ML20082B427
| ML20082B427 | |
| Person / Time | |
|---|---|
| Site: | Seabrook  |
| Issue date: | 11/16/1983 |
| From: | Shotwell J MASSACHUSETTS, COMMONWEALTH OF |
| To: | Atomic Safety and Licensing Board Panel |
| References | |
| ISSUANCES-OL, NUDOCS 8311210188 | |
| Download: ML20082B427 (10) | |
Text
{{#Wiki_filter:. I UNITED STATES OF AMERICA NUCLEAR REGU.ATORY COMMISSION gj ATOMIC SAFETY AND LICENSING BOARD 18 g, ?$${P BEFORE ADMINISTRATIVE JUDGES: ( 'hT,45 - T'. Helen F. Hoyt, Chairman Dr. Emmeth A. Luebke Dr. Jerry Harbour ) In the Matter of ) Docket Nos. .) '50-443-OL PUBLIC SERVICE COMPANY OF ) 50-443-OL NEW HAMPSHIRE, et al. ) (Seabrook StationTUiiTts 1 and 2) ) November 16, 1983 ) ATTORNEY GENERAL BELLOTTI'S MOTION TO COMPEL ANSWERS TO " ATTORNEY GENERAL BELLOTTI' S INTERROGATORIES AND REQUESTS FOR DOCUMENTS TO THE FEDERAL EMERGENCY MANAGEMENT AGENCY ON EMERGENCY PLANNING FOR THE STATE OF NEW HAMPSHIRE" i Pursuant to 10 C.F.R. $2.740(f), Attorney General Francis X. Bellotti hereby moves that the Board issue an_ order? compelling the Federal Emergency Management Agency to N$spond to certain irIterrogatories, identified hereinafter, to which it has either ' objected or filed incomplete or evasive an'swers. [The Attorney General's Interrogatories were filed on S'eptember / 29, 1983; FEMA's response was filed on November 7,'1983.] t f l FEMA's counsel has indicated, in his cover letter to the ~' ,,ay s l ( 8311210188 831116 4 PDR ADOCK 05000443 e _G PDR C' c fet _ ' l - V.sor. 1
. agency's answers to the interrogatories, that FEMA is not technically a party to these proceedings. The agency has, however, voluntarily responded.to the interrogatories and does not appear to rely on its alleged non-party status as a basis J for its objections or failure to respond to particular questions. Suffice it to say, either FEMA is a party to the proceeding or its personnel are NRC witnesses. In either case, other participants to the proceeding are entitled to discover the positions which will be taken by FEMA personnel at the 4 hearing and responses should be compelled either directly from FEMA or indirectly through the NRC Staff.b! INTERROGATORY 4 This interrogatory sought FEMA's position as to whether any resources which the State of New Hampshire might need to obtain frca outside the State could,be procured on a timely basis. The interrogatory specifically requested that FEMA "specify the ~ time within which [any such additional.. resources] will be ~ W) available to the State followingsits request therefor." FEMA T has ncit objected to these aspects of thb interrogatory, but has ^ neverthele'ss prhvided no answe s to them. Resppnses should be s _ 3 ~,, ,,Y "~ corp'elled: ). b , L, _, w r, [l/ ' 'As we indicated in-ou Interrog to les, they were directed io FEMA, rathe'r than' to the NRC. Staf f, at the suegss' tion of FEMA's counsel. r ~,n ,,e ?' f /~ c y. / i, / fg, ? ~, 4 ~ ^f'* \\ i_ '* w t w>r m y y, / } e 7 } r e .i e n -Y,
- j y
3. l- ~ c x. / _. [.s., r t W t
. INTERROGATORY 5 This interrogatory read as follows: In the opinion of FEMA, what is the greatest number of " contaminated injured individuals" who could be in need of medical treatment in the event of a radiological emergency at Seabrook Station? State the bases for your answer in detail, describing the types of injuries and. sources or levels of contamination for which your estimate accounts, and the type of medical treatment which would be required for each such injury or level of contamination. Include in your estimate all contaminated injured individuals who could be helped in any way by medical treatment. Identify and produce all documents upon which you rely for any i portion of your answer. INTERROGATORY 8 FEMA objected to this interrogatory "on the grounds tha t i t is vague, ambiguous and overly broad and therefore not capable of reasonable response." FEMA provides no explanation whatsoever for its contention that this interrogatory is vague or overly broad. Moreover, FEMA.has filed no motion for a protective order with respect to this interrogatory. Under the Commission's rules, FEMA's failure to respond cannot be excused on the ground that the interrogatory is objectionable in the absence of such a motion. There is, in fact, nothing ambiguous or unclear about the interrogatory. It relates-to a specific regulatory requirement of the Commission, ' set forth at 10 C.F.R.-{50.47(b)(12), which j requires that arrangements be made for " medical services for contaminated injured individuals." The interrogatory seeks i
