ML20205L853
| ML20205L853 | |
| Person / Time | |
|---|---|
| Site: | Seabrook  |
| Issue date: | 03/30/1987 |
| From: | Sneider C MASSACHUSETTS, COMMONWEALTH OF |
| To: | Atomic Safety and Licensing Board Panel |
| Shared Package | |
| ML20205L859 | List: |
| References | |
| CON-#287-2954 OL, NUDOCS 8704020208 | |
| Download: ML20205L853 (40) | |
Text
E d J 9 Si ff UNITED STATES OF AMERICA
'S7 lia 31 P3 :30 NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSION OFF!Lf ...r Before Administrative Judges: C0 Chi. i m 'iu VICf.
Helen F. Hoyt, Chairperson BRANCH Gustave A. Linenberger, Jr.
Jerry Harbour
)
In the Matter of )
)
PUBLIC SERVICE COMPANY OF NEW ) Docket Nos.
HAMPSHIRE, ET AL. ) 50-443/444-OL (Seabrook Station, Units 1 and 2) ) (Off-Site EP)
) March 30, 1987 .
)
ATTORNEY GENERAL JAMES M. SHANNON'S MOTION TO COMPEL APPLICANTS' RESPONSE TO INTERROGATORIES AND ANSWER TO APPLICANTS' MOTION FOR PROTECTIVE ORDER Attorney General James M. Shannon hereby moves the Licensing Board pursuant to 10 C.F.R. 4 2.740(f) to issue an order compelling Applicants to respond to the following interrogatories served on the Applicants by the Attorney General on March 5, 1987, which the Applicants either did not answer or answered in an incomplete and/or evasive manner. The specific interrogatories for which the Attorney General seeks an order compelling responses are set forth below together with Applicants' responses thereto and the arguments of the Attorney General in support of this motion. Attorney General Shannon further incorporates this Motion to Compel as his answer to )
Applicants' Motion for Protective Order.
870402Og((yh@0043 AD PDR PDR G
()J J
f.
Interrogatory 2 states as follows:
- 2. Identify and produce all documents on which you have relied, do rely, or will rely to support your position on each of these contentions. Identify the information in each document on which you have relied, do rely, or will rely and the specific subpart of each contention which that information concerns.
The Applicants' response to this Interrogatory is as follows:
Those documents which have not already been served on the parties prior to issuance of the MASS AG interrogatories or specifically included with the response to an interrogatory will be made available for inspection and copying at the Seabrook Station or at KLD's office. Please contact Mr. William J. Daley at. -
(603) 474-9252, extension 2057 to arrange for document inspection.
Attorney General James M. Shannon moves to compel a more specific answer to this interrogatory. The answer given fails entirely to answer the Question asked: Identify which documents you rely upon to support your position on each contention to be litigated by the Attorney General.
When contacted, Mr. William J. Daley indicated that the documents he had were not identified or categorized by contention or by interrogatory number. See Affidavit of Allan Fierce, attached hereto. Thus, even .fter inspecting documents being offered at Seabrook Station, the Attorney General will not know which documents the Applicants are relying upon to support their position on each of the contentions. Applicants should be compelled to identify the documents in this fasbion, as they were asked to do in the P',
interrogatory. SBe, e.g., Boston Edison Company (Pilgrim Nuclear Generating Station, Unit 2), LBP-75-30, 1 NRC 579 (1975).
Interrogatory 3 states as follows:
- 3. State whether you have relied, do rely, or will rely on any study, calculation, or analysis to support your position on each of these contentions. If so, please:
(a) Describe the nature of the study, calculation or analysis and identify any documents that discuss or describe the study, calculation or analysis (b) Identify the persons who performed the study, calculation or analysis: .
(c) State when and where the study, calculation or analysis was performed (d) Describe in detail the information or data that was studied, calculated or analyzed (e) Describe the results of the study, calculation or analysis (f) Explain how such study, calculation, or analysis provides support for your position on each of these contentions.
The Applicants' response to this Interrogatory is as follows:
Any studies, calculations or analyses on which the Applicants currently intend to rely on have been identified in the response to interrogatories hereinafter. Applicants reserve the right to use such additional pertinent documents if and when they become available.
Attorney General James M. Shannon moves to compel a more specific answer to this interrogatory on the grounds (1) that it is unresponsive to that part of the interrogatory which 3-
r
~
asked the Applicants'to state whether Applicants rely, or will rely, on any study, calculation, or analysis to support Applicants' position on each contention to be litigated by the Attorney General, and (2) that it is unresponsive to that part of the interrogatory which sought a description of each such study, calculation, or analysis and an explanation how such study, calculation, or analysis supported Applicants' position on each of these contentions.
As with their response to the Attorney General's Interrogatory 83, noted above, the Applicants have sought to ,
avoid revealing that upon which they rely, or will rely, to support their position on each contention to be litigated by the Attorney General. Even if all the studien, calculations, or analyses on which the Applicants currently intend to rely "have been identified" in response to other interrogatories, those studies identified have not been associated with particular contentions, as this interrogatory sought.
Applicants should be compelled to identify by contentions each study, calculation, or analysis on which they rely, or will rely, to support their positicn. Then, for each such study, analysis, or contention, they should be compelled to answer the six (a-f) Questions asked.
Interrogatories 7-18 read as follows:
7 Are peak summer day evacuation time estimates for the populations within two miles, five miles and ten miles of the Seabrook plant longer than the average two-mile, five-mile, and ten-mile Ep3 evacuation time estimates for nuclear power plants in this country?
m O
- 8. Please provide the names of all nuclear power plants that have longer evacuation time estimates for populations located within two miles, five miles or ten miles of those plants than does the Seabrook reactor. Include lhose
- respective time estimates for each plant.
- 9. Is population density greater for the areas within two miles, five miles, and ten miles of the Seabrook plant than the average population densities for areas within two miles, five miles and ten miles of all other nuclear reactors in this country?
- 10. Please provide the names of all nuclear power plants in this country that have higher population densities in the areas within two miles, five miles or ten miles of the plants than does the Seabrook reactor.
- 11. Is there a larger summer transient population within two miles, five miles or ten miles of the Seabrook plant than there is within two miles, five miles, or ten miles of all other operating reactors in this country.
