ML20066D693
| ML20066D693 | |
| Person / Time | |
|---|---|
| Site: | Seabrook  |
| Issue date: | 01/07/1991 |
| From: | Trout J PUBLIC SERVICE CO. OF NEW HAMPSHIRE, ROPES & GRAY |
| To: | Atomic Safety and Licensing Board Panel |
| References | |
| CON-#191-11279 OL, NUDOCS 9101150291 | |
| Download: ML20066D693 (13) | |
Text
_
//377
. Ah!:iD Filed:
January T;M 591 UNITED STATES OF AMERICA 91 JAN -8 P2 :50 NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSION gry u,, %,,,
I vocni : ac,, ' ;,w r before the HW" ATOMIC SAFETY AND LICENSING BOARD I
)
In the Matter of
)
PUBLIC SERVICE COMPANY OF
)
Docket Nos. 50-443-OL NEW HAMPSHIRE, et al.
)
50-444-OL I
)
Off-site Emergency (Seabrook Station, Units 1 and 2)
)
Planning Issues
)
)
LICENSEE 8' MOTION TO COMPEL FURTHER ANSWERS I
BY MASS AG TO LICEN8EE8' INTERROGATORIE8 REGARDING THE REMANDED TEACHER ISSUE 8 Pursuant to 10 C.F.R.
$ 2.740(f), Licensees hereby move that the Attorney General for The Commonwealth of Massachusetts (" Mass AG") be compelled to answer certain of the interrogatories propounded to Mass AG by Licensees on December 10, 1990.
BACKGROUND In ALAB-937, the Appeal Board remanded, for consideration by l
this Licensing Board, two specific questions concerning evacuation of school children pursuant to the Seabrook Plan for Massacnusetts Communities ("SPMC"):
l l
1.
Is there reasonable assurance that, in the event of a radiological emergency at Seabrook necessitating an l
evacuation of children in schools and day-care centers within the Massachusetts EPZ, a sufficient number of teachers and day-care center personnsl will escort the
)<;p) 9101150291 910107
'I
[DR ADDCK 05000443 PDR
!'I children to the school host facility at Holy Cross college and remain with those children until relieved of that assignment?
2.
If such reasonable assurance does not exist, have the applicants made satisfactory alternative arrangements I
for the care and supervision of the childrer, both on the bus trip to Worcester and during their stay at the School Host Facility?
Public Service Comeany of New Hamoshire (Seabrook Station, Units 1 and 2), ALAB-937,,,NRC _ (Sept. 18, 1990), slip op. at 32-33.
On October 22, 1990, Licensees moved for summary disposition as to both issues.'
Mass AG filed his opposition to that motion on November 2, 1990.2 In that filing, Mass AG contended that an attached " Affidavit of Dr. Stephen Cole" (Nov. 2, 1990)
(" Cole Af fidavit) established that material issues of fact existed as to the first of the two remanded issues.
The Licensing Board denied Licensee's summary disposition motion, holding that, inter alia, the Cole Affidavit did raise material issues of fact.3 The Board also opened those issues to discovery.'
Thereafter Licensees filed, and served on Mass AG,
" Licensees' First Set of Interrogatories and First Request for l
1 En " Licensees' Motion for Summary Disposition of Issues Romanded in ALAB-937" (Oct 22, 1990), and accompanying affidavits.
2 Ett "Intervenors (sic) Opposition to Licensees (sic) l Motion for Summary Disposition of Issues Remanded in ALAB-937" 1
(Nov.
2, 1990).
3 Memorandum and Order (Denvina Licensee's Motion for l
Eggmary Diseosition of Issues Remanded in ALAB-937) at 4 (Nov.
7, l
1990).
1;L at 5-6.
_2 I
I
Production of Documents to the Mass AG Regarding Remanded Massachusetts Teachers Issues" (Dec. 10, 1990) (hereinafter I
i
" Interrogatories").
Mass AG filed a response to the Interrogatories,5 styled " Massachusetts Attorney General's Response to Licensees' First Set of Interrogatories Regarding Remanded Massachusetts Teacher Issues" (Dec. 26, 1990)
(hereinafter " Responses").
ARGUMENT Mass AG's responses to twenty-two of Licensees' interrogatories -- Nos.
2-9, 14-16, 23-26, 28-31, and 34-36 --
are evasive and incomplete, and further responses should be required pursuant to 10 C.F.R. $ 2.740(f).
The responses are discussed in detail below, grouped into categories by question-type and/or common problem.
For ease of reference, the full texts of all the Interrogatories and the Responses are appended hereto as Attachments A and B, respectively.
A.
Recuests IpI Analyses, Surveys, Studies and Reoorts Known tja I
Mass M:
Interroaatories Nos. 2-2 In Interrogatories Nos.
2-9, Licensees called upon Mass AG to identify (and later produce) all analyses, surveys, studies and reports "known or believed by Mass AG to exist" bearing on the question of what teachers would do in the event of an l
emergency evacuation of their school.
Since the entire first l I Licensees have been advised by Mass AG that a second 5
response, addressing the requests for production contained in the December 10 filing, will shortly be forthcoming from Mass AG.
I
~3-
I remand issue essentially amounts to an attempt to predict what teachers would do in an emergency, it obviously is both necessary and proper for Licensees to be able to learn what basis (if any) there is for Mass AG's purported prediction of teachers' wholesale abandonment of the children entrusted to them.
Mass AG made no objection to any of these interrogatories.
Rather, he responded to Nos. 2-6 by identifying one specific document -- the Colo Affidavit -- and referencing "(ijnterviews conducted by Katherine Barnicle";' as to Interrogatories Nos.
7-I 9,
Mass AG adds one more sotWce, the teacher testimony during the NHRERp hearings.
Mass AG's answers are obviously incomplete.
In the Cole Affidavit filed less than two months earlier, Mass AG based his l
argument, that evidence existed of possible widespread teacher i
abandonment, on " studies" and "much recent research."
Cole Affidavit at 1 10; g.qn also & at 1 7.
If Mass AG is now repudiating that affidavit, then this Board should reconsider its prior ruling, and enter summary disposition in Licensees' favor, since without the Cole Affidavit there is no evidence of a dispute of material fact as to the first remand issue.
If this is not the case, then Mass AG should be required to identify the underlying documentation that he cited in order to avoid summary l
disposition in the first instance, and all other responsive Mass AG has advised Licensees that these interviews are included within the documents which constitute App. Ex. 64, plus the rejected Barnicle testimony taken from those documents.
, 1 I
I materials known to Mass AG and his experts, as the interrogatories clearly require.
B.
Claims gl Prior Production by Mass AQ.1.
Interroaatories h 14.4. 21.4. 2.2 In Interrogatory No. 14, Licensees asked Mass AG to identify (and later produce) emergency plans for Massachusetts EPZ I
schools.
In Nos. 28 and 29, Mass AG was called upon to identify (and then produce) various governmental communications relating to teacher emergency response and Seabrook planning for schools.
Maes AG responded to each of these interrogatories by simply claiming that, to the extent he has any such documents, they have already been identified and produced by Mass AG.I There are at least three problems with Mass AG's responses.
First, he fails to specify when, and/or in response to what prior I
7 Mass AG also claims that Nos. 28 and 29 are " redundant I
and burdensome."
As to burden, Mass AG offers no reason to believe that the governmental communications sought by these interrogatories are so numerous, or so difficult to find, as to justify a claim of undue burdensomeness.
Moreover, given Mass I
AG's prior argument as to what kind of evidentiary showing Licensees would be required to make pursuant to 10 C.F.R.
- 50. 47 (c) (1)
-- g.g.g, 9.4 1., " Massachusetts Attorney General James M.
