ML20204G821

NRC Staff Motion to Compel Answers to Interrogatories & Production of Documents by Town of Newbury.* Town of Newbury Should Be Compelled to Provide Proper & Complete Responses to Discovery.Certificate of Svc Encl

ML20204G821
Person / Time
Site:	Seabrook
Issue date:	10/12/1988
From:	Bergquist S NRC OFFICE OF THE GENERAL COUNSEL (OGC)
To:	Atomic Safety and Licensing Board Panel
References
CON-#488-7320 OL, NUDOCS 8810240242
Download: ML20204G821 (19)

Text

. .. . ._ . - . - . . - . -- -.

10/12/88 I%

i. 9fMP l i UNITED STATES OF AMERICA i NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSION  !

.gggp4g BEFORE THE ATOMIC SAFETY AND LICENSING BOARD  !

mm ,

l 1 CO(h[I e\'

l In the Matter of )

Docket No. 50-443 OL l

PUBLIC SERVICE COMPANY OF 50-444 OL '

NIW HAMPSHIRE, et a_1. Offsite Emergency Planning

)

(Seabrook Station, Units 1 and 2) ) (

i NRC STAFF'S MOTION TO COMPEL ANSWERS i

TO INTERROGATORIES AND PRODUCTION  ;

0F DOCUMENTS BY THE TOWN -- OF NEWBURY  !

l 1 i Pursuant to 10 C.F.R. 6 2.740(f), the NRC Staff hereby move that the i Town of Newbury ("TON") be compelled to answer certain interrogatories and i

j produce certain documents requested in "NRC Staff's First Set of Interrogatories and First Request for Production of Documents to the Towns I of Amesbury, Newbury, Salisbury, West Newbury, and Merrimac, and the City l of Newburyport" (Septerber 6, 1988) (hereinafter "Staff's Interrogator-ies"). On September 23, 1988 TON filed its interrogatory answers. TON i  :

i produced no documents and objected to many of the Staff's Interrogatories, i I

' i While TON did provide partial answers to the Staff's interrogatories, its j responses were often incomplete, evasive, misleading or ambiguous. For l I

l the reasons set forth below, TOA should be compelled to provide a proper

• I

and complete response to the Sta'f's discovery request. >

1 q l 1

! 1. Motion to Compel Production of Documents at the Office of '

{ the General _ Counsel at the NRC _

j The NRC Staff prefaced its Interrogatories by asking that docurents requested be produced "at the Hearing Division Office of the 1

8810240242 881012 PDR ADOCK OS000443 o eor 35pi L - _- - - . . - - _ _ _ . _ - - - - - . - - . -

1

s 2 General Counsel, Nuclear Regulatory Commission, 11555 Rockville Pike, Rockville, Maryland." To this, TON responded that the resources of the NRC Staff greatly exceed those of TON and that it was therefore appropriate that the Staff inspect any relevant docurents at TON. TON based this response on the alleged undue burden and cost attendant to i production of documents at the NRC.

The objection is without valid foundation, and TON should be  ;

required to produce responsive documents in accordance with the Staff request. Pursuant to 10 C.F.R. 6 ?.741(c), document production shall occur at "a reasonable time, p1 ace, and manner." There is nothing reasonable in requiring the Staff to travel to TON, and presumably to every other Intervenor and Governmental entity's many different offices, to inspect relevant documents. Consideration of time and travel expense versus the relative burden on TON resultant from sending its documents to the Staf' in ccmpliance with the subject request weigh overwhalningly in favor of the request's reasonableness. Indeed, TON makes no attempt to identify or enumerate the number of documents involved in justification of it.' chiection but, rather, refers in the most general terms to undue burden and cost. Such unsubstantiated and conclusory assertions shnuld be disregarded, and TON should be compelled to produce documents at the Steff's offices as indicated. Nonetheless, the Staff notes that it is willing to receive TON's document production at a central document deposi.

tory, should the Intervenors and interested State and local governrents agree to establish the same.

