ML20206C514
| ML20206C514 | |
| Person / Time | |
|---|---|
| Site: | Seabrook  |
| Issue date: | 11/14/1988 |
| From: | Sneider C MASSACHUSETTS, COMMONWEALTH OF |
| To: | Atomic Safety and Licensing Board Panel |
| References | |
| CON-#488-7497 OL, NUDOCS 8811160309 | |
| Download: ML20206C514 (15) | |
Text
. _ _, _ _ _ _
f i
t l'ClMEill U > 'F C l-UNITED STATES OF AMERICA 18 KN 15 P4 :18
[
L NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSION ATOMIC SAFETY AND LICENSING BONRD:ct i. h, or. a 00C P i 'i s.1 A i
- v.: L l.
Before the Administrative Judges:
U Uk '
[
Ivan W. Smith, Chairman l
Gustave A.
Linenberger, Jr.
{
Dr. Jerry Harbour i
f
)
i In the Matter of
)
Docket Nos. 50-443-OL i
)
50-444-OL i
PUBLIC SERVICE COMPANY
)
(Off-Site EP) l l
OF NEW HAMPSHIRE, EI AL.
)
(
)
(Seabrook Station, Units 1 and 2)
)
November 14, 1988 t
)
l f
I MASSACFUSETTS ATTORNEY GENERAL'S MOTION TO COMPEL ANSWERS BY APPLICANTS TO f
_ MASS AG'S SECONS SET OF INTERROGATORIES j
l l
Commonwealth of Massachusetts Attorney General
- f i
James M. Shannon ("Mass AG") hereby moves the Board, pursuant l
j to 10 CFR S 2.740(f), to issue an order compelling Applicants
['
f I
to respond to certain interrogatories objected to by Applicants
[
in "Applicants' Response to (Mass AG's] Second Set of f
i Interrogatories to Applicants tn the (SPMC)*
[
}
(Applicants
- Response, 2nd Set").
The interrogatories, t
Applicants' objections thereto and the grounds in support of this motion are as follows.
[
l DO K kU
)h 0
f
4 Applicants' Objections to "Definitions and IR3t h C_tions".
Applicants object to Mass AG's definition of "NHY" insofar as that definition includes "agents" of NHY.
As grounds for its objection, Applicanta assert that the "term is too broad and the search entailed wn'ald be unduly burdansome "
Applicants' Response, 2nd Set, at 1.
The Mass AG moves to compel responses to its in',errogatories that would include information in the possession of agents of NHY.
Certainly the inclusion of the term "agents" would not require Applicants to inquire of grery agent of NHY whether it had informat!on pertinent to any or all of the interrogatories.
Rather, just at Applicants should be aware of which officers and employees of Nt:Y would have information pertinent to a particular interrogatory, it should similarly be aware of which Agents of NHY are apt to possess 6
information pertinent to a particular interrogatory response L
and to inquire of those agents.
Applicants have made no demonstration (such as by even stating the number of agents that might need to be contacted) that such a search would be unduly burdensome.
Moreover, if persons acting on behalf of NHY, as agents thereof, possess information relevant to these interrogatory responses, Applicants should not be allowed to insulate themselves from providing this information merely because these persons are "agents," and not "employees," of UHY.
L i
- 2
m e
Applicants also object to Mass AG's "Definition and Instruction" paragraph F, which states:-
l F.
For any document or part.of a document that was at one time, but is no longer, in l
Applicants' possession, custody or control, or l
which is no longer in existence, or which cannot I
be located, identify the document, state where
{
and how it passed out of existence or why it can l
no longer be located and reasons therefor, and l
identify each person having knowledge concerning j
i such disposition or loss and the contents of the
[
l document, and identify each document evidencing
(
l its prior existence and/or any fact concerning its nonexistence or loss.
r Mass AG's Second Set of Interrogatories to Applicants on the l
l f
SPMC, at 3.
Applicants object to this instruction on the l
ground that, l
Applicants cannot possibly begin to detail the notes, drafts, correspondence, and other kinds of l
documents which once existed but of which
(
Applicants do not maintain copies currently, and which might provide information in response to 1
Mass AG's interrogatories.
Applicants' Response, Second Set, at 2.
This instruction which Applicants object to is identical to an instruction the NRC Staff has included in its i
r interrogatories to the Intervenors.