- 12. Please identify all nuclear power plants in this country that have a larger summer transient population than does the Seabrook plant for the areas located within two miles, five miles, or ten miles of the plant, and for each of those reactors indicate what provisions, if any, have been made to shelter the transient populations where such population is situated with respect to that reactors the average dose reduction factor of shelters used for that populations evacuation time estimates for that population if it were to be evacuated; the location with respect to the transient population of any sheltering they will be expected to use; whether that population is predominantly a beach populations whether sufficient sheltering capacity exists to shelter the entire transient populations and if sufficient capacity does not exist to enable the sheltering of the entire population, state for what percentage of the population sufficient sheltering capacity exists.
- 13. Will emergency planning for the area within ten miles of the Seabrook plant ef fectuate- less " dose reduction" than the average dose reduction for all other nuclear plants in this country, assuming comparable radiological releases in the event of an accident?
- 14. Compare the average dose reduction expected to be effectuated for the summer transient beach population within ten miles of the Seabrook plant to the average dose reduction expected to be effectuated for persons within ten miles of all other reactors in this country, assuming comparable radiological releases in the event of an accident.
- 15. Please provide the basis for your response to interrogatories 13-14 and any documents relevant to your responses.
- 16. Do homes within the Seabrook ten-mile EPZ ,
have on the average a lower dose reduction factor than do homes around all other nuclear reactors in this country?
17 Compare the average dose reduction factor of homes within the Seabrook ten-mile EPZ beach area to average dose reduction factors of homes around other reactors.
- 18. Please provide the basis for your responses to interrogatories 16-17 and any documents relevant to your response.
Applicants objected to each of the Interrogatories 7 through 18 on the following basis:
This interrogatory is objected to. To begin with it is not relevant or reasonably designed to seek information which would be relevant to any contention admitted in the proceeding. The ~
Commission has made patently clear that the regulations do not, and were never intended to set some absolute level of safety to be attained at all sites. As the Commission recently stated in a Notice of Rulemaking:
"The existing emergency planning regulation does not recuire that plans achieve any pre-establiished minimum done savings in the event of
an aco-ident. For example, approved emergency plans with full star.e and local governmental cooperation have highly variable evacuation time estimates ranging from several hours to over ten hours and the projected dose savings for such plans would vary widely. Thus the regulation is inherently variable in effect and there are no bright-line, mandatory minimum projected dose savings or evacuation time limits which could be viewed as performance standards for emergency plans in the existing regulations." Proposed Rule, Licensing of Nuclear Power Plants where State and/or Local Governments Decline to Cooperate in Offsite Emergency Planning, Fed. Reg. 52 FR 6980 (March 6, 1987). (Emphasis .
Added.)
See also, Long Island Lighting Company (Shoreham Nuclear Power Station, CLI-86-13, 24 NRC 22 (1986); Southern California Edison Company (San Onofre Nuclear Power Station, Units 1 and 2),
CLI-83-10, 17 NRC 528, 533 (1983). In short any comparison of the Seabrook site with any other site for any purpose is wholly irrelevant to any emergency planning issue. The objection should be sustained on that ground.
In addition, this interrogatory recuires the Applicants to do analyses which they have not done and would have no reason for doing themselves for any purpose. As a result the interrogatory is objected to as burdensome and no answer should be required for this separate and wholly adeauate reason. Pennsylvania Power
& Light Co. (Susouehanna Steam Electric Station, Units 1 and 2), ALAB-613, 12 NRC 317, 334 (1980).
Attorney General Shannon moves the Board to issue an order compelling Applicants to respond to Interrogatories 7 through
- 18. Pursuant to the Commission's regulations discovery may be l had on any matter, not privileged, which is at all relevant to the proceeding. 10 C.F.R. 4 2.740(a)(1). Moreover, the I
4 i regulations provfde "filt is not ground for objection that the js information sought will be inadmissible at the hearing if the i
information sought appears reasonably calculated to lead to the
! discovery of admissible evidence." Id. And, as NRC case law 1 l shows, the discovery rules are to be construed very liberally.
I Discovery can be denied only if it can be shown that the ;
i
! evidence sought can have no reasonable bearing on the issues.
See, e.g., Boston Edison Co. (Units 2), supra, 1 NRC at 582.
The Applicants' assertion that "any comparison of the
]
f Seabrook site for any purpose is wholly irrelevant to any ,
i emergency planning issue" is without merit. The mere fact that 1
l the emergency planning regulation "is inherently variable in effect" and that there are "no bright-line, mandatory minimum 4
projected dose savings or evacuation time limits which could be 2
viewed as performance standards" does not mean that evidence of what has been found adecuate at other plants is wholly 1
l irrelevant to a determination of the adecuacy of the New 1
i Hampshire RERP. It would certainly be relevant to a
}
determination of this Board if plants with similar emergency planning constraints as the Seabrook plant (e.g., large densely j packed beach populations within several miles of the plants t
long evacuation times few evacuation routes; and no plans to i
i shelter a significant portion of the population) have been licensed. Indeed, the very fact that the commission has ,
established no absolute standard against which the adecuacy of .
f a particular response plan may be measured makes especially l
t
)
i [
relevant the findinga .of adequacy or inadecuacy, and the bases therefor, at other plants.
That a comparison of Seabrook to other plants in this country can in some manner be relevant to this Board's findings can be seen from the on-site emergency planning and safety phase of this licensing proceeding in which the NRC Staff's own
, testimony in support of its position on a disputed issue of adeouacy for which the regulations provided no absolute standard introduced evidence indicating how the issue had been resolved at other plants in this country. See NRC Staff Testimony of Richard J. Eckenrode on the SPDS Portion of Contention SAPL Supp. 6, at p. 11. Indeed, the Licensing Board found this comparison to other plants to be sufficiently relevant to ask its own cucctions seeking further elucidation on such comparisons. See Public Service Company of New Hampshire (Seabrook Station, Units 1 and 2), Onsite Emergency Planning and Technical Issues, Transcript of Hearing dated October 3, 1986, at pp. 981-84, 990. Certainly, then, it cannot be said that responses to the Attorney General's interrogatories could not reasonably lead to the discovery of admissible evidence.
With respect to Applicants' further objection that interrogatories 7 through 18 are burdensome, the Attorney General is not reouiring Applicants to do any analyses that they have not already performed. Nevertheless, Applicants have not stated that they do not have documents containing such 9-
O information (on evacuation times, population densities, sheltering facilities, etc.) at other nuclear plants, and have not provided any explanation of how it would be burdensome to produce such documents, such as by indicating the numbers of documents involved or dectibing the effort it would take to 1
produce these documents. A mere generalized statement that the interrogatory is burdensome is not sufficient. See Boston Edison Company, supra, 1 NRC at 584.
