ML20078M179

Motion to Compel Answers to Atty General Bellotti Interrogatories & Requests for Documents to Applicants on Emergency Planning for State of Nh.Subj Matter of Witness Testimony Not Described.Certificate of Svc Encl

ML20078M179
Person / Time
Site:	Seabrook
Issue date:	10/21/1983
From:	Sneider C MASSACHUSETTS, COMMONWEALTH OF
To:	Atomic Safety and Licensing Board Panel
References
ISSUANCES-OL, NUDOCS 8310250056
Download: ML20078M179 (12)

Text

-

r-f i .

DOCHETE0 USNRC

^

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA

. NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSION a83 OCT 24 hii :23 before the ATOMIC SAFETY AND LICENSIEG BOARD C- ' UT SECRET J Ov. 'ING & SEPv" -

'R A NCH

)

In the Matter of ) Docket Nos. 50-443 OL '

) 50-444 OL PUBLIC SERVICE COMPANY OF )

NEW HAMPSHIRE, et al. )

) October 21, 1983 (Seabrook' Station, Units 1 & 2) )

)

)

ATTORNEY GENEPAL BELLOTTI'S MOTION TO COMPEL ANSWERS TO " ATTOPNEY GENEPAL BELLOTTI'S INTERROGATORIES AND REQUESTS FOR DOCUMENTS TO APPLICANTS ON EMERGENCY PLANNING FOR THE STATE OF NEW HAMPSHIRE" Purusant to 10 C.F.R. 52.740(f), Attorney General Francis X. Bellotti hereby moves that the Board issue an order compelling Applicants to respond to Interrogatories Nos. 2, 3, 7, 8, 9, 15, and 16 of " Attorney General Bellotti's Interrogatories and Requests for Documents to Applicants on Emergency Planning for the State of New Hampshire.1! In 1/ We have received no answers to date to our interrogatories to and requests for documents from the State of New Hampshire and FEMA. While the fourteen-day period provided for responses has elapsed, we are not moving to compel at this time because counsel for FEMA and the State have committed to supplying answers by dates acceptable to us. Motions to compel may still be necessary, of course, if objection is made to particular cuestions or if responses are, in our view, incomplete or inadequate.

8310250056 831021 PDR ADOCK 05000443 G PDR

support thereof Attorney General' Bellotti states, as more fully set forth below, that the Applicants' Answers to Interrogatories Nos. 2, 3, 7, 8, 9, 15 and 16 are evasive, nonresponcive and incomplete.

Interro;jatory No. 2 Ouestion Please identify and produce all documents within the Applicants' possession, custody, or control which refer to the emergency response needs or resources of the State of New Hampshire or means for satisfying the State's resource requirements, or upon which the Applicants rely in support of the State's capability to satisfy its. resource requirements, in any of the following areas:

a. emergency transportation for people in the beach areas without private transportation;

b. emergency medical transportation;

c. medical treatment for contaminated injured individuals;

d. radiological monitoring and assessment equipment;

e. dosimeters and respiratory equipment for emergency workers;

f. manpower for traffic management and access control;

g. manpower for emergency transpcrtation and security operations;

h. manpower for emergency maintenance for evacuation routes and response to abandoned vehicles, traffic accidents, and other obstructions to evacuating traffic flow;

i. manpower for staffing of emergency response facilities.

i 1

Answer -

Except as is-stated herein and in response to the prior interrogatory, this interrogatory is objected to on the ground that, as phrased, it is too broad to be susceptible of any meaningful answer. For example, docurents which " refer to the emergency response needs or resources of the State of New Hampshire" could include various statements of contentions made in this .

proceeding. Furthermore, we do not understand what is

~

meant by documents "upon which the Applicants rely in support of the State's capability."

ARGUMENT IN SUPPORT OF MOTION The Attorney General will concede that the first part of this interrogatory requesting all documents which refer to the State's emergency response needs or resources may place an unnecessary burden on this party since the State is the primary source of such documents. However, the Attorney General is at a loss to appreciate Applicants' assertion that they are unable to understand what is meant by the phrase requesting all documents "upon which the Applicants rely in support of the State's capability." In response to Interrogatory No. 3 [see below] the Applicants have stated their belief "that the services and resources required by the State either are presently or can when desired be within the capability of the State." Interrogatory No. 2 is simply asking the Applicants to identify and produce all documents upon which the Applicants rely in support of their conclusion that the State has that capability to satisfy its resource requirements. We move for an order ccrpelling a response.