- Sam, e.g.,
"NRC Staff's I
Third Set of Interrogatories and Request for production of I
(
Documents to the Towns of Amesbury, Newbury, Salisbury, West j
Newbury and Merrimac, the City of Newburyport, and the l
Commonwealth of Massachusetts Concerning SPMC Contentions,"
l i
dated October 6, 1988, at 3, 5 H.
The instruction is also very j
i similar to one of Applicants' own interrogatory instrtctions to t
Mass AG which seeks, in essence, the identity of all documents f
which have been destroyed and the circumstances surrounding the i
destruction.
See, e g, Applicants' Interrogatories and e l I
i r
e Request for production of Documents to All Intervenors and participating Local Governments Concerning Joint Intervenor Contentions 1-26, dated October 11, 1988, at 4, T 6.
Again, Applicants have not met their burden of demonstrating that compliance with this request is overly burdensome.1#
Applicants provide no estimate of the number of documents they would have to identify pursuant to this instruction.
So, as a preliminary matter, it is impossible to determine the extent to which compliance with this instruction would actually be burdensome.
Moreover, it is not at all unreasonable to require Applicants to identify any documents that were once within the Applicants' control that they know contain information pertinent to Mass AG's interrogatories to Applicants.
Although the documents may no longer be in existence or in the Applicants' control, Applicants should still be required to identify such pertinent documents and provide the requested information which coilld aid the Mass AG in locating these documents or persons with knowledge of the documents.
Applicants should therefore be compelled to comply with this request.
l
(
l l
h l
1/
Interestingly, although this same instruction was included l
in Mass AG's First Set of Interrogatories to Applicants on the l
SPMC, Applicants in its response to the first set apparently did not deem this instruction to be so burdensome as to watrant an objection.
Likewise, Applicants did not in its earlier interrogatory response object to the inclusion of the term "agents of NHY" in the definition of "NHY."
See Mass AG's i
First Set of Interrogatories to Applicants on the SPMC, da*.ed October 7,
1988, at 1 N A and 3.
N F; and Applicants' kesponse to Mass AG's First Set of Interrogatories on the SFMC, dated October 25, 1988.
l
-4 l
t
o Applicants' Obiections to Soecific Interrogatoring Mass AG IntertogitnIIJ1o d asks:
For schools in the Massachusetts Ep2 which have engaged in no prior planning for a radiological emergency, does the SPMC depend or rely upon the administrators and teachers at these schools to behave and respond in certain ways to implement the SpMC for the children in their schools in the event of a radiological emergency at Seabrook Station?
If so, describe specifically the administrator and teacher behavior (s) and/or response (s) the SpMC depends or relies upon for each of the precautionary and protective actions which may be recommended for
{
schools under the SPMC.
i a
Applicants object to this Interrogatory "insofar as it i
seeks information regarding human behavior issues, a subject previously litigated."
Applicants Response, 2nd Set, at 8.
l This Interrogatory is not seeking information regarding human behavior issues that may be deemed to have been previously
{
lit gated.
The Interrogatory is merely asking Applicants in broad torms to specifically identify what, if anything, the SPMC relies upon the teachers and school administrators to do in the event of a radiological emergency at Seabrook Station.
[
To the extent that Applicants have not provided a complete response to this Interrogatory based upon their objection, the I
Mass AG moves to compel a complete response.
- Moreover, i
Ap:licants' response that "school administrators and teachers will respond by carrying out their professional duties and
[
responsibilities with regard to the protection of the children i
under their supervision" does not 'specifically describe" the a
behavior and responses of the teachers and administrators, and on that basis the Mass AG moves to compel a complete response r
5-i t
that will specifically identify or describe the "professional duties and responsibilities with regard to the protection of the children" upon which the SpMC depends or relies.
Man _AG_Intermg a t o r y No. la similarly asks Applicants to "describe specifically the (school] bus driver behavior and/or responses the SpMC depends or reliet upon for each of th9 precautionary and protective actions which may be recommended for schools under the SpMC."
Applicants object to this Interrogatory on the same grounds as their objection to Interrogatory No.
9.
To the extent Applicants' Response to Intetrogatory No. 10 is not a complete response, the Mass AG moves to compel a specific and complete response for the same j
reasons set forth under Interrogatory No. 9.
1 Mass _AG_Intattquatory llo. 14 asks Applicants to:
list the names, addresses, and phone numbers of each (bus or van company) driver who has agreed to drive a bus or van into the EpZ in the event of a radiological emergency at Seabtook.