Furthermore, if Applicants' concern is that a response would entail detailed sifting and analysis of a great volume of material, then they should still be recuired to produce the materials in their possession from which the recuested information may be obtained. Id. at 583 ("fWlhere a heavy burden would be imposed if a party were recuired to answer . .
l
. , a segregation and analysis of a great mass of material being necessary, or where data and information must be compiled and collated, the court as an alternative may require the interrogating party 'to dig out and sift the information'by an examination of the other party's files.").
Interrogatory 22 In response to Attorney General Shannon's Interrogatory 21, the Applicants stated affirmatively that there had been oral communications in 1985 and 1986 betwoon Edward B. Leberman (or any other officer, agent, employee or person acting or purporting to act on behalf of KLD Associates) and Applicants' employees or agents. Following up on his interrogatory, 4
__ _ _ . . _ _ - . . . ~ - - ._. __ . _ - . . _ - _
o e
Interrogatory 22' stated as follows: .(
- 22. If you answer the previous interrogatory ;
affirmatively, as to each communiction i
a.' state whether made in person or by '
telephones j
- b. state the date and place;
- c. state the content of the I communication as disclosed in any corporate or internal record;
- d. identify each person who i participated in LSe communication or ,
who had knowledge hereof; t e, identify and produce each document ;
referring or relating to the subject -
matter of subparagraph (c) hereof.
l The Applicants' response to this Interrogatory is as ,
4 follows: i Corporate records do not exist documenting i the oral communications between the Applicants !
or their agents and KLD. While Applicants do acknowledge that such communications did occur they are unable, for each communication, to respond in the detail reauested by paragraphs (a) - (e).
1 Attorney General James M. Shannon moves to compel a ,
complete and unambiguous answer to this interrogatory on the ground that the answer given is incomplete, ambiguous, and I possibly evasive. While Applicants may he unable "for each louchl communication" to respond "in the detail requested" by the interrogatory, they should be compelled to provide the f i
information they do have about each such communication for !
l which they have any information. This information need not ;
come solely from "corposte records." If these conversations I
i l
..- - .. .. - _ . - - - . . _- =. .- - - - . . -
l l
l l
are known to the Applicants, or information about them is reasonably available to the Applicants, Applicants should answer as much of Interrogatory 22 as possible. r Interrogatory 28 Attorney General Shannon's Interrogatory 28 stated as follows: ;
- 28. Assuming an accident when beaches are at or near capacity and assuming implementation of Revision 2 of NHRERP, do you contend that KLD's ETE study demonstrates that evacuation times are '
short enough to prevent all fatalities among members of the beach population under all accident sequences? If not, state how many early fatalities would occur, and specify under .
i which accident secuences these fatalities would occur. l The Applicants' response to this Interrogatory is as follows:
This interrogatory is objected to. As pointed out in our objection to Interrogatory No. 7, the Commission has made it clear thatt i "there are no bright-line, mandatory minimum projected dose savings or evacuation time limits ,
which could be viewed as performance standards for emergency plans in the existing ,
regulation." Furthermore until the questioner describes the accident to be assumed and numerous other parameters, such as wind direction etc. it is impossible to answer the !
question. i Attorney General James M. Shannon moves to compel an answer to this interrogatory on the ground that the information is l
extremely relevant to a determination whether the provisions f
for protective measures that may be recommended in an !
I emergency, especially for members of the beach population, are i adeouate. See Hampton contention VI!!, and SAPL Contention 16, I
- 12 -
i
and NECNP Contention RERP-8. The objection stated by the Applicants concerning the lack of " bright-line" minimum performance standards is irrelevant to this determination.
Moreover, there is no need to describe " numerous other parameters" in the interrogatory in order to answer the simple cuestion whether KLD's ETE's demonstrate that evacuation times are short enough to prevent all fatalities among numbers of the beach population under all accident secuences. This question calls for a single yes or no answer which can be offered after examination of the worse case accident secuence affecting the beach population for which Applicants have planned. The follow-up out.. ion--if the ETE's are not short enough to prevent all fatalities among the members of the beach popultion under all accident secuences, state how many fatalities would occur, and specify under which accident secuences these fatalities would occur--assumes serious accidents in which the wind is blowing toward the highest concentration of beach-goers. Answering this cuestion can easily be done through a calculation similar to that reautred by the Protective Action Recommendation Worksheet, Vol. 4, Figure 1A of the NilRERP-Rev. 2. The only parameters needed to calculate projected whole body doses and thyroid doses (from which death can then be calculated) are wind speed and plume exposure time. Where the plume exposure time equals or exceeds the beach ETE, the maximum length of exposure for the last beach-goor to evacuato is the time projected from the ETE's
. . - - _ . - - . _ ~ - . - . . - - _ - - - - - . - - -- . .-.
i o
i i
needed to evacuate the beach area less the time it took the i
plume to arrive after the beach evacution began. Exposure L j times for all other beach-goers are distributed evenly .
j throughout this period of time and can be calculated. Thus, [
I
! this question can easily be answered if the Applicants assume a 1 t I
couple of different wind speeds (e.g., a fast blowing wind, a ll moderate wind, and a slow wind) and a couple of different plume I
i exposure times (e.g., one which is eaual to or greater than the ,
I
! beach ETE, one which is just long enough to cause some early -
l l
l deaths, and one half way between these two). Applicants' ;
i .
c j suggestion that this question requires the assumption of an excessively large number of parameters is spurious.
Interrogatory 29 .
Attorney General Shannon's Interrogatory 29 asked as i I
1 follows:
i
- 29. Do you contend that the number of early
fatalities likely to be caused by a serious !
j radiological emergency at the Seabrook plant is not a relevant factor in determining whether :
l there is " reasonable assurance that adequate !
l protective measures can and will be taken in the
! event of a radiological emergency"? Explain
! your answer. If there is a limit to the number
{ of likely early fatalities beyond which you l 1 would agree that an evacuation plan does not
- offer such " reasonable assurance," state that <
j 1!*it.
l The Applicants responded with this objections l 4
! As stated earlier with respect to l l Interrogatories 7 and 28, there simply are, as a !
j matter of law, no mandatory minimum dose savings ;
i to be achieved. Thus as a matter of law, there l 1 is no basis for inouiring as to what level of j radiological dose or conceauences from assumed j I
I !
i l !
i i
s
, dose must-be exceeded before plans would be deemed inadequate for a given event.