. FEMA's position as to the number of contaminated injured individuals for whom medical services may need to be provided. Without that information there can, of course, be no assurance that adequate arrangements have been made to accomodate that number of persons. INTERROGATORY 6 Interrogatory 6 was a follow-up to Interrogatory 5 and asked for FEMA's position as to whether the health care facilities identified in the New Hampshire Emergency Plan can provide to the number of contaminated injured individuals specified in its answer to Interrogatory 5 all necessary medical treatment. There is, again, nothing vague, ambiguous, or overly broad about the interrogatory and FEMA has not specified anything about the interrogatory that is subject to such criticism. Nor has FEMA moved for a protective order, which is the only manner in which such objections could be acconmodated. INTERROGATORY 8 FEMA has not responded to that aspect of this interrogatory which questions whether, in its opinion, there will be adequate personnel available on a timely basis to replace local-l emergency workers removed from the emergency zone due to I releases of radionuclides other than I-131 in amounts requiring l l l
, protection. [See New Hampshire Emergency Plan, at 2.7-3] The interrogatory expressly requested FEMA to specify the basis for its assurance that necessary replacement workers will be available in a timely fashion. FEMA has not objected to these aspects of the interrogatory, but has nonetheless provided no answers thereto. We move for an order compelling a responsive answer. INTERROGATORY 9 AE FEMA well knows, emergency classifications-and emergency action levels are two dif ferent things. The answer which the agency has provided applies to the four standard emergency classifications; the question referred to emergency action levels. A responsive answer should be compelled. INTERROGATORIES 17-20 FEMA objects to the " form" (and in two cases also the " breadth") of these questions. FEMA does not in any way further elucidate the nature of its objections. The interrogatories read as follows: 17. In the opinion of FEMA, can the transient beach populations in the New Hampshire coastal communities within ten miles of the Seabrook site be protected from all adverse health effects potentially associated with radiation exposure by means of evacuation in the event of a radiological emergency at Seabrook. Station? If your answer is in the negative, indicate what adverse health effects could be experienced by the beach population and the l numbers of such persons who may potentially experience each such effect. Whether your answer is in the affirmative or l negative, state the bases for it in detail and identify and l produce all documents upon which you rely.
.=. . i 18. In the opinion of FEMA, can the seasonal residents in the beach areas within ten miles of the Seabrook' site be 4 protected from all adverse health effects potentially associated with radiation exposure by means of in-place sheltering? If you answer is in the negative, indicate i i what adverse health effects could be experienced by the seasonal population and the numbers of such persons who may potentially experience each such effect. Whether your answer is in the affirmative or negative, state the bases l for it in detail and identify and produce all documents upon which you rely. 19. In the opinion of FEMA, what is the most efficient evacuation routing scheme for the seasonal and transient beach populations in the coastal New Hampshire communities i within ten miles of the Seabrook site? State the bases for your answer in detail and identify and produce all documents upon which you rely. Do.the routes which you have specified conform in all respects to those assumed by i the Applicants in their evacuation time estimates as set j forth in Appendix C to the FSAR?. to those assumed.by j Costello, Lomasney & deNapoli/C.E. Maguire in their " Final Draft of Appendix E Emergency Planning Zone Evacuation Time Study"? If the answer in both' cases is no, will FEMA require revised evacuation time estimates based on the most efficient routing scheme? When will such estimates be required to be completed? 20. In the opinion of FEMA, what traffic management plans or traffic controls will lead to the most efficient evacuation of the seasonal and transient beach populations in the coastal New Hampshire communities within ten miles of the site? State the bases for your answer in detail and-identify and produce any documents upon which. yor rely. Have these traffic controls and management plans been reflected in-the evacuation time estimates prepared by the1 1 Applicants? those prepared by C. E. Maguire?' If the answeriin both cases is.no, will FEMA require revised evacuation time estimates based on such plans and j controls? When will such1 estimates be required to be l completed? There is.nothing vague or. unintelligible about: these questions and, in any event, FEMA has filed no. motion for a ' 1 protective order. As we have~noted,.the agency has not even explained what it is about the form of the questions.that it f finds objectionable. Responsive answers must be, compelled.