For each such driver, li-t the ORO training courses each has taken, whether the driver passed the courses, and the dates these courses were taken.
l Applicants objec& to this Interrogatory on two grounds.
First they object to the Interrogatory "to the extent that it seeks home addresses and home phone numbers," asserting that "the drivers' interests in the privacy of this information are real and substantial."
Applica"*
Response, 2nd Set, at 11.
Second, they object to the Inter ory "insofar as it seeka information not relevant to the sa ject matter of this l
proceeding, i.e. the admitted contentions, but solely about 1
issues of human behavior excluded by the Board "
Ld at 1)-12.
1.
.i The Maso AG needs the information concerning bus and van driver home addresses so that the Mass AG can assess likely driver response time in the evant of a radialogical emergency r
occurring'during non-working houts.
Nevertheless, in recognition;of the drivers' privacy interests in this information,'the Mass AG moves to compel a response that would disclose only the city or town and state in which each driver resides.
The Mass AG's need for this information outweighs any remaining privacy interests the drivers may have that could warrant non-disclosure of this limited inforraation.
With respect to Applicants' second objection, this Interrogatory simply does not seek information about issues of human behavior.
The Interrogatory does ask for a list of only those drivers who have "agreed to drive a bus or van into the r
Ep3 in the event of a radiological emergency at Seabrook," so the information produced in response to this Interrogatory could give rise to an issue that could possibly be termed "behavioral" if drivers relied upon by the SpMC have not in l
factagreedtodriveintotheEpZunderthestatedbondicions.
j That would not be an issue, however, excluded from litigation and the Mass AG moves to compel a full response to this Interrogatory to the extent a complete response has not been given based upon this objection.
liass_ AG_lAtSII.92aL2Iy_Ilo. 35 asks Applicants to:
Lis' the names and addresses of the current companies relied upon by the SpMC to provide ambuldnces or other vehicles for medical transport during a radiological emergency.
For each company also provide the total number of drivers and the total number of other ambulance
-7
4 personnel who have agreed to travel into tha Seabrook EPZ during an emergency response.
Indicate for each company whether the drivers and accompanying personnal have signed letters of agreement indicating a willingness to provide such services.
If no such agreements exist, what assurances do you have that the driver and other personnel will respond in a radiological emergency.
Applicants have responded to this Interrogatory by only providing the riames and addresses of the ambulance companies.
Applicants object to the rest of the Interrogatory "insofar as it seeks information not relevant to the subject matter of this proceeding, i.e.
the admitted contentions, but solely about issues of human behavior excluded by the Board."
Applicants' Response, 2nd Set, at 24-25.
The requested information is in fact directly relevant to Centention JI 55 which incorporates, inter alia, at least two contentions with admitted bases that are directly on point:
MAG 72, bases 72A and 72B, and TOWN 9.3.
MAG 72A, for example, contends that there will be sufficient ambulances in the event of a radiological emergency at Seabrook Station, in part, because one "company has received no assurances yet'from its drive' " and another has agreed to provido ambulances "only on an 'as needed' basis if its drivers will participate, which it thinks is unlikely."
MAG 72B, moreover, directly raises the issue that some companies and drivers will not participate an emergency because ehey did not agree to "drive into ra3iologically contaminated areas or handle radiologically contaminated individuals" and therefore there is no reasonable assurance that they will do so in the event of a radiological emergency at Seabrook Station.
TOWN 9.3 also raises the issus
-8
e
?
whether there would be an adequate number of ambulance drivers.
The Mass AG therefore moves to compel a complete response to this Interrogatory which seeks information that is directly relevant to these admitted con.entions.
Mass AG Interroaatory. No. 98 asks Applicants, inter alli, "to identify the locations of work and residence for those ORO personnel identified as field monitoring teams."
Applicants object to this Interrogatory "to the extent that it seeks home addresses."
This Interrogatory does not ask for home addresses, but merely the "locations of residences."
For the same reasons set forth under Interrogatory Ho. 14, Eu211, the Mass AG moves to compel a response that would provide the city or town and state in which each of the ORO field monitoring ma personnel resides.
Mass AG Interrocatory No 105 asks Applicants to:
Please identify and describe all studies or analyses the purpose of which was to compare the projected dose to the population in the event of an accident at Seabrook Station assuming 4
different protective action recommendations were made and followed.
Applicants object to this Interrogatory; on the grounda that it seeks information not relevant to the subject matter of this proceeding, i.e., the admitted contentions on the SpMC.