. Furthermore the question as phrased is impossible to answer until such time as the questioner defines precisely what " serious radiological emergency" is to be assumed and the parameters, such as weather and wind direction, which are to be assumed as of the time the
" emergency" occurs.
As with Interrogatory 28, this objection is irrelevant when the issue is whether the " protective measures" that may be recommended in an emergency are " adequate." While there may be no definitive mandatory minimum dose savings reauired by the NRC in approving any RERP, there are also no " bright-line" minimums for assessing whether the protective measures propos'ed in the NHRERP-Rev. 2 are "adeauate." Clearly the NRC measures "adeauacy" by assessing a variety of factors. Attorney General Shannon seeks with the first auestion in this interrogatory to learn merely whether the Applicants admit or deny that the number of early fatalities likely to be caused by a serious radiological emergency is one relevant factor the NRC may consider when it assesses whether the protective measures proposed here are "adeauate." The second sentence in his interrogatory is a follow-up and does ask a " limit" auestion.
Applicants' should at best be compelled to answer the first ouestion. There is also no need to define precisely " serious radiological omergency." That ta not the focus of the cuestions indeed those words could have been left out so that the question would have been "do you contend that the number of early fatalicios likely to be caused by an accident (any O
I accident) at Seabrook is not a relevant f actor . . .?" Once again, Applicants' objection demanding that the Attorney General " define the parameters" is a red herring.
Interrogatories 36 and 47 Attorney General Shannon's Interrogatory 36 stated as follows:
- 36. For each New Hampshire town which is not participating in evacuation planning, (1) state the name, city or town of residence, name of employer, job title or position, and location of usual work site for each traffic guide, bus driver, or other emergency worker the State of New Hampshire intends to mobilize to perform an emergency response functions (2) describe for .
each such person which traffic control post or other function each said person has been assigned and (3) list for such person how long it is estimated it will take to travel to the assigned duty posts (a) from said person's home and (b) from said person's usual work site.
The Applicants' response to this Interrogatory is as follows:
This cuestion seeks a level of detail not recuired by the regulations or NUREG-0654. The pools which will be drawn upon are listed in the NHRERP Volume 2, Appendix G. No more is reauired or relevant.
Attorney General Shannon's Interrogatory 47 stated as follows:
47 List the names and home addresses, employment addresses, and traffic control assignments of each of the New Hampshire traffic control personnel.
The Applicants' response to this Interrogatory is as follows:
1 See the response to Interrogatory 36.
t
O Attorney General.Shannon moves to compel answers to both Interrogatory 36 and Interrogatory 47 Attorney General Shannon seeks the identities and location of these workers because he wishes to interview them. These workers have knowledge in a variety of areas which may constitute admissible evidence or may lead to the discovery of admissible evidence, particularly with respect to Hampton's Revised Contention VI and SAPL Contentions 8 and 8A. For example, if these workers indicate that it will take them more than a short time to get to their assigned posta during emergency at Seabrook, then the NHRERP may be completely unworkable. Applicants' objection l's therefore completely without merit. Regardless of the specific requirements of the regulations or NUREG-0654, which the NHRERP must ultimately meet, the information sought here through discovery should be provided because it could lead to the l
discovery of admissible evidence.
i Interrogatory 72 Attorney General Shannon's Interrogatory 72 stated as
- follows:
I 72. In computing evacuation time estimates, l what if any, data were included in the
- computation regarding eatimates of the time required to not out cones, signs, and barricaden? Indicate by name, address and employment position, the personnel designated to act out auch cones, signs and harricades.
- Applicanta renponded to this interrogatory as follows:
The computatione do not consider that the time to deploy conen and barricaden in a contributing factor to evacuation or travel time.
l
i The reonest.for names, addresses, and employment position for these tasks seeks a level of detail not recuired by regulations or NUREG-0654. The pools which will be drawn upon are listed in NHRERP Volume 4B, Department of .
Transporation Procedures and Volumes 16 through 32, Appendix C. No more is recuired or relevant.
Attornuy General Shannon hereby moves to compel an answer to that portion of Interrogatory 72 which sought the names, addresses and employment position of the personnel designated to set out cones, signs, and barricades. The polls which will be drawn upon are not listed in Volume 4B, Department of Transportation Procedures, not are they listed clearly anywhere in Volumes 16-32.
Interrogatories 74, 76, 77, 78, 79, 80 and 81 and Applicants' responses thereto are as follows:
- 74. Is it your position that sheltering will never be relied upon as a protective action for the summer transient beach population located 4 I
within ten miles of the Seabrook plant, or for any portion of that population?
The Applicants' response to this Interrogatory is as i i
follows:
No. ,
t
- 76. Please provide any documents you have ,
reviewed that are relevant to the conclusion (s), i aet forth in response to interrogatory 74 that sheltering will or will not ever be relied upon as a protective response for the transient j aummer beach population. .
The Applicants' response to thin Interrogatory is as ;
i follows:
l l
[
i l
l i
. ~ . - . . - -. - - -. -
! The document -relevant to Appliants' response l to Interrogtory #74 is NHRERP Volume 1, Section l 2.6 and Volume 6.
l
- 77. Please identify all documents you intend to rely upon to support your position that sheltering will or will not be used as a protective response for the transient summer j_ beach population.
t i The Applicants' response to this Interrogatory is as follows:
See response to Interrogatory 476.
t
- 78. Unless your answer to interrogatory 74 is an unqualified yes, describe when and under ,
what circumstances, including types of accident sequences and meteorological conditions, you anticipate that sheltering will be relied upon as a protective action for the summer transient beach population. '
The Applicants' response to this Interrogatory is as follows:
NHRERP Volume 1, Section 2.6.7 describes the decision criteria for selecting the option of sheltering as a protection action.
- 79. Please provide any plans you have relative to sheltering the transient summer i beach population, and indicate if, how, and when ;
you intend to amend or add to those plans in any way.
The Applicants' response to this Interrogatory is as follows:
The NHRERP Volumes 1, 16 and 18 rovide for the continuum of protective responses that would be implemented to protect the health and safety of the public, including seasonal' beach populations, in the event of a radiological emergency.