-4 Interrogatory No. 3 Question In the opinion of the Applicants, does the State of New Hampshire currently have adequate resources within the state in each of the areas identified in subparagraphs '

2a - 21 above to implement its emergency plan? State the bases for your answer in detail, including your bases for determining what constitutes an adequate quantity or level of each such resource, and identify and produce all documents upon which you rely in support of your answers.

Answer The Applicants believe that the New Hampshire emergency plans, while they are presently in draf t versions and while there obviously remain details to be worked out, demonstrate the State's commitment to provide and to support adequate emergency response activities related to the operation of Seabrook Station. The Applicants believe that the services and resources required by the State either are presently or can when desired be within the capability of the State. In the Applicants' view, the State has demonstrated the capability to perform adequately during exercises of emergency preparedness in connection with the Vermont Yankee Nuclear Power Station.

ARGUMENT IN SUPPORT OF MOTION The Applicants have not provided a complete answer to this interrogatory in that they have f ailed to include in their answer their " bases for determining what constitutes an adequate quantity or level of each such resource" or to identify the documents upon which they rely for that determination. We move the Board to compel a response.

. Interrogatory No. 7 Question -

In the opinion of the Applicants, what percentage of the emergency response officials and personnel identified in the RERP will, in fact, report to their exergency posts and fulfill their designated responsibilities in the event of a radiological emergency at Seabrook Station? What percentage of such emergency response officials and personnel will first ensure that their families are being taken care of before reporting to duty and what will be the length of the delay in assumption of emergency responsibilities resulting therefrom? State the bases for your answers in detail and identify and produce any documents upon which you rely.

Answcr The interrogatory is objected to. There is no requirement in the regulations that the psyche of every individual who may have responsibilities and [ sic) the emergency plan be explored. Without waiving this objection, it is the Applicants' view that the vast r?ajority, if not all, elected and appointed officials will do their duty as assumed by the law. Our basis for this opinion is that society at large has been able to rely on public officials in times of emergency in the past and we see no reason to assume otherwise in the future. This view is supported by Evacuation Risks - An Evaluation EPA-5 20/6-7 4-0 0 2 (1974).

ARGUMENT IN SUPPORT OF MOTION:

The Applicants have not responded to the questions, "What percentage of such emergency response of ficials and personnel will first ensure that their families are being taken care of before reporting to duty and what will be the length of the delay in assumption of emergency responsibilities resulting therefror?" The Commission's regulations require that "each principal response organization ha[ve] staff to respond and to

augment its init'ial response on a continuous bases." 10 C.F.R.

S50.4 7 (b) (1) . Th'e answer to this question is not only relevant, but vital, to a determination of whether the emergency response can and will be timely activated and staf fed, and thus the requirements of the Commission's emergency plannings regulations satisfied. The Applicants' objection to this interrogatory is, therefore, unfounded and a response should be required.

Interrogatory No. 8 Ouestion In the opinior of the Applicants, will there be adequate personnel available on a timely basis to replace the local emergency workers removed from the emergency zone if workers are removed due to releases of radionuclides other than I-131 in amounts requiring protection? [See RERP, at 2. 7 -3] State the bases for your answer in detail, identifying the source and numbers of replacement workers and specifying the bases for assurance they will be available in a timely fashion.

Identify and produce all documents upon which you rely in support of your answers.

Answer There is no need to plan for emergency worker replacements on the basis of potential exposure to particulate radionuclides other than I-131, because such material would not be released in an accident condition at l

Seabrook Station in quantities that required consideration for emergency worker protection . This opinion is based l

on the analysis of the behavior of particulate radioactive waterial at Three Mile Island following the accident that has been reported in the literature and on the

! identification of the natural processes that are available for the removal of such material from that available for release to the environment that has also been reported in the literature.

1

- ARGUMENT IN SUPPORT OF MOTION The Applicants' answer to this interrogatory is incomplete in that they have failed to identify the " literature" which provides the basis for their response. We request that the Board order provision of that additional information.