The Board has excluded litigation of j
comparisons of projected dose savings.
New Hampshire Hearings 11/16/87 Tr. 5608-09, 11/18/87 Tr 5961 Applicants' Response, 2nd Set, at 61.
i 9-I
f-5 Applicants err in their objection.
Although the Board, at
^
the cited transcript pages, excluded litigation of dose consequences and "the specific dose reductions which mignt be accomplished under the plan, or the capabiliL(es of any other plan," Tr. 5608, at no time has the Board excluded litigation of comparisons of projected dose savings of various protective measures insofar as that relates to PAR decisionmaking, that is, the decivion whether to shelter or evacuate a specific population.
The challenged Interrogatory seeks information directly relevant.to at least two admitted Joint Intervenor contentions: Contention JI 17 (alleging, as interpreted by the Board, that "without a sheltering option, evacuation alone does not provide maximum dose savings for the beach population for, all fast-breaking, serious accidents."
Order II at 46); t J Contention JI 18 (alleging "inadequate and inaccurate" decision criteria for selecting between a sheltering and an evacuation PAR.)
Mass AG therefore moves to compel Applicants' response.
Mass AG Interrocatory No. 111 asks Applicants t0 "identify and describe any studies and analyses concerning Seabrook rate meteorology."
Applicants object to this Interrogatory "on 'he ground that the information it seeks goes to matters that should properly be before the Onsite Board."
Applicants Response, 2nd Set, at 64.
The requested information concerning site meteorology in directly relevant to contentions concerning PAR decision-making which is based in large part on site meteorological information.
Contention JI 19 (former MAG 31, Bases q, and MAG 10 -
56F), in particular, asserts that the PAR decisionmaking does not appropriately account for Seabrook site meteorology, including sudden wind shifts and/es scabreezes, two frequent meteorological phenomena at this site.
The requested information is relevant to this contention, and others,.and Mass AG moves to compel a response to this Interrogatory.
Respectfully submitted, JAMES M.
SHANNON ATTORNEY GENERAL COMMONWEALTH OF MASSACHUSETTS By:
-- 6 4 ~
h_.
t-3 Carol S.
Sneider Assistant Attorney General Nuclear Safety Unit Department of the Attorney General One Ashburton Place, 19th Floor Bcston, MA 02108 (617) 727-2200 DATED:
November 14, 1988 1
l I
f.
cu n,
d' 00tKEiG UNITED STATES OF AMERICA NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSION *88 NW 15 P4 :19 CFMCE. i :f J r r i.
00CK[ivl.is V WicF BRLHO In the Matter of
)
)
PUBLIC SERVICE COMPANY OF
)
Locket No.(s) a; NEW HAMPSHIRE, ET AL.
)
50-443/444-OL (Seabrook Station, Units 1 and 2)
)
)
)
CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE I,
Carol S.
Sneider, hereby cettify that on Nov.ioer 14, 1988 I made service of the within MASSACHUSETTS ATTORNEY GENERAL'S MOTION TO COMPEL ANSWERS BY APPLICANTS TO MASS AG'S SECOND SET OF INTERROGATORIES, by first-class mail, or by Federal Express, as indicated by [*] to the following parties:
Sherwin E. Turk, Esq.
- Ivan W.
Smith,. Chairman U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission Office of General Counsel Atomic Safety & Licensing Board 15th Floor East West Towers Building 11555 Rockville Pike 4350 East West Highway Rockville, MD 20852 Bethesda, MD 20814 t
- Gustave A.
Linenberger Atomic Safety & Licensing Board l
U.S.
Nuclear Regulatory Commission East West Towers Building 4350 East West Highway i
Bethesda, MD 20814 A
6 9
- Dr.
Jerry Harbour
- Robert R.
Pierce, Esq.
Atomic Safety & Licensing Bd.
Atomic Safety & Licensing Bd.
U.S.
Nuclear Regulatory U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission Commission East West Towers Building East West Towers Building 4350 East West Highway 4350 East West Highway Bethesda, MD 20814 Bethesda, MD 20814 H. Joseph Flynn, Esq.
Stephen E.
Merrill Assistant General Counsel Attorney General Office of General Counsel George Dana Bisbee Federal Emergency Management Assistant Attorney General Agency Office of the Attorney General 500 C Street, S.W.