Shannon's Proposed Findings of Fact, Rulings of Law, and Conclusions with Respect to the Seabrook Plan for Massachusetts Communities and the Exercise Cr..itentions" (Aug. 14, 1989) at 1 1
1.15.B.2 -- Mass AG simply cennot, as a matter of fairness, be allowed to withhold evidence of interference by the Massachusetts government with Licensees' a tempts to engage in planning with Massachusetts EPZ schools.
As for the claim of reduhdancy, Mass AG nowhere indicates what prior interrogatories Nos. 28 and 29 supposedly are
, I redundant with.
Moreover, given that the remanded issues were not previously admitted for litigation, it is difficult to see how these questions could have been asked before.
I _.
discovery request (s), these documents were already purportedly identified and produced.
But given that Mass AG presumably has a list of the documents he previously produced, in order to advance a claim of prior production the most appropriate (as well as the easiest) response would be for Mass AG to identify those responsive documents already produced, as called for by the interrogatories.
Second, discovery against Mass AG closed in mid-December, 1988.
It seems difficult to believe that, in the more than two years since, the office for Children, the Department of Education, the Massachusetts Civil Defense Agency and other governmental agencies have had no communications with schools and/or teachers concerning emergenu plans and emergency
' 3 response.
l Third, the answer is demonstrably untrue.
Responses at 22.
Previously, Mass AG did not produce any documents from either the Office for Children or the Department of Education Sag, L&.
" Massachusetts Attorney General's Response to Applicants' Second Request for Production of Documents" (Nov. 15, 1988) at 3 (listing agencies whose documents Mass AG has examined and would produce).
Now, however, Mass AG claims an attorney-client relationship with those two agencies.
Responses at 22.
Such a claim does not excuse non-production of responsive documents (other than attorney-client communications)t to the contrary, it requires it.
As Attachment C hereto demonstrates, one or both of I _
l those agencies have in their files evidence of attempts by Massachusetts officials to impede emergency planning with Massachusetts EPZ schools and day care facilities.
Accordingly, Mass AG should be compelled to identify (and then produce) all such responsive documents.
c.
Recuesta LRI Emeraency Resconse Reaulations, Guidelinest Interroaatories Nos.15 And ifi In Interrogatories Nos. 15 and 16, Mass AG was asked to identify and produce "all regulations, executive orders, policy statements, guidelines, and other standards established by The commonwealth" concerning the responsibilities of teachers in radiological and non-radiological emergencies.
Mass AG objected to both questions on the grounds of attorney work product, and also claimed that such documents as exist have already been l
produced.
The first claim is legally incorrect, and the second l
l demonstrably false as a factual matter.
Mass AG's claim that the existence of state guidelines and standards for teacher emergency response constitutes " attorney mental impressions, legal theories and opinions," Responses at 8, l
is patently frivolous, and seems but a variation on Mass AG's l
prior misclaims of that privilege.
Sin, n, h 19651-52.
Whether such stato standards exist is a ques *' r of f act, as the Appeal Board itself observed in remanding these issues.
ALAB-937, slip op. at 28-29.
Mass AG -- having claimed attorney-client privilege with the state agencies who would be responsible I I
I l
for such standards -- both can and should answer that factual question.
1 As for the claim that all such standards have already been produced, it is simply untrue.
Mass AG did not produce to Licensees, for example, the February 23, 1987 MCDA memorandum to l
the selectmen of Duxbury, MA, (the "MCDA Duxbury Memorandum") in which MCDA took the position that "(i)n the event of an evacuation, it is the responsibility of teachers, other school personnel, and day-care providers to accompany children to reception centers, until they can be discharged to their parents or guardians.He Likewise Mass AG did Dg1 produce to Licensees the April 24, 1989, memorandum from Charles V. Barry, Secretary of Public Safety (the "Barry Memornndum"), concurring that in the
(
event of a radiological emergency, "to the extent cooperation is requested by the Governor or the Director of Civil Defense, all l
Town employees, including school teachers, are required to cooperate."'
In light of this clear evidence that all responsive documents have apt previously been produced, Mass AG should now l
be compelled to re-exauine the agencins' files and identify (and then produce) all documents called for by the two interrogatories.
8 Egg Attachment h to " Affidavit of Anthony M.
Callendrello" (Oct. 19, 1990).
Egg Attachment B to " Affidavit of Anthony M.
Callendrello" (Oct. 19, 1990).
I i I
I D.
Ouestions gg 1g SDecific HC.QA Policiest Interrocatories H21.a.12 AD.d 2.5.
In Interrogatory No. 23, Licensees called upon Mass AG to either confirm that the MCDA Duxbury Memorandum quoted above was still the operative MCDA p
'cy or, if not, to identify all facts and documents indicating thht it was not.
In No. 25, Licensees made the same request with respect to the Barry Memorandum also referenced above.
Mass AG responded by raising various objections as to form, and then denying -- in an unsworn statement by counsel rather than a first-hand answer, under oath, by the cognizant state official (s) as required by 10 C.F.R. 2.740b(b)i' -- that MCDA or the Executive Office of Public Safety had any general policies as to teacher roles in a radiological emergency.
Mass AG's objections of form with respect to these interrogatories are quickly disposed of.
The quote in Interrogatory No. 23 was obviously from the MCDA Duxbury Memorandum, which MCDA presumably has, and a copy of which was served on Mass AG as Attachment A to the Callendrello Affidavit just a few weeks earlier.
Nor do either Nos. 23 and 25 assume that any particular policy exist -- rather, they expressly ask l
for a response, under oath, as to whether or not it does.
'O Indeed, Mass AG notes that the one MCDA/OEp official whom Mass AG consulted does affirm the Barry memorandum, Responses at 19, thus calling into question the accuracy of Mass AG's unsworn answer, as well as illuminating the impropriety of having attorneys " answer" questions of fact in lieu of witnesses.
I I I
- I As for Mass AG's substantive response to the queries of fact, they are (at best) incomplete.
Having denied the existence of any policy, Mass AG -- especially when confronted with these two express policy statements that would therefore have to have been repudiated or countermanded -- was required by the terms of the two interrogatories to state all the facts and identify all the documents supporting his denial.
These answers, moreover, should be ordered from the state official (s) responsible for emergency planning, and be given by them under oath pursuant to 10 C.F.R.
$ 2.70b(b), so that there will be no further nbfuscation as to the status of the MCDA Duxbury Memorandum and the Barry Memorandum.
E.
Questions ag M IgApligI Obedience M State Polievt Interrocatories Nos. 2.i add 2.6.
As is clear from our prior filings on this issue, Licensees believe, based on the MCDA Duxbury Memorandum and the Barry Memorandum, that the Commonwealth would recuira teachers and day care providers to accompany their students in the event of a
(
radiological emergency, and that this remand litigation is therefore an exercise in shadow-boxing by Mass AG.
In Interrogatories Nos. 24 and 26, Licensees called upon Mass AG to state, with full factual and documencary support, the number of teachers he may claim would abandon their charges in the face of
'I such a state requirement.
In his answers, Mass AG again makes various objections of form, which are invalid for the reasons discussed in Part D I I
I above.
He then goes on to assert that "a substantial number of teachers" would refuse to obey and would abandon ne children encharged to them.
This answer is, at best, incom}lete.
Mass AG does not state the cercentace of teachers he contends would so act, as requested in Nos. 24(b) and 26(b).
Nor does he state the iacts and identify the docuttents underlying his claims, as requested in Nos. 24(c)-(d) and 26(c)-(d).
According, further specific responses to those subparts of the interrogatories should be compelled.
T.
Questions Soecifically ouotina the Romanded Issuest Interrocatories Nos. 2.Q and 2L.
In Interrogatcries Nos. 30 and 31, Licensees quote the two issues romanded by the Appeal Board in ALAB-937, and then (similar to the interrogatories posed during the SPMC litigatien) asked Mass AG to identify his case as to those issues.
Mass AG's objection, to the effect that he does not recognize the source of the quotes, is fatuous -- they are, word for word, the exact issues supposedly being litigated Lere.