Interrocatorv No. 9 Question In the opinion of the Applicants, has the State of New Hampshire established an emergency action level scheme consistent with that established by the Applicants? State the bases for your response in detail and identify and produce any documents upon which you rely in support of your answer.

Answer Both the Applicants and the State of New Hampshire have adopted the same four-level emergency classification system; i.e. Unusual Event, Alert, Site Area Emergency and General Emergency. This is shown by comparing Section 5 of the Applicants' Radiological Emergency Plan with Section 1.5 of the State of New Hampshire Radiological Emergency Response Plan. Not only are the systems consistent - they are identical.

ARGUMENT IN SUPPORT OF MOTION:

The Applicants' Answer is not responsive to the question, which refers to an " emergency action level scheme." Applicants have responded that it has an " emergency classification system" identical to that of the State, but has not said anything at all about an emergency action level scheme. The two terms do not (as Applicants well know) have the same meaning and they have, therefore, not answered the question.

s

- Interrogatory No. 15 Question -

In Applicants' opinion, can sheltering be relied upon as a protective option for the transient beach populations in the coastal New Hampshire communities? for the seasonal population in those communities? State the bases for your answer in detail and identify and produce any documents upon which you rely.

Answer The interrogatory is objected to. All sheltering provides some protection; the protection afforded by any sheltering is relative (both to the protection affor.ded by other forms of sheltering and to the protection afforded by other protective actions) . Without a particular scenario having been specified, no one can opine upon what amcunts to the best choice of protective measures to be utilized.

ARGUMENT IN SUPPORT OF MOTION The Applicants have not responded to the question. The interrogatory does not ask whether sheltering would be the best protective measure to be utilized in an emergency, but whether it would ever be feasible to rely upon sheltering as a protective option for the transient beach or seasonal populations. In other words, the interrogatory is asking, first, whether sufficient sheltering exists in those communities to accommodate these populations and, second, whe th er (and how much of) that sheltering could be expected to provide sufficient protection from radiological exposure. As such, there can be no bases for the Applicants' objection to the interrogatory.

_9_

Interrogatorv No. 16 Cuestion .

Identify each person whom Applicants expect to call as a vi: ness on any of the admitted concentions relative to the FE?P, state his or her qualifications, and describe the subject tatter on which he or she is expected to testify.

Answer The applicants have not selected any witnesses with rerpect to these matters as yet. Without limitation the applicants can say that they may call the following individuals with respect to one or all of the contentions:

Robert J. Merlino James A. MacDonald Peter S. Littlefield In additicn, others may also be called.

ARGUMENT IN SUPPORT OF MOTION 1

The Applicants have not completely answered this inte r rogatory . They have failed t_ state the qualifications of the three witnesses they have listed and have not described the subject natter on which each is expected to testify.

Respectfully submitted, l

FRANCIS X. BELLOTTI ATTORNEY GENERAL l

By: M/ .

arol S. Sne"1deV / 75 l '

Assistant Attorney General U Environmental Protection Division One Ashburton Place Boston, Massachusetts 02108 l

' (617) 727-2265 i

l i

i I

l l

s 00LKETED CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE USNRC 2, Carcl S. Sn e i' der , Esquire, counsel for Massach11e@Is2AtNJMy Ge..eral Francis X. Bellotti, hereby certify that on October 21, 1983, 7 tade service of the within Attorney General Bellotti[gflo,ti_ongpo, Compel Answers To " Attorney General Bellotti's InterrogatorterEdbd e%dqussts For Do:urents To Applicants On Emergency Planning For the Sta%9hbE New Eacpshire" by mailing copies thereof, postage prepaid, to the parties cared below:

Eelen Hoyt, Chairperson

• Rep. Beverly Hollingworth Atomic Safety and Licensing Coastal Chamber of Commerce Icard Panel 209 Winnacunnet Road U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission Hampton, NH 03842 Washington, DC 20555 Cr. Itseth A. Luebke* William S'. Jordan, III, Esquire Atcmic Safety and Licensing Diane Curran Board Panel Harmoa & Weiss U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission 1725 I Street, N.W.

