 Washington, DC 20008 Senator Gordon J. Humphrey Senator Gordon J. Humphrey U.S. Senate One Eagle Square, Suite 507 Washington, DC 20510 Concord, NH 03301 (Attn: Tom Burack) (Attn: Herb Boynton)
~
1/ Hand delivery was made on December 27, 1990 by 10:00am e
e John P. Arnold, Attorney General Phillip Ahrens, Esq.
Office of the Attorney Generel Assistant Attorney General 25 Capitol Street Concord, NH 03301 Department of the Attorney )
General Augusta, ME 04333 Jack Dolan George Iverson, Director Eederal Emergency Management N.H. Office of Emergency Agency Management Region 1 J.W. McCormack Post Office & State House Office Park South Courthouse Building, Roon 442 107 Pleasant Street Concord, NH 03301 Boston, MA 02109 COMMONWEALTH OF MASSACHUSETTS JAMES M. SHANNON ATTORNEY GENERAL
$4: 12 (m
[Aslie Greer Assistant Attorney General Department of the Attorney General One Ashburton Place Boston, MA C2108-1698 (617) 727-2200 DATED: December 26, 1990
_ - -__--_________ ____