ML20206C608

Memorandum & Order (Ruling on Applicant Motion for Protective Order;Town of Hampton,Commonwealth of Ma,New England Coalition on Nuclear Pollution & Seacoast Anti- Pollution League).* Served on 870408

ML20206C608
Person / Time
Site:	Seabrook
Issue date:	04/07/1987
From:	Hoyt H Atomic Safety and Licensing Board Panel
To:	NEW ENGLAND COALITION ON NUCLEAR POLLUTION, NRC OFFICE OF THE GENERAL COUNSEL (OGC), PUBLIC SERVICE CO. OF NEW HAMPSHIRE
References
CON-#287-3040 82-471-02-OL, 82-471-2-OL, OL, NUDOCS 8704130106
Download: ML20206C608 (13)

Text

_ - - _ _ _

< ;30 yo 8

00CMETED USt4RC UNITED STATES OF AMERICA NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSION _. .

'87 APR -8 All :27 ATOMIC SAFETY AND LICENSING BOARD Before Administrative Judges: Oma' rF =~ 3'-

Helen F. Hoyt, Chairperson 00 C MJ G v . . . .+

Gustave A. Linenberger, Jr. brW Dr. Jerry Harbour SERVED APR -81987 1

In the Matter of . Docket Nos. 50-443-OL 50-444-OL PUBLIC SERVICE COMPANY ) (ASLBP No. 82-471-02-OL) 0F NEW HAMPSHIRE, g al,. (Offsite Emergency Planning)

(Seabrook Station, Units 1 and 2) ) April 7, 1987 l'EMORANDUM AND ORDER (Ruling on Applicants' Motion for Protective Order; Town of Hanpton, Connonwealth of Massachusetts, flew England Coelition on Nuclear Pollution and Seacoast Anti-Pollution League)

Applicants filed a Motion for Protective Order on March 18, 1987 objecting to certain interrogatories of the intervenors; Massachusetts Attorney General (Mass AG) filed Motion to Compel on March 30, 1987; ard

?!FCNP on March 27, 1987 filed New Englano Coalitinr on Nuclear Pollution's Motion to Compel Answers to NECNP's First. Set of Interrogatories and Request for the Production of Documents To Applicants on Revision 2 to the flew Hampshire Radiological Emergency Response Plan.

The intervenors and the contentions involved are:

Town of Hampton (Served March 5, 1987)

Interrogatories of 8c, 8d, 11.

8704130106 DR 870407 ADOCK 05000443 PDR

'\

Mass AG James M. Shannon (Served March 5, 1987)

Interrogatories 7-18,26,128,29,36,47,72,91,92,114-117, l 119, 131-132, 136, 137. l l

.New Enoland Coalition en Nuclear Pollution (NECNP) (Served March 5, 1987)

Interrogatories 3, 6,10, II,14,15.

Seacoast Anti-Pollution League (SAPL) (Served March 5,1987)

Interrogatories 35, 41.

Town of Hampton 1

Applicants' objections to Interrogatories 8c and d is that they go beyond the scope of the admitted contentions and have no' regulatory basis.

2 The Board finds that these two interrogatories do go beyond the contention regarding the Compensatory actions and seek details not pertinent to the litigation of the NHRERP.

! In Interrogatory 11, Town of Hampton seeks to have Appifcants make i available all documents at the offices of counsel Shaine & McEachern at Portsmouth, New Hampshire.

' We find that Applicants are prepared to make all the requested 1

documents, except KLD document, available to this and other intervenors at the Seabrook Plant site. With the assurance that Applicants will l make an appropriate facility available for inspection of documents and  !

copying means at the same cost Applicants pay for reproduction, we t

,.m. , , . - - , - , . - . . - , , , . , _ . , ,. ,n.m.. .n .,-,,

believe that these many documents will be readily accessible for all parties at a central location. Applicants are directed to contact each party requesting document inspection and copying and advise of the regular hours of operation of the Seabrook site ' document depository and its location on the site. The KLD documents are located at the offices of KLD. Applicants are directed to advise a party requesting KLD documents, the location of the KLD office where KLD documents may be found and the regular business hours of that office. Reproduction- cost at the KLD office for the intervenors may not exceed the cost for the same service to KLD. The Applicants have identified Mr. William J.

Daley (603) 474-9521 as the contact for KLD.