- 80. If no plans for sheltering the transient summer beach population currently exist, please indicate if, when and how you intend to develop any plans for sheltering the transient summer beach population located within ten miles of the Seabrook plant.
The Applicants' response to this Interrogatory is as follows:
Not Applicable. See response to 479 i
- 81. If the transient summer beach .
population, or any portion thereof,.is instructed to shelter, how, by whom and on what basis will that decision to shelter the beach population be made? Please provide any documents on which you intend to rely in making that decision.
The Applicants' response to this Interrogatory is as follows:
The decision to shelter would be made by the Governor based upon the criteria spacified in NHRERP Volume 1, Section 2.6.7 As described in NHRERP Volume 1, Section 2.6.5, New Hampshire employs the " shelter-in-place" concept which is implemented on a " municipality-by-municipality" basis. Each town will be advised of the recommended course of action and implementation ;
of the protective action will be in accordance with the RERPs and procedures governing the actions of the involved parties (refer to the individual RERP, NHRERP Volume 1, Section 2.6.7 and Volume 4A, Appendix U). ;
Applicants responses to interrogatories--74, 76, 77, 78, 79, 80 and 81--are incomplete and evasive. Applicants assert in response to Interrogatory 74 that sheltering may be used as
l a protective act'lon'for the summer transient beach population, 4
but when asked for the basis (interrogatories 76 and 77), the types of situations in which Applicants contemplates sheltering i
any be recommended for the beach population (interrogatories 78
^
and 81), and the specific plans for implementing sheltering for the beach population (interrogatories 79 and 80), Applicants cite to provision in the NHRERP which expressly provide that ,
sheltering will not be recommended for the transient summer.
beach population. If Applicants have any basis for their assertion that sheltering may be recommended for the transient r .
summer beach population, they should be compelled to provide the basis therefore and to state, as asked by the
- interrogatories, under what types of circumstances that protective response may be recommended for the summer beach
- population, and how such response will be implemented.
I Interrogatories 86 and 87, and Applicants responses thereto I
- are as follows
- '
, 86. Is it your position that sheltering should never be relied upon as a protective i' response action for the transient summer beach population located within ten miles of the Seabrook plant, or for any portion of that ;
j population?
The Applicants' response to this Interrogatory is as
) follows: [
4 No.
]
- 87. Unless your answer to interrogatory 86 is an unqualified yes, describe under what circumstances, and i for what portion of the population, sheltering should be I used as a protective response for the transient summer beach population.
1 1 4
1
~ . - . - - . . - - , - , . - _ . - - . . , . - . - , - , . - , _ . . . - . , . . - - - . - - . - . . . , . . - . _ , - - . . - . . - . - . - , - , . . . - - , , . . - , . ,
. +
~
The Applicants' ' response,to this Interrogatory is as follows:
j Refer to the response to Interrogatory 75.
1 i
Applicants response'to interrogatory is non-responsive. It-fails to describe, as asked, the' circumstances in which ,
i sheltering should be'used as a protective response for the j . transient summer beach population. Applicants have not
) objected to this interrogatory and they should be compelled,
?
therefore, to provide a complete response.
I i Interrogatory 88: ~ ,!
[ .
i 88. Please' provide the basis for your determination that sheltering should or should not ever be used as a protective response option for all, or any portion of, the transient summer. 4
- beach population.
j The Applicants' response to this Interrogatory is as i follows:
i The basis is in NHRERP Volume 1, Section 2.6.7.
Again, Applicants cite as basis for their determination that sheltering should be used as a protective reponse option i
for the transient summer beach population a section of the 1
1 NHRERP which provides that sheltering should not be used as a j, protective response option for the transient summer beach j population. Applicants reponse to this interrogatore is
{ therefore incomplete and evasive, and they should be compelled
-o to provide a complete response.
i Interrogatories 91, 92, and 93:
I i
u , u @ . L- n. __m _ m ,a 4
- 91. Ts it'*your position that sheltering of :
the transient summet beach population is feasible at all beach areas located within ten-miles of the plant?
The Applicants' response to this Interrogatory is as follows:
The question as phrased, is not susceptible of an answer given the lack of several critical parameters including, but not limited to, the number of persons assumed to be on the beaches, the time of day, and the season, etc..
~
- 92. Please identify those beach areas within ten miles of the Seabrook plant for which sheltering of the transient population would not be a feasible response. -
The Applicants' response to this Interrogatory is as follows:
See response to Interrogat.)ry 91.
- 93. Please provide the basis for your determination that sheltering of the transient beach population, or a particular portion thereof, is or is not feasible.
The Applicants' response to this Interrogatory is as follows:
Refer to the response to Interrogatory 76.
Applicants responses to the interrogatories 91, 92 and 93 are incomplete and non-responsive, and they should be compelled to provide complete responses. If it is Applicants position that the feasibility of sheltering the summer beach population is dependent on the numbers of persons on the beaches and the time of day, then they should so respond and state for how many
/
l
i people and at what time of day (or state any other limiting conditions) sheltering would or would not be feasible. (The
" season" is provided in the interrogatory by use of the term
" summer beach population").
Interrogatories 96, 97, 98 and 99 are as follows:
- 96. Is it your position that.. adequate physical facilities exist in all beach areas located within Seabrook's ten-mile EPZ to shelter the entire peak transient summer beach population?
The Applicants' response to this Interrogatory is as follows:
Yes.
- 97. Please provide the basis for your response to interrogatory 95 that adequate physical facilities do or do not exist.
The Applicants' response to this Interrogatory is as follows:
The basis for the response to Interrogatory 96 is in the documents cited in the response to Interrogatory 76.
- 98. Please provide any documents you have reviewed that are in any way relevant to the conclusion (s) set forth in response to interrogatory 95.
The Applicants' response to this Interrogatory is as follows:
See response to Interrogatory 76.
- 99. Please identify all documents you intend to rely upon to support your position that adequate physical facilities do or do not exist t
.- l 1
1 to shelter the entire peak transient summer beach population.
The Applicants' response to this Interrogatory is as follows:
Refer to the response to Interrogatory 76.