)

i 1

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

j ,

! . i

2. Motion to Compel Answers to Specific Interrogatories '

]

a. Interrogatory 1.

L

Interrogatory 1 and TON's response read as follows

f

1. Identify and supply each document containing '

j procedures, plans, orders, instructions, directions, and  !

, training materials of the Intervenors for any action in l the event of:

l a) a radiological emergency or disaster stenming f from a nuclear plant accident whether the plant is  ;

{ located inside or outside of Massachusetts; }

! b) other radiological emergencies or disasters;  ;

and i 1

c) all other "emergencies" or disasters as

{ defined in paragraph 4 of the above definitions. '

i l k ANSWER:

t 1 1(a-c). TON objects to this interrr.,gatory on the l

} grounds that it is overly broad and unduly burdensome, 3 In addition, the interrogatory is objected to on the ,

l grounds that, on information and belief, the Staff is I

already in possession of all planning documents con- l

cerning Seabrook Station, which were generated in conjunction with Applicants and the Comonwealth. No ,

such documents were produced by TON and TON is in '

i possession of no documents concerning radiological

emergency planning generated since that date. TON has ,

j not approved any emergency or disaster plan for the  !

1 town. Moreover, this interrogatory and others, see e.g.

l answers to Interrogatories 8 and 9, seeks facts which l l are not known to TON. TON will make available for i j

inspection and review documents consisting of GENERAL ,

CONSIDERATIONS AND GUIDELINES pertaining to fires and 1 i

traffic accidents, and a Hazardous Materials Emergency Planning Guide dated March 16, 1987 which TON received l l

j from the National Response Team. In addition. TON will i

i make available TON's documents relating to plans prepared pursuant to the Emergency Planning Act, which

are contemplated to be prepared in approximately two 1 we n. ;, ,

4 TON's response, while partially responsive, fails on several grounds.

4 i

First, it misreads the Interregatory, which concerns applicable data 1

i

4 pertaining to both radiological emergencies and disasters generally, and is not confined to erergencies involving Seabrook Station. Further, the Interrogatory is not confined to docunents generated following the decision of the Connonwealth ed TON not to participate in further energency planning for Seak aok Station. Inaddition, subsection (c) requests relevant infort aian and documents regarding all "emergencies,"  :

irrespective of whether TON has apprnved any emergency or disaster plan.

Accordingly, TON's response to subsection (c) must be considered evasive. '

Finally, TON's assertions of overbreadth and undue burdensomeness regarding this Interrogatory must be rejected. A request for documents should not be deered objectionable solely because there might be some burden attendant to their production. Lono Island Lighting Co (Shoreham 2 1

tluclear Power Station, Unit 1), LBP-82-82,16 NRC 1144,1155 (1982). In any event, the assertion that undue burden is involved in searching for the defined documents is utterly groundless. Pith respect to TON's allegation of overbreadth, it is pertinent to cite the provisions of 10 C.F.P. ( ?.740(b)(1):  !

Parties may obtain discovery regardino any matter, not i privileged, which is relevant to the subject matter involved in the proceeding . . including the exist-ence, description, nature, custody, condition, and location of any books, documents, or other tangible things and the identity and location of persons having knnwledge of any discoverable matter.

I Answers to interrogatories or requests for documents which de not comply

with this provision are inadequate. Illinois Power Co. (Clinton Power Station, Unit 1), LBP-81-61, 14 NRC 1735, 1737-1738 (1981). Further, a Board may require a party, who has been served with a discovery request which it believes is overly broad, to explain why the request is too broad i

I

and, if feasible, to interpret the request in a rei 'le fashion and supply documents (or answer interrogatories) within the realn of reason.