Commonwealth of Massachusetts Attorney General Shannon moves to compel answers to certain of his i interrogatories of March 5, 1987 as set forth in his Potion to Compel Applicants' Response to Interrogatories and Answer to Applicants' Potion for Protective Order, filed March 30, 1987. We will rule in this section on both Applicants' objections contained in his March 18, 1987 Motion for Protective Order and the Mass AG Mation to Compel seriatim.

Interroaatory 2. Massachusetts moves to compel a nore specific answer from Applicants than the mere location of documents relating to contentions before the Board rather than the identity of those documents which Applicants rely on to support its position on the specific issues before the Beard. The key word is identify and from the whole body 4

e O

those documents that specifically relate to the admitted contentions.

We believe that disclosure will serve the fundamental purposes of discovery which are to ^ refine the issue and prepare adeouately for a more expeditious hearing. Motion to Compel is granted. Applicants will respond to the interrogatory.

Interrogatory 3. In this interrogatory, Mass AG seeks the same type of specific responses as in Interrogatory 2. What is requested bere is the association of studies Applicants will rely on in litigation with each of those contentions that the AG will litigate. The responses to (a) - (c) of the interrogatory meets the AG's requirements as set forth in his Motion to Compel (pp. 3-4). Motion to Compel is granted.

Applicants will respond as directed herein.

Applicants' objections to Interrogatories 7-18 are that these queries are not relevant or reasonably designed to seek information relevant to any admitted contention. Comparisons of Seabrook to other sites, Applicants maintain, is irrelevant to any emergency planning issue. Applicants maintain that these interrogatories would require it to perform analysis for the intervenors thus placing a burdensome task on the Applicants.

The Board sustains Applicants' objections to interrogatories 7-18.

F;sentia11y the Commonwealth is asking for analysis of interest f

principally to themselves. In our view, this intervenor should expect to do its own research of those subjects not directly related to issues admitted by the Board. These interrogatories seek response on a comparison of Seabrook site to other nuclear sites. Such a comparison ,

I l

e is irrelevant to those' issues the Board has admitted concerning the.

NHRERP for Seabrook and whether it provides. adequate protective measures

~

in the event of-a radiological emergency at Seabrook Station.

Interrogatory 22. Mass AG in their Motion to Compel seeks a 4- listing and content of all oral connunications' between Applicants' officers and KLD associates for period Jaruary 1,1985 and September 1, 1986. Applicants object and answer that they have no records -

documenting oral communications although they acknowledge that these did occur. Attorney General Shannon's motion is to compel an answer.

1 The Board cannot require an Applicant to respond when he has stated the information does not exist. Motion is denied.

Interrogatory 26 seeks to have Applicants respond to how long the estimated evacuation time for the entire EPZ have to be before Applicants would agree that edequate protective measures cannot be taken to protect the public. The Applicants object by citing the Consnission statement in Proposed Rule, Licensing of Nuclear Power Plants Where State and/or Local Governments Decline to Cocperate in Offsite' Emergency l Planning, 52 Fed. Reg. 6980 (March 6,1987) that "there are no l l )

bright-line, mandatory minimum projected dose savings or evacuation time

1 limits which could be viewed as performance standards for emergency l plans in existing regulations."

Although not the authority of a Connission regulation, the Board

! believes that this is a reflection of the Consnission's position on f perfomance standards in emergency planning. Accordingly, we sustain i i

l Applicants' objection to Interrogatory 26.

1

.l

F o

Interrogatory 28. Passachusetts seeks to compel Applicants to answer whether "KLD's ETE study demonstrates that evacuation times are short enough to prevert all fatalities among members of the beach population unoer all accident sequences." In their motion, Mass says "this question calls for a simple yes or no answer . . . ." The second part of the question calls for a response as to "how many fatalities would occur . . . ." Both of these must be responded to by Applicants.

However, since Mass did not set out what accident sequences it had in mind when formulating the inquiry, we see no reason to require a response to what Mass now states it wants to know. An interrogatory should be specific in all detail when asking a question in the first instance. The responder cannot be expected to try to anticipate what the questioner may ultimately want to know. The main motion to compel is granted as modified above and a protective order will issue as to the secord part of the inquiry.

Interrogatory 29. Applicants' cbjection is sustained. The stated objection that as a matter of law, "there is no basis for inquiring as to what level of radiolcgical dose or consequences from assumed dose must be exceeded before plans would be deemed inadequate for a given event" is adopted by the Bcard. Mass AG has not informed Applicants what " serious radiological emergency" should be assumed. The questioner must state what infomation is sought clearly and cannot expect others to flesh out questions for him.