Applicants' responses to these interrogatories are evasive and incomplete. Applicants cite, in support of their response that " adequate physical facilities exist in all beach areas 4
within Seabrook's ten mile EPZ to shelter the entire peak transient summer beach population," documents which do not refer to physical facilities to shelter the beach population., -
, or the adequacy or inadequacy thereof. If it is Applicants position tha such documents do provide the basis for their conclusion set forth in response to interrogatory 96, they should cite to the specific pages in such documents and state the manner in which they support Applicants' conclusion, or if such documents do not provide the sole basis for their response they should so state and provide that additional basis.
l Interrogatory 100 is as follows:
100. Please identify all facilities that could be used to shelter the transient summer beach population and provide the dose reduction factor for each, identifying for each the basis for your determination of the dose reduction factor and providing all computations, materials, photographs, notes and other materials relied upon or reviewed in determining the dose reduction factor of each-building or facility.
The Applicants' response to this Interrogatory is as follows:
1 1
l l
.- The Applicants do not have the information requested regarding all facilities. However, some facilities that could be used to shelter the beach population are identified in a report entitled "A Study to Identify Potential Shelters in the Beach Areas near Seabrook Station", which was performed by Stone & Webster Engineering Corporation for New Hampshire Yankee in March 1986. This study also evaluated the facility to determine the dose reduction factor.
Applicants' response is incomplete as it providas only the study that evaluated dose reduction factors of sheltering facilities in the beach areas, but does not provide as requested "all computations, materials, photographs, notes and other materials relied upon or reviewed in determining the dose reduction factor of each building or facility." Applicants have not objected to this interrogatory request or responded that the requested material is unavailable. Applicants should therefore be compelled to produce this material. -
Interrogatories 101, 102, 103, and 104 are as follows:
101. Is it your position that sheltering of the transient summer beach population located within ten miles of the Seabrook plant could never be an adequate protective response action for that population, or for any portion of that population, under any plausible accident f
scenario?
The Applicants' response to this Interrogatory is as follows:
No.
102. Please provide the basis for your response to interrogatory 101, and unless your answer to that interrogatory is an unqualified yes, state under what circumstances, including accident sequences and meteorological conditions, sheltering could provide an adequate
protective response for the transient summer beach. population, or any portion thereof, located within ten miles of the Seabrook plant.
The Applicants' response to this Interrogatory is as follows:
See response to Interrogatory 76.
(Applicants' Response to Interrogatory 76: The document relevant to Applicants' response to Interrogatory #74 is NHRERP Volume 1, Section 2.6 and Volume 6.]
- 103. Please provide any documents you have reviewed that are in any way relevant to the conclusions set forth in response to interrogatories 101 and 102.
l The Applicants' response to this Interrogatory is as follows:
Refer to the response to Interrogatory 76.
104. Please identify all documents you intend to rely upon to support your position that sheltering of the transient summer beach population could or could not ever be an adequate protective response option for that population.
l The Applicants' response to this Interrogatory is as
- follows:
Refer to the response to Interrogatory 76.
1 Applicants' response to Interrogatory 102 is incomplete and non-responsive. Applicants again cite to documents which state that sheltering will not be used for the summer beach population and from which no apparent basis for Applicants' response can be found. Applicants should be required to
- explain the basis of their response where it is not obvious i
l
~ '
from'the documents c'it'ed and to cite to specific pages in the 4
. documents.
In addition, Applicants' response does not state, as requested, "under what circumstances, including accident sequences and meteorological conditions, sheltering could provide an adequate protective-response for the transient t
summer beach population." Applicants have not objected to
! interrogatory 102 and therefore must be compelled to provide a complete response and to supplement their responses to interrogatories 103 and 104 accordingly. ,
Interrogatories 105, 106, 107, and 108 are as follows:
3 105. Is it your position with regard to the transient summer beach population, or for any
- portion of that population, that the protective i
response of sheltering could never achieve the same level of dose reduction as the protective response of evacuation?
i The Applicants' response to this Interrogatory is as follows:
- No.
o l
l 106. Please provide the basis for your response to interrogatory 105.
The Applicants' response to this Interrogatory is as follows:
See response to Interrogatory 76. [ Response to
- ' Interrogatory 76
- The documents relevant to q Applicants' response to Interrogatory #74 is. .
- NHRERP Volume 1, Section 2.6 and Volume 6) .
1, s
107. Please provide any. documents you have
! reviewed that are relevant to the conclusion (s) ,
set forth in response to interrogatory 105. )
I
! i
The Applica6ts' iesponse to this Interrogatory is as follows:
Refer to the response to Interrogatory 76.
108. Please identify all documents you intend to rely upon to support your position set forth in response to interrogatory 105.
The Applicants' response to this Interrogatory is as follows:
Refer to the response to Interrogatory 76.
Applicants' response to Interrogatory 106 is evasive, incomplete and not responsive. Applicants again have not *
] stated the basis for their response but have cited to documents
{ which do not provide any apparent basis to support Applicants' response to Interrogatory 105. Applicants should be compelled l
to provide a complete answer to Interrogatory 106, by setting i
forth the complete basis for their response to Interrogatory j 105 and by citing to specific pages in the documents, and to supplement their responses to Interrogatories 107 and 108 j accordingly.
Interrogatories 109, 110, 112, ll2a and 113 are as follows:
109. Is it your position that-with respect
+
to the transient summer beach population the
, protective response of evacuation will in all
, cases provide an adequate level of protection?
The Applicants' response to this Interrogatory is as i
2 follows:
Not necessarily. In some cases evacuation may
- not be necessary, and in other cases evacuation
, in combination with other measures may be the
} most desirable course of action to take.
1 29 -
- - - - , ,--e,,-y . , . . . , - - , . ----, ,- -,--..m- . , , - ,c,-~- - - --y-._ , ..r,-.- , en-- - - , ,-. r
. I 110. 1:s it'your position that for the
- transient summer beach population the protective response of evacuation will in all cases be an adequate protective measure?
The Applicants' response to this Interrogatory is as follows:
Not necessarily. In some cases evacuation may not be necessary, and in other cases evacuation in combination with other measures may be the most desirable course of action to take.
111. Please define your use of the terms
" adequate" and " adequate level of protection" with respect to your response to interrogatory 109 and define your use of the term " adequate protective measure" with respect to your .
response to interrogatory 110?
The Applicants' response to this Interrogatory is as follows:
- " Adequate": lawfully and reasonably sufficient;
" adequate level of protection": that level of dose reduction reasonably achievable in the circumstances, given the resources available:
" adequate protective measure": that measure which will best achieve the maximum reasonably achievable dose reductionin the circumstances given the resources available.
