ML20205M204
| ML20205M204 | |
| Person / Time | |
|---|---|
| Site: | Seabrook  |
| Issue date: | 03/27/1987 |
| From: | Curran D HARMON & WEISS, NEW ENGLAND COALITION ON NUCLEAR POLLUTION |
| To: | Atomic Safety and Licensing Board Panel |
| References | |
| CON-#287-2957 OL, NUDOCS 8704020299 | |
| Download: ML20205M204 (8) | |
Text
_
k957
~
March 27,1987 00CK 0
UNITED STATES NUCLEAR REGULATOBY COMMISSIONUS BEFORE THE ATOMIC SAFETY AND LICENSINC ?Ep,; 30 M2 37 i
)
In the Ma tter of
)
0FFICE CF
)
00CHETlNG, M[g '
Public Service Company of
)
BRANCH New Hampshire, et al.
)
Docket Nos. 50-443 CL
)
50-444 CL (Seabrook Station, Units 1 & 2)
)
OFFSITE EMEPGENCY
)
PLANNING ISSUES
)
NEW ENGLAND COALITION ON NUCLEAR POLLUTION'S MOTION TO CCMPEL ANSEERS TO NECUP'S FIRST SET OF INTERECCATORIES AND RECUEST FCR THE PFCDUCTION OF DOCUMENTS TO STATE OF NEW HAMPSHIRE ON REVISION 2 TO THE NEW HAMPSHIRE RAEIOLOGICAL EMERGENCY FESPONSE PLAN The New England. Coalition on Nuclear Pollution ("NECNP")
hereby requests that the Licensing Board order the State of New Hampshire to provice answers to interrogatories 7, 8, 10, 15, 16, 17, ano 37, to which the State has objected or suppliec inade-quate answers.
NECNP also seeks a general ruling that New f
Hanpshire is not exenpt fror discovery by virtue of the fact that it does not intend to offer testimony on the contentions which are the subject of NECNP's interrogatories.
As a preliminary matter, we note that the State claims to be under no obligation to answer interrogatories on contentions for 9
which it does not intend to introduce direct testimony at the hearing.
It is NECNP's position that the State is required by URC regulations to answer the interrogatories.
NRC regulations at 10 CFR S 2.740(b) (1) allow NECNP to seek discovery of any party on any claim, regardless of who sponsors that claim.
The 8704020299 870327 3
PDR ADOCK 05000443
$0 1
G PDR
~_
.. i regulation contains no limitation restricting the class of inter-rogees to those parties that intend to introduce direct evidence in the hearings.
Moreover, the principles that led this Licensing Board to grant New Hampshire a protective order in its Memorandum and Order of March 1,1983, do not yield the same result in these ci r cums tances.
That decision involved an exercise of the T.icens-ing Board's discretion under 10 CPR S 2.740(c) to issue a pro-tective order to protect a party from " annoyance, embarrassment, oppression, or undue burden or expense."
tiemorandum and Order at 2.
As the Board noted, a determination of whether a discovery burden is "' undue' depends on the cont'.ibution of an answer to the adjudicatory process."
Id.
The burden of discovery on an interrogee mu st be weighea against the degree to which the dis-covery serves the "f undamental purposes" of discovery, i.e. "to I
the issues by determining the real factual disputes, narrow i
safeguard against surprise at trial, and permit adequate prepara-tion for trial."
Id. at 2-3.
In that phase of the operating license proceeding, the Licensing Board found that relatively little benefit would be derived from Applicants' discovery against parties who did not intend to present direct testimony on i
the issues involved:
The scope of the contention and issues in dispute are properly determined by the sponsoring intervenor, and a non-sponsoring intervenor's cross-examination must address the applicant's, the Staf f's, or the sponsoring i
intervenor's direct testimony.
Therefore, discovery against the non-sponsoring intervenor does not serve to I
1
' narrow the issues or prevent surprise, and probably aids little in an applicant's preparation for trial.
In that phase of the case, the State of New Hampshire had no spe-cial knowledge or information that would aid in preparation for trial or the development of the record.
By contrast, as New Hanpshire acknowledges in its Motion for a Protective Order, the State can provide " valuable input" to the energency planning phase of this proceeding by virtue of its direct role in.the development of the New Hampshire RERP.
Indeed, as the entity responsible for implementing the RERP, the State possesses criti-cal knowledge of the details of the plan and its inplementation that Applicants do not have.
Discovery against the State is therefore essential to NECNP's preparations for trial, and for the development of a full and sound record of this proceeding.
!!aving agreed to answer NECNP's interrogatories, the State clearly does not consider them to be unduly buroensome in nature.1 Under the principles of 10 CFR S 2.740, the State should be required to answer NECNP's discovery.