Likewise his objection to No. 31 "on the basis of form in that it assumes the exister.t l
(sic) of primary and alternative arrangements," Responses at 27, is frivolous, since the quoted language is precisely the "either, or" structure mandated by the Appeal Board itself.
As for Mass AG's substantive responses, they are again incomplete.
Although Mass AG does seem to state the facts and identify the experts upon which he relies, he neither identifies any underlying documents (as called for in Nos. 30(b) and 31(b))
I nor identifies his witnesses (as called for in Nos. 30(d) and 31(d)).
Further responses to those specific queries should be compelled.
G.
ExcocteJ1 Teacher Resoonses Al Other Facilitiest I
Interroaatories Nos. 34-36 In the last three of their interrogatories, Licensees ask a series of questions focusing on the expected role of teachers with respect to other nuclear and non-nuclear facilities.
Mass AG, however, objected to all three questions, claiming as one basis for objection that "the Mass AG does not know nor is the office in a position to know what reliance is placed on teachers generally throughout (sic) country at nuclear plants, facilities containing hazardous materials and other situations where the, evacuations of schools is (sic) required."
Responses at 31.
Ignorance is a substantive answer to a question; it is not grounds for an objection If Mass AG and his experts genuinely do not know what is done with respect to other plants and facilities, then he and they should be bound by that factual response.
Otherwise Mass AG should be compelled to state what he and his experts do know, and the basis for that purported knowledge, as the interrogatories request.
I I
I I
I CONCLUSION For the reasons stated above, the Board should compel Mass AG to respond to Interrogatories Nos.
2, 3,
4, 5,
6, 7,
8, 9,
14, 15, 16, 23, 24(b)-(d), 25, 26(b)-(d), 28, 29, 30(b) and (d),
31(b) and (d), 34, 35, and 36.
Respectfully submitted, N
Thoma~s G.
Dignan, Jr.
George H. Lewald Kathryn Selleck Shea Jeffrey P. Trout Ropes & Gray I
one International Place Boston, MA 02110-2624 (617) 951-7000 l
I I
lI I
I I I
ATTACHMENT A Filed:
December 10, 1990 I
UNITED STATES OF AMERICA I
NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSION before the ATOMIC SAFETY AND LICENSING BOARD l
3 In the Matter of PUBLIC SERVICE COMPANY OF
)
Docket Nos. 50-443 OL NEW !!AMPSHIRE, et al.
)
50-444-OL
)
Off-site Emergency (Seabrook Station, Units 1 and 2)
)
Planning Issues I
.J LICENSEES' FIRST SET OF INTERROGATORIES AND FIRST REQUEST FOR PRODUCTION OF DOCUMENTS TO THE MASS AG REGARDING REMANDED MASSACHUSETTS TEACNER ISSUES Pursuant to 10 C.F.R. 55 2.740b and 2.741, Licensees hereby request that the Attorney General for The Commonwealth of Massachusetts respond to the following interrogatories and produce for inspection and copying the documents requested below.
The production of the documents requested herein shall take place at the offices of Ropes & Gray, One International Place, Boston, Massachusetts at 10 a.m. on Friday, January 11, 1991.
DEFINITIONS AND INSTRUCTIONS 1.
The term " document" is defined to be synonymous in meaning and equal in scope to the usage of the term
" documents and tangible things" in Federal Rule of Civil
(
[?lj h' b'
{
i
_ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ l
I Procedure 34(a), and therefore shall include, without limitation, any written or otherwise recorded information.
2.
To " identify" a document means to state its author, date, title, addressee (s), and subject matter.
3.
To " identify" a person other than an expert witness means to state the person's full name, title, business address, affiliation, and professional qualifications (if any).
To " identify" an expert witness means to state, in addition to the. foregoing the profession or occupation and ficid(s) of a.
expertise of the persont b, the educational and specialized training history of the person, including date and grant.ing institution of all degrees earned; a list of publications by the person in the area (s) c.
of expertise; and
- d. the age of the person and the amount of time the person has worked in the field of expertise.
4.
If any of the interrogatories or document production requests contained herein are claimed to be objectionable, then please identify the portion (s) to which objection is made and the portion (s) to which answer or production is made.
I I
I I
I 5.
If it is claimed that any document responsive to any request is privileged, then please describe in detail the nature of and basis for the assented privilege, and identify each allegedly privileged document.
6.
If any document required to be identified or produced in these answers has been destroyed, please identify the document, state the date of its destruction, identify the person responsible for ordering destruction, state the purpose of destruction, and (if applicable) produce any document retention policy that governed or should have governed the retention or destruction of the document.
7.
For the purposes of those interrogatories and requests:
- a. "SPMC" means the most current version of the Seabrook I
Plan f or Massachusetts Communities, and all appendices and attachments thereto; b.
"NHY-ORO" means the New Hampshire Yankee Off-site Response Organization:
I
" Massachusetts EPZ" refers to that portion of the c.
l l
Emergency Planning Zone for Seabrook Station which l
lies within the Commonwealth of Massachusettst
- d. " Holy Cross Ops Plan" means the Holy cross Host Facility Activation and operation plan, dated i
12/26/89, Attachment C to the October 19, 1990 I
Affidavit of Anthony M. Callendrello:
I E
I
" School Host Facility Plan" means the Massachusetts e.
Sescol Hest Facility Plan, College of the Holy Cross, Worcester, Massachusetts, dated 10/2/89, Attachment D to the October 19, 1990 Affidavit of Anthony M.
Callendrello;
- f. " Mass AG" refers to the Attorney General for The Commonwealth of Massachusetts, all assistants to and employees and agents thereof, all witnesses offered or to be offered thereby in these proceedings, and all individuals and entities with respect to which the Attorney General for The Commonwealth of Massachusets claims an attorney-client privilege with respect to litigation of the issues remanded in ALAB-937;
- g. " Teachers" means all public school personnel, private school personnel, and day care providers;
- h. " Schools" means all public schools, private schools, and day care facilities:
- i. "The Commonwealth" means the Commonwealth of l
Massachusetts and all officials, agencies, employees, agents, and political subdivisions t.nereof; and I
- j. " SARA" means the Emergency Planning and Community Right to Know Act of 1986, 42 U.S.C. 55 11001 e_t gag., and all federal, state, and local regulations, orders, and guidelines promulgated pursuant thereto.
I I I
I I
I INTERROGATORIES AND DOCUMENT REQUESTS 1.
Please identify the person (s) answering or substantially contributing to the answer of each of the following interrogatories, and produce a copy of each person's most recent resums.
2.
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 respond in the event of a radiological emergency at Seabrook station, and produce all such documents within the possession or control of Mass AG.
I 3.
Please identify al) 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 I
Massachusetts EPZ 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 produced in response to the foregoing request.
I Please identify all analyses, surveys, studies and 4.
reports known or believed by Mass AG to exist I
I 4
1 I
(including, but not limited to, all possessed by The Commonwealth) as to how Massachusetts Teachers would respond to a radiological Emergency, and produce all such documents within the possession or control of Mass I
AG other than those produced in response to the foregoing requests.
5.
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 I
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 produced in response to the foregoing requests.
Please identify all analyses,. surveys, studies and 6.
reports known or believed by Mass AGLto exist i
(includina, but not limited to, all possessed by The commonwealth) as to how Teachers have responded to radiological emergencies, and produce all such documents
\\
within the possession or control of Mass AG other than l
those produced in response to the foregoing requests.
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 respond to a I I
I radiological emergency, and produce all such documents within the possession or control of Mass AG other than those produced in response to the foregoing requests.
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 Co'nmonwealth) as to how Teachers have responded to emergencies 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 requests.
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 other than those produced in respense \\o the foregoing requests.
10.
Please identify and produce tne most recent SARA plans for Amesbury, Merrimac, Newbury, Newburyport, Salisbury, and West Newbury.