Interrogatory 36. Applicants object that the interrogatory seeks l an unusual level of detail and one not required by regulation or

e NUREG-0654. The Board agrees. This intervenor had the flew Hampshire RER Plan well in advance and did not place in issue what details of that plan it fcund deficient. Accordingly, we sustain the objection at this time and deny the Attorney General's Motion to Compel; Protective Order is issued.

Interrogatory 47. The Board sustains Applicants' objection in responding to such a level of detail. Responding would constitute ar undue burden. Notion to Compel is denied; protective order is issued.

Interrogatory 72. The Board sustains Applicants' objection. Level of detail requested is an undue burden upon the Applicants; Protective Order is issued. .

Interrogatories P6 and 87. The Applicants have answered interrogatory 86. If the Attorney General of Massachusetts had wanted Applicants to respond to what it now says is question 87, then it should have asked an apprcpriate question. The answer given is responsive to the question as asked. Motion to Compel is denied.

Interrogatory 88. Massachusetts' Motion to Compel is denied. The Applicants have answered the question as asked.

Interrogatory 91. Massachusetts seeks a response to Applicants' position on feasibility of sheltering the transient beach population.

Applicants' objection is that several critical parameters are lacking.

Although the Board agrees that there are no parameters established, Applicants are directed to respond, establishing its own parameters.

Since this intervenor has not been specific, then it is restricted to those bounds that Applicants understand the interrogatory is directed i

'~

+ - ', toward. Objection is overruled and Applicants .will respond-as __ directed above.

2 4

- Interrogatory 92. Applicants' objection to identifying the beach areas within ten miles of the Seabrook plant for which sheltering of the d

' transient population cannot be responded to because dekails are missing i is overruled. Applicants will respond to this interrogatory, j Massachusetts' Motion to Compel is granted.

Interrogatories 96, 97, 98, and 99. These interrogatories have-I been responded to as asked by the Mass AG.- However, the responses are brief and where possible Applicants are directed to supplement their.

b answers. Applicants shall identify documents which refer to physical 4

facilities ~to shelter the beach population. .So much of the Motion to l Compel is granted as is reflected in the above text.

Interrogatory 100. The Motion to Compel a more complete answer is granted. Applicants should expect to supplement incomplete responses in

! accordance with the rules of discovery of this Commission. The requested materials will be promptly made available to the Mass AG.

i Interrogatories 101, 102, 103, 104, 105, 106, 107, and 108. Motion

- to Compel further responses is granted to the same extent as.the Board

granted further responses in Interrogatories 96, 97, 98, and 99.

Interrogatories 109, 110, 112, 112a, and 113. Mass seeks to ccmpel supplementary answers to those given on March 5,1987 in responses by i Applicants. Where Applicants have additional responses available, they are directed to supplement responses given. Again-the Board finds that' i

Mass is now asking a cuestion differently than what a reading-of the f

l 3-, ,y v.---q , e- .~ -w o, er -s e m - w, , , - - - y-.v --=--s------- --,.-r---e--r-,--,e,-e-%----r,- t--, -rm----m,w--- y--w- +,-mn----r---- ---r e - - - - -r , e s = w w - - - -

A original interrogatory stated. In the interest of expediting discovery and these preliminary natters, we believe Applicants must respond in this particular area of evacuation and/or sheltering of the beach population. To the extent we have modified.the Motion to Compel, it is granted.

Interrogatories 114-117. Applicants' objections to these four interrogatories are overruled. Applicants will respond. The Board is not persuaded that, under the broad discovery rules of this Commission, such requested information may not lead to discovery of admissible evidence.

Interrcgatories 119, 131, and 132. Mass AG's Motion to Compel is granted. The Applicants' answer is unresponsive in regard to Interrogatory 119. In Interrogatories 131 and 132 the query is directed to the area of radiation exposure for the transient beach population and is considered by this Board as vital in our determination of whether the NHRERP provides adequate protective measures for this specific population group. Applicants are required to answer promptly.

New England Coalition on Nuclear Pollution NECNP on March 27, 1987 filed New England Coalition on Nuclear Pollution's Motion to Compel Answers to NECNP's First Set of Interrogatories and Request for the Production of Documents to Applicants on Revision 2 to the New Hampshire Radiological Emergency Response Plan. We will rule in this section on both the App 1fcants'

objections contained in the March 18, 1987 Motion for Protective Order and NECNP position on the interrogatories contained in its Motion to Compel.