Eespite its position that it is not required to answer dis-covery, the State has responded to NECNP's interrogatories.
How-ever, as discussed below, many of those responses are incomplete.
NECNP therefore requests this Board to order New Hampshire to complete its answers to NECNP's specific interrogatories in the respects discussed below.
NECNP also seeks a general ruling that 1
By contrast, the interrogatories at issue in the Board's 1983 Pemorandum and Ordef posed a " considerable burden" on the inter-rogees by virtue of their " number and complexity."
Id. at 4.
. New Hampshire is subject to discovery by NECNP in order to assure that the State will supplement its answers to NECNP's inter-rogatories, as required by 10 CFR 2.740(e).
In Interrogatory 7, NECNP asked the State to identify all persons who participated in the developn.ent or draf ting of Revi-sion 2 to the New Hamp shire RERP.
In response, the State pro-vided the names of state employees who participated significantly in the preparation of the plan.
The State also replies that Applicants and their consultants provided additional support, but does not identify 'any individuals of which it knows.
j The answer is partially unresponsive because the State has failed to supply the address, occupation, and title of each listed individual, as requested in NECNP's interrogatories under l
the definition of the term " identify" with respect to individu-als.
It also fails to identify, by name, address, employer, occupation, and title, the other individuals not employed by New Hampshire which the State is aware participated in the prepara-tion of the plans.
The State has not applied for a protective i
order to shield it f rom completing its answer.
It mu st be required to fully answer the interrogatory.
Interrogatory 8 asked New Hampshire to identify all persons who are responsible for training of emergency response personnel for implementation of Revision 2.
Again, the State provided a list of names without describing the address, employer, occupa-tion, and title of each individual, as requested by NECNP.
As
with Interrogatory 7, the State has not applied for a protective i
order to shield it from completing its answer.
It mu st be required to fully answer the interrogatory.
In Interrogatory 10, NECNP asked the State to produce all docunents supporting its calculations regarding the dose reduc-tion ef fectiveness of certain institutions in the Seabrook EPZ.
In responding, the State merely cited the calculations them-selves, without citing any supporting documents that show the basis and assumptions used for those calculations.
The State has l
not applied for a protective order with respect to this inter-1 rogatory, and should be corpelled to answer fully.
4 In Interrogatory 15, NECNP asked the State how many separate telephone lines in each ECC are allocated to receiving calls from i
members of the public seeking transportation assistance.
NECNP also asked whether these were commercial or dedicated lines.
j The State responds by citing a table showing the number of telephone lines installed in or proposed for each EOC.
See New 1
Hampshire's Answers to S APL's Interrogatories, dated May 6,1986.
The response does not answer the question.
NECNP did not ask how many phone lines were in each EOC.
It asked-how many phone lines in each ECC are allocated to the receipt of phone calls from mem-bers of the public seeking transportation assistance.
- Moreover, j
the State has not indicated whether the lines are commercial or dedicated.
The State has not applied for a protective order with respect to this information.
It should be compelled to answer the interrogatory fully.
- In Interrogatory 16, NECNP asked the State whether an opera-tor has been assigned to each telephone line that will be used to receive calls from members of the public seeking transportation; to identify those individuals; describe his or her expertise in transportation and knowledge of the area; and what other responsibilities the person may have.
The State's answer is unresponsive.
The State refers NECNP in general to the local plans, which, describe the duties of the Tr anspor tation Coordinator.
These plans do not state whether the Transportation Coordinator is the sole person responsible for taking transportation requests over the telephone.
If, as sug-cested by the table cited in response to Interrogatory 15, more than one line will be used, it is reasonaole to assume that more than one person must be assigned to the task of answering the telephone.
If that is not the case, the State should clearly say so.
Moreover, this interrogatory requested specific information on each ECC in the EPZ.
It is insufficient to refer to a sample local plan and state that the information therein applies in "most cases."
The State should be required to answer the inter-rogatory fully for each ECC.
In Interrogatory 17, NECNP asked New Hampshire how many households have been told to call on each telephone line, and how many calls the State expects.
The State responds by making gen-eralizations about the entire EPZ and giving examples of two towns.
This response does not answer the interrogatory.
The State should be compelled to respond.
-y-o Interrogatory 37 asked New Hampshire to describe the means by which each bus driver will be contacted, the individual (s) who will be assigned to contact them, and the location, n um be r, and type of each piece of communication equipment that will be used to contact them to request their assistance during a radiological emergency.
The State responds that bus companies will use tele-phones to contact the drivers.
It also states that "[p]rocedures will contain provisions for using broadcast outlets to alert bus drivers of companies under agreement to contact their garages at the Alert level."