112. Please provide the bases for your responses to interrogatories 109 and 110, including all documents you rely upon in support of those responses.
The Applicants' response to this Interrogatory is as l l follows:
a "The responses are supported by those documents identified in the response to Interrogatory 76.
Il2a. If your answer to either interrogatory 109 or 110 is anything but an unqualified yes, please identify and describe those situations
for which~the~' protective response of evacuation will'not be " adequate" or achieve an " adequate level of protection" and the manner in which the response will not-be adequate?
The Applicants' response to this Interrogatory is as follows:
As described in NHRERP Volume 1, Sections
. 2.6.5 and 2.6.7, the preferred course of action '
(i.e., sheltering and/or evacuation) is based j upon minimizing the dose to the general public.
, 113. If your answers to interrogatories 109 and 110 are anything but an unqualified yes, please describe what, if.any, other or additional actions will be taken to protect the population in those situations where the protective response of evacuation is not deemed -
by you to be an adequate protective measure or
- expected to achieve an adequate level of j -protection? -
! The Applicants' response to this Interrogatory is as follows:
1 Refer to the response to Interrogatory 112a.
Applicants assert in response to interrogatories 109 and I
i 110 that in some cases " evacuation in combination with other measures may be the most desireable course of action to take"
! (emphasis added). Yet when asked to explain the basis for this j reponse they cite to documents which do not indicate that any i
measures other than evacuation will be recommended for the summer beach population. Applicants should therefore be l l
compelled to supplement their response to Interrogatory 112 to indicate the complete basis for their response to i
i Interrogatories 109 and 110.
Applicants' response to interrogatory-112a is not i
l i
l i
iI
.-y , --. e-..---,n, , - . , - - ,
y , r--, y---, - -.y-, _,,-,w-, , , , -_ - . - - ,_,=--~--.%_.,7-- -
-e - - 4n- .-g
.,& .. ~ & - , -.. m. .- . . . . .. . . - . - . _
~
responsive to the qu'estion. The response does not, as requested, " identify and describe those situations for which the protective response of evacuation will not be ' adequate'
. . . and the manner in which the response will not be adequate." Applicants' response only states, in the broadest I
terms possible, what the basis for determining a protective response will be, and therefore does not in any way answer the
~
question. Moreover, the basis cited by Applicants for choosing the preferred course of action is not even that which the NHRERP indicates will be employed in deciding upon a protective ,
response for the summer beach population, since the plans provide that in all cases such population will be instructed to evacuate. At least for Hampton and Seabrook beaches
- instructions to evacuate the beach population will be given
~
even before projected dose consequences are calculated.- See 1 NHRERP, Rev. 2 Vol. 4A, Appendix U; Vol. 4, Appendix G.
! Applicants should be compelled to provide a comp 1te response to interrogatory 112a that is responsive to the questions asked.
j Applicants response to Interrogatory 113 is likewise non-responsive. The response does not at all describe, as requested, "what, if any, other or additional actions will be taken to protect the (transient summer beach} population in those situations where the protective response of evacuation is not deemed by you to be an adequate protective measure . . ."
1 Applicants should be compelled to provide a complete response l to Interrogatory 113.
4
- - . . - , - . . -- - - - ~ , - . . - -, . , , , - , - - , , . . , - - , - - - - - - - - - , . , - - - - , - - - . . . , - - , , , , . , - ~ - . -
r Interrogatories-114, 115, 116 and 117 are as follows:
114. Is it your position that with respect to
- the off-site population no early fatalities, defined herein as death from radiation exposure within thirty to sixty days, could result from an accident at Seabrook, and, if not, how.many early fatalities might result in your view of a i worst-case scenario?
- The Applicants' response to this Interrogatory is as follows:
l' Objection. As noted earlier, the regulations do not require any particular level of protection to be achieved in any particular circumstances; nor do the regulations reautre or assume that
, there must be a demonstration of absolute safety in all or any circumstances. See authorities .
cited with respect to objection to Interrogatory
.; 7. Thus the position of the applicant as to i whether or not there would or would not be early
- fatalities in some "sorst case scenario" is
! irrelevant and is not something that could lead l to the discovery of admissible evidence.
i
! 115. Please define " worst-case scenario" as 1 used by you to respond to interrogatory 114.
l The Applicants' response to this Interrogatory is as i
follows:
j In light of the objection to Interrogatory No.
d 114, no response is possible, i
l 116. Please provide all data, charts, and statistics you have indicating types of accident sequences and scenarios (under varying meteorological conditions) that might result in fatalities to the off-site population within ten miles of the Seabrook plant, and the numbers of such possible fatalities.
1 The Applicants' response to this Interrogatory is as follows:
J I
i
Objectionc As noted earlier, the regulations do not require any particular level of protection to be achieved in any particular circumstances; nor do the regulations require or assume that there must be a demonstration of absolute safety in all or any circumtances. See authorities cited with respect to objection to Interrogatory No. 7.
117. Please provide all documents you have reviewed indicating what effect,.if any, the protective responses of sheltering and evacuation will have on the numbers of fatalities or incidents of serious radiation illness that might result from the accident secuences and scenarios identified in respone.
to interrogatory 116.
The Applicants' response to this Interrogatory is as ,
follows:
In light of the objection to Interrogatory No. 116, no answer is recuired. In addition, as framed the question is incapable of answer because Interrogatory No. 116 is a straight production request and did not require that anything be " identified."
Applicants' objections to Interrogatories 114, 115, 116 and 117 are without basis. Applicants do not contend that it would be burdensome to respond to these interrogatories or that they do not possess the requested information. Their sole basis for not responding is that the requested information is irrelevant and could not lead to the discovery of admissible evidence.
Attorney General Shannon contends that the numbers of possible early fatalaties that could result from an accident at Seabrook is indeed relevant and could certainly lead to the discovery of admissible evidence as to whether the recommended protected actons would achieve the goal of maximum dose
reduction (see interrogatory 117) . Moreover, the requested information is especially relevant in this case where for a significant portion of the population only one protective response action--evacuation--is provided.
As to Applicants response that Interrogatory 117 is
" incapable of answer," Applicants were asked by Interrogatory 116 to " provide all data, charts and statistics you have indicating types of accident secuences and scenarios . . .