Texas Utilities Electric Co. (Comanche Peak Steam Electric Station, Units 1 and 2), l.BP-85-41, 22 NRC 765, 768 (1985). TON fails to demon-strate in what respect Interrogatory 1 is overly broad. In sum, TON should be compelled to respond to this Interrogatory in its entirety,

b. Interrogatory 2 Interrogatory 2 and TON's response read as follows:

2. With regard to each document set out in response to Interrogatory 1, describe the functions in emergencies of any of the following categories of personnel:

a) State and local police, to include persons erployed full or part tine, and both private and public security personnel, such as special officers and deputies; b) Civil Defense personnel; c) Professional oc volunteer fire-fighting personnel; ,

l d) First aid and rescue personnel; e) 1.ocal support services personnel including i Civil Defense / Emergency Service personnel; f) Medical support personnel; g) Emergency Service personnel; h) Health and Environmental Department personnel; i) National Guard, Militia or Reserve personnel; j j) Boards of Education, School Boards or Depart-ments, and teachers; k) Employees of all other State, local or municipal departments or agencies;

1) Individuals obligated to provide assistance pursuont to agreements to aid between municipalities or

l . r t

other government units, or pursuant to other agreements;

, and .

i i m) Individuals available to provide assistance ,

j pursuant to agreements to aid between municipalities or  !

) other government units, or pursuant to other agreements.  ;

}

i ANSWER:

I 2. See Answer to Interrogatory 1. TON further ,

l objects to Interrogatory 2 on the grounds that the docu- -

l ments speak for themselves Jnd the Staff has greater f

, resources to analyze these documents than TON. Without l J waiving said objections, the GENERAL CONSIDERATIONS AND  :

GUIDELINES identified in TON's answer to Interrocatory 1  !

j merely pertain to police officers and provide only the  ;

broadest of criteria to consider during fires or traffic ,

accidents, e.g. "[p]olice officers must also be aware of '

i the possibility of arson;" "...the officer's primary duty  ;

is to give prompt attention to the needs of any injured persons." '

i TON has not produced any documents in response to this request, and its '

i 1

1 assertien that "the documents speak for themselves" is of necessity l i

incomprehensible. Further, TON has objected to producing the requested i

j documents, and Staff resources are irrelevant for reviewing documents j which have not been produced. Absent a complete production of documents,  !

)

l TON's other assertions cannot be evaluated. For the reasons discussed I

g regarding Interrogetory 1, sunra, TON should be compelled to respond to interrogatory 2, and to provide specific data requested by the Staff l j regarding personnel functions and availability in the event of an emergency, i

i

c. Interrogat_ory 3 Interrogatory 3 and TON's response read as follows:

}

l 3. Set out the training each of the category of i personnel et out in Interrogatory 2 has to perforn its  ;

i

} functior an "emergency "

l l ANSWER:

t ,

i

i i i

i

3. See Ar.swer to Interrogatory 2. Without waiving its objections, full-time police officers have full-time acadeny training through the Massachusetts i Criminal Justice Training Council. All such officers -

I f

are certified in the use of firearms and some have specialized training regarding accident investigations,  ;

, fingerprinting, and related police activities. Reserve j officers have reserve academy training through the Massachusetts Criminal Justice Training Council. All reserve officers receive annual training as first i

responders and in the use of firearms. l i

1 TON's answer to this Interrogatory is too sparse and fragmentary to be deemed adequate. Apart from its brief discussion of "full-time l 5 police officers", no information has been provided concerning any other L category of emergency workers listed in Ir1 cerrogatory 2. For the reasons l

j set forth with regard to TON's failure to respond to Interrogatories 1 and 2, TON should be compelled to answer this Interrogatory completely. ,

d. Interroga,t_ories 8 to 15 i i Interrogatories 8 to 15, and TON's responses thereto, read as *

] follows:

{

8. Identify the number and location of  !

l Passachusetts National Guard Units in each of the Inter-

) venor jurisdictions, the number of members of each unit, ,

their distance from the Seabrook plume exposure EPZ, and i

the number and location of the following resources  !