25 Capitol Street Washington, DC 20472 Concord, NH 03301
- Docketing and Service Paul A.
Fritzsche, Esq.
U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Office of the Public Advocate Commission State House Station 112 Washington, DC.
20555 Augusta, ME 04333 Roberta C.
peveer Diana P.
Randall State Representative 70 Collins Street Town of Hampton Falls Seabrook, NH 03874 Drinkwater Road Hampton Falls, NH 03844 Atomic Safety & Licensing Robert A.
Backus, Esq.
Appeal Board Panel Backus, Meyer & Solomon U.S. Nuclear Regulatory 116 Lowell Street Commission P.O.
Box 516 Washington, DC 20555 Manchester, NH 03106 Atomic Safety & Licensing Jane Doughty Board Panel Seacoast Anti-Pollution League U.S.
Nuclear Regulatory 5 Market St'reet Commission Portsmouth, NH 03801 Washington, DC 20555 Matthew T.
Brock. Esq.
J.
P.
Nadeau Shaines & McEachern Board of Selectmen 25 Maplewood Avenue 10 Central Road P.O.
Box 360 Rye, NH 03870 Portsmouth, NH 03801 Sandra Gavutis, Chairperson Calvin A. Canney Board of Selectmen City Manager RFD.1, Box 1154 City Hall Rte. 107 126 Daniel Street Kensington, NH 03827 Portsmouth, NH 03801 2
- 9 '..e
't.
S 4
Senator'Gordon J. Humphrey Angelo Machiros' Chairman U.S'.. Senate Board of Selectmen Washington, DC 20510 25 High Road
.(Attn:. Tom Burack)
Newbury, MA 10950 Senator Gordon J.
Humphrey Edward G. Molin-1 Eagle Square, Suite 507 Mayor Concord, NH 03301 City Hall
'(Attn: Herb Boynton)
Jewburyport, MA 01950 Donald E. Chick William Lord Town Manager Board of Selectmen Town of Exeter Town Hall 10 Front Street Friend Street Exeter, NH 03833 Amesbury, MA 01913 Brentwood Board of Selectmen Gary W. Holmes, Esq.
RFD Dalton Road Holmes & Ellis Brentwood, NH 03833 47 Winnacunnet Road Hampton, NH 03841 philip Ahrens, Esq.
Diane Curran, Esq.
Assistant Attorney General Harmon, Curran & Towsley Department of the Attorney Suite 430 General 2001 S Street, N.W.
State House Station #6' Washington, DC 20009 Augusta, ME 04333
- Thomas G. Dignan, Esq.
Richard A. Hampe, Esq.
Ropes & Gray Hampe & McNicholas 225 Franklin Street 35 Pleasant Street Boston, MA 02110 Concord, NH 03301 Beverly Hollingworth Ashod N. Amirian, Esq.
209 Winnacunnet Road 376 Main Street Hampton, NH 03842 Haverhill, MA 01830 j
William Armstrong Michael Santosuosso, chairman Civil Defense Director Board of Selectmen l
Town of Exeter Jewell Street, RFD 2 10 Front Street South Hampton, NH 03827 Exeter, NH 03833 Robert Carrigg, Chairman Anne E. Goodman, Chairperson Board of Selectmen Board of Selectman Town Office 13-15 Newmarket Road Atlantic Avenue Durham, NH 03824 North Hampton, NH 03862 i
Allen Lampert Sheldon J. Wolfe, Chairperson Civil Defense Director 1110 Wimbledon Drive Town of Brentwood McLean, VA 22101 20 Franklin Street l
Exeter, NJ 03833
! I
IO,_ dti?{ ~
~
l( *,
1 s.
I.
Charles P. Graham, Esq.
Barbara.St. Andre, Esq.
Murphy & Graham Kopelman & Paige, P.C.
33 Low Street 77 Franklin Street Newburyport, MA 01950 Boston, MA 02110 Judi.th H. Mizner, Esq. -
R.' Scott Hill-Whilton, Esq.
Lagoulis, Clark, Hill-Whilton Lagoulis, Clark, Hill-Whilton
& McGuire-
& McGuire 79 State Street 79 State Street Newburyport, MA 01950 Newburyport, MA 01950 i
..\\
,{
Carol S. Sneider Assistant Attorney General Department of the Attorney General One Ashburton Place Boston, MA 02108-1698 (617) 727-2200 DATED:
November 14, 1988 h
r P
i r
I t
i
-4 i
t
- -..