(emphasis added). Thus, " accident sequences and scenarios identified in response to Interrogatory 116" refer to those accident sequences and scenarios indicated on the provided data, charts and statistics.
Interrogatory 119 is as follows:
119. Please describe when, including under what types of accident sequences and scenarios and meteorological conditions, the protective response of sheltering would, if used instead of just evacuation for the transient summer beach population, result in lower radiation exposure to that population.
The Applicants' response to this Interrogatory is as follows:
See response to Interrogatory #118. IResponse to Interrogatory 4118: The information requested is in NHRERP Volume 1, Section 2.6.7 and NHRERP Volume 4A, Appendix U.l.
The information requested is not in NHRERP Volume 1, section 2.6.7 and NHRERP Volume 4a, Appendix U as Applicants' response indicates. Those sections of the NHRERP do not describe when, for the transient summer beach population, the l
o -
protective response of sheltering would, if used, result in lower radiation exposure than evacuation. The cited sections furthermore do not contain information on the types of accident sequences and scenarios and meteorological conditions for which sheltering would be the preferred protective response.
Interrogatories 131 and 132 are as follows:
131. Is it your position that the transient beach population can in all cases be evacuated in time to avoid the incurrence of radiation exposures in excess of 200 rem by the entire evacuating population?
The Applicants' response to this Interrogatory is as follows:
i Objection. As noted earlier, the regulations do not require any particular level of protection to be achieved in any particular circumstances; nor do the regulations recuire or assume that there must be a demonstration of absolute safety in all or any circumstances. See authorities cited with respect to objection to Interrogatory 7 Thus the Applicants' position requested is irrelevant.
132. Please provide the basis for your response to interrogatory 131 and all documents you rely on to support that response.
The Applicants' response to this Interrogatory is as follows:
In light of the objection to Interrogatory No.
131, no answer is required.
The reauested information is relevant to a determination ofi whether reliance on only one protective response, evacuation for the summer beach population can be deemed adequate, and may well lead to the discovery of admissible evidence with respect to whether the NHRERP achieves its goal of maximum dose
I reduction. The cequested information would certainly be a relevant factor for a decisionmaker to consider when recommending a certain protective response action. Applicants should therefore be compelled to respond to these interrogatories.
Interrogatory 136 is as follows:
136. Please identify and provide copies of all photographs, including aerial photographs, of the beach area within ten miles of the Seabrook plant that are in your possession or that have been provided by you to, or used by, or are in the possession of any entity, agency, person, firm, or business, including KLD Associates, that has at any time been retained, ,
contracted with, or paid for by you to perform any activity relative to emergency planning.
The Applicants' response to this Interrogatory is as follows:
Aerial photographs of the Seabrook Station EPZ beach area, which were taken in July and August, 1979, are in the possession of the Applicants and are available for inspection. Additional photographs are in the possession of KLD Associates and can be inspected at its office.
Applicants state that they will make the requested photographs available for inspection at Seabrook Station and at the offices of KLD in Huntington, New York. They do not state that they will provide copies of such photographs, as requested.
These photgraphs are relied on extensively by Applicants in deriving and to support population figures and other statistics set forth in NHRERP, Rev. 2, which the Attorney General contests. In light of the reliance placed on these photographs to support Applicants population estimates, it is necessary that the Attorne7 General obtain copies of these photographs t
(at the Attorney General's expense) so that erhe experts he has retained may study them. Such analysis of the photographs as 4
may be required will involve many hours and it is not reasonable, therefore, for Applicants to fail to produce copies. Moreover, since Applicants do not object in their 1
response to the recuest for copies of these photographs, or i state that they would be unable to provide such copies, this i
Board should compel Applicants to produce such copies of photographs as the Attorney General reauests.
Interrogatory 137 states as follows:
l 137. Please identify, by indicating on maps
- or otherwise, each and every possible parking
]' space in the beach area within ten miles of the Seabrook plant that KLD Associates identified or counted in determining the peak numbers of vehicles, or other figures relevant to the number of persons, in the EPZ beach areas.
The Applicants' response to this Interrogatory is as follows:
These can be identified by viewing the aerial photographs which wil'1 be available for your inspection at the KLD office (see response to Interrogatory No. 2).
The Attorney General moves for an order compelling a complete response to this interrogatory and request for production, to the extent that the aerial photographs available for inspection (which the Attorney General has not yet
! inspected) do not identify by indicated marks or otherwise, each and every parking space identified or counted by KLD.
Applicants' response does not indicate whether the parking i
38 -
4
- - ,e .- - - mr - - - -
--r n .- -s -
-,-----,m.. . - - - . - --e- a - --- , - - - , - - --
Y o
O spaces will be so.ind.icated. Applicants have not objected to I
this interrogatory or stated that they are unable to provide i the recuested information, and they should therefore be compelled to produce such information as requested. ,
conclusion Therefore, for the reasons stated above, Attorney General
- Shannon requests that this Board grant his Motion to Compel !
). Answer to Interrogatories and deny th Applicants' Motion for j
Protective Order.
)
l Respectfully submitted, IAMES M. SHANNON ATTORNEY GENERAL i
By: 'O AM h \.f- : <(~C! s.
Carol S. Sneider Donald S. Bronstein Assistant Attorneys General l Environmental Protection Division
- Department of the Attorney General
- (617) 727-2265 1
t
+
l !
I DATED: March 30, 1987 ,
i
- 1 4
i l
I
b -
e AFFIDAVIT OF ALLAN R. FIERCE I, Allan R. Fierce, being first duly sworn, do depose and say as follows:
- 1. I am an Assistant Attorney General employed by the Department of the Attorney General of the Commonwealth of Massachusetts.
- 2. On Friday, March 27, 1987, I called the Seabrook Station and spoke with a person who identified himself as William J. Daley. The purpose of my call was to make the final arrangments to visit Seabrook Station on Monday, March 30, 1987, in order to inspect those documents being produced in response to the Attorney General's off-Site EP Interrogatories and Request For The Production of Documents To the Applicants (Set No. 1).
- 3. During this telephone conversation, I asked Mr.
Daley whether the documents he intended to show me were identified or categorized either by the contention to which they related or by the interrogatory which prompted their production. Ile responded that the documents were not identi-fied or organized in any such fashion.
Signed under the pains and penalties of perjury this 27th day of March, 1987.
. M Allan R. Fierce a