J available for use by the National Guard in energencies: i

{ (a) cars; (b) trucks; (c) vans; (d) helicopters; l 1

(e) other means of transportation; and (f) communication f

! facilities, includinn radios and other means of public i l notification. Supply the same information for any I

] Militia or Reserve unit in such jurisdiction. (Footnote: .

! If any of the data sought under Interrogatory 8 are  !

I withheld on the ground they are classified, please  !

indicate the type of data so withheld.) l ANSWER:

i j 8. See Answer to Interrogatory 1. ,

! 9. Identify any plans made for radiological  ;

i monitoring in the event of a radiological emergency from i any cause, includirg (a) the number and location of l

i i

i t  !

~ - _ - _ - - ._.- -- _-- . _..

y I

I personnel trained and available to accomplish such '

monitoring, and (b) a description and enumeration of l radiological monitoring equipment available for use in

such an emergency, along with identification of the i equipment's location.  ;

! ANSWER: ,

i

9. See Answer to Interrogatory 1. l l

10. Identify any previsions made for handling of individuals contaminated in a radiological emergency  !

stemming from any cause, including (a) the number and  !

! location of personnel tre.ined and available to assist in l

decontamination of contaminated individuals, and (b) a  ;

2 description and enumerttion of equipment availabh for use in decontamination, along with identification of the i equipment's location.

, ANSWER:

, 10. See Answer to Interrogatory 1. '

11. Identify any provisions made by the ,

Massachusetts Department of Agriculture, or other state l

! or local governmental agency, concerning protective '

a measures to be used for the 50-mile ingestion pathway from any nuclear plant, including the methods for i

, protecting the public from consumption of contaminated '

foodstuffs; and identify any procedures for detecting l contamination, for imposing protective measures such as

interdiction of food supply, impoundment, or quarantine, '

j and for public notification concerning food contamination

and the protective measures to be followed. )

1 ANSWER:

4 i

) 11. See Answer to Interrogatory 1,

12. Identify the number of Massa-husetts Civil  !

i Defense personnel according to locatio.. within the

! Commonwealth, and idantify the amount and location of

! equipment available for their use to protect the public l in the event of an emergency. Set out the training of i Civil Defense personnel, ,

t f l ANSWER:  ;

I 12. See Answer to Interrogatory 1. I l

l 13. Identify the location of stations authorized to i broadcast under Federal Emergency Broadcast System (EBS)  !

l i l 1  :

i

- 1

..__3._x 2 .

~._;. .

.m _.2

! t 9-i l'

regulations and the Massachusetts EBS Operational Plan l ("Operational Plan"). Provide a copy of the aperational l Plen.

4 ANSWER:

1 13. See Answer to Inte-"ogatory 1.

14 Identify all documents, agreements and communi- '

cations dated within the last five years concerning the

operation of the EBS. Produce a copy of all such docu-4 nents, agreements and communications.

ANSWER:

i

14. See Answer to Interrogatory 1.

3 ,

j 15. Identify the provisions of federal or state law which preclude activation of the EBS at the discretion of management of AM, FM, and television stations, in l; connection with day-to-day emergency situations posing a j threat to the safety of life and property, such as r j hurricanes, floods, icing conditions, heavy snows, fires, ,

toxic gases, power failures, industrial explosiens, and .

civil disorders. i ANSWEP:

I 15. See Answer to Interrogatory 1. Answering  !

l further, this interrogatory is objected to as calling for j a legal conclusion. ,

4 TON has failed to provide any response to these interrogatories. TON l

l should be corrpelled to respond to these interrogatories, for the reasons t

j discussed herein regarding TON's failure to respond to Interrogatory 1.  :

Further, TON's objection that Interrogatory 15 calls for a "legal l

l conclusion" is erroneous for reasons presented below in the Staff's i i

analysis of TON's responses to 'ntorrogatories 17 to 20. I

e. Interrogatories 17tn20 1

Int:rrogatories 17 to ?O, and TON's responses thereto, read as i l I

! follows: 1 i

4 17. With respect to each document identified in ,

j Interrogatory 1, identify any Federal or state law or 1

, _ - _ . - _ _ _ . . . _ _ _ _ . _ _ . , _ . ___-______,m,..____,..,.._ -_ _ _ , ..- , - - _ .,_ _

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

i  ;

i t i

l

, regulation pursuant to which each such document was prepared.