.. INTERROGATORY 22 This interrogatory asks FEMA for its opinion as to what health ef fects will result from evacuation on a hot summer day with closed windows and ventilation systems. There is nothing vague, ambiguous or overly broad about the question; FEMA has not explicated what is in its opinion vague, ambiguous or overly broad about the question; and FEMA has filed no motion for a protective order. A responsive answer must be compelled. Respectfully submitted, FRANCIS X. BELLOTTI ATTORNEY GENERAL -de ? By: /f w-x J n Shotwell" istant Attorney General Environmental Protection Division One Ashburton Place Boston, Massachusetts 02108 (617) 727-2265 l l
CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE I, Jo Ann Shotwell, Esquire, counsel for Massachusetts Attorney General Francis X. Bellotti, hereby certify that on November 16, 1983, I made service of " Attorney General Bellotti's Motion To Compel Answers To Attorney General Bellotti's Interrogatories-And Requests For Documents To The Federal Emergency Management Agency On Emergency Planning For The State of New Hampshire" by mailing copies thereof, postage prepaid, to the parties named below: I Helen Hoyt, Chairperson
- Rep. Beverly hollingworth Atomic Safety and Licensing Coastal-Chamber of Commerce Board Panel 209 Winnacunnet Road U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission Hampton, NH 03842 Washington, DC 20555 Dr. Emmeth A. Luebke*
William S. Jordan, III, Esquire Atomic Safety and Licensing Diane Curran Board Panel Harmon & 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 l
Atomic 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 i 208 State House Annex Concord, NH 03301 Atomic Safety and Licensing Appeal Roy P. Lessy* Board Panel Deputy Assistant Chief U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Comnission Hearing. Counsel Washington, D C 20555 U. S.N. R.C. 7735 Old Georgetown Road Be thesda, Maryland 20814 Guard Call - X27505
- By Express Mail i
i e 4 4 + .a., ,~e--. w-., s
=. =.. ~ Atomic Safety and Licensing Robert A. Backus, Esquire Board Panel 116 Lowell Street U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission P.O. Box 516 Washington, DC 20555 Manchester, NH 03105 Philip Ahrens, Esquire Dr. Mauray Tye Assistant Attorney General Sun Valley Association Department of the Attorney 209 Summer-Street General Haverhill, MA 01830 Augusta, ME 04333 David R. Lewis
- Thomas G.
- Dignan, Jr.,
Esquire Atomic Safety and Licensing Robert K. Gad, III, Esquire Board Panel Ropes & Gray U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission
- 225 Franklin Street Rm. E/W-439 Boston, MA 02110 Washington, DC 20555 Charles Cross, Esquire Ms. Olive L. Tash Shaines, Madrigan, & McEachern Designated Representative of 25 Maplewood Avenue the Town of Brentwood P.O.
Box 366 R.F.D. 1, Dalton Road Portsmouth, NH 03801 Brentwood, NH - 03833 Roberta C. Pevear Edward F. Meany Designated Representative of Designated Representative of i the Town of Hampton Falls the Town of Rye Drinkwater Road -155 Washington Road Hampton Falls, NH 03844 Rye, NH 03870 Mrs. Sandra Gavutis Calvin A. Canney-Designated Representative of City Manager the Town of Kensington City Hall RFD 1 126 Daniel Street East Kingston, NH 03827 Portsmouth, NH 03801 Richard E. Sullivan Jane Doughty Town Hall Field Director Newburyport, MA -01950 Seacoast Anti-Pollution League-5 Market Street Portsmouth, NH 03801 Docketing and Service Section office 'of the Secretary U.S. Nuclear Regulatory. Commission Washington, DC 20555-
- By Express Mail S. --
~ L.
Brian P.'Cassidy** Reprecentative Nicholas J. Costell lot Essex District Regional Counsel Whitehall Road FEMA Region 1 John W. McCormack Post Office Amesbury, MA 01913 & Courthouse Boston, MA 02109 Mr. Angie Machiros, Chairman Diana P. Randall 70 Collins Street Newbury Board of Selectmen Town of Newbury, MA 01950 Seabrook, NH 03874 Patrick J. McKeon Anne Verge, Chairperson Chairman of Selectmen, Rye, Board of Selectmen New Hampshire Town Hall 10 Central Road South Hampton, NH 03842 Rye, NH 03870 Donald E. Chick Maynard B. Pearson Board of Selectmen Town Manager 40 Monroe Street Town of Exeter 10 Front Street Amesbury, MA 01913 New Hampshire 03833 Selectmen of North Hampton Mr. Daniel Girard Town of North Hampton Civil Defense Director New Hampshire 03862 25 Washington Street Salisbury, MA 01930 Senator Gordon J. Humphrey Senator Gordon J. Humphrey U.S. Senate 1 Pillsbury Street Concord, NH 03302 Washington, D.C. 20510 (Attn: Herb Boynton) (Attn: Tom Burack) Signed under the pains and penalties of perjury, this 16th day of November, 1983. k=-- n Shotwell ' istant Attorney General' Environmental Protection Divisio: l Public Protection Bureau l One Ashburton Place ~ -02108 Boston, MA
- By Hand Delivery
_ }}