11.
Does the Mass AG contend that any municipa]ity located in the Massachusetts EPZ is not in compliance with the requirements of SARA as they relate to cmergen g I
- I
I planning for Schools-and school children?
If your answer is anything other than an unqualified negati..e, then please identify ecch 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 cach 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.
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
,I 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 or which your answer is based.
(b)
Identify and produce each document which you contend reflects or. supports your answer.
I g
-e-
'I
I (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) et 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.
13.
Does the Mass AG contend that any School located in the Massacnusetts EPZ would not, in the event of an emergency requiring evacuation of the School,_ comply with the rer.ponsibilities assigned to it and its personnel by local SARA plans?
If your answer is anything 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 Mass AG contends establishes the qualifications of the person) c',' any person on whose expertise Mass AG relies for the answer, or state that Mass AG I
I
I does not rely upon the expertise of any person for the answer.
14.
Please identify and produce all emergency plans for Massachusetts EPZ Schools.
15.
Please identify and produce all regulations, executive orders, policy statements, guidelines, and other standards established by The Commonwealth which reflect or relate to the responsibilities of Teachers in the event of a radiological emergency.
16.
Please identify all regulatior s, executive orders, policy statements, guidelines, and other standards established by The Commonwealth which reflect or relate to the responsibilities of Teachers in the event of an emergency at their School, and produce all such documents other than those produced in response to the foregoing request.
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 the requirements of 102 -CMR S 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.
I
-1e-I
E (b)
Identify and produce each document which you contend reflects or supports your answer, (c)
Provide the technical qualifications (education, employment history, licenses and certificatc.s, 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 exp rtise of any person for the answer.
18.
Does the Mass AG contend that any day care facility within the Massachusetts EPZ is not in compliance with he requirements of 102 CMR S 7.07 (16) (d) ?
If your answer is anything other than an unqualified negative, then please identify p ch such facility which Mass AG contends is not or may not be in compliance, and:
(a)
Stato each fact on which yout 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 I I
E does not rely upon the expertise of any person for the answer.
19.
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 7.11(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 establishes the qualifications of the person) of any persen 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.
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 $ 8.08(21)?
If your answer is anything other than an unqualified negative, then
,I please identify each such facility which Mass AG contends is not or may not be in compliance, and:
!I I
I (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.
21.
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 the requirements of 102-CMR 5 8.10?
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, employment history, licenses and certificates, experience, or other information that Mass AG contends estaclishes the qualifications of the I
I 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.
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, E
then please identify each such facility which Mass AG
' l 1
contends is not or may not be in compliance, and:
(a)
State each fact on which your answer is based.
(b)
Identify and produce cach document which you contend-reflects or supports your answer.
, g (c)
Provide the technical qualifications (education,
! g 1
employment history, licenses and certificates, experience, or other information that Mass-AG contends establishes the qualifications of the l
person) of any person on whose expertise Mass AG I
relies for the answer, or state that Mass AG does not rely upon the expertise of any person for the answer.
23.
Does Mass AG agree that it is the policy or position of the Massachusetts Civil Defense Agency and/or the I
Massachusetts Executive Office of Public Safety, with respect to radiological emergencies, that "[ijn the I lI
I event of an evacuation, it is the responsibility of l
teachers, other school personnel, and day-care providers to accompany children to reception contors, 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 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 l
contends establisnes the qualifications of the 1
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.
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 1_
I I
I
" responsibility.
to accompany children to reception centors, 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 ctate-imposed responsibility to accompany the children.
(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.
I 1
i (e)
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 answers, or state that Mass AG l
does not rely upon the expertise of any person for the answers.
25.
Does Mass AG agree that the Memorandum of Charles V.
Barry to Robert J. Boulay, April 24, 1989, Attachment B I
to the October 19, 1990 Affidavit of Anthony M.
I I
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 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 orders from the Governor to Teachers in the event of a radiological emergency, and:
(a)
Stato 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, 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.
26.
Does Mass AG contend that, in the event of a radiological emergency at Seabrook Station, Teachers employed in the Massachusetts Ep2 would disobey an order from the Governor or his delegatee that they accompany I
g
-n.
I
I 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.
(e)
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 answers, or state that Mass AG does not rely upon the expertise of any person for the answers.
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 I
I radiological emergency at Seabrook Station, between the Mass AG (as defined) and:
(a) the Office for Children; (b) other Massachusetts governmental officihls 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.
28.
Please describe in detail, and identify and produce all documents that constitute, reflect or refer to, all communications, concerning School emergency planning in I
connection with Seabrook Station, between Massachusetts l
governmental officials and entities (including, but not l
limited to, the Mass AG as defined) and:
l (a) the office for Children; (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.
I i
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 governmental offiqials 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.
30.
Does Mass AG 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 conter 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 tinqualified negative, then please:
I (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 Joes not rely upon the expertise of any person for the answer.
(d)
Identify each witness whom Mass AG intends to l
call to testify in support of Mass AG's position.
M.
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, survey, study and report) which you contend supports your answer.
I g
m.
I
i 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 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 !n. support of Mass AG'u position.
32.
Please describe in detail each action which Mass AG contends must be taken'in orde" 's provide " reasonable assurance that, in the event of a radiological emargency 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 gl Facility at Holy Cross College and remain with thosc i
l 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 I
contend supporte your answer.
I I
1 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 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.
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 bus trip to 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 each document which you contend 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 person) of any person on whose expertise Mass AG I
g
-n-I
I relies for the answer, or state that Mass AG does not rely upon the expertise of any person for the answer.
g 34.
Does Mass AG contend that Teachers are not generally M
relied upon to accompany evacuating children (1) from h
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?
If your answer is anything other than an unqualified negative, then please:
(a)
State each fact on which your answer is based.
i (b)
Identify and produce each document (including, but limited to, each analysis, survey, study and report) which you contend 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 j
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.
35.
Does Mass AG contend that the reliance on Teachers to accompany evacuating children (1) from the emergency 1 I
5 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 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.
36.
Does Mass AG contend that reliance upon Teachers to 1
accompany evacuating children does provide " reasonable assurance that adequate protective measures can and will be taken" for the supervision of the evacuating children (1) from the emergency planning zones around other I
I
I nuclear power plants. (ii) from the areas around facilities containing hazardous materials, including and (iii) in other situations where evanuation of Schools is required, but such reliance does not provide " reasonable i
assurance" with respect to the Massachusetts EPZ?
Please state each reason for your answer, and, separately for each reason, please also:
(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 expertiso Mass AG relies for the answer, or state that Mass AG does not rely upon the expertise of any person for the answer.
By their attorneys, ph I
Thomks G.
Dignan, Jr.
George H. Lewald Kathryn Selleck Shen I
Jeffrey P. Trout Ropes & Gray One International Place Boston, MA 02110-2624 (617) 951-7000 lI I
I
- I I
GEETIFICATE OF SERVICE I
I, Jeffrey P. Trout, one of the attorneys for the Licensees herein, hereby certify that-on December 10, 1990, I made_ service of the within document by depositing copies thereof with Federal Express, prepaid, for delivery to (or, where indicated, by.
depositing in the United States mail, first class postage paid, addressed to):
Administrative Judge Ivan W. Smith Ad-)udicatory File Chairman, Atomic Safety and Atomic Safety and Licensing Licensing Board Board Panel Docket (2 copies) i U.S. Nuclear Regulatory U.S.
Nuclear Regulatory Commission Commission East West Towers Building East West Towers Building 4350 East West Highway 4350 East West Highway I
Bethesda, MD 20814 Bethesda, MD 20814 Administrative Judge Richard F.
Cole Robert R. Pierce, Esquire I
Atomic Safety and Licensing Board Atomic Safety and Licensing U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission Board East West Towers Building U.S. Nuclear Regulatory B
4350 East West Highway Commission Bethesda, MD 20814 East West Towers Building 4350 East West Highway Bethesda, MD 20814 I
Administrative Judge Kenneth A.