The State does not describe what " broadcast o u tle ts" are, how they work, or who will use them or receive information from them.
The State should be required to complete its answer with full and understandable information.
Respectfully sub itted, Diane Curran HARMON & WEISS 2 001 "S" St r ee t N. W.
Suite 430 Washington, D. C.
20009 (202) 328-3500 March 27,1987 I certify that on March 27, 1987, copies of the foregoing Motion to Compel were served by hand, feceral express,.or first-class mail on all parties to this proceeding, as designated on the attached service list.
Diane Curran
SE W 001 SERVICE LIST -- 0FFSITE LICENSING BOARD eHelenF.Hoyt,Chairsan North Hasaton, NH 03826 442 J.W. McCoreack (P0CH)
Ateele Safety and Licensing 80ston, MA 02109 loard J.P. Nadeau rSherwin E. Turk, Esq.
U.S. NRC Town of Rye OfficeofGeneralCounsel Sanora Gavutis Washington,D.C. 20555 155 Washington Road U.S. NRC RfD 180 1154 Rye, New Haspshire 03870 Washington, D.C. 20555 East lensington, NH 03827
- Dr. Jerry Hartour AtcaicSafetyandLicensing Richard E. Sullivan, Mayor Mr.AagieMachiros,Chairsan Charles P. Grahan Esq.
Soard CityHall BoardofSelecteen Mclay, Marthy and Grahae U.S. NRC Newouryport, MA 01950 Newbury, MA 01950 100 Main Street Washingtcn,D.C. 20555 Asestury, MA 01913 AlfredV.Sargent,Chairsan H.JosephFlynn,Esq.
8hstne Linecerger 8 card of Selecteen OfficeofGeneralCcunsel AtcetcSafetyandLicensing TownofSalist'ury,MA 01950 FEMA Board 500 C Street S.W.
- Byhand U.S. NRC Senator Gardcn J. Huschrey Washington,D.C. 20472 Washingicn,C.C. 2]555 U.S. Senate 88 By federal Express Wasnington, D.C.
20510 George Cana fisbee, Esq.
Atestc Safety ind Licensing (Atta. Ice Eurack)
Geof frey M. Huntington, ESQ.
SoardFanel Of fice of the Attorney General U.S. nRC Selectmen of Northaeoten
- tate House Anner dasnington, D.C.
20555 Nortt:assten.,em nas:sntre Concord,NH 03301 03326 Attsic Safett dd Lite'Ising A'lenlascert Acpeat Eoar2 Hnel Senatcr Gardon J. Hgeonrey CivilDefenseDirecter U.S. GC 1 Eagle S:uare Ste 507 Tcan of Brentenood Wisnington,;.3. 20S55 Conccra, NH 03301 Ereter, M 03333 Doo eting and service Micnael Santcsuosso Chairsan Richard A. Haece, Esq.
U.S. NRC BoardofSelecteen Haece and t'cNitnolas Wasnington. 0.C.
20555 JewellStreet,RfDI2 35 Pleasant Street South Haspten. NH 03342 Concord,h4 03301 nrs. Anne E, nocean 80ardofSelectaen Judith H. Mizner, Esq.
GaryW. Holmes.Esq.
13-15 New Mar >et Foad Silverglate.Gertner,etal.
Holees&Ellis Curhas,NH 0 342 83 Broad Street 47 Winnacunnent Road 80ston,MA 02110 Haspton, NH 03342
!!illian S. Lord, Selectean icwnHall--FriendStreet Rep. Roberta C. Pevear WilliasArestrong Asesbury, h4 01913 Drinkwater Road CivilDefenseDirector Haspton, Falls, NH 03844 10 Frmt Street Janefoughty Exeter, NH 03833 SAFL Phillip Ahrens Esq.
5 Market Street AssistantAttorneyGeneral CalvinA.Canney Portssouth,NH 03S01 Stata House, Station 8 6 City Manager Augusta, ME 04333 CityHall Carols.Sneider, Esquire 126DanielStreet AssistantAttcrneyGeneral' stihosas G. Dignan, Esq.
Portseouth,NH 03801 1AshburtonPlace,19thFloor R.R. Gad II, Esq.
80ston, MA 02103 Ropes & Gray MatthewT. Brock,Esq.
225FranklinStreet Shaines & McEachern 1
StanleyW.Incules loston,MA 02110 P.O. 80: 360 8aardofSelecteen MaplewoodAve.
P.O. 80: 710 RobertA.Backus,Esq.
Portsecuth, NH 03801 Backus,Meyer&Soloson i
Ill Lowell Street Edward A. Thomas Manchester, NH 03105 FEMA
,