, ANSWER:

17. See answer to Interrogatory 1.

18. Identify all Massachusetts statutes and regula-tions, and all local regulations, ordinances or other  !

2 provisions, (a) concerning actions to be taken by state '

or local authorities, or those acting in their behalf, in  !

the event of energencies, including the preparation of '

! plans for actions to be taken in emergencies; (b) con-cerning any prohibitions on any such actions or plans;  ;

) and (c) concerning any prohibitions on any person or  ;

organization other than state or local authorities with  ;

respect to any such actions or plans.

l ANSWER:

l

18. See Answer to Interrogatory 1. The Interroga-tory is objected to as calling for a legal opinion or -

conclusion. The Staff nay inspect TON's by-laws in  ;

accordance with the conditions set forth in OBJECTION TO PRODUCTIONOFDOCUMENTS,[ sic] supra.

?

19. Set out the conditions, including citations to all applicable provisions of state and local laws and 4 regulations, (a) under which state and local authorities  ;

4 may permit private individuals or organizations to take 1 action on their behalf in an emergency; and (b) under ,

which state and local authorities are precluded from (

) authorizing private individuals or ormnizations from  !

taking action on their behalf in an emergency.  ;

! t

ANSWER

! 19. See Answer to Interrogatory 18. Answering -

I further, TON is unaware of any conditions under which local authorities may permit private individuals or l l organizations to take action on TON's behalf in an l j

emergency. The Staff is as fully capable of researching j the law as is TON and the Staff has far greater resources for doing so than does TON.

20. Set out examples illustrating the conditions I

described in Interrogatory 19(a) and (b).

t 4

ANSWER:

1

20. See Answer to Interrogatory 18, i

l f

i

The Staff reouests that TON be compelled to respond to Interrogatories 17 to 20 for the reasons discussed above with respect to TON's responses to Interrogatory 1. Further, the statutes, regulations, and ordinances referred to in Interrogatories 17 and 18 cannot be so numerous as to make a response to these Interrogatories unduly onerous.

The same is true with respect to the conditions and examples requested under Interrogatories 19-20. As regards Interrogatory 18, tnere is no rerit in TON's assertion that the identification of statutes and regulations which TON ray rely upon in challenging the SPMC's legal authority calls for 0 "legal opinion or conclusion." The Staff does not seek TON's legal conclusions, but only an identification of the bases for the challenge rade by TON to the SPMC. Only after those bases are identified can the Board and other parties determine whether there is merit to the challenge. The answers .ought by Interrogatories 17, 19 and 20 li6ewise seek answers of fact as to the legal support relied upon by TON for challenging the Applicants' energency planning activities. The issues involved in Interrogatories 17 to 20 are relevant to this proceeding, and TON should be ecmpelled to respond to them.

. Interrogatory 22 i

Interrogatory 22 and TON's response read as follows:

22. Using the definition of "the beach" you supplied in answer to Interrogatory 21, provide the I following data along with a copy of any study or other l document relevant to the following information: (a) the  ;

maximum number of cars at the beach on the 10 busiest days within the last five years, along with indication of l the tire and date of such maxima; (b) the number of cars remaining at the beach following each 1/2-hour interval for the 8 hours9.259259e-5 days <br />0.00222 hours <br />1.322751e-5 weeks <br />3.044e-6 months <br /> after the aforementioned maxima; (c) the

• %ber of cars entering and leaving the beach during each 1/2-hour interval within the 8-hour period. If you do not have data for 1/2-hour intervals, supply such data

l 4 .

l i-i for the periods you have. Indicate whether the foregoing computations were made manually or automatically.

l ANSWER:

22. See answers to Interrogatories 1 and 21. TON is inferried and believes that evidence was submitted by '

l Intervenors in the NHRERP litigation which is applicable l 1 to this interrogatory. TON adopts said testimony. The .