Mitzi A. Young, Esquire McCollom Edwin J. Reis, Esquire
,I 1107 West Knapp Street
-Office of the General Counsel Stillwater, OK 74075 U.S. Nuclear Regulatory
}
Commission I
One White Flint North, 15th Fl.
11555 Rockville Pike Rockville, MD 20852 John P. Arnold, Attorney General Diane Curran, Esquire l
George Dana Bisbee, Associate Andrea C.
Ferster, Esquire Attorney General Harmon, Curran & Tousley iI Office of the Attorney General Suite 430 25 Capitol Street 2001 S Street, N.W.
j Concord, NH 03301-6397 Washington, DC 20009
- Atomic Safety and Licensing Robert A.
Backus, Esquire l
Appeal Panel 116 Lowell Street U.S. Nuclear Regulatory P.
O. Box 516 Commission Manchester, NH 03105 Mail Stop EWW-529 Washington, DC 20555 I
1 P
c l
I Philip Ahrens, Esquire Suzanne P.
Egan, City solicitor Assistant Attorney General Lagoulis, Hill-Whilton &
B Department of the Attorney Rotondi General 79 State Street Augusta, ME 04333 Newburyport, MA 01950 Paul McEachern, Esquire Stephen A. Jonas, Esquire Shaines & McEachern Leslie Greer, Esquire 25 Maplewood Avenue Matthew Brock, Esquire I
P.O.
Box 360 Massachusetts Attorney General Portsmouth, NH 03801 One Ashburton Place Boston, MA 02108
- Senator Gordon J. Humphrey R. Scott Hill-Whilton, Esquire U.S.
Senate Lagoulis, Hill-Whilton &
Washington, DC 20510 Rotondi I
(Attn:
Tom Burack) 79 State Street Newburyport, MA 01950
- Senator Gordon J.
Humphrey Barbara J.
Saint Andre, Esquire One Eagle Square, Suite 507 Kopelman and Paige, P. C.
Concord, NH 03301 101 Arch Street (Attn:
Herb Boynton)
Bcston, MA 02110 H. Joseph Flynn, Esquire Judith H.
Mi nor, Esquire Office of General Counsel 79 State Street, 2nd Floor I
Federal Emergency Management Newburyport, MA 01950 Agency 500 C Street, S.W.
Washington, DC 20472 Gary W.
Holmes, Esquire Ashod N.
Amirian, Esquire I
Holmes & Ells 145 South Main Street 47 Winnacunnet Road P.O.
Box 38 Hampton, NH 03842 Bradford, MA 01835 Mr. Richard R.
Donovan Mr. Jack Dolan Federal Emergency Management Federal Emergency Management Agency Agency - Region I i
Federal Regional Center J.W. McCormack Post Office &
130 22Bth Street, S.W.
Courthouse Building, Room 442 Bothell, Washington 98021-9796 Boston, MA 02109 I
I I
I I
I George Iverson, Director N.H. Office of Emergency Management i
State House Office Park South 107 Fleasant Street Concord, NH 03301 l
l fg@nua s
'effrey P.
Trout J
(*= ordinary U.S.
First Class Hall) lI
- I I
lI I
I I
I I
- I I
g.
I
I______ _
ATTACHMENT B I
I UNITED STATES OF AMERICA NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSION ATOMIC SAFETY AND LICENSING BOARD Before the Administrative Judges:
Ivan W. Smith, Chairman I
Dr. Richard F. Cole Kenneth A. McCollom I
1 I
)
In the Matter of
)
Docket Nos. 50-443-OL
)
50-444-OL PUBLIC SERVICE COMPANY
)
I OF NEW HAMPSHIRE, EI E.
)
1
)
(Seabrook Station, Units 1 and 2)
)
December 26, 1990 l
l
_)
I MASSACHUSETTS ATTORNEY GENERAL'S RESPONSE TO LICENSEES' FIRST SET OF INTERROGATORIES REGARDING REMANDED MASSACHUSETTS TEACHER ISSUES INTERPOGATORIES AND DOCUMENT REQUESTS
'O 1.
Please identify the person (s) answering or substantially contributing to the answer of each of the-following interrogatories, and produce a copy of each person's most resume.
Reseenset i
Unless otherwise indicated the interrogatories below were answered by Leslie Greer, Department of the Attorney General, One Ashburton Place, Boston, MA 02108.
'I
-or d.Ld3 0 W I
I l.
2.
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 respond in the event of a radiological emergency at seabrook station, and produce all such documents within the possession or control of Mass. AG.
Pesconse:
I Interviews conducted by Katherine Barnicle, Investigator, Department 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 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_ produced in response to the foregoing request.
Reconse:
l None other than the above.
Please identify all analyses, surveys, studies and reports.
4.
known or believed by Mass AG to exist (including, but not limited to, all possessed by The Commonwealth) as to how Massachusetts Teachers would respond to a radiological emergency, and produce all such documents within the I
1 I
possession or control of Mass AG other than those produced in response to the foregoing requests.
^
i E i
N Resoonsg None other than the above.
5.
.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 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 produced in response to the foregoing requests.
l Pesconse None other than the above.
i 6.
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 have responded to radiological emergencies, and produce all such documents within the possession or control of Mass AG other than those produced in response to the foregoing requeses.
Resoonse:
None other than 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 I
Teachers would respond to a radiological emergency, and produce all such documents within the possession or I I I k
control of Mass AG other than those produced in-response to the foregoing requests.
Recoonse:
The testimony on teachers in the New 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 responded to emergencies requiring esacuation 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 requests.
Resconse:
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:
None other than the above.
i 10.
Please identify and produce the most recent SARA plans for Amebury, Merrimac, Newbury, Newburyport, Salisbury, Newbury.
' I
l
- I Resoonses 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 tne Massachusetts EPZ is not in compliance with the requirements of SARA as they relate to emergency planning for Schools and crhool children?
If your answer is anything other than an unqualified negative, then please identify each such municipality which Mass AG contends is not or may not be in compliance, ands (a
state each fact on which your answer is based, g
(b)
Identify and produce each document which you contend reflects or supports your answer.
{
(c)
Provide the technical qualifications (education, I
employment history, licenses and certificates, experi9nce, or other information that Mass AG
,g contends establishes the qualifications of the person) of any person on whosa expertise Mass AG relies for the answer, or state tnat Mass AG does not rely upon the expertise of any person for the answer.
The Mass AG objects to this interrogatory on the basis of form and because it calls for a legal opinion as to what constitutes compliance with a law.
WithoO waiving those l
l objections, the Mcss AG states that the only au.71cipality of the six in the Massachusetts EPZ that has adopted a
. E
I SARA plan is the City of Hewburyport.
Under that plan the only references to schools indicate that they may be availab1w as shelter in the event of a toxic release.
I Does the Mass AG contend that any School located in the 12.
i Massachusetts EPZ is not in compliance with the l
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 Mars i
AG contends is not or may not be in compliance, andt f
(a)
State each fact on which your answer is based.
g (b)
Identify and produc.e sach document which you contend reflects or supports your answer.
(c)
Provide the technical qualifications (education, I
employment history, licenses and certificates, experience, er other information that Mass AG g
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.
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 t the interrogatory on the basis that it calls g
for a legal opinion as to what constitutes compliance with a law.
Without waiving those objections, the Mass AG I c
1lI 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 l
plan the only responsibility that appears to be assigned to schools is to be available for shelter in the event of a toxic release.
School personnel, and teachers in particular, do not appear to have any assigned evacuation l
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 it and its personnel by local
'g SARA plans?
If your answer is anything other than an unqualified negative, then please identify each such School which Mass AG contends would not or may not comply, and:
,I (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, employmer.t history, licenses and certificates, i
experience, or other informatior. that Mass AG contends establishes the qualiff. cations 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 expre.*.ise of any person for the answer. il
I
)
Reseense:
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.
