ML20206H085

Memorandum & Order (Ruling on State of Nh Motions for Protective Order/Motions to Compel Answers by New England Coalition on Nuclear Pollution).* Served on 870409

ML20206H085
Person / Time
Site:	Seabrook
Issue date:	04/08/1987
From:	Hoyt H Atomic Safety and Licensing Board Panel
To:	NEW ENGLAND COALITION ON NUCLEAR POLLUTION, NEW HAMPSHIRE, STATE OF
References
CON-#287-3059 82-471-02-OL, 82-471-2-OL, OL, NUDOCS 8704150253
Download: ML20206H085 (3)

Text

.

341 i

00LKE100 USNRC UNITED STATES OF AMERICA NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSICN TT APR -9 A9:42 ATOMIC SAFETY AND LICENSING BOARD hFFU U Fa,5VICf.'

W 0CML1thG 4W Before Administrative Judges: BRANC" Helen F. Hoyt, Chairperson Gustave A. Linenberger, Jr.

Dr. Jerry Harbour SERVED APR -91987 In the Matter of 1 Docket Nos. 50-443-OL

h 50-444-0L PUBLIC SERVICE COMPANY h (ASL8PNo.82-471-02-OL) 0FNEWHAMPSHIRE,e_t,al.

t h (OffsiteEmergencyPlanning)

(Seabrook Station Units 1 and 2) April 8, 1987 i.

! i l

! MEMORANDUM AND ORDER

! (Ruling on 5 tate of New Hampshire Motions i for Protective Order / Motions to Compel Answers i byNewEnglandCoalitiononNuclearPollution(NECNP)) j The Board has before it State of New Hampshire Responses to NECNP First Set of Interrogatories and Motion for Protective Order, filed March 18, 1987. Also, before us is NECNP Motion to Compel Responses to l

3 the First Set of Interrogatories and Request for Production of Documents i to State of New Hampshire, filed March 27, 1987.

NECNP seeks an order compelling answers to Interrogatories 7, 8, 10, 15, 16, 17 and 37. They also seek a " general ruling that New 4 Hampshire is not exempt from 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."

m*3RREosjha l b69

~

(s 2

The Board rules first on NECNP request for a " general ruling" on discovery. This Board had set forth the principle it intended to follow on discovery in our order of March 1,1983. We see ro reason to withdraw from the ruling we made then and affirm its basis here.

(Order, 3/1/83, pp. 2-6).

Our ruling on the specific interrogatories is'as follows:

Interrogatory 7 - The State of New Hampshire needs to -

supplement its voluntary response here to include positicn occupied by the named state employees and where known the same identification for the " additional support" which "was provided by the Applicant and its consultants."

Interrogatory 8 - The Board believes that a more complets identification would be helpful to all parties, as well as this Board, and a response here would not work a burden on the state's ,j attorney general.

Interrogatory 10 - New Hampshire should respond to this interrogatory if it has a response since the calculations requested appear to have been prepared by Applicants.

Interrogatory 15 - The response cited by State of New Hampshire is to a prior response given in May 1986, a period several months before the present Revision 2 of New Hampshire RadiologicalEmergencyResponsePlan(NHRERP)wasissued. The state will respond to this interrogatory. ,,

Interrogatory 16 - Motion to Compel is granted. We find the l

answer unresponsive to the question and further that answer when

~ -

t 3- i q

compared to reference cited from Volume 16 of the NHRERp is .!

incorrect. The responsibility to ensure correct, as well ai' complete, answers is obvious.

Interrogatory 17 - The answer by New Hampshire to this interrogatory _is responsive. Only two of five towns are identified with the information requested for the other 15 towns; State of New Hampshire should respond where possible.

Interrogatory 37 - State of New Hampshire will supplement its response to include identification of broadcast outlets, how they l work and the operation of these in notification of bus drivers.

IT IS 50 ORDERED.

FOR THE ATOMIC SAFETY AND LICENSING BOARD i

l

,, - 'N

~

.5 ( 1 ,

HelenF.Hoyt,Chairpeth-Administrative Judge Dated at Bethesda, Maryland this 8th day of April 1987.

1 k

- . _ . . _ ~ .