} interrogatory is further objected to as seeking work i i product. Without waiving any objections, TON has  ;

! conducted no such studies.  !

i j Interrogatory 22 directly relates to issues raised by the Intervenors in this proceeding, and seeks to obtain a proper definitica of I the issues and areas encompassed by admitted contentions. See Stipulation L

l ,

i As To Contentions (September 19,1988), at 1-4 The test as to whether .

y i particular natters are discoverable is one of "general relevancy." This I test will be easily satisfied unless it is clear that the evidence sought -

1 i

can have no possible bearing on the issues. Comonwealth Edison Co. (Zion i l Station, Units 1 & 2), ALAB-185, 7 AEC 240 (1974). Interrogatories 21 and f

) '

{ 22 clearly meet the test of "general relevancy." Further. TON's broad  !

reference to all of the evidence submitted by Intervenors in the NHRERP

! litigation fails to provide reasonable notice of the particular matters

) i encompassed in this response. TON's reference to its response to L j Interrogatory 1 should be rejected, for the reasons discussed concerning l i l j TON's objection to Interrogatory 1. TON has misinterpreted Interrogatory

22 as only pertaining to studies TON conducted; rather, any responsive l l document in its possession, irrespective of origin, is sought. I 1

In addition TON's assertion of the "work product" doctrine is j i

unsupported. An attorney's riere assertion that the material it is with-(

l holding constitutes attorney work product is insufficient to meet the burden of proving it is entitled to protection from discovery.

4 I

l  !

i  !

Public Service Co. of New Hampshire (Seabrook Station, Units 1 and 2),

LBP-83-17, 17 NRC 490, 495 (1983).

In sum, TON's response to Interrogatory 22 should be compelled.

9 Interrogatories 23 and 24 Interrogatories 23 and 24, and TON's responses, read as follows:

23. Identify all studies conducted during the last five years concerning improving the movement of traffic in and out of "the beach" area. Provide a copy of all such studies.

ANSWEP:

23. TON has conducted no such studies. See Answer to Interrogatories 1 and 22.

24. Identify all studies conducted during the last five years concerning improving the novement of traffic in the event of emergencies within the Seabrcok Station EPZ which include estimates of the volume of traffic or the time within which traffic can be evacuated. Provide a copy of all such studies.

ANSWER:

l 24 TON has conducted no sach studies. See answers to Interrogatories 1 and 22.

TON has misconstrued Interrogatories 23 and 24, which request ,

l identification of "all" studies conducted, not "all studies conducted by TON." Further, the studies sought are clearly relevant to the issues to be litigated in this proceeding. For these reasons, and for the reasons discussed above concerning TON's objections to Interrogatories 1 and 22, 1

TON should be compelled to respond to these interrogatories.

h. Interrogato,ry 25 l Interrogatory 25, and TON's response, read as follows:

25. Identify all State and local laws and regula-tions concerning the following actions to be taken in the l event of radiological or other emergencies (see defini- l tion 4): (1) guiding traffic; (2) blocking roadways,  !

i l

\

i I l

erecting barriers in roadways, and channeling traffic; ,

(3) posting traffic signs on roadways; (4) removing  !

obstructions from public roadways, including towing ,

, private vehicles; (5) activating sirens and directing the l q broadcast of EBS' messages; (6) making decisions and  ;

recommendations to the public concerning protection  ;

actions for the ingestion exposure pathways; (8) making  :

decisions and recommendations to the public concerning i recovery and reentry; (9) dispensing fuel from tank ,

trucks to automobiles along roadsides; and (10) perform- F ing access control at the Emergency Operations Center, ,

the relocation centers, and the EPZ perimeters.