Eesconse:
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 l
established by The commonwealth which reflect or relate to the responsibilities of Teachers in the event of a radiological emergency.
Resconse:
The Mass AG objects to this interrogatory on the basis
'l that it calls for attorney mental impressions, legal 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 l
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 I
I l
reflect or relate to the responsibilities of Teachers in the event of an emergency at their School, and produce all
!I such documents other than those produced in response to
'E th' ' "*S 1"' "**"****
i 5 q
Re scongjt t 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 1
the Massachusetts EPZ would not, in the event of a I
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, ands (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, l
experience, or other information that Mass AG contends establishes the qualifications of the 1
person) of any person on whose expertise Mass AG
)
relies for the answer, or state that Mass AG does not il rely upon the expertise of any person for the answer,
!I ~I
- I
t
- I
(
l Resoonse:
The Mass AG objects to this interrogatory on the basis l
that it calls for a lega.1 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 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.
I See Affidavit of Stephen Cole dated November 2, 1990 referred to above.
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 CHR i
- 7. 06 (2 9) (b).
18.
I Does the Mass AG contend that any day care facility within the Massachusetts EPZ is not in compliance with the l
g requirements of 102 CMR I 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, ands (a)
State each fact on which your answer is based.
g (b)
Identify and produce each document which you contend reflects or supports your answer.
I I
- I I
o l
(c)
Provice 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 g
relies for the answer, or state that Mass AG does not raly upon the expertise of any person for the answer.
ERERCAtt t
' I 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 i
waiving those objections, the Mass AG states that while group daycare centers in the Massachusetts EPZ have procedures to get infants aitd 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 l
transporting the children halfway across the state and caring for them indefinitely until their parents ultimately arrive, rurtherinore, 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 $ 7.07(16)(d).
< I I
~11-I I
4lI
\\
f 19.
Does the Mass AG contend that any day care facility within the Massachusetts EPZ is nc*. in compliance with the requirements of 102 CMR i 7.11(8)?
If your answer is I
anything other than an unqualified negative, then please l
t identify each such facility which Mass AG contends is not j
or may not be in compliance, ands (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 rely upon the expertise of any person for the answer.
Resconse:
The Mass AG objects to this interrogatory on the basis I
that it calls for a legal opinion as to what consitutes compliance with a regulation, is irrelevant and unlikely to lead to the discovery of relevant material.
Without i
waiving that objections, the Mass AG states that that regulation does not require any plans for transportation l-of children in an emergency.
It only requires that if a licensee has such plans, they be in writing.
The Mass AG g
also notes that the vast majority of day care centers in I
the EPZ are home day care centers are not covered by 102 CMR 37.11(8),
l l -
I 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 $ 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, andt (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, I
employment history, licenses and certificates, experience, or other information that Mass AG l
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, g
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 is unikely to lead to the discovery relevant material.
Without waiving that objection, the Mass AG states that l
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 regulation, there is no requirement that there be any evaculation from the facility site itself.
( I
\\
21.
Does the Mass AG contend that any day care facility within i
the Massachusetts EPZ would not, in the event of a radiological emergency at seabrook Station, comply with the requirements of 102 CMR i 8.107 If your answer is anything other than an unqualified negative, then please identify each such facility which Mass AG contends would j
not or may not comply, ands l
(a)
State each fact on which your answer is based, t
(b)
Identify and produce each document which you contend reflects or supports your answer.
i,
- g (c) provide the technical qualifications (education, Ig employment history, licenses and certificates, l
experience, or other information that Mass AG i
contends establishes the qualifications of the person) of any person on whose expertise Mass AG I
relies for the answer, or' state that Mass AG does not rely upon the expertise of any person for the answer.
Resoonse:
The Mass AG objects to this interrogatory on the basis that it calls for a legal opinion as to what constitutes 4
compliance with a regulation, is irrelevant, and unlikely to lead to relevant material.
The Mass AG also objects to i
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.
a a
I 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 i 7.07(18)(i)?
If your answer is anything other than an unqualified negative, then please l
identify each such facility which Mass AG contends is not or may not be in compliance, ands (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.
Reseense:
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
I I
l 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 i
to anything other than an unqualified affirmative, then please describe in detail what Mass AG contends the policy 4
I' or position of the Massachusetts civil Defence Agency and the Massachusetts Executive Office of Public Safety to be j
with respect to the responsibilities of Teachers in the t
event of a radiological emergency, and:
1 (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 person) of any person on whose expertise Mass AG l
relies for the answer, or state that Mass AG does not rely upon the expertise of any person forthe answer.
Epsoonse:
The Mass AG objects to this interrogatory in that it contains quoted language without providing a reference for l
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 Executive Office of Public Safety has adopted any generic policy or position with respect to radiological emergencies other l
I 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 snd/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 contand that, in the event of a radiological emergency at Seabrook Station, Teachers employed in the Massachusetts EPZ would not meet their " responsibility.
to accompany children to reception centers, until they ca'n 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)
I State each fact upon which your answers to sub-parts (a) and (b) above are based. '
I l
I (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, 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 fpr the answers.
Res oonte:
The Mass AG objects to this interrogatory in that it I
contains quoted language without providing a reference for the quote.
The Mass AG also objects to the form of the
, g l E question in that it assumes that teachers have a responsibility to accompany and stay with children.
l 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 1
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 prasent policy or position of the Massachusetts civil Defense Agency and the Massachusetts Executive Office of Public Safety?
If your answer is I
I l
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 orders from the Governor to Teachers in the event of a radiological emergency, andt (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.
Resoonse:
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 statement of j
policy or position by the Executive office of Public Safety.
On its face the memorandum simply states that l
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.
,-n..
-,n
,e
!I
,g opinion is inapplicable to private school teachers and private day care personnel.
I 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 rolec.
26.
Does Mass AG contend that, in the event of a radiological emergency at Seabrook Station, Teachers employed in the Massachusetts EPZ vould disobey an order from the Governor or his delegatee that they accotopany the children to reception centers until relieved?
If your answer is anything other than an unqualified negative, then pleases (a)
Describe in detail each reason for your answer.
l (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
'g supports your answers to sub-parts (a) through (c) above.
I I
-20 I
I
I l
(e)
Provide the technical qualifications (education,
\\
l employment history, licenses and certificates, experience, or other information that Mass AG 1
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.
P_g s oom 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 at' order credence; 2) it is forseeable that a substantial numbsr of teachers will refuse to obey the order because of rola conflict --
see the affidavit and qualifications of stephen cole 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; 1
1 (b) other Massachusetts governmental officials and entities, including, but not limited to city, town and school district officials; (c)
Teacherst (d)
Schools and administrators thereof; (e)
Teachers' unions and officials thereof; and (f) all other persons and entitles.
l Reseense:
The Mass AG objects to revealing the content of communications with other state agencias as protected attorney-c)ient communications.
Without waiving that objection the Mass AG states that:
- 1) during the weeks of 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 I
concerning such standards and studies about emergenciest
- 2) during the weeks of October 22, and December 17 and December 24, 1990 the Mass AG had telephone conversations l
with personnel at the Massachusetts civil Defense Agency cencerning 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.
. I
~
t During the week of october 22, 1990 the Mass AG had a i
telephone conversation with the representative of the Massachusetts Teachers Association (MTA) concerning who
.I 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 l
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 B
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 l
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 entitles (including, but not limited to, the Mass AG as defined) andt (a) the office for children; (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.
Reseense:
The Mass AG objects to the interrogatory 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 i
Massachucetts governmental officials and entities other than the Mass AG-(as defined) ands I
(a) the office for Children; (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 thereoft and (f) all other persons and entities.
Resoonse The Mass AG objects to the interrogatory 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.
~
- I 30.