Washington, DC 20555 Suite 506 Washington, DC 20006 Dr. Jerry Harbour

• Edward L. Cross, Jr., Esquire Atcaic Safety and Licensing Assistant Attorney General Board Panel Dana Bisbee, Esquire U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission Assistant Attorney General Washington, DC 20555 office of the Attorney General 208 State House Annex Concord, NH 03301 Atcmic Safety and Licensing Appeal Roy P. Lessy*

Eoard Panel Deputy Assistant Chief U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission Hearing Counsel Washington, DC 20555 U. S . N. R.C .

7735 Old Georgetown Road Be the s da , Maryland 20814 Guard Call - X27505

. *Ey Express Mail l

l l

l l

l I

l L

(h*

' .A:Ori: Safety and Licensing Robert A. Ba ckus , Esquire Ecard Panel U.S. Su lear Regulatory Commission, 116 Lowell Street P.O. Box 516 Wa shi..g ten , DC 20555 Manchester, NH 03105 Philip Ahrens, Esquire Dr. Mauray Tye Assistant Attorney General Sun Valley Asso.;iation epartment of the Attorney 209 Summer Street General Haverhill, MA Augu s ta , ME 04333 01830

a ti d R. Lewis

• Thomas G. Dignan, Jr., Esquire **

'A : ic Safety and Licensing Robert K. Gad, III, Esquire Icard Panel Ropes & Gray U.F. Nuclear Regulatory Commission 225 Franklin Street Rn. E W-439

/

Boston, MA 02110 1.ashington, . DC 20555 Charles Cross, Esquire Ms. Olive L. Tash Shaines, Madrigan, & McEachern Designato.d Representative of 25 Maplewood Avenue F.C. Ecr 366 the Town of Brentwood R.F.D. 1, Dalton Road Portstocth, NH 03801 Brentwood, NH 03833 Roberta C. Pevear Desi nated Representative of Edward F. Meany Designated Representative of the Tcwn of Hampton Falls the Town of Rye Drinkwater Road 155 Washington Road Harpeen Falls, NH 03844 Rye, NH 03870 Mrs. Sandra Gavutis Calvin A. Canney Designated Representative of City Maneger the Town of Kensington City Hall RFC 1 126 Daniel Street Eas: Kingston, NH 03827 Portsmouth, NH 03801 Patri ck C. McKeon Jane Doughty l Selec tren 's Office Field Director 1 1C Central Road Seacoast Anti-Pollution League

! Rye, NE G3870 5 Market Street Portsmouth, NH 03801

! Ri c'.a rd E . Sullivan, Mayor Docketing and Service Section l Tcwn Elli Office of the Secretary l Ne wb u rypc r t, "A 01950 I

' U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission Washington, DC 20555 i

L '3y I.Igress Mail

! 2. Ea..d Zelivery on 10/24/83 l

l l

l ,_ .

o -

3rian P. Cassidy Representative Nicholas J. Costel:

Regicnal Counsel 1st Essex District FEMA Region 1 ~

Whitehall Road John W. McCormack Post Office Amesbury, MA 01913 L Co:::?ouse Hosten, MA 02109 Mr. Angie Machiros, Chairman Diana P. Randall Newbury 3 card of Selectmen 70 Collins Street Town of Newbury, MA 01950 Seabrook, NH 03874 Patrick J. McKeon Anne Verge, Chairperson Chair =in of Selectmen, Rye, Board of Selectmen New Hampshire Town Hall 13 Cen ral Road South Hampton, NH 03842 Rye, NH 03370 Donald E. Chick Maynard B. Pearson Town Manager Board of Selectmen Town of Er.eter 40 Monroe Street 10 Front Street Amesbury, MA 01913 New Earpshire 03833 Selectren of North Hampton Mr. Daniel Girard Town of North Hampton Civil Defense Director New Earpshire 03862 25 Washington Street Salisbury, MA 01930 Senator Gordon J. Humphrey Senator Gordon J. Humphrey 1 Pillsbury Street U.S. Senate Conccrd, NH 03302 Washington, D.C. 20510 (Attt: Herb Boynton) (Attn: Tom Burack)

Signed under the pains and penalties of perjury, this 21st day of October, 1983.

(.n'\m W7 /i e /

Af, ws2]

Jo. Ann Shotwell Assistant Attorney General

, Environmental Protection Division Public Protection Bureau One Ashburton Place Bo s ton, MA 02109

• '57 Hand Delivery on 10/ 24/83