In Interrogatory 2, NECNP Motion to Compel Applicants to respond further on this inquiry is granted. NECNP has correctly stated the 10 C.F.R. 5 2.740(b)(1) regulation and the Board finds that all'the parties may through response to this interrogatory-better prepare for .

the hearing. Applicants' objections are overruled.

Interrogatory 3. The Applicants' objections are sustained. As we have set out above, production of documents will be at the Seabrook Station or at KLD offices. With the many documents in this case, one could anticipate a transportation problem in moving the vast amount of papers with the possibility of loss of valuable materials.

Interrogatory 6. Applicants object. Our ruling is the same as on Interrogatory 3.

Interrogatory 7. NECNP seeks to compel " title" of the individuals identified as participants in the preparation of the NHRERP. We grant NECNP's Motion to Compel these details.

Interrogatories 10-11. Applicants have objected to these interrogatories seeking Communications, or agreements or employment centracts between Applicants and the Teamsters Union. The Board agrees with NECNP that the matters sought are within the scope of discovery facts which will refine the issues and permit the parties to prepare for 1

hearing. We grant NECNP's Motion to Compel on these interregatories and overrule Applicants' objections.

Interrogatory 14. Applicants-object to responding to the query both by incorporating a previous response on Interrogatory 13's clear statement there has not been a prediction of dose savings for any particular accident. If these calculations have not been done, there is nothing further to compel Applicants to respond to in this instance.

NECNP's Motion to Compel a response on this interrogatory is denied.

Interrogatory 15. Applicants object and maintain there is no regulatory basis. In NECNP's Motion to Compel response, this intervenor sets out the correct standard for discovery which is whether it is relevant to the subject matter of the proceeding and is reasonably calculated to lead to discovery of admissible evidence. As NECNP points out, the contentions to which this discovery request relates challenge the adequacy of sheltering facilities in the Seabrook EPZ to protect the public. Quantitative calculations of potential doses and dose savings are highly relevant to the determination of whether those protective actions are adequate, and the effects of a lack of adequate shelter."

The Applicants' objections are overruled and NECNP's Motion to Compel is granted.

i

. _ ~

1 a

1 I

Seacoast Anti-Pollution League (SAPL)

Applicants have objected to SAFL's Interrogatories 35 and 41.

Interrogatory 35 seeks Applicants' response on whether permission of parents is required before treatment of contaminated minors.

• Applicants' objection is that there the inquiry has no regulatory basis.

The Board sustains Applicants' objection. The matter of whether parental permission must be sought prior to treatment of a contaminated minor is not a matter in controversy before the Board nor has SAPL demonstrated in any manner how the information sought could be reasonably expected to lead to discovery of information relevant to matters in controversy before this Board.

Interrogatory 41 seeks information concerning individual bus drivers who are members of the Teamsters Union. Applicants' objection goes to responding as to individuals as opposed to institutional providers of service. To that extent, the Board sustains the Applicants' objection. However, buried within the interrogatory is the request for Applicants to detail the specific locations of each of the bus companies that Teamsters Union members may be asked to drive for in the event of an emergency. The Board finds that this is a prcper interrogatory which may lead to discovery of admissible evidence. We direct that Applicants respond to that much of Interrogatory 41.

I l

l

l

\

l 1

The Board sustains so much of Appifcants' objections as are reflected in the discussions of each of the intervenors' interrogatories as is set forth in the above discussion and grants Applicants' Motion for Protective Order. -Discovery on those matters may not be had. Where the Board has overruled the Applicants' objections, the Applicants are denied a protective crder and Applicants are directed to respond in accordance with the tenns of this order.

The Board has directed that production of documents will take place at the Seabrook site or at the offices of KLD where KLD documents are on deposit.1 We direct parties attention to our discussion of this matter as set out in this memorandum on Town of Hampton interrogatories.

IT IS SO ORDERED.

FCR THE ATOMIC SAFETY AND LICE SING BOARD ,

. /

G / / /.

( 'tr _. .'- '.4 n l)

Helen F. Hoyt, Chairpersen ADMINISTRATIVE JUDGE f Dated et Bethesda, Maryland this 7th day of April 1987.

l 1 Intervenor NECNP requested documents at their Washington, D. C.

office; Town of Hmpton wanted documents at its Portsmouth, N. H.

offices; and Comonwealth of Massachusetts wanted documents to be produced in Boston, Mass. Such a travelling document depository would impair the safety of valuable documents as well as constitute an undue burden on Applicants.

-. ,. _