Does Mass AG contend that there, is not " reasonable assurance that, in the event of a radiological emergency i
i g
at seabrook necescitating an evacuation of children in schools and day-care centers within the Massachusetts EP2, l
a sufficient number of teachers and day-care center personnel will escort the children to the school Host j
racility at Holy Cross college and remain with those children until relieved of that assignment"?
If your answer is anything other than an unqualified negative, l
then please:
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.
l (c) provide the technical qualifications (education, employment history, licenses and certificates, experience, or other information that Mass AG
,I contends establishes the qualifications of the person) of any person on whose expertise Mass AG l
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 g
testify in support of Mass AG's position.
W I
lI lI I
I Resoonset Tne Mass AG objects to this interrogatory on the basis that it contains quoted 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 a
day care personnel with the SPMC.
I 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:
l (a)
State each fact on which your answer is based.
(b)
Identify and produce each document (including, but E
limited to, each analysis, survey, study and report) which you contend supports your answer. I f
I g
(c)
Provide the technical qualifications (education, employment history, licenses and certificates, h
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 i
rely upon the expertise of any person for the answer.
l (d)
Identify each witness whom Mass AG intends to call to testify in support of Mass AG's position.
The Mass AG objects to this interrogatory on the basis that it contains quoted language without providing a g
reference for the quote and on 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 no ORO personnel or letters of agreement.
with other personnel to provide for the care and supervision of children; 2) there are no procedures or training for ORO personnel I
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
ll 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 emergenev 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 supports your answer.
(c)
I 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 I
relies for the answer, or state that Mass AG CLas not rely upon the expertise of any person for the answer.
Recconset 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 quote.
Without waiving those objections the Mass AG states: I
I 1) if teachers and day care personnel to relied on, i
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 natorial needs of the children; 4) an assessment should be made as to how many teachers and day care 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 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 II and supervision of the children both on the bus trip to Worcester and during their stay at the School Host Facility"?
If Mass AG contends that. changes would be required to the SPHC, the Holy Cross Ops Plan, and/or the School Host Facility Plan, please describe in detail each such change.
Please also:
(c)
State each fact on which your answer is based.
i l
(b)
Identify and produce each document which you contend supports your answer.
I I
I I
-_ ~
i l
(c)
Provide the technical qualifications (education, employment history, licenses and certificates, l
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.
Peseense:
The Mass AG objects to this interrogatory in that it calls for the Mass AG to engage in energency planning and contains quoted language without a reference for the 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 l
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) there should be provisions for second shift staffing h
and the material needs of the childron; 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 l
qualifications of Sinclair and Cole have been previously provided in the proceeding. I
34.
Does Mass AG contend that Teachers are not generally I
relied upon to accompany evacuating children (1) from the emergency planning zones around other nuclear power i
plants, (ii) from the areas around facilities containing hazardous materials, and (iii) in other situations where evacuation of Schools is required?
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 (inclLding, 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.
i Resoonse 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, doss 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, to the extent they exist, are irrelevant to this proceeding.
Furthermore, the Ms3s AG objects to the interrogatory on the basis of form in that it is unclear what is maant by the phrase " generally relied upon and/or a
who is doing the relying.
35.
Does Mass AG contend that the reliance on Teachers to accompany evacuating children (i) 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 L
negative, then pleases (a)
State nach fact on which your answer is based, g
(b)
Identify and prodoce esch document (including, but limited to, each ans. ras, survey, study and report) which you contend supports your answer.
(c)
Provide the technical qualifications (education, employmont history, licenses and certificates, experience, or other information that Mass AG contends establishes th's 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 I
E a==
Mass AG objects to this interrogatory on the basis that the Mass AG does not know nor is the office in a position t
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 Macs AG know the basis of that reliance 12 it exists.
The Mass AG also objects to this interrogatory on the basis of relevanen since the provisions of other emergency plans, to the extent they exist, are irrelevant to'the proceeding.
Furthermore, the Mass AG objects to the interroge kory on the basis of forin in that it is unclear what is meant by the term " reliance" and/or who is doing the relyAng.
Ariditionally, since: the Mass AG does not know what reliance, if any, is'" generally" placed on teachers nor the basis, if any, of-that reliance, the Me.ss 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 facilities plans.
36.
Does Mass AG contend that reliance upon Teachers to accompany evacuating children does provide " reasonable 4
assurance that adequate protective measures _can and will be taken" for the supervision of the evacuating children (1) from the emergency planning zones around other nuclear power plants, (ii) from the areas around facilities
, I
I containing hazardous materials, including and (iii) in other situations where evacuation of schools is required, but such reliance does not provide " reasonable assurance" with respect to the Hassachusetts EPZ?.. Please stato each reason for your answer, and, separately for each reason, please alson (a)
Strite sach fact on which your answer is based.
(b)
Identify and produce each document (including, but
?imited to, each analysis, survey, study and report) which you contend supports your answer.
(c)
Provide the technical qualifications (education,
%g 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 I
relies for the answer, or state that Mass AG does not rely upon the expertise of any person for the inswer.
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 relevance since the provisions of other emergency plans, g I
E to the extent they exist,.are irrelevant to the proceeding, rurthermore, 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 doing the relying.
.I i
The Mass AG objects to the definitions used in this set of interrogatories as overly broad and vague.
The Mass AG objects to all interrogatories ceiling for the attorney work product and attorney-client communications.
.I Respectfully submitted, COMMONWEALTH OF MASSACHUSETTS JAMES M. SHANNON ATTORNEY GENERAL J'
I'
'E i5 Leslie Grtr3r Assistant Attorney General Department of the Attorney-General I
One Ashburton Place Boston, MA 02108-1698 (617) 727-2200
'I j
DATED:
December 26, 1990 l
1962n I
I.
I I
I I
UNITED STATES OF AMERICA NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSION I
ATOMIC SAFETY AND LICENSING BOARD Before the Administrative Judgest i
Ivan W.
Smith, Chairman Dr. Richard F. Cole Kenneth A. McCollom In the ;atter of
)
Docket Hon. 50-443-OL
)
50-444-OL PUBLIC SERVICE COMPANY
)
OF NEW HAMPSHIRE, El AL.
)
-)
(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 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 to:
- Ivan W. Smith, Chairman
- Kenneth A. McCollom Atomic Safety & Licensing Board 1107 W.
Knapp St.
U.S. Nuclear Regulctory Stillwater, OK 74075 Commission East West Towers Building
- Docketing and Service 4350 East West Highway Bethesda, MD 20B14 U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission 11555 Rockville Pike Rockville, MD 20852
- Dr. Richard F. Cole Paul McEachern, 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
~
i I
I Robert R. Pierce, Esq.
- Thomas G. Dignan, Jr.1/
Atomic Safety & Licensing Board Katherine Selleck, Esq.
U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission Ropes & Gray East West Towers Building one International Place I
4350 East West Highway Boston, MA 02110 Bethesda, MD 20814 I
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 I
Agency Office of the General Counsel 500 C Street, S.W.
15th Floor Washington, DC 20472 11555 Rockville Pike Rockville, MD 20852 Atomic Safety & Licensing Robert A. Backus, Esq.
I 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.
I Washington, DC 20555 5 Market Street Portsmouth, NH 03801 Charles P. Graham, Esq.
Barbara St. Andre, Esq.
I 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 I
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 I
2001 S Street, N.W.
Bradford, MA 01835 Washington, DC 20008
-3 Senator Gordon J. Humphrey Senator Gordon J. Humphrey B
U.S. Senate One Eagle Square, Suite 507 Washington, DC 20510 Concord, NH 03301 (Attn: Tom Burack)
(Attn: Herb Boynton)
I 1/
Hand delivery was made on December 27, 1990 by 10:00am I
' I John P. Arnold, Attorney General Phillip Ahrens, Esq.
I.