ANSWER:

l l

25. See Answer to Interrogatory 18.

f TON should be compelled to respond to Interrogatory 25, for the j reasons set forth in the Staff's motion to compel a response to ,

i j Interrogatory 18.

} i. Interroga, tory 26 _

i Interrogatory 26 and TON's r0sponse, are:

26. Identify all studies performed during the last  !

five years concerning the availability and possible use i of sirens and other means of emergency communication to i the public in the event of emergencies. Provide a copy i 1 of all such studies.  !

a ANSWER:

l l t

26. See answers to Interrogatory 1 and 22. TON has i conducted no such studies. TON incorporates by reference ,

! all information proffered by the Comonwealth concerning

! sirens and siren contentions. ,

i i j TON has misconstrued this Interrogatory as it did Interroga-

{b l tories 23 and 24 to refer only to studies conducted by TON, Further, TON I 1 fails to identify the information "proffered by the Commonwealth", which -

l

! it cites herein; and TON's answer therefore fails to provide any  ;

i i j reasonable degree of specificity sufficient to inform the Staff of the j

i

l 1 l

} i i i i

i

particular documents referenced by TON's answer. A response to Interrogatory 26 is merited and should be compelled.

j. Interrogatory 27 Interrogatory 27, and TON's response are:

27. Identify all sirens or other means of emergency communication in the Seabrook EPZ which can be heard by the general public.

1 ANSWER:

27. See Answer to Interrogatories 1, 7 and 26.

TON's reference to its answer to Interrogatory 1, again, should be rejected. Further, TON's reference to its response to Interrogatory 7 does not provide the information sought. Finally, TON's reference to its I

answer to Interrogatory 26 should be rejected, for the reasons discussed above in response to TON's ob4ection to that Interrogatory. Since no valid objection to Interrogatory 27 remains, TON's response should be compelled,

k. Interrogatory 28 J

Interrogatory 28. and TON's res,qnse, are as follows:

28. Identify all studies performed by Intervenors during the last five years concerning planning for emergencies. Produce a copy of all such studies.

ANSWER:

28. See Answer to Interrogatory 1.

TON's refusal to respond to Interrogatory 28 is objectionable for the reasons stated by the Staff with regard to Interrogatory 1. A t

j response to Interrogatory 28 should be compelled.

i I

i l

l

,I

SUMMARY

TON has failed to provide satisfactory responses to virtually all of the Staff's interrogatories, thus precluding the discovery of potentially critical facts in this proceeding. Given the rebuttable nature of the presumption inherent in the "realism rul1", production of this information is of vital importance for this litigation as to the adequacy of the SPMC.

l TON's unsupported allegations of burdensomeness, overbreadth, and irrelevarcy should be rejected, and TON should be compelled to respond to the Interrogatories identified herein.

Respectfully submitted,

'l

• tl f

Stephen A. Bergquist '

Counsel for NRC Staff Dated at Rockville, Maryland this 12th day of October,1988

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA f"'

NUCLFao REGULATORY COMMISSION BEFORE_ _THE ATOMIC SAFETY AND LICENSING B68&D OCT 19 P4 :23 In the Matter of ) c,r i .

) Docket NostcE0-443 OL -

PUBLIC SERVICE CCMPANY OF ) 50-444 OL NEW HAMPSHIRE, el al. Off-site Errergency Planning (Seabrook Station, Units 1 and 2) )

CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE I hereby certify that copies of "fRC STAFF'S MOTION TO COMPEL ANSWERS TO INTERROGATORIES AND PRODUCTION OF DOCUMiNTS BY THE TOWN OF NEWBURY" in the above-captioned proceeding have been served on the following by deposit in the United States rail, first class or, as indicated by an asterisk, by deposit in the Nuclear Regulatory Comis s ion 's internal mail system, this 12th day of October 1988:

Ivan W. Smith, Chairman

• Atomic Safety and Licensing Administrative Judge Board Panel (1)*

Atonic Safety and Licensing Board U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Comission

U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Comission Washington, DC 20555 Washington, DC 2C555 Docketing and Service Section*

l Gustave A. Linenberger, Jr.* Office of the Secretary Administrative Judge U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Comission l Atenic Safety and Licensing Board kashington, DC 20555 i U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Comission Washington, DC 20555 Thomas G. Dignan, Jr., Esq.