Office of the Attorney General Assistant Attorney General i
25 Capitol Street Department of the Attorney Concord, NH 03301 General l
Augusta,.ME 04333 Jack Dolan George Iverson, Director Federal Emergency Management N.H. Office of Emergency Agency Management Region 1 State House Office Park South J.W, McCormack Post Office &
107 Pleasant Straat E
Courthouse Building, Room 442 Concord, NE 03301 i
l 5 Boston, MA 02109 I
COMMONWEALTH OF MASSACHUSETTS I
JAMES M. SHANNON ATTORNEY GENERAL f%
Leslie Greer l
Assistant Attorney General Department of the Attorney General One Ashburton Place E
lE Boston, MA 02108-1698 l
(617) 727-2200 i
DATED:
December 26, 1990,
I I
I 1
I I
I
l fiTTn e 4
\\-
~
- =
i
[k& ' '-fY ry c/?t/?tC /112 w $ is d$ri Ariz)s>ArNt, lb g 5t gr "i
HOV5C Cr MCPMCSCNTATIVCil i
W ST ATC HOUSC. SCETON C2133 I
BARBARA A HILDT 1.? 8 5.It s C15tatct
?. a,nmdi..t.R
- 3. ettwowt statCT Nman $.,vues and tidefly Allant
.-asauav -4 0im
=
vue Chaa w e.iti newt January 20, 1988 18"*"*?
j s,.. i c.
.m...n cw,.a.a u..e.: s.,...., n.me cua leersal C.mmim.a.a I
v..i.
. o..... c w,.a
=00M t!. ETATC HOUS E Dear Child Care Provider t it. '72 2 214 0 e
j We are writing to you and to your colleagues who cperate child c:.re centers or who cffer factly child care'in the six communities thet I
Seabrook reactor. lie within the Emergency PlanninhZone of - the Ey thi:
by censultants to New Hampshire yankee or Public Servicetime you have probab Company of New Hampshire who are offering to assist I
development you in the of emergency plans.
caution in dealing with these consultants,We urge you to exercise extreme as their objectives be censistent with those of your community or with the may r.ot I
objectives of the state.
There are four points we with to emphasize:
1 Thirre is no state or federal law or regulation that requires you to develep an emergency plan because of your I
proxim:ty te Seabreak station.
These censultants have apparently told some providers the law requires their p:rticipatien in emergency planning, that I
implying that their license to operate a
child care facility
- r. s y be in jeopardy.
t.nd we have asked the Office for Children toThis is absolutely untrue, issue you a
letter clarifying their requirements for licensure.
L Participation in emergency planning with these consulto.nts may undermine I
legal arguments of the Massachusetts atterney
- General, who is representing the state in licensing proceedings before the Nuclear Regulatory Commission.
(N.R.C,)
If you accept any equipment or lend your name to the Seabrook emergency plan, your name is likely to appear on B
license documents submitted by the utilities to the N.R.C.,
and you may be called upon to testify before the-commission i
er b" the courts on the nature of your participation.
3.
Documents supplied by these consultants will direct work you to with local civil defense directors or representatives of New Hampshi.c Yankee.
i
.,..,i.-
1 I
All six communities lying within the Emergency Planning Zone of Seabrock Station have expressly forbidden their civil defense director from working with Seabrook's representatives on emergency plans.
If you.are confused or. uncertain about your responsi-bilities, please call our office, or speak to your local o.r.c.
- liaison, h'e are here to assist you in any way possible.
Than!: you for your consideration of this matter.
l Sincerely, O
' Rep. Thomas Palumbo Sen. Nicholas Costeljo Rep. Barcara Hildt cc:
Mary May Leonard, O.f'.C.
iI
.I I
, I I
g LI I
I I
l
I CDCMILD I
U%RC CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE r:,
I, Jeffrey P. Trout, one of the attorneys forLthe Licensees I
~
herein, hereby certify that on January 7, 1991, I made' service of the within document by depositing copies thereof with Federal Express,' prepaid, for delivery to (or, where indicated, by depositing in the United States mail, first class postage paid, addressed to):
I Administrative Judge Ivan W. Smith Adjudicatory File Chairman, Atomic Safety and Atomic Safety and Licensing Ljcensing Board Board Panel Docket (2 copies)
U.S.
Nuclear Regulatory U.S. Nuclear Regulatory I
Commission Commission East West Towers Building East West Towers Building 4350 East West Highway 4350 East West Highway Bethesda, MD 20814 Bethesda, MD 20814 Administrative Judge Richard F. Cole Robert R.
Pierce, Esquire Atomic Safety and Licensing Board Atomic Safety and Licensing I
U.S.
Nuclear Regulatory Commission Board East West Towers Building U.S. Nuclear Regulatory 4350 East West Highway Commission Bethesda, MD 20814 East West Towers Building.
4350 East West Highway Bethesda, MD 20814 Administrative Judge Kenneth A.
Mitzi A. Young, Esquire McCollom Edwin J. Reis, Esquire 1107 West Knapp Street Office of the General Counsel Stillwater, OK 74075 U.S. liuclear Regulatory Commission One White Flint North, 15th Fl.
11555 Rockville Pike I
Rockville, MD 20852 John P. Arnold, Attorney General Diane Curran, Esquire I
George Dana Bisbee, Associate Andrea C.
Ferster, Esquire Attorney General Harmon, curran & Tousley Office of the Attorney General Suite 430 I
25 Capitol Street 2001 S Street, N.W.
Concord, NH 03301-6397 Washington, DC 20009
- Atomic Safety and Licensing Robert A. Backus, Esquire Appeal Panel 116 Lowell Street U.S. Nuclear Regulatory P. O.
Box 516 Commission Manchester, NH 03105 I
Mail Stop EWW-529 Washington, DC 20555 I
I
I Philip Ahrens, Esquire Suzanne P. Egan, City Solicitor Assistant Attorney General Lagoulis, Hill-Whilton &
I Department of the Attorney Rotondi General 79 State Street Augusta, ME 04333 Newburyport, MA 01950 Paul McEachern, Esquire Stephen A. Jonas, Esquire Shaines & McEachern Leslie Greer, Esquire
- g 25 Maplewood Avenue Matthew Brock, Esquire jg P.O.
Box 360 Massachusetts Attorney General Portsmouth, NH 03801 One Ashburton Place Boston, MA 02108
!E
- Senetor Gordon J. Humphrey R. Scott Hill-Whilton, Esquire U.S. Senate Lagoulis, Hill-Whilton &
- E Washington, DC 20510 Rotondi rE
(^ttn:
Tom Burack) 7S Stata Str**t Newburyport, MA 01950 ll
- Senator Gordon J. Humphrey Barbara J. Saint Andre, Esquire
'E One Eagle Square, Suite 507 Kopelman and Paige, P.C.
Concord, NH 03301 101 Arch Street (Attn:
Herb Boynton)
Boston, MA 02110 H. Joseph Flynn, Esquire Judith H. Mizner, Esquire Office of General Counsel 79 State Street, 2nd Floor Federal Emergency Management Newburyport, MA 01950 Agency 500 C Street, S.W.
Washington, DC 20472 Gary W.
Holmes, Esquire Ashod N. Amirian, Esquire Holmes & Ells 145 South Main Street l
47 Winnacunnet Road P.O.
Box 38 Hamptcn, NH 03842 Bradford, MA 01835 Mr. Richard R.
Donovan Mr. Jack Dolan
'E E
Federal Emergency Management Federal Emergency Management Agency Agency - Region I
~
Federal Regional Center J.W. McCormack Post Office &
130 228th Street, S.W.
Courthouse Building, Room 442 Bothell, Washington 98021-9796 Boston, MA 02109
,I lI lI
I George Iverson, Director N.H. Office of Emergency I
Management State House Office Park South 107 Pleasant Street Concord, NH 03301 I
GK nss~
sePfrby P.
Trout
(*= Ordinary U.S.
First Class Mail)
I I
I I
I I
I I I I