] Robert K. Gad, III, Esq.

Dr. Jerry Harbour

• Ropes & Gray Administrative Judge 225 Franklin Street Atomic Safety & Licensing Board Boston, MA 02110 U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Comission

. Washington, DC 20555 H. J. Flynn, Esq.

Assistant General Counsel Atonic Safety and Licensing Federal Emergency ?!anagement Agency Appeal Panel (5)*

500 C Street, S.W. '

U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Comission Washington, DC 20472 Washington, DC 20555 1,

2 Philip Ahren, Esq. Calvin A. Canney Assistant Attorney General City Hall Office of the Attorney General 126 Daniel Street State House Station Portsmouth, NH 03801 Augusta. ME 04333 R. Scott Hill-Whilton Carol S. Sreider, Esq. Lagoulis, Clark, Hill.Whilton Assistant Attorney General & McGuire Office of the Attorney General 79 State Street One Ashburton Place, 19th Floor Newburyport, MA 01950 Boston, MA 0?!08 Allen Lampert George Dana Bisbee, Esq. Civil Defense Director Assistant Attorney General Town of Brentwood 1 Office of the Attorrey General 20 Franklin 1 25 Capitol Street Exeter, NH 03833 i Concord, NH 03301 William Armstrong Ellyn R. Weiss. Esq. Civil Defense Director Diane Curran. Esq. Town of Exeter Hamon & Weiss 10 Front Street 2001 S Street, NW Exeter, NH 03833 Suite 430 I Washington, DC 20009 Gary W. Holres. Eso.

Holmes & L111s i j Robert A. Packus. Esq. 47 Winnacunnet Road ,

! Backus, Meyer & Solomon Hampton, NH 03842 r 1 116 Lowell Street j Manchester, NH 03106 J. P. Nadeau ,

Board of Selectmen l Paul McEachern, Esq. 10 Central Street  !

J Matthew T. Brock Esc. Rye, NH 03870 '

i Shaines & McEachern i

! 05 Maplewood Avenue Judith H. Mizner, Esq, j

P.O. Box 360 Silverglate, Gertner, Baker, J Portsnouth, NH 03801 Fine, & Good

88 Board Street 1 Charles P. Graham, Esq. Boston, MA 02110 i i McKay, Murphy & Graham 1 100 Main Street Robert Carrigg, Chaiman Aresbury, MA 01913 Board of Selectmon i Town Office Sandra Gavutis, Chairran Atlantic Avenue Board of Selectren North Hampton, NH 03870 i RFD #1, Box 1154 Kensington, NH 03827 1

3 William S. Lord Peter J. Matthews, Mayor Board of Selectren City Hall Town Hall - Friend Street Newburyport, MN 09150 Aresbury, MA 01913 Michael Santosuosso, Chairman Mrs. Anne E. Goodman, Chaircan Board of Selectmen Board of Selectmen South Hampton, NH 03827 13-15 Newmarket Read ,

Durham, NH 03024 Ashed N. Amirian, Esq.

Town Counsel for Merrimac Hon. Gordon J. Humphrey 376 Main Street United States Senate Haverhill, MA 08130 531 Hart Senate Office Building Washington, DC 20510 Robert R. Pierce, Esq.*

Atomic Safety and Licensing Ric.hard R. Donovan Board Panel Feceral Emergency Management Agency U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Conmission Federal Regional Center Washington, D.C. 20555 130 228th Street, S.W.

Bothell, Washington 98021-9796 bA?k1 Stephen /A. Bergquist bt',,/e l'W Counsel for NRC Staff ,

(

)

- - _. -- - -